Ant vs an Elephant. Buying an AMD GPU is hustling backwards.
RTX 3090 has almost 3x more FPS compared to 6900XT, those percentages are to show gains for mesh shaders turned ON and OFFThe overall results are line with nVidia.
RDNA2 is in the middle of Ampere and Turing.
- NVIDIA Ampere: 702%
- AMD RDNA2: 547%
- NVIDIA Turing (RTX): 409%
- NVIDIA Turing: 244%
Because it does the scene at higher fps (60 vs 30).RTX 3090 has almost 3x more FPS compared to 6900XT, those percentages are to show gains for mesh shaders turned ON and OFF
What? The relevant test would be AMD mesh shader implementation vs Nviidia mesh shader implementation vs Sony 'mesh shader' implementation. That test says nothing about that.But mesh shaders in SX, wow at that improvement.....it may be a bigger win than the TFLOPS difference.....
What exactly are you implying?where is our resident amd boy?
RTX > Rdna2.
But mesh shaders in SX, wow at that improvement.....it may be a bigger win than the TFLOPS difference.....
Sony has their own implantation - they did not go for the AMD variant.that is absolutely awful. WTF is AMD doing.
Amazing performance gains on Nvidia cards. I think a 2060 will absolutely fucking annihilate the ps5 and xsx once devs start using mesh shaders. What a disaster.
The poster meant regarding consoles alone, because consoles will never do better than PC due to almost unlimited resources PC has (starting by budget).What? The relevant test would be AMD mesh shader implementation vs Nviidia mesh shader implementation vs Sony 'mesh shader' implementation. That test says nothing about that.
Sony has their own implantation - they did not go for the AMD variant.
mesh shaders and vrs are modern gpu features that don't show up in tflops metric. now we have the numbers on their impact, im glad MS waited for full rdna2What exactly are you implying?
So you are suggesting its dangerous to rely on TFLOPs as an absolute indicator of performance?mesh shaders and vrs are modern gpu features that don't show up in tflops metric. now we have the numbers on their impact, im glad MS waited for full rdna2
Yes - all the functionality of the mesh shaders (AMD and Nvidia) was implemented as part of the new geometry engine in the PS5.I think its geometry engine? I know that none of the vulcan, dx12 ultimate stuff applies to PS5. On top of that, PS5 is highly customized and fine tuned to Sonys own needs.
Hmm does not bode well for Consoles.
Yes - all the functionality of the mesh shaders (AMD and Nvidia) was implemented as part of the new geometry engine in the PS5.
So explain to me how Vulkan and OpenGL supports Mesh Shaders too?Mesh Shaders aren't in the PS5's geometry engine. PS5 doesn't support Mesh Shaders. It supports Primitive Shaders, which is more limited, still involves the input assembler, and doesn't go as far as mesh shaders does. I notice people keep giving features to the PS5 that even their lead architect hasn't said it supports. Only Microsoft and AMD have confirmed these features to be inside Xbox Series S/X.
Also, this benchmark appears not even properly coded for AMD hardware, but is instead geared towards Turing architecture, which is why Ampere isn't doing even better. So these AMD results can be even better if that's the case.
First of all - Mesh shaders is a hardware implementation of primitive shaders.Mesh Shaders aren't in the PS5's geometry engine. PS5 doesn't support Mesh Shaders. It supports Primitive Shaders, which is more limited, still involves the input assembler, and doesn't go as far as mesh shaders does. I notice people keep giving features to the PS5 that even their lead architect hasn't said it supports. Only Microsoft and AMD have confirmed these features to be inside Xbox Series S/X.
Mesh Shaders aren't in the PS5's geometry engine. PS5 doesn't support Mesh Shaders. It supports Primitive Shaders, which is more limited, still involves the input assembler, and doesn't go as far as mesh shaders does. I notice people keep giving features to the PS5 that even their lead architect hasn't said it supports. Only Microsoft and AMD have confirmed these features to be inside Xbox Series S/X.
Also, this benchmark appears not even properly coded for AMD hardware, but is instead geared towards Turing architecture, which is why Ampere isn't doing even better. So these AMD results can be even better if that's the case.
Which hardware implementation of this functionality is better? Who knows but Cerny is good at what he is doing.
First of all - Mesh shaders is a hardware implementation of primitive shaders.
Secondly - you are right that the above implementation of varied degree of shader work and culling of geometry is something that the PS5 does not have.
However - culling of geometry and what parts of that geometry that gets shaders applied (and to what extent) is instead done on the geometry engine level.
I.e. PS5 has the full functionality (and according to claims - a bit more than that) of what the 'mesh shaders' are doing on Nvidia and AMD cards but the 'how' is different since it is all driven by the geometry engine instead of a hardware piece downstream of the GE.
Most people reading that PS5 does not have mesh shaders interpret that as if the PS5 does not have that function and that is incorrect. It has the full functionality but it is achieved differently.
Which hardware implementation of this functionality is better? Who knows but Cerny is good at what he is doing.
Must have been photomode, where the X excels.You do realize Series X fully supports this, right? There's already a video demonstration from Microsoft where Series X's mesh shading is running a demo at 4K that the 2080 Ti was only running at 1440p or something like that. Don't have time to look it up.
So explain to me how Vulkan and OpenGL supports Mesh Shaders too?
Mesh Shaders is a change in the shading pipeline... nVidia introduced it way better AMD or MS start to talk about it.
PS5 support that too... how Sony implemented it in their APU is what you need to ask.
You'll be sorry when the Series X has the highest performing photo modes in the business.Must have been photomode, where the X excels.
Because it does the scene at higher fps (60 vs 30).
If you want to compare only the Mesh Shader feature like the benchmark tries to do you need to see the results improvements with the feature on/off.
BTW why AMD is so bad at render that scene even with Mesh off.
Oh you are right, that one with the dragon in the room or what it was....You do realize Series X fully supports this, right? There's already a video demonstration from Microsoft where Series X's mesh shading is running a demo at 4K that the 2080 Ti was only running at 1440p or something like that. Don't have time to look it up.
Yeah but with high priceswhere is our resident amd boy?
RTX > Rdna2.
But mesh shaders in SX, wow at that improvement.....it may be a bigger win than the TFLOPS difference.....
Exactly.Seems that many does not understand what are the really interesting value in this benchmark !! As Ethomaz said, this is not the fps in the table that is interesting to read, but the increase in performance due to mesh shaders usage which need to be noticed. And in this case, the results for AMD are clearly not bad. The interest of this benchmark is to evaluate how mesh shader could increase the performances...
Edited to add his message.
Exactly.
People need to understand the context of the benchmark.
AMD is really having a bad render time of the scene that I can't explain... maybe it is how they said... it will get better with driver.
But the performance in the scene of the AMD card is not important for that benchmark.
What is really the point is how the cards shows gains with Mesh Shaders enabled.
RDNA 2 is showing better results than Turing... of course it is still behind Ampere but the different is not that bad how people tried to say due the lower fps... actually 6800 only showed lower results than RTX 3070, 3080 and 3090.
YesOh you are right, that one with the dragon in the room or what it was....