Sapphire Pulse Radeon RX 5600 XT OC review
ASUS STRIX Radeon RX 5600 XT TOP review
Gigabyte Radeon RX 5600 XT Gaming OC review
Arctic Liquid Freezer II 280 liquid cooler review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro licenses for under 10 USD
Team Group MP33 NVMe 512 GB SSD Review
ADATA SE800 1TB Portable SSD review
Promo: Microsoft Office 2016 for $29.82
Corsair H100i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
Corsair K95 RGB PLATINUM XT review
Windows 8.1 vs 10 graphics performance review
Posted by: on: 07/30/2015 05:56 PM [
49 comment(s) ]
In this small article we'll have a look at Windows 8.1 vs 10 graphics performance with the help of regular benchmarks and FCAT resutls. We will use both a GeForce GTX 980 Ti and radeon R9 Fury.
Read article
Advertisement
pages 1 2
ruiner13
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Posted on: 07/30/2015 06:27 PM
Thanks for the info, Hilbert. Are you seeing any of the SLI related memory problems that people have been reporting in forums? The single-card tests don't show any difference compared to Win8, but I wonder if multi-GPU setups show any different behaviors...
Thanks for the info, Hilbert. Are you seeing any of the SLI related memory problems that people have been reporting in forums? The single-card tests don't show any difference compared to Win8, but I wonder if multi-GPU setups show any different behaviors...
Asgardi
Senior Member
Posts: 229
Senior Member
Posts: 229
Posted on: 07/30/2015 06:27 PM
No surprises there as its the same code running on both systems. The differences are only in the Modern app side. Its the OS itself which is way faster and better than W7. When games start using the new APIs (DX12 among others), we start seeing the benefits.
No surprises there as its the same code running on both systems. The differences are only in the Modern app side. Its the OS itself which is way faster and better than W7. When games start using the new APIs (DX12 among others), we start seeing the benefits.
scoter man1
Senior Member
Posts: 4721
Senior Member
Posts: 4721
Posted on: 07/30/2015 06:37 PM
Maybe this is a dumb request/statement but it'd be kind of sweet to see Win 7 up in those charts too.
Maybe this is a dumb request/statement but it'd be kind of sweet to see Win 7 up in those charts too.
Bassarnis
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Junior Member
Posts: 18
Posted on: 07/30/2015 06:44 PM
I didn't notice any memory issues with my sli setup apart from a wierd thing. MSI afterburner reported that during gta V gameplay, my Vram usage on my 4GB cards went up to 5.7GB (?)
Thanks for the info, Hilbert. Are you seeing any of the SLI related memory problems that people have been reporting in forums? The single-card tests don't show any difference compared to Win8, but I wonder if multi-GPU setups show any different behaviors...
I didn't notice any memory issues with my sli setup apart from a wierd thing. MSI afterburner reported that during gta V gameplay, my Vram usage on my 4GB cards went up to 5.7GB (?)
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2761
Senior Member
Posts: 2761
Posted on: 07/30/2015 06:50 PM
I havent had any issues at all myself.
No memory problems.
What memory problems are you referring too?
Honestly, SLI feels just a bit smoother on Win 10.
Games feel smoother as well.
In the AVP benchmark, I was 5 fps faster on Win 10 with no OC on the cards vs an oc on the cards in Win 8.1.
153.2 vs 148.6.
With an OC, I got 162 in Win 10. Exact same settings for both OS.
And I ran the benchmark 3 times. and there were all 1 fps within each other.
Thanks for the info, Hilbert. Are you seeing any of the SLI related memory problems that people have been reporting in forums? The single-card tests don't show any difference compared to Win8, but I wonder if multi-GPU setups show any different behaviors...
I havent had any issues at all myself.
No memory problems.
What memory problems are you referring too?
Honestly, SLI feels just a bit smoother on Win 10.
Games feel smoother as well.
In the AVP benchmark, I was 5 fps faster on Win 10 with no OC on the cards vs an oc on the cards in Win 8.1.
153.2 vs 148.6.
With an OC, I got 162 in Win 10. Exact same settings for both OS.
And I ran the benchmark 3 times. and there were all 1 fps within each other.
Evildead666
Senior Member
Posts: 1270
Senior Member
Posts: 1270
Posted on: 07/30/2015 06:53 PM
Thanks a lot Hilbert!
This answers many questions, and I won't be rushing to Win10.
Thanks a lot Hilbert!
This answers many questions, and I won't be rushing to Win10.
red6joker
Senior Member
Posts: 572
Senior Member
Posts: 572
Posted on: 07/30/2015 07:00 PM
Well I am glad I am waiting a few months to upgrade to 10. Waiting for it to mature seems like the best idea.
Well I am glad I am waiting a few months to upgrade to 10. Waiting for it to mature seems like the best idea.
ruiner13
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Posted on: 07/30/2015 07:11 PM
I havent had any issues at all myself.
No memory problems.
What memory problems are you referring too?
Honestly, SLI feels just a bit smoother on Win 10.
Games feel smoother as well.
