Subject: Graphics Cards | September 28, 2015 - 04:45 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: R9 Fury, asus strix r9 fury, r9 390x, GTX 980, crossfire, sli, 4k
Bring your wallets to this review from [H]ard|OCP which pits multiple AMD and NVIDIA GPUs against each other at 4K resolutions and no matter the outcome it won't be cheap! They used the Catalyst 15.8 Beta and the GeForce 355.82 WHQL which were the latest drivers available at the time of writing as well as trying out Windows 10 Pro x64. There were some interesting results, for instance you want an AMD card when driving in the rain playing Project Cars as the GTX 980's immediately slowed down in inclement weather. With Witcher 3, AMD again provided frames faster but unfortunately the old spectre of stuttering appeared, which those of you familiar with our Frame Rating tests will understand the source of. Dying Light proved to be a game that liked VRAM with the 390X taking top spot though sadly neither AMD card could handle Crossfire in Far Cry 4. There is a lot of interesting information in the review and AMD's cards certainly show their mettle but the overall winner is not perfectly clear, [H] chose Fury the R9 Fury with a caveat about Crossfire support.
"We gear up for multi-GPU gaming with AMD Radeon R9 Fury CrossFire, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 980 SLI, and AMD Radeon R9 390X CrossFire and share our head-to-head results at 4K resolution and find out which solution offers the best gameplay experience. How well does Fiji game when utilized in a CrossFire configuration?"
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- XFX R9 390X Review @ OCC
- MSI Radeon R9 380 Gaming 2G Review @ NikKTech
- Gigabyte GTX 950 Xtreme Gaming 2 GB @ techPowerUp
Subject: Graphics Cards | September 26, 2015 - 09:10 PM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: microsoft, windows 10, DirectX 12, dx12, nvidia
Programming with DirectX 12 (and Vulkan, and Mantle) is a much different process than most developers are used to. The biggest change is how work is submit to the driver. Previously, engines would bind attributes to a graphics API and issue one of a handful of “draw” commands, which turns the current state of the API into a message. Drivers would play around with queuing them and manipulating them, to optimize how these orders are sent to the graphics device, but the game developer had no control over that.
Now, the new graphics APIs are built more like command lists. Instead of bind, call, bind, call, and so forth, applications request queues to dump work into, and assemble the messages themselves. It even allows these messages to be bundled together and sent as a whole. This allows direct control over memory and the ability to distribute a lot of the command control across multiple CPU cores. Applications are only as fast as its slowest (relevant) thread, so the ability to spread work out increases actual performance.
NVIDIA has created a large list of things that developers should do, and others that they should not, to increase performance. Pretty much all of them apply equally, regardless of graphics vendor, but there are a few NVIDIA-specific comments, particularly the ones about NvAPI at the end and a few labeled notes in the “Root Signatures” category.
The tips are fairly diverse, covering everything from how to efficiently use things like command lists, to how to properly handle multiple GPUs, and even how to architect your engine itself. Even if you're not a developer, it might be interesting to look over to see how clues about what makes the API tick.
Subject: Graphics Cards | September 26, 2015 - 03:46 PM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: Nintendo, Khronos
Console developers need to use the APIs that are laid out by the system's creator. Nintendo has their own graphics API for the last three generations, called GX, although it is rumored to be somewhat like OpenGL. A few days ago, Nintendo's logo appeared on the Khronos Group's website as a Contributor Member. This leads sites like The Register to speculate that Nintendo “pledges allegiance to the Vulkan (API)”.
I wouldn't be so hasty.
There are many reasons why a company would want to become a member of the Khronos Group. Microsoft, for instance, decided that the small, $15,000 USD/year membership fee was worth it to influence the future of WebGL. Nintendo, at least currently, does not make their own web browser, they license NetFront from Access Co. Ltd., but that could change (just like their original choice of Opera Mini did). Even with a licensed browser, they might want to discuss and vote on the specifics. But yes, WebGL is unlikely to be on their minds, let alone a driving reason, especially since they are not involved with the W3C. Another unlikely option is OpenCL, especially if they get into cloud services, but I can't see them caring enough about the API to do anything more than blindly use it.
