FutureMark Async Compute Detailed

so the amd shills were wrong again?

what a surprise

>>55656572
It's imply using a neutral approach to Async Compute and not favoring a specific architecture. They would have to make another benchmark if they want to code for each architecture in which what separates DX12 and Vulkan to previous architecture

>>55656572
what did you expect from a dying breed

>>55656697
they will still relentlessly shill and shitpost though

>>55656526
based 3d mark. even more detailed than I expected
>>55656717
most of them don't even know that async shaders =/= async compute. and they keep telling each other than nvidia can't into async compute because they don't use async shaders... really embarrassing to read

Since AMD shills consider this benchmark invalid, does that means DOOM and every AMD sponsored game(Hitman et cetera) are to be considered invalid too?

DOOM per example uses Shader Intrinsic Functions which currently is only available for AMD, by AMD's own Vulkan extension and many DX12 games not having a rendering path optimized to Nvidia's hardware. this is really obvious when you compare DX11 to DX12 in Nvidia with the DX12 rendered getting lower performance.

>>55656751
nope. it only works one way just like only white men can be racists hehe

also never forget
AMD= ISIS
>>54973996

>>55656572
Did anyone but the most short sighted fanboys think anything else? The steam thread was absolute pain to read.

>>55656782
Yeah I remember that ramadan bullshit on their twitter.

AMD is a fucking sharia company and if you give them any money you support attacks on western culture.

>>55656839
word. glad they closed it, I felt bad for the devs and how polite they were to those 14 year old imbeciles

All DX12 benchmarks that favour AMD are pretty much invalid now

>>55656858
Indians hate Muslims though.

>>55656884
Not the Muslim ones.

>>55656913
Those are Paki's dumb retard

>>55656976
Indians that post ramadan are muslim.

Still no AMD Shill, are they having a meeting now?

>>55656976
>Implying pajeets and pakees are ANY different
Hello rakesh

>55656782
>also never forget
>AMD= ISIS
>>>54973996

What was that?

>>55656782
>also never forget
>AMD= ISIS
> >>54973996

What was that?

>>55656782
>AMD= ISIS
BASED AMD

File: 1465379527437.png (358KB, 575x592px) Image search: [Google]

358KB, 575x592px

>>55657123
>>55657109
It's legit by the way.

>>55657148
They took it down when people freaked out.

Throwing people in jail if they eat or drink during daylight in public is a celebration in sharia land.

It's going to be gimpworks all over again. Some games fully utilising AMD's async - others butchering AMD's performance by adding some DX 12.1 features that Polaris doesn't support

AMD subreddit is 70% cancer.

>>55657249
>equates adding DX12.1 features to gimpworks
>doesn´t equate async to gimpworks
>amd shills are the worst because they love the microshaft

>>55656572
>>55656675
>>55656697
>>55656717
>>55656742
>>55656751
>>55656782
>>55656782
>>55656839
>>55656858


damn you Nvidia shills came out in full force for this one.
Futuremark press release actually confirmed what AMD shills were talking about.

File: LL (1).jpg (77KB, 500x508px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 500x508px

>>55657449
>The implementation is the same regardless of the underlying hardware. In the benchmark at large, there are no vendor specific optimizations in order to ensure that all hardware performs the same amount of work. This makes benchmark results from all vendors comparable across multiple generations of hardware.

>>55657449
>>55657471
Added emphasis in the fact that the lowest common denominator Directx 12 code path that they deployed is the one that follow Nvidia's Guidelines.

>>55657492
Why are you butthurt that a dev doesn't specifically optimize for certain hardware config? Everytime one optimizes for nvidia you grab your pitchforks, but now it's suddenly bad? Shame.

>>55657249
make scorpio a dual gpu solution.
Literally every single problem that AMD is facing right now in regards to software (and especially lack of improvement for their archs) will be solved for them by game devs,m in record time, at a low cost (free man/hours), and with possibly novelty solutions.

those fuckers gonna bleed to get VR at 90+ fps on dual 480x's.

>>55657574
>t a dev doesn't specifically optimize for certain hardware config?

Your post didn't make much sense; but the fact is that Futuremark did exactly that: they optimized for a certain hardware config.

