Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [computerbase.de] DOOM + Vulkan Benchmarked.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[computerbase.de] DOOM + Vulkan Benchmarked. - Page 18

post #171 of 632
I haven't been keeping up with this thread, but just wanted to share that I ran doom briefly on Fury and the in game fps vulkan counter, or whatever it's called, shows results similar to the one in OP. It's also very smooth. If this trend continues, we will finally have something to cheer about Vis a Vis PC ports and general PC gaming, regardless of the brand. As I am sure Nvidia will catch up sometime with their next arch, as it relates to async compute, etc.
Simplicity
(11 items)
 
Apotheosis
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Z87 Pro TBD Corsair Vengeance (2x8GB) DDR3 1600 RAM 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro Dell U2713HM Alienware TactX gaming Seasonic 850W Gold  
CaseMouse
Cooler Master HAF XB Alienware TactX premium mouse 
  hide details  
Reply
Simplicity
(11 items)
 
Apotheosis
(10 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4770k Asus Z87 Pro TBD Corsair Vengeance (2x8GB) DDR3 1600 RAM 
OSMonitorKeyboardPower
Windows 7 Pro Dell U2713HM Alienware TactX gaming Seasonic 850W Gold  
CaseMouse
Cooler Master HAF XB Alienware TactX premium mouse 
  hide details  
Reply
post #172 of 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

except where Pascal has pretty good gains in DX12 with Async. funny how you accept that benchmarks not run under same identical circumstances are OK. if it was other way around I bet you would have different stance.
Pascal will never support async compute like AMD,it has been said millions of times.

Whatever gains it had on DX12 it certainly has nothing to do with Async,and there's plenty of proof.

You sound like some kid crying because his brother got ice cream and he didn't.
Edited by GoLDii3 - 7/14/16 at 8:36am
post #173 of 632
Way too much babywhining. If DX12 / Vulkan gives AMD an advantage by supporting hardware that Nvidia does not have, it's no more a crime than DX11 and OpenGL playing to Nvidia's serial architectural strengths and punishing AMD's.

Where was your righteous indignation then? Instead all I've ever heard on OCN is how AMD dropped the ball.

This industry needs more parity. Sounds like that's starting to happen, and I'm glad for it. Architectures can now be judged on hardware capability, not software limitations.
Parasite
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770K @ 4.7GHz Z87 MPOWER (MS-7818) Sapphire Radeon 290x @1100/1500 EVGA 1080Ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.SKILL 2133 Samsung 850 Pro Caviar Black Corsair H100 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Corsair HG10 Corsair H60 Windows 7 x64 Sony XBR65X850B 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CMSTORM Quickfire XT Corsair AX1200i Antec P280 Logitec G700 
Mouse PadAudio
Black, came with my NeXTcube 25 years ago. Sound Blaster Recon 3D PCIe 
  hide details  
Reply
Parasite
(18 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsGraphics
i7 4770K @ 4.7GHz Z87 MPOWER (MS-7818) Sapphire Radeon 290x @1100/1500 EVGA 1080Ti SC2 Hybrid 
RAMHard DriveHard DriveCooling
G.SKILL 2133 Samsung 850 Pro Caviar Black Corsair H100 
CoolingCoolingOSMonitor
Corsair HG10 Corsair H60 Windows 7 x64 Sony XBR65X850B 
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
CMSTORM Quickfire XT Corsair AX1200i Antec P280 Logitec G700 
Mouse PadAudio
Black, came with my NeXTcube 25 years ago. Sound Blaster Recon 3D PCIe 
  hide details  
Reply
post #174 of 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

this forum is funny. when some benchmarks didn't use Async enabling TSSAA setting for AMD poeple cried fault. but apparently for Nvidia Async doesn't work yet in DOOM, no one cares to even mention that until I just found that out. doesn't matter if it gives only little performance for nvidia, benchmarks should still be invalidated and recalculated when GPUs from both brands run under same settings!


So because one card does not have async and the other does, it should be called invalid? This is a HARDWARE limitation, get it? Nvidia made the choice to not include this in their own card, where AMD did. So your point doesn't hold water.
post #175 of 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

except where Pascal has pretty good gains in DX12 with Async. funny how you accept that benchmarks not run under same identical circumstances are OK. if it was other way around I bet you would have different stance.

2.8% in the best case scenario is "pretty good gains" now. rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

so this about some childish revenge for you. you don't actually care about fair results. and by the way, plenty people complained about OpenGL AMD, it's just there was nothing to do about it, as OpenGL 4.5 wasn't happening for AMD, but Bethesda and Nvidia ARE working on Async for Vulcan. maybe it will only give 1-2% boost, that's still important, and would mean that digital foundrys furyx 7.5% lead would shrink to 5% or even less!

You keep harping on other people for using Computerbase.de's result because "it's convenient for [their] argument". Well you're doing the exact same thing by only pointing to Eurogamer's result. Irony is you don't even seem to realize you're doing it.
post #176 of 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnek View Post

2.8% in the best case scenario is "pretty good gains" now. rolleyes.gifrolleyes.gif
so nvidia should gimp OGL performance so that Vulcan gains percentage appears higher? rolleyes.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by magnek View Post

You keep harping on other people for using Computerbase.de's result because "it's convenient for [their] argument". Well you're doing the exact same thing by only pointing to Eurogamer's result. Irony is you don't even seem to realize you're doing it.
i'm pointing to Eurogamer results because i have a GTX980Ti and my avg fps is inline with their findings, not computerbase, which are weirdly very low for all geforce cards.
post #177 of 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

so nvidia should gimp OGL performance so that Vulcan gains percentage appears higher? rolleyes.gif

He's talking about Async compute gains in AotS (aka difference DX12 with and without Async compute). Both results are better than DX11 just in case you try to make an argument about that, too.
post #178 of 632
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

so nvidia should gimp OGL performance so that Vulcan gains percentage appears higher? rolleyes.gif
i'm pointing to Eurogamer results because i have a GTX980Ti and my avg fps is inline with their findings, not computerbase, which are weirdly very low for all geforce cards.

You have GOT TO BE kidding me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Glottis View Post

except where Pascal has pretty good gains in DX12 with Async. funny how you accept that benchmarks not run under same identical circumstances are OK. if it was other way around I bet you would have different stance.

Async = no OpenGL gimping needed. Now please stop moving the goalposts.

As for Computerbase.de's results, if you're not happy with them, why don't you shoot an email to Wolfgang and Jan-Frederik and ask them for some testing details?
post #179 of 632
i'll get on that as soon as you prove to me why Eurogamer's results aren't valid wink.gif
post #180 of 632
i'll get on that as soon as you prove to me why Computerbase.de's results aren't valid wink.gif

And no, "because I got different results" without knowing if you even properly repeated what Computerbase.de did doesn't count wink.gif
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [computerbase.de] DOOM + Vulkan Benchmarked.