Compute

Shifting gears, we have our look at compute performance. Since GTX Titan X has no compute feature advantage - no fast double precision support like what's found in the Kepler generation Titans - the performance difference between the GTX Titan X and GTX 980 Ti should be very straightforward.

Starting us off for our look at compute is LuxMark3.0, the latest version of the official benchmark of LuxRender 2.0. LuxRender’s GPU-accelerated rendering mode is an OpenCL based ray tracer that forms a part of the larger LuxRender suite. Ray tracing has become a stronghold for GPUs in recent years as ray tracing maps well to GPU pipelines, allowing artists to render scenes much more quickly than with CPUs alone.

Compute: LuxMark 3.0 - Hotel

With the pace set for GM200 by GTX Titan X, there’s little to say here that hasn’t already been said. Maxwell does not fare well in LuxMark, and while GTX 980 Ti continues to stick very close to GTX Titan X, it none the less ends up right behind the Radeon HD 7970 in this benchmark.

For our second set of compute benchmarks we have CompuBench 1.5, the successor to CLBenchmark. CompuBench offers a wide array of different practical compute workloads, and we’ve decided to focus on face detection, optical flow modeling, and particle simulations.

Compute: CompuBench 1.5 - Face Detection

Compute: CompuBench 1.5 - Optical Flow

Compute: CompuBench 1.5 - Particle Simulation 64K

Although GTX T980 Ti struggled at LuxMark, the same cannot be said for CompuBench. Though taking the second spot in all 3 sub-tests - right behind GTX Titan X - there's a bit wider of a gap than normal between the two GM200 cards, causing GTX 980 Ti to trail a little more significantly than in other tests. Given the short nature of these tests, GTX 980 Ti doesn't get to enjoy its usual clockspeed advantage, making this one of the only benchmarks where the theoretical 9% performance difference between the cards becomes a reality.

Our 3rd compute benchmark is Sony Vegas Pro 13, an OpenGL and OpenCL video editing and authoring package. Vegas can use GPUs in a few different ways, the primary uses being to accelerate the video effects and compositing process itself, and in the video encoding step. With video encoding being increasingly offloaded to dedicated DSPs these days we’re focusing on the editing and compositing process, rendering to a low CPU overhead format (XDCAM EX). This specific test comes from Sony, and measures how long it takes to render a video.

Compute: Sony Vegas Pro 13 Video Render

Traditionally a benchmark that favors AMD, GTX 980 Ti fares as well as GTX Titan X, closing the gap some. But it's still not enough to surpass Radeon HD 7970, let alone Radeon R9 290X.

Moving on, our 4th compute benchmark is FAHBench, the official Folding @ Home benchmark. Folding @ Home is the popular Stanford-backed research and distributed computing initiative that has work distributed to millions of volunteer computers over the internet, each of which is responsible for a tiny slice of a protein folding simulation. FAHBench can test both single precision and double precision floating point performance, with single precision being the most useful metric for most consumer cards due to their low double precision performance. Each precision has two modes, explicit and implicit, the difference being whether water atoms are included in the simulation, which adds quite a bit of work and overhead. This is another OpenCL test, utilizing the OpenCL path for FAHCore 17.

Compute: Folding @ Home: Explicit, Single Precision

Compute: Folding @ Home: Implicit, Single Precision

Folding @ Home’s single precision tests reiterate GM200's FP32 compute credentials. Second only to GTX Titan X, GTX 980 Ti fares very well here.

Compute: Folding @ Home: Explicit, Double Precision

Meanwhile Folding @ Home’s double precision test reiterates GM200's poor FP64 compute performance. At 6.3ns/day, it, like the GTX Titan X, occupies the lower portion of our benchmark charts, below AMD's cards and NVIDIA's high-performnace FP64 cards.

Wrapping things up, our final compute benchmark is an in-house project developed by our very own Dr. Ian Cutress. SystemCompute is our first C++ AMP benchmark, utilizing Microsoft’s simple C++ extensions to allow the easy use of GPU computing in C++ programs. SystemCompute in turn is a collection of benchmarks for several different fundamental compute algorithms, with the final score represented in points. DirectCompute is the compute backend for C++ AMP on Windows, so this forms our other DirectCompute test.

Compute: SystemCompute v0.5.7.2 C++ AMP Benchmark

We end up ending our benchmarks where we started: with the GTX 980 Ti slightly trailing the GTX Titan X, and with the two GM200 cards taking the top two spots overall. So as with GTX Titan X, GTX 980 Ti is a force to be reckoned with for FP32 compute, which for a pure consumer card should be a good match for consumer compute workloads.

Synthetics Power, Temperature, & Noise
Comments Locked

290 Comments

View All Comments

  • przemo_li - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link

    Fiji is NOT gpu name.

    Its gpu segment name.

    Just like VI, SI, and some more.

    Its chip name if anything.

    If we for a moment switched to CPU-speak, You just claimed that Puma is single CPU from AMD ;)
  • Refuge - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link

    It is the name of a GPU Architecture. Which could be a one run chip, or it could have multiple versions based on binning.
  • dragonsqrrl - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link

    It's not a GPU architecture. GCN is a GPU architecture, Maxwell is a GPU architecture. Fiji is a GPU, GM204 is a GPU. This isn't exactly a new paradigm we're dealing with here. Oh dear, I think I might be telling someone something (aka trolling***). I've done it again.
  • dragonsqrrl - Wednesday, June 3, 2015 - link

    First, that's a terrible analogy. Puma is not a CPU, it's a CPU architecture, successor to Jaguar. Fiji is a GPU, I never once assumed or suggested that there will be a single Fiji SKU (that was all you), right now it's likely there will be 2 for the consumer market.

    I'm honestly not sure what you meant by "segment", perhaps you could clarify? Are you talking about AMD's XT/PRO convention? They're still the same GPU, pro is typically just a harvested XT.
  • Refuge - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link

    They released more than four if you include mobile GPU's I believe it goes up 2 more to 6.
  • dragonsqrrl - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link

    What do you mean mobile GPU's? Are you talking about the 900m series? There are no mobile specific GPU's in that lineup. It's all binned GM204 and GM107 SKU's.
  • eanazag - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link

    Interesting observation. I see the same behavior, but the situations are different. Both major graphics vendors are stuck on 28 nm. The 285 is a new product. AMD's graphic situation is not even close to the same as CPU. They are not even competitive in most of the markets for CPU. AMD will likely release a very competitive GPU, which is why NV is releasing the Ti now.
  • dragonsqrrl - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link

    Yes, the 285 is a new product, and while it is an improvement and a step in the right direction, Tonga just isn't enough to address the issue of AMD's profit margins this coming generation, or make them anymore competitive in mobile (M295X). It would be as though Nvidia were selling the 980 at the $200 price point. Not exactly, but from a memory interface, die size, PCB complexity, power consumption perspective, that's basically what AMD is doing right now, with no solution forthcoming. But I guess it's better than selling Tahiti for $200.

    "AMD's graphic situation is not even close to the same as CPU. They are not even competitive in most of the markets for CPU. AMD will likely release a very competitive GPU, which is why NV is releasing the Ti now."
    Some might argue they aren't competitive in the dGPU market with Nvidia market share approaching 80%... some might say that's like Intel levels of dominance...
    And I didn't say it's the same as their CPU situation, I said it's becoming more similar. While AMD will likely be competitive in raw performance, as I've tried to explain in my past 2 comments, that's kind of besides the point.
  • chizow - Sunday, May 31, 2015 - link

    Yes, both are stuck on 28nm, but only Nvidia came out with a comprehensive ASIC line-up knowing we'd be stuck here for another 2 years (going back to 2H 2014). It is obvious now that AMD's cost-cutting in staff and R&D is starting to manifest itself as they simply can't keep up while losing ground on 2 fronts (CPU and GPU).

    The culmination of this will be AMD going to market with a full series of rebrands of mostly old parts going back to 2011 with a single new ASIC at the top of their stack, while Nvidia has fully laid out its arsenal with GM107 (1 SKU), GM206 (1 SKU), GM204 (2 SKU), and now GM200 (2 SKU).
  • Kevin G - Monday, June 1, 2015 - link

    Is it unprecedented? I recall the Geforce 9000, GTS 100 and most of the GTX 200 series being various rebrands from 'generation' to 'generation'. In fact, the 8800GTS 512 MB, 9800GTX, GTS 150 and GTS 250 were all the same chip design (the GTS 250 had a die shrink but was functionally unchanged).

    nVidia has gotten better since then, well with the exception of the GF108 that plagued the low end for far too long.

Log in

Don't have an account? Sign up now