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
Pjotr - Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - link
Why not simply show a screen shot of Task Manager after each benchmark? Then we can see approximatly how much of the second core is used by each benchmark.SemiconductorSlave - Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - link
If you follow the link Amdahl's law in this artilce and then at the bottom of page follow link “Reevaluating Amdahl’s law” you see the author state,Amdahl's law contains ” . . . the assumption that p is independent of N, which is virtually never the case. One does not take a fixed-size problem and run it on various numbers of processors except when doing academic research; in practice, the problem size scales with the number of processors. When given a more powerful processor, the problem generally expands to make use of the increased facilities.”
Isn’t this also what we have seen with video games, that they have always expanded to make use of the increased facilities?
SemiconductorSlave - Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - link
Derek's article mentions in its conclusion, “The real benefit will come in when game developers start working on parallelizing their code as much as possible.” This article is very forgiving of ATI’s new driver as there is already significant benefits to dual core processors on Quake4 and SeriousSam2 if you are using Nvidia 81.xx drivers.The article, using the ATI X1800 XL with the Catalyst drivers, Quake4 showed “no performance difference or issue” in the single core to dual core tests. In an article on www.xbitlabs.com titled Contemporary CPUs and New Games: No Way to Delusions!, on page 6, Quake 4 is shown to run much faster on dual core using the Nvidia 81.xx drivers, as the X2 3800+ clocked 2 GHz gets 101.6 fps, and the 3500+ clocked higher at 2.2GHz achieves only 98.6 fps. The 3200+, which is clocked evenly with X2 3800+ at 2Ghz, only achieved 93.4 fps, which means the dual core produced an 8% gain.
Also, on page 5, Serious Sam2 is shown running faster on dual cores, as the X2 3800+ clocked at 2 GHz achives103.1 fps beating out the 3800+ clocked at 2.4 GHz which achieved 99.2! The 3200+ clocked evenly with X2 3800+ at 2Ghz only achieved 84.8 fps. This indicates the dual core produced a 17.7% gain! The author notes on this test, “I have to point out NVIDIA drivers also started supporting dual-core architectures. ForceWare version 81.xx allows enjoying the advantages of dual-core technology in DirectX as well as in OpenGL.”
And to rule out that having two times the cache on an X2 is the reason for the performance difference, you can directly compare the equally clocked 4000+ to the X24600+. Each are clocked at 2.4 GHz and have a total of 1Mb cache. In Quake4 the X2 gets 110.2 while the 4000+ only achieved 103.2, which is still a 6.35% difference.
I think it would be great if this article is appended or these facts are included in the update. The end user should know what dual core performance is available to them now, not think that because ATI wrote a less than successful driver that we have to wait for the game developers before we see any significant dual core benefits!
Thanks,
Semiconductor Manufacturer and Anandtech fan.
porkster - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
Ok just read the article. I thought the test was to be scheduled. Anyway, why are you only testing on an AMD system and why no sign of Black&White2, one of the new era of games that will push the bus, system and visual experience? Also Intel are the kings on multitasking and bus bandwidth so why test dual core drivers and speed % differences on an AMD?Surely a driver that has two cpu threads going will require more bandwidth on the bus when expected to move upto twice the amount of graphic files around tot he gfx card.
Can you please test a game that is modern like B&W2 in the future and put at high res. Compare the benefits between the market products. Show results on bandwidth demand and their effect whilst multitasking the system.
It seems Anandtech is falling behind the times due to bias towards AMD. It maybe ok to fool the majority of system owners that still have low PC-memory ratings and legacy AMD stuff thinking they're modern, but you portray your site has a leading tech reviewer. Please show the best of, not best of frame rates for non multitasking environments running an old tech wise game.
DrZoidberg - Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - link
Most of the readers here that have dual core systems have AMD X2 processors. AMD is faster at games than Intel so it is totally appropriate for AT to test using AMD first. AMD is not legacy, its more the general public still view Intel as the performance leader based on their processors several years ago and still clueless that AMD have now taken over.
Sure AT should now test using Intel processors just for knowledge sake but i bet performance % is similar to AMD like 1%-10%.
Quake 4 is new just came out recently, DOD source is recent, Battlefield 2 is a popular game many people play it, B&W2 would be nice but COD2 is the game really missing here.
porkster - Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - link
Actually you maybe wrong regarding AMD best for gaming, as an example compare the results on this test to http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2631&am...">http://www.anandtech.com/mb/showdoc.aspx?i=2631&am...DrZoidberg - Tuesday, December 6, 2005 - link
Why have u provided a link showing motherboards for Intel at games and no AMD motherboards?What does that prove? That one particular Intel chipset motherboard is better than another Intel motherboard?
This is a more appropriate article: http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">benchmarks
Battlefield 2
Pentium D 830 (3ghz) 92.1 fps
Intel Yonah (upcoming Intel processor) 103.3 fps
AMD X2 4200+ 120.8 fps
porkster - Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - link
Compare the results for the Farcry from this test results to the one I linked to.The Intel system is far better yet it's not using the dual core style gfx drivers yet.
I'm starting to think Anandtech doesn't want to compare latest games between the best of AMD and Intel as Intel will show it's better, especially at maintaining FPS during multitasking.
SemiconductorSlave - Wednesday, December 7, 2005 - link
Like in these 4 benchmarks?http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...">http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?...
"We have Firefox loaded with all 13 tabs from our new suite test, iTunes is running and playing a playlist, and Newsleecher is downloading headers. We kept Newsleecher in this test simply because it's the best way for us to be able to have a fairly CPU/disk intensive downloading task running in the background while still maintaining some semblance of repeatability." --Anand Lal Shimpi
porkster - Thursday, December 8, 2005 - link
TALK ABOUT OLD REVIEW. Sorry, be relative.