1
00:00:07,759 --> 00:00:16,720
sometimes you don't realize what you're missing until it's staring you in the face but

2
00:00:12,880 --> 00:00:18,640
when you notice it it's just

3
00:00:16,720 --> 00:00:21,439
so sweet isn't it well

4
00:00:19,760 --> 00:00:25,840
that's what we finally have here today with NVIDIA the opportunity to have our

5
00:00:23,840 --> 00:00:31,920
cake and eat it too because they have finally enabled resizable bar on their

6
00:00:28,160 --> 00:00:35,200
desktop GeForce gpus get it resizable

7
00:00:31,920 --> 00:00:35,200
bar extra sweetness

8
00:00:36,079 --> 00:00:42,960
in theory this is a simple driver update that will unlock extra performance on

9
00:00:40,559 --> 00:00:47,440
your existing GPU assuming you're lucky enough to own one but what we're gonna

10
00:00:44,719 --> 00:00:50,320
find out is if it is truly something for nothing

11
00:00:48,399 --> 00:00:53,200
or if it's just an illusion

12
00:00:53,600 --> 00:00:59,440
i'll give you uh this segue to our sponsor for nothing though smart deploy

13
00:00:57,520 --> 00:01:03,520
can help you manage every Windows endpoint in your environment from one

14
00:01:01,359 --> 00:01:08,479
centralized golden image grab your exclusive free software worth over eight

15
00:01:05,439 --> 00:01:11,479
hundred dollars at smartdeploy.com

16
00:01:08,479 --> 00:01:11,479
Linus

17
00:01:18,159 --> 00:01:24,000
resizable bar has been a big deal ever since AMD announced their implementation

18
00:01:22,240 --> 00:01:27,759
of the feature called smart access memory if you haven't been keeping up

19
00:01:25,600 --> 00:01:33,119
with all the buzz it basically allows a CPU to access all of a pci express

20
00:01:30,640 --> 00:01:38,640
device's memory at once rather than in small 256 megabyte chunks as has been

21
00:01:36,079 --> 00:01:42,960
the case until now resizable bar has existed in the data center for some time

22
00:01:40,640 --> 00:01:47,680
now but it couldn't find momentum on the desktop until AMD kicked off this

23
00:01:45,200 --> 00:01:51,200
scramble to implement it industry-wide which kind of raises the question why

24
00:01:50,079 --> 00:01:56,399
now well in the early days of pci express it

25
00:01:53,840 --> 00:02:00,719
wasn't a problem for gamers because game assets like textures were sized

26
00:01:58,880 --> 00:02:05,520
proportionally to the video frame buffers of that time but with the

27
00:02:02,880 --> 00:02:10,800
complexity of today's games and with modern graphics cards having as much as

28
00:02:07,439 --> 00:02:13,120
24 gigabytes of onboard memory you can

29
00:02:10,800 --> 00:02:18,560
easily imagine a situation where the CPU could waste a lot of cycles getting the

30
00:02:15,040 --> 00:02:21,040
data it needs if it can only address 256

31
00:02:18,560 --> 00:02:25,520
megabytes at a time ultimately eliminating this waste is where our

32
00:02:23,440 --> 00:02:30,319
performance boost comes from the only problem is that in order to support it

33
00:02:28,160 --> 00:02:36,800
every device in the chain needs to be capable the CPU the motherboard and the

34
00:02:33,920 --> 00:02:41,120
pci express device which in this case is a GPU now we've already looked at

35
00:02:39,040 --> 00:02:46,800
NVIDIA's preliminary implementation of resizable bar on mobile GeForce gpus

36
00:02:43,760 --> 00:02:49,120
with an MSI ge76 raider laptop and at

37
00:02:46,800 --> 00:02:52,959
the time we concluded that there was more to the sometimes impressive

38
00:02:51,200 --> 00:02:58,319
performance improvements that AMD was getting than just enabling resizable bar

39
00:02:56,239 --> 00:03:02,640
and we also concluded that NVIDIA had some work to do before it was ready for

40
00:03:00,000 --> 00:03:07,519
prime time but even with it fully cooked it's important to know that not every

41
00:03:04,720 --> 00:03:11,360
game or application will benefit and how the driver handles memory management

42
00:03:09,519 --> 00:03:17,040
appears to play a major role in what kind of performance uplift or fall you

43
00:03:14,480 --> 00:03:22,239
can expect that's where NVIDIA's latest drivers and the free chocolate come in

