Quote:Why ? So far we were not able to get real answer to Nvidia. So of course we wanted to take advantage of the GDC to try to learn more and have questioned Nvidia at a meeting organized with Rev Lebaredian, Senior Director GameWorks. Unfortunately for us, this engineer who is part of the technical support group for video game developers was very well prepared for these issues that affect the multi engine support specificities. His answers were initially verbatim those of the brief official statement Nvidia communicated to the technical press in recent months. Namely "GeForce Maxwell can support running concurrently at the SM (groups of processing units)", "it is not yet active in the pilot," "Ashes of the Singularity is one set (not too important) among others. "
Quote:An unusual wooden language that shows, if it were still needed, that this issue bothers Nvidia. So we changed the approach to the impasse we have approached the subject from a different angle: is the Async Compute is important (for Maxwell GPU)? What Lebaredian Rev relax and open the way for a much more interesting discussion. Two arguments are then developed by Nvidia.
First, if Async Compute is a way to increase performance, what matters in the end it is the overall performance. If GeForce GPUs are the most efficient basis than the Radeon GPU, the use of multi engine in an attempt to boost their performance is not a top priority.
On the other hand, if the rate of use of the various blocks of the GeForce GPU is relatively high at the base, the potential gain from Async Compute is less important. Nvidia says here that overall there are far fewer holes (bubbles in language GPU) at the activity of units of its GPU than its competitor. But the purpose of concurrent execution is to exploit synergies in the treatment of different tasks to fill these "holes".
Quote:When developing a GPU architecture, much of the work is to provide a profile of tasks that will be supported when the new chips will be marketed. The balance of the architecture between its different types of units, among the computational power and memory bandwidth between the triangles rate and pixel throughput, etc., is a crucial point that requires good visibility, a lot of pragmatism and a strategic vision. It is clear that Nvidia is rather pulls well at this level for several generations of GPUs.
Quote:If our own thinking leads to rather agree with Nvidia these arguments, there is another important point for the players and that's probably what makes the number one GPU addresses the topic lip: Async Compute provides free gain for Radeon users. While this possibility was provided for in the AMD GPU for more than 4 years, they have not been able to get commercial profit, they have not been sold more expensive for the cause. This changes somewhat with the latest range of AMD that focuses strongly on this point, but in terms of perception, players like to get a free such little boost, even if only a handful of games. Conversely, the overall higher performance GPU Nvidia may have an immediate benefit in up games, and could be included directly in the price of GeForce. And from the perspective of a company whose purpose is not to post losses, it is clear that an approach makes more sense than another.
Excellent read. Highly recommended.Still we are in 2016 and that the operation of the Async Compute should gradually spread, particularly thanks to the similarity between the architecture of the GPU consoles and that of the Radeon. Nvidia can not totally ignore the possibility that could reduce or eliminate the lead in terms of performance. Without going into detail, Rev Lebaredian thus wished to reiterate that there were indeed opportunities in the drivers' level to implement which they can enjoy in some cases a performance gain with the Async Compute . Opportunities that Nvidia constantly revalues, not without forgetting that its future GPU could change that at this level.