Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Initial Radeon vs. GeForce Vulkan Ray-Tracing Performance On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Lanza
    replied
    For what it’s worth, here are my raw results on GeeXLab’s benchmark with a 6900XT :

    Code:
    DemoName,Platform,Renderer,ApiVersion,Width,Height,Fullscreen,AntiAliasing,Duration,MaxGpuTemp,Score,AvgFPS,MinFPS,MaxFPS
    Vulkan - Raytracing,Linux (X11) 5.11.16-arch1-1 64-bit,AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT,1.2.169,1920,1080,NO,,10000,0,1152,115,1,119
    Vulkan - Raytracing,Linux (X11) 5.11.16-arch1-1 64-bit,AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT,1.2.169,2560,1440,NO,,10000,0,646,64,1,67
    Vulkan - Raytracing,Linux (X11) 5.11.16-arch1-1 64-bit,AMD Radeon RX 6900 XT,1.2.169,3840,2160,NO,,10000,0,305,30,1,32
    (Archlinux on MSI B550A-Pro, with [email protected], Ryzen 9 5950X, air cooled, w/out special optimization).

    Leave a comment:


  • artivision
    replied
    At the end everything will be judged with Unreal Lumen, as always.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by artivision View Post

    BVH traversal on AMD is accelerated by shader cores, it cuts horse power from the gpu. But this is more versatile from the other hand and can make better scenes. On those complex scenes NV will lack more.
    Nobody will argue if you say that NVidia dedicated more die space to ray tracing hardware. But when someone says it's hardware accelerated and then someone else chimes in that it isn't, the 2nd person is unequivocally wrong. It is hardware accelerated. Every hardware design is going to have different tradeoffs about what they view as more or less important.

    Leave a comment:


  • bridgman
    replied
    Originally posted by Stefem View Post
    AMD lack dedicated silicon for BHV traversal
    I don't think this is correct - we just put the dedicated silicon in the shader core rather than segregating it into a separate block.

    At the risk of stating the obvious the RT instructions make use of the dedicated RT logic.

    Leave a comment:


  • pinguinpc
    replied
    Originally posted by [email protected] View Post
    Very interesting outcome, although like other commenters have said, it seems to mostly fall into two buckets for now.

    I'd be interested in more benchmarks: trough wine/proton, and Quake II RTX.

    Besides this, can this vulkan-based RT API be leveraged by blender? Would that be more efficient than OpenCL?
    this maybe can help you but only in windows

    https://www.game-debate.com/news/299...in-quake-2-rtx

    Leave a comment:


  • artivision
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

    Semantics. It's hardware accelerated.
    BVH traversal on AMD is accelerated by shader cores, it cuts horse power from the gpu. But this is more versatile from the other hand and can make better scenes. On those complex scenes NV will lack more.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by Stefem View Post

    Those instruction run on the shader block, AMD lack dedicated silicon for BHV traversal
    Semantics. It's hardware accelerated.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stefem
    replied
    Originally posted by blacknova View Post

    According to RDNA2 ISA 8.2.10


    So It does accelerate and ray/triangle intersection.
    Those instruction run on the shader block, AMD lack dedicated silicon for BHV traversal

    Leave a comment:


  • blacknova
    replied
    Originally posted by Stefem View Post

    AMD only accelerate ray/triangle intersection, BVH traversal is done on the shader core while NVIDIA do it with dedicated hardware (APIs have good abstraction that allow it) but update and buid of the acceleration structure is done on the CPU by design.
    There have been always big difference in ray tracing performance based on the scene so those results doesn't really surprise me, overall NVIDIA is still on a different league in real world usages
    According to RDNA2 ISA 8.2.10
    Ray Tracing support includes the following instructions:
    • IMAGE_BVH_INTERSECT_RAY
    • IMAGE_BVH64_INTERSECT_RAY
    These instructions receive ray data from the VGPRs and fetch BVH (Bounding Volume Hierarchy) from memory.
    • Box BVH nodes perform 4x Ray/Box intersection, sorts the 4 children based on intersection distance and returns the child pointers and hit status.
    • Triangle nodes perform 1 Ray/Triangle intersection test and returns the intersection point and triangle ID.
    So It does accelerate BHV traversal and ray/triangle intersection.

    Leave a comment:


  • Stefem
    replied
    Originally posted by blacknova View Post

    That correct AFAIK. Yeah AMD doesn't have hardware dedicated ONLY to RT. But its compute units can perform tasks to accelerate RT. So yeah, I'd guess there would be some sacrifices. What interest me really is that according to some sources NVIDIA hardware provide a way to speedup build of BHV and for games that might provide huge benefit for RT.
    AMD only accelerate ray/triangle intersection, BVH traversal is done on the shader core while NVIDIA do it with dedicated hardware (APIs have good abstraction that allow it) but update and buid of the acceleration structure is done on the CPU by design.
    There have been always big difference in ray tracing performance based on the scene so those results doesn't really surprise me, overall NVIDIA is still on a different league in real world usages

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X