GALAX GeForce RTX 3080 SG review
Palit GeForce RTX 3080 GamingPro review
MSI GeForce RTX 3080 GAMING X TRIO review
ASUS GeForce RTX 3080 TUF Gaming review
GeForce RTX 3080 Founder review
Gigabyte B550 Vision D review
HP EX900 PRO 1TB NVMe SSD review
GeForce RTX 3070, 3080 and 3090 preview & analysis
Be Quiet! Dark Power Pro 12 - 1500 Watt PSU Review
ASUS ProArt PA278QV Monitor Review
Quick test: Futuremark 3DMark v2.3.3663 Vulkan API Overhead Benchmarks
Futuremark just released 3DMark v2.3.3663 with support for Vulkan in their API overhead test, we ran some quick tests to see what is happeing.
This means you can now compare the API performance of Vulkan, DirectX 12, and DirectX 11 with one easy-to-use test. Vulkan is a new graphics API that provides high-efficiency, low-level access to modern GPUs in a wide variety of devices from PCs to smartphones. APIs like Vulkan and DirectX 12 make better use of multi-core CPUs to streamline code execution and eliminate software bottlenecks, particularly for draw calls. Games typically make thousands of draw calls per frame, but each one creates performance-limiting overhead for the CPU. Vulkan and DirectX 12 reduce that overhead, which means more objects, textures and effects can be drawn to the screen. The 3DMark API Overhead feature test measures API performance by making a steadily increasing number of draw calls. The result of the test is the number of draw calls per second achieved by each API before the frame rate drops below 30 FPS. The Vulkan test replaces the Mantle test found in previous versions. Now I did chart up some results, see below:
The purpose of the test is to compare the relative performance of different APIs on a single system. The API Overhead feature test is not a general-purpose GPU benchmark, and it should not be used to compare graphics cards from different vendors. It more for you to see how much faster or slower DX12 is compared to Vulkan. You'll notice that the AMD Radeon card scores are way off. Again, this is not a graphics GPU test, but a test that shows your system API renderer performance in relation towards your setup. I have no clue about the AMD results as they are, I did run them three times and even re-installed drivers and re-seated the cards into another slot. I also have to mention that in the past we stepped away from the API test as the results back then also showed a lot of platform inconsistency.
Though overall Vulkan might be a notch slower compared to D3D12, it certainly is shaping up to become a very fast API. Talking about platforms, I figured why not quickly compare Ryzen 7 1700 versus Core i7 5960X (both 8-cores / 16-threads).
You will notice that Core i7 5960X is clocked at 4.3 GHz. The Ryzen 7 1700 is clocked at 4.1 GHz, it is the highest frequency we can obtain stable. Not bad really, the 1200 USD Intel processor is faster, especially combined with quad-channel and a 200 MHz x8 cores advantage. That 329 USD Ryzen 7 is holding up nicely.
Now I also ran the Ryzen Platform with the Fury X to be certain there isn't a bug on the X99 platform causing this behaviour:
So moving the Radeon Fury X towards a completely different system did not change the performance bracket at all. There might be a bug in the current AMD drivers, Futuremark still has some fixing to do or it just is what it is.
Quick Test: 3DMark TimeSpy DirectX 12 Benchmarks - 07/15/2016 11:29 AM
For those that missed the news. it seems that Time Spy, the new DirectX 12 benchmark test from Futuremark is available as DLC right now on Steam, coming soon to all Windows editions of 3DMark. With i...
Quick test: DirectX 12 API Overhead Benchmark results - 03/26/2015 08:09 PM
As you guys know, DirectX 12 is going to greatly free up processor utilization, and thus your games can make more draw-calls with your processor. More efficient usage of CPUs with multiple cores is tr...
NVIDIA PhysX Quick Test - 06/20/2008 01:47 PM
As you guys likely know NVIDIA issued a new PhysX supporting driver to the press, which (driver) actually already got leaked. This driver will enable and allow a significant set of Physics functions t...
mtrai
Senior Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: 2013-09-21
Senior Member
Posts: 1175
Joined: 2013-09-21
#5412413 Posted on: 03/25/2017 08:43 PM
While it answered my questions on the DX11 from my HD 7770 and RX 480 it did not explain very well reviewers much lower AMD scores across the board then real people are getting out in the real world. My question to futuremark was very specific on on the DX 11 results alone...as to reviewers results was to ask the reviewer,
Good points, I noticed that in small sections of the benchmarks that my GPU hit 100% load - towards the end of the tests when there are shed loads of draw calls on the screen. It was at those points that my GPU was the bottleneck, so I can see why more powerful GPUs can increase the scores slightly, and it's probably why I have very similar scores to the guy I replied to earlier who has a GTX 1070 - we probably became GPU limited at the same point in the test because both of our CPUs were able to deliver enough draw calls - mine through high CPU clocks and 8 threads & the other guy by having a bazzillion cores on his server CPU (GeniusPr0 and his BWE Xeon 18C/36T 2.745Ghz).
While it answered my questions on the DX11 from my HD 7770 and RX 480 it did not explain very well reviewers much lower AMD scores across the board then real people are getting out in the real world. My question to futuremark was very specific on on the DX 11 results alone...as to reviewers results was to ask the reviewer,
Undying
Senior Member
Posts: 13499
Joined: 2008-08-28
Senior Member
Posts: 13499
Joined: 2008-08-28
#5412592 Posted on: 03/26/2017 03:41 PM
for me,
DX12 was consistently hitting just over 17,000,000 draw-calls per second. (most 17,220,483)
Vulcan was consistently hitting just under 16,000,000 draw-calls per second. (most 15,985,491)
Is that gtx780 and how far is it overclocked?
This is the best i could do with 280X. I dont think this translates to real world performance. Im positive my card outperformed yours in Doom using Vulkan according to the web benchmarks and my experience.
DX12 - 14 073 975
Vulkan - 13 710 626
for me,
DX12 was consistently hitting just over 17,000,000 draw-calls per second. (most 17,220,483)
Vulcan was consistently hitting just under 16,000,000 draw-calls per second. (most 15,985,491)
Is that gtx780 and how far is it overclocked?
This is the best i could do with 280X. I dont think this translates to real world performance. Im positive my card outperformed yours in Doom using Vulkan according to the web benchmarks and my experience.
DX12 - 14 073 975
Vulkan - 13 710 626
-Tj-
Senior Member
Posts: 16933
Joined: 2012-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 16933
Joined: 2012-05-18
#5412677 Posted on: 03/26/2017 08:59 PM
I got ~17mill with my old gtx780 @ 1150MHz boost,
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/aot/198728/aot/192915/aot/62970/aot/46129
last result was best off dx11 ST, now latest 378.92 driver went a bit further
I got ~17mill with my old gtx780 @ 1150MHz boost,
http://www.3dmark.com/compare/aot/198728/aot/192915/aot/62970/aot/46129
last result was best off dx11 ST, now latest 378.92 driver went a bit further
vase
Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: 2015-03-20
Senior Member
Posts: 1653
Joined: 2015-03-20
#5412736 Posted on: 03/27/2017 02:33 AM
Is that gtx780 and how far is it overclocked?
This is the best i could do with 280X. I dont think this translates to real world performance. Im positive my card outperformed yours in Doom using Vulkan according to the web benchmarks and my experience.
DX12 - 14 073 975
Vulkan - 13 710 626
He gets higher drawcalls because his CPU has better multicore performance.
The GPU is just a small factor here.
If you replace your 280X with something older or newer you won't see much difference in the API benchmark as long as you use the same CPU.
But a small increase/decrease in CPU power (OC or underclock) and you will see a bigger impact on these numbers.
Is that gtx780 and how far is it overclocked?
This is the best i could do with 280X. I dont think this translates to real world performance. Im positive my card outperformed yours in Doom using Vulkan according to the web benchmarks and my experience.
DX12 - 14 073 975
Vulkan - 13 710 626
He gets higher drawcalls because his CPU has better multicore performance.
The GPU is just a small factor here.
If you replace your 280X with something older or newer you won't see much difference in the API benchmark as long as you use the same CPU.
But a small increase/decrease in CPU power (OC or underclock) and you will see a bigger impact on these numbers.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 1487
Joined: 2012-10-07
I started asking a few question about some of these descrepancies and got directed to the updated 3dMark Technical Guide. There is a lot more details on each test and all in this guide. I suggest taking a look at it to really see some eye opening things that we have been comparing but yet futuremark states we cannot compare using their tests.
Link: http://s3.amazonaws.com/download-aws.futuremark.com/3DMark_Technical_Guide.pdf
Specifically pages 112 and 113 to answer my questions on the API testing.
Correct use of the API Overhead feature test
The API Overhead feature test is not a general-purpose GPU benchmark, and it
should not be used to compare graphics cards from different vendors.
The test is designed to make API overhead the performance bottleneck. It does
this by maximizing the number of draw calls in a scene, (by drawing a huge
number of individual ‘buildings’), while minimizing the GPU load, (by using
simple shaders and no lighting effects). This an artificial scenario that is
unlikely to be found in games, which typically aim to achieve high levels of
detail and exceptional visual quality.
The benefit of reducing API overhead is greatest when the CPU is the limiting
factor. With modern APIs and fast CPUs, the test can become GPU bound, but
not always in a way that is meaningful from a general GPU performance
perspective. The point at which the test moves from being CPU-bound to GPUbound
changes from system to system. It is not easy to tell from the test
results whether the run was CPU or GPU limited. And what's more, it is difficult
to isolate the relative impact of GPU performance and driver performance.
As a result, you should be careful making conclusions about GPU performance
when comparing API Overhead test results from different systems. For
instance, we would advise against comparing the Vulkan score from an AMD
GPU with the DirectX 12 score from an NVIDIA GPU. Likewise, it could be
misleading to credit the GPU for any difference in DirectX 12 performance
between an AMD GPU and an NVIDIA GPU.
Another scenario, for example, would be to test DirectX 12 performance with a
range of CPUs in a system with a fixed GPU. Or, you could test a vendor's range
of GPUs, from budget to high-end, and keep the CPU fixed. But in both cases,
the nature of the test means it will not show you the extent to which the
performance differences are due to the hardware and how much is down to
the driver.
The proper use of the test is to compare the relative performance of each API
on a single system, rather than the absolute performance of different systems.
The focus on single-system testing is one reason why the API Overhead test is
called a feature test rather than a benchmark.
Good points, I noticed that in small sections of the benchmarks that my GPU hit 100% load - towards the end of the tests when there are shed loads of draw calls on the screen. It was at those points that my GPU was the bottleneck, so I can see why more powerful GPUs can increase the scores slightly, and it's probably why I have very similar scores to the guy I replied to earlier who has a GTX 1070 - we probably became GPU limited at the same point in the test because both of our CPUs were able to deliver enough draw calls - mine through high CPU clocks and 8 threads & the other guy by having a bazzillion cores on his server CPU (GeniusPr0 and his BWE Xeon 18C/36T 2.745Ghz).