Corsair H170i Elite Capellix XT review
Forspoken: PC performance graphics benchmarks
ASRock Z790 Taichi review
The Callisto Protocol: PC graphics benchmarks
G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
AMD Greenland Vega10 Silicon To Have 4096 Stream Processors?
Some interesting info surfaced on the web the past day or so. As you guys know, AMD is to release GPUs based on Polaris, however a recent AMD roadmap shows Vega and Navi Architectures. Vega is the successor to Polaris with HBM2 memory to be launched in the 2017 time-frame. An employee on their linked-in page noted Vega to have 4096 shader processors.
It seems that after Polaris in 2017 VEGA will make an appearance, the name is tagged with HBM2 meaning that HBM2 likely will not make it onto Polaris. Vega is the brightest star in the constellation Lyra, the fifth brightest star in the night sky and the second brightest star in the northern celestial hemisphere, after Arcturus. Next in line in the 2018 timeframe we see Navi with the two keywords being scalability and Nextgen memory.
Now the juicy part, The LinkedIn profile of Yu Zheng (who is an R&D manager at AMD) (info was removed btw) shows "shader processor" (stream processor) count of Vega10 to be 4,096, have a peek:
Interestingly enough, that's the same shader processor number as Fiji (Radeon R9 Fury X). Since the info does not state what model GPU (mid-range/high-end/enthusiast) it'll be used for it all remains guess work in terms of performance. We do know that perf per watt will increase significantly over Polaris and that these GPUs will be fitted with HMB2 graphics memory.
Since we are on the topic, "Polaris" architecture based names are oozing out. A high-end chip will be called "Ellesmere" or Polaris10. There will be a mid-range GPU called "Baffin" or Polaris11. And then "Ellesmere" is rumored to get 36 GCN 4.0 compute units, which works out to 2,304 stream processors; and a 256-bit wide bus, indicative for GDDR5/GDDR5X with 8 GB memory amount.
It's going to be an interesting year.
Ieldra
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 2007-01-27
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 2007-01-27
#5251486 Posted on: 03/29/2016 10:00 PM
The article I posted above in babel tech compares performance across drivers for a big set of games. Interesting to see GTX 680 still kicking it with the 7970
The article I posted above in babel tech compares performance across drivers for a big set of games. Interesting to see GTX 680 still kicking it with the 7970
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5251494 Posted on: 03/29/2016 10:24 PM
Exactly, GTX680 still performs 10% faster in 2013 games like Crysis3. And all others older games.
But then you get new games like 2015 W3 where it barely matches HD7970 and that's game filled with nVidia's stuff.
They took 2015 Batman with All GW stuff ON, and there it is 44fps for GTX680 and 62fps for HD7970... (that's big wtf?!?)
Then you get those November/December 2015 games: AC Syndicate, JC3, R6:Siege, Dirt: Rally...
In all those GTX 980Ti has 10~20% advantage over Fury X. But gtx680 is behind HD7970 by 5 to 16%.
So, are those games (filled with nVida's technologies) so well optimized for console GCN, than Fiji is in even bigger disadvantage to GM200? And then this very same non existent optimizations kick in for HD7970 to beat gtx680?
If you think that's it's only Fiji which somehow does not get those optimizations, then why same disadvantage can be seen with r9-290x losing breath to GTX 970 by that much?
To me, it looks like those games those games favor nVidia with their technologies bit more than healthy, but old Kepler did not get any of that love.
The article I posted above in babel tech compares performance across drivers for a big set of games. Interesting to see GTX 680 still kicking it with the 7970
Exactly, GTX680 still performs 10% faster in 2013 games like Crysis3. And all others older games.
But then you get new games like 2015 W3 where it barely matches HD7970 and that's game filled with nVidia's stuff.
They took 2015 Batman with All GW stuff ON, and there it is 44fps for GTX680 and 62fps for HD7970... (that's big wtf?!?)
Then you get those November/December 2015 games: AC Syndicate, JC3, R6:Siege, Dirt: Rally...
In all those GTX 980Ti has 10~20% advantage over Fury X. But gtx680 is behind HD7970 by 5 to 16%.
So, are those games (filled with nVida's technologies) so well optimized for console GCN, than Fiji is in even bigger disadvantage to GM200? And then this very same non existent optimizations kick in for HD7970 to beat gtx680?
If you think that's it's only Fiji which somehow does not get those optimizations, then why same disadvantage can be seen with r9-290x losing breath to GTX 970 by that much?
To me, it looks like those games those games favor nVidia with their technologies bit more than healthy, but old Kepler did not get any of that love.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 8093
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 8093
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5251512 Posted on: 03/29/2016 11:11 PM
Are we really gonna have this debate again? :p
Let us not.
No, there is no need, AMD makes only one global optimization for all cards and that is API overhead optimization.
That affects anyone with strong enough GPU and slow enough CPU.
But there are no special gains out of this category for old games. If you took HD7970 and game which got optimizations in 2013 for GCN and run benchmark against this week's 16.3.2WHQL, there would be no improvement in performance.
Same way you would not see any special improvements between nVidia's optimized drivers back then and newest one.
Issue is somewhere else. In those old games where GTX 780 easily outrun HD 7970 by a lot, it still does outrun it in same way.
But in new games, that's very different story. And kids running rampart saying that developers did learn how to optimize for GCN are just dummies. Half of game developers today do not even have AMD cards. Otherwise M$ would not release GOW in state they did (game was throwing artifacts on any GCN card, had so heavy stutter that you could actually call it slide show with gifs).
You have sweet Maxwell card which in games around Fiji release performed easily 15% better on 1080p and Fiji managed to match it in some games on 4K.
In a year's time when Pascal is main thing around, you can compare it again.
You will see if you were Keplered or not.
I am not so sure about that man. I have older games I have personally played like Mass Effect and SC2, play MUCH better with drivers since 1018.0. Again, I have no numbers to prove anything, I haven't seriously tested.
We really need to test Kepler cards with more vram to get to the root of this
Kepler seems to be doing fine battlefront at 1080p
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-battlefront-performance-benchmark,4382.html
980Ti vs fury X driver performance
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/driver-performance-evaluation-featuring-fury-x-vs-gtx-980-ti/
Is there any chart with the 680 in the last link? Did I miss it?
Are we really gonna have this debate again? :p
Let us not.
No, there is no need, AMD makes only one global optimization for all cards and that is API overhead optimization.
That affects anyone with strong enough GPU and slow enough CPU.
But there are no special gains out of this category for old games. If you took HD7970 and game which got optimizations in 2013 for GCN and run benchmark against this week's 16.3.2WHQL, there would be no improvement in performance.
Same way you would not see any special improvements between nVidia's optimized drivers back then and newest one.
Issue is somewhere else. In those old games where GTX 780 easily outrun HD 7970 by a lot, it still does outrun it in same way.
But in new games, that's very different story. And kids running rampart saying that developers did learn how to optimize for GCN are just dummies. Half of game developers today do not even have AMD cards. Otherwise M$ would not release GOW in state they did (game was throwing artifacts on any GCN card, had so heavy stutter that you could actually call it slide show with gifs).
You have sweet Maxwell card which in games around Fiji release performed easily 15% better on 1080p and Fiji managed to match it in some games on 4K.
In a year's time when Pascal is main thing around, you can compare it again.
You will see if you were Keplered or not.
I am not so sure about that man. I have older games I have personally played like Mass Effect and SC2, play MUCH better with drivers since 1018.0. Again, I have no numbers to prove anything, I haven't seriously tested.
We really need to test Kepler cards with more vram to get to the root of this
Kepler seems to be doing fine battlefront at 1080p
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/star-wars-battlefront-performance-benchmark,4382.html
980Ti vs fury X driver performance
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/driver-performance-evaluation-featuring-fury-x-vs-gtx-980-ti/
Is there any chart with the 680 in the last link? Did I miss it?
Ieldra
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 2007-01-27
Senior Member
Posts: 3490
Joined: 2007-01-27
#5251514 Posted on: 03/29/2016 11:16 PM
Let us not.
I am not so sure about that man. I have older games I have personally played like Mass Effect and SC2, play MUCH better with drivers since 1018.0. Again, I have no numbers to prove anything, I haven't seriously tested.
Is there any chart with the 680 in the last link? Did I miss it?
Yeah at the very bottom the 680 is on the far right. I don't understand why not use R9 300 or GTX 700 but meh, still the only site to do a review like this
Let us not.
I am not so sure about that man. I have older games I have personally played like Mass Effect and SC2, play MUCH better with drivers since 1018.0. Again, I have no numbers to prove anything, I haven't seriously tested.
Is there any chart with the 680 in the last link? Did I miss it?
Yeah at the very bottom the 680 is on the far right. I don't understand why not use R9 300 or GTX 700 but meh, still the only site to do a review like this
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
nVidia is not downgrading. And I did not say that. I explicitly wrote that performance advantage in old games did not change. Because nVidia did not made global degradation changes for Kepler.
IIRC there were few cases where game performed poorly on all nV cards upon launch. Then nV releases optimized driver and maxwell improves by miles. Keples remains in dust. Internet goes crazy and few days later Kepler gains its optimizations too.
Its only on nVidia good will if Kepler gets them and if they go as deep as in 2012...
There may be many reasons why GTX680/770 is obsolete while it used to game, after game beat HD7970. But there are little to no arguments explaining how could GTX 780 end up way it did.
Or why GTX 780 Ti was faster than GTX 970 by around 10% and now it is 10% slower.
Take old game and GTX 780 Ti will still have that benefit. Take new Game and GTX 970 is leader. GTX 970 did not get global boost like HD 7970 did with cat12.11b.
Maxwell gets better/deeper optimizations than kepler these days. or do you expect nVidia to hire extra software engineers to fully support hardware which they no longer sell?
I did design very easy test for it. You have probably read methodology. Pick one significant game per 6 months of time. For each of those games, run benchmark with driver before game got optimizations. And then with driver which is newest and contains all optimizations.
Observe how much Kepler did benefit from them, compare to how much Maxwell benefits. And you can do same for AMD cards.
It seemingly looks like AMD makes huge improvements in driver on global level. But I gained nothing in last 4~5 months, because improvements AMD delivered are for low clocked/low IPC CPUs. And all those sites doing benchmarks for GPUs run ridiculously strong CPUs. Much stronger than my poor i5.