Often Devs do something simply because it's the state of the art and they can.Ask nv why its that bad. My point is just it wont get much better with pascal anyway. It will get eg the drawcall benefits in rts but eg asynch is going nowhere because of hardware and dev cost.
It takes 3 years to develop an asynch ready engine even for an arch that is made for it like gcn. And only because of consoles. Who beliewes ID made this because of amd pc gfx?
Actually, NVIDIA's drivers had excellent su
pport for Doom on day 1, see how well it did in OpenGL relative to the competition which had utterly broken OpenGL drivers.
The (relatively) poor performance on the Vulkan codepath for NVIDIA has nothing to do with NVIDIA's drivers, IMO, as a lot of what the driver handled before is now handled explicitly by the developer.
The Vulkan codepath for Doom is optimized and tweaked for AMD hardware as that codepath likely is a port/derivative of the console codepath.
Saying it all comes down to drivers is insulting, really shows lack of understanding of the situation here. They were probably 'asked' to release this Vulkan Update before GTX 1060's launch, ready or not. Wouldn't surprise me if future updates (months from now) improve Pascal's performance.
With a hand on your heart just tell me, this looks like "extracting all performance out of the hardware" to you?
This is 100% ID Tech fault, trying to blame it on Nvidia drivers is a pittyfull justification by AMD lovers, thats no how low apis work. If 40 fps can be archived by a old, inefficient high level api, them the same can be archived by a new, highly efficient low level api with the right devs work, there is no excuse for the loss of performance, i can fully accept that AMD cards gain MORE fps can Nvidia ones, but not this.
Its VERY funny how Gameworks bashers are defending this ID Tech dissaster and trying to blame it on Nvidia drivers, its VERY funny.
Well, yes, but the fact is, it works better with OGL, they cant even do memgr right?
You are trying to compare a High Level API Driver, like OpenGL/DX9 to a Low Level API driver like Vulkan, ITS NOT THE SAME, the driver is there to expose the features to applications, but ITS NOT THE SAME, and that is the point actually. There is not much, if any, you can do to improve performance by drivers here, you can expose new features, new extensions, but no much else.
So considering that Nvidia released new drivers which improved Vulkan performance by a lot with no game updates, can we stop saying that id was at fault and just be glad that Nvidia now has better Vulkan drivers?
seen one other person say this. Where?
The 1060 is now faster in DOOM than the RX 480 when both using Vulkan.
The 1060 is now faster in DOOM than the RX 480 when both using Vulkan.
Nice, good to see the GTX 1060 shining.
So do you still think low metal api's are "poison to pc gaming"?
With Nvidia moving away from SLI (GTX1060, and no quad 1070/1080 SLI), and with no new dual-gpu cards from them -we will not see better but worse SLI/XFire support from developers. We need new APIs and SLI. We need Nvidia to step up their game.
Yes, 100%. It's a whole lot of extra work for developers that only sometimes (like in the case of Doom) yields a benefit. A lot of DX12 games are still broken/slower than their DX11 versions.
I would rather the effort goes towards supporting things like SLI/XFire rather than on these low level APIs. I hate that SLI/XFire have basically become non-starters for many games at this point.
No. On the new driver it is 10% faster then fury X.Have people looked at the numbers??
The OpenGL and Vulkan scores are around the same for the GTX1060 cards??
Even the Fury X is faster than a GTX1070 still.
I wonder how many will admit they were wrong
No. On the new driver it is 10% faster then fury X.
this again. A whole lot of extra work. Like dx11 wasn't work. Its always work. The only problem with dx12 in that aspect is dx11. And the only problem with dx11 was dx10/9.
Actually, NVIDIA's drivers had excellent support for Doom on day 1, see how well it did in OpenGL relative to the competition which had utterly broken OpenGL drivers.
The (relatively) poor performance on the Vulkan codepath for NVIDIA has nothing to do with NVIDIA's drivers, IMO, as a lot of what the driver handled before is now handled explicitly by the developer.
The Vulkan codepath for Doom is optimized and tweaked for AMD hardware as that codepath likely is a port/derivative of the console codepath.
Nice, good to see the GTX 1060 shining.
No. On the new driver it is 10% faster then fury X.
Look at the OpenGL and Vulkan numbers. At 1920X1080,the GTX1060 is still slower than a RX480,but only shows a 3% increase over OpenGL using Vulkan. At 2560X1440,it moves a bit ahead but the Vulkan and OpenGL numbers are exactly the same. The Fury X is still faster than a GTX1070.
But the minimum is a fair bit higher so to me its still the faster card with all things considered.