Does anything actually perform better under DX12?

Vulkan is worse than DX12 though, so how could it be a win?

All the new api's are iffy on anything other than newish Nvidia hardware.
Gears of War 4 is great in DX12, but it has nothing to compare against so we don't know how much that has to do with the api used.

 

In strange brigade I saw 5-6fps boost with vulkan compared to dx12

 

I saw the opposite in Strange Brigade, and that is the only have I have that has both api's.

I do have card(s) that are not the best with newer stuff though.

 

If I'm not mistaken there was a recent patch for Battlefront 2's DX12 mode to improve performance and stability. I haven't tested the game's performance per se but I do run it in DX12 now and everything seems to be pretty smooth. I didn't play much though, I always end up leaving after maybe 30 minutes, 1 or 2 matches and I'm out so I don't have much time to test the actual performance. But I can say that it does seem to be at least a lot more stable than before (I used to crash or experience weird visual glitches in the menus when trying to run it in DX12). The only very small glitch I still see from time to time in DX12 is right as a map starts loading the screen goes full white for around 2 or 3 seconds before the map's background image appears, but that's it, everything then stays normal and plays fine.

However, outside of BF2 I never really bothered with DX12, I usually just select DX11 whenever available and I'm content with it.

 

Vulkan's performance deeply depends on who's putting it to use.
id Software's work in DOOM 2016 showed that, with Vulkan being able to almost double performance in some cases.

But, DX12 is a chore to work with, so many that attempt it end up stumbling poorly.
Yes, Gears 4 runs great, but as you said... there's no way to compare... so for all we know, DX11 could've ran much better. It's an unknown, and as such... can't really be used.

It's like saying RAGE runs better in OpenGL then DX, but the game only uses OpenGL so you can't judge the differences.

 

and dx 12 performance depends on who is coding it.

That is the thing about LLH access you needs to allocate the calls manually for it vs piping to the dx api.

Most people still cant work that out to save their lives and it shows with buggy crash prone dx12 games. Lest with vulkan when people do not get it right the result is mostly crap fps.

And on one area though nm what vulkan kicks the living crap out of dx12. It runs on any os and is not limited to 10, 7 95 linux, when you dev for vulcan you have the max install base covered, vs dx12 you got a portion of the pc market and some consoles that use it.

Maybe nvidia could up their vulkan support also. Better vulkan allows them to sell more cards that are not going to be running windows 10.

 

vulkan has been evolving over the past few years, unlike dx 12( for the most part), it is comparable or better at this point, the standard will continue to improve as it matures. changelog can be found here https://github.com/KhronosGroup/Vulkan-Docs/blob/master/ChangeLog.txt

 

That was pretty much point.

Most tech is only as good as the people using it.
So, to say DX12 is better then Vulkan or better then this or that, is a bit foolish. As there are examples on both sides, where DX12 out performs Vulkan, and Vulkan out performs DX12.
And where DX11 beats both.


I still remember the DX10 push, and John Carmack threw it back in MS's face by saying there wasn't anything being done in DX10 he couldn't do, and do better, in DX9.

 

Surely that applies to both api's, and in what case did Vulkan double DX11 performance in any IDTech game.

There was no DX11 version just an OGL version that was horrible on AMD hardware due to AMD driver issues and on Nvidia hardware was pretty similar. From memory i'm sure i remember you stating you used OGL as it was smoother than Vulkan.

I'm not claiming Vulkan is bad, but it only has a good reputation because AMD's OGL implementation was awful with IDTech games.
They are pretty much the same thing, but Doom/Wolfenstein have confused people and made then think Vulkan is better than it really is, when the reality is that IDTech6 is just a low spec and very well optimised engine.

 

I do use OpenGL... because it already holds a solid 60fps with no issues.
BUT... Vulkan in DOOM 2016 (the only id game to use Vulkan... so far) has been shown to drastically increase the FPS in the game. When I have used it, with FPS unlimited, yes the max FPS is incredibly high.

And, I never said it doubled FPS in any id game using DX. id games don't use DX.
I was making a broad generalization about Vulkan. And, you can't use Wolf 2 as an example, as it's Vulkan only, there's no other API to use to compare performance. DOOM is the only example in that case.
But, all future id games are Vulkan only. DOOM Eternal won't offer OpenGL.


