This really doesn't make much sense at all to me. DX12 is a low level API, it's supposed to expose more of the GPU, not less. Anything available in DX11 should be available in DX12, and then some. Plus, there are games where NVidia definitely gains in DX12, like Ashes of the Singularity, a very highly optimized DX12 title. So to me it seems like it's much more a matter of optimization than anything else. It took MONTHS before Oxide studios could patch the game and bring NVidia's DX12 performance up to par as the game was heavily AMD biased from it's inception (plus NVidia definitely tweaked their DX12 drivers), but now NVidia is very competitive in that game.
You know there are times when I really want to believe that you are an unbiased source, but when you make comments like these, it's hard for me to drink the Kool-Aid. The insinuation being of course, that NVidia's architecture is inherently DX12 unfriendly. No matter how many times we see NVidia outperform AMD in DX12 titles, this myth still persists and it seems to be driven by the same people.
That's certainly possible and as such complaining about Nvidia not providing enough improvements through drivers would be silly.Did it ever cross people's minds that there's just not that much more performance to wring out of ol' Kepler?
And that's exactly what it is, a strawman. There's been plenty of threads on here and beyond3d discussing the architectural differences between kepler and maxwell/pascal and how kepler required a higher level of driver level optimizations compared to the later due to its SM setup. This is why under certain situations the performance gap between kepler and maxwell/pascal/gcn is larger than it was historically. This isn't anything new.That's certainly possible and as such complaining about Nvidia not providing enough improvements through drivers would be silly.
But my point is that there's a difference between claiming that nvidia "gimps" Kepler by not providing enough improvements and claiming that nvidia "gimps" Kepler by reducing performance through drivers.
The latter would seem to me to be a straw man invented purely to make it easier to dismiss people's complaints about Kepler and thereby to ignore the fact that regardless of the exact reason, Kepler has aged anything but gracefully.
Yet the article that sparked this thread shows that 780 Ti gained more performance than 980 with the Win10 drivers, even after the 980 was released. Abandoning not found.
does AMD have very bad launch drivers?
But your whole post is off-topic, this thread compares a variety of Nvidia cards, nothing about comparing them to AMD. I know you can't help yourself, but try to stay on topic.
Why do people keep saying that AOTS is AMD biased? The developers have stated they worked closer with Nvidia than AMD. It was Nvidia's drivers not being up to date that was the issue. Just look at the OP. 7-12% improvement from DX12 Drivers. Same reason that Vulkan in Doom was slower at first. Nvidia's drivers weren't good. They fixed that for a 12% gain once again.
The difference is once the initial DX12 / Vulkan drivers get worked out, there won't be the need for game specific drivers anymore to the extent there was for DX11, which is basically every game rendering improperly w/o drivers.
Zlatan is a proper dev you eejits. Might want to listen to the guy that works with this stuff on a day to day basis, rather than going with what feels good in light of your hardware purchases.
Of the roughly dozen odd DX12 games AMD wins 75% atleast if not more. Rx 480 is on avg atleast 5% (if not more )faster in DX12 vs GTX 1060.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DirectX_12_support
Whats even more revealing is Nvidia's DX11 performance is on par or superior in every DX12 title. You could say better DX11 drivers but thats exactly why Nvidia does better as they have a lot more driver software engineers. Raja Koduri stated in the recent PC World interview that the DX11 drivers are massive and have actual graphics shader code optimized for various game engines / games. In contrast the DX12 driver is lightweight and gives a lot more control to the developer.
When the game first launched, it was horribly balanced towards GCN hardware, and only after numerous patches did NVidia start to gain performance. Also, they HAD to work closer with NVidia than AMD to address the deficit!
Could it not be that their arch is designed to work with DX11, but not optimized to work with DX12 when compared to DX11? I would imagine that DX11 has a structure that is inherently different in terms of how things are executed. Thus, it would seem reasonable that on the hardware side, their arch was not set up to take advantage of DX12 like it was with DX11. That is why drivers are needed, which make up for the hardware not being designed around DX12 as it was with DX11.
In fact, NVidia GPUs support more advanced DX12 features like conservative rasterization and raster ordered views that the Radeon GPUs don't..
The state of DX12 games performance today, is not indicative of anything in regards to which architecture is more suited towards DX12. The fact that both consoles use GCN hardware means that many games are by default heavily optimized for the Radeon architecture. With DX11, NVidia could tune their drivers around this handicap for the most part, but with DX12, they have to rely on developers which have varying degrees of competence.
Most DX12 games run slower in DX12 mode, than in DX11 for NVidia, and this should simply not be the case with COMPETENT development. That said, I expect this trend to decrease to be reversed as time goes by, as developers become more proficient in the use of DX12.
No, no and no. DX11 and DX12 are APIs that allow programmers to expose capabilities that are built into the GPUs. Both NVidia and AMD GPUs have been DX12 capable for years now, but only with Mantle, DX12 and Vulkan have these features become accessible. In fact, NVidia GPUs support more advanced DX12 features like conservative rasterization and raster ordered views that the Radeon GPUs don't.. Also, the biggest performance benefit for DX12 by far, is the reduction in CPU overhead and the increase in rendering parallelism. So the main performance benefits for low level APIs comes mostly from the CPU side, and not the GPU.
So it has nothing to do with architecture support. It has to do with developer competence when it comes to optimization, and the fact that GCN hardware is in both the PS4 and Xbox One.