In the AVP benchmark, I was 5 fps faster on Win 10 with no OC on the cards vs an oc on the cards in Win 8.1.
153.2 vs 148.6.
With an OC, I got 162 in Win 10. Exact same settings for both OS.
And I ran the benchmark 3 times. and there were all 1 fps within each other.
It may just be certain games, like BF4. That's why I was asking. Here's the response from ManuelG on geforce forums. Sounds like there's an acknowledgement of some sort of issue, just don't know how extensive.
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/860152/geforce-drivers/official-windows-10-353-62-game-ready-display-driver-feedback-thread-7-29-15-/post/4617242/#4617242
I havent had any issues at all myself.
No memory problems.
What memory problems are you referring too?
Honestly, SLI feels just a bit smoother on Win 10.
Games feel smoother as well.
In the AVP benchmark, I was 5 fps faster on Win 10 with no OC on the cards vs an oc on the cards in Win 8.1.
153.2 vs 148.6.
With an OC, I got 162 in Win 10. Exact same settings for both OS.
And I ran the benchmark 3 times. and there were all 1 fps within each other.
It may just be certain games, like BF4. That's why I was asking. Here's the response from ManuelG on geforce forums. Sounds like there's an acknowledgement of some sort of issue, just don't know how extensive.
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/860152/geforce-drivers/official-windows-10-353-62-game-ready-display-driver-feedback-thread-7-29-15-/post/4617242/#4617242
erkki82
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Junior Member
Posts: 6
Posted on: 07/30/2015 07:58 PM
Would really love to see some SLI benchmarks and with some FCAT of course.
If it makes any differences to Win 7 or Win 8.1.
Would really love to see some SLI benchmarks and with some FCAT of course.
If it makes any differences to Win 7 or Win 8.1.
Chillin
Senior Member
Posts: 6814
Senior Member
Posts: 6814
Posted on: 07/30/2015 08:01 PM
Haha wow, where are all those "Wait for Windows 10 and you'll see the AMD difference" cats at now?
But hey, keep believing in the magical driver/OS fairy.
Haha wow, where are all those "Wait for Windows 10 and you'll see the AMD difference" cats at now?
But hey, keep believing in the magical driver/OS fairy.
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9469
Senior Member
Posts: 9469
Posted on: 07/30/2015 08:01 PM
Looks like no magic sauce for the Fury in W10. Glad that myth has been busted. Now to see if the DX12 will be magic for AMD only myth gets debunked soon.
Looks like no magic sauce for the Fury in W10. Glad that myth has been busted. Now to see if the DX12 will be magic for AMD only myth gets debunked soon.
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2761
Senior Member
Posts: 2761
Posted on: 07/30/2015 08:02 PM
It may just be certain games, like BF4. That's why I was asking. Here's the response from ManuelG on geforce forums. Sounds like there's an acknowledgement of some sort of issue, just don't know how extensive.
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/860152/geforce-drivers/official-windows-10-353-62-game-ready-display-driver-feedback-thread-7-29-15-/post/4617242/#4617242
Thanks for the link. I have not experienced anything like that myself.
In fact, in Win 10, my vram ususage is 100mb less and 250mb avg less on system ram.
It may just be certain games, like BF4. That's why I was asking. Here's the response from ManuelG on geforce forums. Sounds like there's an acknowledgement of some sort of issue, just don't know how extensive.
https://forums.geforce.com/default/topic/860152/geforce-drivers/official-windows-10-353-62-game-ready-display-driver-feedback-thread-7-29-15-/post/4617242/#4617242
Thanks for the link. I have not experienced anything like that myself.
In fact, in Win 10, my vram ususage is 100mb less and 250mb avg less on system ram.
ruiner13
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Senior Member
Posts: 145
Posted on: 07/30/2015 08:14 PM
Thanks for the link. I have not experienced anything like that myself.
In fact, in Win 10, my vram ususage is 100mb less and 250mb avg less on system ram.
Do you happen to play BF4? Good to know it isn't affecting everyone. Still makes me nervous to update my machine with 2x780s until I see more data points
Thanks for the link. I have not experienced anything like that myself.
In fact, in Win 10, my vram ususage is 100mb less and 250mb avg less on system ram.
Do you happen to play BF4? Good to know it isn't affecting everyone. Still makes me nervous to update my machine with 2x780s until I see more data points
OnnA
Senior Member
Posts: 10116
Senior Member
Posts: 10116
Posted on: 07/30/2015 10:24 PM
On that particular x8/16 system spec as you have there is no significant gain.
But on My system there is ;-)
I've got +7-14FPS is every game i'm playing in Win_X
In pCars i'll have solid 55-65FPS experience in Utra/High Shadows Med and Smoke Low in 1792:1344 85Hz -> in comparison on Win 8.1 MCe i was playing without Smoke and shadows on Low to get similar FPS.
So gain is Great on AMD CPU's i think
On that particular x8/16 system spec as you have there is no significant gain.
