Intel Core i9 9900KS processor review
AMD Ryzen 9 3950X review
Promo: Windows 10 Pro for $13 With Office 2016 For $33
ASUS PRIME X570 Pro review
ASUS ROG STRIX Scope keyboard review
GALAX GeForce RTX 2070 Super WTF review
ADATA Spectrix S40G 512GB NVMe M.2 SSD review
Red Dead Redemption 2: PC graphics performance benchmark review
XFX Radeon RX 5700 XT THICC III Ultra review
Promo: URcdkey Halloween sale Windows 10 Pro for 11$
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 10:29 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 07:09 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 12:47 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...
Agonist
Senior Member
Posts: 2749
Joined: 2008-10-13
Senior Member
Posts: 2749
Joined: 2008-10-13
#5411430 Posted on: 03/23/2017 03:51 PM
For some reason, without touching anything, it says cancelled by user after DX11 ST runs.
For some reason, without touching anything, it says cancelled by user after DX11 ST runs.
Kaarme
Senior Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 2013-03-10
Senior Member
Posts: 1669
Joined: 2013-03-10
#5411437 Posted on: 03/23/2017 04:02 PM
I guess AMD forgot to send the technology consultation payment to Futuremark.
I guess AMD forgot to send the technology consultation payment to Futuremark.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5411449 Posted on: 03/23/2017 04:30 PM
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....
Quick test: Futuremark 3DMark v2.3.3663 Vulkan API Overhead Benchmarks
Thanks for the tests man. Any chance to put dots or commas to indicate thousands/millions etc? It's a bit hard to read.
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....
Quick test: Futuremark 3DMark v2.3.3663 Vulkan API Overhead Benchmarks
Thanks for the tests man. Any chance to put dots or commas to indicate thousands/millions etc? It's a bit hard to read.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 7004
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5411453 Posted on: 03/23/2017 04:34 PM
No. It's more like GCN is less efficient, although it's being corrected more or less. The only "modern" AMD card on this chart is the 480 and it's faster than its equivalent (the 1060), in modern APIs. Under DX11 you can see that NVIDIA is still almost +80% more draw call efficient, but AMD was starting from something like 600k draw calls and we're currently hovering at around 1.3 million. Still a long way to go, and I'm not sure that it can be done.
A friend with an untouched 6700k and 3200 RAM is telling me he's getting 2.2 million draw calls for his 280x (he had to get a CPU and he's still waiting to check Vega or drops to the 1080Ti price).
EDIT: NVIDIA's Vulkan performance is impressive, their DX12 one not as much. Since both APIs are quite similar, it's probably an indication of driver states.
I guess AMD forgot to send the technology consultation payment to Futuremark.
No. It's more like GCN is less efficient, although it's being corrected more or less. The only "modern" AMD card on this chart is the 480 and it's faster than its equivalent (the 1060), in modern APIs. Under DX11 you can see that NVIDIA is still almost +80% more draw call efficient, but AMD was starting from something like 600k draw calls and we're currently hovering at around 1.3 million. Still a long way to go, and I'm not sure that it can be done.
A friend with an untouched 6700k and 3200 RAM is telling me he's getting 2.2 million draw calls for his 280x (he had to get a CPU and he's still waiting to check Vega or drops to the 1080Ti price).
EDIT: NVIDIA's Vulkan performance is impressive, their DX12 one not as much. Since both APIs are quite similar, it's probably an indication of driver states.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5411461 Posted on: 03/23/2017 04:50 PM
After a certain point I doubt the numbers even matter. Most games are operating under the draw call limits of DX11 - there is no way any are even close to the limits of 12/Vulkan or will be in the foreseeable future.
After a certain point I doubt the numbers even matter. Most games are operating under the draw call limits of DX11 - there is no way any are even close to the limits of 12/Vulkan or will be in the foreseeable future.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5411473 Posted on: 03/23/2017 05:07 PM
I dont trust this Futuremark 3DMark
AMD is getting less performance soothing is going on.
