I mean, it makes sence, if the geometry units are underdelivering, then vega rops are losing cicles waiting for data.
I mean, it makes sence, if the geometry units are underdelivering, then vega rops are losing cicles waiting for data.I think it was mentioned above that it was the ROP's that do MSAA but all the hardware stuff is mostly over my head. This is why i focus on reviews and benchmarks that laymen can understand. Real world performance i understand.
No.TXAA is just as bad as FXAA, if not worse:
https://www.gamespot.com/forums/pc-mac-linux-society-1000004/txaalarge-sheet-of-plastic-29319415/
These post process AA modes "fix" AA in everything, because they treat the screen like bitmap image and just blur everything.
There are essentially various flavor of the month blur filters. Cheap to implement, so often used instead of the superior but more expensive MSAA.
This last screenshot demonstrates up close how detail is lost in the high resolution textures due to the blurring. The stone wall simply has less detail with TXAA enabled. Also, the vegetation here is extremely blurry with TXAA enabled.
Overall, TXAA should be avoided. We don't know how this quality of TXAA got implemented into the game and left there. It seems like somebody took the day off when quality control of TXAA image quality rolled around that day. TXAA destroys the gameplay experience in Crysis 3.
Crysis 3 does have a good implementation of SMAA, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. nVidia's canned TXAA is a totally different algorithmhttps://www.hardocp.com/article/2013/03/12/crysis_3_video_card_performance_iq_review/9
I am specifically talking about TXAA/FXAA.
BTW, you had Crysis 3 as a example of good implementation before you changed your post.
Hitman928 with rx 56 with Custom with -1015 mV and +50% Power score 6839 in timespy graphics score.
I get aprox 6980 on a rx 64 using same settings
With same memory clock on the rx56 its more or less precisely the same score.
I dont know if Hitman score is specifically the graphics but mine is and i guess his is too.
Can there be a cpu reason for that?Yep, graphics only. If I bump the memory up to 945 MHz (the same as Vega64) I can hit ~7200 in timespy.
Thank you for asking this question, as it sent me off into researching how MSAA works. As it turns out, apparently MSAA literally works by performing parts of the rasterization process at a higher resolution than screen resolution, and thus appears to be rasterization rate limited:Mmm... So, the "MSAA bug", might be a geometry bottleneck?
The linear decline of Vega performance relative to Pascal as MSAA multiplier increases thus appears to be support the premise that Vega is being polygon throughput bottlenecked by its four geometry engines in the absence of a working implementation of primitive shaders. Theoretically at least, this should mean that if primitive shaders are able to substantially increase Vega's polygon throughput they should also improve Vega's MSAA performance.In terms of rasterization, MSAA works in a similar manner to supersampling. The coverage and occlusion tests are both performed at higher-than-normal resolution, which is typically 2x through 8x.
Crysis 3 does have a good implementation of SMAA, so I'm not sure what you're talking about. nVidia's canned TXAA is a totally different algorithm
edit: one of the links above is broken. Here is the whitepaper about crysis 3's (cryengine 3) SMAA, which is defintively one of the best implementations to date. https://iryoku.com/smaa/downloads/SMAA-Enhanced-Subpixel-Morphological-Antialiasing.pdf
2. We all know that Polaris is very competitive, about power, well they could optimized their voltage and lower their clock to get that ~120W and GTX 1060 6GB (stock performance).
Polaris consumers power like a GTX 1070 and performs like a GTX 1060, so it is no winner on perf/watt.
You act like undervolting is a sure thing and it can only be done for AMD cards. It is neither of those things. You can undervolt NVidia cards as well, and it is hit and miss for both company products.
Eh, it depends on the game. I've had better results with driver-enforced FXAA on Gamebryo/Creation Engine games, for example, compared to MSAA.TAA and FXAA make things way too blurry. The ideal would be deferred MSAA (requires a G-Buffer aka Normals Buffer), with SMAA on top for any transparent textures.
Polaris consumers power like a GTX 1070 and performs like a GTX 1060, so it is no winner on perf/watt.
You act like undervolting is a sure thing and it can only be done for AMD cards. It is neither of those things. You can undervolt NVidia cards as well, and it is hit and miss for both company products.
Polaris consumers power like a GTX 1070 and performs like a GTX 1060, so it is no winner on perf/watt.
You act like undervolting is a sure thing and it can only be done for AMD cards. It is neither of those things. You can undervolt NVidia cards as well, and it is hit and miss for both company products.
He said competitive, not perf/watt winner.
He said competitive, not perf/watt winner.
So, why did the take a risk with VEGA? Did they do a step forward to early? Do they want to force optimization of consoles into PC? Infinity fabric?... well maybe is for dual GPUs... Thinking to much, lets us see what are they preparing.
Yes, great idea. People on these forums and elsewhere kept saying "Wait for Vega" for more than a year, and what did it get anybody? Just time spent NOT playing games.
Judge by the here and now, not the fantasies that some people cook up.
You criticize the poster for assuming a black/white situation (undervolting is a given, only AMD) and then follow it up with a black/white situation of your own (Nvidia undervolting = AMD undervolting). This type of debate really doesn't work past the 4th grade, nice try though. The thing is Nvidia does a much better job setting proper voltages for their chips and their voltage adjustments/clocks are far superior. On average you will gain far less from undervolting Nvidia (performance vs power saved) compared to AMD. Furthermore, you have to know this. It's pretty well known.That only leaves your post and its intentions.
I wrote that they were both hit and miss, not that they were equal.
But arguing that AMD usually benefits more from undervolting than NVidia, is like arguing fat people are better at losing weight than skinny people. NVidia is very power efficient to start with, so of course the gains on that front are going to be smaller.
Slightly off topic, but I think that your draw call test should be most appropriate with the Strip in FNV. The way the performance tanks in that location compared to the rest of the game is a sight to behold.