Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Zink OpenGL-On-Vulkan Seeing Some 50~100% FPS Gains

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • artivision
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

    There are absolutely reasons to believe that. Check out this very blog post from the article for an example, where he talks about less than ideal handling of samplers due to the mismatch between the vulkan and GL rules.

    Buzzwords are nice, but just putting "vulkan" in the title of something doesn't magically make it fast.
    Come on man, you know well that Shader Model 3 graphics become very fast if hacked with Asynchronous Presentation.

    Leave a comment:


  • Pentarctagon
    replied
    What we really need is vulkan implemented in vulkan.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by zxy_thf View Post
    Consider DirectX-over-Vulkan cab be faster than the native implementation sometimes, there is no reason why OpenGL-over-Vulcan can't have comparable performance.
    The only questions are, what we can have right now, and how far we are from the goal.
    There are absolutely reasons to believe that. Check out this very blog post from the article for an example, where he talks about less than ideal handling of samplers due to the mismatch between the vulkan and GL rules.

    Buzzwords are nice, but just putting "vulkan" in the title of something doesn't magically make it fast.

    Leave a comment:


  • zxy_thf
    replied
    Originally posted by smitty3268 View Post

    The previous post was not actual performance, so this is not in comparison to that. That was mostly concerned with shader compile speed, not runtime.

    I do think it would be interesting to get some actual benchmark numbers from Michael. A bunch of people seem to believe Zink is fast for some reason, so it'd be good to get actual confirmation on that - or that, as expected, it's still really slow.
    Consider DirectX-over-Vulkan cab be faster than the native implementation sometimes, there is no reason why OpenGL-over-Vulcan can't have comparable performance.
    The only questions are, what we can have right now, and how far we are from the goal.

    Leave a comment:


  • onlyLinuxLuvUBack
    replied
    Does anybody know what version of vulkan is minimum for this zink to work ?

    Leave a comment:


  • lyamc
    replied
    Originally posted by EmbraceUnity View Post
    What were the previous benchmarks? If Zink used to be three times slower, then now it is only 50% slower. If it used to be 50% slower, now it is up to 25% faster.
    That's not how percentages work.

    If it was 50% slower before, then "50%-100% faster" means 75% to 100% the speed of OpenGL

    0.5 x 1.5 = 0.75

    0.5 x 2.0 = 1.0

    Leave a comment:


  • Prescience500
    replied
    Originally posted by Remdul View Post
    Not every OpenGL application would necessarily benefit from Zink, if they have certain pipeline stalls (e.g. GL software running on Wine that also do GDI overlays, frame buffer readback, CPU heavy immediate mode shennanigans, as Autodesk products do).
    But most games would probably benefit because they typically have their own decoupled render loop, which if bottlenecked only by GPU throughput, Vulkan-style driver-side parallelism & reduced API overhead could potentially produce some significant performance gains.
    I think most of the benefit is on new driver bring-up such as on mobile devices or even some IoT devices. Desktops already have working OpenGL.

    Leave a comment:


  • Remdul
    replied
    Not every OpenGL application would necessarily benefit from Zink, if they have certain pipeline stalls (e.g. GL software running on Wine that also do GDI overlays, frame buffer readback, CPU heavy immediate mode shennanigans, as Autodesk products do).
    But most games would probably benefit because they typically have their own decoupled render loop, which if bottlenecked only by GPU throughput, Vulkan-style driver-side parallelism & reduced API overhead could potentially produce some significant performance gains.

    Leave a comment:


  • indepe
    replied
    As far as I understood in the blog, he isn't really working on performance yet, and the mentioned gains are the by-product of a long debugging session.

    Leave a comment:


  • smitty3268
    replied
    Originally posted by GreenByte View Post
    fiy on the previous Zink post it (perf) was roughly the same as native opengl driver (idk was it intel or radeon), sometimes faster, so if it's compared to that, then these news are insane.
    The previous post was not actual performance, so this is not in comparison to that. That was mostly concerned with shader compile speed, not runtime.

    I do think it would be interesting to get some actual benchmark numbers from Michael. A bunch of people seem to believe Zink is fast for some reason, so it'd be good to get actual confirmation on that - or that, as expected, it's still really slow.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X