AMD Frame Pacing Explored: Catalyst 13.8 Brings Consistency to Crossfire
by Ryan Smith on August 1, 2013 2:00 PM ESTSleeping Dogs
Another Square Enix game, Sleeping Dogs is one of the few open world games to be released with any kind of benchmark, giving us a unique opportunity to benchmark an open world game. Like most console ports, Sleeping Dogs’ base assets are not extremely demanding, but it makes up for it with its interesting anti-aliasing implementation, a mix of FXAA and SSAA that at its highest settings does an impeccable job of removing jaggies. However by effectively rendering the game world multiple times over, it can also require a very powerful video card to drive these high AA modes.
Once more the tables turn with frame rates, and we see the 7990 hold on to a very small lead over the GTX 690.
Sleeping Dogs is another title where AMD has greatly improved on their frame consistency. With Catalyst 13.6 the 7990 had deltas over 100% (the variability was larger than the average frame time) which has since been heavily reduced with frame pacing. The end result eliminated AMD’s runt frames in this benchmark, and pushing them down to the 20% range. Still, this pales in comparison to the GTX 690. Though we do see the 6990 doing rather well for itself due to its lower frame rate, even with this metric compensating for that factor. It’s clearly a lot easier to schedule frames when you have more time to do it.
This is another case of where AMD’s massive improvements on frame pacing have led to an improvement in frame times at the 95th percentile. Here they shave off 7ms, and not unlike their frame rate are slightly ahead of the GTX 690.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
102 Comments
View All Comments
chizow - Saturday, August 3, 2013 - link
Written on the walls at AMD Driver HQ I'm sure, quickly referenced when questioned about microstutter being worst on CF.krutou - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
BUT, BUT, BUT, RADEON PRO?!?LordOfTheBoired - Saturday, August 3, 2013 - link
Took them by the hand? Looks more to me like "waited until people cared, then released a benchmark to prove they didn't have the problem, while offering no constructive commentary."And the hell of it is... AMD's stance makes sense. This IS a market that hates VSync because ZOMG LAG. "The market" has made it ABUNDANTLY clear that they have no interest whatsoever in technologies that improve the visual experience at the (real or imagined) cost of responsiveness.
But apparently that's only true when there's the visual equivalent of a record skip on your screen and not when it's a subtle frame rate fluctuation. The former is a good thing because it means you "aren't lagged", the latter is a horrible thing because it means you "aren't lagged".
chizow - Wednesday, August 7, 2013 - link
@LordOfTheBoired - this is the type of indignant attitude that got AMD and their fans in this predicament to begin with.mikato - Wednesday, August 7, 2013 - link
Well one result of Nvidia releasing the software was to allow tech journalists to shine a bright spotlight on a problem of their competitor's products. Your "holding AMD by the hand" idea is pretty amusing.novastar78 - Wednesday, August 7, 2013 - link
What's sad is that AMD has ripped ATi to shreds to the point where they are spread pretty thin. Just getting a working product out the door is a task. You are being waaay too hard on them.They were using traditional methods to test and frankly it's not so unimaginable that they were caught by this. Granted, maybe it should have been caught sooner, but to demonize them or put them down for it seems a bit harsh.
They know now that it's a big problem are definitely committed to fixing it. You can clearly see that they are trying to stabilize the company and there is lots of turmoil. The moves they are making and the people being brought on board are a good sign. There is definitely a process change that needs to happen but when the tree is being shaken so many times too many apples can fall.
Give it some time, I think we will see great things form them over the next few years.
Wreckage - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
It did not help that certain people were claiming that AMD does not have a stutter problem.DanNeely - Thursday, August 1, 2013 - link
The problem is that AMD didn't think they had a stutter problem; or more precisely, until 3rd parties shoved the reality in their face they assumed (without testing) that they and nVidia had equal amounts of the problem.I suspect at one point in the past they were right; and that the genesis of nVidia's "years in the making" tool to measure the problem dates back to when they discovered it was a problem internally and began working on fixes so that they could announce the same tool at the same time that their drivers had a negligible impact from it. It'd be interesting to see what would happen if someone tested SLI card/driver configurations from a few years ago to see how well nVidia did at the time.
BrightCandle - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
NVidia has had this fixed for a lot longer than that. The 680's were noticeably smoother on their release day compared to the 7970 crossfire. NVidia has claimed they have been fixing this since the 8800 and there is no reason not to believe them as HardOCP and other review sites have been noting the difference for years.HisDivineOrder - Friday, August 2, 2013 - link
Exactly. This has been a problem for as long as there has been Crossfire. I think a lot of people are so shocked by this fact (because some of them owned Crossfire and just dealt with it and didn't realize they were getting shafted) they can't accept it.Yes, you got reamed. Yes, for years, you were using Crossfire and suffering from microstutter when you needn't have to. Yes, AMD took you for a ride. It's so infuriating it drives people not to want to believe it because to believe it would be so horrible as to suddenly be intolerable.
Do what most people do. Just stick with nVidia since you know they do proper testing. Boycott AMD for a five year period and come back once you're sure AMD's got their act together.