Discussion in 'Videocards - AMD Radeon Drivers Section' started by spectatorx, Jul 15, 2016.
Lacking SSE support for PII and C2Q CPU's.
Well mine crashed too 2nd and 3rd time when I tested max gpu oc.. driver kept reseting in a loop lol
*Got 6120points at gpu though.. not that bad considering async is off atm.
I passed gpu but as soon as it tried to run cpu it ctd and then tdr.
Core2 has sse4.1 at least newer 45nm models
I thought Intel introduced sse4.1 with Nehalem...or that was sse4.2, idk even know anymore.
this is mine not bad http://www.3dmark.com/spy/71722 Gpu 5538 Cpu 5106 TOTAL 5468
With an 1160/1600 overclock: 8% increase overall, 10% graphic increase
7215 - http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13335973
An Interesting Read for Ya :book:
As for 3D Mark Time Fly... See concurrent vs parallel execution. All of the current games supporting Asynchronous Compute make use of parallel execution of compute and graphics tasks. 3D Mark Time Fly support concurrent. It is not the same Asynchronous Compute.
Concurrency fills in gaps which are in the execution pipeline. Parallelism executes two tasks at the same time.
Notice the context switch involved?
If 3D Mark Time fly were using Parallel executions then there would be synchronization points between the two contexts (Graphics and Compute). There would also be pipeline stalls on Maxwell GPUs. Both the pipeline stalls and the flush required for a synchronization point would add latency thus leading to Maxwell losing performance when running this variant of Asynchronous compute. We do not see Maxwell losing performance under 3D Mark Time Spy. We see a tiny performance boost. Thus 3D Mark Time Spy is not running Asynchronous Compute + graphics. You see parallel executions = Asynchronous Compute + Graphics. Concurrent execution = Asynchronous Compute. They are not the same thing.
With DirectX 12, GPUs that support asynchronous compute can process work from multiple queues in parallel.
They can but that is not what 3D Mark is doing.
In Time Spy, asynchronous compute is used heavily to overlap rendering passes to maximize GPU utilization. The asynchronous compute workload per frame varies between 10-20%. To observe the benefit on your own hardware, you can optionally choose to disable async compute using the Custom run settings in 3DMark Advanced and Professional Editions.
That is from 3DMark and can be found in the PC Per review. http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphi...Looking-DX12-Asynchronous-Compute-Performance
Yeah... even PCPer went a step further and attacked "AMD Fanboys" when in reality... PC Per do not even know the difference. Tech journalism.... :bang:
What is concurrency?
Concurrent computing is a form of computing in which several computations are executed during overlapping time periods —concurrently— instead of sequentially (one completing before the next starts).
So yeah... 3D Mark does not use the same type of Asynchronous compute found in all of the recent game titles. Instead.. 3D Mark appears to be specifically tailored so as to show nVIDIA GPUs in the best light possible. It makes use of Context Switches (good because Pascal has that improved pre-emption) as well as the Dynamic Load Balancing on Maxwell through the use of concurrent rather than parallel Asynchronous compute tasks. If parallelism was used then we would see Maxwell taking a performance hit under Time Fly as admitted by nVIDIA in their GTX 1080 white paper and as we have seen from AotS.
GCN can handle these tasks but performs even better when Parallelism is thrown in as seen in the Doom Vulkan results. How? By reducing the per Frame latency through the parallel executions of Graphics and Compute Tasks. A reduction in the per-frame latency means that each frame takes less time to execute and process. The net result is a higher frame rate. 3DMark lacks this. AotS makes use of both parallelism and concurrency... as does Doom with the new Vulkan patch. See below...
If 3D Mark Time Fly had implemented a separate path and enabled both concurrency and parallelism for the FuryX... it would have caught up to the GTX 1070. No joke.
If both AMD and nVIDIA are running the same code then Pascal would either gain a tiny bit or even lose performance. This is why Bethesda did not enable the Asynchronous Compute + Graphics from the AMD path for Pascal. Instead... Pascal will get its own optimized path. They will also call it Asynchronous Compute... people will think it is the same thing when in reality... two completely different things are happening behind the scene.
See why understanding what is actually happening behind the scenes is important rather than just looking at numbers? Not all Asynchronous Compute implementations are equal. You would do well to take note of this.
Where are the tech journalists these days?
Now you know why i don't benchmark $_$ my GPU's -> Gaming is better.
Lies and mislead is there becouse of $$$.
Is this some kind of joke? Then what is that benchmark good for?
@OnnA This should probably be moved to http://forums.guru3d.com/showthread.php?t=408769
8820 fury x abd a fury nano on a email@example.com nano and x both have a little clock on but ram is stock
I am rather happy that all this is being revealed ... everyone who is able to use his brain may now form the right conclusions. Sad on the other hand that it has come that far already...
5820k @ 4.5
2x290x @ 1207/1610
cfx dont work i dont know why !!! any ideas ;;
My score (Fury Pro with 3864 shaders)
One thing i noticed is how well your AMD CPU is doing in this benchmark.
You score higher than my Intel i7. Absolutely creaming Intel.
Take a look again. Where do you see that his using an AMD CPU?
Already posted them... but here they go.
Async ON vs OFF
edit: second run with clean restart.
Sorry, was looking at his specs by his profile.
Strange that the CPU score drops.
Yeah... mayb i left something running on the background.