NVIDIA PCI-Express Resizable BAR Performance Test

[cazzie.nl]

Hello TPU, i am wondering something ... Those whom have the correct specs for BAR can see a 'large memory range' in device mamager / display adapter.
I found this pic elsewhere here on tpu so it is not a screenshot of mine hardware specs, it is just an example.

1: regedit: can we fiddle around to make windows believe we have compatible hardware to make Resizable BAR work ?

2: do we have to wait for custom made firmware / vbios for non-supported hardware ?

What are your thoughts

 

[Sora]

1: regedit: can we fiddle around to make windows believe we have compatible hardware to make Resizable BAR work ?

no.

 

[Lycanwolfen]

It's funny I look at those numbers in 4k and my SLI setup spanks everyone of them.

 

[Franzen4Real]

Thank you for the great article @W1zzard. Do you happen to have a write up here on the site that would help to better understand Frame Distribution and Frame Time, and how those graphs correlate to what we experience in game?

Honestly, after enabling ReBar on my system, my games feel noticeably smoother. And it's not placebo.

Just curious if you're also running freesync or gsync with rebar enabled?

 

[Deleted member 205776]

Just curious if you're also running freesync or gsync with rebar enabled?

My monitor is G-Sync but I don't use it as games that are locked to 60 FPS stutter.

 

[W1zzard]

Hello TPU, i am wondering something ... Those whom have the correct specs for BAR can see a 'large memory range' in device mamager / display adapter.
I found this pic elsewhere here on tpu so it is not a screenshot of mine hardware specs, it is just an example.

1: regedit: can we fiddle around to make windows believe we have compatible hardware to make Resizable BAR work ?

2: do we have to wait for custom made firmware / vbios for non-supported hardware ?

What are your thoughts

1) no, the resource allocations are created by the driver on startup
2) i doubt that modders can build an unofficial firmware with bar support

 

[R-T-B]

2) i doubt that modders can build an unofficial firmware with bar support

Even if they could, nvidia signs firmware blobs now, so autonope.

 

[W1zzard]

Even if they could, nvidia signs firmware blobs now, so autonope.

That too

 

[Ravenas]

I have that msi b450 gaming plus and I can confirm it got a bios for it and in the bios there is an option to enable rebar, however I have not done the test yet to confirm if it works with the 3xxx series, i have a 3080 but not using as main gpu right now, I'm using a gtx 1070 as main and rebar does not work with pascal yet, yeah only 3xxx series but like i said i have to confirm it.

I have the option for rebar, but it restricted to SAM technology only.

 

[Viruzz]

Thanks Nvidia, I'm sure the miners will make great use of these new features!

Not just miners.

 

[watzupken]

I think it will be good to see AMD with SAM enabled vs Nvidia with ReBar enabled in the charts.

 

[KLMR]

The use of updated BIOS and drivers makes me wonder if you have noticed any drop in FP32 or INT8/16 performance since the update.
nVIDIA wants to sell their crypto-p-oos and maybe they have introduced limiters in those fields in drivers, bios or both.

Any news on that?

 

[W1zzard]

The use of updated BIOS and drivers makes me wonder if you have noticed any drop in FP32 or INT8/16 performance since the update.
nVIDIA wants to sell their crypto-p-oos and maybe they have introduced limiters in those fields in drivers, bios or both.

Any news on that?

There is no limiter being introduced with these BIOSes. If there was, would result in a huge class action lawsuit that NVIDIA would lose

 

[Sora]

There is no limiter being introduced with these BIOSes. If there was, would result in a huge class action lawsuit that NVIDIA would lose

probably wouldn't lose it actually, but they'd sure be spending money to win it and thats not worth it.

The drivers and any nvidia software intended to be run on a Geforce part are already distributed with a TOS dictating that no warranty is available for device or performance loss.

6. DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES AND LIMITATIONS OF LIABILITY

6.1 No Warranties. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS" AND NVIDIA AND ITS SUPPLIERS DISCLAIM ALL WARRANTIES OF ANY KIND OR NATURE, WHETHER EXPRESS, IMPLIED, OR STATUTORY, RELATING TO OR ARISING FROM THE SOFTWARE, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, TITLE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT. Without limiting the foregoing, Customer is solely responsible for determining and verifying that the SOFTWARE that Customer obtains and installs is the appropriate version for Customer’s model of graphics controller board, operating system, and computer hardware.


6.2 Limitations of Liability. TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN NO EVENT SHALL NVIDIA OR ITS SUPPLIERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, INDIRECT, OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES WHATSOEVER, OR FOR DAMAGES FOR LOSS OF BUSINESS PROFITS, LOSS OF DATA, BUSINESS INTERRUPTION, OR LOSS OF BUSINESS INFORMATION ARISING OUT OF THE USE OF OR INABILITY TO USE THE SOFTWARE, EVEN IF NVIDIA HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES. IN NO EVENT WILL NVIDIA’S TOTAL CUMULATIVE LIABILITY UNDER OR ARISING OUT OF THIS LICENSE EXCEED THE NET AMOUNT PAID TO NVIDIA FOR CUSTOMER’S USE OF THE PARTICULAR SOFTWARE UPON WHICH LIABILITY IS BASED, OR US$10.00 IF NVIDIA RECEIVED NO FEES FOR CUSTOMER’S USE OF THE SOFTWARE.

 

[W1zzard]

probably wouldn't lose it actually, but they'd sure be spending money to win it and thats not worth it.

The drivers and any nvidia software intended to be run on a Geforce part are already distributed with a TOS dictating that no warranty is available for device or performance loss.

and no jury in this world would find it an acceptable excuse.

looks like nv's approach is to release new skus that are clearly marked as having a mining limiter