The Great Equalizer 3 Discussion

[poofyhairguy]

Sorry if I already missed the thread but I thought this was one of the coolest articles I have read about mobile devices in a while. To think an iPad 4 has a GPU like one of my all-time favorites (the 7900 GS), or that the Qualcomm 320 seems like a real competitor to the E-350 in my kitchen HTPC is pretty amazing.

Another shocking thing is how poorly the Tegra 3 does. I mean the old 6600 gets kicked all over the place by everything else except that Tegra 3. But in the Android market the Tegra 3 gets some of the best games due to the Tegra Zone, and that game console coming out is Tegra 3 based. If only they would have waited a generation they could released something comparable to a 360!

Qualcomm needs to step up and start bribing high-end iOS game developers like Nvidia does.

 

[ChronoReverse]

One thing to note is that 3DMark was just a bad match for the 7900GS.

The 8500GT, for example, scores over twice as fast but in games for that time (2007ish) it was slower than the 7900GS.

That is to say, the workload balance has shifted (plus unified shaders help a lot).

 

[pm]

I missed the article - I read the forums a lot, but I'm not so good at reading the main site... which is a bit ironic now that I think about it.

For anyone who doesn't know what Poofy is talking about, it's this:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/6877/the-great-equalizer-part-3

And it's really interesting.

 

[BrightCandle]

Its kind of interesting in the sense that such a comparison shows us something, but isn't really indicative of relative performance. The way we produce an image today has changed quite a lot to focus on universal shaders that perform well in particular operations. The 6600 clearly does poorly on that test but that doesn't mean it is slower overall or that these mobile solutions are now faster.

When that card was released we used less of those effects and a variety of different techniques for image quality. So yes in a modern workload it does poorly, but its not really indicative of being surpassed in performance. If you took a game based on that eras hardware and compared then you would see the discrete card destroy the mobile solutions. So which is right about the relative performance? Well neither because its not a fair comparison. For that I would look at the raw specs, it gives you a better idea of ballpark performance on a macro level than running software that is heavily optimised for one piece of hardware.

 

[ChronoReverse]

On the other hand, the 8500GT is a good measuring stick because it has fully unified shaders and thus can rebalance itself to modern workloads. And it destroys all the mobile GPUs but is in turn beaten by the HD4000.

In any case, it's just something interesting to look at.

 

[Red Storm]

Sadly even though mobile is slowly slowly catching up to what we're used to on traditional PCs, the games - with very few exceptions - are all nothing more than flash-equivalent time wasters.

 

[lopri]

A usual propaganda article one can expect from Anand. I wouldn't be surprised if there were his name somewhere in the credit section of this new iteration of 3DMark.

I ran it yesterday on my N4 and it was already clear how the numbers were unreliable and simple driver swap or an incremental upgrade of the OS can change the scores like night and day, comparing numbers reported by others. There is also absolutely no transparency as to what's being executed how per different platforms, which is troubling. (Does anyone seriously believe Android versions and PC versions run same codes?)

There is nothing equalizing, but the usual mob practice with the "contributions" from "industry leaders."

 

[ChronoReverse]

What does that have to do with "propaganda"?

It's kinda blindingly obvious that things like OS version and driver version affect performance. This is true of actual games on the desktop as well.


Obviously there aren't any hard conclusion to make because they're different platforms, but it's still an interesting look.

 

[poofyhairguy]

One thing to note is that 3DMark was just a bad match for the 7900GS.

The 8500GT, for example, scores over twice as fast but in games for that time (2007ish) it was slower than the 7900GS.

That is to say, the workload balance has shifted (plus unified shaders help a lot).

Oh yeah I remember how much better the 7900GS was. Heck the 8500GT was almost a low-level part, the real deal in the midrange was the 8600 GT.

From what I understand SGX has a unified shaders setup and Mali doesn't (don't know about Adreno). It looks like that is a huge benefit in 2013.

 

[ChronoReverse]

The Mali that comes with the A15 is unified but the one with the A9 like in the Note 2 isn't.

The Adreno 225 and up is unified.

Tegra is not unified.


So far there has been a sizeable performance leap when each architecture went unified. Tegra 4 still isn't unified but is very fast so I wonder if there'll be a nice jump for Tegra 5 (much later).

 

[stormkroe]

I'm having a great private moment that MALI 400 has been finally exposed as an underwhelming gpu after all the scoffing I got from people who were infatuated with their GS2's when I brought it up. The adreno 220 beats it embarrassingly. Actually, Chronoreverse is the only person who agreed with me when I was wearing the foil hat at the obviously inaccurate mali benchmarks.
Good times, good times...

 

[StrangerGuy]

Sadly even though mobile is slowly slowly catching up to what we're used to on traditional PCs, the games - with very few exceptions - are all nothing more than flash-equivalent time wasters.

It's something called fragmentation, exactly like PCs. If anybody wanted to make a mass appeal game why would they release it only for Adreno 320 or higher...Maybe like only 1% of population could play it?

 

[Red Storm]

It's something called fragmentation, exactly like PCs. If anybody wanted to make a mass appeal game why would they release it only for Adreno 320 or higher...Maybe like only 1% of population could play it?

