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

    • Turbo Pascal was my first real programming experience more than 30 years ago at university. I mostly taught myself from the included examples and help documentation, because the university only taught the basic syntax and philosophy of Pascal, without going deeply into Turbo Pascal’s advanced features. I still remember when I discovered that I could embed assembly language directly into Pascal code, call BIOS functions, manipulate screen memory, use mouse interrupts, and control peripherals from my programs. That opened huge doors for me. Programming back then felt really fun, direct, and close to the machine. What I loved about Pascal was its readability and the almost instant compile time. Turbo Pascal was an amazing environment, but unfortunately Turbo Pascal for Windows 3 did not feel like it fully carried that legacy forward. Later, Delphi got things back on the right track after the messy transition to TP for Windows. Sadly, Delphi suffered from years of uncertainty as it moved from Borland to CodeGear and then to Embarcadero. That instability made many developers lose confidence in it, even though Delphi itself remained a powerful and productive tool. I still work with Delphi from time to time, but I definitely miss the old days of Turbo Pascal.
    • I hope this encodes in to AV1 or AV2 as currently tiktok uses h265 and h264.
    • Qualcomm reportedly in talks to build custom video chips for TikTok parent ByteDance by Karthik Mudaliar Qualcomm is reportedly in advanced discussions to provide custom chip-design services to Chinese tech giant ByteDance, the same company behind TikTok. According to a report from Reuters, Qualcomm could be involved in designing custom silicon tailored for ByteDance's massive data-center workloads. If it goes through, the deal would make ByteDance one of Qualcomm's early anchor customers for its fastly growing custom chip-design division, For years, Qualcomm was the king of making smartphone processors and modems. The company has also been moving into the PC ecosystem and other formats such as on-device AI for Android XR headsets. However, this particular deal is about Qualcomm's custom Application-Specific Integrated Circuits (ASICs). For a platform like TikTok, ByteDance needs hardware that can help it ingest, process, and serve billions of short-form videos daily. Generalised hardware is no longer the most cost-effective and efficient route, which is why ByteDance is trying to develop custom Video Processing Units (VPUs). VPUs designed specifically for ByteDance’s algorithmic needs could drastically reduce data-center power consumption and improve encoding speeds at an unprecedented scale. The underlying tech behind these processors is actually from Qualcomm's recent acquisition of AlphaWave Semi, a high-speed connectivity specialist company. By combining AlphaWave’s high-bandwidth IP with Qualcomm’s architectural expertise, the company could begin mass production by the end of 2026, if the talks go through. All this also comes at a time when U.S.-China tech relations have dwindled. Escalating trade frictions between Washington and Beijing have severely impacted the export of high-end AI chips from U.S. firms like Nvidia, AMD, and Lam Research. Yet, the Qualcomm-ByteDance discussions show that U.S. tech companies are still actively seeking growth avenues and are open to doing business with China, where regulators still permit. Reuters notes that the outcome of this deal could be uncertain, and ByteDance might also seek partners other than Qualcomm. via Reuters | Image via DepositPhotos.com
  • Recent Achievements

    • Rookie
      DaviKar went up a rank
      Rookie
    • Dedicated
      HidekoYamamoto94 earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • One Month Later
      timbobit earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • One Month Later
      nates earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Almohandis earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      456
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      164
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      117
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      83
    5. 5
      Xenon
      69
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!