You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
After integrating GPA into a custom OpenGL based engine, it appears that on Navi (specifically a 5700XT Anniversary Edition), the VSVALUInstCount, VSSALUInstCount and associated Busy and BusyCycles counters always read 0. After doing some digging, it appears that the GS0 set of hardware counters might contain these and related values, which I'm assuming is due to how Navi cards support mesh shaders.
Thus, my question is, is this assumption correct? Is this a bug in GPA regarding mapping hardware counter names to the human readable counter names?
I realize that these values being inaccurate is a known issue, however a reading of 0 is clearly not representative of performance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
Sorry that nobody responded to this much sooner. We also discovered the 0 results on various hardware, unfortunately soon after we had re-introduced those counters. This is actually a side effect of the known issue, and I agree it is not representative of performance and we should have been more thorough with our testing prior to re-introducing those counters. This has gone through very detailed investigation (much deeper than GPA) and we now have insight into the cause of the issue. I don't have any details yet on when a fix will become publicly available, but this is important for us to resolve. Testing continues!
After integrating GPA into a custom OpenGL based engine, it appears that on Navi (specifically a 5700XT Anniversary Edition), the VSVALUInstCount, VSSALUInstCount and associated Busy and BusyCycles counters always read 0. After doing some digging, it appears that the GS0 set of hardware counters might contain these and related values, which I'm assuming is due to how Navi cards support mesh shaders.
Thus, my question is, is this assumption correct? Is this a bug in GPA regarding mapping hardware counter names to the human readable counter names?
I realize that these values being inaccurate is a known issue, however a reading of 0 is clearly not representative of performance.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: