Discussion [HWUB] Nvidia has a driver overhead problem. . .

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
4,153
5,034
136
HWUB did an investigation into GPU performance with lower end CPUs for gaming and published their results. In the comments they mention they tested more games than they showed in the video, all with the same results. As we all (should) know, in DX11 AMD had the low end CPU performance issue, but it looks like this has flipped for DX12/Vulkan. HWUB mentions they think their findings hold true for DX11 as well, but as far as I can tell, they only tested DX12/Vulkan titles so I don't think they have the data to backup that statement and doubt it is true.

(342) Nvidia Has a Driver Overhead Problem, GeForce vs Radeon on Low-End CPUs - YouTube

1615478285887.png
 

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,817
3,023
136
Well Digital Foundry did talk a little about this issue but it seems to me that they are throwing shade at Hardware Unboxed's testing and are trying to minimize AMDs advantage here.

Heh not a big issue for many they say ??

According to Steam Hardware Survey almost 42% have a Quad Core CPU like the old 4C 4T Core i5s and old 4C 8T Core i7s. There will also be some newer 4C 4T Core i3s and a few of the latest 4C 8T Intel gen 10 Core i3s, plus the older ZEN/+ cpus like the Ryzen 1400/1500 etc.
Also there is almost a 29% that have a 6-core and from those the vast majority will be those early Ryzen 1600/X-2600/X and 3600/X. From Intel there will include Gen 8 8700/k and Gen 9 Core i5s like the 9600/k and Gen 10 10400/f/10600/k etc.

So according to Steam, more than half of the users could be affected by this.


In the majority of the latest DX-12 games all those CPUs above (Both AMD and Intel) display some sort of driver overhead when paired with NVIDIA graphics cards especially with Turing and Ampere.
Add that in a few months NVIDIA will release Lower-End Ampere cards like the RTX3050Ti that will have performance close to current RTX2060/Super and we can begin to see that many users will try to update form GTX1060 to latest sub 300$ NVIDIA Ampere cards and lots and lots of them will still be using those older CPUs. The result will be that lots of them will not be able to get the performance they will see in the reviews simple because of that CPU overhead.

The situation would be wayyyyyy worse if GPU prices where close to MSRP, because lots of those users would buy even faster Ampere GPUs than what they will buy today and the CPU Overhead problem would bee even worse for them as those high-end Ampere GPUs have the same problem even at 1440p.

I strongly believe that people with older CPUs should take this problem seriously when they are going to upgrade their GPUs next time and more reviewers should look in to this and provide more data to inform the community.
 

PhoBoChai

Member
Oct 10, 2017
119
389
106
Igor's lab did a follow up with Horizon: Zero Dawn. He doubts the CPU is the real cause but rather, that it is the pipeline processing. He hints at engines optimized for AMD hardware possibly being the big factor; the console effect? But wisely states it needs more investigation, which he does not have the time for right now.

https://www.igorslab.de/en/driver-overhead-at-nvidia-and-directx12-msi-geforce-rtx-3090-suprim-versus-msi-radeon-rx-6900xt-gaming-x-and-your-own-drivers/
I think he's confused, because he talks about Async Compute, but this effect is seen in games that don't even use Async C. His results show DX12 is eating more CPU cycles on NV GPUs, and the only thing that runs between hw & CPU is the driver interaction with the API.

GameGPU.RU today just did a more detailed look and they confirm it by showing Vega 64 beating 3090, sometimes more than 20%.


The ST 3dMark test from those days is very telling because NV gets a huge bump in ST drawcalls as CPU cores increase, which should NOT be possible as the draw call is submitted ST without CMD List usage. They do automatically parse draw calls and spawn worker threads in DX11 for MT advantage in ST games.

The only question is why in DX12, they still treat CPU scheduling as if its DX11, where MT draw call submission is batched up into the main thread and sent in ST. Its not what these API are designed to do.

Edit: Pay close attention to these results AT found back then.



Note with 4 cores, NV GPUs have 1.4 ST.

But with 6 cores, NV GPUs suddenly have higher ST.



All these recent testing shows that NerdTech was right back in early 2017, IMO. NV does some amazing work with their DX11 auto MT. But their flexible drivers is a problem now in DX12 & Vulkan, with more CPU overhead.
 
Last edited:

PhoBoChai

Member
Oct 10, 2017
119
389
106
I like their style; shots fired!

"But at one time, only the lazy did not discuss the high processor dependence of the Radeon in DX11, where it really took place, and was confirmed by tests many times. But why was it actively discussed then, and as if on purpose they are silent now?"

"If you heard another blogger declare that Radeons are more processor-dependent than GeForce, then at best he does not care about events (how can this be if this has been going on for 6 years!), At worst - either incompetent or an interested party."

Right on. And the sensible conclusion, based on how well most of the suspect reviewers cover AMD issues, is they are shilling by omission. People get accused of tinfoil hat conspiracies when they broach these topics, but this is more evidence, backed up by well over a decade of precedence. That Nvidia flexes it muscles behind the scenes, holding quite a bit of sway over how and what many reviewers and "tech journalists" cover and report. I will not name any for now. But there are some big reviewers that have been suspiciously lacking in coverage of the topic to this point. I hope it is because they are currently doing the rigorous testing necessary to confirm it. If they fail to weigh in soon though, they need to be called out.
Mate you can see this clearly in some reviewers. Primary example, 3060 review by some of them, compared to the 1060, it's a GREAT upgrade path. 6700XT review from same ppl? Not compared to RX 480, or even 5700XT. Its only compared vs 3060Ti and 3070. The narrative is quite different.

Then you see other reviewers trash talk AMD's 6700XT and 6800XT reference cooler design. Like really? It runs cool, it runs quiet. No problems. Unlike the FE 3090 that is supposedly a premium GPU that memory that's baking hot over 105C on an open test bench at 21C ambients. REALLY?

The NVIDIA narrative is stronk among the tech review community, at least, some of the bigger ones.

The hilarious thing is Digital Foundry started this whole "AMD has DX11 driver overhead problems" years ago, when they reviewed CODAW/MW that NV sponsored. That game pushes PhysX hard, and on the CPU, it destroys the main thread (constantly 100% load), so obviously AMD's method of CPU scheduling gets nuked. Same for Project Cars if ppl remember a few years back.
 

Justinus

Platinum Member
Oct 10, 2005
2,887
1,006
136
If this is the case then how valid are these claims?
The game benchmarks can fit inside the 8Gb and never have to swap out, but in actual gameplay how realistic is it for a game not to have to swap out, and even if it wouldn't have to swap out doesn't the different mem structure of the consoles force the games to stream in data constantly anyway?
VRAM has nothing to do with it, look at RTX 3090 benchmarks, sometimes beaten by a 5600xt or 580 with 1/3 or 1/4 of the VRAM when paired with a older CPU.

There is nothing about DX12 that necessitates the same game requires more memory. That's not how it works.
 
Last edited:

AtenRa

Lifer
Feb 2, 2009
13,817
3,023
136
That crytek demo is always way overstated. It was never going to work in a real game and the RT quality was very low. It was very much a proof of concept for cards in 5+ years. RT appeared because Nvidia pushed it, I think it's only in the consoles at all because the console makers demanded something having seen what the Nvidia gpu's could do. Hence we get AMD's sticking plaster solution. If it had really been planned well in advance AMD would have had a much more Nvidia like solution with separate RT hardware for better performance and a AI cores for a DLSS equivalent.
Not that I think Nvidia did it just for the gamers. Their pro cards have been doing RT (non real time) for years so they'd probably already considered adding specialist hardware to speed that up. Then they had their AI cores for servers, and they worked out they were really good a touching up images which is key for RT as you have to de-noise the image every frame. Put them together and you suddenly end up with something capable of real time RT. Finally AMD gpu's were rubbish so Nvidia could afford to use a cheaper process, blow a ton of silicon on next gen features that weren't used yet and still end up with something better then AMD.
RT went to consoles not because NVIDIA released Turing but because Microsoft + NVIDIA + AMD were designing DXR together.
Microsoft announced DXR for Windows 10 on March 19 2018, same day NVIDIA announced RTX.
Microsoft DXR tier 1.1 API was co-developed with AMD for the Xbox and Windows
AMD RDNA2 has dedicated RT Cores for Ray Tracing and the design was not changed at the end to incorporate RT because NVIDIA released Turing in 2018. It was designed with RT for the start, 2018 was to late in to the development of RDNA2 to changed anything at that point.
As for AI, AMD had its own design with the Rapid Packed Math that could do 2x FP16 per shader back in 2017 with VEGA. RPM is still present on RDNA architecture and can do more than FP16.
Also to note that both AMD and NVIDIA were using Ray Tracing long time ago for professional applications, NVIDIA was just the first to release a GPU with dedicated RT hardware.

