Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Administrator
    Fijiandoce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pacific Isles of Doceness
    PSN ID
    Fijiandoce
    Posts
    5,353
    Rep Power
    100

    First DX12 Benchmark's in - AMD are in the driving seat? Green team falters?

    Quote Originally Posted by Eurogamer


    However, even with the v-sync limitation, the results are something of a revelation with the R9 390. Average frame-rates with the Core i3 processor rise from 24fps to 40fps - a 67 per cent boost to performance. On top of that, even the i7 sees a big increase - rising from an average of just 28fps up to 49fps, a 75 per cent uplift. In both cases, lowest recorded frame-rates double - from 12 to 29fps on the i3 and from 15 to 32fps on the i7. But probably the biggest takeaway from the graph is that the i3 running DX12 is significantly outperforming the i7 on DX11 with the same GPU running the same game at the same settings.

    It's a CPU-heavy test, but it does demonstrate that DX12 is going to be a big deal - but we do have to bear in mind that DX11 performance from AMD is currently something of an issue - this contributes significantly to the big gulf we're seeing here. To illustrate the extent of this, in the same benchmark, Nvidia's DX11 performance on a GTX 970 is 28 per cent faster on the i3 and 45 per cent faster on the i7. Bearing in mind that the GTX 970 is generally a slightly slower card than the R9 390, that's quite remarkable - and API overhead is the most likely culprit.

    So the question is, where does Nvidia stand here in terms of DX12 performance? Well, at the moment, this is an area of controversy. While there are some gains seen on the i3 side of things when paired with a GTX 970, we actually saw a drop in overall performance on the i7 - DX11 actually runs around 14 per cent slower here. Suffice to say, the R9 390 is significantly faster in DX12 (13 per cent on the i7, 4 per cent on the i3) than the Nvidia card in DX12 mode. The green team's in-house testing - contained in its reviewer's guide and run on a six-core Core i7 5930K running at 3.5GHz - also sees a significant drop, though curiously, results vs DX11 improve when clock-speed is dropped down to 2.0GHz. You can look at their numbershere and here.

    http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/di...nchmark-tested
    This is an interesting article, Nvidia see's next to no gains from DX12? Seems a bit sketchy to be honest.

    However, a few things are clear. AMD packing more Asynchronous Compute Engines on their GPU's might be paying off, while Nvidia's strive for efficiency may be biting them a little during the transition.
    Also, AMD's DX11 drivers are/were utter garbage. It's kinda shocking that they needed an API update to get their cards to work. Hopefully with DX12 they keep up the work and don't degrade back into supplying mediocre drivers.

    Pretty good stuff... Though i do want to see how my CPU performs now in light of all this news >_<
    Sig courtesy of the_jim


  2. #2
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    32
    Posts
    8,871
    Rep Power
    110
    An interesting read. I noticed that these benchmarks centered around using Intel CPUs though. Why not include AMD CPUs as well?

  3. #3
    Administrator
    Fijiandoce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pacific Isles of Doceness
    PSN ID
    Fijiandoce
    Posts
    5,353
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel View Post
    An interesting read. I noticed that these benchmarks centered around using Intel CPUs though. Why not include AMD CPUs as well?
    DF don't have AMD samples, so naturally can't bench them.

    PCper does have samples and the benches are kinda wierd:


    These are their i3 bench's:


    Game probably still needs some work from the looks of it. However, AMD GPU's are killing it.
    Sig courtesy of the_jim


  4. Likes Ezekiel likes this post
  5. #4
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    32
    Posts
    8,871
    Rep Power
    110
    Hm. Considering how old the architecture is on AM3/AM3+ CPUs. this isn't a bad statistical showing. It does prove one thing though. AMD's offerings are old and they really do need to release new CPUs already.

