I thought PhysX was a relatively good idea for it's time. What those few games who implemented it could achieve looked stunning for that period of time. It's also one of the reasons we see a shift in GPUs doing both graphics and additional computation. The problem is trying to gain market share in 2008 with another $100 part that does not have enough market share to merit development support. With a single GPU now doing graphics and computations, as a developer you have that market share question answered. If nVidia didn't make physX proprietary it would be more successful today compared to using something like Havok.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily even tie Physics support to the GPU.
Really, Physics support just moved to a nice software API. A lot of places that gets run on the CPU. Your right, it runs very well on GPUs, and a lot of software APIs take advantage of that when and where they can, but if you don't have it, your not entirely locked out of physics support.
PhysX, Havok, Bullet are all dedicated physics APIs that have become more or less hardware agnostic (yes PhysX can work on non-nVidia systems, just not with GPU acceleration). Several other game engines have since incorporated various levels of physics support.
These days, it's more surprising to see a game that doesn't have some level of Physics software integration, because it's become so game-changing.
Back on topic a bit, the TL;DR should probably be AMD gets a boost going from DX9/10/11 to DX12. nVidia doesn't really change much. This has pretty much been the case since DX12/Mantle/Vulkan benchmarks first started coming out, and shouldn't really surprise anyone.
That doesn't do much to shake up the relative speeds of individual cards though: A RX480 may get a decent speed up under DX12, but that doesn't mean it's going to suddenly (or more importantly, consistently) outperform a 1070. AND -- it certainly doesn't mean that all games will even go to DX12. I would pretty safely guess that most games that are out now, aren't going to go back and patch in DX12 all of a sudden. The market is still very DX9-heavy. Now that may shift over time, as more DX12/Vulkan/whatever titles do come out, but that's a long slow evolution, not an overnight revolution.
And of all those games, the only that has any presence in my mind is ESO. And Total Warhammer, but then again there is "The Sundering" and "Rage of the Dark Gods" for M:TW 2...
Maybe in 5 years or so lol. Until then, I've a buff called "gainward"
All major releases in 2016 had/will have DX12/Vulkan. And funny but Total War Warhammer is getting DX12 patch and it will perform much better. ironic really
ESO is CPU bound game (and it performas badly like any other CPU bound game no matter the GPU) so im not really sure what youre trying to say since it would benefit greatly from DX12/Vulkan (pretty much all MMOs would)
and yeah "wikipedia" is alfa and omega of things right? lol
Vulcan is created by AMD its designed hand in hand with their GPU's, so of course it going to work better with AMD cards.
Microsoft's DX12 is being developed for Microsoft's Xbox as well as for PC's. Xbox uses an AMD GPU so I would imagine that development is taking major consideration for AMD architecture, consideration over Nvidia.
It is no surprise to me that AMD has more benefit in early adoption. I'd expect to see these benefits equalize as time goes by.
But still don't understand why Microsoft hasn't come out and call NVidia liers for not fully supporting DX12. Because in my dictionary if you lack a single feature, you cannot say you are compliant or supports it.
And that is making DX12 look bad.
well technically they do support it... just not very well
If Dx12 actually takes off, then it might end up being important, as it is, MS doesn't support Dx12 to any great degree, its limited to Win10, which the userbase hasn't really improved that much, if you go by the main in use OS by MS, then you end up with Win7, which doesn't support Dx12. Whether Dx12 gives AMD cards better performance over Nvidia cards, is probably going to be irrelevant, if however that performance boost carries over to Vulkan, then that becomes very relevent in ways that Dx12 isnt, because Win7 does support Vulkan. So, forget Dx12, it doesn't matter. But lets see some benchmarks using Vulkan, because i suspect thats going to be the real battlefield in the battle of the GPU's.
But still don't understand why Microsoft hasn't come out and call NVidia liers for not fully supporting DX12. Because in my dictionary if you lack a single feature, you cannot say you are compliant or supports it.
