• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Did AMD fix frame pacing?

A

alek

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 25, 2012
Messages
149
From what i read the frame pacing issue has been partially solved when gaming on one monitor. I assume having connected extra monitors does not matter as long as the game is just on one?

Or is it totally fixed with or is there minor problem still? Does it work better with the new cards? Thanks
 
Only works on single display up to 2560x1600 right now.

Multi-Display Eyefinity resolutions are not supported.
 
It's fixed for up to 2560x1440 on a single-screen, using 2 GPUs DX10/11 games.

The R9-290(X) should have 4K fixed at launch, and more driver improvements are due this autumn for HD 7000 series and above.
 
Does anyone know if the R series radeons have hardware frame pacing or is it going to be software based like current gen cards?
 
Whach said:
Does anyone know if the R series radeons have hardware frame pacing or is it going to be software based like current gen cards?
Click to expand...

R280X and below software based again.. 290 and 290X still a mistery, we have to wait until launch to confirm..
 
Just one more thing, is nvidia using software based frame pacing too? Or is it hardware based?
 
The Mac said:
hardware.

Far less flexible.
Click to expand...

No. Nvidia is using not hardware frame pacing,it is a myth probably marketing related. Does this matter to the consumer? Not really, because NV's end result is very good. It has taken a long time for AMD to catch up and they're still not up to par in eyefinity frame pacing.

This was discussed by SKYMTL at hardware canucks, and the short version is that there is NO SUCH thing as "hardware" frame pacing. Any statement otherwise is a myth devised from marketing. NV's software frame pacing has just been up to snuff for longer than AMD's, that's all there is to it, as *all* frame pacing is software based.

Again, this really doesn't mean jack shit. Only the end result matters. AMD has made some steps to fix the issue - only eyefinity crossfire frame pacing needs to be fixed. As far as I can tell for single screen resolutions, AMD's software frame pacing is very good now. Whether eyefinity is fixed in time for the 290X release remains to be seen...
 
Last edited:
Short answer: No

Long answer: They need a hardware solution which they have not committed to yet.
 
PRIME1 said:
Short answer: No

Long answer: They need a hardware solution which they have not committed to yet.
Click to expand...

Did you fail to read the post above? It happens to be correct. There is no TRUE "Hardware FR Pacing"...It is a marketing term. Google/Bing/Yahoo it.
 
xoleras said:
No. Nvidia is using not hardware frame pacing,it is a myth probably marketing related. Does this matter to the consumer? Not really, because NV's end result is very good. It has taken a long time for AMD to catch up and they're still not up to par in eyefinity frame pacing.
Click to expand...

OFFICAL source please? AFAIK, its hardware.
 
xoleras said:
No. Nvidia is using not hardware frame pacing,it is a myth probably marketing related. Does this matter to the consumer? Not really, because NV's end result is very good. It has taken a long time for AMD to catch up and they're still not up to par in eyefinity frame pacing.

This was discussed by SKYMTL at hardware canucks, and the short version is that there is NO SUCH thing as "hardware" frame pacing. Any statement otherwise is a myth devised from marketing. NV's software frame pacing has just been up to snuff for longer than AMD's, that's all there is to it, as *all* frame pacing is software based.

Again, this really doesn't mean jack shit. Only the end result matters. AMD has made some steps to fix the issue - only eyefinity crossfire frame pacing needs to be fixed. As far as I can tell for single screen resolutions, AMD's software frame pacing is very good now. Whether eyefinity is fixed in time for the 290X release remains to be seen...
Click to expand...
Do you have a source for this? This is contrary to what I have read on multiple other websites about NVIDIA's solution, so I am curious.
 
Regarding hardware frame-metering/frame-pacing for Nvidia, I would have to say both of you guys on either side are both wrong and both correct.

Reading around, supposedly two things are brought up, and the answer isn't entirely clear. NVAPI documentation has no mention of it and, in fact, for NVAPI, it only allows detection of SLI and changing the rendering modes of SLI between NFR and AFR.

According to a few places, Nvidia frame-metering first existed in software in Geforce drivers since the G80 (Geforce 8000 series). It was not first implemented into hardware until the Fermi (GF100 series/Geforce 400 series) GPU, and later added by default to Kepler (GK100 series/Geforce 700 series) GPU.