There is a history with this benchmark program that favors nvidia but they deny is but this kind of proves they were lying.
No smoke without fire.
How does this prove they are lying? ... because AMD is slightly lower?
That's not even to mention that both Sniper 4/GoW4 both showed similar results on Nvidia hardware to TimeSpy. No one ever writes articles about that though - guess it isn't news worthy that TimeSpy was actually accurate.
Or to mention that the same test shows AMD's DX12 performance higher than Nvidia's equivalent. Why would they do that if they are so purposely anti-AMD?
Should also point out that there are now two people in this thread suggesting that there is foul play against AMD - which is becoming increasingly common. It's like impossible that AMD just has a few kinks it needs to work out - must be foul play. Literally everyone in the entire world is colluding against AMD - Microsoft, 3DMark, Intel, everyone. There simply cannot be any other explanation, right?
I dont trust this Futuremark 3DMark
AMD is getting less performance soothing is going on.
There is a history with this benchmark program that favors nvidia but they deny is but this kind of proves they were lying.
No smoke without fire.
How does this prove they are lying? ... because AMD is slightly lower?
That's not even to mention that both Sniper 4/GoW4 both showed similar results on Nvidia hardware to TimeSpy. No one ever writes articles about that though - guess it isn't news worthy that TimeSpy was actually accurate.
Or to mention that the same test shows AMD's DX12 performance higher than Nvidia's equivalent. Why would they do that if they are so purposely anti-AMD?
Should also point out that there are now two people in this thread suggesting that there is foul play against AMD - which is becoming increasingly common. It's like impossible that AMD just has a few kinks it needs to work out - must be foul play. Literally everyone in the entire world is colluding against AMD - Microsoft, 3DMark, Intel, everyone. There simply cannot be any other explanation, right?
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18333
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18333
Joined: 2009-01-06
#5411526 Posted on: 03/23/2017 06:54 PM
If there was anything dodgy going on AMD would make it public knowledge, they are not backward about that sort of thing.
Reminds me of Doom and how id were accused of being paid by Nvidia, now it's an example game lol.
The always cheated, never defeated attitude is getting silly.
Looking forward to testing this, but abit disappointed as I thought they were also patching Timespy, as while the drawcall tests are impressive, it's not entirely relevant for games.
If there was anything dodgy going on AMD would make it public knowledge, they are not backward about that sort of thing.
Reminds me of Doom and how id were accused of being paid by Nvidia, now it's an example game lol.
The always cheated, never defeated attitude is getting silly.
Looking forward to testing this, but abit disappointed as I thought they were also patching Timespy, as while the drawcall tests are impressive, it's not entirely relevant for games.
Anarion
Senior Member
Posts: 13529
Joined: 2005-08-13
Senior Member
Posts: 13529
Joined: 2005-08-13
#5411543 Posted on: 03/23/2017 07:27 PM
Yep. With Vulkan and DX12 draw calls shouldn't be thing that causes bottleneck.
After a certain point I doubt the numbers even matter. Most games are operating under the draw call limits of DX11 - there is no way any are even close to the limits of 12/Vulkan or will be in the foreseeable future.
Yep. With Vulkan and DX12 draw calls shouldn't be thing that causes bottleneck.
Ansau
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2017-03-23
Junior Member
Posts: 1
Joined: 2017-03-23
#5411557 Posted on: 03/23/2017 07:51 PM
These results are the amount of draw calls PER SECOND, not the maximum amount of draw calls handled.
A higher number can be interpretated to an improved frametime, as less time is required for a fixed amount of draw calls to be addressed.
Btw, there's something wrong with DX11 results for all AMD gpus, they should be around 1.8-2.3M for both DX11 ST and MT.
After a certain point I doubt the numbers even matter. Most games are operating under the draw call limits of DX11 - there is no way any are even close to the limits of 12/Vulkan or will be in the foreseeable future.
