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

    • Researchers claim Microsoft's quantum breakthrough is flawed by basic Python errors by Karthik Mudaliar Microsoft's aggressive roadmap to deliver a commercial quantum supercomputer by 2029 has now hit a bit of a snag, and it's not because of a complex sub-zero dilution refrigerator, but rather because of a few lines of basic Python code. A new critique published in the scientific journal Nature argues that simple software errors effectively manufactured the breakthrough that Microsoft's foundational research claimed back in 2025 into Majorana-based topological qubits. Topological quantum computing, the path that Microsoft chose for its research, relies on creating and controlling "Majorana zero modes." These are exotic quasiparticles that theoretically offer vastly superior error resistance compared to the highly sensitive superconducting qubits currently being championed by rivals like Google and IBM. However, physically proving you have created these particles requires sifting through massive amounts of complex electrical conductance data to isolate a specific "topological gap." Because of the sheer volume of data, physicists rely heavily on custom software pipelines to process the results. This is where the Python scripts come in. Now, according to the critique, Microsoft’s data processing software contained fundamental programming errors that ultimately skewed the published results. By mishandling data arrays or deploying incorrect logic within the Python script, the software supposedly discarded "noisy" or contradictory data. Which is why it only highlighted the specific electrical measurements that supported the topological-gap claim. The researchers behind the critique argued that this makes the findings invalid, suggesting the heralded "quantum leap" was actually a false positive generated by bad code and not a product of groundbreaking physics. However, Microsoft is pushing back hard against these allegations. The Redmond giant has formally rejected the criticism, saying that it's just a minor anomaly rather than a fatal flaw. According to the company, while there may have been a minor oversight in the data parsing scripts, it does not alter the fundamental reality of their physical experiment. Just weeks ago, Microsoft unveiled the Majorana 2 quantum processor, a milestone so significant that the company boldly accelerated its timeline for a commercial quantum supercomputer from 2035 down to 2029. But the new software allegations reopen an old wound. Microsoft's quantum division faced a remarkably similar crisis when a landmark 2018 paper on Majorana particles was famously retracted in 2021 after independent physicists discovered the data had been inappropriately cropped. That historical baggage makes the current Python-related allegations particularly sensitive. If the foundational math and data processing for the 2025 breakthrough are genuinely flawed, the highly anticipated 2029 commercial timeline could easily be delayed or, worse, cancelled.
    • Because of what they have done to VMware I will never buy anything Broadcom again.
    • AMD releases hotfix for driver install issues on Windows 10 PCs by Taras Buria Earlier this week, AMD released an important graphics driver update. Version 26.6.2 brought AMD FSR 4.1 support to the previous-gen Radeon lineup, the RX 7000 series, giving users better upscaling tech that was previously locked to the newest GPUs. However, the driver turned out to be a little buggy, with users reporting installation issues on systems still running Windows 10. AMD quickly acknowledged the bug and today released a hotfix to resolve the problem. The AMD 26.6.3 Hotfix update is now available for download from the official website. Given that it is a hotfix release, it has only one change in its release notes: AMD announced the update on its official X account and added that a WHQL driver update with the necessary fixes would be released next week. Meanwhile, users can apply the hotfix or roll back to the previous driver using the official AMD Cleanup Utility. You can download AMD Software: Adrenalin Edition 26.6.3 Hotfix Preview Driver from the official website here. It is compatible with all currently supported graphics cards and 64-bit Windows 10 and 11. Full release notes are available on the same page.
    • With Microsoft now listening to its core audience and acting upon received feedback, fans can finally expect a much better version of Windows 11 than what was available five years ago. Here is to five more years, Windows 11! I guess we all need a good laugh now and again...
  • Recent Achievements

    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      466
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      123
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      82
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!