However, according to Nvidia, a new hardware-based frame-metering was not introduced UNTIL the Geforce GTX 690.
"Kepler introduces hardware based frame rate metering, a technology that helps to minimize stuttering. In SLI mode, two GPUs share the workload by operating on successive frames; one GPU works on the current frame while the other GPU works on the next frame. But because the workload of each frame is different, the two GPUs will complete their frames at different times. Sending the frames to the monitor at varying intervals can result in perceived stuttering."

2013-10-16_00-43-07.png
Source: http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/article-keynote

At this point, I'd have to say that neither of you are correct and neither of you are wrong.

Why?

Even TechReport and PC Perspective have no hard confirmation from Nvidia other than word of mouth from the company regarding frame-metering and a press release. And, I would not be surprised it is an industry secret for the company in face of competition from AMD.

Whether or not it is in hardware or software or a combination of both, according to TechReport:
"To cushion jitter, Nvidia is increasing the amount of lag in the graphics subsystem as it inserts that delay between the completion of the rendered frame and its exposure to the display. In most cases, we're talking about tens of milliseconds or less; that sort of contribution to lag probably isn't perceptible."​
AMD's Frame-Pacing feature works the same way, only in software-- adding delays between frames to smooth out the framerate.
Vsync-3.png

Source: PC Perspective

Given the extra power in computational performance in GCN 2.0, I would not be surprised AMD implements this in hardware by at least GCN 3.0 (or whatever GCN 2.0's successor will be called), or as an extra DSP for the Radeon R10/R11 series like how the TrueAudio feature is going to work. (It is an extra logic circuitry directly on the die of the GCN 2.0 GPU.)
 
I hope this is sorted out in the future. Since ever I got a 120hz monitor and a 5970 I'm really skeptical of any dual gpu setups
 
Rizen said:
Do you have a source for this? This is contrary to what I have read on multiple other websites about NVIDIA's solution, so I am curious.
Click to expand...

The source is SKYMTL. He had a long discussion about this a while back, he is editor and the man in charge at hardwarecanucks - a site similar to hardOCP.

He more or less stated that "hardware frame pacing" is a myth and no such thing exists even for Kepler cards, even though marketing for both AMD and nvidia have characterized otherwise (for kepler and 290X, respectively). I do not know if the GTX 690 is an exception to this as stated in an earlier post, but I doubt it. Consider NV's conflicting statements. First, their marketing guy (forget his name, big fat weird looking dude?? Tom Peterson I think) stated that Geforce has had frame pacing since the GTX 400 series. Having used the 400 series in SLI, I'd say he's full of it based on that statement - although it was still way better than Xfire at the time. Then, the internet begins to think that Kepler has hardware frame metering. Suddenly, out of nowhere nvidia states that the GTX 690 is the first card to introduce hardware frame metering. Do these statements add up? No. It is marketing. Hardware frame pacing is a myth from what I can tell based on what SKYMTL stated, it is marketing and nothing more - all frame pacing is software based. Brent stated he would explain more about this in his 290X review, i'm not sure if he wants to chime in here about this, but this is more or less based on the in depth knowledge of SKYMTL. He has more inside information than you or I do, certainly. And he has stated that neither brand have hardware frame pacing as it is not possible - remember, regardless of what hardware does all of this is more or less controlled at the driver level in terms of outputting the data from two cards to the screen. Thus frame pacing must always be software component based, and cannot be done in hardware.

All that said, does this matter? Fuck no. As I said earlier, consumers do not care how and why it's done, they only care about the end result when they play their games with dual GPU configurations. Hardware or software, who gives a fuck - Only the end result matters, and NVidia's end result has been CONSISTENTLY better than AMD's for years. AMD needs to improve in this respect, period, and they need to fix eyefinity CF.

Brent stated he would address this in the 290X review, and maybe he can chime in with his thoughts on the matter and whether he fully agrees with SKYMTL.
 
Last edited:
so, nothing official then?

please show an OFFICIAL source that states hardware metering is a myth.

Some editor for a website is not official.
 
