Overclock.net › Forums › Benchmarks › Benchmarking Software and Discussion › [Various] Futuremark's Time Spy DirectX 12 "Benchmark" Compromised. Less Compute/Parallelism than Doom/Aots. Also...
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Various] Futuremark's Time Spy DirectX 12 "Benchmark" Compromised. Less Compute/Parallelism than Doom/Aots. Also... - Page 23

post #221 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bidz View Post

So your plan is to negate everything while you refuse to take a look at the evidence... You'r a lost cause

Anyways, contrary to your mistaken belief, you are encouraged to compare, that's the point of the benchmark, to be a point of comparison/prediction... And it fails miserably.

Ok, start filling me in on some of the details then. Which games were used exactly?

I'll wait.
My main PC
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700k Asus ROG Maximus VIII Gene Nvidia GTX 1080Ti G.Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
Samsung 850 EVO  Windows 10 Razer Blackwidow Chroma EVGA Supernova 1300w 
  hide details  
Reply
My main PC
(8 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 6700k Asus ROG Maximus VIII Gene Nvidia GTX 1080Ti G.Skill Ripjaws 
Hard DriveOSKeyboardPower
Samsung 850 EVO  Windows 10 Razer Blackwidow Chroma EVGA Supernova 1300w 
  hide details  
Reply
post #222 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by GorillaSceptre View Post

Yeah, i have no issues with shenanigans being called out. It's actually what i want most, i just want it applied equally. The press should be there to hold these faceless corporations (who only care about making money) accountable for their actions, and put consumers first.. But no, the press these days only care about being the first to get sent GPU's, or go on trips around the world..

I don't for one second think any of them would of damage controlled the entire Async debacle for over a year, or swept the 3.5Gb 970 false advertising under the rug for AMD like they did for Nvidia.. Or any of the dozens of other cases that have been quietly brushed aside..

Before anyone says "Async, Async, async.. It won't matter until 99% of games give AMD a 50% boost', that's not my issue, my issue is that these things are marketed to people when they aren't true.





No accountability.. rolleyes.gif

I don't blame them, they gotta keep the lights on somehow.
post #223 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by GorillaSceptre View Post

Yeah, i have no issues with shenanigans being called out. It's actually what i want most, i just want it applied equally. The press should be there to hold these faceless corporations (who only care about making money) accountable for their actions, and put consumers first.. But no, the press these days only care about being the first to get sent GPU's, or go on trips around the world..

I don't for one second think any of them would of damage controlled the entire Async debacle for over a year, or swept the 3.5Gb 970 false advertising under the rug for AMD like they did for Nvidia.. Or any of the dozens of other cases that have been quietly brushed aside..

Before anyone says "Async, Async, async.. It won't matter until 99% of games give AMD a 50% boost', that's not my issue, my issue is that these things are marketed to people when they aren't true.





No accountability.. rolleyes.gif


Someone needs to update the feature level compliance charts. Cant remember which it was but one of the 12_1 features is only ~30% compliant in nV hardware.
post #224 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Doothe View Post

When you said
I took a second look at the GPUView screenshots FM provided. You can clearly see the 1080 requires 2.08x more compute resources over the fury. 36.69%(1080) v 18.11%(Fury).
edit: It's utilization over time so it takes the 1080 2.08x more time to process the compute queue over the fury. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Fury Compute_0 18.11%
\
1080 Compute_1 37.69%

I don't know how you haven't gotten more +rep than 4 - if i recall you were the first to post GPUView charts for this whole issue. You have provided some really good data. Thank you +rep
post #225 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bidz View Post

Basically they jump between explaining how they are sending compute loads and how its only fair to not push the hardware because they want to represent actual games.

