No announcement yet.

30-way Intel/AMD/NVIDIA Linux 2D Performance Comparison

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by schmidtbag View Post
    Considering how AMD and Intel were roughly performing the same on average, and considering how pretty much all AMD GPUs performed the same, I don't think CPU is a bottleneck. When it comes to 2D performance, I feel like once you breach a certain point in terms of total calculation performance, the only way to get any faster is by tweaking drivers or reducing latency. Since intel's IGP is on the same silicon as the northbridge, I figure that would have an IMMENSE latency drop, hence intel overall performing slightly better. Also, SDRAM likely has considerably lower latencies than VRAM in a discrete GPU, which in itself would be another reason for intel getting a lead.

    It seems to me we've pretty much reached the limits of 2D performance, which is nice.
    Sorry, but the reason is that the benchmarks are CPU limited. They are limited by the benchmark saturating a single CPU. At least Intel is... In other words, these benchmarks are at their limit for determining the differences between drivers and GPUs and are not that representative of 2D workloads.


    • #12
      id really like to see if SNA yields a much more of an overhead for being this big.
      maybe one could add CPU workloads (and frequencies) id really like to know what they bought their 2D performance with. and if its really worth it. (ok i think there are not many cases where all cpu cores are fully utilised but i could imagine, that with with multiple executions of these tests in parallel things might change due to CPU limitations then, wouldnt they? (IF (!) things were not CPU limited now - if they are it would mean that SNA uses some kind of cunning preparation and branching of paths if my understanding is right)