Go Back   AnandTech Forums > Hardware and Technology > Video Cards and Graphics

Forums
· Hardware and Technology
· CPUs and Overclocking
· Motherboards
· Video Cards and Graphics
· Memory and Storage
· Power Supplies
· Cases & Cooling
· SFF, Notebooks, Pre-Built/Barebones PCs
· Networking
· Peripherals
· General Hardware
· Highly Technical
· Computer Help
· Home Theater PCs
· Consumer Electronics
· Digital and Video Cameras
· Mobile Devices & Gadgets
· Audio/Video & Home Theater
· Software
· Software for Windows
· All Things Apple
· *nix Software
· Operating Systems
· Programming
· PC Gaming
· Console Gaming
· Distributed Computing
· Security
· Social
· Off Topic
· Politics and News
· Discussion Club
· Love and Relationships
· The Garage
· Health and Fitness
· Merchandise and Shopping
· For Sale/Trade
· Hot Deals with Free Stuff/Contests
· Black Friday 2013
· Forum Issues
· Technical Forum Issues
· Personal Forum Issues
· Suggestion Box
· Moderator Resources
· Moderator Discussions
   

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old 01-03-2013, 06:32 PM   #126
Hitman928
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: AZ
Posts: 405
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keysplayr View Post
Not sure if I trust that card if it can only do 60Hz. And the overhead that card might bring while capturing frames? I guess we'll need to see that method tested and verified.
I think 60Hz would be fine for most people. In fact, that would probably make it more relevant for most people. Like I said though, if you're one of the few who has a 120Hz monitor, you might not find it sufficient.

As far as overhead, they briefly mention a few things they have or are trying to work out, but I can't imagine they don't put the card in a seperate system from the one being benched, so no performance hit for the card/computer being tested. You just have to make sure the other system can keep up, essentially.
Hitman928 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-03-2013, 06:36 PM   #127
KingFatty
Platinum Member
 
KingFatty's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 2,534
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Keysplayr View Post
Not sure if I trust that card if it can only do 60Hz. And the overhead that card might bring while capturing frames? I guess we'll need to see that method tested and verified.
It's possible that the capture card is capable of more than 60 Hz. They mentioned it can do 2560x1600 @ 60 Hz, so perhaps that's a bandwidth ceiling so at other resolutions (1440p, 1080p) maybe it will do 120 Hz? It acts as a monitor to capture the video card output that would be sent to the viewer's eyes.
KingFatty is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 12:37 AM   #128
3DVagabond
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posts: 8,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SirPauly View Post
Some dismiss frame time graphs but offers enough tangible data to see how single GPU's are smoother than dual multi-GPU; And one can see frame metering to some levels with SLi.

It may not be an ideal method but seems to be a good method 'till there are more ideal tools.
It's one thing to see something and then test to try and quantify the effect. It's quite the opposite to take a measurement and try and attach an effect to it that nobody ever saw. In dual GPU people complained that the animation wasn't as smooth as single GPU. They played games and saw that something was wrong. Then they took measurements to quantify what they saw.
3DVagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:30 AM   #129
Ibra
Banned
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 184
Default

AMD cheating in tessellation and definitely will cheat in frame rating.

Ibra is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 06:58 AM   #130
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibra View Post
AMD cheating in tessellation and definitely will cheat in frame rating.

Have you got a link for reference re: assertion that tessellation being cheated and its impact?
__________________
i7 3930k @4.4, 2xMSI GTX 680, 16GB Corsair 2133 RAM, Crucial m4 500GB, Soundblaster Z
Custom watercooled by 2x MCR 320 and 1 MCR 480
Zowie Evo CL EC2, Corsair K70, Benq XL2411T
BrightCandle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:01 AM   #131
Keysplayr
Elite Member
 
Keysplayr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BrightCandle View Post
Have you got a link for reference re: assertion that tessellation being cheated and its impact?
I don't believe that I've heard anything about AMD cheating in tesselation.
__________________
Member of Nvidia Focus Group
NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time
to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

i5 2500K Asus P-Z68-V/Gen3 Titan Black SLI
Keysplayr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 09:32 AM   #132
SirPauly
Diamond Member
 
SirPauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DVagabond View Post
It's one thing to see something and then test to try and quantify the effect. It's quite the opposite to take a measurement and try and attach an effect to it that nobody ever saw. In dual GPU people complained that the animation wasn't as smooth as single GPU. They played games and saw that something was wrong. Then they took measurements to quantify what they saw.
Imho,

And yet many don't perceive micro-stuttering with multi-GPU. Was personally very vocal at Rage3d and one of the first gamers to raise the differences between single GPU and multi-GPU - before the term micro-stuttering was even used -- called it load balancing issues. Also discovered why by pestering MFA at Beyond3d and was told it was frame delays. Just offering frames was never objective to me when comparing multi-GPU to single GPU's.

This awareness to me is like music to my ears -- sites, investigations, discussions that go beyond just frame-rate and also trying to gauge latency. The awareness may help single and multi-GPU sku's from AMD and nVidia -- the bigger picture. More information for the gamer is always welcomed!
SirPauly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 10:31 AM   #133
VulgarDisplay
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,761
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ibra View Post
AMD cheating in tessellation and definitely will cheat in frame rating.

They had weak tesselation hardware and fixed it. They do allow the user to cheat at tesselation, but they don't.
VulgarDisplay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:08 PM   #134
Keysplayr
Elite Member
 
Keysplayr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 19,638
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VulgarDisplay View Post
They had weak tesselation hardware and fixed it. They do allow the user to cheat at tesselation, but they don't.
They had weak tesselation hardware in 5 and 6 series. Greatly improved in 7 series. 5 and 6 series remain un "fixed".
__________________
Member of Nvidia Focus Group
NVIDIA Focus Group Members receive free software and/or hardware from NVIDIA from time to time
to facilitate the evaluation of NVIDIA products. However, the opinions expressed are solely those of the Members.

i5 2500K Asus P-Z68-V/Gen3 Titan Black SLI
Keysplayr is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:22 PM   #135
SirPauly
Diamond Member
 
SirPauly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 4,791
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by f1sherman View Post
PCPER ditching standard FPS measuring all together and instead capturing video output.

This is so much win. Possibly the only thing missing is recording input(mouse) lag.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...ormance-Metric

Missed this post, thanks. This is good news!
SirPauly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 01:22 PM   #136
Ferzerp
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: B̿̄ͬͮͦ͐̐̂̌̂͛̓̃̔̈́̓
Posts: 5,175
Default

He's probably talking about the 3dmark tests where a user would change the tesselation to not do all the work that the benchmark requested, thus giving bogus scores.

I'd not call that a systemic "cheating" as much as a "allowing users to cheat" in a way that the benchmark program couldn't tell.
Ferzerp is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 02:35 PM   #137
OVerLoRDI
Diamond Member
 
OVerLoRDI's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posts: 5,191
Default

Awesome! Looking forward to these updates.

My dual 7970s never felt right, especially in the Witcher 2. I'm not gaming much at the moment so I haven't been all over this.
__________________
TROOPER: Caselabs M8, i5 3570k, 16gb DDR3, 2x7970, X-1050
TARDIS: 750D, i5 2550k, 8gb DDR3, 7970, AX850, 8TB storage
CUBE: INWIN BQS656, Celeron something?, 4gb RAM, 32gb SSD
http://heatware.com/eval.php?id=73710
OVerLoRDI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:12 PM   #138
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by OVerLoRDI View Post
Awesome! Looking forward to these updates.

My dual 7970s never felt right, especially in the Witcher 2. I'm not gaming much at the moment so I haven't been all over this.
Yes the Witcher 2 was dreadfully bad, one of the worst of the games I played with the 7970's. I found if I balanced it perfectly at 60 fps and it never went below that I didn't get to vomit levels, but any drop below 60 fps (which is really common in the Witcher 2 regardless of settings) it would be just awful.