Too bad actual games have been doing the opposite of what they did and actually use IHV paths turning the benchmark in a non representative benchmark.
Exactly...
The average mainstream AAA game will always favor one GPU architecture over another depending on if it is a AMD sponsored or NVIDIA gameworks title and DX12 or vulkan will not change that.
And that is why this test should implement both methods as that is what will happen in real world gaming.
Funny thing is that one of the main things about DX12 is that developers now will be banging the hardware more closely than before, so these bias towards on GPU or the other will probably get even stronger when it comes to performance and GPU specific features.
post #226 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by xboxshqip View Post

Isn't it funny tho, when GCN is penalized by dx11 thats fine, but now that the hardware can be property used under the new api we must remain neutral and use paths that completions supports.
Yep.. The hypocrisy never cease to amaze me.
post #227 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by Majin SSJ Eric View Post

Fact is FM is not going to release a bench that makes Nvidia look bad. Period. They know where their market share is... rolleyes.gif


I fully agree. And the best thing about Nvidia is GTX 1080 Ti could be the best selling card of 2016-17, all they will have to do is write exclusive FL 12_1 support biggrin.gif with the Ti/titan out of anywhere. Goats will be buying without a doubt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by boxman222 View Post

Exactly...
The average mainstream AAA game will always favor one GPU architecture over another depending on if it is a AMD sponsored or NVIDIA gameworks title and DX12 or vulkan will not change that.
And that is why this test should implement both methods as that is what will happen in real world gaming.
Funny thing is that one of the main things about DX12 is that developers now will be banging the hardware more closely than before, so these bias towards on GPU or the other will probably get even stronger when it comes to performance and GPU specific features.

We now have four big consoles. XbOne, PS4, Nvidia PC, AMD PC. biggrin.gif
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
Haswell i3
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Core i3-4150 @ 3.5 GHz Asus B85M-G Rev 1.01, Bios: 2501 Integrated Intel HD 4400 2x 4GB DDR3 1600 MHz CL9 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 750 EVO 250GB Seagate Barracuda 1TB 7200.14 Seagate 500 GB 2.5" Samsung DVD/RW 
CoolingOSMonitorKeyboard
Corsair H70 Windows 10 64 bit Samsung A300N 20" 1600 x 900 60Hz 5ms 19Watt PS/2 Microsoft Wired Keyboard 500 
PowerCaseMouse
Corsair TX850 V2 CoolerMaster Elite 430 Black Logitech M170 
  hide details  
Reply
post #228 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by kaosstar View Post

A benchmark needs to be a level playing field. A game does not have the same constraints.
A level playing field would be to run the stripped down nvidia implementation on nvidia cards while amd cards run the one with all the bells and whistles.
It would even be more fair to just run the AMD one for both cards, as in this case it is NVIDIA that did not implement proper support into their cards.
As someone else pointed out.. Would it have been okay to you if they had run a gimped version of the DX11 benchmarks because of the poor AMD support to make it a "level" playing field??
Why change things up now all of the sudden??
post #229 of 253
Quote:
Originally Posted by boxman222 View Post

Quote:
Originally Posted by kaosstar View Post

A benchmark needs to be a level playing field. A game does not have the same constraints.
A level playing field would be to run the stripped down nvidia implementation on nvidia cards while amd cards run the one with all the bells and whistles.
It would even be more fair to just run the AMD one for both cards, as in this case it is NVIDIA that did not implement proper support into their cards.
As someone else pointed out.. Would it have been okay to you if they had run a gimped version of the DX11 benchmarks because of the poor AMD support to make it a "level" playing field??
Why change things up now all of the sudden??
a level playing field would be NVidia being able to flex all of its muscle like it is currently able to while AMD cards are also allowed to flex their muscle too.

But with the current implementation of Time Spy the power lifter wearing the red shirt has to lift the weight bar with one hand tied behind his back in the name of "fairness"



As I stayed in my earlier post. With Dx11 benches such as Heaven back when DX 11was the hot new thing. All cards like Cypress and Fermi could use 100% of their potential. Everyone new that AMD was weaker on Tesselation. But it was a relatively level playing field with Dx11 cards being stressed pretty much to their potential.

