![]() Nvidia is getting the same performance from far fewer resources using a way more advanced scheduler. (The relation is similar with other comparable products with AMD vs. If you compare GTX 980 Ti to Fury X we are talking about: But the reason why AMD may draw larger benefits from async shaders is because their scheduler is unable to saturate their huge count of cores. Nvidia hasn't changed shoes because they still work.Ĭlick to expand.It's correct that AMD's architecture is wastly different (in terms of queues and scheduling) compared to Nvidia's. In a DX12 race, AMD actually starts the race with good shoes and 'terrain' dependent, might start faster.ĪCE's are AMD's DX12 Async running shoes. AMD on the other hand starts slower and without shoes on (in a pre-DX12 race) but gets into a good stride as the race progresses, starting to catch up on Nvidia. It's as if in a 10K road race, Nvidia always start the race fast and keeps that speed up. Nvidia's design works on all API's at it's near optimum. ACE are proprietary to AMD and only help in DX12, Async settings. There's a massive philisophical and scientific misunderstanding about Asynchronous compute and Async hardware. With DX12, Nvidia can't give much more but AMD can utilise the other 10-15% of the cards design. So what you really have is before DX12 and Async in particular, NVidia gave you 95% (metaphorically speaking) performance of their chip. AMD's implementation of Asynchronous Compute Engines (ACE) meant that the GCN architecture worked far below potential in DX11. Nvidia's current cards (and last gen I suppose) already work out at near optimal performance for the architectural design. It's perfectly okay to use Async in games. ![]() It can also make use of several beyond-4K display resolutions. The test almost exponentially increases the 3D processing load over "Fire Strike," by leveraging the low-overhead API features of DirectX 12, to present a graphically intense 3D test-scene that can make any gaming/enthusiast PC of today break a sweat. For this reason, the test requires Windows 10. The price of 3DMark Advanced for new users has been revised from its existing $24.99 to $29.99, as new 3DMark Advanced purchases include the fully-unlocked "Time Spy." Futuremark announced limited-period offers that last up till 23rd July, in which the "Time Spy" upgrade key for existing 3DMark Advanced users can be had for $4.99, and the 3DMark Advanced Edition (minus "Time Spy") for $9.99.įuturemark 3DMark "Time Spy" has been developed with inputs from AMD, NVIDIA, Intel, and Microsoft, and takes advantage of the new DirectX 12 API. All existing 3DMark Basic and Advanced users have limited access to "Time Spy," existing 3DMark Advanced users have the option of unlocking the full feature-set of "Time Spy" with an upgrade key that's priced at US $9.99. Futuremark released the latest addition to the 3DMark benchmark suite, the new "Time Spy" benchmark and stress-test.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |