Gtx 1080 benchmarked

I'm quite inclined to believe these AotS benchmarks are true; more so than 3dmark honestly
 
Ieldra said:
I'm quite inclined to believe these AotS benchmarks are true; more so than 3dmark honestly
Click to expand...
You did notice this is before any of the 1080 was given out to reviewers/analysts?
Skeptical me says ( :) ) That is expecting a close NVIDIA lab-partner employee for some reason to test this on an AMD game where it is also unknown what changes are required in DX12 code path to make it work optimally .

These engineers-developers would not do that because of too many unknowns, and why they would come back to 3D Mark.
And to show how well controlled NVIDIA has this with their close partners-labs (before release to reviewer-analysts) we have hardly seen any 3DMark results posted.
Why I find it really hard to accept the AotS test, no matter if they score well or bad.

If they bothered to test in AoTS (ignoring why they would not), why not leak any other game associated with NVIDIA technology that would show a more accurate picture against Maxwell 2 (these are employees working in a lab-partner close to NVIDIA to have an engineering sample)?
Why no VR performance result leaks yet?
Two more reasons it is suspect.

Cheers
 
Last edited:
CSI_PC said:
You did notice this is before any of the 1080 was given out to reviewers/analysts?
That is expecting a close NVIDIA lab-partner employee for some reason to test this on an AMD game where it is also unknown what changes are required in DX12 code path to make it work optimally .

These engineers-developers would not do that because of too many unknowns, and why they would come back to 3D Mark.
And to show how well controlled NVIDIA has this with their close partners-labs (before release to reviewer-analysts) we have hardly seen any 3DMark results posted.
Why I find it really hard to accept the AotS test, no matter if they score well or bad.

If they bothered to test in AoTS, why not leak any other game associated with NVIDIA technology that would show a more accurate picture against Maxwell 2?
Another reason it is suspect.

Cheers
Click to expand...


True, true, but performance is very much in line with FPP performance, which is what this game scales well with.

I dunno, this results seems right, even if it's fake I expect real results to gravitate around these values

I get ~ 46.5 fps at ~ 8.4tflop and 384 gb/s memory

this is around 10% higher so roughly 9.2 tflop (assuming similar util)
 
Ieldra said:
True, true, but performance is very much in line with FPP performance, which is what this game scales well with.

I dunno, this results seems right, even if it's fake I expect real results to gravitate around these values

I get ~ 46.5 fps at ~ 8.4tflop and 384 gb/s memory

this is around 10% higher so roughly 9.2 tflop (assuming similar util)
Click to expand...
The best fakes try to take a correlation, for them it is the fun of being used by internet publications.
And it is amazing how many sites are now broadcasting these results without actually investigating them further, such as why would a NVIDIA close partner employee using an engineering sample use an AMD game :)
It is strange how this result just appears 1 day before the event when obviously it is an engineering sample, personally I think they meant to try and sync the release to the event date to make it even more plausible, also forgetting earliest anyone would use the reviewer sample cards would be a day after the event and that is if everything went smoothly installing the cards and working with the game.
Cheers
 
CSI_PC said:
The best fakes try to take a correlation, for them it is the fun of being used by internet publications.
And it is amazing how many sites are now broadcasting these results without actually investigating them further, such as why would a NVIDIA close partner employee using an engineering sample use an AMD game :)
It is strange how this result just appears 1 day before the event when obviously it is an engineering sample, personally I think they meant to try and sync the release to the event date to make it even more plausible.
Cheers
Click to expand...

You're absolutely right it is weird but afaik if you're using steam version it uploads results automatically

I dunno man, you're totally right though it seems suspect
 
The AoTS is probably going to pop up in many threads now it is being mentioned by online publications, so feel free to copy-paste-change bits of this to whatever thread you want:

OK no idea if this changed (I doubt it) since beginning of September 2015.
Kollock at Oxide went on record to say:
Personally, I think one could just as easily make the claim that we were biased toward Nvidia as the only 'vendor' specific code is for Nvidia where we had to shutdown async compute. By vendor specific, I mean a case where we look at the Vendor ID and make changes to our rendering path. Curiously, their driver reported this feature was functional but attempting to use it was an unmitigated disaster in terms of performance and conformance so we shut it down on their hardware. As far as I know, Maxwell doesn't really have Async Compute so I don't know why their driver was trying to expose that. The only other thing that is different between them is that Nvidia does fall into Tier 2 class binding hardware instead of Tier 3 like AMD which requires a little bit more CPU overhead in D3D12, but I don't think it ended up being very significant. This isn't a vendor specific path, as it's responding to capabilities the driver reports.