Here we have time spy that only runs feature level 11. But it's a DX12 bench. How is it a DX12 bench when it features the bare minimum and less advanced features of DX 12 that can even be run on newer Dx11 hardware? How is that a showcase of DX12? When you want to showcase something, you want to show off the absolute best of its abilities and features. You don't wanna show a dumbed down version. Well not unless your Futuremark clearly.

Of course because Pascal and Maxwell don't have as great DX12 support of GCN as it stands, both architectures get to work to their potential.

But GCN which has a superior async design suddenly can't be used to its full potential. Because "Oh we really don't see the market going that way." yet the market is already there with the latest Vulcan and DX12 patches.

So now you call it a level playing field at the Olympics when the Power lifter wearing red can only use 1 arm?

During the Evergreen vs. Fermi days, Fermi had more Tesselation units than their Evergreen parts. So Fermi was better at Tesselation. But that's obviously ok. Cause the one team had a better design in that aspect. So fair I say.

Now team red has the more advanced design with a superior engine. And everyone is loosing their minds, 3D Mark gimping benches and all the green fans going "Oh no you can't make my nVidia look bad. I just spent a grand on it. No the bench is fair you can't change it."

It's attitudes like this that stifle development in the market. Because all y'all are willing to settle for second best because they have the money and the shares. But heck seems most people don't seem to care that they stifle innovation, lie blatantly on adverts and to their customers. Pay off developers.(pretty sure thats happened here with FM and Time Spy) Break their own drivers so that paying customer (like myself) couldn't use their old cards, that they had bought and paid for with money, as dedicated PPU's in machines that had an ATi/AMD card as its primary display adapter.

But everyone seems to think the sun shines out of Jen-Hsun Huang's rear. And when he goes to the toilet, gold nuggets come out. Yet in reality it's just another dump.
Edited by Alastair - 7/21/16 at 11:41am
GHOST rev 3.1
(28 items)
 
 
Rura Penthe
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8370 @ 4.95GHz 1.5V 2700MHz NB/3000MHz HTT ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 2x Sapphire R9-Fury 3840 Corsair Vengeance 2133 4x4GB @ 2000 9-9-10-27 1CR 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 PRO 1TB WD Blue 500GB WD Blue 1 TB Samsung Spinpoint HD502HI 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC D5 Bay Res 3x CoolerMaster Storm Force 200's 2x EK-FC Fury X fullcovers EK-FC Terminal Dual Parallel 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2x EK-FC Fury X Backplates XSPC Raystorm CPU Block EKWB Coolstream CE280 EKWB Coolstream PE360 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
3x CoolerMaster Jetflo's 120mm 6 Corsair ML140's  Laing D5 Vario Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG E2341V Roccat Ryos MK Pro Antec High Current Pro Platinum 1300W NZXT Phantom 820 Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Mionix Naos 7000 Mionix Alioth GX Gaming SW-G2.1 3000 Kingston Hyper X Cloud Core 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD Athlon 860K Asus A88X-Pro MSI R6850 Cyclone Power Edition MSI R6850 Cyclone Power Edition 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
G-Skill Ares 2133 CL10 8GB (2x4GB) Seagate ST1000VX003 Samsung HD502HI Arctic Cooling Freezer A30 
OSKeyboardPowerCase
Windows 10 Home Edition 64bit Razer Lycrosa Seagate M12II 620W Corsair Carbide SPEC-02 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Celeron G1840 MSI Z97-Guard Pro Gigabyte RX580 Gaming 4G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsRAM
XFX RX480 reference edition 8G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4g Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G G-Skill Ares F3-1600C9D 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 750 Evo 120GB Stock  Windows 10 Pro  Gigabyte XP1200M 
  hide details  
Reply
GHOST rev 3.1
(28 items)
 
