Either way, everyone knows, which means that everyone knows what he meant.
It supports FP16...
That one doesn't.
It supports 1:1 FP16, but not 2:1 FP16.Either way, everyone knows, which means that everyone knows what he meant.
It supports 1:1 FP16, but not 2:1 FP16.
Man I don't know if you're confusing yourself or if you're deliberately being obtuse because I corrected you.Vega 64 is still well behind the GTX 1080 Ti from that YouTube video I posted above, and that was with asynchronous compute disabled for the GTX 1080 Ti. To be honest, this game's performance optimization will occur over a long period of time just like Doom.
When Doom's Vulkan patch first debuted, Fury X picked up a massive performance gain, almost enough to reach the GTX 1080. Later on though, subsequent patches and driver updates boosted NVidia's performance in the game substantially and the gap between the GTX 1080 and the Fury X became wider.
The performance loss can be explained by the disabling of asynchronous compute. Also, NVidia optimizations will eventually be implemented in the game as well. It will just take longer to manifest.
Do you honestly think this game engine will be representative of the large majority of other 3D engines on the market? If so, I have an igloo to sell you somewhere in the Sahara desert.
AMD PAID to have these optimizations implemented. So unless AMD has enough wealth to convince all the other major 3D engine developers to implement these changes, I don't see it happening across the board.
Um, we're talking about averages here. As magnificent as Id Tech 6.5 is, it's a proprietary tech that won't be adopted by other developers outside of Bethesda. Also, as I've said repeatedly, this game's optimization is not finished. NVidia's turn will come in this game, and performance will increase much like it did with Doom.
Vega is using shader intrinsics, 16 bit floats and probably some other architectural optimizations yet it still cannot close the gap completely on the GTX 1080 Ti. So if this is the best case scenario, it doesn't look so good for Vega matching the GTX 1080 Ti across the board in the future.
This is wrong. So I corrected you.I'd wager that Vega at the end of its life cycle should be solidly outperforming the GTX 1080 despite being mostly slower today. GTX 1080 is already topped out, but Vega still has room to grow. It won't reach GTX 1080 Ti levels of performance though.
I sure do not hope so, then we get another wolfenstein new order which crashes often on AMD cards and workarounds have to be used that solve the crashes but also slow down performance.
IDtech 5 was riddled with Nvidia specific optimizations that caused many problems.
AMD itself has described their Shader Intrinsics as bringing over the GCN optimizations on console to PC. Both PS4 Pro and Xbox One X support FP16. If other engines start supporting FP16 and the other new features, it's only to be expected AMD will try getting them supported on the PC version as well.
It's different for Nvidia since their specific features would require all new code and be PC only (would be sweet if we get news about Switch optimizations benefiting Nvidia on PC though).
The problem is we are only seeing the tree instead of the forest before us. This sort of development is pioneering stuff. And it will take time before fully utilized. It should have been pioneered a few years ago. And I agree with that. Now we are finally starting to see the DX12/Vulkan train gaining momentum and finally leaving the train station. Anyone thinking that DX11 will never die needs to stop smoking the stuff. Sure you will have an out liner here and there but overall the market is flexible.
Man I don't know if you're confusing yourself or if you're deliberately being obtuse because I corrected you.
Most of the stuff you're talking about is completely moot. It doesn't matter what the game is running now, it doesn't matter what might come in the future, it doesn't matter who has what enabled or who can pay who to do what. Because these have nothing to do with the narrow minded claims I'm arguing about.
I corrected you because you said this:
This is wrong. So I corrected you.
If I allow wrong things to be said (and then vigorously defended) then I'm allowing this forums to degrade. So I won't be caught up in you moot arguments, I'll just keep coming back to the point so that everyone knows the truth.
Vega 64 is performing at 1080Ti levels in this game atm. Probably faster.
Lol, so now I'm supposed to have a crystal ball and know what you meant to write?You should acquaint yourself with the word "context." When I said that comment, I was obviously talking about performance across multiple titles, rather than specific examples.
That said, your statement still isn't true. Vega 64 is still slower than the GTX 1080 Ti in this game, as shown by the video I posted and the benchmarks that Computerbase.de provided.
I'd wager that Vega at the end of its life cycle should be solidly outperforming the GTX 1080 despite being mostly slower today. GTX 1080 is already topped out, but Vega still has room to grow. It won't reach GTX 1080 Ti levels of performance though.
Well you'll be pleased to know that Wolfenstein 2 is the exact opposite of Wolfenstein TNO, in the sense that the majority of the technical issues are being suffered by NVidia owners. I've had several "could not write crash dump" errors myself!
