Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

After ~70% FPS Boost For Zink, The OpenGL-on-Vulkan Code Is ~50% The GL Native Speed

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

  • curfew
    replied
    Originally posted by ShFil View Post
    (For example drivers of vk/dx12/mantle allow to use opportunity of having more than one core to achieve more draw calls.)
    OpenGL does not allow for that because it is impossible to be both multithreaded and in compliance with OpenGL. Therefore Vulkan's multithreading is out of reach when emulating OpenGL.

    Leave a comment:


  • curfew
    replied
    Originally posted by EmbraceUnity View Post
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main benefit of Zink is that if successful it would allow all driver and hardware development to eventually forget about complex OpenGL conformance, and just focus on simple Vulkan primitives. All standards like OpenGL become hardware-agnostic software issues.
    ...in the hypothetical universe where any technical curiosity restricted to Linux would affect what the mainstream market will do. But this is probably what will eventually happen once the performance hit (or OpenGL itself) becomes irrelevant. It is comparable to how Intel is already emulating some ancient x86 instructions in their processors in exchange for simplifying / optimizing the hardware architecture.
    Last edited by curfew; 27 September 2020, 11:13 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • curfew
    replied
    Originally posted by ShFil View Post
    It can be, let's assume there's vulkan driver and corresponding part of opengl driver (doing the same), so If vulkan's driver is better quality then it's possible to achieve better results.
    This is not magic and in no way thanks to the Vulkan emulation layer. I presume the most likely benefit is working around shitty OpenGL drivers that are too buggy, not that they would be too slow, though. And I do not know which particular hardware is in this state, as Vulkan support is very new and not available on those older graphics cards that right now are known to be shitty.

    Leave a comment:


  • ssokolow
    replied
    Originally posted by DebianLinuxero View Post
    I remember the 3dfx days, when voodoo hardware hasn't a native OpenGL implementation, but an OpenGL to Glide wrapper.

    Something like this Zink.

    That wrapper costed performance to the voodoos.

    I remember a press note of one 3dfx manager saying that the next drivers they'll do will be native OpenGL because of this.
    Wasn't Glide a cut-down version of OpenGL? Of course it will cost performance if you have to emulate whatever Glide omitted.

    Their press note was more "OK, you forced our hand. If you're going to use OpenGL either way, we can't allow our numbers to suffer compared to drivers which implement it natively."

    Leave a comment:


  • aufkrawall
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
    The AMD DirectX drivers are actually much better than the OpenGL ones...
    The AMD Windows D3D11 driver doesn't deserve all that bashing it regularly receives. There are a few exceptions, but in a vast number of titles CPU bound performance is just a few percent behind Nvidia nowadays.

    Leave a comment:


  • tildearrow
    replied
    Originally posted by eydee View Post

    Mostly in select few games, when running under Windows, on AMD cards, due to bad Directx drivers.
    Are you sure?



    The AMD DirectX drivers are actually much better than the OpenGL ones...

    Leave a comment:


  • artivision
    replied
    Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
    Is it true that DXVK has approached/exceeded native DirectX speeds?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lNNX_mBSWb8
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFYChkg-pFk
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RfJoH1N6IQ
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TijlTJC7KYc
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1D82_XEwvpA

    Leave a comment:


  • EmbraceUnity
    replied
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the main benefit of Zink is that if successful it would allow all driver and hardware development to eventually forget about complex OpenGL conformance, and just focus on simple Vulkan primitives. All standards like OpenGL become hardware-agnostic software issues.

    Leave a comment:


  • Etherman
    replied
    Doom doesn't touch dxvk, it uses vulkan API directly.
    But it shows the general wine/proton gaming performance and video driver performance.

    Originally posted by brenohrocha View Post

    personally I'm playing Witcher 3 perfectly (probably ~60fps) with everything maxed out and not a single frame hiccup yet.
    True.

    Leave a comment:


  • ShFil
    replied
    Originally posted by curfew View Post
    Any native implementation can have exactly the same optimizations and then some more. Obviously. Whatever is not in the specification can be optimized by any implementation. And any behavior mandated by the spec must be built into every implementation. There is no way for a Vulkan-based implementation to magically be faster than the native platform that Vulkan, too, is built on top of.
    It can be, let's assume there's vulkan driver and corresponding part of opengl driver (doing the same), so If vulkan's driver is better quality then it's possible to achieve better results.

    (For example drivers of vk/dx12/mantle allow to use opportunity of having more than one core to achieve more draw calls.)

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X