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: Cat 5.11 vs. Cat 5.12
The first thing we wanted to look at is the difference in scaling between driver versions. The following tables will show percent performance improvement of the beta 5.12 driver over that of the 5.11 driver. We will show performance improvements for both single and dual core configurations when moving to the beta driver.
While these numbers are, in fact, what users of single or dual core systems will experience when upgrading to newer drivers, there are other useful bits of information we can extract from them. We will be keeping an eye out for cases where the 5.12 driver performs worse than the 5.11 driver (these will be negative percentages in our tables). If, for instance, one tests shows the 5.12 driver doing worse in a single core platform and better in a dual core platform, we can discount some of the "value" of the dual core performance improvement as it's just making up for the performance hit on the single core side.
And as we can see from our Battlefield 2 test, The 5.11 driver performs as good as the 5.12 driver with no AA in 3 out of 6 tests. In the 8x6 case, the 5.11 driver handily bests the 5.12 beta. Enabling dual core allows the 5.12 driver to make up more than the ground it looses in single core performance, but the trade off just doesn't look good from this test.
And if you didn't think things could get worse, then just glance at the next table. The 5.12 driver tanks across the board on 4xAA performance under BF2. There isn't much more to say about this one.
Without AA, playing DoD:S, the 5.12 driver performs almost identically to the 5.11 driver on single core systems. Flipping the switch gives us an instant boost at 8x6 and 10x12, and even a little nudge in the right direction at 1600x1200.
Enabling 4xAA doesn't seem to change much. We see a little more benefit (percentage wise) when using 5.12 under dual core in 800x600 and 1600x1200, but the gain over 5.11 at 1024x768 drops a little. Either way, Day of Defeat Source seems to show that theres definitely a little benefit to be had by upgrading dual core systems to 5.12 from 5.11 drivers.
There are a few cases where the 5.12 driver improves performance in FarCry over the 5.11 even without the aide of dual core. Even though we see high percentage improvement with 5.12 under dual core, some of this could be general improvements to the way ATI handles the game.
Again, even with 4xAA FarCry benefits from the 5.12 drivers in 4 out of 6 tests (with both of those tests being much more GPU limited at 1600x1200).
There isn't much to say other than there isn't any improvement under Quake 4 when upgrading to the 5.12 drivers.
Which brings us to the test with the least change of all: Quake 4 with 4xAA.
Now let's take a look at performance improvement from a different perspective: improvement of a dual core system over a single core system.
The first thing we wanted to look at is the difference in scaling between driver versions. The following tables will show percent performance improvement of the beta 5.12 driver over that of the 5.11 driver. We will show performance improvements for both single and dual core configurations when moving to the beta driver.
While these numbers are, in fact, what users of single or dual core systems will experience when upgrading to newer drivers, there are other useful bits of information we can extract from them. We will be keeping an eye out for cases where the 5.12 driver performs worse than the 5.11 driver (these will be negative percentages in our tables). If, for instance, one tests shows the 5.12 driver doing worse in a single core platform and better in a dual core platform, we can discount some of the "value" of the dual core performance improvement as it's just making up for the performance hit on the single core side.
And as we can see from our Battlefield 2 test, The 5.11 driver performs as good as the 5.12 driver with no AA in 3 out of 6 tests. In the 8x6 case, the 5.11 driver handily bests the 5.12 beta. Enabling dual core allows the 5.12 driver to make up more than the ground it looses in single core performance, but the trade off just doesn't look good from this test.
| Battlefield 2 Percent Increase (Cat 5.11 to 5.12) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Single Core | -9.19 | -0.41 | 0.84 |
| Dual Core | 10.63 | 2.67 | -0.21 |
And if you didn't think things could get worse, then just glance at the next table. The 5.12 driver tanks across the board on 4xAA performance under BF2. There isn't much more to say about this one.
| Battlefield 2 4xAA Percent Increase (Cat 5.11 to 5.12) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Single Core | -5.05 | -2.87 | -0.89 |
| Dual Core | -4.42 | -0.15 | -1.17 |
Without AA, playing DoD:S, the 5.12 driver performs almost identically to the 5.11 driver on single core systems. Flipping the switch gives us an instant boost at 8x6 and 10x12, and even a little nudge in the right direction at 1600x1200.
| Day of Defeat Percent Increase (Cat 5.11 to 5.12) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Single Core | 0.19 | 0.19 | 0.66 |
| Dual Core | 6.31 | 6.34 | 1.97 |
Enabling 4xAA doesn't seem to change much. We see a little more benefit (percentage wise) when using 5.12 under dual core in 800x600 and 1600x1200, but the gain over 5.11 at 1024x768 drops a little. Either way, Day of Defeat Source seems to show that theres definitely a little benefit to be had by upgrading dual core systems to 5.12 from 5.11 drivers.