Vega 64 may indeed reach 1080ti levels of performance in the odd game or two, but it would be an outlier. Vast majority of games, the 1080ti leaves V64 in the dust. Too much focus on an outlier can obscure the bigger picture:But Vega has reached 1080Ti levels of performance in this game right now.
So your statement is wrong. Maybe if you had worded it differently if would not be wrong. But since it's wrong I don't want people to listen to you and get the wrong idea, so I'll correct you.
And since we have proof Vega can get to 1080Ti levels of performance in practice, I think it's stupid to claim it's impossible for it to happen in the future. This is a different but equally obvious issue, where I'm not claiming to know the future. I'm questioning (denying) the reasoning of someone who claims to know the future.
No doubt. We can't treat these results as anything close to normal. I completely agree and never said anything otherwise.Vega 64 may indeed reach 1080ti levels of performance in the odd game or two, but it would be an outlier. Vast majority of games, the 1080ti leaves V64 in the dust. Too much focus on an outlier can obscure the bigger picture:
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/AMD/Radeon_RX_Vega_56/31.html
The situation in Wolf 2 is not uniform, and is not settled yet, this is a summary of every available test about the game, as they vary widely:But Vega has reached 1080Ti levels of performance in this game right now.
Lol, so now I'm supposed to have a crystal ball and know what you meant to write?
I guess coming from a scientific and technical history I expect people to write what they mean. And since this is supposed to be a technical forums I expect you to write what you mean. You should have included the qualifications "across the board", "in general", or something.
Vega 56 is faster than GTX 1080 in 95% of the game, Vega 64 is faster than GTX 1080ti in 95% of the game. This is with the 2nd Wolfenstein update and AMD's latest drivers!
There is a misunderstanding on the performance based on the game version and drivers used, but using the latest patch and latest drivers across the board, Vega is the absolute winner in Wolfensein 2.
I finished the game. There's still some extra stuff to do if I want, but the story is done. The game was pretty good actually, but honestly with how short it was, I feel kind of bad about spending $60 on it. There is no multiplayer and no replayability factor either, so its like paying $60 for a 7 hour long interactive movie ticket. That comes out to $8.50 an hour, so that's about the rate for a typical movie theater ticket for an hour and a half show. I don't know I just think the game should have cost $35 or $40. Feels bad. I feel bad. I feel kind of sad and a little bit mad for those few extra hours this game oughta had.
The game took you 7 hours to beat?! Did you speed run it, or play on easy difficulty? Seriously, because the game takes about 15 hours to beat on average. According to Steam, I've spent 18 hours on the game, and I haven't completed it yet. That's probably because I am playing on high difficulty and I do a lot of exploration.
I finished the game. There's still some extra stuff to do if I want, but the story is done. The game was pretty good actually, but honestly with how short it was, I feel kind of bad about spending $60 on it. There is no multiplayer and no replayability factor either, so its like paying $60 for a 7 hour long interactive movie ticket. That comes out to $8.50 an hour, so that's about the rate for a typical movie theater ticket for an hour and a half show. I don't know I just think the game should have cost $35 or $40. Feels bad. I feel bad. I feel kind of sad and a little bit mad for those few extra hours this game oughta had.
Lol, so now I'm supposed to have a crystal ball and know what you meant to write?
I guess coming from a scientific and technical history I expect people to write what they mean. And since this is supposed to be a technical forums I expect you to write what you mean. You should have included the qualifications "across the board", "in general", or something.
So your statement is wrong. Maybe if you had worded it differently if would not be wrong. But since it's wrong I don't want people to listen to you and get the wrong idea, so I'll correct you.
And since we have proof Vega can get to 1080Ti levels of performance in practice, I think it's stupid to claim it's impossible for it to happen in the future. This is a different but equally obvious issue, where I'm not claiming to know the future. I'm questioning (denying) the reasoning of someone who claims to know the future.
Sorry dude. I didn't start off hostile. And I don't get grumpy when people disagree with me, I'm very much a live and let live kinda guy. What does grind my gears is when people make unsubstantiated claims as a fact, and thus misinform others. I'm not talking about my opinion vs someone else's, I'm talking objective basic stuff.Hey maybe its just me but your posts come across a bit hostile. Everyone here is just here to discuss. No PHd or Masters required.
I finished the game. There's still some extra stuff to do if I want, but the story is done. The game was pretty good actually, but honestly with how short it was, I feel kind of bad about spending $60 on it. There is no multiplayer and no replayability factor either, so its like paying $60 for a 7 hour long interactive movie ticket. That comes out to $8.50 an hour, so that's about the rate for a typical movie theater ticket for an hour and a half show. I don't know I just think the game should have cost $35 or $40. Feels bad. I feel bad. I feel kind of sad and a little bit mad for those few extra hours this game oughta had.