But on My system there is ;-)
I've got +7-14FPS is every game i'm playing in Win_X
In pCars i'll have solid 55-65FPS experience in Utra/High Shadows Med and Smoke Low in 1792:1344 85Hz -> in comparison on Win 8.1 MCe i was playing without Smoke and shadows on Low to get similar FPS.
So gain is Great on AMD CPU's i think
Chillin
Senior Member
Posts: 6814
Senior Member
Posts: 6814
Posted on: 07/30/2015 10:29 PM
On that particular x8/16 system spec as you have there is no significant gain.
But on My system there is ;-)
I've got +7-14FPS is every game i'm playing in Win_X
In pCars i'll have solid 55-65FPS experience in Utra/High Shadows Med and Smoke Low in 1792:1344 85Hz -> in comparison on Win 8.1 MCe i was playing without Smoke and shadows on Low to get similar FPS.
So gain is Great on AMD CPU's i think
Clean install Win 8.1, run the benchmarks. Clean install Win10, run the benchmarks.
I'll be damned if you get something outside the margin of error then.
On that particular x8/16 system spec as you have there is no significant gain.
But on My system there is ;-)
I've got +7-14FPS is every game i'm playing in Win_X
In pCars i'll have solid 55-65FPS experience in Utra/High Shadows Med and Smoke Low in 1792:1344 85Hz -> in comparison on Win 8.1 MCe i was playing without Smoke and shadows on Low to get similar FPS.
So gain is Great on AMD CPU's i think
Clean install Win 8.1, run the benchmarks. Clean install Win10, run the benchmarks.
I'll be damned if you get something outside the margin of error then.
cyclone3d
Senior Member
Posts: 419
Senior Member
Posts: 419
Posted on: 07/30/2015 10:34 PM
Unless it has changed, MSI Afterburner reports the combined VRAM usage when running in SLI or CF.
So that would mean that each card was using 2.85GB of VRAM.
I didn't notice any memory issues with my sli setup apart from a wierd thing. MSI afterburner reported that during gta V gameplay, my Vram usage on my 4GB cards went up to 5.7GB (?)
Unless it has changed, MSI Afterburner reports the combined VRAM usage when running in SLI or CF.
So that would mean that each card was using 2.85GB of VRAM.
leszy
Senior Member
Posts: 316
Senior Member
Posts: 316
Posted on: 07/31/2015 12:33 AM
Deleted. Probably fake results in the link or wrong methodology. Sorry.
Deleted. Probably fake results in the link or wrong methodology. Sorry.
---TK---
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Posted on: 07/31/2015 01:23 AM
Unless it has changed, MSI Afterburner reports the combined VRAM usage when running in SLI or CF.
So that would mean that each card was using 2.85GB of VRAM.
In sli msi ab shows each cards vram usage, it's been like that for as long as I remember, likely years.
Unless it has changed, MSI Afterburner reports the combined VRAM usage when running in SLI or CF.
So that would mean that each card was using 2.85GB of VRAM.
In sli msi ab shows each cards vram usage, it's been like that for as long as I remember, likely years.
eXXon
Member
Posts: 42
Member
Posts: 42
Posted on: 07/31/2015 02:13 AM
These results are a bit inaccurate. I think you'll see a bigger difference with an average system (i.e. an i5/8320 coupled with a mid range GPU), IMO.
These results are a bit inaccurate. I think you'll see a bigger difference with an average system (i.e. an i5/8320 coupled with a mid range GPU), IMO.
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18352
Senior Member
Posts: 18352
Posted on: 07/31/2015 02:20 AM
Why would you see a difference with an "average" system?
Nice article, glad to see no performance degradation in DX11 games which at the moment is the most important thing.
Why would you see a difference with an "average" system?
Nice article, glad to see no performance degradation in DX11 games which at the moment is the most important thing.
theoneofgod
Senior Member
Posts: 4085
Senior Member
Posts: 4085
Posted on: 07/31/2015 03:20 AM
Why?
These results are a bit inaccurate. I think you'll see a bigger difference with an average system (i.e. an i5/8320 coupled with a mid range GPU), IMO.
Why?
Loophole35
Senior Member
Posts: 9469
Senior Member
Posts: 9469
Posted on: 07/31/2015 03:34 AM
Because it's not the results that he wanted to see.
Why?
Because it's not the results that he wanted to see.
theoneofgod
Senior Member
Posts: 4085
Senior Member
Posts: 4085
Posted on: 07/31/2015 03:36 AM
I didn't expect DX11 improvements with WDDM 2.0, the fact that AMD made CPU overhead optimizations first on the Windows 10 driver was interesting but it wasn't limited to WDDM 2.0 but WDDM 1.3 and lower.
It's good to see they didn't make things worse
Because it's not the results that he wanted to see.
I didn't expect DX11 improvements with WDDM 2.0, the fact that AMD made CPU overhead optimizations first on the Windows 10 driver was interesting but it wasn't limited to WDDM 2.0 but WDDM 1.3 and lower.
It's good to see they didn't make things worse
iTile
Member
Posts: 23
Member
Posts: 23
Posted on: 07/31/2015 05:58 AM
says a lot..
says a lot..
pages 1 2
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 4636
Thanks Hilbert