I guess he meant CPU overhead, so CPU utilisation graph alone, not fps graph or averaging. Which shows something interesting indeed. Vulkan is slightly slower than OpenGL on AMD in certain titles, yet consuming less CPU cycles. As if there were less gfx API calls (with use of Vulkan), but they were less optimised than more high level OpenGL counterparts. Clearly AMD Vulkan driver needs work.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Vulkan vs. OpenGL Performance For Linux Games
Collapse
X
-
Yep It's well established that Vulkan has less CPU overhead than openGL. Agree on that point.
His claim was that Nvidia's driver had more overhead than RadV, which seems to be untrue.
On Linux Nvidia has the best Vulkan driver. Performs better than the AMD community driver RadV.
The proprietary Radeon Software 18.20 does perform faster than RadV but according to Michael it doesn't work for half the games.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by xxmitsu View Post
Curious how times have changed.. it seems like nowdays ~40FPS is not considered a playable experience anymore.. I remember the times when I was more than happy with my 25FPS gaming experience
- Likes 3
Comment
-
Originally posted by humbug View PostOn Linux Nvidia has the best Vulkan driver. Performs better than the AMD community driver RadV.
What makes RadV remarkable is the open implementation that matches and sometimes surpass Nvidia proprietary driver on some games or productive software not to mention the better interaction with AMD team in addition of Valve and in some extent Intel. RadV is quite functional and just needs refinements notably handling all GCN cards possible.
- Likes 2
Comment
-
Originally posted by finalzone View PostThe performance from Vulkan driver for Nvidia is hardly surprising considering the black box approach from the company.
Originally posted by finalzone View PostHowever, that does not mean it is a better method. Too much quirks to resolve especially tainted kernel.Last edited by humbug; 16 July 2018, 06:08 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by humbug View PostI don't think there is anything inherently slower about open source software. So I do not think we should have different performance standards...
Comment
-
Originally posted by Brisse View Post
It's possible that some performance optimizations are encumbered by patents though, right? Like the S3TC patent which recently expired which meant the tech could be enabled by default in the FOSS driver stack.
I suspect the same will be true for Vulkan as well. Whoever has more talent contributing more effort will be faster, regardless of FOSS or blob.
Comment
-
Originally posted by humbug View PostYep It's well established that Vulkan has less CPU overhead than openGL. Agree on that point.
His claim was that Nvidia's driver had more overhead than RadV, which seems to be untrue.
On Linux Nvidia has the best Vulkan driver. Performs better than the AMD community driver RadV.
The proprietary Radeon Software 18.20 does perform faster than RadV but according to Michael it doesn't work for half the games.
Mad_Max_default = less overhead per frame on OGL
Dawn_of_war_iii = less overhead per frame on both apis
Total_war_saga = complete parity
Dota_2 = parity per frame
Comment
Comment