Adapting to Parallelism: Catalyst 5.12 More Dual Core Friendly?
by Derek Wilson on December 4, 2005 10:45 AM EST- Posted in
- GPUs
Performance Comparison: Dual Core vs. Single Core
The next step in our performance analysis is to look at the improvement we get when moving to dual core from single core. These will likely be the numbers ATI quotes in their marketing literature, as they will show the gain in performance with a particular driver when moving from a single core environment to a dual core. These numbers have the potential to be large because the games themselves could benefit from dual core processors (though not many do).
We will be able to spot games that already get a performance boost from dual core due to our Catalyst 5.11 data. The 5.11 driver doesn't have multiprocessing optimizations, so games that show a performance boost under this driver are getting that performance boost from the way the game is written. Combining this knowledge with what we learned in the previous section should help us understand where ATI has succeeded and where they still need some work.
Dual core processing lends a hand to the 5.11 driver at 10x7, and has a bigger effect at 1600x1200 than it does on the 5.12 driver. But at 800x600 the 5.12 driver performs much better when running on a dual core system, especially when compared to the performance drop on the 5.11 drivers.
Enabling 4xAA takes away any real advanage in scaling the 5.12 driver had over the 5.11 catalyst. Combine this with the fact that the 5.12 just performs worse than the 5.11 driver with 4xAA, and anyone who plays BF2 with AA on will not be to pleased.
We can plainly see that dual core helps the 5.12 driver and not the 5.11 driver under Day of Defeat with no AA. These are some good gains, especialy in light of how well the 5.12 does compared to the 5.11 (as seen on the previous page).
Even with 4xAA on the 5.12 driver scales well with CPU power. most impressive is the nearly 3% gain at 1600x1200.
The table for FarCry lets us know that both drivers seem to benefit from dual core processing. The 5.12 driver certainly improves the leap over single core performance, but not all the glory should go to the new dirver. The larger percent increase can be attributed to the game itself benefiting from dual core systesm
The returns are a little diminshed with 4xAA enabled, but its easy to see that there is still more of a benefit under the 5.12 drivers.
These two tests again show no performance difference or issue.
The next step in our performance analysis is to look at the improvement we get when moving to dual core from single core. These will likely be the numbers ATI quotes in their marketing literature, as they will show the gain in performance with a particular driver when moving from a single core environment to a dual core. These numbers have the potential to be large because the games themselves could benefit from dual core processors (though not many do).
We will be able to spot games that already get a performance boost from dual core due to our Catalyst 5.11 data. The 5.11 driver doesn't have multiprocessing optimizations, so games that show a performance boost under this driver are getting that performance boost from the way the game is written. Combining this knowledge with what we learned in the previous section should help us understand where ATI has succeeded and where they still need some work.
Dual core processing lends a hand to the 5.11 driver at 10x7, and has a bigger effect at 1600x1200 than it does on the 5.12 driver. But at 800x600 the 5.12 driver performs much better when running on a dual core system, especially when compared to the performance drop on the 5.11 drivers.
| Battlefield 2 Percent Increase (Single core to Dual) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Catalyst 5.11 | -2.98 | 3.45 | 1.9 |
| Catalyst 5.12 (Beta) | 18.19 | 6.66 | 0.84 |
Enabling 4xAA takes away any real advanage in scaling the 5.12 driver had over the 5.11 catalyst. Combine this with the fact that the 5.12 just performs worse than the 5.11 driver with 4xAA, and anyone who plays BF2 with AA on will not be to pleased.
| Battlefield 2 4xAA Percent Increase (Single core to Dual) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Catalyst 5.11 | 2.12 | -0.91 | 1.49 |
| Catalyst 5.12 (Beta) | 2.8 | 1.87 | 1.2 |
We can plainly see that dual core helps the 5.12 driver and not the 5.11 driver under Day of Defeat with no AA. These are some good gains, especialy in light of how well the 5.12 does compared to the 5.11 (as seen on the previous page).
| Day of Defeat Percent Increase (Single core to Dual) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Catalyst 5.11 | 0.37 | 0.37 | 0.22 |
| Catalyst 5.12 (Beta) | 6.51 | 6.54 | 1.52 |
Even with 4xAA on the 5.12 driver scales well with CPU power. most impressive is the nearly 3% gain at 1600x1200.
| Day of Defeat 4xAA Percent Increase (Single core to Dual) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Catalyst 5.11 | 0.56 | 0.38 | 0 |
| Catalyst 5.12 (Beta) | 6.89 | 4.5 | 2.93 |
The table for FarCry lets us know that both drivers seem to benefit from dual core processing. The 5.12 driver certainly improves the leap over single core performance, but not all the glory should go to the new dirver. The larger percent increase can be attributed to the game itself benefiting from dual core systesm
| FarCry Percent Increase (Single core to Dual) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Catalyst 5.11 | 4.64 | 3.35 | 0.74 |
| Catalyst 5.12 (Beta) | 12.44 | 6.95 | 3.99 |
The returns are a little diminshed with 4xAA enabled, but its easy to see that there is still more of a benefit under the 5.12 drivers.
| FarCry 4xAA Percent Increase (Single core to Dual) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Catalyst 5.11 | 3.04 | 2.26 | -0.19 |
| Catalyst 5.12 (Beta) | 7.5 | 5.7 | 0.57 |
These two tests again show no performance difference or issue.
| Quake 4 Percent Increase (Single core to Dual) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Catalyst 5.11 | 0.27 | 0 | -0.47 |
| Catalyst 5.12 (Beta) | 0.27 | 0 | -0.16 |
| Quake 4 4xAA Percent Increase (Single core to Dual) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Catalyst 5.11 | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0 |
| Catalyst 5.12 (Beta) | -0.21 | 0 | 0 |
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
bldckstark - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
The gentlemen at Sanda National Labs don't see the parallelization "problem" the same as most of the computing community, and take exception to Mr. Amdahl's observation. They have shown that the possible multiple CPU parallelization improvement can exceed Amdahl's theoretical maximum. They state that as the number of processors increase, the size of the problem introduced to the system increases allowing speeds above those previously thought possible. Here's a link to the horribly boring article.http://www.scl.ameslab.gov/Publications/Gus/Amdahl...">Extremely Boring Paper With Too Much Math
Thank God we got that cleared up. Now maybe I'll be able to sleep tonight. 8>}
phusg - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
Interesting review, although disappointing performance.Just commenting to say don't forget about us SMPers! All the talk is about DC although not everyone with a dual CPU has it on the same die!!! I have a dual 760MPX board with a Radeon 9600 Pro and am hoping these driver improvement will really help me out.
Humble Magii - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
This article is silly....Seriously I have been a long time Anandtech reader and this past year I have noticed a huge dropoff in quality! What ever happened to Anand's in depth reviews of CPU's and their architecture? I don't see that type of enthusiasm or detail anymore here.
Are the specific reviewers for certain articles biased? It seems this is the case whoever reviews a certain product nowadays is biased on this site. The new ATI drivers are crap not to mention are in beta.....
Who the hell cares about a driver update I mean seriously unless it was a huge change for the better or worse why report it? I don't see reviews on forceware changes or an AT article on the dual core drivers for Nvidia? I suppose there are no pro nvidia people at AT or at least maybe Nvidia doesn't pony up to AT's reviewer here?
Who has problems with Nvidia's newer drivers? I sure as hell haven't and I have a 4800+ with two 512mb 7800 GTX's. I never had problems with Nvidia's drivers. Everyone has a different system and just because you yourself have a problem when the majority do not does not mean the product sucks. I have had issues with a bios update utility due to beta creative drivers for a sb audigy I mean please people I would have never of thought of that but most problems happen because of what other software you have installed.
Who cares about the ATI X1K series I don't and most of the world doesn't especially since they are replacing it supposedly coming soon next year so why bother? They aren't even cost effective performance solutions comapred to Nvidia. Oh I would love to try a crossfire solution too bad there are zero around so guess what the only performance in graphics today is Nvidia. That's what we are stuck with now.
I swear this site no matter the trash ATI puts out will post it and put it in a better light. The forums here are even worse with all the newbs and their uneducated hate and bias to other solutions.
The site is dying Anand please replace Derek Wilson and some other members and start taking control of the reviews again everyone sorely misses you :(.
heulenwolf - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
I have to agree on the point that since this driver update provides limited improvement, does it really warrant all the work Anandtech is putting into it. I own graphics cards from both ATI and NVIDIA and tend to go for midrange cards, so I can see some relevance to similar users who happen to own an x1000 series card. At the same time, as the previous poster points out, the advantage from a change of cards is far greater. So why so much testing that it has to be broken up into multiple reviews for a single driver providing such a small performance gain to users of a single line of cards who run at low resolutions and only play certain games? The benefit just seems small for so much work unless Anandtech can substantially tie it to a more general problem. My recommendation to the author, then, is to spend a little more time describing why you did all the testing - what it tells us - up front and tie it to a more general problem users may have.bob661 - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
So the WE, the user, can know that this driver only provides "small performance gains". How else would you know?bob661 - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
Damn it.....So THAT we...heulenwolf - Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - link
So, now we know. Where's the need for a follow up?hondaman - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
I think this review is quite interesting. There is a lot of chatter in the channels about how DC is useless for gaming. Its reviews like this that give us guys with dual core cpus hope that our cpus are good for more than just playing mp3's and encoding movies all at the same time.DrZoidberg - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
well after reading this article i still feel DC is only slightly useful when u are solely gaming. I mean why pay $200 extra for 2nd core to get 5% benefit at low res and when gaming at high res the benefit drops to like 2%. Like x2 3800+ and 3200+ are both 2ghz and about $200 difference and with these dual core drivers the 3800+ wins by 5%.Rather put the extra $200 to video card if main purpose of comp is to game and improvement will be like 30%+, like going from 6600gt to 7800gt. However multitasking is a totally different story. Encoding movie and gaming at same time, then dual core is very worth it.
porkster - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
You may only get 5% as the games are not taking advantage of the new features.