• 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.

Concerned by Nvidia's current state of DX12 and Vulkan performance

I wouldn't be concerned, only 1 (i think) game using Vulkan, and only a couple or so Dx11 games patched to Dx12, big deal, if Nvidias peformance is still **** in em, when we've got an absolute stack of games using em, then id be concerned, but now, not a chance.
 
Nexus18 said:
Been saying this for ages now, nvidia concentrate on the here and now where as AMD look to the future, imo this can only be a good thing for AMD in the long run.
Click to expand...
It is good for AMDs customers although I'm not sure how good for AMD it is that people are hanging onto the likes of 7970s and 290s because they still perform OK how ever many years down the line.
 
Last edited:
opethdisciple said:
I am genuinely concerned by Nvidia's current state of DX12 and Vulkan performance.

So far from my experiences and reports that I have read, DX12 seems to provide negative scaling compared to DX11 and Vulkan is pretty much the same. Or at best very random.

I have a GTX 970 for the record and would upgrade, I'm just concerned by Nvidia DX12 performance at the moment.

Personally I have a theory on this matter. Historically, AMD always seem to be ahead of the curve whilst Nvidia seem to only want to cater for the hear and now.

For example, AMD was first with 2GB of ram (before it was needed), DX10.1 (I think) and now they have better DX12 support and Async compute.

I think Nvidia operate like this as they presume that it's better to supply the market for what is most popular in the market now rather than provide support for future technologies. (Customers can buy new cards later!)

I reckon a proper DX12 card will start to come from Nvidia after this current series. I.e the 1100 series of cards.

Instead Nvidia approach at the moment to bridge the gap is brute force power to make up the fact they they are indeed weak in DX12.

This is why it doesn't rest easy for me to spend money on a 1070.

What are you thoughts?
Click to expand...

The 1070 is the best price/performance card out right now. No competition. It will run all games very well for many years. NVIDIA control most of the developers, as they have a massive market share. No need to worry.

By the time DX12 games are commonplace, Pascal, Polaris, Fiji etc will all be old and slow.
 
This thread would be slightly more compelling if amd had a gpu that could compete with even the current third rung NVidia product (1070) I wouldn't take a 480 or a fury over a 1070 for now or even going in to the future regardless of the price difference between the amd and NVidia options because amd just don't have a single gpu competent enough to manage 1440p at good framerates and gysnc is a superior product to freesync. That a current lower performing amd gpu may show better a scalling in future games is rather a moot point for me because by the time the 1070 needs an upgrade it will have lost most of its resale value as will any amd card the amd option won't suddenly have become competent at the top end and at current rate NVidia will still be selling the top two or three sku's available on the market regardless of manufaturer so they will still be the choice of the enthusiast
 
Final8y said:
Indeed but also the cold hard truth is the majority of people run old slow cards.

< 1 year 62 vote(s) 24.5%
1 year 32 vote(s) 12.6%
2 years 44 vote(s) 17.4%
3 years 49 vote(s) 19.4%
4 years 39 vote(s) 15.4%
5 or more years 28 vote(s) 11.1%
https://forums.anandtech.com/threads/how-old-is-your-primary-gpu.2480979/
Click to expand...

So over 50% run a gpu that's around two years old or less. That puts NVidia cards in the 980gtx era and amd with cards that still can't put much ground between themselves and the 980gtx!
 
What a ridiculous thread!

You concerned about Nvidia current state of DirectX 12? :p

Don't be silly. Same things happened with DirectX 9, 10 and 11 where AMD was ahead first then months or years ahead and everybody forget about AMD past performance lead and Nvidia pulled ahead in overall majority of titles.

I remembered when Windows 7 was launched DirectX 11 in 2009, so only first 2 DirectX 11 games BattleForge and Dirt 2 came out in 2009 both are AMD sponsored that beat Nvida in benchmarks and AMD fanboys bragged about it but nobody cared about 2 games and majority bought Geforce cards instead then 1 year later Nvidia finally beaten AMD in Dirt 2 benchmarks.

http://www.bit-tech.net/hardware/graphics/2010/10/22/ati-radeon-hd-6850-review/5

What I found unfair about some DirectX 12 games benchmarks which AMD used Async Compute while Nvidia don't and AMD fanboys decided that AMD had won but it far from truth. If Battlefield 1 open beta not had AMD Async Compute enabled in DirectX 12 then R9 290 would be few fps slower than Maxwell GTX 970 accorded to GameGPU benchmarks. Same thing happened with Forza Horizon 3 would had 60fps at 1080p on R9 290 if Async Compute not enabled but it still slower than GTX 970's 67fps. It odd that AMD first generation GCN GPUs cant run Forza Horizon 3 playable at 1080p Ultra settings as it is absolutely unplayable while Nvidia Kepler GPUs like GTX 680 and 770 can run it at playable 35fps no problem.