links
 
Last edited:

CakeMonster

Golden Member
Nov 22, 2012
1,210
284
136
Not many would, but then again the common advice to gamers with all nuance removed would be that GPU makes the most difference for performance.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Leeea

Panino Manino

Senior member
Jan 28, 2017
649
816
136
I am not sure about that because they are Big NV shills lately.Look at 6800XT review video-half video about ray tracing and control:D
It's tangential related, but they put a video today with Bloodborne upscaled with AI to 4K/60fps and... it looks horrendous! Remember DLSS 1.0? All the detail in the textures is gone but they still praise the results!
It's shilling a bi too hard.
 

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,104
2,927
106
I'm not able to watch it right now. Could you summarize?
More data, and even more shocking results. With my cpu, in some tests even an old rx580 was keeping up with the GeForce product line.

examples:
Fortnight @ 1080p /w i7-4790k (my cpu):
the rx580 outperforms the entire GeForce product line.
fortnight ceased to receive performance gains after the Vega 56.


Hitman2 @ 1080p /w i7-4790k:
Vega 56 faster then the entire GeForce product line
no meaningful performance improvements for rx6000 over vega56


Horizon Zero Dawn @ 1080p /w 4790k:
rx6000 > 3080 > vega56 > 3060
rx6000 has a meaningful frame rate boost over vega56 ( +20 min fps )
rx580 & gtx1060 unplayable


Red dead redemption & Rainbow Six Siege ( 4790k @ 1080p ) the difference in framerates between vega56, rx6000, rtx3000 were not meaningful to me.


Watch Dogs Legion ( 4790k @ 1080p ):
rx6000 @ 64 fps min
vega 56 @ 60 fps min
rx580 > 3060ti (min fps)
rx580 & all GeForce < 60 fps min


-------------------------------

What is shocking to me is an rtx 3080 would have likely been a side grade verses my vega56, specifically in the min fps numbers. I was originally leaning toward the rtx for its raytracing and dlss. Ultimately, my bot just worked better on AMDs website, and that was all there was to it.


Upgrading to a rx6000 series was still a considerable upgrade for me. Especially at 1440p* and 4k**. However, considerable performance remains to be unlocked with a future cpu upgrade.

*my monitor
**my TV, which I am currently using for my Sekiro play through. My Vega56 was unable to do 4k /w Sekiro with med/low settings, however the rx6900xt can easily do Sekiro 4k with max settings.


If you look at the TPU reviews for the 3060 which has an MSRP of $330 (yeah I know that's a pointless number right now) they still average right around 50 FPS at 4K across the 23 games that they benchmark and only a small handful of titles drop below 30 FPS, which could probably be alleviated by turning down the settings.
For me this would not be true. All of the games I play on the couch are controller / reaction time games, and 60 fps is required. The TV is only capable of 60hz /w black frame insertion.


My old Vega 56 averaged 50 fps-ish with Sekiro @ 4k with the settings turned down. Sekiro is a game focused on rhythm, timing, and reaction time. It is internally capped and designed for 60 fps. I found the game difficult to play at 4k - 50 fps. I turned it down to 1440p - 60 fps and upscaled, but the upscale just was not as crisp and I struggled in the game. I ended up quitting the game for a while.


With my new card I can play 4k @ 60 Hz, and it makes the entire game just easier and more enjoyable. I have made more progress in the last week then I made in the entire time I owned it previous. The finer detail really seems to make a world of difference.
 
