http://www.tweaktown.com/news/53506/directx-12-vulkan-support-way-cryengine/index.htmlSourceFirst is DirectX 12 multi-GPU support, a complete DirectX 12 renderer, the possibility of support for NVIDIA's PhysX, and more. All of these are labeled for version 5.2, due out any day now. Version 5.3, meanwhile, will introduce the increasingly popular Vulkan API. Developed as a spin-off of AMD's Mantle, it serves as another low-overhead solution that's been shown to majorly increase performance in games. 5.3 is planned for mid-October. Crytek is currently developing free to play games Arena of Fate and Hunt: Horrors of the Gilded Age, and updating Warface. Hunt will use the newest version of CryEngine, so at the very least, that one is likely to implement DirectX 12 and/or Vulkan support.
People are keep saying that.
Oh yes we have. And the performance difference is EXTREMELY GROUNDBREAKING.Originally Posted by Defoler
People are keep saying that.
But have we seen what a game, in terms of performance and visuals, benefit from vulkan? Not just the OS issue, but actual performance.
Will the same game set in DX12 run better, worse, or similar to vulkan?
Are you willing to lose 10% performance to switch to vulkan? How about 20%? How about 30%?
We have absolutely no information or numbers whether vulkan is a step forward, side step, or a huge step back outside of just whether it runs on other OS or not.
So before everyone start to praise something, lets see actual comparisons, actual performance numbers, see that we gain something, we get similar or better visuals, instead of running right into a pit blindfolded.
Imagine the huge improvements in minimum fps we can get with our default clocked/overclocked CPUsOriginally Posted by sumitlian
Proof:
1280 x 720 at lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 800 MHz underclock, OpenGL
HD 7850 1GB 1 GHz/ 1.35 GHz, Driver 16.7.3
Avg fps: 28.13
GPUz average GPU usage: ~51%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 3500 MHz default clock, OpenGL
Avg fps: 53.27
GPUz average GPU usage: ~99%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 800 MHz underclock, Vulkan
Avg fps: 52.57
GPUz average GPU usage: ~85%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 1300 MHz underclock, Vulkan (yes I repeat it is 1.3 GHz)
Avg fps: 64.55
GPUz average GPU usage: ~98%
Imagine how unbelievable amount of CPU clocks are being saved by Mantle/Vulkan.
This is by any means no offense to anyone but you want to keep licking Microsoft's ass for rest of your life and become slave of them so that wherever they pour games you keep following ???
Quote:Originally Posted by Defoler
We have absolutely no information or numbers whether vulkan is a step forward, side step, or a huge step back outside of just whether it runs on other OS or not.
So before everyone start to praise something, lets see actual comparisons, actual performance numbers, see that we gain something, we get similar or better visuals, instead of running right into a pit blindfolded.
Rekt to the max.Originally Posted by sumitlian
Oh yes we have. And the performance difference is EXTREMELY GROUNDBREAKING.
Reduce CPU speed and compare Doom (or Doom Demo whatever you have) in Vulkan and OpenGL.
This is what I get.
This is from "vulkan-graphics-technology-exclusive-interview-with-khronos" thread:
Quote:
Imagine the huge improvements in minimum fps we can get with our default clocked/overclocked CPUsOriginally Posted by sumitlian
Proof:
1280 x 720 at lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 800 MHz underclock, OpenGL
HD 7850 1GB 1 GHz/ 1.35 GHz, Driver 16.7.3
Avg fps: 28.13
GPUz average GPU usage: ~51%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 3500 MHz default clock, OpenGL
Avg fps: 53.27
GPUz average GPU usage: ~99%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 800 MHz underclock, Vulkan
Avg fps: 52.57
GPUz average GPU usage: ~85%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 1300 MHz underclock, Vulkan (yes I repeat it is 1.3 GHz)
Avg fps: 64.55
GPUz average GPU usage: ~98%
Imagine how unbelievable amount of CPU clocks are being saved by Mantle/Vulkan.
Edit: Sad my current GPU is bottlenecked when CPU is at 1.3 GHz with Vulkan API. So it is a fact that my 1.3 GHz i3 can still pull more fps than what I am getting now.
Indeed, some users in here call themselves "Enthusiasts", they talk about "drawcalls" and portray themselves as if they understand everything but they never even tried to test it at all lol. I pity on them enthusiasts wannabes.Originally Posted by ToTheSun!
Rekt to the max.
People saying Vulkan isn't better than DX11 haven't been paying attention.
And if doubt still lingers: why would the absolute best devs in the industry who have always supported advancement in the tech support and catalyze the adoption of API's that are not better?
