#Time spy benchmark software#

However, the reason for that is obvious: Currently Time Spy is the only piece of software where Async Compute is enabled on nVidia devices *and* results in a performance gain. Yes, there is less of a difference between Pascal and Polaris than in most games/benchmarks using Async Compute. So in practice your shiny new videocard will not have any specific paths for yesterday’s games either.īut, more importantly… He completely misinterprets the results of Time Spy.

#Time spy benchmark code#

However, in practice that is not going to happen of course, because that means that games have to receive updates to their code indefinitely, for each new videocard that arrives, until the end of time. In this case, it is not just the microarchitecture itself, but the actual configuration of the video card has a direct effect on how async compute code performs as well (balance between number of shaders, shader performance and memory bandwidth and such factors). You need to write architecture-specific paths, is what people of the “vendor specific code path”-school of thought really mean.

I mean, you can write a path specific for AMD or NVidia’s current GPU architecture, but that is no guarantee that it is going to be any good on architectures from the past, or architectures from the future. However, ‘vendor’ is a misnomer here anyway. Indeed, Time Spy does not use vendor specific code paths. In games that do use can be the relationship between AMD and Nvidia GPUs also different from the Time Spy benchmark represents. That also means that there is no specific optimization for AMD GPUs and AMD’s implementation of asynchronous compute is not fully exploited.

#Time spy benchmark plus#

Futuremark see that as a plus it therefore does not matter which video card you test, because when turning Time Spy they all follow the same code path, so you can make fair comparisons. He used Time Spy as a benchmark, and added the following description:Ībout 3DMark Time Spy has recently been some controversy, because it is found that the benchmark does not use vendor specific code paths, but a generic code path used for all hardware. These changes ensure that the Hall of Fame only includes scores that have passed all of our latest validation checks.Today I read a review of AMD’s new Radeon RX470 on, by Jelle Stuip. New scores for 3DMarkFire Strike, Sky Diver, Cloud Gate, and Ice Storm must use 3DMark v1.5.915 or later. New scores must use SystemInfo 4.40 or later. The Hall of Fame now only displays historical scores submitted using SystemInfo 4.34 or later. Results that failed to pass the new, stricter validation have been removed from the Hall of Fame. Time measurement validation is now less forgiving. Results that fail to pass the new validation have been removed from the Hall of Fame. We've improved the accuracy of the time measurement validation. You can find this setting on the 3DMark options screen. SystemInfo hardware monitoring must also be turned on for the benchmark run. New 3DMark scores submitted after Februmust use >3DMark v or later and SystemInfo 5.4 or later. We've improved our score validation checks. You must now use 3DMark v or later to be eligible for the Hall of Fame. 3DMark scores from older versions submitted after Decemwill no longer appear in benchmark search results.