Total War: WARHAMMER runs 27% slower in DX12 on NVIDIA’s hardware.

welcome to my ignore list.

 

http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/nvidia-will-fully-implement-async-compute-via-driver-support.html

Kinda says it all right ? But still, even so I personaly would not trade my 980 TI for anything less then a 1080 GTX. Purely on driver quality. (I'm a 5870 CF veteran yes) that said. I give AMD credit for how they handled the whole DX12/Mantle API with the resources they have compaired to Nvidia. That R9 Nano is of the hook, stop hating people, competition is a good thing. When Intel was sleeping with there stupid P4's AMD gave us the Athlon 64 X2. Pretty sure ya'll be running a quad P4-MMX2 cpu instead of some 8way monster.

 

It must be a big list. Can i get in there too? Thanks.

 

Why? Don't you like it when I prove you wrong? He's the only one on it. But by all means, if you don't want to see my posts, feel free to quit the forum or add me to your ignore list.

 

well at least he is nice enough to inform me about it, that will save me time when considering i could have wrote posts addressing him in the future. they would have been in vain.

 

That is why right now i stay away from AMD.

Why?

http://wiki.totalwar.com/w/Optimisation_Blog

CA never worked with Nvidia or take their input for DX12 that is why you are seeing results like these. CA DX12 implemented did not do any favors to CPU in fact it is same like DX11. Dx12 only enable AC so that AMD can sell 480s.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/report-total-war-warhammer-runs-27-slower-dx12-nvidias-hardware/

Well Nvidia is more professional company ,therefore will never blame other they will own it.

 

Dx12 patch are usually wrappers o bad implementations sometimes you gain some fps, sometimes not. Vulkan on The Talos Principle is the same thing.
Only full dx12 games are relevant to me.

 

Doom is so smooth on both AMD and Nvidia ,however, this is the reason ID tech is delaying Vulkan launch.

 

I say this: "Religion, protecting you from science."

But seriously, eclap, why are you in every AMD thread these days? And why are you leaving toxic waste behind?

You know, people here may be happy about any kind of improvement, but you are running all over place and hammering any notion of it.
- - - -
I would like some RX 480 owner here actually test this:
http://www.tweakpc.de/hardware/tests/grafikkarten/amd_radeon_rx_480/benchmarks.php?benchmark=3dm_api

 

I like that site
hmm lalala FUD etc. :wanker: not our concern, just leave it behind and stay positive

-> Polaris IMO is very good GPU and it has new standard as of High-End avaible to every-One !
199-229USD (212/239USD) its good.
Here in Germany not so pricey ~250€ Free shiping for XFX OC Black w/Back Plate :thumbup:

 

AC is Asynchronous Compute? Right?
Why DX12 Apps on Nvidia runs not so good? It's driver issue or architecture?
PS: So much eclaps in threads like this. Interesting why?

 

how is that a reason for it?

vulkan isnt replacing the OGL implementation. you will be able to chose API just as in every other game with multiple api choices.

 

"Asynchronous Compute" is an implicit feature allowed by the API when the application execute in concurrency graphics and compute queues. it is part of the multi-engine design of the API.
Actually, only AMD cards do not need to serialize those works.
Intel iGPUs serialize the works on the driver level. The performance penalties are usually low.
On NVIDIA GPUs driver serialization is needed on Kepler. While Maxwell 1 and 2 do not need to serialize the work however they scheduler is unable to take any advantage at all but it decrease performance. Looks like NVIDIA still do not want to serialize those works at driver level for Maxwell GPUs too. On Pascal GPUs the scheduler issue is solved (though it does not allow the same granularity allocation of AMD GPUs it works reasonably well).

 

Yeah Bratan' and tell them what can be acomplished by it (ACE) its far more interesting :nerd:

AA
AO
Physics
AI
....
you will fill the rest

IMO ACE and new APIs are the future !

 

yes, title is misleading , should be either made sure it's a quote from an article topic
or changed to "WARHAMMER runs 27% slower in DX12 on NVIDIA’s hardware than in DX11" for completeness.
Maybe add that a new patch introduces this fall off.

Now, i hope I didnt offend anyone in my post. I read over it 3 times and couldn't find any insults. -> Clear to post I'd say!

 

Can you answer this

They never worked with Nvidia on Dx12, never take their input and DX12 is not giving any benefits to CPU , which is the reason of DX12 existence.

Of course Nvidia will run slower on AMD games and AMD will be fast on their sponsored game.

 

and when you OC both cards to max, well in AMD FuryX case its not much as on 980TI, that furyx is left behind, just saying


That 6fps furyX advantage becomes 5-7fps advantage on 980Ti if not even more.

 

yes i can.

it's wrong to put proprietary graphical features into games is my opinion.
but DX12 is not AMD-proprietary nor is it a secret "Gameworks of AMD"(because it enables any graphic card manufacturer to use the full range of its features, right from the start! no closed source period as in new gameworks features, that last ~1 year or so until being opened, FOR GAME DEVS ONLY, not for public)
possibly AMD is just more experienced with low-level API integration (considering they did it with mantle several times already) at this moment and may be consulted before nvidia to get some know-how transfer done about how writing game code for low-level-APIs works?
i mean nvidia does not develop any kind of low-level-API so far.
so they are clearly dependent on input from microsoft, khronos and AMD so far. and i am sure there are enough consortiums where all those players sit at one table and discuss certain stuff that happens next.

being butthurt about amd showing DX12 features to a game dev
is like being butthurt about nvidia showing DX11 features to a game dev
=> no reason to be butthurt about it.

implementing proprietary features with a closed source period after launch for a certain time so enabling those features during closed source period may have negative impact on missing amd optimizations?
=> reason to be angry (my opinion)


Next Episode: See a Vulkan erupt.

 

So you mean to say that AMD lagging behind in Nvidia sponsored games is AMD's own fault ,however i cannot put sense in to single minded kid.

 

Can you not? Maybe you don't try hard enough, yet.


So, I mean to say there is a difference between what you call "sponsored" game.
(I call it a game where manufacturers of GPUs have worked with game devs to make sure the game works optimal on their cards from the start, which are the optimal draw calls, which complexity for sceneries is the maximum to run smooth right on release date, etc, stuff like that) Against which there is nothing to say.

And in contrast to that, games that incorporate proprietary graphic features that are not coded by the engine developers but as a closed source by a manufacturer of graphic cards and then given to the respective game devs only. Until then the GPU manufacturer owning the rights to this code can decide when to open this feature for all game devs / all industry members. Up to then he makes sure nobody else can optimize their hardware to that code.

You see if Dodge could decide what road surface (Gameworks feature) will be put on the street for the next season, but nobody else of the car industry is being told (closed source) then Dodge will of course be able to preproduce car tires that match that surface way better than their competitors. Although all wil have to drive on it.

If on the other hand all of the competitors get to know which road surface there will be next season (open api specifications for all) then every competitor has the same chance to compete at his best capacities.

That's all I actually try to point out.

So if AMD should have any kind of proprietary features they introduce into games due to partnerships.
Then i would find this bad and damaging not only the competiton. (you see i am not a hostile person in general maybe that's why i prefer not damaging the competition over damaging the competition)

And the same opinion is valid for Nvidia.

And the same opinion goes for Intel (should they in any time be in the position to offer enough graphical compute power to compete in the enthusiast gamer range)