• 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.

Doom Vulkan vs Open GL performance

Geck0 said:
How lame is this;

http://www.hardocp.com/news/2016/07/11/amd_running_doom_vulkan_benchmarks_on_intel_hardware

Someone go ask why nVidia aren't running their benches on a Tegra platform.
Click to expand...


AMD openly say, i7 is the enthusiast platform and they cannot compete in this arena.

But if more of this Mantle implementation comes along then maybe AMD themselves should re-consider their standpoint because the CPU is less important and even an FX processor can easily compete in such games.
 
Gibbo said:
AMD openly say, i7 is the enthusiast platform and they cannot compete in this arena.

But if more of this Mantle implementation comes along then maybe AMD themselves should re-consider their standpoint because the CPU is less important and even an FX processor can easily compete in such games.
Click to expand...

As proven by my earlier post of Doom running Vulkan on an underclocked (1.8ghz) 8320 and a Nano...

CPU is less important.
 
It isn't all that lame. It is just an observation as clearly AMD CPU's are run by gamers. The Tegra platform isn't. Argument for arguments sake, maybe? But it would be relevant to see the AMD CPU performance too.

What I am not understanding is why people are getting so excited. We are all aware that OpenGL for a number of years has been slower than DX11 because of the optimisation that can be done in OpenGL takes longer than with DX11 and so the performance has not previously been there.

The gains compared to DX11 games that are optimised, I would be willing to say that Vulkan would not be a magic solution and show the same gains in honesty.

Also people bashing DX12, the dev teams working on Vulkan have had direct AMD support who wrote most of Vulkan and so know how to extract performance, at the moment it appears that Dev teams are being left to fend for themselves a lot more for DX12 and to work out how to optimise and utilise what it will bring.

Give it 12 months and I think we will see true gains from DX11 with both Vulkan and DX12 and I feel they will be of similar level but at the moment I think this one game is too early to call anything.

Not to mention that game engines need to start supporting Vulkan as well, we have ID Tech 6, Unreal 4, Source 2 & Serious Engine 4 with Frostbite around October. Cryengine have pretty much stated that they won't do Vulkan any time soon if at all which means games that may well benefit most such as Star Citizen will not.

2017 will be the year to see how all this API and game engine optimisation improves. It is also the reason I am holding off upgrading till the next drop of AMD/Nvidia cards and their new respective architecture that will hopefully push the API's further and be better optimised for them.
 
AlamoX said:
never needed devs to take a leap of faith as we do today, just ditch directx, if triple A games start rolling on vulkan at release day, or exclusive API, in less than 5 years we might get an alternative OS to chose from other than windows.
i wish PC gamers support doom dev by buying their game
#votewithyourwallet :D
Click to expand...

Just voted ;)
 
shankly1985 said:
Nice to see the difference between Async on vs off


Okay, on our first round with the RX 480 and the DOOM Vulkan patch we were informed that SMAA doesn't allow for Async Compute to function, so we set it to the suggested TSSAA, now for the comparison to include Async Compute.
Click to expand...

nice find, I wonder if there is a command toggle for Async so you can proper one to one bench with TSSA , one with with async on and one with it off
 
These Opengl figures on nvidia hardware is impressive, not so good on amd cards, i wonder if nvidia can tap more frames out of opengl or vulcan in the future.
 
Ian Evey said:
These Opengl figures on nvidia hardware is impressive, not so good on amd cards, i wonder if nvidia can tap more frames out of opengl or vulcan in the future.
Click to expand...

After more testing I'm getting overall better performance with Open GL than Vulkan on the 780 - in several scenes its a fair difference as well i.e. 67 v 92 fps :| (no not getting them the wrong way around) while on the 970 there is pretty much no difference between either renderer.

I have some weird performance issues with the game at the best of times though - 1080 runs really well on either card - better than most people report while 1440p takes a massive dive on the 780 no matter low or ultra settings while the 970 runs about what most people report for that card at 1440p.
 
Greebo said:
Goggling it I can only find reference to EA and Dice both signing up to Vulkan????????
Click to expand...

Yeah Frostbite will be around October (as per my original post) assuming no issues, but nothing on road map for Cryengine considering they have not long released Cryengine 5 and have been struggling last few years it may be that it changes with Cryengine 6.
 
Quick and dirty (same settings/res - my CPU is running a little slower than their one) comparing my 780 (out the box boost) to RGT's 480 results heh:

ZqbTXS1.jpg

Not bad for a 3 year old GPU against the 480 in Open GL :D shame about Vulkan but I guess something is wrong rather than just not performing well in Vulkan.
 
Last edited:
Rroff said:
Seems to be the way at the moment - some nVidia cards aren't seeing any difference at all which may indicate something isn't working right.
Click to expand...

Most likely Nvidia gimping practises in effect there worried to release too much performance on there older gens ...so there holding it back tweaking until they can balance the performance across the gens ...

just a thought

tin foil hat removed :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom