Games each driver could run (an estimate from its feature list): green likely, yellow maybe, orange limited, red no
StockDX92002+DX102006+DX112009+DX122015+Switch
CustomDX92002+DX102006+DX112009+DX122015+Switch
hdr_2160p4% faster
oit_linked_lists1% slower
pipeline_barriers_2160p10% faster
subpasses_2160p17% faster
Custom driver against stock, per scene. Bars to the right are faster, to the left slower.
Small areas of the picture differ from the stock driver in 2 scenes (pipeline_barriers: 1504 of 2304 cells, pipeline_barriers_2160p: 1596 of 2304 cells). The picture matches overall, so this is a local rendering fault, not a different scene.
Every feature check ends the same way on both drivers.
Speed test scenes (benchmark)
The two drivers were not measured on the same set of device models. Frame times from different devices do not compare drivers, so read these numbers with that in mind.
Scene
turnip_mrpurple_T30-toasted ms
Turnip_v26.3.0-R6 ms
Difference
Starts
GPU clock, MHz
Picture vs stock
hdr_2160p
36.96 typical 36.90
35.53 typical 35.37
4% faster
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
680 vs 680
no large difference0.0no small differenceworst 0.064x36
oit_linked_lists
26.49 typical 26.42
26.67 typical 26.61
1% slower
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
719 vs 680
no large difference0.0no small differenceworst 0.064x36
pipeline_barriers
2.40 typical 2.28
2.27 typical 2.26
too light, see pipeline_barriers_2160p
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
719 vs 680
no large difference9.8differs in 1504 small areasworst 58.064x36
pipeline_barriers_2160p
8.35 typical 8.38
7.62 typical 7.58
10% faster
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
706 vs 680
no large difference9.1differs in 1596 small areasworst 69.764x36
subpasses
3.99 typical 3.99
3.75 typical 3.74
too light, see subpasses_2160p
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
719 vs 680
not checked
subpasses_2160p
15.79 typical 15.99
13.53 typical 13.49
17% faster
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
719 vs 680
not checked
Time to draw one frame, per scene: the average (mean) frame time of the scene's best round, which is how many frames the driver delivered; lower is faster. "Typical" beside it is the median frame, which can sit well under the average when a driver's frames come in two speeds. A pair of reports made before per-round averages were recorded is compared on the median. A scene whose rounds disagree by more than 15% is left out. A scene marked "paced" was held at that mean frame time by the driver or the display queue, together with at least one other scene of the same run; its time says how the frames were spaced, not how fast the driver rendered, so it is not compared. A scene marked "too light" took under 8 ms at the standard size (1920 by 1080) on both drivers, where the screen's frame queue spaces the frames more than the chip does; its heavier run is the one compared: the row ending in _2160p is the scene drawn at 3840 by 2160, and compute_nbody_2x is that scene with twice the particles. "Faster" and "slower" describe Turnip_v26.3.0-R6 against turnip_mrpurple_T30-toasted. "Picture vs stock" compares one fixed frame per scene as a coarse colour grid (0 is identical, above 40 is a different picture); it finds a scene that was not drawn. Where both reports carry the finer 64x36 grid, the second figure is how many of its 2,304 cells differ by more than 4 of 255, and "worst" is the largest single cell; this is what finds a small rendering error in a picture that otherwise matches. A row marked 16x9 comes from a report made before the finer grid existed. "Starts" is how many of a scene's process starts reached a measured round. A GPU clock marked "not comparable" differed by more than 5% of the device's maximum between the two timings.