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_2160p29% slower
oit_linked_lists5% slower
pipeline_barriers_2160p0% faster
subpasses_2160p6% 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: 1694 of 2304 cells, pipeline_barriers_2160p: 1187 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_T26-toasted ms
Turnip_v26.3.0-R6 ms
Difference
Starts
GPU clock, MHz
Picture vs stock
hdr_2160p
25.33 typical 25.26
35.53 typical 35.37
29% slower
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
680 vs 680
no large difference0.0no small differenceworst 0.064x36
oit_linked_lists
25.38 typical 25.30
26.67 typical 26.61
5% slower
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
680 vs 680
no large difference0.0no small differenceworst 0.064x36
pipeline_barriers
3.26 typical 2.78
2.27 typical 2.26
too light, see pipeline_barriers_2160p
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
572 vs 680 not comparable
no large difference10.9differs in 1694 small areasworst 61.764x36
pipeline_barriers_2160p
7.62 typical 7.63
7.62 typical 7.58
0% faster
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
680 vs 680
no large difference7.5differs in 1187 small areasworst 86.064x36
subpasses
4.46 typical 4.41
3.75 typical 3.74
too light, see subpasses_2160p
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
680 vs 680
not checked
subpasses_2160p
14.30 typical 14.30
13.53 typical 13.49
6% faster
3 of 3 vs 3 of 3
680 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_T26-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.