15.4 vs 1018.1 "Vbs" Benchmarks, Quad and Dual Core

Because the subject was getting a bit out of hand in the DX11 overhead thread, I decided to start this thread to concatenate my benchmark results in this one, so that we at least have some kind of point of reference.

My software is Windows 8.1.1 x64 with all the updates as of today (08/05/2015), my software is as you see it on the left. The game settings are everything to the max except non-post-processing antialiasing, unless I provide a link about the specific title's settings. The resolution is a humble 1080p60 (GPU donations accepted :D ).

I do not include min/max framerates, as they are completely useless and they clout the charts. I have gone the other way around and tried to find some kind of metric that would show the relative variance and smoothness of the experience, instead of only the framerates (which don't mean much from a point on). The 99th percentile number shows in under how many ms the 99% of the frames is presented, and the Standard Deviation is a method that provides us with a way to know what is "normal", "standard", "large" or "small". The smaller the Standard Deviation, the smaller the "gap" between frame numbers and the smoother the overall experience. It can be better explained here, by people who know much more than me. This and the 99th percentile are by far the most important metrics here, as the smaller they are the smoother the frame delivery is.

Let's start with the games then.

Assassin's Creed Unity
[spoiler]

Game Settings:
Environmental: Quality High
Texture Quality: Ultra High
Shadow Quality: Low
Ambient Occlusion: HBAO+
Anti-Aliasing Quality: FXAA
Bloom: On

Test Route.
You can see in the frame chart, this driver is much better at delivering frames as both the curves and the numbers are indicating much smoother deliveries. The dual core peformance seems worse though.[/spoiler]

Dying Light
[spoiler]

Game Settings, Benchmark Route.

Same story here, with many more gains in the quad core test. This will become a pattern with this driver, as you'll see in the next tests too.[/spoiler]

Total War Rome 2
[spoiler]

Rome 2 is a badly written game (still lags horribly by just selecting a unit in the campaing map). These numbers are taken using the game's benchmark. The 1018.1 plays and feels worse with a dual core. It is the opposite with a quad though. Whatever these drivers have, it is not focused on dual+HT scenarios.[/spoiler]

StarCraft II: Heart of the Swarm
[spoiler]

Althoug StarCraft II is a DirectX 9.0 title, we curiously see a difference in peformance, towards the bottom. Again dual core performance is harmed with the new drivers, and surprisingly quad core performance does too.[/spoiler]

Unigine Heaven
[spoiler]

Here things are neck to neck and within all kinds of statistical error. For all intents and purposes, the performance is the same.[/spoiler]

Unreal 4 Elemental Demo
[spoiler]

Another case where everything is within the margin of error, yet still the 1018.1 performs worse with a dual core.[/spoiler]

Metal Gear Solid V: Ground Zeroes
[spoiler]

Here again we take the paces of the intro sequence of the game (and it is Hojima-long), again the performance is the same between the driver sets, except the 1018.1 being worse in the dual core scenario.[/spoiler]

Final Fantasy XIV: Heavensward Benchmark
[spoiler]

This is one of the examples where the 1018.1 driver simply gave worse results, especially in the quad core scenario. I run the test three times, the results were consistent with what you see. Much lower average framerate, a tiny bit better frame delivery.[/spoiler]

Monster Hunter Online Benchmark
[spoiler]

Another one where it is more of the same. Practically identical performance, except that in the dual core scenario the 1018.1 is a bit worse and within the range of error.[/spoiler]

Project C.A.R.S.
[spoiler]
For the first test everything was at Ultra except Track Detail which was Low, and Detailed Grass which was off.



Practically identical performance from both drivers, with a tiny bit more of frame stability for 1018.1.

For the second test Track Detail and Detailed Grass were at Ultra. There is something wrong with this game, nothing being displayed could ever possibly justify the performance hit.



Still, this is one of the cases where the 1018.1 driver carries its own weight, and for the first time in a dual core scenario too. The 15.4 is in practice unplayable.[/spoiler]

Civilization V
[spoiler]With its support for DX11 multithreading, Civilization V is the personification of "last, but not least". The game provides its own benchmarks and metrics, with the LateGameView simulating a game of 300 rounds played already, and the Units test filling the screen with, well... units.



The results are the same. Apart from a tiny increase in the Units Full Render score, things are more or less the same.[/spoiler]

Unfortunately I didn't have more games/hardware available for testing, but the results are quite fascinating. In almost all the tests we have a drop in the dual core performance of the new drivers, which is simultaneously combined with smoother frame delivery in quad core scenarios. The StarCraft II results are surprising, as DirectX 9.0 performance was supposed to be the same and they might be an indication that this is a change in a lower part of the driver (possibly the scheduler itself).
This doesn't solve the problem of low performance with lower end CPU's, it actually makes it worse. It is good news for people with substantial hardware though, as things seem to move in a direction where the GPUs seem to have more of leeway given by the higher-end CPUs.
If this trend continues in subsequent releases, the stutter gap with NVIDIA will probably close, but the lower cpu/thread cap will probably remain and worsen.
It took me some time to post this, as it has been a long time I had to run benchmarks and check things so thoroughly.
I await your comments, extra benches and hardware for me to test. :infinity:

15.4 vs 1018.1 "Vbs" Benchmarks, Quad and Dual Core