Funny because the developers have said the opposite multiple times
http://www.overclock.net/t/1569897/...ingularity-dx12-benchmarks/1200#post_24356995
He has a bunch of other posts talking about how they worked more closely with Nvidia than AMD if you go through his profile, not going to bother posting them all here when this has been debunked a dozen times already.
https://www.extremetech.com/gaming/...ashes-of-the-singularity-directx-12-benchmark
They worked more with Nvidia pre-launch than AMD
Not to mention Nvidia having ID on stage to show off Doom Vulkan on a 1080 launch party, yet Vulkan was then AMD biased on release right?
You can post whatever links you want, it won't change my mind because the surrounding circumstances simply don't support it.. The Nitrous Engine was designed to work with Mantle since its inception, and it was also heavily marketed by AMD. The fact that NVidia is now matching or exceeding AMD in Ashes of the Singularity, which I think started last year in the Summer, shows that Oxide studios needed to do a massive amount of optimization to get NVidia's performance up to where it should be. This is from September last year, six months after the game was officially released.
Ashes of the Singularity
Ashes of the Singularity is a real time strategy game on a grand scale, very much in the vein of Supreme Commander. While this game is most known for is Asynchronous workloads through the DX12 API, it also happens to be pretty fun to play. While Ashes has a built-in performance counter alongside its built-in benchmark utility, we found it to be highly unreliable and often posts a substantial run-to-run variation. With that in mind we still used the onboard benchmark since it eliminates the randomness that arises when actually playing the game but utilized the PresentMon utility to log performance
DX12 Benchmarking
For DX12 many of these same metrics can be utilized through a simple program called PresentMon. Not only does this program have the capability to log frame times at various stages throughout the rendering pipeline but it also grants a slightly more detailed look into how certain API and external elements can slow down rendering times.
Since PresentMon throws out massive amounts of frametime data, we have decided to distill the information down into slightly more easy-to-understand graphs. Within them, we have taken several thousand datapoints (in some cases tens of thousands), converted the frametime milliseconds over the course of each benchmark run to frames per second and then graphed the results. This gives us a straightforward framerate over time graph. Meanwhile the typical bar graph averages out every data point as its presented.
One thing to note is that our DX12 PresentMon results cannot and should not be directly compared to the FCAT-based DX11 results. They should be taken as a separate entity and discussed as such.
And again, UE4 doesn't use DX 12 resource management, AotS does.This game, along with Gears of War 4 represent what well optimized DX12 titles should be like where both Radeons and NVidia GPUs increase performance from DX12, rather than suffering.
Its easy to blame developers completely rather than accept that the architecture plays a factor. But the fact is most DX12 games run faster on DX11 for Nvidia GPUs. For AMD thats the opposite. As I already said Nvidia's larger driver software team is one of the main reasons. DX11 drivers nowadays are pretty much game specific code optimizations and the company which has more engineers to throw at the problem does better. So no surprise Nvidia does better. DX12 on the other hand gives developer more low level control but is also more challenging. GPU architectural capability and game developer expertise with low level APIs / technical knowledge are both factors in the performance a developer can extract from a certain GPU. Arguing that the architecture is not while the developer alone is basically being argumentative for the sake of it.
You can post whatever links you want, it won't change my mind because the surrounding circumstances simply don't support it.. The Nitrous Engine was designed to work with Mantle since its inception, and it was also heavily marketed by AMD. The fact that NVidia is now matching or exceeding AMD in Ashes of the Singularity, which I think started last year in the Summer, shows that Oxide studios needed to do a massive amount of optimization to get NVidia's performance up to where it should be. This is from September last year, six months after the game was officially released.
This game, along with Gears of War 4 represent what well optimized DX12 titles should be like where both Radeons and NVidia GPUs increase performance from DX12, rather than suffering.
So when NVidia's DX11 performance is beating AMD's DX12 performance in Total War Warhammer by a large margin, what am I to think? To me, it's self evident that the developers are the ones that screwed it up. APIs only expose what is already there. If a GPU is slower with an API that supposedly offers more hardware exposure to developers, then the problem is going to be one of three things:
1) Lack of optimization on the developer side.
2) Inadequate driver support on the IHV side.
3) A combination of the two.
I fully admit that NVidia's DX12 and Vulkan drivers weren't up to snuff for several months, but these were eventually fixed and now the drivers perform much better..
Wait, so Nvidia can have better conservative rasterization? Question, did Nvidia accomplish this with hardware, or drivers?
If they did it with hardware, then it logical to think that GPUs can be designed to better process different APIs better and or worse.
dude Gears of War 4 does not have a DX11 version to draw any comparisons.
lmao. you are ridiculous.
AMD Rx 480 DX12 and Nvidia GTX 1060 DX11 have same performance in Total War. In fact AMD is slightly ahead within error margin.
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...3945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-8.html
http://www.hardwarecanucks.com/foru...945-gtx-1060-vs-rx-480-updated-review-12.html
NVidia GPUs take massive performance hits from going to DX12. From your own link.
One thing to note is that our DX12 PresentMon results cannot and should not be directly compared to the FCAT-based DX11 results. They should be taken as a separate entity and discussed as such.
What does that have to do with the price of butter? Gears of War 4 is a masterfully optimized DX12 title
This game, along with Gears of War 4 represent what well optimized DX12 titles should be like where both Radeons and NVidia GPUs increase performance from DX12, rather than suffering.