October will be interesting month when we will play Gears Of War 4 as the game will be the first DirectX 12 game to use both Nvidia and AMD Async Compute that will be very fair to compare in benchmarks. I watched Gears of War 4 Gridlock multiplayer map gameplay and very impressed it ran very fast so it looked like Nvidia will win that game because it is Nvidia sponsored game.
 
Doom112 said:
Even AMD is showing negative scaling in some DX12 games. The point is that their is no clear future and even their is no clear future if developer will use DX12 or ditch it like they did with DX10.
Click to expand...

You dont seem to understand! I have said to you time and time again yet you just plain ignore the fact it isn't always about getting higher avg frame rate!!!!

DX12 gives higher min frame rates and smoother frame timings making games much more smoother to play. Even if X game was avg the same FPS

Take this post for example!

Final8y said:
Frame times between DX12 and DX11.

52NApD.png

u8iFdp.png

R0CyXM.png

VlX7E9.png

https://www.computerbase.de/2016-09/quantum-break-steam-benchmark/
Click to expand...
 
Caracus2k said:
So over 50% run a gpu that's around two years old or less. That puts NVidia cards in the 980gtx era and amd with cards that still can't put much ground between themselves and the 980gtx!
Click to expand...

The point is many users will still be using them so what features those cards support still matter and that was the context.
 
There's not going to be that many games(its going to be a while) using DX12 or Vulcan exclusively I'm not worried. And at least with Quantum Break it seems developers are struggling even to use DX12. These api's require a higher level of development. I doubt many developers are going to jump at them that eagerly or even bother using them at all.
 
Seems to be pretty hit and miss ( some dx12 games favouring one vendor over the other for example). Look at the Total War bench thread here and you sill see the 1060 is loads faster than the RX480 in DX12 (50% faster max over clock for max overclock!!). Then if you look at other games you will see the RX480 loads faster than the 1060. This is and has been the case in DX11 and most other APIs as well - they win some, they lose some.

I don't think Pascal's DX12 performance is anything to be concerned about at this stage to be honest.
 
Last edited:
Jono8 said:
Seems to be pretty hit and miss ( some dx12 games favouring one vendor over the other for example). Look at the Total War bench thread here and you sill see the 1060 is loads faster than the RX480 in DX12 (50% faster max over clock for max overclock!!). Then if you look at other games you will see the RX480 loads faster than the 1060. This is and has been the case in DX11 and most other APIs as well - they win some, they lose some.

I don't think Pascal's DX12 performance is anything to be concerned about at this stage to be honest.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't use the Total War thread as evidence as on all the review sites AMD see a huge gain of around 40% using dx12. It seems to have disappeared for some reason. Again in Total War the Nvidia cards lose around 15-20% when using dx12. Amd will most likely get that dx12 performance back in a future patch or driver. Amd's dx11 performance in Total war is abysmal though which makes the dx12 gains on review sites look way better. As you can see from the links below something has clearly happened to AMD's dx12 performance. The techspot link shows the boost from dx11 to dx12 that we should be seeing in the bench thread but it's now non existent.

http://cdn.videocardz.com/1/2016/09/10_TOTALWAR.png

http://www.techspot.com/review/1221-amd-radeon-rx-460/page2.html

http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/zotac_geforce_gtx_1080_arcticstorm_review,17.html
 
Last edited:
dx12 is nothing....yet. it may not be anything at all.moment its just a marketing tool to get you to upgrade.
 
Not concerned at all, i hope AMD kicks nvidias back side for a while with dx12 and vulkan so we have some competition and hopefully lower prices.
 
VincentHanna said:
Isn't the problem more the fact that Nvidia DX11 drivers were so good compared to AMD, that DX12 is putting them on a much more even keel (since driver optimisation under DX12 isn't anywhere near as important)

Obviously lack of proper ASYNC compute on current Nvidia hardware is also an issue, as now even the less powerful cards from AMD all handle Async compute correctly.

There's been very few DX12 only titles built from the ground up yet though (Forza Horizon 3 is the only one that comes to mind) and though that game does need some patches, performance on Nvidia hardware is pretty good compared with AMD.

I'm fairly confident that Pascal and Maxwell just arent fully fledged DX12 cards and we'll have to wait for Volta to increase the gap once more.
Click to expand...
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Forza.../Specials/Benchmarks-Test-DirextX-12-1208835/
Yes it needs some patches, frame latency in this title is horrendous.
 
Panos said:
NV DX12 support is not as good as the DX11.
And that means any Pascal card has same issues, even the GTX1080Ti if ever comes out.

Here is my results on the TW Warhammer.