From our perspective, one of the surprising things about the results is just how good Nvidia's DX11 perf is. But that's a very recent development, with huge CPU perf improvements over the last month. Still, DX12 CPU overhead is still far far better on Nvidia, and we haven't even tuned it as much as DX11.
Click to expand...

So why would one expect a close NVIDIA partner lab-developer with an engineering sample (date is before the Pascal event and 1080s being given out) to test with AoTS and DX12?
Where are the performance result leaks for VR or another game with benchmarks that utilise NVIDIA technology?
The last two are more likely to be seen by such an employee with an engineering sample IMO.

Anyway, if the above quote has not changed, then testing in AoTS is currently pointless, and importantly has implications that multiple DX12 paths will be required to differentiate between Pascal and Maxwell-Kepler in games not just AoTS.
So patches will be needed and not just driver updates.
Cheers
 
Last edited:
I really liked og Titan, but imo Titan X has issues (unless they've respun with whatever fix 960 got). Gonna wait for the dust to settle to see how Pascal is, keep an eye on geforce forum problem reports, etc.
 
CSI_PC said:
The AoTS is probably going to pop up in many threads now it is being mentioned by online publications, so feel free to copy-paste-change bits of this to whatever thread you want:

OK no idea if this changed (I doubt it) since beginning of September 2015.
Kollock at Oxide went on record to say:


So why would one expect a close NVIDIA partner lab-developer with an engineering sample (date is before the Pascal event and 1080s being given out) to test with AoTS and DX12?
Where are the performance result leaks for VR or another game with benchmarks that utilise NVIDIA technology?
The last two are more likely to be seen by such an employee with an engineering sample IMO.

Anyway, if the above quote has not changed, then testing in AoTS is currently pointless, and importantly has implications that multiple DX12 paths will be required to differentiate between Pascal and Maxwell-Kepler in games not just AoTS.
So patches will be needed and not just driver updates.
Cheers
Click to expand...

Yeah I agree with all this, everything they (oxide) have said both officially and on forums points to a unified path, and they boast about it, which I genuinely find strange, surreal almost.

On the other hand I've found my 980ti performing exactly on par with the ratio of theoretical compute throughput.

The highest I got mine to was 8400gflops,Fury X at stock is 2.5% more, and it's score was 2.5% more, same behavior at lower clocks, with a very small variation (3% increase in 980ti perf) between 8400gflops 7ghz memory and 8400gflops 8ghz memory (11%+). This suggests it performs equally well.

Then again I'm comparing to the original review here, it was on a skylake system.

Whereas in the haswell-e review done a while later the Fury X performed roughly 5% worse
 
Ieldra said:
Yeah I agree with all this, everything they (oxide) have said both officially and on forums points to a unified path, and they boast about it, which I genuinely find strange, surreal almost.

On the other hand I've found my 980ti performing exactly on par with the ratio of theoretical compute throughput.

The highest I got mine to was 8400gflops,Fury X at stock is 2.5% more, and it's score was 2.5% more, same behavior at lower clocks, with a very small variation (3% increase in 980ti perf) between 8400gflops 7ghz memory and 8400gflops 8ghz memory (11%+). This suggests it performs equally well.

Then again I'm comparing to the original review here, it was on a skylake system.

Whereas in the haswell-e review done a while later the Fury X performed roughly 5% worse
Click to expand...

Your not the only one to see improvements.
Even Mid Feb 2016 Kollock had to re-iterate it was disabled.
Async compute is currently forcibly disabled on public builds of Ashes for NV hardware. Whatever performance changes you are seeing driver to driver doesn't have anything to do with async compute.
I can confirm that the latest shipping DX12 drivers from NV do support async compute. You'd have to ask NV how specifically it is implemented.
Click to expand...

Ext3h on B3D thinks this has changed (but did not post information backing this up) in response to my post showing the Nov'15 reply of Kollock, but if it changed it had to be very recently and I can find no information suggesting it has, although that does not mean Ext3h is wrong.
Cheers
 
i just formatted my pc and reinstalled w10 fresh


downloaded latest aots installer from gog and installed

async compute enabled by default this time, release version was disabled for nvidia

ill test again in a minute but im pretty sure perf was worse with it off than on
 
Ieldra said:
i just formatted my pc and reinstalled w10 fresh


downloaded latest aots installer from gog and installed

async compute enabled by default this time, release version was disabled for nvidia

ill test again in a minute but im pretty sure perf was worse with it off than on
Click to expand...
On the older versions you could still click enable async compute?
If so it would suggest the option is not linked to the hard-coded DX12 rendering path to disable.
So unfortunately still no guarantee it means Oxide removed that DX12 rendering path put in for NVIDIA products.

