For the millionth time, NVIDIA doesnt have 80% of the PC gaming market. They just shipped 80% of Desktop dGPUs in Q2 2015 only.
PC gaming market is comprise of Desktop APUs, Desktop dGPUs, Laptop APUs and Laptop dGPUs.
So NVIDIA marketshare in PC Gaming is not that high as people make it or believe it is.
But it sounds good. It's just one stop for the hype train as it keeps rolling along.
Sure. But was he wrong? No.
Even if this were true, isn't that all we are really interested in in this forum anyway? dGPU? I really don't see people battling over igp/APU that much in here.
And "shipped"? Nvidia shipped 80% dGPU? Well, what percent did AMD ship? Can it be more than 20%? I don't see how.
Sounds to me like you regret getting robbed by Nvidia for that 980. :biggrin:
The only wishful thinking is that you could turn it into a Sapphire Tri-X R9 Fury. :whiste:
Anyway, surely you know I use my GPU for games This alpha stage benchmark that is supposed to be based on a game that might launch yr(s) from now.......that bothers me how?
If you want to know whether he's wrong accusing me of claiming Fury X would be 40% faster than Titan X, then you had best to do your own digging rather than relying on his "3rd party" BS.
I never made such claims, I only said I hope it is faster, or that it could be faster, which make for a compelling reason to upgrade. Never that its definitively faster, cos that statement would be baseless and BS without evidence back when the rumor mill was busy prior to launch.
So before the next time you jump to defend your cohort based on wrong accusations, its best to be informed first.
Seams you dont understand what PC Gaming market is or you dont want to. :whiste:
Just leave that but still i am waiting for you to post that "Many developers list" which you are calming.If you want to know whether he's wrong accusing me of claiming Fury X would be 40% faster than Titan X, then you had best to do your own digging rather than relying on his "3rd party" BS.
I never made such claims, I only said I hope it is faster, or that it could be faster, which make for a compelling reason to upgrade. Never that its definitively faster, cos that statement would be baseless and BS without evidence back when the rumor mill was busy prior to launch.
So before the next time you jump to defend your cohort based on wrong accusations, its best to be informed first.
Just leave that but still i am waiting for you to post that "Many developers list" which you are calming.
If you want that list u have to ask AMD. But they did say over 70 studios sign up for Mantle access.
Whether you believe that or not, is up to you.
But back on topic about DX12, Ashes, Async Compute.
Have you looked at all of the numbers?
Fury X:https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1869030/
one kernel/batch:
Graphics: 25,18ms
Compute: 49,65ms
G+C: 55,93ms
And a GTX970: https://forum.beyond3d.com/posts/1869008/
One kernel/batch:
Graphics: 32,13ms
Compute: 9,77ms
G+C: 41,63ms
Up to 32 batches the GTX970 is faster than the Fury X. Only after this the GTX970 gets slower.
Using a compute queue on AMD hardware is introducing a huge latency. That's the reason why asynchronous compute is "free" for them.
That is really ironic, huh? :biggrin:
Apparently, AMD's ACEs use context switches as well. There's lots of assumptions being thrown about, as usual. The guys over at beyond3d are a lot more sober when it comes to discussing this compared to this forum with all of its biases and partisanship.
For instance, someone at beyond3d said that Maxwell 2 definitely supports asynchronous compute as it's mentioned in the CUDA developer toolkit.
And from Andrew Lauritzen, something that some of us including myself have been saying in this thread:
And let's remember, an ideal architecture would not require additional parallelism to reach full throughput, so while the API is nice to have, seeing "no speedup" from async compute is not a bad thing if it's because the architecture had no issues keeping the relevant units busy without the additional help It is quite analogous to CPU architectures that require higher degrees of multi-threading to run at full throughput vs. ones with higher IPCs.
Source
Oxide effectively summarized my thoughts on the matter. NVIDIA claims "full support" for DX12, but conveniently ignores that Maxwell is utterly incapable of performing asynchronous compute without heavy reliance on slow context switching.
GCN has supported async shading since its inception, and it did so because we hoped and expected that gaming would lean into these workloads heavily. Mantle, Vulkan and DX12 all do. The consoles do (with gusto). PC games are chock full of compute-driven effects.
If memory serves, GCN has higher FLOPS/mm2 than any other architecture, and GCN is once again showing its prowess when utilized with common-sense workloads that are appropriate for the design of the architecture.
From thread
https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/dx12-performance-thread.57188/page-9
Looks like dramatically different approaches to the architecture.
Nvidia has no gains from async compute but is dramatically faster with fewer kernels.
(I think it should be noted that some of these limitations may be driver limitations that are fixable. AMD may be able to get its kernel initialization down and Nvidia simply may have not enabled async compute in the driver/driver needs work).
Given its growing market-share, NVIDIA could use similar tactics to keep game developers away from industry-standard API features that it doesn't support, and which rival AMD does. NVIDIA drivers tell Windows that its GPUs support DirectX 12 feature-level 12_1. We wonder how much of that support is faked at the driver-level, like async compute. The company is already drawing flack for using borderline anti-competitive practices with GameWorks, which effectively creates a walled garden of visual effects that only users of NVIDIA hardware can experience for the same $59 everyone spends on a particular game.
I'm very curious what AMD has in store with Arctic Islands, could we see a major ramping up of Async Compute capability? Or maybe something else "hidden" in DX12 that gets exposed with Arctic Islands.But back on topic about DX12, Ashes, Async Compute.
Okay, now we wait for NV's response, because this just escalated!
https://www.techpowerup.com/215663/...s-amd-gcn-better-prepared-for-directx-12.html
Harsh!
NVIDIA drivers tell Windows that its GPUs support DirectX 12 feature-level 12_1. We wonder how much of that support is faked at the driver-level, like async compute.
D:
If you want that list u have to ask AMD. But they did say over 70 studios sign up for Mantle access.
Whether you believe that or not, is up to you.
But back on topic about DX12, Ashes, Async Compute.