Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vulkan vs. OpenGL Performance For Counter-Strike: Global Offensive

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

  • cankutayeser
    replied
    game started visibly fast with vulkan render but that stil looked pretty experimental to me. input gone crazy and fps is set to natural resolution in fullscreen mode which cant be changed.

    Leave a comment:


  • ficti
    replied
    Valve should really fix game start preventing problems first before doing other changes. It's very nice to see new features coming, but libtcmalloc issue is very old and blocker for all non technical people. And for those who fixes it by themselves there is a potential thrust factor/vac problem.. referring to github issue #2659

    Leave a comment:


  • Nick82285
    replied
    I made an account just to say this. I've been so hyped for this kind of update, I tested in uuleticals FPS Benchmark and went from 179.61 to 190.61 with '-vulkan' on my i7-4770k, gtx 960 build. I had to symbolically link /usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so, and /usr/lib/libtcmalloc_minimal.so.4 to ~/.steam/steam/steamapps/common/Counter-Strike\ Global\ Offensive/bin/linux64 with dev-util/google-perftools-2.9.1-r2 to get everything working. It did stutter for a while, but shaders were probably compiling in the background and that's not an issue anymore.

    Specs:
    i7-4770k
    Gtx960 with Nvidia 495.46
    dwm on gentoo
    5.15.7-xanmod1

    Leave a comment:


  • evil_core
    replied
    @Michael: No benchmarks for any Vega-based (Vega56, Vega64 or Radeon VII) GPU unfortunately...it's a bit disappointing...

    Leave a comment:


  • marlock
    replied
    disclaimer: i'm absolutely not an expert

    linner

    vulkan's existance is a blessing because now that a low-level API exists you CAN tell the GPU the optimal way to handle things if you know what you're doing... and you still CAN use a game engine's higher-level abstraction if you don't need/want to handle things so directly and trust the engine devs to do a good enough job for your use-case (which now they also CAN do better on their side)... win-win-win

    before vulkan devs had to do all sorts of crazy workarouds to tame OpenGL into a better gpu path than it would choose on its own... if you're aiming for optimized code, "let me handle it for you" high-level APIs can make your life a lot harder than "tell me what you want step-by-step" low-level APIs

    Leave a comment:


  • BNieuwenhuizen
    replied
    Originally posted by Michael View Post

    Will double check but I believe so, though would explain the sub-4K results if Vulkan is messing up on resolution, just had figured some other bottleneck being hit there.
    https://github.com/ValveSoftware/csg...ux/issues/2889 seems like the thing I was suspecting.

    Leave a comment:


  • Soul_keeper
    replied
    I just tried to run phoronix-test-suite benchmark pts/csgo
    csgo-pts01.png
    It seems to not work right.

    Leave a comment:


  • RahulSundaram
    replied
    Originally posted by linner View Post
    Developing for Vulkan is like programming in assembly language. I thought we had evolved past that pain a long time ago.
    We didn't. In many cases, assembly language remains the best choice if you want to get the best performance in resource constrained situations. Vulkan is not very dissimilar in approach. It is a low level graphics API.

    Leave a comment:


  • baka0815
    replied
    Originally posted by dlq84 View Post
    micheal also remember to set console max_fps 0. It's 400fps by default. I got 600-800fps on 1440p (de_mirage) on my machine.
    You meant Michael ;-)

    Leave a comment:


  • linner
    replied
    Developing for Vulkan is like programming in assembly language. I thought we had evolved past that pain a long time ago.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X