Thursday, July 14th 2016

Futuremark Releases 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Benchmark

by
btarunr
 Discuss (91 Comments)
Futuremark released the latest addition to the 3DMark benchmark suite, the new "Time Spy" benchmark and stress-test. 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. 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.

Futuremark 3DMark "Time Spy" has been developed with inputs from AMD, NVIDIA, Intel, and Microsoft, and takes advantage of the new DirectX 12 API. For this reason, the test requires Windows 10. 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. It can also make use of several beyond-4K display resolutions.

DOWNLOAD: 3DMark with TimeSpy v2.1.2852

Related News

Add your own comment

91 Comments on Futuremark Releases 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Benchmark

#77
Caring1
trog100... benchmarks like time spy are all about high end.. people that download and run them dont do it to to prove how crap their PC is.. which is why its on my gaming desktop and not on my atom powered windows 10 tablet.. he he

trog
Not surprisingly people run benchmarks on all sorts of devices, because they want to know where their system fits in and how it performs in comparison to others.
Have a look at the Futuremark benchmark ticker, you might be surprised, it's not just high end.
Posted on Reply
#78
efikkan
sweetBasically the "A-sync" on Timespy is not the real A-sync integrated in Dx12 and Vulkan. It's a code path that can offer the similar effects IN THIS BENCH, and it "happens" to work well on nVidia's hardware. Even Maxwell can have a good time with this "A-sync" o_O
So when the facts doesn't fit your narrative you just tweak them until they do?
The lie about Nvidia lacking the support for Async shaders has gone on for too long, and it's only kept alive by people who know nothing about how GPU rendering and archtectures actually work.

You simply can't claim that Nvidia is "faking it" and is able to achieve improvements like "if they had async shaders in hardware". If that even were remotely true, why don't they "fake it" in all games receive even more performance in all games?
I've not yet seen a proper benchmark which cheats to make something less significant to help a vendor. It's usually the complete opposite; the benchmarks commonly weights some new feature far more than any game. If your claim about Futuremark implementing a separate pipeline to help Nvidia were true, they must be the most stupid developers ever. It would defeat the sole purpose of the benchmark, making no one take Futuremark seriously ever again.
nelizIndeed, it's about DirectX12 right now. I just can understand that everyone is ticked off that FutureMark is selling a "DirectX 12" benchmark, which actually doesn't do anything DirectX 12 related and just says "well, if we throw this work-load at it, we'll let the scheduler decide, which would be kinda like DX12" (talking about FM's response on Steam.)
How is this not a "DirectX 12 benchmark"?
You fanboys have been making up the rumor that AMD is so much better on everything Direct3D 12(based on AMD sponsored games BTW), and suddenly when unbiased benchmarks show up they suddenly don't qualify? You should be ashamed...
Posted on Reply
#79
sweet
efikkanSo when the facts doesn't fit your narrative you just tweak them until they do?
The lie about Nvidia lacking the support for Async shaders has gone on for too long, and it's only kept alive by people who know nothing about how GPU rendering and archtectures actually work.

You simply can't claim that Nvidia is "faking it" and is able to achieve improvements like "if they had async shaders in hardware". If that even were remotely true, why don't they "fake it" in all games receive even more performance in all games?



How is this not a "DirectX 12 benchmark"?
There is enough evidence to point out that Timespy is not a DirectX 12 benchmark.



"Use Dx11 if you can't do this", oh well o_O

Up until Timespy, there has been no single game that can boost nVidia's fps when Async is on. There is even regression on non-Pascal cards. And suddenly Timespy comes out and we see the boost? Oh, nothing shady here. :cool:

If you are so confident with your knowledge, take a good look at Timespy documentation. The "A-sync" used here is not the real A-sync integrated in Dx12/Vulkan.
Posted on Reply
#80
trog100
Caring1Not surprisingly people run benchmarks on all sorts of devices, because they want to know where their system fits in and how it performs in comparison to others.
Have a look at the Futuremark benchmark ticker, you might be surprised, it's not just high end.
ask the average PC user what their 3Dmark score is and all you will get is a blank look.. most people just use their computers not many care where they fit in the grand scheme of things.. :)

trog
Posted on Reply
#83
john_
I guess this is already posted somewhere
[computerbase.de] DOOM + Vulkan Benchmarked. - Page 23

an interesting part of the post in the above link is this
I am not disputing that Pascal can get a boost under light loads... never have. As for 3D Mark Time Fly... See concurrent vs parallel execution. All of the current games supporting Asynchronous Compute make use of parallel execution of compute and graphics tasks. 3D Mark Time Fly support concurrent. It is not the same Asynchronous Compute.

Concurrency fills in gaps which are in the execution pipeline. Parallelism executes two tasks at the same time.



Notice the context switch involved?
Parallelism reminds of me a 2 core cpu
Concurrency without parallelism reminds me of a 1 core cpu with Hyperthreading

They can't be scoring the same. If they are, then the benchmark is not reliable.


And there is one more question. Does Pascal really have extra hardware in there, compared to Maxwell? Or, what we see with 3DMark and Pascal cards is what Nvidia was promising in drivers to Maxwell owners, but never delivered?
Posted on Reply
#84
Exceededgoku
Also to add flames to the fire, I noticed that there was some stuttering on dual R9 295X2.

Obviously I expect AMD to release a driver update to resolve that, but we were told that stuttering would be resolved by DX12 - although the lack of async is probably at fault here in that regard...
Posted on Reply
#85
PerfectWave
All NVIDIA gpu should be labelled DX11 only ;)
yeah Timespy aint the right benchmark for looking at DX12 performance sadly
Posted on Reply
#86
Prima.Vera
Doom with Vulkan and AOTS are better benchmarks for D3D 12 imo.
Posted on Reply
#87
ShurikN
It's a sad thing for Futuremark when a single Vulkan game is more representative of true DX12 capabilities than their "DX12" benchmark software.
Ironic isn't it...
Posted on Reply
#90
Prima.Vera
ViperXTRFuturemark responded and released a more in depth detailed information regarding Async Compute in TimeSpy and even included the GPU View shown in Overclockers forums and explains the sequence for each architecture (GCN, Maxwell and Kepler).
www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/a-closer-look-at-asynchronous-compute-in-3dmark-time-spy
There is a lot of bla-bla-bla written there, but as far as I understood, the benchmark is not using any vendor dedicated optimization for the test, which in my opinion makes the benchmark useless for DX12, where it's all about optimisation. For normal tests you have the rest of DX11/10/9 from the Futuremark.
Posted on Reply
#91
Fluffmeister
Sorry @FM_Jarnis , but the AMD fanboys are still upset, could you make it more AMD focused next time?
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Mar 16th, 2025 22:44 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts