3DMark Timespy is out!

[xkm1948]

 

[Ferrum Master]

Well, to be fair

Look at his graph.

 

[the54thvoid]

Look at his graph.

What am I seeing?

EDIT: I see it. His Titan X is above Fury X but the Titan X scores 7 points less. Okay, a minor error - I was looking for something blatantly weird.

FWIW, I don't like his charts on synthetics because it doesn't give the breakdown score. I'd rather compare gfx scores on a gfx test - not the CPU altered version.

 

[RejZoR]

Still, Fury X taking on cards like Titan X and latest generation (GTX 1000 series) while it was hardly competing with GTX 980 back in its days, you have to admit it, that is impressive.

 

[D007]

What am I seeing?

EDIT: I see it. His Titan X is above Fury X but the Titan X scores 7 points less. Okay, a minor error - I was looking for something blatantly weird.

FWIW, I don't like his charts on synthetics because it doesn't give the breakdown score. I'd rather compare gfx scores on a gfx test - not the CPU altered version.

Same, I see no point in including the CPU score. That's why I just posted my GPU scores on various settings.
Trying to get an idea of the GPU's performance, not the individuals system.

Still, Fury X taking on cards like Titan X and latest generation (GTX 1000 series) while it was hardly competing with GTX 980 back in its days, you have to admit it, that is impressive.

Would of made a big deal for people considering ATI last round, if they had utilized it's capabilities, like async.

 

[Ferrum Master]

What am I seeing?

EDIT: I see it. His Titan X is above Fury X but the Titan X scores 7 points less. Okay, a minor error - I was looking for something blatantly weird.

FWIW, I don't like his charts on synthetics because it doesn't give the breakdown score. I'd rather compare gfx scores on a gfx test - not the CPU altered version.

He does it all the time. his articles are rubbish. Guru3D has serious problems also besides that. But yea... this is just an epeen thread. Altough it helps to debug your own system if the other chap has a similar setup and you perform worse.

 

[the54thvoid]

Still, Fury X taking on cards like Titan X and latest generation (GTX 1000 series) while it was hardly competing with GTX 980 back in its days, you have to admit it, that is impressive.

Fury X competed closely with 980ti. Titan X is a higher core, lower clock chip. Fury X was always a game dependent card but it lost out to the heavy OC of custom 980ti's.

It lost fps at lower resolutions as well but that's still the case.

What I keep saying is that, what is truly impressive is that a card that 'apparently' can't do Async, does fine.

Not comparing to RX480 but even with Async enabled, the Pascal jumps 5%. The small jump is because it already is highly optimised.

 

[RejZoR]

It does well because of raw performance. Everything will always make a big jump if you cram enough of everything in the chip. And gains obtained by NVIDIA cards are mostly due to lower overhead which works with any DX12 compatible card, async or not.

 

[the54thvoid]

It does well because of raw performance. Everything will always make a big jump if you cram enough of everything in the chip. And gains obtained by NVIDIA cards are mostly due to lower overhead which works with any DX12 compatible card, async or not.

Exactly. That's a good thing. It doesn't need the same hardware to do the same job.

 

[arbiter]

Still, Fury X taking on cards like Titan X and latest generation (GTX 1000 series) while it was hardly competing with GTX 980 back in its days, you have to admit it, that is impressive.

top fury cards getting around 5000-5500. Mine i have is 7500 which is 40-50% difference.

 

[Recon-UK]

AMD sucks under DX11 API, i seem to think that the biggest jumps are coming from the API switch more than anything.
Driver overhead and single threaded drivers are what make AMD stay behind in DX11.

 

[R-T-B]

AMD sucks under DX11 API, i seem to think that the biggest jumps are coming from the API switch more than anything.
Driver overhead and single threaded drivers are what make AMD stay behind in DX11.

This is my opinion as well. In DX12 the burden of optimization to the target platform is shifted to the programmer. In DX11 the driver is supposed to do a lot of this for you. AMD's DX11 driver did a pretty poor job at that though, while NVIDIA's managed pretty dang well.

 

[Shou Miko]

Well did a run with my System Specs with only ram clocked to 2400mhz

Link: http://www.3dmark.com/3dm/13231336?

 

[z1tu]

Managed to get a few points higher with the new drivers - http://www.3dmark.com/spy/29126

 

[Lt_JWS]

here's a run on mine for the hell of it.... laughable performance on the 6100 @ 4Ghz lol

 

[R-T-B]

I know it's kinda a small group, but I am currently in the top 5 systems (on several runs lol) featuring the Titan X and 6700k. Position #3 as of now:

http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?url=...700K&gpuName=NVIDIA GTX TITAN X&mode=advanced

Cool.

 

[Shou Miko]

I know it's kinda a small group, but I am currently in the top 5 systems (on several runs lol) featuring the Titan X and 6700k. Position #3 as of now:

http://www.3dmark.com/search#/?url=/proxycon/ajax/search/cpugpu/spy/P/2005/1018/8000?minScore=8&cpuName=Intel Core i7-6700K&gpuName=NVIDIA GTX TITAN X&mode=advanced

Cool.

I can match that with my GTX1070, 16gigs @ 2400mhz stock i7: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/28470

And 3DMark says my GTX 1070 is only running core 350mhz and mem 1200mhz if that's true I most have a good power saving with a lot of powah

 

[R-T-B]

I can match that with my GTX1070, 16gigs @ 2400mhz stock i7: http://www.3dmark.com/spy/28470

And 3DMark says my GTX 1070 is only running core 350mhz and mem 1200mhz if that's true I most have a good power saving with a lot of powah

I was explicitly limiting my group to Maxwell's . The fact that I can even touch pascal pleases me, lol.

Really, I'm just happy that I'm hanging with the big boys on air cooling. Now let's hope my VRMs don't explode, lol.

 

[Shou Miko]

I was explicitly limiting my group to Maxwell's . The fact that I can even touch pascal pleases me, lol.

Really, I'm just happy that I'm hanging with the big boys on air cooling. Now let's hope my VRMs don't explode, lol.

with ur aftermarket gfx cooler u should be fine if u installed everything bcs that triple fan setup Arctic Cooling has going on, on their Accelero Xtreme series does preform much better then stock nvidia cooler.

 

[ViperXTR]

It looks like ill have a low score for this bench, CPU holding me back

 

[fullinfusion]

I see crossfire isn't working or is it just me?

I had 2 gpu-z monitoring both cards and the 2nd card was just sitting @300mhz

 

[R00kie]

I see crossfire isn't working or is it just me?

I had 2 gpu-z monitoring both cards and the 2nd card was just sitting @300mhz

It should work, since the benchmark supports MDA.

 

[z1tu]

I see crossfire isn't working or is it just me?

I had 2 gpu-z monitoring both cards and the 2nd card was just sitting @300mhz

SLI definitely works as I've seen many SLI results so far.

 

[JATownes]

I'll post some scores when I get back to the house, but just in case anyone is curious why AMD cards are not seeing the dramatic increase we've seen in the Doom Vulkan patch or in AotS, it appears that Futuremark implemented VERY limited use of Async workloads.

"In the case of async compute, Futuremark is using it to overlap rendering passes, though they do note that 'the asynchronous compute workload per frame varies between 10-20%.' " Source:http://www.anandtech.com/show/10486/futuremark-releases-3dmark-time-spy-directx12-benchmark

It appears if the Async workloads were more fully utilized, say up to 60-70% per frame, that the results would be very dramatic and weighted heavily in AMD's favor.

Edit: For clarity, I might be misinterpreting the quote, and would love someone more knowledgeable than me to correct me if this is a misconception on my part.

Just my 2 cents.

JAT

 

[Hockster]

Cool, if only this ran on Windows 7, the OS which is used by most gamers...

Not according to Steam...

http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey