Digital Foundry: Why DX12 is a gamechanger for PC (and AMD!)

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

DX12 is enabled in Windows 10 previews and it's looking very promising. With explicit 3D drivers like DX12 and Vulkan you eliminate a ton of unnecessary draw-calls and really enable multi-thread/core architectures. This especially benefits AMD as they have been focusing on multiple slower-cores and computing which is making their products soar in benchmarks (detailed in the article) changing from DX11 to DX12.

http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/digitalfoundry-2015-why-directx-12-is-a-gamechanger

Once we move onto the Mantle and DirectX 12 results, AMD more than redeems itself. There are immense boosts to draw call throughput from start to finish on every processor tested, the largest boost coming from the FX 8350 where the R9 290X receives a frankly monumental boost to performance in the order of 2,000 per cent (!) when single-core DX11 and DX12 scores are compared. Remember, we are only benching one particular element of the rendering process - but regardless, the boost is phenomenal.

The leap in performance applies to both Mantle and DirectX 12, and we happily noted that AMD's DX12 showing actually shows a significant improvement over Mantle (its own API, remember) in every test. Also worthy of comment is that AMD is highly competitive against Nvidia in all areas here - indeed, its lower-end GPUs actually process draw calls faster than their Nvidia equivalents. But the good news is that every piece of hardware we tested sees a boost courtesy of DX12 - we're seeing a far higher utilisation of both CPU and GPU. The figures demonstrate in particular how under-utilised the geometry engines are on our GPUs - what other areas of the graphics hardware are also under-utilised that DX12 could potentially access? The prospects are tantalising.

Stolen from Gaf

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

Looks like my CPU my be good after all.

[darkknightkryta]

Looks like my CPU my be good after all.

I've been wanting to build an AMD based machine for a while but they've confused me with their lines.   They're not updating their FX lines anymore no?

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

I've been wanting to build an AMD based machine for a while but they've confused me with their lines.   They're not updating their FX lines anymore no?

I think they are, but not sure. Seems like the leaked CCPUs are going to be pretty nice to.

[Legend]

I'm looking forward to DX12, even though I'm a filthy Intel peasant.

[Mmm_fish_tacos]

I'm looking forward to DX12, even though I'm a filthy Intel peasant.

Filthy peasant, good thing it means good things for you too.

[darkknightkryta]

I think they are, but not sure. Seems like the leaked CCPUs are going to be pretty nice to.

It looks like they want their APU line to take over, but the CPU portions of their APUs are pretty weak.  They match up to Intel's i3.  Doesn't help that the best of the FX line is only equivalent to Intel's i5.  AMD really needs to get their stuff in order.

[ethomaz]

I'm looking forward to DX12, even though I'm a filthy Intel peasant.

DX12 free up any CPU not just AMD... the results are better with AMD because they have more trouble running the calls than Intel CPUs... so when you free an AMD CPU looks like it is better than a Intel CPU because the Intel CPU holds better even on load.

[darkknightkryta]

DX12 free up any CPU not just AMD... the results are better with AMD because they have more trouble running the calls than Intel CPUs... so when you free an AMD CPU looks like it is better than a Intel CPU because the Intel CPU holds better even on load.

Wasn't it because AMD CPUs are physical cores vs Intel's virtualizations?

[the-pi-guy]

Wasn't it because AMD CPUs are physical cores vs Intel's virtualizations?

Not exactly. 
Intel's cores are better, but then they also have the hyperthreading.  HT only improves performance by 30% or so, in ideal cases.  So virtualization is false, otherwise 4 cores wouldn't beat 8 cores most of the time. 

Most high end Intel's have 4 cores + ht. 
Then below AMD has 8 bad cores. 

[darkknightkryta]

Not exactly. 
Intel's cores are better, but then they also have the hyperthreading.  HT only improves performance by 30% or so, in ideal cases.  So virtualization is false, otherwise 4 cores wouldn't beat 8 cores most of the time. 

Most high end Intel's have 4 cores + ht. 
Then below AMD has 8 bad cores. 

HT is virtualization though.  Most of Intel's CPUs only have 4 physical cores.  As you say they're pretty good cores, so running two processes at almost the same time doesn't cause a terrible performance hit.  But then again most programs aren't terribly multi threaded so Intel always ended up on top.  Seems like AMDs idea of where software should be came 5 years late.

[ethomaz]

Not exactly. 
Intel's cores are better, but then they also have the hyperthreading.  HT only improves performance by 30% or so, in ideal cases.  So virtualization is false, otherwise 4 cores wouldn't beat 8 cores most of the time. 

Most high end Intel's have 4 cores + ht. 
Then below AMD has 8 bad cores.

The top end Intel Core 7 are 8 cores (16 threads)... there is a version with 6 cores (12 threads) too.

[Aura7541]

Exited to see the effects of DX12 in person. I'm also curious to see Vulkan's improvements over OpenGL.

[the-pi-guy]

HT is virtualization though.  Most of Intel's CPUs only have 4 physical cores.  As you say they're pretty good cores, so running two processes at almost the same time doesn't cause a terrible performance hit.  But then again most programs aren't terribly multi threaded so Intel always ended up on top.  Seems like AMDs idea of where software should be came 5 years late.

I'm saying saying that HT isn't the reason Intel is ahead. 
HT is just using the core more efficiently. 

The top end Intel Core 7 are 8 cores (16 threads)... there is a version with 6 cores (12 threads) too.

I know Etho.  I just meant historically.  Because as the question is about why Intel is ahead even though they used fewer cores.  Newer i7s have 8 cores and HT! 

[darkknightkryta]

I'm saying saying that HT isn't the reason Intel is ahead. 
HT is just using the core more efficiently. 

If I'm interpreting your statements correctly, you saying that the physical cores of the AMD CPUs aren't the reason for the increase from Direct X 12 and that the HT from Intel processors kept them ahead in performance.  I then rebuttled that's not the case since software favoured Intel's setup due to little multithreading in most applications.  I'm also not denying per core performance is in Intel's favour.