Both AMD and Nvidia's Pascal can see real performance increase from that chosen path, but while Pascal cards are being utilized 100%, software and hardware alike, AMD cards have been left with idle portions during a stress benchmark. And no, that's not AMD's fault, inb4.

>>55657681
If it works on both graphics architectures, how is it optimizing for 1 vendor? Do you read what you post?

If it only worked on nvidia or AMD, then it would be vendor specific optimization.

>>55657249
>DX 12.1 features that Polaris doesn't support

So hardware conservative rasterization and rasterized order view? AMD have already said they could implement these in software if necessary. Nvidia's async compute is handled in software, so it shouldn't be a problem, right?

>>55657789
You'd hope so. But we all know what happens when you use the dreaded words AMD and software in the same sentence.

>>55657725
Optimization isn't functionality. It can run on both (like how HairWorks runs on AMD) and still have poor performance on the architecture the code isn't optimized for.

>>55657725
Yes it does work for both and both companies see performance gains.

But you are missing the fact this is Nvidia's implementation, from their guidelines: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bh7ECiXfMWQ

So, it was tailored to fully utilize their hardware and software (even though, as I said both vendors can benefit) while leaving one very important feature from their competitor untouched. In Dx 11 that would make sense, but it goes against what Nvidia, AMD and MS coined together as best practices for Dx 12: IHV specifics, that's the whole point of 'being close to the metal'.

>>55657848
Hairworks runs poorly on AMD because of hardware limitations. Games that use asynchronous compute run poorly on NVIDIA because of hardware limitations.

>>55657885
Does that feature of AMD work on NVIDIA and Intel hardware? If it does, then it's not a vendor specific optimization. If it doesn't, it is. It's black and white.

Also I can tell you with certainty that developers don't want to be all that close to the metal. There is a degree of abstraction they want, because it's painful as hell to code two completely different codepaths for AMD cards from year 2016 and AMD cards from year 2018 and then NVIDIA and Intel cards too. Abstraction exists so you can run the same code on hardware from all vendors. You obviously can optimize your code to run better on one vendor or the other or between different generations and I'm sure actual games are going to do this. Specially if they are sponsored by either AMD or NVIDIA.

>>55657885
and Futuremark's hypocrisy is evidenced in the following:

Dx11
>Tesselation is a good way to measure how a GPU can perform under the most stressful scenario possible.
Fanbois should take that into account and realize the necessity to always push the technology forward. A good benchmark tool must always aim for the most dire circumstances independent of each competitors own strentghs.

Dx12
>There's a need to remain unbiased and not play favorites. The code path chosen for Directx 12 deploys the lowest common denominator between vendors aiming for the best compatibility between all currently available cards ensuring that no one gets an unfair or perceived advantage; as is evidenced by the fact that all of the tested cards have shown noticeable performance gains.
Fanbois should take in account the difficulties of software development accross varied hardware and it's economical unfeasibility. A good benchmark tool must always aim for a good balance between the strentghs of each competitor.

>>55657980
AMD, Nvidia and MS joined hands, sang kumbaya, shared a token, an replied to you a long time ago: stick to Dx11 if you don't wanna do that.

>>55657998
>A good benchmark tool must always aim for the most dire circumstances
You do understand that they can completely cripple a card to a stop if they did that?

>>55658047
Yet despite that, their API isn't that close to the metal.

This shit Athlon vs Pentium IV all over again; gpu edition.

File: sega jews.png (499KB, 513x641px) Image search: [Google]

499KB, 513x641px

>>55657148
All companies do that mind you.

>>55656526
This article is a mistake, next time Futuremark, make it AMD focus so they stop making the threads all over the net a salty cancerous place

>>55658047

the entire point of an API is to avoid things like that. if they truly wanted devs to implement seperate renderers for each ihv we would just be writing code that compiles to the GPU's ISA directly.

in fact, one of the stated goals for vulkan was to be abstract enough that the same code written for a desktop gpu could run just fine on a mobile gpu (completely different paradigm since most mobile gpus are tilers)

>>55657885
>while leaving one very important feature from their competitor untouched.

learn what the word 'asynchronous' means. nvidia, intel and amd could all decide one day to run commands in their compute queues one after another with no concurrency and still be asynchronous within the specs definition.

you are clearly just crying because 3dmark did not give special treatment/advantages to AMD hardware.