| Day of Defeat 4xAA Percent Increase (Cat 5.11 to 5.12) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Single Core | 0.37 | 0.19 | -0.27 |
| Dual Core | 6.69 | 4.31 | 2.66 |
There are a few cases where the 5.12 driver improves performance in FarCry over the 5.11 even without the aide of dual core. Even though we see high percentage improvement with 5.12 under dual core, some of this could be general improvements to the way ATI handles the game.
| FarCry Percent Increase (Cat 5.11 to 5.12) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Single Core | 0.11 | 3 | -0.15 |
| Dual Core | 7.58 | 6.59 | 3.07 |
Again, even with 4xAA FarCry benefits from the 5.12 drivers in 4 out of 6 tests (with both of those tests being much more GPU limited at 1600x1200).
| FarCry 4xAA Percent Increase (Cat 5.11 to 5.12) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Single Core | 2.8 | 1.51 | -1.5 |
| Dual Core | 7.26 | 4.92 | -0.75 |
There isn't much to say other than there isn't any improvement under Quake 4 when upgrading to the 5.12 drivers.
| Quake 4 Percent Increase (Cat 5.11 to 5.12) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Single Core | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0 |
| Dual Core | 0.27 | 0.36 | 0.31 |
Which brings us to the test with the least change of all: Quake 4 with 4xAA.
| Quake 4 4xAA Percent Increase (Cat 5.11 to 5.12) | |||
| 800x600 | 1024x768 | 1600x1200 | |
| Single Core | 0.21 | 0.17 | 0 |
| Dual Core | -0.21 | 0 | 0 |
Now let's take a look at performance improvement from a different perspective: improvement of a dual core system over a single core system.
Facebook
Twitter
RSS
56 Comments
View All Comments
huges84 - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
How much RAM did the test system have?Furen - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
Since integrated graphics cards are the ones that (currently) lack things like vertex shaders, they probably will get a much more "dramatic" performance increase from dual-core drivers.Cybercat - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
amazing improvements! At 800x600...Pannenkoek - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
Indeed, I guess this article has only been posted because someone at Anandtech has worked on it, and didn't want to have wasted his time entirely for some beta drivers no one cares about.Cygni - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
Ya, im sure all those people with Dual Core rigs, and all the people that will have Dual Core rigs by the end of this year (probably everybody on this board), doesnt care about Dual Core driver improvements.In other news, i hope that post was a joke...
Pannenkoek - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
This is a _beta_ driver, not a released driver. Anandtech could have waited for the actual release. Now we won't be seeing any article on the real thing when it will come out is my guess.Yeah, I'm sure all those people with bleeding edge dual core processors and newest generation ATi cards will rejoice at their 5 extra frames per second at the lowest humanly tolarable screen resolution in this age.
Besides, it can only be pathetic if they actually get real performance improvements. On higher resolutions it would only show how lousy their drivers would be if they use that much CPU power to make an impact in benchmarks if the driver is off-loaded to another core. And on lower resolutions they apparently stall their rendering pipeline with current drivers. Thumbs up.
Andyvan - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
Are you seriously saying that it would be better to not know this? I was also under the impression that they were going to post a followup with more tests.-- Andyvan
Pannenkoek - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
I never said it would be better to not know this, whatever this may be. The article states explicitely that there'll be a follow up, I was a bit too cynic perhaps. ;-)The point is, there's a lot of fluff about some beta driver which "takes advantage of dual core". Earthshattering. It's the least any graphic card driver developer could do. And I welcome any comprehensive tests and article by Anandtech on real products. I just don't see any point in this article, especially not in the light of an upcoming "complete" article. (I see one: self-advertisement). Good effort by the Anandtech crowd, but it annoys me after all the other prerelease & beta & exclusive vapourware reviews.
Ryan Smith - Sunday, December 4, 2005 - link
Keep in mind that ATI's drivers seldom change once they hit beta. Once they're in beta, ATI is usually done with any coding and internal testing, and they're simply handing these drivers out to their partners for testing to see if in the unlikely event a problem crops up. So I certainly wouldn't consider these drivers vaporware, since they will be in everyones hands in another week or so.As for why we did this article instead of waiting for the complete article, we felt it was more important for you to be able to see what ATI's dual-core changes are capable of now on the best of hardware, rather than wait longer for a full-comparison article. With the need to swap CPUs on top of everything else, it's going to take us some time to finish the full article. We can certainly wait until we have every last benchmark done, but we'd rather show what we have now and get feedback from you guys, rather than keep you in the dark any longer.=)
bob661 - Monday, December 5, 2005 - link
Don't mind him Ryan. Some people won't shop for a Ferrari until they can afford one.