Last edited:

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,841
4,012
136
To better get an idea of where the problems are at, I went through several of the GameGPU reviews that have CPU testing data and have compiled it into a single table. I put in CPUs for both AMD and Intel to show the scaling. FPS values marked with an asterisk denote that the value has hit a game enforced FPS cap and isn't being bottlenecked by either the CPU or GPU.

3090 + 14003090 + 1600X3090 + 2700X3090 + 5900X3090 + 4770K3090 + 7700K3090 + 8700K3090 + 10700K
Watch Dogs Legion (DX 12 Ultra)5668791157296109115
The Medium (DX 12 Max)66768411079109110110
Hitman 3 (DX 12 Max)71849913984117122131
AC: Valhalla (DX 12 Very High)6173859675959696
Cyberpunk 2077 (DX12 Ultra)566678115566986104
Forza Horizon 4 (DX 12 Max)95110124178115151155170
Total War Troy (DX 11 Max)567594116678296113
Mount & Blade II (DX 11 Very High)121137155200*148196200*200*
Nioh 2 (DX 11 High)104115120*120*120*120*120*120*
Valheim (DX 11 Max)58626616292128127138
Outriders Demo (DX 11 Max)69738413173106113118
It Takes Two (DX 11 Max)100111129243125165173196
Mafia Definitive Edition (DX 11 High)83103119191115154167179

6900XT + 14006900XT + 1600X6900XT + 2700X6900XT + 5900X6900XT + 4770K6090XT + 7700K6090XT + 8700K6090XT + 10700K
Watch Dogs Legion (DX 12 Ultra)69869611785116116117
The Medium (DX 12 Max)7381878781878787
Hitman 3 (DX 12 Max)799310815299137143158
AC: Valhalla (DX 12 Very High)819110111495109109109
Cyberpunk 2077 (DX12 Ultra)607384115627793111
Forza Horizon 4 (DX 12 Max)117131144179140179179179
Total War Troy (DX 11 Max)577589117658196114
Mount & Blade II (DX 11 Very High)122138162200*140187195200*
Nioh 2 (DX 11 High)87113116120*95120*120*120*
Valheim (DX 11 Max)57636613199126126131
Outriders Demo (DX 11 Max)66758613370101109115
It Takes Two (DX 11 Max)116125139253131169180197
Mafia Definitive Edition (DX 11 High)679011016295125141145

The driver overhead does show up in the DX12 titles, even ones like The Medium where the game doesn't run well on Radeon. Contrast this with the DX11 games were both the 6900XT and 3090 have similar performance and the older CPUs don't see the same kind of uplift from being paired with a Radeon as is the case with DX12 titles. A 2700X basically gets an extra 20 FPS in games like Watch Dogs Legion or Forza Horizon 4 even though with the top CPUs both the 3090 and 6900 XT have almost the same FPS.

It's also interesting that some of the DX11 titles can see a CPU bottleneck as well where the newer Ryzen 5000 CPUs are substantially better. Both Valheim and It Takes Two seem to scale off of the IPC and clock speed gains. Even the 6-core 5600X often has the same (or effectively so) frame rates as the 5900X in those titles and just blows anything that came out before them, Intel or AMD, out of the water. Otherwise you can look at games where both cards have similar max performance like the Total War Troy or Outriders demo and the older CPUs perform relatively the same regardless of which card is being used.
 

Paul98

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2010
3,720
180
106
I was just watching this video, quite interesting. It also gives another potential reason why the RTX cards do worse at 1080p and 1440p compared with 4k vs RDNA cards, and is this something NVidia can fix.
 

MrTeal

Diamond Member
Dec 7, 2003
3,149
836
136
They saw the same effect with the cacheless 5700XT though, so it doesn't seem like it can be explained just by infinity cache.
It would be interesting to see it with a few more CPUs, like the higher core count Comet Lake models.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Leeea

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,841
4,012
136
I suppose it could even be a potential problem at 1080p in some games, but most of the testing HUB did showed that unless you ran lower settings, it didn't seem to be an issue. I'm also curious if jumping to an 8-core CPU would alleviate the problem to some degree.