Playing it on the 680s was a dream in comparison, I could happily run surround and higher graphics settings without ever feeling any ms. My frame time graphs were nominal on the 680's but 25ms swings on the 7970s.
__________________
i7 3930k @4.4, 2xMSI GTX 680, 16GB Corsair 2133 RAM, Crucial m4 500GB, Soundblaster Z
Custom watercooled by 2x MCR 320 and 1 MCR 480
Zowie Evo CL EC2, Corsair K70, Benq XL2411T
BrightCandle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:18 PM   #139
Face2Face
Diamond Member
 
Face2Face's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Anand's Backyard
Posts: 3,009
Default

Looks like PCPer is stepping it up as well. I will make sure to keep an eye on their tests as well.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphic...ormance-Metric
__________________
3570K @ 4.8GHz - Z77X-UD4H - 16GB Samsung 1866MHz - GTX 780 Lightning + NZXT Kraken G10 - QX2710 1440p @ 96Hz
Face2Face is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:27 PM   #140
krumme
Platinum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 2,052
Default

Its great we get new ways to measure gfx performance.
I stopped using FPS assessments years back, and just relied on my personal impression.
krumme is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 03:55 PM   #141
f1sherman
Golden Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 1,809
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 3DVagabond View Post
It's one thing to see something and then test to try and quantify the effect. It's quite the opposite to take a measurement and try and attach an effect to it that nobody ever saw.


nobody ever saw

attach an effect

Where do you get this from?
That effect is in fact TR's performance enumeration. BENCHMARK!

They took the measurement according to their methodology, and left to reader to take what they want from it. They added nothing.
Apparently AMD took it seriously and are working hard to eliminate what does not exist and..."nobody ever saw"

"There is no one single thing for, its all over the place - the app, the driver, allocations of memory, CPU thread priorities, etc., etc"
-Dave Baumann-

You seem to think FPS avg is bread and butter of gameplay experience.
Some people disagree, Techreport too, as they think that 99th percentile frame time better enumerates gameplay experience and conversely GPU performance.

Since there is a need for GPU benchmarks, there has to be a method to it.
TechReport's method, same as conventional FPS measuring does just that.
It enumerates GPU performance. Card A measures such-and-such, and card B measures such-and-such.
Whether you can tell the difference between two cards, does not matter, and it's a whole story all together, but here it goes:

I hate to post bench graphs, but this is so obvious it has to be done.
Cherry picking? Yes, in order to get my point across, not for the sake of cherry picking.





If you're going to argue that above jittering and 7950 20fps -> 100fps frame jumps are indiscernible from rather steady 660 Ti frame output,
but OTOH the difference between, for example, GPU that generates 40fps avg and the one giving 50fps is HUUUGE and easily observable 20%, it's my opinion that you are wrong.
Let me double that:

Anyone not noticing the difference between above two GPUs, sure as hell won't be able to tell the difference between 40fps and 60fps
(let alone will he be able to notice some silly 3fps or 5% that's often a matter of debate here)

To such blindo, TR methodology should be even more important GPU metric than raw fps average.

PROOF: NONE! (Just a years of gaming experience and a strong hunch coming from a modest amount of grey matter between the ears )
f1sherman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 04:47 PM   #142
willomz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 337
Default

For me it's these graphs that show the most:


You can read off the 99th percentile, or the 95th, or just get a general impression of how spread out frame latencies are. You can also get a good impression of overall FPS.
willomz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:01 PM   #143
AdamK47
Lifer
 
Join Date: Oct 1999
Posts: 10,552
Default

Where can I see results of two 690s frame time in quad SLI? Has this been tested?
__________________
Intel Core i7 4960X @ 4.5GHz - ASRock X79 Extreme11 @ 36x125MHz - 32GB G.SKILL Ripjaws Z @ 2333 DDR - Four Nvidia GTX Titans in 4-Way SLI - 256GB Vertex 4 SSD (System) - Eight 512GB Vertex 4 SSDs in 4TB RAID-0 (Games) - 4TB Deskstar 7K4000 HDD (Backup) - Pioneer BDR-206 BD-RW - Cooler Master HAF-X case - Corsair H110 cooler - LEPA G1600 power supply - Razer BlackWidow Ultimate keyboard - CST LaserTRAC 2545W trackball - BenQ BL3200PT monitor - Shure SRH1440 headphones - Windows 8.1 Pro x64
AdamK47 is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:28 PM   #144
Rikard
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: The Alps
Posts: 423
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hitman928 View Post
Being able to download source feeds of high speed camera tests would be even more valuable, though that's probably asking too much
Yes, I would like that! It is the closest you can get to actual experience without buying it. For noise tests I find sound recordings extremely helpful before making a purchase. Graphs are good because they are objective, but what matters for a potential customer is how you subjectively experience it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Leadbox View Post
Speaking personally, if it's going to take high speed camera footage slowed down or a frametime graph to tell me that one is smoother than the other I simply couldn't care less
I could not agree more. (I guess being an enthusiast is a bit like buying a Ferrari even though you know you will never drive 200 km/h and that you are not a good enough driver to handle it if you tried. People drive Ferrari's for other reasons.)