And that is making DX12 look bad.
well technically they do support it... just not very well
If Dx12 actually takes off, then it might end up being important, as it is, MS doesn't support Dx12 to any great degree, its limited to Win10, which the userbase hasn't really improved that much, if you go by the main in use OS by MS, then you end up with Win7, which doesn't support Dx12. Whether Dx12 gives AMD cards better performance over Nvidia cards, is probably going to be irrelevant, if however that performance boost carries over to Vulkan, then that becomes very relevent in ways that Dx12 isnt, because Win7 does support Vulkan. So, forget Dx12, it doesn't matter. But lets see some benchmarks using Vulkan, because i suspect thats going to be the real battlefield in the battle of the GPU's.
For gamers and gaming purposes DX12 has already taken off. And Vulkan always have a chance to end up marginalized like OGL if Khronos allows same things that were allowed with OGL and ends up one big mess. And Vulkan has yet to take off, blockbuster games in 2016 had/will have DX12, Vulkan...well i havent heard of any major games using Vulkan really.
Over 50% of gamers will very soon be on W10 so Dx12 "ready". You keep "forgetting" that little fact. You can also port DX12 games to DX11.
But still don't understand why Microsoft hasn't come out and call NVidia liers for not fully supporting DX12. Because in my dictionary if you lack a single feature, you cannot say you are compliant or supports it.
And that is making DX12 look bad.
well technically they do support it... just not very well
If Dx12 actually takes off, then it might end up being important, as it is, MS doesn't support Dx12 to any great degree, its limited to Win10, which the userbase hasn't really improved that much, if you go by the main in use OS by MS, then you end up with Win7, which doesn't support Dx12. Whether Dx12 gives AMD cards better performance over Nvidia cards, is probably going to be irrelevant, if however that performance boost carries over to Vulkan, then that becomes very relevent in ways that Dx12 isnt, because Win7 does support Vulkan. So, forget Dx12, it doesn't matter. But lets see some benchmarks using Vulkan, because i suspect thats going to be the real battlefield in the battle of the GPU's.
For gamers and gaming purposes DX12 has already taken off. And Vulkan always have a chance to end up marginalized like OGL if Khronos allows same things that were allowed with OGL and ends up one big mess. And Vulkan has yet to take off, blockbuster games in 2016 had/will have DX12, Vulkan...well i havent heard of any major games using Vulkan really.
Over 50% of gamers will very soon be on W10 so Dx12 "ready". You keep "forgetting" that little fact. You can also port DX12 games to DX11.
That really isn't true, gamers at best are playing games that use Dx11, the reality is, that currently Dx11 is the best available, and even then, a great many games are still based on Dx9 with Dx11 support, if your lucky there will be games that also support Dx12, but it will probably be years, if ever, that we see Dx12 based games actually take off, and thats where Vulkan has the clear advantage, and probably why it will also have appeal to developers, because waiting for Win10 to achieve 50% market share, something that is currently 'owned' by Win7 and by default, Dx11, while its not impossible that Win10 might also achieve that kind of a userbase, the thing is, that at the moment, its struggling at barely 15%, and what proportion of those systems are even used for gaming, most of them are probably laptops etc. that are more likely to be running Facebook than an MMO. So, no, its highly unlikely that over 50% of gamers will be using Win10, at least not for several years, if then, and chances are the only way that Dx12 will get the roll out needed to compete with Vulkan, is if Microsoft capitulates on Win7 and Win8 being Dx11 only. I think personally that your forgetting that in order for a game to be created as Dx12 only that it needs to be 'ported' to Dx11 then it would have to have a large enough userbase to warrant it, and hey, guess what, with Vulkan you don't need to port from one to the other, but don't worry, Vulkan also works on Win10.
Well, I wouldn't necessarily even tie Physics support to the GPU.
Really, Physics support just moved to a nice software API. A lot of places that gets run on the CPU. Your right, it runs very well on GPUs, and a lot of software APIs take advantage of that when and where they can, but if you don't have it, your not entirely locked out of physics support.