Uh, you don't need super high end graphics to make a good game. My point is that almost all phone games are nothing more than flash-equivalent time wasters. I would really like to see some more in depth games be developed.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Uh, you don't need super high end graphics to make a good game. My point is that almost all phone games are nothing more than flash-equivalent time wasters. I would really like to see some more in depth games be developed.

Controls are part of the problem. That is one thing I do like about my Prime, how it has PSX controller support out-of-the-box.

Quite honestly though if you give me enough power for a DS emulator I don't care about games on the mobile OS anymore.

 

[Munky]

Interesting article for curious minds, but from a practical point of view, does it matter? Does the ipad run Skyrim? No. Would I want to play Skyrim on a touchscreen interface, a 10-inch screen, and microscopic speakers? No. Would I bother hooking up a tablet to external controllers, display and speakers when I have a perfectly running gaming PC? Hell no.

 

[poofyhairguy]

Interesting article for curious minds, but from a practical point of view, does it matter?

Well, it does show how fast this technology is advancing. Back in 2010 the best Android phones couldn't beat an original Xbox. Within a year we will see some that beat the 360.

 

[Munky]

Yeah, it does seem incredible how fast technology advances. It's even more sobering when you realize that the integrated GPU's from AMD are now ahead of the late, great Ati x1900xt I had back in the day, and probably approaching the performance of a 8800gtx.

 

[StrangerGuy]

Well, it does show how fast this technology is advancing. Back in 2010 the best Android phones couldn't beat an original Xbox. Within a year we will see some that beat the 360.

If you take GLBenchmark 2.7 as true: http://www.glbenchmark.com/result.j...r=score&data-source=1&version=latest&base=gpu

SGX540 = 80 FPS (Galaxy S, Jun 2010)
Adreno 320 = 826 FPS (Nexus 4, Nov 2012)

More than a 10x increase in just 2.5 years! I don't think even the golden age of PC video card performance ramped up that fast after the Voodoo 1.

 

[Red Storm]

If you take GLBenchmark 2.7 as true:

SGX540 = 80 FPS (Galaxy S, Jun 2010)
Adreno 320 = 826 FPS (Nexus 4, Nov 2012)

More than a 10x increase in just 2.5 years! I don't think even the golden age of PC video card performance ramped up that fast after the Voodoo 1.

It really is crazy. That's why I think it's easily possible for mobile devices to overtake consoles in the living room. Just need official dedicated controllers, and more developers making true in depth games. You could use your phone/tablet as a console in front of your TV and then take it with you on the go.

 

[ponyo]

If you take GLBenchmark 2.7 as true: http://www.glbenchmark.com/result.j...r=score&data-source=1&version=latest&base=gpu

SGX540 = 80 FPS (Galaxy S, Jun 2010)
Adreno 320 = 826 FPS (Nexus 4, Nov 2012)

More than a 10x increase in just 2.5 years! I don't think even the golden age of PC video card performance ramped up that fast after the Voodoo 1.

That's crazy! It's not like SGX540 was a slow chip. SGX540 in Galaxy S was twice as fast as SGX535 used in iPhone4 and other flagship Android phones of the same era.

 

[ChronoReverse]

To be fair, most of it was catch up using all the lessons learned already. The original performance boost was much more difficult since the software (like the APIs) were also hampering performance and effects.

That is to say, the mobile GPUs from three years ago were REALLY slow. They're still slow now but are at acceptable levels (and amazing for mobile devices).

 

[ams23]

If you take GLBenchmark 2.7 as true: http://www.glbenchmark.com/result.j...r=score&data-source=1&version=latest&base=gpu

SGX540 = 80 FPS (Galaxy S, Jun 2010)
Adreno 320 = 826 FPS (Nexus 4, Nov 2012)

More than a 10x increase in just 2.5 years! I don't think even the golden age of PC video card performance ramped up that fast after the Voodoo 1.

No no, GLBenchmark 2.7 lists frames rendered (over X seconds of time), not frames per second! The actual fps is about 14fps for Adreno 320 (in the Nexus 4) and about 1.4fps for SGX540 (in the Galaxy S). So there is a 10x difference (which is not surprising given the rate of improvements in GPU performance in the mobile space), but neither GPU is even close to offering smooth and playable framerates at 1080p with these detail levels.

 

[ChronoReverse]

He used the wrong terms but he's not wrong about the 10x speedup.

 

[ams23]

Yes, but a 10x speedup is more the norm rather than the exception from all mobile GPU vendors over this period of time. And even a 10x speedup is not nearly enough to provide a smooth framerate with this benchmark at 1080p rendered resolution.

 

[Fire&Blood]

Agreed with the sentiment resonated here. Many software & hardware gaps were closed recently, post A9 Cortex chips are making a big difference so we are inching towards the final barrier in mobile, the battery.
Die shrinks and new designs may give us a little more room but barring a revolutionary battery tech breakthrough we are near the limits now.

~7 years ago I bought a 7800GT that handled very well everything that was thrown at it in 720p. To know that mobile is nearly at it's level now is very impressive, fact that even more can be achieved without major changes to power envelope is mind blowing.

Also agree with the notion that mobile games/software aren't as "serious" as they could be but if given the choice, I would rather have the limitations sit on the software than the hardware side of things. Things should get better by the time Adreno 3xx and it's counterparts become the most common GPU found in consumers phones.