I looked over the TPU results and the games that use DX12/Vulkan and it doesn't look like there's any kind of bottleneck that's immediately apparent at 1080p when using a 9900K as the CPU. All of the Nvidia cards have a performance spread that's expected. There are a few cases where the 6900XT creeps ahead at 1080p that could be the result of the 3090 finally hitting a wall, but it's hard to know for sure just from looking at the results in isolation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Leeea

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,841
4,012
136
A post in a different thread has a link to a site that has AC:Valhalla results for a wide range of CPUs that might help us explore this in better detail: https://gamegpu.com/action-/-fps-/-tps/assassin-s-creed-valhalla-2020-test-gpu-cpu

It's a game that AMD certainly does better in than Nvidia, but we can observe the behavior being described in the HUB video for older CPUs. It has Intel CPUs going back to Haswell and results for AMD going back to the first Zen CPUs as well as processors across the product range. There's even an old Haswell-E in the list so we can see how it affects older 8-core Intel chips before those became standard.
 

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,104
2,927
106
Back in 2017, a guy posted a highly controversial video on this subject:
and this related reddit thread:

It basically claims AMD used hardware GPU scheduling with GCN
and Nvidia used software CPU scheduling since Kepler
for directx command lists.

It then claims that for DX11's large command lists this allows Nvidia to schedule the draw calls optimally to obtain the best performance, while the AMD's hardware scheduler was unlikely to achieve the best distribution for draw calls.

It also claims with DX12 small command lists this problem would go away for AMD because multiple threads submitting small command lists would fill the queue or something like that.

--------------------

This video has been credited and discredited all over the place. I suspect their must be some kernel of truth in it, as this seems to be directly related to what we see now.

If nvidia is bound by design to software scheduling verses hardware scheduling, it is entirely possible this is unfixable for nvidia for this generation.
 
Last edited:

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,104
2,927
106
I suppose it could even be a potential problem at 1080p in some games, but most of the testing HUB did showed that unless you ran lower settings, it didn't seem to be an issue. I'm also curious if jumping to an 8-core CPU would alleviate the problem to some degree.
I disagree, check out his graph of:
Watch Dogs Legion 1440p Ultra Quality @ 14:27:
https://youtu.be/JLEIJhunaW8?t=867
the rx6900xt loses by 1 fps vs rtx3090 with Ryzen 5600x, but
then wins by 15 fps with the Ryzen 2600x
and wins by 16 fps with the i3-10100*

This shows that even at high quality settings at a common resolution for many of us this CPU scaling is very relevant for the rx6000 vs the rtx3000 series.

-----------------

That above linked graph is also interesting in that the difference in FPS between a Ryzen 2600x, i3 10100, and Ryzen 5600x is less then 9 fps on the rx6900.

To me, it indicates that for owners of the i3-10100 and Ryzen 2600 equivalents can skip upgrading their CPU this generation if they have a AMD graphics card. Even Ryzen 1600 owners will get far more out of a rx6000 video card upgrade then they will get from a CPU upgrade, especially if they are switching from a nvidia card to a amd card.
 
Last edited:

Racan

Senior member
Sep 22, 2012
526
700
136
Well well well, how the tables have turned.. I'm kind of shocked really, lower driver overhead was a big reason for choosing Nvidia in the past for me.
 

Timorous

Senior member
Oct 27, 2008
914
1,196
136
Why this is news? Since the DX12 launch AMD had lower overhead than Nvidia. Maybe the gpus are powerfull enough now and we have some DX12 exclusive games to show this.

EDIT: Yeah I knew it this was nothing new.

2017 anandtech article: https://www.anandtech.com/show/11223/quick-look-vulkan-3dmark-api-overhead





2017 video by NerdTechGasm:

I think it going from a theoretical issue with very few games that are impacted to a practical issue with a variety of DX12 titles is news worthy.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,841
4,012
136
If it's a big issue for them they can always go back to using a hardware scheduler. It's not like they don't have any experience in designing one. It may even make sense because outside of adding improvements to ray tracing there's nothing else that stands out as an obvious improvement to Ampere. It isn't like they're going to do a 3x FP-32 design or something like that.
 