PhysX, Havok, Bullet are all dedicated physics APIs that have become more or less hardware agnostic (yes PhysX can work on non-nVidia systems, just not with GPU acceleration). Several other game engines have since incorporated various levels of physics support.
These days, it's more surprising to see a game that doesn't have some level of Physics software integration, because it's become so game-changing.
Back on topic a bit, the TL;DR should probably be AMD gets a boost going from DX9/10/11 to DX12. nVidia doesn't really change much. This has pretty much been the case since DX12/Mantle/Vulkan benchmarks first started coming out, and shouldn't really surprise anyone.
That doesn't do much to shake up the relative speeds of individual cards though: A RX480 may get a decent speed up under DX12, but that doesn't mean it's going to suddenly (or more importantly, consistently) outperform a 1070. AND -- it certainly doesn't mean that all games will even go to DX12. I would pretty safely guess that most games that are out now, aren't going to go back and patch in DX12 all of a sudden. The market is still very DX9-heavy. Now that may shift over time, as more DX12/Vulkan/whatever titles do come out, but that's a long slow evolution, not an overnight revolution.
These days, if you want to do physics on the GPU, you just do it in the graphics API and don't need to use some other API. DirectX 11, OpenGL 4.3, and Vulkan all support compute shaders.
But still don't understand why Microsoft hasn't come out and call NVidia liers for not fully supporting DX12. Because in my dictionary if you lack a single feature, you cannot say you are compliant or supports it.
And that is making DX12 look bad.
well technically they do support it... just not very well
If Dx12 actually takes off, then it might end up being important, as it is, MS doesn't support Dx12 to any great degree, its limited to Win10, which the userbase hasn't really improved that much, if you go by the main in use OS by MS, then you end up with Win7, which doesn't support Dx12. Whether Dx12 gives AMD cards better performance over Nvidia cards, is probably going to be irrelevant, if however that performance boost carries over to Vulkan, then that becomes very relevent in ways that Dx12 isnt, because Win7 does support Vulkan. So, forget Dx12, it doesn't matter. But lets see some benchmarks using Vulkan, because i suspect thats going to be the real battlefield in the battle of the GPU's.
For gamers and gaming purposes DX12 has already taken off. And Vulkan always have a chance to end up marginalized like OGL if Khronos allows same things that were allowed with OGL and ends up one big mess. And Vulkan has yet to take off, blockbuster games in 2016 had/will have DX12, Vulkan...well i havent heard of any major games using Vulkan really.
Over 50% of gamers will very soon be on W10 so Dx12 "ready". You keep "forgetting" that little fact. You can also port DX12 games to DX11.
That really isn't true, gamers at best are playing games that use Dx11, the reality is, that currently Dx11 is the best available, and even then, a great many games are still based on Dx9 with Dx11 support, if your lucky there will be games that also support Dx12, but it will probably be years, if ever, that we see Dx12 based games actually take off, and thats where Vulkan has the clear advantage, and probably why it will also have appeal to developers, because waiting for Win10 to achieve 50% market share, something that is currently 'owned' by Win7 and by default, Dx11, while its not impossible that Win10 might also achieve that kind of a userbase, the thing is, that at the moment, its struggling at barely 15%, and what proportion of those systems are even used for gaming, most of them are probably laptops etc. that are more likely to be running Facebook than an MMO. So, no, its highly unlikely that over 50% of gamers will be using Win10, at least not for several years, if then, and chances are the only way that Dx12 will get the roll out needed to compete with Vulkan, is if Microsoft capitulates on Win7 and Win8 being Dx11 only. I think personally that your forgetting that in order for a game to be created as Dx12 only that it needs to be 'ported' to Dx11 then it would have to have a large enough userbase to warrant it, and hey, guess what, with Vulkan you don't need to port from one to the other, but don't worry, Vulkan also works on Win10.