Vulkan is, in fact, most likely what Nintendo is interested in, but that also doesn't mean that they will support it. The membership fee is quite low for a company like Nintendo, and, even if they don't use the API, their input could benefit them, especially since they rely upon third parties for graphics processors. Pushing for additions to Vulkan could force GPU vendors to adopt it, so it will be available for their own APIs, and so forth. There might even be some learning, up to the limits of the Khronos Group's confidentiality requirements.
Or, of course, Nintendo could adopt the Vulkan API to some extent. We'll see. Either way, the gaming company is beginning to open up with industry bodies. This could be positive.
Subject: Graphics Cards | September 24, 2015 - 02:53 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: radeon, nvidia, lionhead, geforce, fable legends, fable, dx12, benchmark, amd
By now you should have memorized Ryan's review of Fable's DirectX 12 performance on a variety of cards and hopefully tried out our new interactive IFU charts. You can't always cover every card, as those who were brave enough to look at the CSV file Ryan provided might have come to realize. That's why it is worth peeking at The Tech Report's review after reading through ours. They have included an MSI R9 285 and XFX R9 390 as well as an MSI GTX 970, which may be cards you are interested in seeing. They also spend some time looking at CPU scaling and the effect that has on AMD and NVIDIA's performance. Check it out here.
"Fable Legends is one of the first games to make use of DirectX 12, and it produces some truly sumptuous visuals. Here's a look at how Legends performs on the latest graphics cards."
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- The Graphics Cards For Linux Gaming With The Best Value & Efficiency At Higher Resolutions @ Phoronix
- AMD Has A Vulkan Linux Driver, But Will Be Closed-Source At First @ Phoronix
- ASUS R9 Fury STRIX Review @ Hardware Canucks
- XFX Radeon R9 390X Double Dissipation Core Edition Review @HiTech Legion
- AMD Radeon R9 Nano CrossFire @ techPowerUp
- Sapphire R9 380 Nitro 4GB @ Kitguru
- AMD Radeon R9 Nano 4 GB @ techPowerUp
When approached a couple of weeks ago by Microsoft with the opportunity to take an early look at an upcoming performance benchmark built on a DX12 game pending release later this year, I of course was excited for the opportunity. Our adventure into the world of DirectX 12 and performance evaluation started with the 3DMark API Overhead Feature Test back in March and was followed by the release of the Ashes of the Singularity performance test in mid-August. Both of these tests were pinpointing one particular aspect of the DX12 API - the ability to improve CPU throughput and efficiency with higher draw call counts and thus enabling higher frame rates on existing GPUs.
This game and benchmark are beautiful...
Today we dive into the world of Fable Legends, an upcoming free to play based on the world of Albion. This title will be released on the Xbox One and for Windows 10 PCs and it will require the use of DX12. Though scheduled for release in Q4 of this year, Microsoft and Lionhead Studios allowed us early access to a specific performance test using the UE4 engine and the world of Fable Legends. UPDATE: It turns out that the game will have a fall-back DX11 mode that will be enabled if the game detects a GPU incapable of running DX12.
This benchmark focuses more on the GPU side of DirectX 12 - on improved rendering techniques and visual quality rather than on the CPU scaling aspects that made Ashes of the Singularity stand out from other graphics tests we have utilized. Fable Legends is more representative of what we expect to see with the release of AAA games using DX12. Let's dive into the test and our results!
Subject: Graphics Cards | September 22, 2015 - 09:09 PM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: nvidia, linux, graphics drivers
In the NVIDIA driver control panel, there is a slider that controls Performance vs Quality. On Windows, I leave it set to “Let the 3D application decide” and change my 3D settings individually, as needed. I haven't used NVIDIA's control panel on Linux too much, mostly because my laptop is what I usually install Linux on, which runs an AMD GPU, but the UI seems to put a little more weight on it.
Or is that GTux?
Phoronix decided to test how each of these settings affects a few titles, and the only benchmark they bothered reporting is Team Fortress 2. It turns out that other titles see basically zero variance. TF2 saw a difference of 6FPS though, from 115 FPS at High Quality to 121 FPS at Quality. Oddly enough, Performance and High Performance were worse performance than Quality.