>>55657789
>So hardware conservative rasterization and rasterized order view? AMD have already said they could implement these in software if necessary.

would mean quite a few more gpu-cpu synchronizations per frame. it would destroy FPS on AMD hardware if they tried to implement conservative rasterization in software.

>>55658206
The entire point of DX 11 is to provide a high level abstraction layer.
The raison d'etre for Dx 12 is to bring back a low level abstraction layer.

Guess what? There's more work to do. But it's better overall, for everyone... Except code monkeys pulling overtime. They'll get richer more quickly, but they'll probably die sooner.

>>55658246
cute, so the tailored part that you left from my edited quote doesn't matter at all?

right.

>>55658312
>The raison d'etre for Dx 12 is to bring back a low level abstraction layer.

no, dx12 and vulkan are both high level abstractions of low level constructs. the goal is not to be 'close to the metal' and architecture specific codebases. those are still meant to be part of the driver's work.

>But it's better overall,

for who? certainly not for businesses developing games and game engines. all having to maintain seperate renderers for each brand/arch would mean that you need 3x the time and money to build and maintain implementations for nvidia, amd and intel.

>>55658337

so you're saying that they 'tailored' to nvidia's hardware by refusing to give AMD special treatment?

are you retarded?

>>55658394
no Mr Shill, I'm saying that it was tailored because the implementation itself followed Nvidia's guidelines.

I works for both, and they decided that they shouldn't bother anymore. And yes, AMD cards would get even more performance gains if they had decided to ALSO implement these guidelines alongside.

>>55658478
>I'm saying that it was tailored because the implementation itself followed Nvidia's guidelines.

what guidelines? there's no control over how or when the commands you submit are executed - nvidia's implementation and amd's implementation of 'async compute' exist at the driver level. 3dmark has no control over it.

>And yes, AMD cards would get even more performance gains if they had decided to ALSO implement these guidelines alongside.

so you're saying they should have unfairly tailored to AMD hardware rather than make a vendor-agnostic benchmark? why is that?

>>55658512
you're really good at tautologies.
people at the cubicles adjacent to yours must be really impressed at your capacity for circular references.

>>55658394
i think he is

>>55658570

>i have no response so i'm going to resort to meaningless personal insults

kek

>>55658607
you did it first.

but I was flattering you, not insulting. You're good at your job.

This is like if one company put out a 2.0ghz single core processor and another company put out a 2.0ghz four core processor but 3Dmark decides to only ever use a single thread.

>>55658581
Yeah, he made me reply to the same question worded in 4 different manners. I'm definentely not the brighest one in here.

fell for it hook, line an sinker.

File: oh_boy.png (1MB, 1844x935px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1844x935px

people don't even bother with AMD anymore.
from Gigabyte's site.

>>55659039
Gigabyte's AMD cards even have sli bridges.http://www.gigabyte.com/products/product-page.aspx?pid=5956#kf

File: LL5.jpg (164KB, 789x784px) Image search: [Google]

164KB, 789x784px

>>55658206

>>55659363
>devs wanted a closer to the metal approach
>they got it in dx12 and vulkan
>now they have to deal with all the available hardware and code specifically for them unlike in console which has a fixed hardware
>tfw devs started dying because of more work
>publishers charge more on their games because of more work

Happiness

>>55656839
amd reddit is just as cancerous
>inb4 hurr reddit die in a fire already

File: frobot_lres.jpg (117KB, 400x300px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 400x300px

>>55657449
I always like when I take a neutral stand on matter and I'm always anti-fanboy regardless of branding yet get called Nvidia and AMD shill alike. Thanks.

Oh isn't that quaint. Let's see now. It's OK when DX11 forced itself to be adhered to compromising GCN performance. But now we are all 'neutral' with DX12. Nice side step there FM.

Let's all play fair in the sandbox kiddies.

>>55661503
fuck off frogposter Palit nvidia scum

>>55659140
kek whoever designed that page is a fucking dingus.

In the end it's all about raw fps. A benchmark should stress a card to it's maximum performance and measure the resulting fps. It's then down to the GPU (or person tweaking it) to adjust whether it throttles or whatever. I understand software like Furmark is not really a good idea to leave running too long but surely for a 5 minute benchmark run it should be fine to put the pedal to the metal so to speak.

If a GPU supports a function that gives it a competitive edge in that are it should be allowed to fucking use it to it's fullest. It's like kicking Usain Bolt in the nuts before a race because it would not be fair on the other runners.

>>55658673
And then claim that it's multi-threaded because the single core can switch threads.

>>55658136
not nvidia

>>55658673
>>55661633
you're retarded. I'm glad you're an AMD customer

So now that the dust has settled and we know that amd's implementation of async only gives it a 5% or so advantage in performance over nvidia’s without time consuming and expensive hardware specific optimizations. What will the amd users start hyping next as the feature that they believe will finally make their cards not suck?

>>55662955
it's not dx12 without hardware async

>>55662955
>we know that
stopped reading right there

Actually, it's more along the lines of this
>This is like if one company put out an 8.0GHz dual-core processor and another company put out a 2.0GHz quad-core processor but 3Dmark let the firmware of the processor decide how it handled the load.

>>55662955
>87fps on 1060 in vulkan
>114fps on 480
>5%
Get out. You're too young to post in 4chan.

>>55663088

I see in analogy form:

NVIDIA 3.1GHz quad core and AMD 3.0GHz quad core with hyperthreading and futuremark decides to not allow full use of hyperthreading

>>55659039
do we have any date for this card ? when will we got the reviews ?

>>55665274
Did you read the fucking article? AMD (among others) read the source and GREENLIT THE FINAL PRODUCT.

>3DMark Time Spy has been in development for nearly two years, and BDP members have been involved from the start. BDP members receive regular builds throughout development and conduct their own review and testing at each stage. They have access to the source code and can suggest improvements and changes to ensure that the implementation is correct. All development takes place in a single source tree, which means anything suggested by a vendor can be immediately reviewed and commented on by the other vendors. Ultimately, each member approves the final benchmark for release to the press and public.

>>55661622
>If a GPU supports a function that gives it a competitive edge in that are it should be allowed to fucking use it to it's fullest.

Okay, let's make our 4chanmark and spend time coding separate paths for each vendor. How do we decide what extent is fair? Do we spend 6 months dev time on Nvidia, then 6 months dev time on AMD? What about Intel iGPUs?

>>55668077
If that feature is supported and advertised as a major selling point of multiple new industry standard APIs then I do believe that it should be supported.

>>55668239
What feature?

>>55668244
any of them

>>55668259
But how do you decide which features you spend time doing vendor-specific optimizations for? And how much? What if after doing those optimizations Nvidia has gained 50% and AMD has gained 15%? Will the world drown in salt?

>>55668296
>vendor-specific optimizations
>ever

>>55668313
But that's what the amdmen are shouting off Mount Stupid. It's not TRUE dx12!! You need to optimize for each vendor! Btw what's a benchmark?

>>55668357
what are you talking about, they want full representation of DX12, not vendor specific tweaks. If DX12 Advertised it, it should use it.

>>55668385
They certainly do want that. Read the steam thread or /r/AMD.

Also, in DX we have these things called feature levels. AMD doesn't even support FL12_1.

>>55667858
>greenlit
They had a vote. Amongst 5 members, all they had was a sure lost vote.

And as an anecdotal evidence, Futuremark is pretty tiny as a company, and one their devs was displaying willy nilly Nvidia fanboyism at OCN forums.

They probably did it for free.

>>55657471
A little more evidence like this and AMD might be able to actually bring a lawsuit against futuremark/nvidia

>>55668434
Why are you listening to retards? Also, Yes full parallel compute, async shaders, and everything in 12_1 should be present and as optimized as possible. Benchmarks are a tech showcase after all.

>>55668633
>They had a vote. Amongst 5 members, all they had was a sure lost vote.
No, it's not a majority vote. It's a "need 100% approval". That's what "each member approves the final benchmark" means.

>>55668687
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12

See "GPUs supporting as a maximum feature level". If they had went with FL12_1, the benchmark could only currently run on Intel and Nvidia cards.

>>55668434
since you brought up that place that shall not be named:
>It is said that all gymnasts are instructed to recive with a smile the score from the judges specially when they know there is a bias against them. Athletes are told that in order to prevent grater damages as displaying their disapproval would only contribute to further amplify the bias against them. I am just speculating but maybe AMD is confronting a similar situation here so they opted to say nothing and give Futuremark enough rope to let them hang themselves. In other words: By not protesting AMD avoids further bias against them and allows Futuremark to discredit themselves in favor of AotS/DOOM.

I've been quite curious why there were official statements yet. I'm frustrated at tech sites that won't touch this subject -- it's at the very least news worthy --, but quite baffled as to why especially AMD never addressed the issue. Not my post, but it's the best take I saw on it.

>>55668678
How retarded are you? >>55667858

Any benchmark these days should support every single feature. Reviews should consist of of everything enabled so the consumer can judge what's best for them based on what they play. If I play Paradox games mostly knowing what card is best in that situation including some lame fluff feature like hairworks or whatever AMD has should be made plain and benchmarked.

>>55668733
AMD probably won't say "yeah the benchmark is fine" in a public statement because they think the rabid fanboyism is profitable for them, whether it's based on facts or not.

>>55668733
or, they themselves don't see any issues with it: >>55668700 - as you said.

But still would be nice to have at least that basic statement: 'guise stop raising a non issue', if thatw ere the case.

>>55668758
Which feature are you saying is missing from this benchmark, specifically?

>>55668725
would it not run or would it just slow it down?

>>55668772
That's actually a good take on it as well.

>>55668725
wouldn't it be on a logic along the lines of
if X detected, run Y path;
if Z detected, run W path

I have no coding knowledge, thats why i'm asking, wouldn't be it trivial to have a fork like code path. I mean independently of how hard each of those differing paths may be to code for.

>>55668974
Feature levels are "you either support this set of stuff or you don't". DirectX 12 also has feature levels 11_0, 11_1 and 12_0. Those are supported by AMD and Nvidia, 12_1 is only supported currently by Intel and Nvidia.

As for vendor-specific paths: how long does it take for a new games console to reach its maximum potential as devs come up with new optimizations? Years? And that's just for one static hardware spec. Imagine having to do the same for every architecture available.

>>55669086
http://www.overclock-and-game.com/news/pc-gaming/50-analyzing-futuremark-time-spy-fiasco

>So the term “Asynchronous Compute” is an AMD thing or at least it was. However, now Asynchronous Compute is used outside of the GCN architecture. Modern APIs can now take advantage of the GCN architecture to get the most out of the hardware. That means that developers can no longer depend on drivers to take care of some things or continue to program sequentially. Well developers can program like they did for older APIs such as DX11\10\9 and OpenGL, but they will be defeating the purposes of the modern API and modern hardware. Console developers are already enjoying GCN and Async Compute. Now that we have covered some of the Async Compute background let’s look more into the issues surrounding the Time Spy DX12 benchmark.

preemption =/= Async

>>55669553
That site is bogus and the author doesn't know what he's talking about.

The game or application doesn't say "HEY DO PREEMPTION". All they can say to the API is "here is a graphics queue, here is a compute queue". The drivers and hardware decide how to pick work from those queues and the application CAN NOT POSSIBLY affect that or even know how the driver does it. It's a black box.

>>55669618
>So Time Spy appears to take a "one shoe fits all" approach to benchmark multiple GPUs from different manufacturers. This way of programming is unacceptable since Nvidia definition of Async Compute is not the same as AMDs original definition of Async Compute. In other words, Futuremark needs to program a path for Nvidia hardware and AMD hardware separately. It’s impossible for both of them to use the same path since one will suffer more than the other. This is also an issue because websites, YouTube Personalities and reviewers will be using this benchmark to compare the Geforce GPUs against the Radeon GPUs. The performance will be misleading to readers and people who do not understand everything that is going on behind the scenes. Perhaps the Time Spy developers see this differently.

That's the gist of it.

>HEY DO PREEMPTION
That's what FL 11_0 is.

>that site is bogus
Why would feel the need to discredit it in such a way. i've never read it before and got it quoted from a forum. You may not agree with the author but he does bring good points to discuss.

And from my plebeian perception he's speaking at a much higher level of understanding than you.

>>55669618
>Now Nvidia has been claiming that they support Async Compute since Maxwell. Several developers have spoken out and told everyone countless times that Nvidia GPUs cannot support Async Compute, but that isn’t stopping Nvidia from having presentations on their “Enhanced Async Compute” with Pascal. So basically Nvidia created and actually showed “Enhanced Async Compute” while using DX11. As hilarious as that may sound, Nvidia is serious. They still have GPUs to sell and they must stay competitive, even if they have a large share of the market already.

