Does the opposite in bf1, or at least did at launch and for many months after.
-
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.
Poll: ** The AMD VEGA Thread **
- Thread starter TNA
- Start date
- Status
Does the opposite in bf1, or at least did at launch and for many months after.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
DirectX 12 ran excellent for me in bf1 much like what nexus saying. With DX12 ultra settings at 1440p I would remain about 60fps all the time with dx11 drops into the 40s was the norm
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
I got a boost from the off with Dx12 but some patches made it stutter so had to revert to dx11. I have not played for a long time now so can't say how it is now.
It's not a get out at all. Have you tried switching your dx11 game to the at some point patched in and poorly implemented dx12 option? It rarely offers any improvement and it's seriously not worth the bother. Come back when DX12 is a serious option.
So many BF1 players have had issues with DX12 but DX11 ran so well there was simply no need to even try it.
And? They still offer massive performance boost over dx 11, well for AMD anyway....
How many dx 10 games had dx 11 patched in and so on? Also, the update for dx 12 has been far quicker than previous dx versions....
You do realize mantle evolved into vulkan....
FPS were much higher for me in dx 12 in the beta but there was a stutter compared to dx 11, however, the final game ran great with dx 12 when I last tried it a few months ago (I only played the free trial on SP though)
Come back when you get an AMD card and you will be praising dx 12
It reminds me when mantle was about and AMD owners were saying about how smoother mantle was, nvidia fans weren't having any of it, then a few non-bias owners got AMD cards to try it out and started to also praise it for the smoothness over dx 11
Man this forum, and people calls themselves computer/PC gaming enthusiasts?!
I really can't wait till volta or whatever gets dx 12 working better than AMD as guaranteed, the nvidia league will be shouting about it from the roof tops
Been building the bookmarks up for a long time now 
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
Yes I have tested my rig with DX12 and all games have shown a gain in frame rates, better frames times and higher mins fps. Read above
May I ask what system you been testing these games on?
Because they is plenty of youtube footage out there to back me up.
And? They still offer massive performance boost over dx 11, well for AMD anyway....
How many dx 10 games had dx 11 patched in and so on? Also, the update for dx 12 has been far quicker than previous dx versions....
You do realize mantle evolved into vulkan....
FPS were much higher for me in dx 12 in the beta but there was a stutter compared to dx 11, however, the final game ran great with dx 12 when I last tried it a few months ago (I only played the free trial on SP though)
Come back when you get an AMD card and you will be praising dx 12
It reminds me when mantle was about and AMD owners were saying about how smoother mantle was, nvidia fans weren't having any of it, then a few non-bias owners got AMD cards to try it out and started to also praise it for the smoothness over dx 11
Man this forum, and people calls themselves computer/PC gaming enthusiasts?!
I really can't wait till volta or whatever gets dx 12 working better than AMD as guaranteed, the nvidia league will be shouting about it from the roof tops
Lol
3 games doesn't make it right. A handful of other games with patched in support doesn' make dx12 the future. Dx12 doesn't even make up 0.1% so let's not pretend it's the second coming!
Yes it may have made up for AMD's crappy CPU's but fortunately I won't suffer from that!
All games or just the tiny handful quoted above?
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
Every single dx12 title I have played/owned even tomb raider when it got its first dx12 patch I noticed batter min frame rates in the forest part and also the game just felt so much better because of the reduced frame latency that low APIs bring.
You can read back all my impressions from mantle and onwards it carries over into direct 12 and Vulkan
These low APIs are not just about X avg vs X avg they is so much more to it than that.
Am sure you have Doom, even with your nvidia title lock the game to 60fps play using OpenGL and then switch to Vulkan tell me you don't notice a difference in frame latency.
Try with any DX12 title.
Listen I not alone here they is plenty of footage, threads over the Internet from people saying the same thing.
If you don't notice a difference then that is your own system configuration and maybe just don't notice frame latency like other do. That doesn't mean direct 12 is rubbish.
Associate
- Joined
- 15 Feb 2014
- Posts
- 808
- Location
- Peterboghorror
What is the motivation for coming on to a thread for a piece of hardware you are never going to buy and relentlessly ****posting?
Generally just the way these threads go, similar situation on most tech sites with the flag wavers on both sides. =/
DX12 is a disaster really - one of the biggest draws (lol) for an API like that is lifting of drawcall limits but it makes you do as much arse over backwards work, in an API that introduces new concepts and paradigms that no one asked for, to unlock that potential as the methods for just working around those bottlenecks while using an API you are already familiar with.
Are you sure it's 'flags' they are waving?
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,522
Sounds like placebo effect. Your claiming better latency but the frame rates don't reflect that. If you are claiming no improvement in frame rate can result in a perceived difference in frame latency then you clearly dont understand the relationship between the two.
if you have a frame latency line that's spiking up and down but averages out to 16,6ms vs a nicely tight line with only minor deviation that also averages 16,6ms then you are going to feel the difference.
fps != frame latency, fps is an average, you can get it in multiple ways using different sets of frame latencies.
- Status