To me, this sounds like NVIDIA has basically forgot about the feature. It barely affects any title, the game it changes anything measureable in is from 2007, and it contradicts what the company is doing on other platforms. I predict that Quality is the default, which is the same as Windows (albeit with only 3 choices: “Performance”, “Balanced”, and the default “Quality”). If it is, you probably should just leave it there 24/7 in case NVIDIA has literally not thought about tweaking the other settings. On Windows, it is kind-of redundant with GeForce Experience, anyway.
Final note: Phoronix has only tested the GTX 980. Results may vary elsewhere, but probably don't.
Pack a full GTX 980 on the go!
For many years, the idea of a truly mobile gaming system has been attainable if you were willing to pay the premium for high performance components. But anyone that has done research in this field would tell you that though they were named similarly, the mobile GPUs from both AMD and NVIDIA had a tendency to be noticeably slower than their desktop counterparts. A GeForce GTX 970M, for example, only had a CUDA core count that was slightly higher than the desktop GTX 960, and it was 30% lower than the true desktop GTX 970 product. So even though you were getting fantastic mobile performance, there continued to be a dominant position that desktop users held over mobile gamers in PC gaming.
This fall, NVIDIA is changing that with the introduction of the GeForce GTX 980 for gaming notebooks. Notice I did not put an 'M' at the end of that name; it's not an accident. NVIDIA has found a way, through binning and component design, to cram the entirety of a GM204-based Maxwell GTX 980 GPU inside portable gaming notebooks.
The results are impressive and the implications for PC gamers are dramatic. Systems built with the GTX 980 will include the same 2048 CUDA cores, 4GB of GDDR5 running at 7.0 GHz and will run at the same base and typical GPU Boost clocks as the reference GTX 980 cards you can buy today for $499+. And, while you won't find this GPU in anything called a "thin and light", 17-19" gaming laptops do allow for portability of gaming unlike any SFF PC.
So how did they do it? NVIDIA has found a way to get a desktop GPU with a 165 watt TDP into a form factor that has a physical limit of 150 watts (for the MXM module implementations at least) through binning, component selection and improved cooling. Not only that, but there is enough headroom to allow for some desktop-class overclocking of the GTX 980 as well.
Subject: Graphics Cards, Processors | September 17, 2015 - 09:33 PM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: Skylake, kaby lake, iris pro, Intel, edram
Update: Sept 17, 2015 @ 10:30 ET -- To clarify: I'm speaking of socketed desktop Skylake. There will definitely be Iris Pro in the BGA options.
Before I begin, the upstream story has a few disputes that I'm not entirely sure on. The Tech Report published a post in September that cited an Intel spokesperson, who said that Skylake would not be getting a socketed processor with eDRAM (unlike Broadwell did just before Skylake launched). This could be a big deal, because the fast, on-processor cache could be used by the CPU as well as the RAM. It is sometimes called “128MB of L4 cache”.
Later, ITWorld and others posted stories that said Intel killed off a Skylake processor with eDRAM, citing The Tech Report. After, Scott Wasson claimed that a story, which may or may not be ITWorld's one, had some “scrambled facts” but wouldn't elaborate. Comparing the two articles doesn't really illuminate any massive, glaring issues, but I might just be missing something.
Update: Sept 18, 2015 @ 9:45pm -- So I apparently misunderstood the ITWorld article. They were claiming that Broadwell-C was discontinued, while The Tech Report was talking about Socketed Skylake with Iris Pro. I thought they both were talking about the latter. Moreover, Anandtech received word from Intel that Broadwell-C is, in fact, not discontinued. This is odd, because ITWorld said they had confirmation from Intel. My guess is that someone gave them incorrect information. Sorry that it took so long to update.
In the same thread, Ian Cutress of Anandtech asked whether The Tech Report benchmarked the processor after Intel tweaked its FCLK capabilities, which Scott did not (but is interested in doing so). Intel addressed a slight frequency boost between the CPU and PCIe lanes after Skylake shipped, which naturally benefits discrete GPUs. Since the original claim was that Broadwell-C is better than Skylake-K for gaming, giving a 25% boost to GPU performance (or removing a 20% loss, depending on how you look at it) could tilt Skylake back above Broadwell. We won't know until it's benchmarked, though.
