My thoughts of DX12 now an editorial.

Discussion in 'Videocards - NVIDIA GeForce' started by Dburgo, Dec 6, 2016.

  1. Dburgo

    Dburgo Guest

  2. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    15,636
    Likes Received:
    9,512
    GPU:
    4090@H2O
    Read that article too now, and yes, it's common knowledge. dx12 currently is a fail, and we all expected more from it. And that won't come easily or quickly as it requires native dx12 engines, which nobody wanted or had the time to program (yet).

    So yeah, still love my dx11 system, runs great.
     
  3. Angantyr

    Angantyr Master Guru

    Messages:
    901
    Likes Received:
    315
    GPU:
    MSI 2070 Super X
    Yeah, I read the article a few days ago. And while I don't personally use Windows 10, the DX12 exclusive would be the gimmick that could make me use the OS. Its just a shame that reality doesn't match the expectations people had for DX12, though, that might change.

    Go Vulkan !
     
  4. Undying

    Undying Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    25,206
    Likes Received:
    12,611
    GPU:
    XFX RX6800XT 16GB
    This!

    Im only praying that Quake Champions, Evil Within 2 and all future id/Bethesda games will have Vulkan support.
     

  5. PrMinisterGR

    PrMinisterGR Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,125
    Likes Received:
    969
    GPU:
    Inno3D RTX 3090
    All of this from the article:

    Is factually wrong, depending on the system. He begins with a premise that allows no grey areas depending on the computer that the games run...

    This paragraph is a big pile of sh*t too. No explanation about how each architecture splits tasks among the three engines of DX12, nothing. Just "TEH DX11 DRIVERZ BAD". No mention of how NVIDIA does scheduling, why AMD GPUs are more partitioned internally, where that is bad, where that is good.

    Sorry man, but that article is complete crap. We have had whole threads in this forum (with fights and trash talking and genuinely good information and conversation) about this subject. See the "Async Compute" thread in the NVIDIA subforum. Tons of fighting, but more informative (from all sides) than most of the crap you can find on articles like that.
     
    Last edited: Dec 6, 2016
  6. user1

    user1 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    GPU:
    Mi25/IGP
    I think it was pretty clear from the start the primary goal of dx 12 was to reduce driver overhead and allow for better multithreading. If you have a fast cpu like a 6700k dx12 won't help you that much,
    If you are using a pentium dualcore, it will help you alot in cpu heavy titles

    this is what you should expect from dx 12
    [​IMG]



    src

    Thats not to say that dx12 doesn't have any gpu performance enhancing features, but its up to the developer to make use of them, and for them its clear the most important thing is to have games playable on more hardware and the biggest thing stopping them from doing so is the cpu.


    ^^^^
    this
     
  7. Loophole35

    Loophole35 Guest

    Messages:
    9,797
    Likes Received:
    1,161
    GPU:
    EVGA 1080ti SC
    @PrMinisterGR

    Well it's an editorial not and article so its mainly his opinion with half truths sprinkled in to support.
     
  8. Darren Hodgson

    Darren Hodgson Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    17,179
    Likes Received:
    1,500
    GPU:
    NVIDIA RTX 4080 FE
    As an owner of a high-end NVIDIA graphics card, DX12 has been nothing but disappointing, offering little or no benefit over DX11 for almost every game I've played (and, I believe, I've played every DX12 support game to date).

    DX12 = Overhyped and underwhelming... unless you're an AMD GPU owner and then you're sorted because their DX11 driver was sub-optimal in the first place! :p
     
  9. fantaskarsef

    fantaskarsef Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    15,636
    Likes Received:
    9,512
    GPU:
    4090@H2O
    You are completely right. Thing is, it was just not marketed as something like that. Even AMD was very proud to claim the 290X and Fury X performance boosts in AOTS. So that's where it all started to go down the Asynchronous Compute road of argueing.