44
00:03:20,319 --> 00:03:27,519
our previous investigation showed that the impact differs depending on CPU

45
00:03:24,400 --> 00:03:31,440
performance so we grabbed both a ryzen 5

46
00:03:27,519 --> 00:03:32,400
5600x and a ryzen 9 5900x to represent

47
00:03:31,440 --> 00:03:38,959
the mid-range and the high end we'll be using a GeForce rtx 3080 and for comparison

48
00:03:36,720 --> 00:03:42,319
against team red we've got a Radeon rx 6800 xt

49
00:03:40,720 --> 00:03:47,200
something to note is that because we're focused on their respective improvements

50
00:03:44,799 --> 00:03:51,519
over stock performance and not on completely re-reviewing these cards all

51
00:03:49,440 --> 00:03:57,120
of the results for both sides will be in relative percentages at 1080p things are

52
00:03:54,799 --> 00:04:01,439
already really interesting shadow of the tomb raider doesn't change much but

53
00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:06,879
where Radeon loses some performance in the five percent lows on ryzen 9 GeForce

54
00:04:04,319 --> 00:04:12,480
gains hinting that NVIDIA might be doing a better job of reducing die to die

55
00:04:08,799 --> 00:04:15,439
latency on AMD's own CPU than AMD's

56
00:04:12,480 --> 00:04:20,000
graphics team is gta 5 on the other hand gives GeForce a hard time with Radeon

57
00:04:17,919 --> 00:04:24,479
gaining a bit with verizon 5 which further hints that AMD's implementation

58
00:04:22,079 --> 00:04:29,759
favors single die cpus as for f1 2020 this is one of NVIDIA's

59
00:04:27,280 --> 00:04:34,400
call outs for performance uplift and it brings the first major victory for

60
00:04:31,680 --> 00:04:38,960
resizable bar we ended up with slightly higher average frame times across the

61
00:04:36,479 --> 00:04:44,080
board for team green which is bad but significantly lower one percent minimum

62
00:04:41,600 --> 00:04:49,759
frame times that reach toward a 10 improvement on the 5900x that's good

63
00:04:47,360 --> 00:04:54,560
because in almost any game improving performance during challenging scenes is

64
00:04:52,560 --> 00:04:58,639
way more important than when animations are already smooth this is especially

65
00:04:57,120 --> 00:05:02,240
true in competitive titles when performance tends to fall in the heat of

66
00:05:00,639 --> 00:05:06,880
battle because of all the character models and effects that are on screen

67
00:05:04,639 --> 00:05:11,759
again NVIDIA seems to be taking better advantage of the extra course on the

68
00:05:08,720 --> 00:05:14,160
ryzen 9. forza horizon 4 is another call

69
00:05:11,759 --> 00:05:18,240
out and another win for NVIDIA although the pattern flips here with the ryzen 5

70
00:05:16,560 --> 00:05:22,479
pulling better improvements across the board than the ryzen 9. this suggests

71
00:05:20,720 --> 00:05:26,320
that memory access patterns play a significant role in whether the die

72
00:05:24,000 --> 00:05:30,479
arrangement causes issues Radeon on the other hand struggles especially with the

73
00:05:28,320 --> 00:05:34,320
ryzen 9 where minimum frame rates are as much as six percent lower than with

74
00:05:32,320 --> 00:05:38,320
resizable bar disabled which brings us back to our chocolate analogy doesn't it

75
00:05:36,639 --> 00:05:43,039
it's perhaps unsurprising that there's little change on flight sim 2020 given

76
00:05:40,479 --> 00:05:46,960
how CPU-bound that game is but NVIDIA does manage to eke out a slight

77
00:05:44,800 --> 00:05:51,440
improvement with ryzen 5 while Radeon manages a bit better frame rates on

78
00:05:48,800 --> 00:05:55,280
ryzen 9. and assassin's creed valhalla was the call-out title that we found

79
00:05:52,960 --> 00:05:59,759
improvements for in our previous video and that continues today NVIDIA pulls a

80
00:05:57,759 --> 00:06:04,000
respectable six to nine percent improvement across the board but then

81
00:06:01,600 --> 00:06:09,440
again that pales in comparison to team red pulling way ahead of stock with up

82
00:06:06,319 --> 00:06:11,039
to 18 percent higher performance given

83
00:06:09,440 --> 00:06:14,800
the way that both teams are going back and forth here it seems like additional