I am not sure how we can prove this beyond a statement from Oxide or Kollock.
Because it means control would need to be given to the NVIDIA driver, and if so which driver manages whether to enable/disable async compute in the context of AoTS.
And it was shown in February results would change driver to driver even with Async Compute still disabled.....
Cheers
 
Ieldra said:
i just formatted my pc and reinstalled w10 fresh


downloaded latest aots installer from gog and installed

async compute enabled by default this time, release version was disabled for nvidia

ill test again in a minute but im pretty sure perf was worse with it off than on
Click to expand...

Thinking this through and it is a pain.
You would need to go back to an older driver version to see if this is now controlled by NVIDIA rather than Oxide.
Using an older driver should result in the performance tanking when you enable Async Compute if Oxide has made the rendering path universal again.

Although this is then a balance between driver stability-issues and finding the driver version that is meant to now handle the SM block issue with async compute.
Edit:
OK use a driver before GeForce Game Ready 364.51 - this was meant to be do something for AoTS.
Cheers
 
Well I have my old results

Big post inc, apologies
Ieldra said:
5820K @ 4.5
32GB DDR4 2933
980Ti

1440p

Some benchmark results with and without core and memory overclocks

Highest memory controller load (reported by GPU-Z) was in CRAZY preset run with memory @ 1490/7000 (73%)

DX12 - HIGH PRESET 980Ti @ 1210/7000

== Configuration =========================================================
API: DirectX 12
==========================================================================
Quality Preset: High
==========================================================================

Resolution: 2560x1440
Fullscreen: True
Bloom Quality: High
PointLight Quality: High
Glare Quality: Low
Shading Samples: 8 million
Terrain Shading Samples: 8 million
Shadow Quality: Mid
Temporal AA Duration: 0
Temporal AA Time Slice: 0
Multisample Anti-Aliasing: 2x
Texture Rank : 1


== Total Avg Results =================================================
Total Time: 60.005051 ms per frame
Avg Framerate: 61.550373 FPS (16.246855 ms)
Weighted Framerate: 60.946045 FPS (16.407955 ms)
CPU frame rate (estimated if not GPU bound): 142.365112 FPS (7.024193 ms)
Percent GPU Bound: 99.982994 %
Driver throughput (Batches per ms): 7991.057129 Batches
Average Batches per frame: 14088.831055 Batches
==========================================================================
DX12 - HIGH PRESET 980Ti @ 1490/7000

== Configuration =========================================================
API: DirectX 12
==========================================================================
Quality Preset: High
==========================================================================

Resolution: 2560x1440
Fullscreen: True
Bloom Quality: High
PointLight Quality: High
Glare Quality: Low
Shading Samples: 8 million
Terrain Shading Samples: 8 million
Shadow Quality: Mid
Temporal AA Duration: 0
Temporal AA Time Slice: 0
Multisample Anti-Aliasing: 2x
Texture Rank : 1


== Total Avg Results =================================================
Total Time: 60.001251 ms per frame
Avg Framerate: 71.991623 FPS (13.890505 ms)
Weighted Framerate: 71.337791 FPS (14.017815 ms)
CPU frame rate (estimated if not GPU bound): 145.114700 FPS (6.891101 ms)
Percent GPU Bound: 99.961853 %
Driver throughput (Batches per ms): 8080.241699 Batches
Average Batches per frame: 14101.337891 Batches
==========================================================================
DX12 - HIGH PRESET 980Ti @ 1490/8000
== Configuration =========================================================
API: DirectX 12
==========================================================================
Quality Preset: High
==========================================================================

Resolution: 2560x1440
Fullscreen: True
Bloom Quality: High
PointLight Quality: High
Glare Quality: Low
Shading Samples: 8 million
Terrain Shading Samples: 8 million
Shadow Quality: Mid
Temporal AA Duration: 0
Temporal AA Time Slice: 0
Multisample Anti-Aliasing: 2x
Texture Rank : 1


== Total Avg Results =================================================
Total Time: 59.999844 ms per frame
Avg Framerate: 74.839638 FPS (13.361903 ms)
Weighted Framerate: 73.669044 FPS (13.574223 ms)
CPU frame rate (estimated if not GPU bound): 136.416306 FPS (7.330503 ms)
Percent GPU Bound: 95.914856 %
Driver throughput (Batches per ms): 7934.309570 Batches
Average Batches per frame: 14281.052734 Batches
==========================================================================
DX12 - CRAZY PRESET - 980Ti @ 1210/7000
== Configuration =========================================================
API: DirectX 12
==========================================================================
Quality Preset: Crazy
==========================================================================