1920x1080
Score 77.2, GPU 1080 @2190/2762, CPU 6700k @4.8, Panos DX11 Link 372.90 Drivers
Score 66.2, GPU 1080 @2190/2762, CPU 6700k @4.8, Panos DX12 Link 372.90 Drivers

2560x1440
Score 50.5, GPU 1080 @2190/2762, CPU 6700k @4.8, Panos DX11 Link 372.90 Drivers
Score 41.8, GPU 1080 @2190/2762, CPU 6700k @4.8, Panos DX12 Link 372.90 Drivers

And that is representative of all DX12 games with my 1080.
DX11 is better......

Or Kaap's results at 2560x1440
Score 66.8, GPU TitanP @2126/2728, CPU 6950X @4.4, Kaapstad DX11 Link 372.70 Drivers
Score 56.4, GPU TitanP @2126/2728, CPU 6950X @4.4, Kaapstad DX12 Link 372.70 Drivers


While have a look at AMD cards, barely any loss of fps, for sure not 20% the NV cards have.

Score 39.2, GPU Fury X @1190/500, CPU 5960X @4.4, Kaapstad DX11 Link 16.9.2 Drivers
Score 38.8, GPU Fury X @1190/500, CPU 5960X @4.4, Kaapstad DX12 Link 16.9.2 Drivers
Score 37.7, GPU Nano @1100/550, CPU 4690k @4.7, Radox-0 DX11 Link 16.9.2 Drivers
Score 36.4, GPU Nano @1100/550, CPU 4690k @4.7, Radox-0 DX12 Link 16.9.2 Drivers
Score 29.0, GPU RX480 @1380/2200, CPU 6950X @4.0, Kaapstad DX11 Link 16.9.2 Drivers
Score 28.0, GPU RX480 @1380/2200, CPU 6950X @4.0, Kaapstad DX12 Link 16.9.2 Drivers

(Please bear in mind that the settings for all above is AA 8x and ultra)


And we ain't going to see Volta until 2018 now, as NV announced. Just a rebaged 1080/1070 for 2017, leaving AMD open field for Vega.
Click to expand...


What would a rebadged 1070/1080 involve?
 
Five.Stars said:
My thoughts are similar. You only have to look at the digital foundry's comparison of Quantum Break in DX11 and DX12 on both Nvidia and AMD hardware to see that Nvidia currently have a problem with DX12.

*Although it is using a Maxwell card (970) so any improvements on Pascal aren't there to be seen.
Click to expand...
They run a 1060 and show that it loses less performance than the 970, though. Which does demonstrate that Pascal has improvements with DX12 performance(though we always knew that).

Anyways, Quantum Break is a terrible example. AMD gains *nothing* using DX12 in that game. Meaning that there's absolutely no reason to even have a DX12 implementation other than for the devs to gain experience with it.

Hell, look at Forza Horizon 3 and you'll see that despite being DX12, it actually runs *worse* on AMD hardware than Nvidia.

People still seem to not understand that DX12 is what devs make of it. It is imperative that devs dig down and really get their hands dirty with the code and tasking.

If anything, all these mediocre and subpar DX12 implementations demonstrate how dang good DX11 was, particularly in its later guises. And how useful it was(is) for developers. Things will get better moving forward, but clearly everybody expecting that DX12 was going to be any immediate revelation should hopefully have seen by now that it's going to be anything but. And DX11 will probably stick around for quite a while still.
 
Seanspeed said:
They run a 1060 and show that it loses less performance than the 970, though. Which does demonstrate that Pascal has improvements with DX12 performance(though we always knew that).

Anyways, Quantum Break is a terrible example. AMD gains *nothing* using DX12 in that game. Meaning that there's absolutely no reason to even have a DX12 implementation other than for the devs to gain experience with it.

Hell, look at Forza Horizon 3 and you'll see that despite being DX12, it actually runs *worse* on AMD hardware than Nvidia.

People still seem to not understand that DX12 is what devs make of it. It is imperative that devs dig down and really get their hands dirty with the code and tasking.

If anything, all these mediocre and subpar DX12 implementations demonstrate how dang good DX11 was, particularly in its later guises. And how useful it was(is) for developers. Things will get better moving forward, but clearly everybody expecting that DX12 was going to be any immediate revelation should hopefully have seen by now that it's going to be anything but. And DX11 will probably stick around for quite a while still.
Click to expand...

AMD does gain lol look at the post above, DX12 offers a much smoother playing experience! Why are most you guys finding this hard to understand?

Even look at the Forza link above and see the frame times.. DX12 even right now offers a much more enjoyable gaming experience thanks to its better frame latency.

Its the first thing I noticed with Tomb Rider, benchmark showed higher min frame rate and lower avg fps but the game was so much more smoother to play under DX12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom