DirectCompute Benchmark for Vista SP2 with DX11 or Win7


Recommended Posts

In case you run into any compatibility issues, I assume. And it's quite obvious as to why the benchmark won't run on Windows XP. It doesn't support DX10, let alone DX11.

Yes thats why i was curious about why dx9 was provided ^_^

Core i7 920

GTX 275

GPU checksum: 1370969.153194

CPU checksum: 1370969.611431

*** PASSED ***

DirectCompute Score: D14171

OpenCL not supported...(will get back to that :p)

CPU Score: M2499

Edited by DDStriker

I get the impression that this benchmark is poorly written at best, not only are cards that are meant to be slower than mine (9800 GT, 9500) achieving far higher results, we also have a faster card (GTX 260) achieving significantly lower results than my card achieved. Something about this benchmarking app doesn't seem right to me :/

I get the impression that this benchmark is poorly written at best, not only are cards that are meant to be slower than mine (9800 GT, 9500) achieving far higher results, we also have a faster card (GTX 260) achieving significantly lower results than my card achieved. Something about this benchmarking app doesn't seem right to me :/

From what I've seen that confusion is becuase some people are still posting results from the .35 version which gives much higher scores.

I can't explain the discrepancy between the scores for NVIDIA but from what I've read, ATI's video cards have less CPU usage which results in a better score. Don't take my word for it though, I could be 100% wrong.

From what I've seen that confusion is becuase some people are still posting results from the .35 version which gives much higher scores.

I've tried the 0.45b version, the thing refuses to benchmark my GPU, but has no problem with my CPU, however that score jumps all over the place.

tsupersonic has the GTX260 he is using 0.45 and his result is a lot lower than mine, but your point is well taken about the 2 folks with the 9500 and 9800

Indeed, the scoring is interesting. Just for comparative measures for the folks who are still posting with v0.35, I got D10670, C59900, M2900, as I mentioned in post #11.

I can't explain the discrepancy between the scores for NVIDIA but from what I've read, ATI's video cards have less CPU usage which results in a better score. Don't take my word for it though, I could be 100% wrong.

I got > 14000 on a single 9800 GT. :)

Can someone please update the first post to link to build 0.45d, these results are so variable it makes direct comparison almost impossible

Done. :)

I got > 14000 on a single 9800 GT. :)

You probably used v0.35. That one gave me a score greater than 150,000. Use v0.45b for more accurate results.

Indeed, the scoring is interesting. Just for comparative measures for the folks who are still posting with v0.35, I got D10670, C59900, M2900, as I mentioned in post #11.

I think even my 0.35 scores where substantially higher than yours, even though you own a faster card :/

Edit: Thanks Anaron, now can everyone who used 0.35 please re-do it, so that I can decide whether the program is dodgy or if it just doesn't like tsupersonic's system for some reason :laugh:

His program does not support the latest ATI drivers properly.

According to his ReadMe:

2) You DON'T need DX11 hardware, DirectCompute is supported on DX10 class devices if only drivers support it (forceware >= 190.62, Catalyst currently doesn't support DirectCompute on DX10/10.1 GPUs)

Now according to the latest ATI drivers (9.12):

This release of ATI Catalyst™ provides full support for DirectCompute 10.1 for the ATI

Radeon™ HD 4800 Series, ATI Radeon™ HD 4700 Series for both single card and ATI

CrossFireX™ supported configurations.

The older version (0.35) seemed to work fine as I used it in the past, but now its almost as if he intentionally blocked using the GPU to do the DirectCompute calculations on ATI cards.

That being said, I cannot get the program to give me a DirectComputer Score, I can get a CPU score, and thats the only score that updates no matter what test API I use. I do not have the ATI OpenCL drivers installed so I do not have a score for that either. But even without OpenCL I should still be able to get a DirectCompute Score, I did so on the past versions with the same exact setup.

The results are very consistent on my machine when I re-run the tests. It is definitely odd that there is such big discrepancies in some systems that have the same video cards. The most likely cause I can think of is people running different driver versions.

His program does not support the latest ATI drivers properly.

According to his ReadMe:

Now according to the latest ATI drivers (9.12):

The older version (0.35) seemed to work fine as I used it in the past, but now its almost as if he intentionally blocked using the GPU to do the DirectCompute calculations on ATI cards.

That being said, I cannot get the program to give me a DirectComputer Score, I can get a CPU score, and thats the only score that updates no matter what test API I use. I do not have the ATI OpenCL drivers installed so I do not have a score for that either. But even without OpenCL I should still be able to get a DirectCompute Score, I did so on the past versions with the same exact setup.

err.... this is something on your end bro. I have cat 9.12 and a 4870. .45 works perfectly for DirectCompute, OpenCL and cpu.

err.... this is something on your end bro. I have cat 9.12 and a 4870. .45 works perfectly for DirectCompute, OpenCL and cpu.

I doubt it, at least not exclusively.

DirectCompute Benchmark 0.35: Generates a DirectCompute Score without a problem.

DirectCompute Benchmark 0.45b: Refuses to generate a DirectCompute Score.

How exactly is that "On my end"?

Edit: Thanks Anaron, now can everyone who used 0.35 please re-do it, so that I can decide whether the program is dodgy or if it just doesn't like tsupersonic's system for some reason :laugh:

It may well be :unsure: but if a benchmark program can't keep scores properly, then it doesn't do its job right. Hopefully the future versions keep the scores consistent.

I doubt it, at least not exclusively.

DirectCompute Benchmark 0.35: Generates a DirectCompute Score without a problem.

DirectCompute Benchmark 0.45b: Refuses to generate a DirectCompute Score.

How exactly is that "On my end"?

The fact that most other people with ATI 4 series cards are able to generate scores suggests a problem with your setup, not the application.

It may well be :unsure: but if a benchmark program can't keep scores properly, then it doesn't do its job right. Hopefully the future versions keep the scores consistent.

Absolutely, suppose a number of things could be causing it to work like that, but regardless of where the fault lies, I believe we can safely say that your score probably isn't overly accurate xD

The fact that most other people with ATI 4 series cards are able to generate scores suggests a problem with your setup, not the application.

While that is true, an older version of the application works fine, while the newer version does not. This means he changed something in his application that caused it to refuse to generate a DirectCompute Score for my setup. It does not mean my setup is faulty, it means his application is not working 100%. Also, Cy-Kill has the same issue as I do, so its not something wrong with my setup and my setup only.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Posts

    • Now 8GB of ram looks even worse in the Neo. I'm so happy I purchased 128GB of DDR 4 when I did.... paid $174. Upgraded my parents laptop to 32GB around the same time for $48. Luckily I have a TON of spare laptops. So i'm good on laptops for a while. I also have a lot of desktops too that I could use if i had to. Lets just hope nothing happens to my main 4 monitor couch workstation.
    • I will keep my current devices for several years... no planning in upgrading until these devices stop working. Too pricey.
    • Apple raises MacBook and iPad prices as memory costs surge by Karthik Mudaliar Apple has raised the U.S. prices of several MacBook and iPad models, including the MacBook Neo, which it launched for $599 less than four months ago. The company’s cheapest laptop now starts at $699, while some MacBook Pro configurations have increased by $300. The changes affect the MacBook Neo, MacBook Air, MacBook Pro, iPad Air, and iPad Pro. Apple has not changed the hardware or storage included with these models, so customers are simply paying more for the same configurations. Here is how the new US pricing compares with the previous starting prices: Product Previous price New price Increase MacBook Neo $599 $699 $100 13-inch MacBook Air, 512GB $1,099 $1,299 $200 14-inch MacBook Pro, 1TB $1,699 $1,999 $300 16-inch MacBook Pro $2,699 $2,999 $300 11-inch iPad Air, 128GB $599 $749 $150 13-inch iPad Air, 128GB $799 $949 $150 11-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $999 $1,199 $200 13-inch iPad Pro, 256GB $1,299 $1,499 $200 The updated prices are already appearing on Apple’s U.S. online store. The MacBook Neo increase will probably attract the most attention. Apple introduced the laptop in March for $599, pitching it as a more affordable Mac for students and buyers considering Windows laptops or Chromebooks. It uses an A18 Pro processor and originally undercut Dell’s new $699 XPS 13 by $100. Following the increase, the two laptops now have the same starting price. The M5 MacBook Air has also lost the price Apple promoted when it launched in March. The 13-inch model arrived with 512GB of storage for $1,099, while Apple’s store now lists the MacBook Air range as starting at $1,299. The 14-inch MacBook Pro with an M5 chip and 1TB of storage has gone from $1,699 to $1,999. Apple has made similar changes to its iPads. The recently released M4 iPad Air, which launched at the same $599 starting price as its predecessor, now starts at $749 for the 11-inch version. The 13-inch version has risen from $799 to $949. The iPad Pro increases are larger in dollar terms. Apple’s 11-inch M5 iPad Pro now starts at $1,199, up from $999, while the 13-inch version has moved from $1,299 to $1,499. Both base models still include 256GB of storage. Apple blamed the increases on the rapidly rising cost of DRAM and NAND flash, which provide system memory and device storage. The company told Reuters that it had tried to shield customers from the increases but could no longer absorb them. “We have never seen a component price increase this much, this quickly,” Apple said. Tim Cook had already warned that price increases were coming. Cook said Apple’s existing component inventory had softened the immediate impact, but that higher memory costs would increasingly affect the company after the June quarter. Much of the pressure comes from the construction of AI data centers. Memory manufacturers are directing more production toward high-margin server products, leaving PC, tablet, and smartphone makers competing for the remaining supply. Apple has not said whether the new prices are temporary or whether further increases are planned. For now, the changes show that even Apple’s purchasing power has not been enough to keep the AI-driven memory shortage away from consumer devices.
    • Ventoy 1.1.16 is out.
    • This is a none story - these low volume Chinese models will always get new experimental features first because Apple and Samsung can't produce them in huge volume to meet demand.
  • Recent Achievements

    • First Post
      kinowa earned a badge
      First Post
    • Rookie
      krychek57 went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Grand Master
      Jaybonaut went up a rank
      Grand Master
    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      455
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      169
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      134
    4. 4
      Xenon
      77
    5. 5
      Michael Scrip
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!