Yeah you mean the video game presets, hmm, wish they be kept consistent between articles as it makes it hard to compare.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
A Fresh Look At The NVIDIA vs. Radeon Linux Performance & Perf-Per-Watt For August 2018
Collapse
X
-
2 cents on the general Nvidia/AMD choice - I had a weird issue with Nvidia 1060 - it crashed when there was static electricity around. Go around on the dry floor, then touch the keyboard - PC crashes, only way out is hard reset. Didn't have this issue once after switching to AMD RX 560. Everything is properly grounded of course. Weird.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by theriddick View PostThese are worse results then that of the June 1st ones for some reason, in particular look at Mad Max results. With a 5ghz CPU here we should see overall better performance for AMD since the drivers are more CPU bound then NVIDIA, but we don't.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...onix14-29-gpusMichael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Michael View Post
A new driver will be out this week with performance improvements.... Minutes after publishing yesterday's article, I was told by NVIDIA that a regression they spent weeks analyzing after they were puzzled by some of my earlier test results had been figured out and solved.
Wish this kind of service would exist for RadeonSI.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strunkenbold View Post
Jesus they doing active performance regression fixing just by reading your articles?
Wish this kind of service would exist for RadeonSI.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Strunkenbold View PostJesus they doing active performance regression fixing just by reading your articles?
Wish this kind of service would exist for RadeonSI.
The same kind of thing happens on the compute side - I noticed that Michael's numbers were a lot lower than ours, and after some investigation we realized that the SHOC settings Michael was using had execution times too short for DPM to ramp up the GPU clocks.Last edited by bridgman; 21 August 2018, 12:13 PM.Test signature
- Likes 5
Comment
-
Originally posted by theriddick View PostThese are worse results then that of the June 1st ones for some reason, in particular look at Mad Max results. With a 5ghz CPU here we should see overall better performance for AMD since the drivers are more CPU bound then NVIDIA, but we don't.
https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?pa...onix14-29-gpus
Testing now.Michael Larabel
https://www.michaellarabel.com/
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View Post
We have been doing that for at least a couple of years AFAIK.
The same kind of thing happens on the compute side - I noticed that Michael's numbers were a lot lower than ours, and after some investigation we realized that the SHOC settings Michael was using had execution times too short for DPM to ramp up the GPU clocks.
BTW Where is AMD's 'fix'
Comment
-
Originally posted by nuetzel View Post'SHOC settings'?
IIRC the default was -s 1 or -s 2... we found that going to -s 4 made the performance largely independent of DRM tuning nuances.
Originally posted by nuetzel View PostBTW Where is AMD's 'fix'Test signature
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by bridgman View Post
https://openbenchmarking.org/innhold...6c0496f7117467
IIRC the default was -s 1 or -s 2... we found that going to -s 4 made the performance largely independent of DRM tuning nuances.
They have been dribbling in over the last few years. Or am I not understanding your question ?
Thank you!
(I didn't know what 'SHOC' was. - Silly me.)Last edited by nuetzel; 21 August 2018, 11:21 PM.
Comment
Comment