And, as I said in the post directly above yours... it applies to ALL api's. Most systems are only as good as the people who use them, so, while DX12 shows strengths in some cases... it shows weaknesses in others. Same with Vulkan, OpenGL, DX 9, 10 or 11. (though DX10 was a joke)

 

Didnt know Wolf 2 has dropped ogl altogether as i dont have the game. Makes me happy knowing future id tech games will use vulkan only.

 

Yeah, Doom was the test case from how I see it.

It likely would have run better in DX12 though.

 

You have no valid reason to believe that.
There's nothing to say it would have or wouldn't have. You are assuming.


And, look for it to be future Bethesda published titles. They commented that they were working to make all future Bethesda games Vulkan only.

 

I'm basing it on the few games that have both api's, and professional and community tests put DX12 slightly ahead.

It's a better assumption than comparing Vulkan to OGL.

 

you be surpised how many people ignore this

It all comes down to the coding and if it half ass or done proper

 

But still a relatively blind assumption.
Basing it off a "few games" that have both doesn't mean anything in relation to completely different tech.

Just because something performs on way on this engine, doesn't mean it will act anything at all like that on idTech.
Look at how Vulkan runs on idTech compared to how it runs on the Serious Engine. Night and day. And Croteam's Serious Engine can use DX, OpenGL or Vulkan.


You do know what assuming does, right?
I won't spell it out, I will just say... one should never assume anything.

 

This basically. Low level API performance can be a mixed bag at times due to intangible factors like developer technical skill, engine optimization and a host of other factors. It is getting better though, and developers like Id, Epic and a few others have to be congratulated in how they are upping the ante in embracing low level APIs on the PC platform.

I still wish that Metro Exodus had been DX12 only. Having a DX11 render path may have opened up the game to some Windows 7/8.1 die hards, but it came at the expense of less optimization for DX12. Low level APIs require more optimization and fine tuning, so 4A Games dividing their attention between the DX12 and DX11 paths didn't do DX12 any favors.

That said, the DX12 pathway in M.E is still faster for me.

 

Yes every game on my Radeon.

 

Windows 7 is at least going EoL next year so numerous improvements made to Windows 8 and a few from 8.1 can start being more of a standard thing as these were only partially or never backported and while branches and feature levels are a thing not having Win7 as a consideration at all is about the only way to get these features to be more of a standard though it won't happen immediately.


As for AMD I can't really say much since I only know a little about the driver situation but the driver command lists (11.1 optional feature.) and dual core nature of the driver against NVIDIA and NVAPI which can also leverage threading (IE Assassin's Creed Origins and Odyssey.) there is a bit of a issue for DX11 and they are taking a more noticeable performance hit for games that are now starting to utilize additional cores and threads but focus is on Vulkan and DirectX 12 so I doubt they'll revise the DX11 driver code in any significant way though a year or two which NVIDIA spent and implemented some of these things would probably be helpful though their driver development team size and resources are probably not comparable to NVIDIA's.

Guess we'll see, as for performance outside of CPU bottlenecks I think some of the latest D3D12 titles are starting to show a bigger gain although there's also reports about stability issues and with low-level API's and it going back and forth between a driver and developer issue in the game code it's probably going to take a while for usage of these API's to mature, Vulkan also seems really interesting having caught up to and probably even exceeded some of the features in DX11 and DX12 by now going by projects such as DXVK and Proton and their reports on game compatibility and using newer extensions though I suppose the custom driver extensions are a thing here so devs can use both, one or none of these to leverage NVIDIA, AMD or Intel GPU's a bit more though it seems that so far the extension situation isn't that expansive just yet but it's growing.
(Not sure what AMD's Windows VLK driver is up at, bundling the 1.1.0.97 runtime but pulling in extensions from newer SDK's and for NVIDIA the VLK beta driver is a thing that probably has support for the newest though not much in software and released titles would be using this but could also have bug fixes and general optimizations of course.)

Will be interesting to see if the next console generation changes things but XBox and Playstation low-level isn't comparable to PC though familiarity with lower level API's on Windows should also improve both among internal game engines and licensed such as Unreal or Unity though from there to using and utilizing them well is different.

 

This is an internet forum, 95% is speculation, assumption and personal opinion.

I'm going with best the assumption that ID Software are competent and would do a good job with the port.