This isn't about "want" this is about facts, coding for dx12 and vulkan is very similar especially for GCN which should be 99% identical, so what's left is whether popular engines like unreal,id,crytek,unity include support.
Do you code your games yourself ? no ? why the hell you care what is difficult and easy. everything is difficult if you( not you btw) are stupid enough. that's why even dx11 has buggy games.Originally Posted by Marios145
This isn't about "want" this is about facts, coding for dx12 and vulkan is very similar especially for GCN which should be 99% identical, so what's left is whether popular engines like unreal,id,crytek,unity include support.
Correct me if i'm wrong but opengl was always the faster API, but also the harder to code until dx10-11 came which were quite fast
You are right on that. Most graphics programming part in DX11/OpenGL/DX12/Vulkan is very similar or have little differences, the main difference comes in rendering/multithreading/asynchronous techniques between them. But everytime MS requires you to upgrade to anything they want seems hell of headaches to me, this is why I support Vulkan more than DX12. Well time will tell.Originally Posted by Marios145
This isn't about "want" this is about facts, coding for dx12 and vulkan is very similar especially for GCN which should be 99% identical, so what's left is whether popular engines like unreal,id,crytek,unity include support.
Correct me if i'm wrong but opengl was always the faster API, but also the harder to code until dx10-11 came which were quite fast
I have always kept that in mind that AMD's OpenGL performance is worse than Nvidia's OpenGL and it has been a fact indeed. I second that too. Nvidia has also been very aggressive in providing latest OpenGL feature levels.Originally Posted by SoloCamo
He was asking for comparison between DX11 and Vulkan, not OGL and Vulkan such as Doom.
Dota 2 and Talos Principle are the only two such examples to my knowledge and improvements are there (well for Dota 2 atleast). However, Vulkan is essentially a modified Mantle and we have BF4 as well which shows improvements.
Please keep in mind AMD's OGL performance is sub part so the improvements seen there are not going to be seen over DX11. I'd like it to be the case but it won't be.
Quote:
thought it was a pretty clear question.
read bolded below:Originally Posted by ToTheSun!
Quote:
Quote:Originally Posted by Defoler
We have absolutely no information or numbers whether vulkan is a step forward, side step, or a huge step back outside of just whether it runs on other OS or not.
So before everyone start to praise something, lets see actual comparisons, actual performance numbers, see that we gain something, we get similar or better visuals, instead of running right into a pit blindfolded.
Rekt to the max.Originally Posted by sumitlian
Oh yes we have. And the performance difference is EXTREMELY GROUNDBREAKING.
Reduce CPU speed and compare Doom (or Doom Demo whatever you have) in Vulkan and OpenGL.
This is what I get.
This is from "vulkan-graphics-technology-exclusive-interview-with-khronos" thread:
Quote:
Imagine the huge improvements in minimum fps we can get with our default clocked/overclocked CPUsOriginally Posted by sumitlian
Proof:
1280 x 720 at lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 800 MHz underclock, OpenGL
HD 7850 1GB 1 GHz/ 1.35 GHz, Driver 16.7.3
Avg fps: 28.13
GPUz average GPU usage: ~51%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 3500 MHz default clock, OpenGL
Avg fps: 53.27
GPUz average GPU usage: ~99%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 800 MHz underclock, Vulkan
Avg fps: 52.57
GPUz average GPU usage: ~85%
1280 x 720 at all lowest graphics settings
Core i3-4150 @ 1300 MHz underclock, Vulkan (yes I repeat it is 1.3 GHz)
Avg fps: 64.55
GPUz average GPU usage: ~98%
Imagine how unbelievable amount of CPU clocks are being saved by Mantle/Vulkan.
Edit: Sad my current GPU is bottlenecked when CPU is at 1.3 GHz with Vulkan API. So it is a fact that my 1.3 GHz i3 can still pull more fps than what I am getting now.
People saying Vulkan isn't better than DX11 haven't been paying attention.
And if doubt still lingers: why would the absolute best devs in the industry who have always supported advancement in the tech support and catalyze the adoption of API's that are not better?
last comparison to dx11 let alone there is NOTHING for dx12 is:Originally Posted by SoloCamo
He was asking for comparison between DX11 and Vulkan, not OGL and Vulkan such as Doom.
Dota 2 and Talos Principle are the only two such examples to my knowledge and improvements are there (well for Dota 2 atleast). However, Vulkan is essentially a modified Mantle and we have BF4 as well which shows improvements.
Please keep in mind AMD's OGL performance is sub part so the improvements seen there are not going to be seen over DX11. I'd like it to be the case but it won't be.
I can see in that benchmark from Anandtech that says "Vulkan (Beta)", it is obvious the primary API of that game is OGL/DX11 with broken Vulkan support.