• Welcome to TechPowerUp Forums, Guest! Please check out our forum guidelines for info related to our community.

GravityMark v1.87 GPU Benchmark

venturi said:
good evening sir (at tellusim)

I broke through the 4k 100,000 barrier as well as over 134,000 in 2k.

It seems all drivers after the 522.30 carry a 13-17% penalty.


Can you fix the ram reported on my latest tests, I have 1.5TB of ram, but I think it does not see the ram on the 2nd cpu (768 + 768)

Thank you


and maybe you can look into what has happened on nvidia drivers released after 522.30 (example 528) that hobble Gravitymark performance so much.
I reinstalled the 522.30 one more time just to see the performance return, but have moved back to 528. both instances are using the latest Vulkan runtime

thank you


GravityMark Leaderboard

GravityMark GPU Benchmark
gravitymark.tellusim.com gravitymark.tellusim.com


Jay
Click to expand...

Congratulations on passing the 100K barrier :)

It will be crazy if 2x5090 passes 100K at 8K.

We will report the performance degradation issue to Nvidia.

Multi-CPU system detection is a known issue. But it's easier to patch reports instead of funding such a system for tests for now :)
 
Thank you

and that makes sense when a system is not available as well.

the degradation investigation from the 522.30 to any 527/528 may reveal other nuggets/solutions from nvidia as I noticed the same in some of the in-house CU and VK applications but to a lesser extent - about 2-3% degradation when using similar similar systems and a 7-9% degradation in multi-GPU systems for any driver in the 527.528 when compared to 522.30 studio driver.

Thank you as always
 
Last edited:
Tellusim said:
Congratulations on passing the 100K barrier :)

It will be crazy if 2x5090 passes 100K at 8K.

We will report the performance degradation issue to Nvidia.

Multi-CPU system detection is a known issue. But it's easier to patch reports instead of funding such a system for tests for now :)
Click to expand...
Sir,
I've tested up to the latest 531.18 nvidia driver and the observations remain consistent: --> every driver release since 522.30 has tanked (lowered) gravity mark by 10-15%. Reverting to the 522.30 restores the performance.

Have you been able to ascertain or discuss with nvidia what is going on?

Thank you
 
venturi said:
Sir,
I've tested up to the latest 531.18 nvidia driver and the observations remain consistent: --> every driver release since 522.30 has tanked (lowered) gravity mark by 10-15%. Reverting to the 522.30 restores the performance.

Have you been able to ascertain or discuss with nvidia what is going on?

Thank you
Click to expand...

That is strange because our tests on 531.18 driver are faster than before for multi-GPU AFR:

A single GPU mode on 3090 is also better on 531.18 driver:

GravityMark Report

GravityMark GPU Benchmark
gravitymark.tellusim.com gravitymark.tellusim.com

Please submit your result on 531.18 driver, and we will send it to Nvidia. Thank you!
 
Vulkan 4K Fullscreen
FPS 379.9

Screenshot (27).png
 
Hello and good day!

I've been using Gravity Mark to compare APIs across different hardware and have a problem.

Two laptops (both with Windows 11 and Intel processors, i7-10750 and i5-9300 respectively) refuse to start the test with Vulkan. Is this because Gravity Mark uses Vulkan 1.3? The latest Intel Graphics version (31.0.101.3790) supports Vulkan 1.2. Is this a problem you are aware about?

Otherwise, really good benchmark, keep up the good work!

Thank you and cheers!
 
Januzchka said:
Hello and good day!

I've been using Gravity Mark to compare APIs across different hardware and have a problem.

Two laptops (both with Windows 11 and Intel processors, i7-10750 and i5-9300 respectively) refuse to start the test with Vulkan. Is this because Gravity Mark uses Vulkan 1.3? The latest Intel Graphics version (31.0.101.3790) supports Vulkan 1.2. Is this a problem you are aware about?

Otherwise, really good benchmark, keep up the good work!

Thank you and cheers!
Click to expand...
Thank you!

The minimal recommended Intel GPU for GravityMark is Intel Xe Graphics.
Intel UHD Graphics Vulkan driver does not export all required by the API functions, and the benchmark crashes on startup.
The only option for Intel UHD Graphics is Direct3D12: https://gravitymark.tellusim.com/report/?id=ccdb1e1e719091d8aae1585e6c96c9fcc995318a
 
venturi said:
Sir,
I've tested up to the latest 531.18 nvidia driver and the observations remain consistent: --> every driver release since 522.30 has tanked (lowered) gravity mark by 10-15%. Reverting to the 522.30 restores the performance.

Have you been able to ascertain or discuss with nvidia what is going on?

Thank you
Click to expand...
Sir

built a new PC, unfortunately Gravity Mark crashes at launch.
Any assistance?

build:
2x 4090 RTX Founders Edition
2x AMD 7773x Epyc (128/256 cores), Gigabyte MZ72-HB0 Dual socket motherboard
1 TB RAM DDR4 ECC LRDIMMs 1600W digital power supply
(Data drive) Raid 0 Micron 9300 Max (12.8TB each / 51.2TB array)
(OS Drive) Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus (8TB). Back up array Micron 9300 Max
Asus PA32UCG-K monitor, TT SFF case, MS Data Center 2022 & Ubuntu
 
venturi said:
Sir

built a new PC, unfortunately Gravity Mark crashes at launch.
Any assistance?

build:
2x 4090 RTX Founders Edition
2x AMD 7773x Epyc (128/256 cores), Gigabyte MZ72-HB0 Dual socket motherboard
1 TB RAM DDR4 ECC LRDIMMs 1600W digital power supply
(Data drive) Raid 0 Micron 9300 Max (12.8TB each / 51.2TB array)
(OS Drive) Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus (8TB). Back up array Micron 9300 Max
Asus PA32UCG-K monitor, TT SFF case, MS Data Center 2022 & Ubuntu
Click to expand...

Is the crash the same on both Windows and Ubuntu?

Could you please provide the GravityMark Log file for further analysis:

Windows: C:\Users\USERNAME\.GravityMark\GravityMark.log
Linux: ~/.GravityMark/GravityMark.log
 
Tellusim said:
Is the crash the same on both Windows and Ubuntu?

Could you please provide the GravityMark Log file for further analysis:

Windows: C:\Users\USERNAME\.GravityMark\GravityMark.log
Linux: ~/.GravityMark/GravityMark.log
Click to expand...
Sir

for windows

It normally would not take as long as it does to launch. It makes it as far as what it shows in the picture and then fails.

Log file attached

Thank you

J
 

Attachments

venturi said:
Sir

for windows

It normally would not take as long as it does to launch. It makes it as far as what it shows in the picture and then fails.

Log file attached

Thank you

J
Click to expand...

Thank you. There is a Cuda-related error during initialization:

2023-09-30 01:13:13 610 ms: CU::error(): OS call failed or operation not supported on this OS
2023-09-30 01:13:13 610 ms: CUTexture::create(): can't import 2D RGBAu8n 2560x1440 Source Surface texture
2023-09-30 01:13:13 610 ms: GravityMark::render(): can't create 0 Cuda Texture

Please try to run the benchmark without Cuda Interop.
4xxx Family doesn't have NVLink bridge, so there is no reason to use Cuda (only API that gives access to NVLink).
PCIe gen 4 bandwidth would be enough.
 
Tellusim said:
Thank you. There is a Cuda-related error during initialization:

2023-09-30 01:13:13 610 ms: CU::error(): OS call failed or operation not supported on this OS
2023-09-30 01:13:13 610 ms: CUTexture::create(): can't import 2D RGBAu8n 2560x1440 Source Surface texture
2023-09-30 01:13:13 610 ms: GravityMark::render(): can't create 0 Cuda Texture

Please try to run the benchmark without Cuda Interop.
4xxx Family doesn't have NVLink bridge, so there is no reason to use Cuda (only API that gives access to NVLink).
PCIe gen 4 bandwidth would be enough.
Click to expand...