Anyway, this is very good news!
__________________
Fractal Design Define R4 | Asus P8Z68-V Gen3 | Intel i5-2500 @ 4.3 GHz | Corsair AX 650 W
CoolerMaster Hyper 212 Evo | Corsair 16 GB 1.6 GHz | BluRay3D ASUS BC-12B1ST
Sapphire HD7950 Vapor-X (8+8 pin) | 2x Fractal Design Silent Series R2 | Corsair M90
3x Xigmatek XAF-F1454 | Maxkeyboard Nighthawk X8 Semi-custom(MX Brown)
Corsair Vengeance 2000 7.1 Headset | Samsung Syncmaster BX2450 1080p@75 Hz
Rikard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 05:46 PM   #145
VulgarDisplay
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Chicago
Posts: 5,761
Default

I'm actually really curious about how a 120hz monitor effects frametimes. I will admit that my understanding of how the frametimes is calculated is fairly limited, but looking at the PC per article on their new testing methodology makes me wonder if a monitor with a faster refresh rate will display more of the chopped up frames that the poor frame metering exhibits on the 60hz monitors most reviewers seem to be using.

Perhaps the choppy output I am seeing on my 120hz monitor at lower framerates is due to non uniform frametimes? Even though there is a problem with my AMD hardware at this time I find this all very exciting for what future fixes may entail for users. If all the sudden whatever fixes nvidia and amd come up with make it so lower framerates are not discernable from higher framerates in terms of smoothness perhaps they can just cap framerates at lower levels and then push image quality with whatever resources they aren't using anymore to get the maxiumum amount of frames rendered as possible.
VulgarDisplay is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-04-2013, 08:09 PM   #146
Haserath
Senior Member
 
Haserath's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 724
Default

Wonder if they'll wait for HD 8000 to release it then say "look at the difference!"

But, of course, it will be for every 7k series GPU as well.

Hopefully the fix moves them up another notch.
Haserath is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 02:52 AM   #147
3DVagabond
Diamond Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Christchurch, NZ
Posts: 8,157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by f1sherman View Post
nobody ever saw

attach an effect

Where do you get this from?
That effect is in fact TR's performance enumeration. BENCHMARK!

They took the measurement according to their methodology, and left to reader to take what they want from it. They added nothing.
Apparently AMD took it seriously and are working hard to eliminate what does not exist and..."nobody ever saw"

"There is no one single thing for, its all over the place - the app, the driver, allocations of memory, CPU thread priorities, etc., etc"
-Dave Baumann-

You seem to think FPS avg is bread and butter of gameplay experience.
Some people disagree, Techreport too, as they think that 99th percentile frame time better enumerates gameplay experience and conversely GPU performance.

Since there is a need for GPU benchmarks, there has to be a method to it.
TechReport's method, same as conventional FPS measuring does just that.
It enumerates GPU performance. Card A measures such-and-such, and card B measures such-and-such.
Whether you can tell the difference between two cards, does not matter, and it's a whole story all together, but here it goes:

I hate to post bench graphs, but this is so obvious it has to be done.
Cherry picking? Yes, in order to get my point across, not for the sake of cherry picking.





If you're going to argue that above jittering and 7950 20fps -> 100fps frame jumps are indiscernible from rather steady 660 Ti frame output,
but OTOH the difference between, for example, GPU that generates 40fps avg and the one giving 50fps is HUUUGE and easily observable 20%, it's my opinion that you are wrong.
Let me double that:

Anyone not noticing the difference between above two GPUs, sure as hell won't be able to tell the difference between 40fps and 60fps
(let alone will he be able to notice some silly 3fps or 5% that's often a matter of debate here)

To such blindo, TR methodology should be even more important GPU metric than raw fps average.

