Corsair H115i RGB Pro XT liquid cooler review
XFX Radeon RX 5600 XT THICC 3 review
Fractal Design Define 7 XL review
Guru3D Rig of the Month - January 2020
Palit GeForce RTX 2070 SUPER GamingPro review
Team Group T-Force DarkZα 3600 MHz DDR4 review
Corsair Scimitar Elite RGB gaming mouse review
Cougar 700K Evo keyboard review
Aorus Liquid Cooler 360 review
AMD Ryzen Threadripper 3990X review
Article: Windows 8.1 vs 10 graphics performance analysis
In this article we'll have a quick look at Windows 8.1 vs 10 graphics performance with the help of four of our regular benchmarks and FCAT results. In this article we will use both a GeForce GTX 980 Ti and Radeon R9 Fury.
Read the article right here.
cyclone3d
Senior Member
Posts: 419
Joined: 2006-11-10
Senior Member
Posts: 419
Joined: 2006-11-10
#5132887 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
Joined: 2006-06-06
Senior Member
Posts: 316
Joined: 2006-06-06
#5132950 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
Joined: 2005-12-10
Senior Member
Posts: 22112
Joined: 2005-12-10
#5132966 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
Joined: 2014-01-07
Member
Posts: 42
Joined: 2014-01-07
#5132984 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: 18355
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18355
Joined: 2009-01-06
#5132988 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: 4150
Joined: 2014-01-17
Senior Member
Posts: 4150
Joined: 2014-01-17
#5133018 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: 9508
Joined: 2011-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 9508
Joined: 2011-09-21
#5133024 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: 4150
Joined: 2014-01-17
Senior Member
Posts: 4150
Joined: 2014-01-17
#5133026 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
Joined: 2014-03-22
Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 2014-03-22
#5133096 Posted on: 07/31/2015 05:58 AM
says a lot..
says a lot..
theoneofgod
Senior Member
Posts: 4150
Joined: 2014-01-17
Senior Member
Posts: 4150
Joined: 2014-01-17
#5133141 Posted on: 07/31/2015 07:34 AM
says a lot..
What driver was installed on 8.1? Looks to me like you weren't running >= 15.7 which had the CPU overhead optimizations that they now have.
says a lot..
What driver was installed on 8.1? Looks to me like you weren't running >= 15.7 which had the CPU overhead optimizations that they now have.
xIcarus
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
Senior Member
Posts: 941
Joined: 2010-08-24
#5133162 Posted on: 07/31/2015 08:20 AM
Guys please include spoiler tags or links when posting or quoting images. The page looks weird.
And I feel the need to scroll sideways continuously.
MUST NOT SCROLL.
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.
That's exactly what I was thinking about. I'm not surprised there's no magic stick for the Fury.
Now we wait for DX12.
Guys please include spoiler tags or links when posting or quoting images. The page looks weird.
And I feel the need to scroll sideways continuously.
MUST NOT SCROLL.
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.
That's exactly what I was thinking about. I'm not surprised there's no magic stick for the Fury.
Now we wait for DX12.
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
#5133186 Posted on: 07/31/2015 09:01 AM
I was going to say the same thing! I have higher draw calls per second under DirectX 11 on my rig (R9-280x with an i5-3570K) in Windows 10. That is running the latest 15.7.1 driver. That is both for single and multi-threaded (around 1100000 for both).
Here's mine (screenshot):
Keep in mind I have an older CPU, and a lower end video card. My results for DirectX 11 and 12 should be less than yours...
What driver was installed on 8.1? Looks to me like you weren't running >= 15.7 which had the CPU overhead optimizations that they now have.
I was going to say the same thing! I have higher draw calls per second under DirectX 11 on my rig (R9-280x with an i5-3570K) in Windows 10. That is running the latest 15.7.1 driver. That is both for single and multi-threaded (around 1100000 for both).
Here's mine (screenshot):
Keep in mind I have an older CPU, and a lower end video card. My results for DirectX 11 and 12 should be less than yours...
theoneofgod
Senior Member
Posts: 4150
Joined: 2014-01-17
Senior Member
Posts: 4150
Joined: 2014-01-17
#5133202 Posted on: 07/31/2015 09:18 AM
I was going to say the same thing! I have higher draw calls per second under DirectX 11 on my rig (R9-280x with an i5-3570K) in Windows 10. That is running the latest 15.7.1 driver. That is both for single and multi-threaded (around 1100000 for both).
Here's mine (screenshot):
Keep in mind I have an older CPU, and a lower end video card. My results for DirectX 11 and 12 should be less than yours...
CPU overclocked?
I was going to say the same thing! I have higher draw calls per second under DirectX 11 on my rig (R9-280x with an i5-3570K) in Windows 10. That is running the latest 15.7.1 driver. That is both for single and multi-threaded (around 1100000 for both).
Here's mine (screenshot):
Keep in mind I have an older CPU, and a lower end video card. My results for DirectX 11 and 12 should be less than yours...
CPU overclocked?
thatguy91
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6648
Joined: 2010-08-27
#5133209 Posted on: 07/31/2015 09:21 AM
Yes, to 4.3 GHz (compared to his 4.0 GHz). Still, that won't equal 20 percent higher DX 11 draw calls, especially considering mine is an i5-3570K and his is an i7-4790K.
The i7-4790K at the same clock speed should still be a little faster in the draw call test all things considered, seeing as it does have higher IPC. That is, assuming the CPU makes that much difference (I presume it does).
Even if it is only 5 percent faster, you would effectively be comparing 4.2 GHZ to 4.3 GHz (if that makes sense), which wouldn't be a 20 percent gain! Especially comparing a R9-290 to a R9-280X as well.
CPU overclocked?
Yes, to 4.3 GHz (compared to his 4.0 GHz). Still, that won't equal 20 percent higher DX 11 draw calls, especially considering mine is an i5-3570K and his is an i7-4790K.
The i7-4790K at the same clock speed should still be a little faster in the draw call test all things considered, seeing as it does have higher IPC. That is, assuming the CPU makes that much difference (I presume it does).
Even if it is only 5 percent faster, you would effectively be comparing 4.2 GHZ to 4.3 GHz (if that makes sense), which wouldn't be a 20 percent gain! Especially comparing a R9-290 to a R9-280X as well.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 6814
Joined: 2006-01-18
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.