If I buy a new video card today, I want it to work well with the games I decide to play next year and the year after. I don't want to have to buy a new card next year for a new game because it doesn't play nicely with the card I buy today.
Do you think that adoption of DirectX 12 and/or Vulkan will go up or down as time passes? DirectX 8 used to be the state of the art, but it's been a while since new games used it.
All major releases in 2016 had/will have DX12/Vulkan. And funny but Total War Warhammer is getting DX12 patch and it will perform much better. ironic really
Overwatch?
Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak?
XCOM 2?
I'd say it's more like 50% of major releases don't support either DX12 or Vulkan.
GOWU GOW4 AotS Forza Forza Horizon Quantum Break ROTR Hitman TW: Warhammer Doom Deus Ex BF1 Civilization 6 Recore Halo Watch Dogs 2 Squad
just form the top of my head.
And not supporting DX 12:
Battleborn Bombshell Gigantic Outlast 2 Tom Clancy's The Division Far Cry Primal Homefront the Revolution Dark Souls 3 Overwatch Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak XCOM 2
and so on...
There are plenty of games coming out with DX12 support, but just as many games coming out without DX12 support. Would you please stop your bullshit about all major game releases having either DX12 or Vulkan support when maybe about half of them actually have.
Quizzical said: Well then, why does AMD get big gains and Nvidia doesn't? Did AMD just screw up their DX11 drivers to cause a lot more overhead than Nvidia?
Battleborn Bombshell Gigantic Outlast 2 Tom Clancy's The Division Far Cry Primal Homefront the Revolution Dark Souls 3 Overwatch Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak XCOM 2
and so on...
There are plenty of games coming out with DX12 support, but just as many games coming out without DX12 support. Would you please stop your bullshit about all major game releases having either DX12 or Vulkan support when maybe about half of them actually have.
It is not bs, the question isn't DX12 or Vulkan but DX12 or DX11.
GOWU GOW4 AotS Forza Forza Horizon Quantum Break ROTR Hitman TW: Warhammer Doom Deus Ex BF1 Civilization 6 Recore Halo Watch Dogs 2 Squad
just form the top of my head.
And not supporting DX 12:
Battleborn Bombshell Gigantic Outlast 2 Tom Clancy's The Division Far Cry Primal Homefront the Revolution Dark Souls 3 Overwatch Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak XCOM 2
and so on...
There are plenty of games coming out with DX12 support, but just as many games coming out without DX12 support. Would you please stop your bullshit about all major game releases having either DX12 or Vulkan support when maybe about half of them actually have.
I said major releases not every indie game rofl. The only major release/blockbuster on your list is Overwatch, XCom 2 (although great game) which was supposed to be "PC exclusive" sold so well that its being ported on consoles and could quite easily get DX12 treatment on PC (plenty of complaints that it runs very badly, which i can confirm first hand)
And im not aware of situation where youre locked out of DX11 if you use W10/DX12.....AND to top it all off DX12/Vulkan have better performance than DX11/OGL (except on few games on NVidia)
Not to mention that all popular releases from MS/XBox are/will be DX12 exclusives.
Comments
Really, Physics support just moved to a nice software API. A lot of places that gets run on the CPU. Your right, it runs very well on GPUs, and a lot of software APIs take advantage of that when and where they can, but if you don't have it, your not entirely locked out of physics support.
PhysX, Havok, Bullet are all dedicated physics APIs that have become more or less hardware agnostic (yes PhysX can work on non-nVidia systems, just not with GPU acceleration). Several other game engines have since incorporated various levels of physics support.
These days, it's more surprising to see a game that doesn't have some level of Physics software integration, because it's become so game-changing.
Back on topic a bit, the TL;DR should probably be
AMD gets a boost going from DX9/10/11 to DX12.
nVidia doesn't really change much.
This has pretty much been the case since DX12/Mantle/Vulkan benchmarks first started coming out, and shouldn't really surprise anyone.
