Discussion in 'Operating Systems' started by cryohellinc, Nov 2, 2018.
Sadly it doesn't work well at all. Nor does it support any modern UI apps.
AMD does better in Dx12 due to big driver overhead in Dx11 afaik. Unless something changed in the 20xx-series, Dx11 is still the preferred renderer for Nvidia hardware.
Exactly. Back then was not a nice look.
I disagree with both of you, for me its the best thing out there. Super minimalistic and ugly as hell. Love it.
why 7 when you can make 8.1 look like 7 and get the best of both?
A bit out of date man. The idea that DX12 runs worst on NVidia and better on AMD is old news. The main reasons why that occurred was because AMD was much more CPU limited than NVidia on DX11, and also because developer skill needs to be much higher to outperform the optimizations that NVidia has for their DX11 driver. Remember that in DX12, it's mostly the developer's responsibility to optimize the game for an IHV which is more or less the opposite of what happened in DX11 where the main responsibility for performance was placed on the driver. Also, AMD's DX12 driver was initially superior to NVidia's due to the head start they had with Mantle.
With newer and better DX12 titles, the gap has practically disappeared and now DX12 (and Vulkan) are much preferred over DX11 and OpenGL for both NVidia and AMD. In Shadow of the Tomb Raider, NVidia gets a large increase from performance (116%) from using DX12 compared to using DX11 in PCgameshardware.de's test.
This isn't a universal truth though, unless you're seriously CPU limited. There are still titles launching today which will run better in DX11 than in DX12/VK - I kinda expect BFV to be another such title as their DX12 track record has been very bad so far.
This. As for the most part as of today we have 1-2 titles which actually work well, and were build from the ground up for Dx12/Vulkan API. Rest work worse (from personal experience - Bf1 / Warhammer 2, both work worse on Dx12 vs Dx11), due to not being built initially on it and simply adopted it "down the road" as a form of "tickbox".
Personally, I think we will see a proper mass adaptation of Dx12/Vulkan 2-3 years from now.
I'm not actually sure that there are such titles on the market right now. Even W2 which is VK exclusive probably had OGL renderer at some point during development - considering that it's more or less the same engine as Doom's which did have it. The way I see it, a title which is built for modern APIs only would be nearly impossible to port back to DX11/OGL without severe performance and/or features loss - even more so now, with DXR being DX12 exclusive.
Likely earlier with NV pushing DXR/RTX through their devrel now.
I'm curious if Dice has improved DX12 by now, since DX12 is a prerequisite for supporting RTX
The obvious point when the transition must occur is at least when the next-gen consoles have arrived. But we will probably see more DX12/Vulkan games prior to that since studios will use the PC versions as a stepping stone for getting their engines next-gen ready.
Yeah this is true, I won't deny. I wonder why Frostbite 3.5 engine has such bad DX12 performance? You would think that the DICE lead rendering architect who had a major role in creating Mantle would make sure the DX12 renderer is at least as fast as the DX11 one. But every time we see a new Frostbite 3.5 title released, the DX12 performance ends up being atrocious.....on BOTH AMD and NVidia as well.
This is sadly ironic because DICE complained about DX11's shortcomings more than practically any other developer.
They haven't. They refuse to admit there is even a problem.
Ehm what? I don't speak german but as far as I can tell they are getting 35 average fps at 1280 × 720 with a Titan X? Also, why is the CPU downclocked?
Oh I had missed it's available for Origin subscribers. The game still doesn't seem to have RTX available either though.
They're comparing DX11 to DX12 at 720p to minimize the GPU bottleneck and show how CPU limited it is. I assume they've downclocked the CPU to further show the advantage you get by having DX12.
That's for DX11. For DX12, the framerate was more than double that. And as Yxskaft said, the reason why the CPU is downclocked is to make the test as CPU bound as possible to emphasize the advantage of DX12's superior multithreading and low overhead.
Ok, that's understandable I guess. I still can't believe they are only getting 35 fps though. I just got to that area in the game and while I didn't have a fps counter running it certainly didn't feel like anything close to 35. I can check and report back as I am on Win7.
But what if the cpu is running at full speed, is the gain from dx12 much less?
So I went around the city and indeed the performance hit is noticeable. I set it to same resolution as the review and the lowest I saw was 41, highest 63. I can only guess at the average but I'd say somewhere around 45+.
Still not fully convinced I'll see more than double the framerate with dx12 but I'm open to the possibility.
Maybe slightly, but not by much. Unlike with DX11 where single thread performance nets you the most gains, with DX12, multithreaded CPUs perform much better. A good example of this is Forza Horizon 4 which is a full native DX12 game. There is very little performance discrepancy between CPUs, despite the Intel CPUs having a significant performance advantage in IPC.
Compare that to Project Cars 2 which uses DX11:
What CPU are you using?
A 2600 @4.1
For some reason Hilbert has made it really tedious to find our specs on the forum.