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

  • #21
    Originally posted by ShFil View Post
    You make a wrong assumption here. It's not about emulating aka having the exact same behavior like other software, but to match the same specification. So under the hood it can do less and achieve the same results.
    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.

    Comment


    • #22
      Originally posted by tildearrow View Post
      Is it true that DXVK has approached/exceeded native DirectX speeds?
      This is something for you feast the eyes:
      https://www.youtube.com/c/FlightlessMango/videos

      Sometimes you will see something like this happening:


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

      Comment


      • #23
        Originally posted by microcode View Post
        I think Zink can do very well and I'm excited to see the performance loss to trend toward zero, then toward negative infinity. :+ )
        You zink so ?

        Comment


        • #24
          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.)

          Comment


          • #25
            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.

            Comment


            • #26
              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.

              Comment


              • #27
                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

                Comment


                • #28
                  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...

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    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.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      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."

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X