Nvidia “Enhanced Async Compute” is basically a newer and better form of preemption. The issue with preemption is that it is not asynchronous so therefore it cannot be async compute. Preemption is not parallel at all and can cause overhead issues. Preemption basically causes data to stop for more important or higher priority data that must make it to the GPU immediately.

it's a good read.
http://www.overclock-and-game.com/news/pc-gaming/50-analyzing-futuremark-time-spy-fiasco

>>55669729
>>HEY DO PREEMPTION
>That's what FL 11_0 is.

>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feature_levels_in_Direct3D#Direct3D_12
Tell me where you see "le async compute" in 11_1 or 12_0.

> i've never read it before and got it quoted from a forum.
You've never read it before because it's not a reputable site that's written well-researched analysis for a long time. It's some guy's fucking blog and it's being memed around by memeboys. This was all started by one guy, Mahigan. If you want something more legitimate than "le internet man said so so FUCKING CONFIRMED", go read wccftech, anandtech, tomshardware... or better yet, start by reading the link in OP.

>>55669821
Maxwell cannot do async compute, true. The driver just turns ignores it if you try to tell Maxwell to do it. That is not something the application can control.

Just like the application is not saying "do preemption". The application is saying "here is compute queue". If Nvidia is using preemption to process the queue, the application cannot control that.

>>55669824
I saw that temple vein bursting while reading your post.
Gosh, you're insufferable.

>>55669553
>>55669821
>This isn’t a tutorial so I won’t be preaching and teaching programming, although I know a few languages, and I also won’t go deep in the software that I use either.
Lol

>As usual, AMD was thinking about the future and pushing technology further.
>As hilarious as that may sound, Nvidia is serious. They still have GPUs to sell and they must stay competitive, even if they have a large share of the market already.
Not a fan site at all. 100% unbiased.

>If Your CPU Is Overclocked Time Spy Doesn’t Care
>Here are my Graphics Score results...
Okay. Read that again. This retard thinks that his CPU should affect his GRAPHICS score.
There is a fucking test that is CPU bound, and it's called physics test, not graphics test. This is such a stupid error that no one who's overclocked in their lives would do it, and would be enough by itself to discredit the article and blog.

How about we wait for a reputable website to quote this guy in their analysis? Oh wait, they're not going to do that, it's a fanboy tinfoil website. But I guess every news site in the world has been bribed by Nvidia, too?

File: reaction.png (659KB, 802x802px) Image search: [Google]

659KB, 802x802px

>AMD gains 12% from async compute
>Pascal gains 6%
>Maxwell gains 0%
>this is clearly biased towards Nvidia

I've seen lot of people coming with a default reply: lol, if you wanna favor AMD's ACE's why not throw CR (conservative rasterization) into the mix and have nvidia btfo them for good.

I don't see why they're mutually exclusive. Why wouldn't the vendors be promoting all of their lastest and greatest.

I think that the real answer to this is more, and more varied, benchmarks >>55668077
That would make impossible for direct comparisons but they would certainly promote a nice showcase for all of the technologies that we seem to be missing in account of a [arguably] level plain field.

It's a literal pissing contest and we should be enjoying a glorious golden shower from all sides. Not a back alley secretive cock-tip quick show off.

>>55670152
see
>>55657885

>>55658512
>vendor-agnostic
That's the thing, it's NOT.

While it RUNS on both vendors, the way it's designed was to the benefit of nvidia cards, because that method is an nvidia recommendation, not a DX12 one, as in DX12 has this feature that is done "best" one way, but nvidia's cards aren't optimal doing it by following the standards, so they made it so that it only runs best on nvidia hardware, while still being functional on the competition's hardware, though unable to perform at peak.

it's gameworks all over again.

The fact that this has been pointed out to you repeatedly within this thread alone tells me you're nothing more than a fanboy shill.

>>55670530
>to the benefit of nvidia cards
Is that why AMD cards gain 12% from async compute in it, just like AotS and every other DX12 benchmark so far?

