Article: Windows 8.1 vs 10 graphics performance analysis

#5133215 Posted on: 07/31/2015 09:23 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, seeing as it does have higher IPC. That is, assuming the CPU makes that much difference (I presume it does).

I wonder what resolution they used.
The CPU IPC is very important in the test.

#5133219 Posted on: 07/31/2015 09:26 AM

---

I wonder what resolution they used.
The CPU IPC is very important in the test.

It should be the same resolution, 1280x720. It's an overhead test, not a graphics resolution test!

Even with IPC being important, that further highlights that the i7-4790K should at 4.0 GHz should be at minimum, no less than the i5-3570K at 4.3 GHz.

#5133221 Posted on: 07/31/2015 09:30 AM

---

It should be the same resolution, 1280x720. It's an overhead test, not a graphics resolution test!

Even with IPC being important, that further highlights that the i7-4790K should at 4.0 GHz should be at minimum, no less than the i5-3570K at 4.3 GHz.

The i7-4790K can boost to 4.4GHz.

#5133240 Posted on: 07/31/2015 09:56 AM

---

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.

Not surprised either. Who actually thought that Dx11 performance would change from Win8.1 to Win10?

The real difference comes with Dx12 vs Dx11, where Dx12 hardware will shine against older Dx11 hardware, and where CPU performance will be a bit less important than with Dx11. That's what AMD is talking about their "magic" stick, their underpowered CPUs will be able to shine better in games thanks to Dx12 (even more the APUs).

#5133241 Posted on: 07/31/2015 09:57 AM

---

Not surprised either. Who actually thought that Dx11 performance would change from Win8.1 to Win10?

The real difference comes with Dx12 vs Dx11, where Dx12 hardware will shine against older Dx11 hardware, and where CPU performance will be a bit less important than with Dx11 (that's what AMD is talking about their "magic" stick, their underpowered CPUs and APUs will be able to shine better in games thanks to Dx12).

DX11 hardware supports DX12 give or take some Intel iGPU's (not up to date wth AMD APU's).
The improvements will come from the low level API.
I don't know anyone that expected DX11 improvements with Windows 10.

#5133244 Posted on: 07/31/2015 10:01 AM

---

DX11 hardware supports DX12 give or take some Intel iGPU's (not up to date wth AMD APU's).
The improvements will come from the low level API.
I'm pretty sure that AMD's APUs will do a lot better in Dx12 than Intel's iGPUs since AMD's APUs have more Dx12 HW accelerated instructions than Intel's iGPUs. Intel will have to do more stuff on CPU than AMD.
On external GPUs the story changes obviously.
I don't know anyone that expected DX11 improvements with Windows 10.
Well... check this post: http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5132768&postcount=12

#5133247 Posted on: 07/31/2015 10:04 AM

---

I'm pretty sure that AMD's APUs will do a lot better in Dx12 than Intel's iGPUs since AMD's APUs have more Dx12 HW accelerated instructions than Intel's iGPUs. Intel will have to do more stuff on CPU than AMD.
On external GPUs the story changes obviously.

Well... check this post: http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5132768&postcount=12

Of course GCN based APU's will benefit a lot from DX12 because of the feature level and extra optional function support.

Well... check this post: http://forums.guru3d.com/showpost.php?p=5132768&postcount=12

That doesn't say much. They're just doing what they enjoy doing.

#5133308 Posted on: 07/31/2015 11:46 AM

---

Much of the DirectX 11 improvements are AMD driver improvements apparently, which I guess you could consider as being official as of 15.7.1. Of course, one would expect some of this is due to the updated DX11 system libraries though. Additionally, there will probably be further improvements to this in the future, although maybe not to the same amount.

So, the i7-4790K boosts to 4.4 GHz? So, how come my i5-3570K+R9-280X under Windows 10 at 4.3 GHZ, has 20 percent higher draw call performance compared to the i7-4790K boosting to 4.4 GHz (not forgetting it has higher IPC anyway)? The only reasonable answer would be that the test wasn't done using 15.7.1.