  6. #5
    Administrator
    Fijiandoce's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Pacific Isles of Doceness
    PSN ID
    Fijiandoce
    Posts
    5,353
    Rep Power
    100
    Quote Originally Posted by Ezekiel View Post
    Hm. Considering how old the architecture is on AM3/AM3+ CPUs. this isn't a bad statistical showing. It does prove one thing though. AMD's offerings are old and they really do need to release new CPUs already.
    The focal point (im assuming) of the benchmark is likely GPU gain, more so than CPU gain...though we can obviously see CPU performance, it's likely not finished code since the game engine is in pre-beta.

    The PCPerspective article for example, has the 16 thread monster 5960X, being beaten by the 8 thread 6700K....or put worse: The Intel 8 core CPU being beaten by the Intel 4 core CPU in a benchmark where core count should actually count for something (keeping in mind both the CPU's are similar in construct).


    In a PCworld article, the devs seem to suggest that the FX chips will actually perform pretty well - not gunna blow the doors down or anything, but should do much better than with DX11 where they we're hanging out with the i3's.
    Oxide developers told me the reason they suspect Hyper-Threading didnít knock it out of the ball park on their new game engine is the shared L1 cache design of Intelís CPUs.

    With Hyper-Threading a yawner and high-clock speeds a big bonus, AMDís budget-priced chips are pretty much set up as the dark horse CPU to for DirectX 12óif this single benchmark test is indicative of what we can expect to see from DirectX 12 overall, of course.

    In fact, Oxideís developers said their internal testing showed AMDís APUs and CPUs having an edge since they give you more cores than Intel for the money. AMDís design also doesnít share L1 cache the way Intelís chips do.

    http://www.pcworld.com/article/29716...ce.html?page=2
    Keep in mind, the FX chips were designed for doing multithreaded tasks. They're 8 core CPU's when used as such.

    I think Nvidia probably have the best advice. The benchmark is nice, but don't take is as true indication of dx12 just yet. More like a sign of things to come
    Sig courtesy of the_jim


  7. #6
    Forum Sage

    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Age
    32
    Posts
    8,871
    Rep Power
    110
    Quote Originally Posted by Fijiandoce View Post
    The focal point (im assuming) of the benchmark is likely GPU gain, more so than CPU gain...though we can obviously see CPU performance, it's likely not finished code since the game engine is in pre-beta.

    The PCPerspective article for example, has the 16 thread monster 5960X, being beaten by the 8 thread 6700K....or put worse: The Intel 8 core CPU being beaten by the Intel 4 core CPU in a benchmark where core count should actually count for something (keeping in mind both the CPU's are similar in construct).


    In a PCworld article, the devs seem to suggest that the FX chips will actually perform pretty well - not gunna blow the doors down or anything, but should do much better than with DX11 where they we're hanging out with the i3's.

    Keep in mind, the FX chips were designed for doing multithreaded tasks. They're 8 core CPU's when used as such.

    I think Nvidia probably have the best advice. The benchmark is nice, but don't take is as true indication of dx12 just yet. More like a sign of things to come
    Yeah. It seems to me that what we're most likely seeing is what can happen with the various ways software is developed and how said software behaves on different architectures. I think a fair assessment of all this would be that DX12 is to AMD what DX11 was to Intel. Same goes for the GPU side of things between AMD and Nvidia. Optimization seems to be key here. But like I've been saying, AMD has definitely not been getting its fair shake in all this up until now. The performance gaps just aren't nearly as big as many would like to believe; especially CPU side. Furthermore, I've always felt that AMD's offerings on the GPU side with regards to raw performance was and is superior to Nvidia's offerings.

    But at the end of the day, it's software optimization that is telling. A game optimized to run on AMD hardware is gonna run superior on AMD hardware than it would on Intel/Nvidia hardware. A game optimized to run on Intel/Nvidia hardware is gonna run superior on Intel/Nvidia hardware than it would on AMD hardware. One thing for sure though is that AMD does need to get its act together on the drivers side and they shouldn't use DX12 as a "get out of jail free" card.

    One thing that's yet to be seen is how well AMD's next generation CPUs will fare come 2016-2017. My wish? I hope they mop the floor with Intel.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
vBCredits II Deluxe v2.1.0 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2010-2015 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.