That doesn't do much to shake up the relative speeds of individual cards though: A RX480 may get a decent speed up under DX12, but that doesn't mean it's going to suddenly (or more importantly, consistently) outperform a 1070. AND -- it certainly doesn't mean that all games will even go to DX12. I would pretty safely guess that most games that are out now, aren't going to go back and patch in DX12 all of a sudden. The market is still very DX9-heavy. Now that may shift over time, as more DX12/Vulkan/whatever titles do come out, but that's a long slow evolution, not an overnight revolution.
ESO is CPU bound game (and it performas badly like any other CPU bound game no matter the GPU) so im not really sure what youre trying to say since it would benefit greatly from DX12/Vulkan (pretty much all MMOs would)
and yeah "wikipedia" is alfa and omega of things right? lol
Vulcan is created by AMD its designed hand in hand with their GPU's, so of course it going to work better with AMD cards.
Microsoft's DX12 is being developed for Microsoft's Xbox as well as for PC's. Xbox uses an AMD GPU so I would imagine that development is taking major consideration for AMD architecture, consideration over Nvidia.
It is no surprise to me that AMD has more benefit in early adoption. I'd expect to see these benefits equalize as time goes by.
"Be water my friend" - Bruce Lee
Whether Dx12 gives AMD cards better performance over Nvidia cards, is probably going to be irrelevant, if however that performance boost carries over to Vulkan, then that becomes very relevent in ways that Dx12 isnt, because Win7 does support Vulkan.
So, forget Dx12, it doesn't matter. But lets see some benchmarks using Vulkan, because i suspect thats going to be the real battlefield in the battle of the GPU's.
Over 50% of gamers will very soon be on W10 so Dx12 "ready". You keep "forgetting" that little fact. You can also port DX12 games to DX11.
So, no, its highly unlikely that over 50% of gamers will be using Win10, at least not for several years, if then, and chances are the only way that Dx12 will get the roll out needed to compete with Vulkan, is if Microsoft capitulates on Win7 and Win8 being Dx11 only.
I think personally that your forgetting that in order for a game to be created as Dx12 only that it needs to be 'ported' to Dx11 then it would have to have a large enough userbase to warrant it, and hey, guess what, with Vulkan you don't need to port from one to the other, but don't worry, Vulkan also works on Win10.
45% of gamers are already on Win10 which means they can use DX12 and growing each month.
"15% of all computers in the world" is irrelevant piece of information since very nice chunk of "all PCs in the world" are not home PCs for gaming.
And you can port DX12 game to DX11.
And no you dont need "exclusive DX12" game to have many of benefits of DX12 (same for OGL/Vulkan)
Do you think that adoption of DirectX 12 and/or Vulkan will go up or down as time passes? DirectX 8 used to be the state of the art, but it's been a while since new games used it.
Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak?
XCOM 2?
I'd say it's more like 50% of major releases don't support either DX12 or Vulkan.
GOW4
AotS
Forza
Forza Horizon
Quantum Break
ROTR
Hitman
TW: Warhammer
Doom
Deus Ex
BF1
Civilization 6
Recore
Halo
Watch Dogs 2
Squad
just form the top of my head.
Battleborn
Bombshell
Gigantic
Outlast 2
Tom Clancy's The Division
Far Cry Primal
Homefront the Revolution
Dark Souls 3
Overwatch
Homeworld: Deserts of Kharak
XCOM 2
and so on...
There are plenty of games coming out with DX12 support, but just as many games coming out without DX12 support. Would you please stop your bullshit about all major game releases having either DX12 or Vulkan support when maybe about half of them actually have.
http://steamspy.com/search.php?s=bombshell
And im not aware of situation where youre locked out of DX11 if you use W10/DX12.....AND to top it all off DX12/Vulkan have better performance than DX11/OGL (except on few games on NVidia)
Not to mention that all popular releases from MS/XBox are/will be DX12 exclusives.