84
00:06:12,960 --> 00:06:19,759
optimizations can still be made for resizable bar on both sides which is

85
00:06:17,039 --> 00:06:23,919
really promising finally cs go it's an older title that already runs well on

86
00:06:21,600 --> 00:06:28,000
hardware of this caliber but we still managed to see a slight improvement in

87
00:06:25,759 --> 00:06:32,960
minimum frame rates at the cost of some average FPS which is a price that most

88
00:06:31,120 --> 00:06:36,880
players should be willing to pay for the reasons that i outlined before there is

89
00:06:35,199 --> 00:06:41,360
no price by the way for the new sticker packs at lttstore.com free with every

90
00:06:38,960 --> 00:06:45,919
order checkmate NVIDIA moving on to 1440p you might not expect

91
00:06:44,240 --> 00:06:50,560
things to get better here but you'd be wrong while g4 stays more or less the

92
00:06:48,319 --> 00:06:55,840
same in shadow of the tomb raider Radeon pulls two to four percent ahead with

93
00:06:52,800 --> 00:06:58,240
ryzen 5. and where GeForce loses in

94
00:06:55,840 --> 00:07:03,440
minimum frame rates for no gain on ryzen 9 Radeon manages to gain about as many

95
00:07:01,199 --> 00:07:08,400
average frames as it loses in minimums which in a non-competitive title like

96
00:07:05,599 --> 00:07:12,479
this one might be an okay trade-off gta 5 is a bit all over the place with ryzen

97
00:07:10,720 --> 00:07:17,280
5 more or less on par with stock performance on both teams with a slight

98
00:07:14,720 --> 00:07:22,240
tip to Radeon and ryzen 9 pulling as much of a win on g-force as Radeon loses

99
00:07:20,319 --> 00:07:27,440
it's almost like NVIDIA stole the frames right out of lisa sue's pocket and f1

100
00:07:24,880 --> 00:07:30,960
2020 again shows improvements as high as 13

101
00:07:28,720 --> 00:07:35,360
with the only maybe regression coming from NVIDIA's average frame rates on

102
00:07:32,880 --> 00:07:38,960
ryzen 9 but we're talking a mere one percent difference NVIDIA comes out

103
00:07:37,360 --> 00:07:43,599
ahead in performance improvements for minimum frame rates here while Radeon

104
00:07:40,960 --> 00:07:48,319
pulls better averages as for forza there is no other way to put it it is a

105
00:07:45,599 --> 00:07:54,639
staggering win for Radeon their worst improvement here is 13 and yes your eyes

106
00:07:51,680 --> 00:08:00,000
are working fine that is a nearly 20 gain for Radeon's minimum frame rates

107
00:07:57,599 --> 00:08:05,039
now to be clear NVIDIA still wins everybody wins when they go over 100 of

108
00:08:02,080 --> 00:08:09,360
stock performance they just don't win as hard now with a little extra emphasis on

109
00:08:07,199 --> 00:08:13,599
the GPU thanks to our higher resolution flight sim 2020 shows us near universal

110
00:08:12,000 --> 00:08:18,160
improvements with Radeon actually pulling a healthy 8 improvement in

111
00:08:15,520 --> 00:08:22,560
minimum frame rates on ryzen 9. and then assassin's creed is once again a bigger

112
00:08:20,160 --> 00:08:27,840
win for AMD than it is for NVIDIA with improvements reaching 16 for both cpus

113
00:08:25,599 --> 00:08:31,840
and NVIDIA managing a very respectable six to nine percent lead over stock

114
00:08:29,680 --> 00:08:37,279
performance isn't it nice when everybody wins guys too bad it doesn't always work

115
00:08:33,919 --> 00:08:39,120
out that way cs go at 1440p resulted in

116
00:08:37,279 --> 00:08:44,720
straight up performance regressions across the board with the sole exception

117
00:08:42,000 --> 00:08:50,000
being minimum frame rates on ryzen 9 for Radeon GeForce takes the worst of it

118
00:08:47,120 --> 00:08:55,279
though here with up to a 20 performance loss with resizable bar enabled that's

119
00:08:52,560 --> 00:08:59,519
as big a loss as the largest gains we've seen today maybe that's why NVIDIA's

120
00:08:57,360 --> 00:09:03,760
driver has an easy to find indicator for whether the feature is active i guess

