-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
CA has done the worst DX12 port in Total Warhammer
- Thread starter Doom112
- Start date
Was that not for Maxwell? still waiting on that one. soon'tm
Who cares !!!
If DX12 is available and works well on the AMD cards then DX11 performance does not matter.
NVidia only have themselves to blame for not getting Async sorted.
Its also another situation where you have a very overclocked 980TI against a stock Fury.
Of course the 980TI is still quicker but there are other DX12 games where the 390X is just as quick as the 980TI.
I honestly don't get what some of you are on about? Look at the graphs and then you might see something that is questionable regardless of AMD or NVidia
So in DX12, the 980Ti and 1080 are roughly 34% faster than the Fury X and in DX11, the 1080 is 86% faster than the Fury X. Hell even the 970 is giving the Fury X a run for the money but some of you guys are missing this and we are getting silly comments like "Nvidia only have themselves to blame" but shouldn't people be looking at the lackluster performance of the AMD cards and questioning why the performance is so bad in the first place and even DX12 isn't helping AMD here?
It just looks like a poor implementation of DX12 all round to me but don't let common sense ruin a good thread.
So in DX12, the 980Ti and 1080 are roughly 34% faster than the Fury X and in DX11, the 1080 is 86% faster than the Fury X. Hell even the 970 is giving the Fury X a run for the money but some of you guys are missing this and we are getting silly comments like "Nvidia only have themselves to blame" but shouldn't people be looking at the lackluster performance of the AMD cards and questioning why the performance is so bad in the first place and even DX12 isn't helping AMD here?
It just looks like a poor implementation of DX12 all round to me but don't let common sense ruin a good thread.
It was released last year.
That is exactly my point.I honestly don't get what some of you are on about? Look at the graphs and then you might see something that is questionable regardless of AMD or NVidia
So in DX12, the 980Ti and 1080 are roughly 34% faster than the Fury X and in DX11, the 1080 is 86% faster than the Fury X. Hell even the 970 is giving the Fury X a run for the money but some of you guys are missing this and we are getting silly comments like "Nvidia only have themselves to blame" but shouldn't people be looking at the lackluster performance of the AMD cards and questioning why the performance is so bad in the first place and even DX12 isn't helping AMD here?
It just looks like a poor implementation of DX12 all round to me but don't let common sense ruin a good thread.
I honestly don't get what some of you are on about? Look at the graphs and then you might see something that is questionable regardless of AMD or NVidia
So in DX12, the 980Ti and 1080 are roughly 34% faster than the Fury X and in DX11, the 1080 is 86% faster than the Fury X. Hell even the 970 is giving the Fury X a run for the money but some of you guys are missing this and we are getting silly comments like "Nvidia only have themselves to blame" but shouldn't people be looking at the lackluster performance of the AMD cards and questioning why the performance is so bad in the first place and even DX12 isn't helping AMD here?
It just looks like a poor implementation of DX12 all round to me but don't let common sense ruin a good thread.
The hilarious thing is the AMD cards don't really get any faster at all. The only thing that happens is it gimps the Nvidia cards, which is entirely the developers fault. DX11 should be the minimum speed target a developer can achieve in Dx12, if they can't do that then they shouldn't even release the Dx12 patch.
The FuryX goes from 51.3 to 52.1FPs, and people really think that is some kind of success? The bias on this forums is really quite incredible, almost as ridiculous as the ignorant comments about async compute plastered in this thread.
TW DX12 patch is still in the works, they are probably using this game to learn DX12, and my guess they will implement as many features as they can, and work on optimizing them, AMD cards had 0 to negative gain from dx11 to dx12.
creative assembly isn't a bad studio, just give them time.
creative assembly isn't a bad studio, just give them time.
In regards to this particular topic its simply a confirmation by a dev that Nvidia do not as yet at least support DX12 A-Sync.
On a wider debate related to that subject we are talking about the performance advantage AMD can gain from that, Warhammer BETA is not a great example of it but its not the only example, this one is far better.
Thats a 390X beating a GTX Titan-X
On a wider debate related to that subject we are talking about the performance advantage AMD can gain from that, Warhammer BETA is not a great example of it but its not the only example, this one is far better.
Thats a 390X beating a GTX Titan-X
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 1,686
- Location
- Southampton
I am no expert on the matter but it does seem like this async compute is way over hyped and presented as the absolute AMD dominance for some specific reason.
Async compute feels like a small thing in the DX12 spec. From the tests I've seen so far the gains are pretty insignificant and the FPS losses on the Nvidia side seem to be more the result of bad coding / bad implementation than anything else. DX12 is supposed to be backwards compatible with DX11 and you should see at least the same level of performance, definitely not losses.
I have to be genuinely honest here and say that there isn't one game thus far that has me saying "good job it has DX12 and great that it has been added". Hitman is broken with DX12, ROTTR has some flickering textures with DX12, AoTS isn't a game that I have put much time into but when I have played it, it was no different using DX12 or DX11 and GoW remastered was meh to say the least and it was still using a very early version of the Unreal Engine and even the code was roughly the same (apparently).
I hope to see these wonderful DX12 titles but thus far, DX12 for me is a waste of dev time.
Consoles have the Same GCN architecture, with most deves working on console principle and MS unifying Windows 10 - DX12 - Consoles its really not a waste of time. Its just standard working practice.
If anything given that Nvidia don't work in the same way its extra work to port for Nvidia.
My point is everything DX12 brings for me, I still get more frames and less issues with DX11, so whilst I was a big proponent of DX12, there just seems there is nothing for me at the mo. Much is being said about DX12 and Async but when you look at any of the DX12 Vs DX11 comparisons, it looks to be good for AMD users but still only bringing what NVidia already have with DX11.
Indeed, async is really an insignificant feature. Even the term async sharers doesn't actually exist anywhere in the DX12 API - it is a marketing term developed by the AMD PR machine.DX12 has a concept of multi-engine support, where compute, graphics and memory copy queues can all operate independently There is zero requirement for these to be operated concurrently, there is zero requirements for any kind fo hardware based scheduling, there is no requirement that is generates any kind of speed up, and there should be no expectation to do that in a general sense. The concept if multi-engine queues i to make life simpler for developers. As a bonus it may be possible to archive a performance boost under some conditions, but that largely relies on many factors such as the GPU being under utilized in graphics, the develop taking a lot of care to organize compute workloads that conform to the particular nuances of the architecture. It is easy to make DX12 run slower using Async compute even on AMD GCN cards, and there are lots of examples out there.
Associate
- Joined
- 27 Dec 2014
- Posts
- 1,686
- Location
- Southampton
DX is aimed at everyone, not just at specific levels / cards / configurations.
The FuryX gains 75.3/61.7 = 22% going to DX12
The 980Ti gains 79.9/64.8 = 23% going to DX12
Both vendors see the same improvements.
Hitman can give some weird results, mostly because it is a fairly flawed benchmark with loads of bugs. Plus there are the differences depending on what chapter is sued for benchmark. The original reviews have no relevance to benchamarks newer chapters.