Neither of the BF games support DX11 multithreading. Repi himself confirmed this on beyond3d forums, and on twitter.. He wanted to implement it but couldn't because it never gave them any benefits. I don't know if that situation has changed as many driver updates have occurred since then.
Then how on Earth is it resulting in a 500% performance hit? What kind of motion blur does that?
Turning on motion blur completely tanks frame rates on my system, dropping them down to single digits..
With motion blur disabled, and deferred context enabled, performance increases dramatically..
Didnt they say that the motion blur works by being applied to individual objects in the scene which results in a massive amount of draw calls? Traditional motion blur is a post process effect applied to the entire scene.
Obviously you don't understand what DX11 multithreading is. You keep comparing it to Crysis 3 and BF4, but it's not the same thing...
Didnt they say that the motion blur works by being applied to individual objects in the scene which results in a massive amount of draw calls? Traditional motion blur is a post process effect applied to the entire scene.
Its ok to admit that direct x can't keep up. Its Microsoft's fault not exalted nvidia. If direct x/Microsoft fixed their draw call and driver overhead issues then game development would change overnight.
Ok, but AC3 haves it and is better and why AC4 not haves it?
Is there some way to generate a synthetic test in latest DX11 SDK that test the effectiveness of each driver/GPU in gaming situations? We could test GTX 660Ti vs HD 7950 on it to see which card/manufacturer/driver goes better on it.
Well from what BrightCandle said, it does appear that Mantle is more efficient and capable than DX11 multithreading, but the Star Swarm developers had to come up with a contrived scenario to show that.. A fancy form of motion blur that uses multiple draw calls per object to create the blur effect is as contrived as it can get..
In the end it's about quality and performance. There is a clear quality gain for a large performance hit. If there is performance to spare then isn't it worth it?
Neither TressFX or NVidia's over-tessellation (which is subjective) ever resulted in single digit frame rates..For me it's exactly the same as TressFX, and like TressFX 2.0 which has improved in both IQ and performance, StarSwarm's motion blur implementation will also improve. You have to start somewhere though.
Imo Nvidia's over-tessellation, which shows minuscule IQ gains (if any) for a large performance hit is far more contrived than StarSwarm's motion blur effect.
"Large performance hit" doesn't begin to describe this. A high end machine like mine, is reduced to single digit frame rates.......is freaking unacceptable.
Why have such an expensive form of motion blur, if the majority of PC gamers can't even use it?
I'll tell you why, it's because they just wanted to showcase Mantle and how superior it was to DX11 in draw calls. That's the only reason they implemented it.
Which is fine if this technology is relegated to benchmarks only. But for games? Heck no... D:
In the end it's about quality and performance. There is a clear quality gain for a large performance hit. If there is performance to spare then isn't it worth it?
For me it's exactly the same as TressFX, and like TressFX 2.0 which has improved in both IQ and performance, StarSwarm's motion blur implementation will also improve. You have to start somewhere though.
Imo Nvidia's over-tessellation, which shows minuscule IQ gains (if any) for a large performance hit is far more contrived than StarSwarm's motion blur effect.
What? Tessellation is faster than the same model without. There is no alternative way to archive the same result - not even close.
The concrete slab in Crysis2 was faster without Tessellation and the result looked very close.
Yes it was because it had a lower quality.
No, your point is nonsense.
Using Tessellation for the object is much better and faster than using the same high poly model from the start.
And there is no "overtessellation" because Hull shader stage and Early-Z getting rid of unnecessary work.
It's a developer decision. AC IV is much more GPU intensive than AC III, plus it's limited to 63 FPS. They probably thought it wouldn't be needed..
Deferred shading is not the same thing as deferred context..
A synthetic test for DX11 multithreading? Or just plain DX11?
The game is still in pre-alpha, but it's been known for quite some time that the MAD engine supports DX11 multithreading (since build 179 apparently), which explains why it performs so well on NVidia hardware compared to AMD.
Source
Yeah it is frigging unacceptable a leading rendering API reduces a high end machine to single digits while another rendering API in alpha allows much higher frame rates.
The two games that you are talking about are in the Nvidia slide. Only these three games will use this if is so good like you are saying?... :sneaky:
BF3 doesn't support deferred context. They wanted to implement it at the time, but the drivers weren't up to snuff so it was cancelled. Repi said as much on beyond3d forum, and on twitter.
Only NVidia supports it, so there's no comparisons..Juts a test to test what GPU maker is better at the tech.
Under contrived circumstances..
Their engine has been renamed to Galileo. DX11MT is not the reason for the much worse AMD performance currently in this game. The reason is hat AMD suffers from a much bigger CPU overhead caused by the graphics driver from AMD. By default pcars runs on DX11 and all benchmarks out there are made with DX11. To make use of DX11MT command line -dx11mt must be added.
Again - it's only "contrived" because certain API's can't handle the effect.
On high-end hardware and Mantle, the effect is noticeable and a clear upgrade on existing blur effects. Crossfire 290X's will have few problems with it for example - neither will next gen single cards.
What you believe is "contrived" now will be an inexpensive and welcome effect at some point in the future. Believe it or not but that is generally how progress is made.