Iris Pro and eDRAM, while skipping Skylake, might arrive in future architectures though, such as Kaby Lake. It seems to have been demonstrated that, in some situations, and ones relevant to gamers at that, that this boost in eDRAM can help computation -- without even considering the compute potential of a better secondary GPU. One argument is that cutting the extra die room gives Intel more margins, which is almost definitely true, but I wonder how much attention Kaby Lake will get. Especially with AVX-512 and other features being debatably removed, it almost feels like Intel is treating this Tock like a Tick, since they didn't really get one with Broadwell, and Kaby Lake will be the architecture that will lead us to 10nm. On the other hand, each of these architectures are developed by independent teams, so I might be wrong in comparing them serially.
Subject: Graphics Cards | September 17, 2015 - 03:34 PM | Jeremy Hellstrom
Tagged: linux, amd, nvidia
If you are using a 1080p monitor or perhaps even outputting to a large 1080p TV, there is no point in picking up a $500+ GPU as you will not be using the majority of its capabilities. Phoronix has just done research on what GPU offers you the best value for gaming at that resolution, putting five AMD GPUs from the Radeon R9 270X to the R9 Fury and six NVIDIA cards ranging from the GTX 950 to a GTX TITAN X into their test bench. The TITAN X is a bit of overkill, unless somehow your display is capable of 200+ fps. When you look at frames per second per dollar the GTX 950 came out on top, providing playable frame rates at a very low cost. These results may change as AMD's Linux driver improves but for now NVIDIA is the way to go for those who game on Linux.
"Earlier this week I posted a graphics card comparison using the open-source drivers and looking at the best value and power efficiency. In today's article is a larger range of AMD Radeon and NVIDIA GeForce graphics cards being tested under a variety of modern Linux OpenGL games/demos while using the proprietary AMD/NVIDIA Linux graphics drivers to see how not only the raw performance compares but also the performance-per-Watt, overall power consumption, and performance-per-dollar metrics."
Here are some more Graphics Card articles from around the web:
- AMD R9 Nano @ Kitguru
- AMD Radeon R9 Nano @ Hardwareheaven
- AMD Radeon R9 Nano @ Legion Hardware
- The AMD R9 Nano Performance Review @ Hardware Canucks
- Asus R9 390X STRIX DC3 OC 8GB @ Kitguru
- Asus ROG Poseidon Platinum GTX 980 Ti Review @ Bjorn3d
Subject: Graphics Cards | September 17, 2015 - 09:14 AM | Sebastian Peak
Tagged: nvidia, msi, liquid cooled, GTX980Ti SEA HAWK, GTX 980 Ti, graphics card, corsair
We reported last night on Corsair's new Hydro GFX, a liquid-cooled GTX 980 Ti powered by an MSI GPU, and MSI has their own new product based on this concept as well.
"The MSI GTX 980Ti SEA HAWK utilizes the popular Corsair H55 closed loop liquid-cooling solution. The micro-fin copper base takes care of an efficient heat transfer to the high-speed circulation pump. The low-profile aluminum radiator is easy to install and equipped with a super silent 120 mm fan with variable speeds based on the GPU temperature. However, to get the best performance, the memory and VRM need top-notch cooling as well. Therefore, the GTX 980Ti SEA HAWK is armed with a ball-bearing radial fan and a custom shroud design to ensure the best cooling performance for all components."
The MSI GTX 980 Ti Sea Hawk actually appears identical to the Corsair Hydro GFX, and a looking through the specs confirms the similarities:
With a 1190 MHz Base and 1291 MHz Boost clock the SEA HAWK has the same factory overclock speeds as the Corsair-branded unit, and MSI is also advertising the card's potential to go further:
"Even though the GTX 980Ti SEA HAWK boasts some serious clock speeds out-of-the-box, the MSI Afterburner overclocking utility allows users to go even further. Explore the limits with Triple Overvoltage, custom profiles and real-time hardware monitoring."
I imagine the availability of this MSI branded product will be greater than the Corsair branded equivalent, but in either case you get a GTX 980 Ti with the potential to run as fast and cool as a custom cooled solution, without any of the extra work. Pricing wasn't immediately available this morning but expect something close to the $739 MSRP we saw with Corsair.