PROOF: NONE! (Just a years of gaming experience and a strong hunch coming from a modest amount of grey matter between the ears )
All of that to dispute 2 statements in one sentence. :phew:

I'm talking a visible effect, not a benchmark. Surely you could understand that without trying to make it out as something I never said. Like the parts in red. Which I never said.

I'm not sure why they changed the benchmark suite, almost entirely, between their first review and the rematch. Other than the 7950 did much better in the first review. They did all of their special sauce testing then too. For the most part the frame latency differences in the first review followed very closely to the avg. FPS differences. That's not the same on the rematch review.

Here's the Skyrim 99% from the first review.


In the rematch the 7950 dropped down to be as bad as the previous gen Fermi cards. Which, btw, if you want to apply the time latency tests to them, they were absolutely abysmal in most tests. I also don't recall people complaining about how jittery Fermi was. Especially the people who are the most vocal about the AMD numbers.


I'll pick a game that we know is not buggy and runs well on both brands, BF3. Will the people who own Fermi cards please tell us how awful and jittery they are in BF3 (and just about every other game in the first review)? I apparently have missed all the threads about it. The concern that we need testing to bring it to light so it can be fixed. I mean a lot of people bought and still own those cards. Don't they deserve to have their hardware operate properly? Even though it's never been complained about, we now have the measurements that prove they are jittery as hell, and not just in BF3 either. Look at the review HERE. They just must be unplayable, if these measurements mean anything at all to real time game play.


As far as AMD wanting to fix it goes, it would be really stupid of them to ignore it, now wouldn't it. I'm sure they want their cards to bench well in these tests.
3DVagabond is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 04:21 AM   #148
BrightCandle
Diamond Member
 
BrightCandle's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 4,439
Default

The original review was done in town somewhere. The second was done in some scrub land. They did a load of testing of various areas and concluded that the test area needed to change as more problematic areas existed for performance. Its explained in the podcast. This is why the Two tests don't match up.
__________________
i7 3930k @4.4, 2xMSI GTX 680, 16GB Corsair 2133 RAM, Crucial m4 500GB, Soundblaster Z
Custom watercooled by 2x MCR 320 and 1 MCR 480
Zowie Evo CL EC2, Corsair K70, Benq XL2411T
BrightCandle is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 06:21 AM   #149
willomz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 337
Default

Yes, it is pretty clear that the 560Ti and 470 are unplayable over that benchmark at those settings. This is exactly why people choose to upgrade old cards, or at least dial the settings back a bit. If you only have a 560Ti you might want to turn Ultra off and maybe other options.

The hardware does operate properly, it just doesn't have the grunt available. Compared to the 470, the 7950 has almost double the memory bandwidth and almost triple the texel rate, it is supposed to be better.

If a 2-3 year old card doesn't perform well you shouldn't be surprised, if a high end current generation card doesn't then you should.
willomz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-05-2013, 06:54 AM   #150
Imouto
Golden Member
 
Imouto's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,243
Default

Fermi was an even greater stutter mess and no one complained as 3DVagabond said.

I'm not saying that this shouldn't be improved but ffs make a little sense and acknowledge that this "problem" ain't as big as you're picturing it. The way you talk you're saying that the previous 2 Fermi gens were utter shit.

TechReport did a sloppy job with this review comparing only a single model 7950 to the 660Ti and changing their whole benchmark suite to fit their desired outcome. I'm waiting for a serious article in several sites about this issue including all the cards for current and last gen.

Several graphics reviewers said that this issue is hard to tell or even impossible to tell apart in a blind test but you're going nuts about it.

Meanwhile some ppl should stop looking like bubble boys with brand allergy, seriously.

@willomz this thread is about smoooooothness. As far as I know several ppl complained about the options in TR benchmarks to be unplayable like turning off Vsync making physics in Skyrim go mad. Unplayable settings ain't in a bencher dictionary.

Last edited by Imouto; 01-05-2013 at 07:01 AM.
Imouto is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:03 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.