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,104
2,927
106
Why this is news? Since the DX12 launch AMD had lower overhead than Nvidia. Maybe the gpus are powerfull enough now and we have some DX12 exclusive games to show this.
It is news now because it is handing a 10% to 30% performance increase to AMD cards for CPUs that are not the latest and greatest.

Back in 2017 it was a theoretical thing.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Mopetar

GodisanAtheist

Diamond Member
Nov 16, 2006
4,303
3,085
136
Considering I'm running an old CPU these results are very relevant to me.

Curious if the overhead trickles down into the mid range 3xxx series, or if this is only affecting the top tier of cards.

Never the less,was always planning to do a full rebuild for this upgrade given my 6600k has aged pretty badly.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Tlh97 and Leeea

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,841
4,012
136
I wanted to try to analyze where the bottlenecks started becoming an issue, so I put together a table from the GameGPU data for Assassin's Creed Valhall. I've created separate tables for Intel and AMD CPUs.

This first table is just a general progression of Ryzen CPUs going from older, low core count to the higher core counts and then across generations which brought IPC increases at the same general core count and clock speeds. The last column is the lowest power GPU at which there's a performance bottleneck for that particular CPU. In other words, there's no point in pairing it with a better GPU than the one listed in that column.

CPU / GPUCPU Cores / ClockRTX 3090RTX 3080RTX 2080 TiRTX 2080 SRTX 3070GTX 1080 TiRTX 2080RTX 3060 TiBottleneck @
R3 12004C4T @ 3.1 GHz5252525252525252GTX 1070
R3 1300X4C4T @ 3.4 GHz5757575757575757GTX 1070
R5 14004C8T @ 3.2 GHz6161616161616161GTX 1080
R5 1600X6C12T @ 3.6 GHz7373737373737371RTX 2080
R7 1800X8C16T @ 3.6 GHz7777777776747371RTX 2080 S
R5 2600X6C12T @ 3.6 GHz8080807776747371RTX 2080 Ti
R7 2700X8C16T @ 3.7 GHz8585817776747371RTX 3080
R7 3700X8C16T @ 3.6 GHz9687817776747371RTX 3090
R9 5900X12C24T @ 3.7 GHz9687817776747371RTX 3090

Let's look at a similar table for Intel CPUs. I left a lot of the later i7's and i9's off of the table because anything after a Kaby Lake i7 hit a GPU bottleneck so it's a lot of repeated data.

CPU / GPUCPU Cores / ClockRTX 3090RTX 3080RTX 2080 TiRTX 2080 SRTX 3070GTX 1080 TiRTX 2080RTX 3060 TiBottleneck @
i3 43302C4T @ 3.5 GHz4444444444444444GTX 1660 S
i3 71002C4T @ 3.9 GHz6161616161616161GTX 1080
i5 4670K4C4T @ 3.4 GHz6666666666666666RTX 2070 S
i7 4770K4C8T @ 3.5 GHz7575757575747371RTX 3070
i7 7700K4C8T @ 4.2 GHz9587817776747371RTX 3090
i5 9600K6C12T
@ 3.7 GHz
9587817776747371RTX 3090
i7 9700K8C8T @ 3.6 GHz9687817776747371RTX 3090

We can certainly see the issue at play and both core count (physical or virtual) and clock speed alleviate the problem. If you've got at least a 3700X or a 7700K, you probably won't have to worry too much about your choice of GPU. Granted this is only for a single title, but it is one of the newer major games to release so I don't expect too many other games to show worse results with more recent CPUs.

Also, there are some more recent, low-end CPUs that aren't in the charts above that should be examined.

CPU / GPUCPU Cores / ClocksRTX 3090RTX 3080RTX 2080 TiRTX 2080 SRTX 3070GTX 1080 TiRTX 2080RTX 3060 TiBottleneck @
R3 31004C/8T @ 3.6 GHz8787817776747371RTX 3080
R3 3100X4C/8T @ 3.8 GHz9487817776747371RTX 3090
i3 101004C/8T @ 3.6 GHz9687817776747371RTX 3090

It seems that older CPUs, particular those from AMD where the IPC wasn't quite as good as Intel had achieved with Skylake run into limitations. A modern 4-core CPU from either AMD or Intel is good enough to pair with a 3080 without bottlenecking it.
 