Resolution: 2560x1440
Fullscreen: True
Bloom Quality: High
PointLight Quality: High
Glare Quality: High
Shading Samples: 16 million
Terrain Shading Samples: 16 million
Shadow Quality: High
Temporal AA Duration: 0
Temporal AA Time Slice: 0
Multisample Anti-Aliasing: 4x
Texture Rank : 1


== Total Avg Results =================================================
Total Time: 60.002960 ms per frame
Avg Framerate: 37.833069 FPS (26.431904 ms)
Weighted Framerate: 37.195988 FPS (26.884621 ms)
CPU frame rate (estimated if not GPU bound): 123.674149 FPS (8.085764 ms)
Percent GPU Bound: 100.000000 %
Driver throughput (Batches per ms): 7912.587402 Batches
Average Batches per frame: 17555.273438 Batches
==========================================================================
DX12 - CRAZY PRESET - 980Ti @ 1490/7000
== Configuration =========================================================
API: DirectX 12
==========================================================================
Quality Preset: Crazy
==========================================================================

Resolution: 2560x1440
Fullscreen: True
Bloom Quality: High
PointLight Quality: High
Glare Quality: High
Shading Samples: 16 million
Terrain Shading Samples: 16 million
Shadow Quality: High
Temporal AA Duration: 0
Temporal AA Time Slice: 0
Multisample Anti-Aliasing: 4x
Texture Rank : 1


== Total Avg Results =================================================
Total Time: 60.002106 ms per frame
Avg Framerate: 43.745224 FPS (22.859638 ms)
Weighted Framerate: 43.088013 FPS (23.208311 ms)
CPU frame rate (estimated if not GPU bound): 129.148865 FPS (7.743002 ms)
Percent GPU Bound: 100.000000 %
Driver throughput (Batches per ms): 8550.075195 Batches
Average Batches per frame: 17746.050781 Batches
==========================================================================
DX12 - CRAZY PRESET - 980Ti @ 1490/8000
== Configuration =========================================================
API: DirectX 12
==========================================================================
Quality Preset: Crazy
==========================================================================

Resolution: 2560x1440
Fullscreen: True
Bloom Quality: High
PointLight Quality: High
Glare Quality: High
Shading Samples: 16 million
Terrain Shading Samples: 16 million
Shadow Quality: High
Temporal AA Duration: 0
Temporal AA Time Slice: 0
Multisample Anti-Aliasing: 4x
Texture Rank : 1


== Total Avg Results =================================================
Total Time: 60.002808 ms per frame
Avg Framerate: 45.875206 FPS (21.798267 ms)
Weighted Framerate: 45.184284 FPS (22.131588 ms)
CPU frame rate (estimated if not GPU bound): 132.483719 FPS (7.548098 ms)
Percent GPU Bound: 99.924889 %
Driver throughput (Batches per ms): 8930.305664 Batches
Average Batches per frame: 17745.410156 Batches
==========================================================================

[H] results for comparison
145950436379jEKuNgdA_3_2.gif
Click to expand...


Now I'm on 365.10 and the newest version of the game

Async ON

Screenshot (7).png


Async OFF

Screenshot (3).png


Same clocks as my old benches btw, old benches were on a different driver though let me check which

it was 364.72
 
Ieldra said:
Well I have my old results

Big post inc, apologies


Now I'm on 365.10 and the newest version of the game


Same clocks as my old benches btw, old benches were on a different driver though let me check which
Click to expand...

yeah if its ok please re-run with drivers before 364.51 - must be prior to that driver as it is AoTS ready... whatever that means.
If Oxide has left in the rendering path changes then you should still see a little boost between async on and off.

Cheers
 
Odellus said:
not comparing the same scenes, numbers are way higher than the graphs nvidia published say they will be, getting over 60 fps in a game capped at 60 fps. why even give this trash views by posting it here?
Click to expand...
Absolutely right. I'm just waiting till the NDA gets removed and all the review sites are able to post legit benchmarks before I draw my conclusions. I still have to admit I'll probably be getting a 1080 for my next build, just not the Founders Edition...
 
AdoredTV made a new video about the Pascal announcement, he's already on /r/nvidia getting into fights with people again.

I didn't watch it but I assume I can effectively summarize it as "Look at all this marketing crap, who believes this crap? Polaris is gonna be amazing."
 
There's a new guy called "PowerGPU" floating a Pascal video. I put my response here.

He shows the Ashes leak and says "See it's barely faster than a 980 Ti" but fails to mention the overclocks.
Sometimes I just can't fathom how stupid people can be.

"Hurr durr the chart just says '980 Ti' my brain assumes stock clocks because I have no criticial thinking ability."

FYH8Qih.png
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
There's a new guy called "PowerGPU" floating a Pascal video. I put my response here.

He shows the Ashes leak and says "See it's barely faster than a 980 Ti" but fails to mention the overclocks.
Sometimes I just can't fathom how stupid people can be.

"Hurr durr the chart just says '980 Ti' my brain assumes stock clocks because I have no criticial thinking ability."

FYH8Qih.png
Click to expand...

Rofl, I know whose result he's using for the 980ti :p

That's actually at 1525/3850
 
TaintedSquirrel said:
There's a new guy called "PowerGPU" floating a Pascal video. I put my response here.

He shows the Ashes leak and says "See it's barely faster than a 980 Ti" but fails to mention the overclocks.
Sometimes I just can't fathom how stupid people can be.

"Hurr durr the chart just says '980 Ti' my brain assumes stock clocks because I have no criticial thinking ability."

FYH8Qih.png
Click to expand...

Better be used to that kind of videos because that's the kind of press AMD are paying for, that's kind of press AMD want. Nothing about reputable tech sites, only unknown YouTube guys..
 
Araxie said:
Better be used to that kind of videos because that's the kind of press AMD are paying for, that's kind of press AMD want. Nothing about reputable tech sites, only unknown YouTube guys..
Click to expand...
Retards exist on both sides of the aisle. Except it's trendy to shit on Nvidia these days so we get more of them coming out of the woodwork with videos like that. Everybody wants to be the next Linus. This guy isn't an #RTP member but at this rate he will be very soon.

Sidenote: The "don't be hyped for Pascal" thread on BAPC just got nuked.
 
Araxie said:
Better be used to that kind of videos because that's the kind of press AMD are paying for, that's kind of press AMD want. Nothing about reputable tech sites, only unknown YouTube guys..
Click to expand...
By the way, I think this makes a good point. AMD's focus on social media reviewers (See: Nano) promotes this kind of bias from content creators. People are now vying for AMD's attention in hopes that they get free review samples. Meanwhile, professional reviewers, the ones doing real work, are being neglected because they aren't as persuadable as random YouTubers excited to get free stuff.
 
Araxie said:
Better be used to that kind of videos because that's the kind of press AMD are paying for, that's kind of press AMD want. Nothing about reputable tech sites, only unknown YouTube guys..
Click to expand...


And this kind of marketing is dangerous as its target marketing, friends of friends tend to have similar ideas....... This is exactly why things go viral.
 
razor1 said:
And this kind of marketing is dangerous as its target marketing, friends of friends tend to have similar ideas....... This is exactly why things go viral.
Click to expand...

Terribly dangerous indeed.. as Tainted Said everyone want to be a Linus those kind of guys have a strong power in the web.. "hey but linus said this" then that thing that linus said its just the truth of everything.. but also the fact that just "hey im getting paid for make videos weekly on youtube, I don't need a career I just have to make videos" then everyone will want to make that..
 
yep this is exactly why I told my brother to make sure his daughter never watches youtube without supervision lol, when I worked at an advertising firm 9 years go, even though youtube was in its infancy with advertising I saw how advertising would just take a whole new meaning with social networks.
 
I wonder if they'll go with GDDR5X on GP102. A 384-bit bus at 12ghz will be a big jump from Titan X.
 
{NG}Fidel said:
This is why it's been paper launched. Still it's not far away.
Click to expand...
It should be fine,
because it was going into factory order status and production line back in March.
The ones that are delayed at moment are the 11Gb/s and 12Gb/s and still in Sampling phase of the project.
That said, probably not enough at the moment to fulfill all orders for both AMD and NVIDIA, so possibly a bit of sharing-fighting for parts happening
Cheers
 
razor1 said:
Micron GDDR5X memory enters mass production | VideoCardz.com

Micron Technology, Inc. - NVIDIA Launches GTX1080 with Micron GDDR5X

and this is why the launch is on the 27th of May.
Click to expand...
Thanks for the find. Didn't hear of 5x till the 1080 was announced. Always thought that they'd go with HBM2.

MangoSeed said:
I wonder if they'll go with GDDR5X on GP102. A 384-bit bus at 12ghz will be a big jump from Titan X.
Click to expand...
I was wondering the same thing unless they plan on releasing with HBM2 but it may not be mature yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top