121
00:09:01,519 --> 00:09:07,839
AMD felt it was less likely that users with it enabled would be troubleshooting

122
00:09:05,600 --> 00:09:11,360
performance looking at the big picture here though

123
00:09:09,440 --> 00:09:16,240
Radeon has the best average gains running roughly six percent faster than

124
00:09:13,360 --> 00:09:21,519
stock at 1440p and two percent faster at 1080p while NVIDIA's gains hover around

125
00:09:19,519 --> 00:09:25,680
two percent regardless of the resolution that means one of two things either

126
00:09:23,600 --> 00:09:30,240
AMD's memory management for Radeon is worse than NVIDIA's for GeForce or

127
00:09:28,240 --> 00:09:34,000
NVIDIA has some more optimization work to do the work they've done already

128
00:09:32,160 --> 00:09:38,399
since our previous video has clearly paid off handsomely though so either way

129
00:09:36,320 --> 00:09:42,240
it goes we'll hopefully keep on seeing improvements with future driver

130
00:09:39,760 --> 00:09:46,399
revisions on both sides on that subject by the way get subscribed because NVIDIA

131
00:09:44,560 --> 00:09:50,959
finally rolled the driver that fixes the code 43 error and we're gonna be all

132
00:09:48,880 --> 00:09:54,959
over that in a future video changing gears a bit by now we know that

133
00:09:52,959 --> 00:10:00,640
productivity tends not to be affected much by resizable bar at least for AMD

134
00:09:58,160 --> 00:10:06,080
but for fun we did some runs so that we could validate that for NVIDIA as well

135
00:10:02,880 --> 00:10:08,959
blender well uh it's 100

136
00:10:06,080 --> 00:10:13,600
yep 100 of stock performance so how about that pugetvent shows some dips

137
00:10:11,600 --> 00:10:17,200
especially in after effects although which CPU causes the dip changes

138
00:10:15,680 --> 00:10:21,760
depending on which team GPU you're batting for and then luxmark shows

139
00:10:19,519 --> 00:10:27,440
basically flat with our ryzen 9 g-force combo managing to lose some performance

140
00:10:24,640 --> 00:10:32,079
this clearly isn't the norm but it's worth taking into account that some

141
00:10:29,279 --> 00:10:36,480
applications may suffer for those sweet sweet gaming games

142
00:10:35,120 --> 00:10:41,519
so then resizable bar should you turn it on assuming that your

143
00:10:39,839 --> 00:10:47,440
motherboard manufacturer has rolled out a BIOS with support and that you have a

144
00:10:43,920 --> 00:10:49,200
compatible GPU the answer is yes

145
00:10:47,440 --> 00:10:52,959
we found that so far there are more situations where it helps than

146
00:10:50,800 --> 00:10:57,680
situations where it hurts and like with our chocolate bar where it hurts the

147
00:10:55,279 --> 00:11:02,240
benefits of the tasty snack seem far more noticeable than what went missing

148
00:11:00,240 --> 00:11:05,680
now if only they could enable it for previous gen gpus

149
00:11:04,160 --> 00:11:09,920
just like i enable you guys to hear about our sponsor the drop sennheiser

150
00:11:07,760 --> 00:11:14,640
hd6xx headphones are one of drop's all-time best sellers with over 90 000

151
00:11:12,640 --> 00:11:19,920
units sold they haven't changed the driver or sound structure compared to

152
00:11:16,640 --> 00:11:21,680
the hd650s so it delivers a beautiful

153
00:11:19,920 --> 00:11:26,240
balanced mid-range and natural sounding bass and its open back design allows

154
00:11:24,079 --> 00:11:30,240
auditorium-like acoustics for accurate sound reproduction it's got a detachable

155
00:11:28,320 --> 00:11:34,480
six foot cable instead of a 10 foot cable this change was based on community

156
00:11:31,920 --> 00:11:38,320
feedback and has a 1 8 inch plug with a quarter inch adapter included in the box

157
00:11:36,399 --> 00:11:42,240
so don't wait get yours today at the link in the video description so thanks

158
00:11:40,320 --> 00:11:46,720
for watching guys go check out our previous investigation into resizable

159
00:11:44,240 --> 00:11:52,160
bar on NVIDIA's mobile platform for a little more context on how far NVIDIA's

160
00:11:49,680 --> 00:11:55,839
implementation has come in such a short period of time