Last edited:

scineram

Senior member
Nov 1, 2020
241
206
76
The better 1080p and 1440p results with RDNA are more likely a result of infinity cache having a better hit rate and boosting performance. There's also some possibly the AMD cards not hitting any kind of resource bottleneck that RTX cards might not suffer at higher resolutions due to having massively more shaders.

It seems as though the driver overhead issue only shows up when using older CPUs or possibly only on older CPUs that don't have a minimum number of cores. All of the more recent tests with the 3090, 6900XT, etc. would have been done using a newer Intel or AMD CPU with 8 cores, so it's unlikely the results would crop up there as well. It's certainly possible, but without definitive testing I'm leaning towards other explanations for the result.
Massive cope and BS. LOL
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
6,841
4,012
136
Massive cope and BS. LOL
Could you elaborate on what you actually mean?

After looking through the results it doesn't appear that Nvida GPUs have additional performace unlocked for some titles once you get to a certain performance level. It's obvious that there were some considerable performance uplifts from going to from Zen 2 to Zen 3, but an R7 3700X is good enough for this particular title. Maybe a sufficiently overclocked Zen 3 CPU could see some kind of a performance gain, but it seems unlikely from what we're looking at.

We also know that the hit rate for infinity cache does increase at lower resolutions and because it's a lot faster than having to go out to main memory, would provide a potential boost at those resolutions, or at least allow the GPU to stretch a bit farther before it hits a CPU bottleneck. The data is there for the 6900XT as well, so we can find out if this is the case or not.

CPU6900 XT FPS6900 XT % of Max3090 FPS3090 % of Max3090 as % of 6900 XT
i3 43305850.8%4445.8%75.8%
R3 12006859.6%5254.2%76.5%
i3 71006960.5%6163.5%75.3%
R3 1300X7464.9%5759.4%77.0%
R5 14008171.1%6163.5%75.3%
i5 4670K8473.7%6668.8%78.6%
R5 1600X9179.8%7376.0%80.2%
R7 1800X9280.7%7780.2%83.7%
i7 4770K9583.3%7578.1%78.9%
R5 2600X9986.8%8083.3%80.8%
R7 2700X10188.6%8588.5%84.2%
i7 7700K10995.6%9598.9%87.2%
i5 9600K10995.6%9598.9%87.2%
i7 9700K10995.6%96100%88.1%
R7 3700X10995.6%96100%88.1%
i7 10900K10995.6%96100%88.1%
R5 5600X114 (SAM)100%96100%88.1%
R9 5900X114 (SAM)100%96100%88.1%

From the earlier comparison it appears that the 3090 doesn't see any gains past the 3700X or 7700K. The 6900XT actually does gain a small bump with Zen 3. I'd need to translate the site to go over the testing methodology to be sure that isn't due to something like using SAM (edit: after translating the page they are using SAM for Zen 3 CPUs) for those processors or anything else like that which may cause that result, but it is a difference between two GPUs that are in the same performance class. Both of them hit a wall where they start seeing a CPU bottleneck at around the same time. The Nvidia card does perform relatively better on newer hardware, and in particular it seems like it does better relatively with AMD CPUs, though that could just be a coincidence due to the lack of data points more than anything real.

Once the 6700 XT drops we'll be in a much better place in order to determine the actual answer because we can look at how it stacks up against the 5700 XT and even see how they stack up clock for clock.
 
Last edited:

Leeea

Platinum Member
Apr 3, 2020
2,104
2,927
106
Massive cope and BS. LOL
Troll.

------------------------------------------

I wanted to try to analyze where the bottlenecks started becoming an issue, so I put together a table from the GameGPU data.
Which game title was this data for?

------------------------------------------

That was quite a bit of work to put together Mopetar, thank you! I was delighted to see how well the i7 4770K was doing, pulling 83% of the potential performance out of that card.
 
Last edited:

ASK THE COMMUNITY