The Mac said:
so, nothing official then?

please show an OFFICIAL source that states hardware metering is a myth.

Some editor for a website is not official.
Click to expand...

Don't you think you are being kinda silly about this? The statement is clearly telling you the official sources claiming hardware are full of BS but you refuse to take any other source.

That guy has significantly more understanding than we do about the topic. You also have a post a page back from Brent implying that ALL frame pacing is software based. Who again knows more about gpus than everyone in this thread.

If you still refuse to have a hint of doubt about hardware based frame basing after that then I think you guys can stop debating lol.
 
Kardonxt said:
Don't you think you are being kinda silly about this? The statement is clearly telling you the official sources claiming hardware are full of BS but you refuse to take any other source.

That guy has significantly more understanding than we do about the topic. You also have a post a page back from Brent implying that ALL frame pacing is software based. Who again knows more about gpus than everyone in this thread.

If you still refuse to have a hint of doubt about hardware based frame basing after that then I think you guys can stop debating lol.
Click to expand...

the quote from Brent was concerning AMD, not Nvidia.
 
Digital Viper-X- said:
Frame-metering is not frame pacing, it's a tool used to aid in frame-pacing.
Click to expand...

wow, talk about pedantic.

If frame metering is hardware, and frame pacing uses it, they are one and the same as far as the end user is concerned.
 
The Mac said:
wow, talk about pedantic.

If frame metering is hardware, and frame pacing uses it, they are one and the same as far as the end user is concerned.
Click to expand...

How is that pedantic? you are talking about 2 very different things.

1 is measuring frame times, the other one is organizing frames. Is some magic chip that does "frame pacing"? in the end it's all software controlled :).
 
Last edited:
as far as im concerned, as ive said, Nvidia's solution is hardware based. Ive seen nothing that indicates otherwise.

The fact that its controlled by software is irrelevant.

If you have some official nividia statement to the contrary, id be happy to read it.

"In fact, in a bit of a shocking revelation, Petersen told us Nvidia has "lots of hardware" in its GPUs aimed at trying to fix multi-GPU stuttering."

Sounds like hardware to me. The word "Hardware" is the giveaway there.
 
The Mac said:
as far as im concerned, as ive said, Nvidia's solution is hardware based. Ive seen nothing that indicates otherwise.

The fact that its controlled by software is irrelevant.

If you have some official nividia statement to the contrary, id be happy to read it.

"In fact, in a bit of a shocking revelation, Petersen told us Nvidia has "lots of hardware" in its GPUs aimed at trying to fix multi-GPU stuttering."

Sounds like hardware to me. The word "Hardware" is the giveaway there.
Click to expand...

"Lots of hardware" is so technical and explanatory! lets take them at their word, and forget the fact that they were trying to take advantage of the fact that their competition is behind in this area.

All they have said so far is that they have "lots of hardware" in their gpu to TRY to fix multi-gpu stuttering. That doesn't mean the solution is hardware based, it could mean that they added a hardware component to their gpus to help with their frame-pacing solution.
 
umm....that would make it hardware...

shaders require software to control them, does that make them software shaders?

certainly not...
 
The Mac said:
umm....that would make it hardware...

shaders require software to control them, does that make them software shaders?

certainly not...
Click to expand...

MSI Afterburner requires hardware to work, is it a hardware solution?

from what you 2 have posted, NV added some hardware to capture frame times, and uses software to "pace" them.

I'm just saying don't drink marketting coolaid :) you can chose to believe w/e the hell you want.
 
Last edited:
Im not drinking the cool aid, im just pointing out that they have "claimed" its hardware.

whether thats true or not, is another issue.
 
The Mac said:
the quote from Brent was concerning AMD, not Nvidia.
Click to expand...

I thought that when I first read it too but imo he would have just said it's software based. Instead he used the word all twice for no reason.

Not a big deal tho. We will find out for sure not too long from now.
 
he said it twice because the original comment was that someone thought the perhaps the 290/290x was hardware, and the rest were software.

hense "software, all of it" meaning all AMD cards...
 
grammer aside, i certainly could be wrong, but it seems pretty clear to me.

Brent is probobly reading this thread laughing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top