>>55670152
PROPER async compute has a massive boost on AMD because the way DX12 feature is SUPPOSED to work is it fills any idle hardware with deferred work, but the way the benchmark does it is only through context switching, because nvidia cards are largely serial because of extremely long pipelines, so finding idle hardware instead of just making use of context switching get some extra tasks done per cycle costs more cycles to perform on nvidia.

meanwhile, context switching, while works on all vendiors to feed more compute units with deferred tasks, still leaves many idle because it's not trying to find and utilize every idle compute hardware, because that shit is SUPPOSED TO BE FED IN A PARALLEL not CONCURRENTLY.

That's the entire fucking point of async compute: to COMPLETELY fill the hardware queue

>>55670590
see
>>55670705

The gains on Ashes for AMD were MUCH higher before Stardock also put in a separate codepath of nvidia, but you'd know that if you even did the slightest bit of research, you shill.

>>55668733
This is why Reddit is cancer

So much pretentiousness in one post

File: download (5).png (26KB, 986x192px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 986x192px

Deliberatly edited the posters names out since I don't believe they would too happy about having their handles plastered on an anonymous chinese silk weavers board.

Now, we need to make reviewers recognize this as a real issue.

Jarnis woke up
http://www.overclock.net/t/1605899/various-futuremark-releases-3dmark-time-spy-directx-12-benchmark/670

>>55656675
>They would have to make another benchmark if they want to code for each architecture
no

File: download (6).png (107KB, 1045x513px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 1045x513px

>>55670835
do not reply to me. I'm just one idiot posting quotes that might bring something substancial to this table.

Address the points if you disagree, please.

fresh out of the oven:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8OrHZPYYY9g

PcPer interview with Jani Joki.

>>55656526
>different execution calls/tasks for different hardware
wow, thats a nice benchmark you got there fm jarnis. you might wanna bundle a comparison of red apples and green apples based on hue with that
>red apples wins on the red field
>green apples dont have any red but they are green
??? ayy

>>55671764
6 min in. What's that forced hoarse voice bimbos use called?
It's making it impossible for me to pay attention to the contents of his speech.

>>55671764
>>55671891
I haven't got slightest clue of what he said. His voice/speech mannerisms managed to irritate me on a irrational level.

I suppose he didn't go much further than the OP.

File: 1467742838281.png (110KB, 1616x832px) Image search: [Google]

110KB, 1616x832px

>>55657449
Nothing you can do, Nvidia is just too powerful at this point. 90% of the people are biased either way, even if they assume themselves as "Neutral", with the Dunning Kruger effect taking place.

At least we're all going to pay the tax for this, especially if AMD should go down without anyone buying all of their patents at once.

This is reaching politics levels of retardation.

>>55671891
>vocal fry

>>55656526
Anandtech finally release the review of 1080 and 1070 and have a section detailing async compute

http://www.anandtech.com/show/10325/the-nvidia-geforce-gtx-1080-and-1070-founders-edition-review/9

From the looks of it, Pascal (or even Maxwell) is already reaching it's theoretical peak that there is not much less idle bubbles to fill by async thus gains less from async compute and the additional load from async compute will just hurt performance. AMD on the other hand with their tons of cores creates tons of bubbles thus need to fill them with the help of async engines.
In the end, AMD is just inefficient and by looking at all the tests alone, they are getting left behind vs GeForces without async and just finally able to maximize resources that their finally getting their way/normalize their performance

>>55672704
Careful, you should have written "finally getting its hidden power unleashed" instead of being just inefficient, unless you want amdshills run you down

File: mfwtur.jpg (10KB, 144x145px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 144x145px

>>55674422

File: 1452808391036.jpg (19KB, 550x343px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 550x343px

>>55675509

>>55670738
>The gains on Ashes for AMD were MUCH higher before Stardock also put in a separate codepath of nvidia
Why would an nvidia codepath affect what happens in the AMD codepath? Are you high?

We're talking % increase from no async to async, not % difference between vendors.

>>55671575
Nvidia doesn't decide what constitutes a feature level... baka

Also, Intel has the most DX12 feature support right now.

Why are people so mad at Futuremark over this? Especially when Futuremark have gone through the trouble to tell them how the benchmark works and how they went through development of it. That AMD and Nvidia are both active participants in the development.

>>55678084
Only amdrones are mad.

>>55678084
Amdrones are mad because Futuremark wrote async compute on a general level and didn't specifically coded it to take full advantage of the async engines of the gcn cards.