Ok sir, however it was working before:

GravityMark Report

GravityMark GPU Benchmark
gravitymark.tellusim.com gravitymark.tellusim.com
 
1696023694907.png


Looks like this expired awhile ago.

1696023717771.png


I would look into setting up lets encrypt and just creating the task to renew it every 3 months.

the main one does appear to be valid but it appears to be the primary domain? Unlike the one linked in the OP for example. Which redirects to gravitymark.tellusim.com

1696023850590.png
 
Tellusim said:
A different motherboard can be a reason. Cuda cannot create shared textures for GPUs. Do you have the Resizable Bar enabled?
Click to expand...
Sir, I did not have resizable bar enabled, not a choice (yet) on this board but I am working to get it added in next bios update
 
Got one from my 4070Ti :cool:

Untitled.jpg
 
agent_x007 said:
Antialiasing.... is overrated :)
Click to expand...
Getting new result for better GPU (also, that was on 1.3 version, this is current 1.82) :)

Core = 1660MHz @ 0.8V, VRAM = 1GHz (effective) + Custom fan curve (around [+1C = +1%] rule)
7De8W78.jpg

fXE2UWR.jpg


And here are 4k and 2k score :
Sektlev.jpg


GravityBench 2k Vulkan.png
 
1696378552905.png


Stock benchmark settings.

4K
 

Attachments

  • Gravitymark.jpg
    Gravitymark.jpg
    655.3 KB · Views: 70
Last edited:
I just noticed default settings.. whoops..


default.png
 
Zotac Amp Holo Black 3080Ti (FE bios)
+150 core, +1500 vram, max pl, aio/watercoolled

FsiZmM8.jpg
 
One more before work :)

+150 core, +1400 mems

Screenshot 2023-10-06 070607.png
 
Sir
attached is the new high score on leaderboard. It was done without the cuda component across the dual GPUs.
This is my home/ relatively SFF PC.
In details this was a dual Epyc board, the tool reports only the one, but overall it was lower than expected die to the Cu not being implemented.

I've had a learning curve, switching from Intel to AMD but as I continue to learn the bios I should be able to get better scores.

Thank you

Jay

GravityMark Leaderboard

GravityMark GPU Benchmark
gravitymark.tellusim.com gravitymark.tellusim.com

2x 4090 RTX Founders Edition
2x AMD 7773x Epyc (128/256 cores), Gigabyte MZ72-HB0 Dual socket motherboard
1 TB RAM DDR4 ECC LRDIMMs 1600W digital power supply
(Data drive) Raid 0 Micron 9300 Max (12.8TB each / 51.2TB array)
(OS Drive) Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus (8TB). Back up array Micron 9300 Max
Asus PA32UCG-K monitor, TT SFF case, MS Data Center 2022 & Ubuntu


gravitymark.jpg
 
Last edited:
venturi said:
Sir
attached is the new high score on leaderboard. It was done without the cuda component across the dual GPUs.
This is my home/ relatively SFF PC.
In details this was a dual Epyc board, the tool reports only the one, but overall it was lower than expected die to the Cu not being implemented.

I've had a learning curve, switching from Intel to AMD but as I continue to learn the bios I should be able to get better scores.

Thank you

Jay

GravityMark Leaderboard

GravityMark GPU Benchmark
gravitymark.tellusim.com gravitymark.tellusim.com

2x 4090 RTX Founders Edition
2x AMD 7773x Epyc (128/256 cores), Gigabyte MZ72-HB0 Dual socket motherboard
1 TB RAM DDR4 ECC LRDIMMs 1600W digital power supply
(Data drive) Raid 0 Micron 9300 Max (12.8TB each / 51.2TB array)
(OS Drive) Sabrent Rocket 4 Plus (8TB). Back up array Micron 9300 Max
Asus PA32UCG-K monitor, TT SFF case, MS Data Center 2022 & Ubuntu
Click to expand...

Awesome!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top