Are you saying you don't have control over what the CUs do with low level APIs?
I know you can check how many you have available and dynamically allocate.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AMD Confirms RX 480 At $199 USD, Other APU & Polaris Announcements
- Thread starter lowendlinux
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I know you can check how many you have available and dynamically allocate.
A card is not going to report it has compute units available that have been disabled in the factory. This is a good thing as often times these are disabled because of binning and are non-functional.
You missed the point. I am saying it depends if the game has been programmed to dynamically allocate or it's tuned to known cards.
Overwatch in 1080p Ultra settings went from 84 FPS on average with RX 460 to 90 FPS in the same settings on RX 560.
Drivers.
Low level API drivers do basically nothing, it is the game that has to be tuned.
My point is that it's impossible for an application to tell the driver/GPU "hey I want to run like ****, so please disable N execution units so my shaders run much slower". The API doesn't work like that.
[doublepost=1494955630][/doublepost]
You're comparing 2 different GPUs, one of which is basically just an overclocked version of the other. Are you sure it's not a hardware difference here? What does the RX 460 get with the latest drivers?
GCN GPUs can run concurrent independent tasks on the CUs, for example physics.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/11280/amd-announces-the-radeon-rx-500-series-polaris/2
RX 560 is supposed to be up to 22% faster than an RX 460 on average:
Right, but again, this will not automagically leave CUs idle because the app doesn't know that the RX 560 has more CUs than the RX 460 did, or whatever you are claiming.
RX 560 is supposed to be up to 22% faster than an RX 460 on average:
[doublepost=1494955963][/doublepost]
Right, but again, this will not automagically leave CUs idle because the app doesn't know that the RX 560 has more CUs than the RX 460 did, or whatever you are claiming.
Well, OV went from 70 FPS average to 84 so 20% increase.
RX 560 at 99$ is fabulous offer. At 115$ - not as much. On the other hand cheapest monitor with IPS and Freesync costs around 150$(https://www.newegg.com/Product/Prod...5515&cm_re=LG_Freesync-_-24-025-515-_-Product). And this actually makes it very, very good value combined.
I am claiming that the low level games might run faster but maybe not as well as they could on the new configuration.
That the increase may not be total vs. the amount of cores and core clock difference.
That's not what your originally posted, though. You said RX 460 @ 84 to RX 560 @ 90, and claimed drivers were responsible (which I disagree with). If you're now claiming Overwatch went from 70 FPS to 84 FPS on the RX 460, then sure, that would be from driver improvements.
This is correct.
I used word "Drivers" in different context. The difference in performance that Overwatch gets from RX 560 vs 460 is smaller than it should be possible to get, from increased core count and core clock.
According to AMD in DeepBench AMD Vega GPU is 30-35% faster than GP100 chip in machine learning.
They also launched RX Vega Frontier Edition. 4096 GCN cores, 1.6 GHz, 16 GB HBM2, 13 TFLOPs of FP32 performance.
Very impressive. The compute performance along with the integrated SSD support seems like something Apple would be interested in. They demoed realtime editing of 8k footage with the help of the high bandwidth memory controller in adobe premiere.
Frontier edition... really?According to AMD in DeepBench AMD Vega GPU is 30-35% faster than GP100 chip in machine learning.
They also launched RX Vega Frontier Edition. 4096 GCN cores, 1.6 GHz, 16 GB HBM2, 13 TFLOPs of FP32 performance.
AMD vs Nvidia is going personal.
According to AMD in DeepBench AMD Vega GPU is 30-35% faster than GP100 chip in machine learning.
They also launched RX Vega Frontier Edition. 4096 GCN cores, 1.6 GHz, 16 GB HBM2, 13 TFLOPs of FP32 performance.
So they're about 9 months too late, and about to be absolutely crushed by GV100? Cool.
Oh relax. This is a big deal. A 13 TFLOP card for a fraction of the price is a good thing for the industry. We know so little about the performance of both Vega and GV100 that its unfair to say either will crush the other.
Where did they say it'd be a fraction of the price of a GP100/GV100?
Frontier seems to be a graphics card, not an accelerator.
Radeon Pro Duo costs $1000.
LOL - they're comparing the latest unreleased ATI GPU chips to the Nvidia chips released and shipping a year ago.According to AMD in DeepBench AMD Vega GPU is 30-35% faster than GP100 chip in machine learning.
They also launched RX Vega Frontier Edition. 4096 GCN cores, 1.6 GHz, 16 GB HBM2, 13 TFLOPs of FP32 performance.
I guess that they're be red-faced if they compared to the Nvidia Volta chips announced a week ago.