I wholeheartedly refute the claim that the driver overhead reduction by AMD is a myth. It's likely that this claim is a result of sore NVIDIA users who have yet to get a proper Windows 10 driver .

#5133309 Posted on: 07/31/2015 11:48 AM

---

That's what I said originally

#5133311 Posted on: 07/31/2015 11:52 AM

---

I know, I was just backing it up with evidence .

#5133313 Posted on: 07/31/2015 11:52 AM

---

Not surprised either. Who actually thought that Dx11 performance would change from Win8.1 to Win10?

The real difference comes with Dx12 vs Dx11, where Dx12 hardware will shine against older Dx11 hardware, and where CPU performance will be a bit less important than with Dx11. That's what AMD is talking about their "magic" stick, their underpowered CPUs will be able to shine better in games thanks to Dx12 (even more the APUs).

Yep, exactly my thoughts. AMD's processors are very weak in single-threaded, DX12 should change the landscape since their octa-cores are not that bad in multithreaded.

#5133314 Posted on: 07/31/2015 11:58 AM

---

The reason AMD CPU's will clearly benefit is because IPC matters in CPU overhead, the quicker the IPC the more work the GPU can do, if we talk about draw calls.
Since Intel have a higher IPC, CPU overhead is still a problem but the GPU can perform better, that's why lately you see AMD CPU's being far behind in games, FPS wise.
When DX12 is here, CPU bound will be shifted over to GPU bound. That means more innovation will be needed for GPU's to equal it out and at the same time developers will be able to put CPU's to more use because it will no longer cause bottlenecks in the game.
GTA 5 is a good example when you up extended viewing scaling etc, FPS is hit a lot because the CPU has to do much more work and that bottlenecks the driver thread.
Project CARS is another example. AMD GPU's were being bottlenecked. That's why it performed much better on Windows 10 because of the earlier CPU overhead optimizations.

Intel will benefit too as games don't just require a GPU but a CPU too. As I said above, developers will be able to use the CPU more for more complex things like physics and AI. CPU performance will matter there.

#5133358 Posted on: 07/31/2015 12:42 PM

---

On windows 8.1 i was using 15.7, on windows 10 15.7.1. Also regarding the "lower than 3570K" performance. I locked my CPU to 3.1Ghz. So the 4790K is running at 3.1Ghz, and not 4Ghz. As the 4Ghz, reported is the stock clock without boost. at 3.1Ghz its only pulling max 48W.

My apologies for not clarifying the CPU clocks. I see no reason to be running my CPU and full when i only need 80%.. maybe in a year or so i'll need the rest of the speed.

#5133359 Posted on: 07/31/2015 12:44 PM

---

On windows 8.1 i was using 15.7, on windows 10 15.7.1. Also regarding the "lower than 3570K" performance. I locked my CPU to 3.1Ghz. So the 4790K is running at 3.1Ghz, and not 4Ghz. As the 4Ghz, reported is the stock clock without boost. at 3.1Ghz its only pulling max 48W.

My apologies for not clarifying the CPU clocks. I see no reason to be running my CPU and full when i only need 80%.. maybe in a year or so i'll need the rest of the speed.

Are you positive the clocks were locked to 3.1GHz with Windows 10? It still doesn't make sense why there's such a big difference.

#5133369 Posted on: 07/31/2015 12:55 PM

---

It also kind of defeats the purpose of having an i7-4790K if you are going to have it run on such a low clock. There is also the 'proof' per se, that doing so is kind of pointless!

I'm pretty sure you can adjust the min and maximum clocks accordingly. By forcing 3 GHz you are probably using more power than doing the above!... At least if you set up the min and max clocks accordingly, if you need the extra performance it is there, but otherwise it will run at the desired, lower clock speed.