These results are the amount of draw calls PER SECOND, not the maximum amount of draw calls handled.
A higher number can be interpretated to an improved frametime, as less time is required for a fixed amount of draw calls to be addressed.
Btw, there's something wrong with DX11 results for all AMD gpus, they should be around 1.8-2.3M for both DX11 ST and MT.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 12388
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5411559 Posted on: 03/23/2017 07:58 PM
You are talking about dx12 gameworks games so kind of shot yourself in the foot right there.
Both games you speak of are dx12 not vulkan.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/10/07/dx12-gears-of-war-4/
You not helping your case at all in fact your supporting my claim.
Something is going on here because no way should vulkan be slower than dx12 ...
Just because results favor your hardware shouldn't make you instantly support such results because you are only lying to oneself then.
Te hole point of these programs are to compare performance.
If vulkan which is mantle re-branded is getting less performance than dx12 i say they have earned their wages this year.
Vulkan isn't Mantle rebranded. It's heavily based on Mantle, but it's not identical.
You posted a comment saying that 3DMark has favored Nvidia hardware purposely. That isn't true, period. In fact the article you posted (which got removed) concludes that it doesn't favor Nvidia so I'm not even sure why you posted it. Further proof is that there are now multiple games, one Nvidia sponsored - fine.. and Sniper 4, which isn't, that both run faster on DX12 vs 11 with Async Compute enabled - which matches the TimeSpy results.
And obviously there is something going on.. my issue is that you immediately make the assumption that it's foul play on 3DMark's part. It couldn't possibly be a bug in AMD's driver, right? It couldn't possibly be a bug in 3DMarks software? It couldn't possibly be because AMD's Vulkan implementation is slightly worse? It couldn't be because Nvidia's implementation is better? There are like 500,000,000 reasons for these results and you automatically assume it's foul play.
If it was a one off case, I wouldn't care.. but every time AMD is slightly behind in something it's the immediate assumption by multiple users in this forum. It's getting really tiresome.
You are talking about dx12 gameworks games so kind of shot yourself in the foot right there.
Both games you speak of are dx12 not vulkan.
https://blogs.nvidia.com/blog/2016/10/07/dx12-gears-of-war-4/
You not helping your case at all in fact your supporting my claim.
Something is going on here because no way should vulkan be slower than dx12 ...
Just because results favor your hardware shouldn't make you instantly support such results because you are only lying to oneself then.
Te hole point of these programs are to compare performance.
If vulkan which is mantle re-branded is getting less performance than dx12 i say they have earned their wages this year.
Vulkan isn't Mantle rebranded. It's heavily based on Mantle, but it's not identical.
You posted a comment saying that 3DMark has favored Nvidia hardware purposely. That isn't true, period. In fact the article you posted (which got removed) concludes that it doesn't favor Nvidia so I'm not even sure why you posted it. Further proof is that there are now multiple games, one Nvidia sponsored - fine.. and Sniper 4, which isn't, that both run faster on DX12 vs 11 with Async Compute enabled - which matches the TimeSpy results.
And obviously there is something going on.. my issue is that you immediately make the assumption that it's foul play on 3DMark's part. It couldn't possibly be a bug in AMD's driver, right? It couldn't possibly be a bug in 3DMarks software? It couldn't possibly be because AMD's Vulkan implementation is slightly worse? It couldn't be because Nvidia's implementation is better? There are like 500,000,000 reasons for these results and you automatically assume it's foul play.
If it was a one off case, I wouldn't care.. but every time AMD is slightly behind in something it's the immediate assumption by multiple users in this forum. It's getting really tiresome.
Redemption80
Senior Member
Posts: 18333
Joined: 2009-01-06
Senior Member
Posts: 18333
Joined: 2009-01-06
#5411560 Posted on: 03/23/2017 07:59 PM
Just because results favor your hardware shouldn't make you instantly support such results because you are only lying to oneself then.
