Thursday, July 14th 2016

Futuremark Releases 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Benchmark
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
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
91 Comments on Futuremark Releases 3DMark Time Spy DirectX 12 Benchmark
www.techpowerup.com/forums/threads/3dmark-time-spy-post-your-scores.224155/
Have a look at the Futuremark benchmark ticker, you might be surprised, it's not just high end.
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. 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...
"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.
trog
www.overclock.net/t/1606224/various-futuremarks-time-spy-directx-12-benchmark-compromised-less-compute-parallelism-than-doom-aots-also
[computerbase.de] DOOM + Vulkan Benchmarked. - Page 23
an interesting part of the post in the above link is this 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?
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...
yeah Timespy aint the right benchmark for looking at DX12 performance sadly
Ironic isn't it...
www.futuremark.com/pressreleases/a-closer-look-at-asynchronous-compute-in-3dmark-time-spy