    I too have to remind myself that actually, I wasn't waiting for anything big to come out of dx12 with a relatively new hexacore CPU, DDR4, and running Nvidia dx11 drivers. But then it was all about the gains, reduced overhead, incredible number of drawcalls, AMD's gains, AOTS as -the- benchmark to rock (at least in some people's heads it was).

    But a year afterwards I still have to keep a cool head and remember, I wasn't to expect any major gains, even if dx12 would run on each and every machine as intended. Which I have to admit, at times I forget to my own bad, making me want to see my Nvidia cards too perform X% faster like any Radeon card you pick. That's just not going to happen :)
     
  10. user1

    user1 Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    2,746
    Likes Received:
    1,279
    GPU:
    Mi25/IGP
    fair enough, can't really blame amd for hyping the async stuff though, they need all the good press they can get,its pretty easy for developers to implement on amd cards and it gives them a boost.

    On a related note I think the main reason nvidia has avoided releasing a proper async driver, is that it would cause more problems than it would solve. maybe you could get 5-10% more perf , but you'd probably have to jump through quite a few hoops to get there.
    Probably better to leave that kind of management to nvidias driver than risk a monkey(developer) throw a wrench in the engine lmao.
     

  11. Denial

    Denial Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    14,201
    Likes Received:
    4,105
    GPU:
    EVGA RTX 3080
    It probably wouldn't even do 5-10% on Nvidia. Most likely 1-5% in the majority of situations. The reason why it's so effective on AMD is that they have large pipeline with gaps of idleness, async acts to basically fill those gaps and increase efficiency. Nvidia has a narrower pipeline that doesn't usually have gaps like that. So even if Nvidia straight up copied AMD's Async implementation, AMD would still get a bigger benefit from it.

    That being said, it does offer game developers more control over the flow of things, it's helpful in VR and it does increase AMD's performance substantially in certain situations - so it's a net positive in general and should be utilized going forward.
     
  12. Mars73

    Mars73 Member

    Messages:
    43
    Likes Received:
    4
    GPU:
    Gigabyte GTX1080Ti
    I have not played a lot of DX12 games yet but in Rise of the Tomb Raider, walking around in the first snowy camp it gives me a slight edge over DX11.
    I'm running 3440x1440 and DX11 sometimes gives me just under 60fps when it's heavy snowing and lots of things are around and DX12 is just above. Other then that I don't see any differences.
     
  13. Pete J

    Pete J Master Guru

    Messages:
    440
    Likes Received:
    15
    GPU:
    Some of those as well
    I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favourite post in this thread.
     
  14. Corrupt^

    Corrupt^ Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    7,270
    Likes Received:
    600
    GPU:
    Geforce RTX 3090 FE
    Actually, while still in beta (PTS), Massive's DX12 implementation did also improve things in The Division (~10 to 15 fps for me).

    But I agree, atm it's hit and miss and studios with more experience making engines seem to do best and you just pretty much named them.

    Vulkan and Doom 4 however... wtf like wtf in a good way. Sure it's 1080p, but I'm running around at 200 fps with THAT kind of detail. GG ID Software, GG.
     
  15. AsiJu

    AsiJu Ancient Guru

    Messages:
    8,774
    Likes Received:
    3,354
    GPU:
    KFA2 4070Ti EXG.v2
    Ultimately DirectX was meant to be a general API to get rid of vendor specific native coding.
    Now DX12 needs vendor specific native coding. Full circle and all that.
     

  16. thatguy91

    thatguy91 Guest

    Doesn't DirectX 12 borrow heavily from Mantle? This would possibly give AMD an advantage. I'm guessing having DirectX 12 and Vulkan support would be easier than DirectX 12 and DirectX 11 support. You would think therefore that where DirectX 11 is also supported for non DirectX 12 systems, that DirectX 12 is added as a marketing tool rather than be optimised to the utmost extent.

    Basically, I suspect a native DirectX 12 or native DirectX12 + Vulkan game would be more optimised. You'd probably unlikely see too many DirectX 12 + Vulkan games because supporting both API's doesn't make obvious sense (unless it is easy to do so due to shared similarities).
     

Share This Page