Te hole point of these programs are to compare performance.
If vulkan which is mantle re-branded is getting less performance than dx12 i say they have earned their wages this year.
Just because you don't like the results doesn't make it not true either.
Maybe AMD just prioritise DX12 when it comes to drivers, it's not like their DX12 results are bad.
The 480 is around 20% faster than the 1060, or perhaps that's just money well spent by AMD..
Just because results favor your hardware shouldn't make you instantly support such results because you are only lying to oneself then.
Te hole point of these programs are to compare performance.
If vulkan which is mantle re-branded is getting less performance than dx12 i say they have earned their wages this year.
Just because you don't like the results doesn't make it not true either.
Maybe AMD just prioritise DX12 when it comes to drivers, it's not like their DX12 results are bad.
The 480 is around 20% faster than the 1060, or perhaps that's just money well spent by AMD..
edilsonj
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 2012-03-06
Member
Posts: 51
Joined: 2012-03-06
#5411563 Posted on: 03/23/2017 08:10 PM
Is in 3D Mark's Vulkan better on GTX 1060 than RX 480?
Well... can Futuremark fix Vulkan games on my GTX 1060 to make this real?
Is in 3D Mark's Vulkan better on GTX 1060 than RX 480?
Well... can Futuremark fix Vulkan games on my GTX 1060 to make this real?
HeavyHemi
Senior Member
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2008-10-27
Senior Member
Posts: 6281
Joined: 2008-10-27
#5411574 Posted on: 03/23/2017 08:52 PM
Well thanks 3DMark for breaking your bench and figuring out how to introduce a hardware fault... The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The bugcheck was: 0x000000d1
The DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL bug check has a value of 0x000000D1. This indicates that a kernel-mode driver attempted to access pageable memory at a process IRQL that was too high.
Is in 3D Mark's Vulkan better on GTX 1060 than RX 480?
Well... can Futuremark fix Vulkan games on my GTX 1060 to make this real?
Futuremark has nothing to do with fixing how an API works in games.
Well, finally got it to run...who knows?
DirectX 11 single-thread
2 377 030 Draw calls per second
DirectX 11 multi-thread
2 454 589 Draw calls per second
DirectX 12
33 556 899 Draw calls per second
Vulkan
20 729 572 Draw calls per second
Well thanks 3DMark for breaking your bench and figuring out how to introduce a hardware fault... The computer has rebooted from a bugcheck. The bugcheck was: 0x000000d1
The DRIVER_IRQL_NOT_LESS_OR_EQUAL bug check has a value of 0x000000D1. This indicates that a kernel-mode driver attempted to access pageable memory at a process IRQL that was too high.
Is in 3D Mark's Vulkan better on GTX 1060 than RX 480?
Well... can Futuremark fix Vulkan games on my GTX 1060 to make this real?
Futuremark has nothing to do with fixing how an API works in games.
Well, finally got it to run...who knows?
DirectX 11 single-thread
2 377 030 Draw calls per second
DirectX 11 multi-thread
2 454 589 Draw calls per second
DirectX 12
33 556 899 Draw calls per second
Vulkan
20 729 572 Draw calls per second
Dygaza
Senior Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 2015-05-18
Senior Member
Posts: 535
Joined: 2015-05-18
#5411578 Posted on: 03/23/2017 09:02 PM
AMD would need a lot higher clocks to match pascal performance in raw drawcall performance. Ofc this is only about how many drawcalls card can handle at max. I don't think we have games running over 10M for a long time.
What's really interesting is that Ryzen can pretty much keep up on DX11 ST. Which is all about single thread performance.
AMD would need a lot higher clocks to match pascal performance in raw drawcall performance. Ofc this is only about how many drawcalls card can handle at max. I don't think we have games running over 10M for a long time.
What's really interesting is that Ryzen can pretty much keep up on DX11 ST. Which is all about single thread performance.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 2353
Joined: 2009-04-27
Thanks for this Hilbert!