NVIDIA Will Fully Implement Async Compute Via Driver Support
Click here to post a comment for NVIDIA Will Fully Implement Async Compute Via Driver Support on our message forum
eGGroLLiO
This is just my opinion, but there's just no way I can take the Ashes of Singularity developers seriously when you have to spend 45.00 to get this benchmark for testing. This is obviously a marketing ploy to stir up controversy and get attention for this game.
If they want credibility they'll need to release the benchmark free of charge to everyone. Otherwise I'm not listening to some game developer who might well be shilling for AMD. I wasn't born yesterday and I can smell PR at work here.
Vbs
cleverman
Self defeating but let them try,
it will be fun to watch them fail.
Software cant replace hardware.
Noisiv
Srsbsns
So all this does is confirm what was said previous that context switching will need to be used because Nvidia hardware lacks ASYNC shaders... If software has to be used this is just a work around. This article is written like there is some new revelation.
This is still software emulation of true ASYNC shaders. Nvidia will probably need to create custom scheduling for each game which I dont see happening. What if the game changes... Sounds like a driver nightmare.
You can guarantee if there was no performance penalty for this then AMD wouldn't have made it a hardware feature. FCAT will be very telling once the latency numbers go through the roof. John Carmack even came out and said GCN was the way to go for VR and Nvidia is a non starter.
---TK---
Maxwell 2: Queues in Software, work distributor in software (context switching), Asynchronous Warps in hardware, DMA Engines in hardware, CUDA cores in hardware.
GCN: Queues/Work distributor/Asynchronous Compute engines (ACEs/Graphic Command Processor) in hardware, Copy (DMA Engines) in hardware, CUs in hardware.â
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/nvidia-will-fully-implement-async-compute-via-driver-support-oxide-confirms/
Does not appear everything is software based.
fry178
@Denial
+1
@cleverman
right...
but, maybe tell that to all the people on the planet playing console ports in software/emulator on a pc...
or the legal/illegal (depending on country) use of software to decrypt dvd/BDs as another example.
BedantP
http://i3.kym-cdn.com/entries/icons/facebook/000/006/077/so_good.png
Feeling better đ
So, NVIDIA's gonna feel the same boost as AMD?
We gotta stay ahead of the consoles man!
theoneofgod
artikot
guskline
I own both a single GTX980TI in my 5960x rig and twin R9-290s (CF) in my 4790k rig so I guess I'm not going to panic either way.
Here's what I see. First denials comments I agree with.
Second, the cold hard reality is that Nvidia has @80% market share and AMD has 20%. I expected AMD to come out with all guns blazing and they have. Will it have much effect on the average buyer? Not sure. Will it turn around AMD's Graphics division? Not sure, but I doubt it.
First in the higher end market, Fiji appears in demand but perhaps it's because the supply is LOW. Second the BUZZ about Nano sure gets quiet when you see the price.
I think the ASYNC shader "issue" was a PR idea created by AMD to sell their lower end cards at a higher price than before and an effort to cut into Nvidia's bread and butter. I give them credit, it sure is getting play.
We'll see how it turns out.
cowie
Webhiker
Fox2232
Turanis
Still nvidia dont have an answer about this ,say,issue.
If ,as that Oxide dev say,that driver will make Async Compute work on Maxwell and will work "natively",why then the nvidia push Oxide to stop Async in that game:
"Oxideâs developer also revealed that NVIDIAâs Maxwell does not support natively Async Compute, and that NVIDIA asked Oxide to disable it for its graphics cards."
Its obvious that the driver will make Async Compute work only software ,not hardware? So nvidia still dont respond.
âPersonally, I think one could just as easily make the claim that we were biased toward Nvidia as the only âvendorâ specific code is for Nvidia where we had to shutdown async compute. By vendor specific, I mean a case where we look at the Vendor ID and make changes to our rendering path. Curiously, their driver reported this feature was functional but attempting to use it was an unmitigated disaster in terms of performance and conformance so we shut it down on their hardware. As far as I know, Maxwell doesnât really have Async Compute so I donât know why their driver was trying to expose that. The only other thing that is different between them is that Nvidia does fall into Tier 2 class binding hardware instead of Tier 3 like AMD which requires a little bit more CPU overhead in D3D12, but I donât think it ended up being very significant. This isnât a vendor specific path, as itâs responding to capabilities the driver reports.â Oxide dev.
Denial
Fox2232
Lane
stereoman
The way I see it I'd rather just stand by and watch all this unfold, I'm sure Nvidia's solution to Async will be just as elegant as AMD's and if not they will make it up in another area so ultimately the performance difference will be negligible but people love to create controversy where there is none, fact is there's hardly any DX12 capable applications out there atm and we've yet to see a card that offers full hardware support of DX12 from either camp, hell we've only just started using Windows 10, drivers will take time to mature but it's like some people expect things to just work over night.
cleverman
Its the same reason AMD cards are better at bitcoin or light coin mining,
Its no different.
Nothing nvid can do about this,
If they want to emulate something let them but keep your eye on the latency,
It will be pointless.
But its fun to watch them try.
Next year they will bring out a new gpu design and we will all be happy but existing graphics cards are screwed.
Let the battle continue because we all benefit.