Originally Posted by dagget3450
What's meaningless is your post. Vulkan and Dx12 are brand new API's. When will it become meaningful? when there are 2,3,4,5 or 10 games? People are comparing these API's directly because, hello, they are meant to improve over the old. Even if Doom is the ONLY one hit wonder for Vulkan, it has shown what the potential can be for the future. Yet you say its meaningless, as if you just ignore all the accomplishments it shows over DX. I realize many people here have obvious hardware bias for one reason or another. Don't let that overshadow real advances of these new API's just because it fits your view point.
BF1 has way more people who say it matters than the singular you. I don't play it either, but it matters to people who do play it. I don't pretend to be important enough to dismiss the game for everyone else who plays it. Get your head out of your backside seriously.
BF1 is one game, and it will perform best on the vendor who helped them the most. So its performance is meaningless on its own, unless you are a single minded game who think that everyone and their mother is playing BF1 only, which they aren't. Hence as you can see, why the mid and low end cards are guiding the charts. BF games have never been the low end performing cards friendly.
And yes, vulkan is meaningless unlike DX12 for now.
Until more game engines start to actually use and run in vulkan instead of DX11/12, you have no idea if vulkan is performing as good as DX11 for example, or it runs worse, and the benefit of vulkan over OpenGL is just because id engine was just so bad, that moving to vulkan helped them, while if they moved to DX11 and DX12 they could get even way more performance.
For all intended proposes, vulkan just got id game engine into the DX11 performance. Meaning that every game engine out there could be already running better in DX11 than if it moved to vulkan, which could make vulkan potentially die before it even began (like mantle). And until that proves otherwise, yes, vulkan is meaningless the same as your attempt to claim performance potentials or anything for the future with zero proof or even any remote way for comparison.
Until we see a game engine which can run both DX11, 12 and vulkan (which currently only UE4 can support all 3), and compare performance and visuals between all 3 options, and show that vulkan can run better than DX11 and be equal or better than DX12, the whole talks about vulkan being the future, are absolutely meaningless.
If DX11 game engine can run better than vulkan in terms of performance and equal image quality, this will keep MS the dominate OS and DX11/12 as the dominate API. And unless proven otherwise, and unless more games move to vulkan, I see no reason to crown vulkan as the next best thing, or even care that much.
This is the same beginning story of mantle.
While mantle came out and everyone were so hyped how it is going to make AMD supreme again, it only brought AMD performance closer to how nvidia were running in DX11, but it did not rain supreme. It did not break the DX11 lead (and AMD gave up on it because developers did not find the reason to move to mantle and rewrite everything).
Vulkan still needs to prove himself outside of the single game single mindset of OpenGL from id.
id is currently the weird uncle of game engines, only supporting OpenGL and now vulkan, while everyone else are running DX11 or a variation of OpenGL. So far it only proved it can run better than OpenGL, which was already running horribly. It yet to prove being better than DX11 and DX12. Being better than the worst does not mean its the best.