 
Rura Penthe
(12 items)
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
AMD FX-8370 @ 4.95GHz 1.5V 2700MHz NB/3000MHz HTT ASUS M5A99FX PRO R2.0 2x Sapphire R9-Fury 3840 Corsair Vengeance 2133 4x4GB @ 2000 9-9-10-27 1CR 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveHard Drive
Samsung 850 PRO 1TB WD Blue 500GB WD Blue 1 TB Samsung Spinpoint HD502HI 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
XSPC D5 Bay Res 3x CoolerMaster Storm Force 200's 2x EK-FC Fury X fullcovers EK-FC Terminal Dual Parallel 
CoolingCoolingCoolingCooling
2x EK-FC Fury X Backplates XSPC Raystorm CPU Block EKWB Coolstream CE280 EKWB Coolstream PE360 
CoolingCoolingCoolingOS
3x CoolerMaster Jetflo's 120mm 6 Corsair ML140's  Laing D5 Vario Windows 10 Pro 64-Bit 
MonitorKeyboardPowerCase
LG E2341V Roccat Ryos MK Pro Antec High Current Pro Platinum 1300W NZXT Phantom 820 Black 
MouseMouse PadAudioAudio
Mionix Naos 7000 Mionix Alioth GX Gaming SW-G2.1 3000 Kingston Hyper X Cloud Core 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
AMD Athlon 860K Asus A88X-Pro MSI R6850 Cyclone Power Edition MSI R6850 Cyclone Power Edition 
RAMHard DriveOptical DriveCooling
G-Skill Ares 2133 CL10 8GB (2x4GB) Seagate ST1000VX003 Samsung HD502HI Arctic Cooling Freezer A30 
OSKeyboardPowerCase
Windows 10 Home Edition 64bit Razer Lycrosa Seagate M12II 620W Corsair Carbide SPEC-02 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
Intel Celeron G1840 MSI Z97-Guard Pro Gigabyte RX580 Gaming 4G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G 
GraphicsGraphicsGraphicsRAM
XFX RX480 reference edition 8G Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4g Gigabyte RX570 Gaming 4G G-Skill Ares F3-1600C9D 
Hard DriveCoolingOSPower
Samsung 750 Evo 120GB Stock  Windows 10 Pro  Gigabyte XP1200M 
  hide details  
Reply
post #230 of 253
I think DX12 will make synthetic benchmarks pointless. Or like someone else said, have "features" test like 3dMark 2000(2001?) that won't run if the hardware doesn't support it.
Super P's rig
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x ASUS X99-A II Asus GTX 1080 Ti Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
MyDigitalSSD BPX NVMe Samsung 850 EVO Seagate Momentus XT 500 GB External DVDRW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EK-XLC Predator 240 Swiftech 240mm Radiator Windows 10 Samsung 40" 4K - UN40KU6290 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G710+ EVGA SuperNOVA 850G2 Fractal Design Define S G700s 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Vipamz Extended XXXL Asus U7 M-Audio AV40 Sennheiser HD 439 
  hide details  
Reply
Super P's rig
(20 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
5960x ASUS X99-A II Asus GTX 1080 Ti Corsair Vengeance DDR4 3000 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
MyDigitalSSD BPX NVMe Samsung 850 EVO Seagate Momentus XT 500 GB External DVDRW 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
EK-XLC Predator 240 Swiftech 240mm Radiator Windows 10 Samsung 40" 4K - UN40KU6290 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
G710+ EVGA SuperNOVA 850G2 Fractal Design Define S G700s 
Mouse PadAudioAudioAudio
Vipamz Extended XXXL Asus U7 M-Audio AV40 Sennheiser HD 439 
  hide details  
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
Overclock.net › Forums › Benchmarks › Benchmarking Software and Discussion › [Various] Futuremark's Time Spy DirectX 12 "Benchmark" Compromised. Less Compute/Parallelism than Doom/Aots. Also...