Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Early OpenGL vs. Vulkan Linux Benchmarks With Talos Principle

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

  • artivision
    replied
    Originally posted by gamerk2 View Post
    This performance doesn't shock me at all.

    Remember, when using anything much above a core i5 CPU, games are GPU bottlenecked. The primary advantage of Vulkan/DX12 is to theoretically improve CPU performance. Run the same tests with a Core i3/FX-4xxx series CPU, and you'll see performance improvements. But for every non-CPU bottlenecked CPU, I wouldn't expect any real performance advantage.

    Secondly, people seem to be forgetting why APIs were developed that abstracted out memory management: Because Compilers are better at it then developers are. Willing to be a lot of performance loss is due to sub-optimal programming.
    Compilers are better than developer to everything, not only memory management. But what if developers want to bypass the compiler and co-use Texture_Mappers (for example) for their Ray_Casting technique, instead only Shader_Cores and specific instructions?

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post
    That said, this is probably the most broadly supported launch for an open graphics standard in history, isn't it ?
    sure, i didn't mean to show negative attitude, i merely pointed our current location on the map

    Leave a comment:


  • gamerk2
    replied
    This performance doesn't shock me at all.

    Remember, when using anything much above a core i5 CPU, games are GPU bottlenecked. The primary advantage of Vulkan/DX12 is to theoretically improve CPU performance. Run the same tests with a Core i3/FX-4xxx series CPU, and you'll see performance improvements. But for every non-CPU bottlenecked CPU, I wouldn't expect any real performance advantage.

    Secondly, people seem to be forgetting why APIs were developed that abstracted out memory management: Because Compilers are better at it then developers are. Willing to be a lot of performance loss is due to sub-optimal programming.

    Leave a comment:


  • haagch
    replied
    Originally posted by computerquip View Post
    What remains to be done? 1 – Waiting on better drivers, obviously. There is only so much stuff that can currently be worked around with the Ivy Bridge/Haswell drivers.

    Well, that was not what we were hoping for.
    Why even waste time on support for broken drivers? Just make it work on conformant drivers and complain to intel to fix their drivers.

    Do we have any ETA for intel drivers? Hours? Days? Weeks?

    Leave a comment:


  • haagch
    replied
    Originally posted by V10lator View Post
    So how can that be?
    Aand shortly after, I see this thread:
    https://www.reddit.com/r/vulkan/comm...l_finegrained/

    Leave a comment:


  • computerquip
    replied
    Originally posted by V10lator View Post
    ^ This. According to users the Intel driver is completely broken so I wonder how it could pass the test. Did any owner of a Intel GPU test what happens if you try to validate manually ( https://github.com/KhronosGroup/Vulk...rnal/vulkancts ) ?

    //EDIT: Just looked at your link:
    So how can that be?

    Depending on what it's doing (as I don't have an Intel GPU to test with), it might be the version mismatch. If an application requests 1.0.3 and the implementation only provides 1.0.2, the Vulkan ICD will say the implementation is unavailable. The driver probably works fine in the right environment.

    EDIT: For what it's worth, the application can check for version by asking for version 1.0.0, querying the physical device for version supported, then recreating the instance with the version supported. Kind of a pain but it's reasonable.

    I take that back: http://www.libretro.com/index.php/vu...l-impressions/
    Last edited by computerquip; 21 February 2016, 11:36 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • V10lator
    replied
    Originally posted by haagch View Post
    So when the readme https://cgit.freedesktop.org/mesa/me...n.txt?h=vulkan says

    Unsupported Features: - Tesselation shaders - Push constants in GS and VS on HSW and prior - Sparse resources - Input attachments
    Is Vulkan still feature complete in the driver?
    ^ This. According to users the Intel driver is completely broken so I wonder how it could pass the test. Did any owner of a Intel GPU test what happens if you try to validate manually ( https://github.com/KhronosGroup/Vulk...rnal/vulkancts ) ?

    //EDIT: Just looked at your link:
    First-wave conformance has been submitted for Broadwell, Sky Lake, and
    Cherryview. They all pass 100% of the mustpass tests as of January 30, 2016.
    So how can that be?

    Leave a comment:


  • eydee
    replied
    Anyone played through the whole game using the vulkan renderer? I'd expect croteam to put the promo vulcan guy somewhere as an easter egg...

    Leave a comment:


  • philips
    replied
    Vulkan; SteamOS vs Windows

    Leave a comment:


  • johnc
    replied
    It's too bad nvidia decided to kill Vulkan on Fermi cards.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X