Worry of Directx12 performance from Nividia cards in the near future.

[deaddudaman31122]

Disclaimer: I am not a professional, just a weary customer so go easy on me boys and girls. However if you are informed please give me the details as to whether or not I should be worried.

I worry that Nivida cards will not support DirectX12  as well as AMD cards do. I personally prefer the software suit provided by Nividia cards, but I worry that buying a card with a useful software suit would leave me at a performance disadvantage. The next time I upgrade my RIG, will be for a single card 4k solid 60fps producer(on most titles), and I would like that to be with Nividia. Am I saying that Nividia will never be able to produce a card like that? No, I know they will be eventually, but with more games using low level API's like DirectX12 and Vulcan I do not know how Nividia is going to be able to keep up without a-sync hardware in their cards. There have already been titles that have shown that Nivida cards have issue staying on par with AMD cards in DirectX12. Some games like 2015's "Rise of the Tomb Raider" run better on DirectX12 than AMD, but now that Crystal Dynamics just released a-sync support for the title I would not be surprised if AMD cards run on par with Nivida cards in Rise of the Tomb Raider. Nividia says their going to fix this with software, but I feel as though software only goes so far. I love being able to record my games using shadow play, and I know their are similar AMD features, but shadow-play is the most simple way to do it for me. However, I will not sacrifice performance over software in this case. Maybe it will all balance out in the end, but I have a bad feeling it is not going to happen anytime soon. I guess it comes down to really one question; Is it possible for Nivida to make hardware changes on their next graphics cards to include built in a-sync and better performance in DirectX12 overall? For now I am waiting and holding out hope for the GTX 1080 Ti.

[App4that]

Don't worry. The performance of Nvidia in DX12 titles and any concern is pure AMD marketing and fan rhetoric. The goal of owning a graphics card is that it fills your needs, not beats the competitors card in one measurement of performance in a game you might not even play. DX12 is still new, I have a 980ti and have yet to run into a problem. The only game that is a problem is Quantum Break, and that has nothing to do with the API being used, it's just a really bad port.

 

Stop letting propaganda get to you. Nether AMD nor Nvidia will have any issues making their customers happy.

[Humbug]

Nvidia is not going to be able to match an equivalently priced AMD graphics card in Vulkan or DX12 performance for this generation (Pascal).

However they will still provide playable frame-rates and smooth gaming.

 

It's not healthy to decide far in advance that your next card has to be from one particular IHV. You need to research the competitive situation at the time of purchasing. But when you do buy if you do have an objectively good reason to buy Nvidia then you should do so and have fun. e.g. if you do buy a 1080ti in 2017 then you should just enjoy it, there is no point worrying that AMD Vega users are getting better performance in Vulkan/DX12 (it doesn't affect you).

[Notional]

DX12 and Vulkan games will work perfectly fine on any modern NVidia card, so no worries there. However, the issue is price to performance, as cheaper AMD cards will perform similarly at a lower price bracket. That accompanied with vendor lock in in proprietary techs like Gsync, means that you will end up with a much more expensive setup, that won't perform as well as you would expect. You simply get less than you pay for.

 

NVidia is doing this to secure income as markets are being eaten away from them by Intel and AMD integrated GPU's, and other tech. Essentially they get to do it because consumers let them.

 

This is also why it's important for AMD to do well so we can get proper competition. This will not happen if people just want NVidia to be cheaper. It won't. Not unless you vote with your wallet and buy AMD. I'm not saying anyone should throw their money away on bad products, but rather steer away from buying NVidia just because of the brand.

 

At the end of the day Nvidia dropped the ball, tripped and landed on their face when it comes to DX12 and Vulkan. Kepler and Maxwell are screwed and we will (again) see the older AMD models completely destroy their NVidia counter parts (check the 290 series compared to the 780 series today. It's brutal. The 290 equals or beats the 780ti https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/EVGA/GTX_1070_SC/24.html). With Pascal the vram is finally bumped up and async compute and similar DX12/Vulkan tech will no longer outright sabotage performance (at least not that much), but it won't benefit from it either. So again we will see the AMD counter part being either better performing and/or cheaper. 

 

However at the end of the day, NVidia design their cards to be the best here and now, and they usually are. However they go obsolete in just a couple of years. Usually due to skimping on the VRAM, not making it future proof with API, hammering old architectures with GameWorks, or just outright ignoring driver optimizations. The state of Kepler based cards are truly sad. Maxwell will suffer just as much in the next years as DX12/Vulkan titles will improve in numbers.

[LeapFrogMasterRace]

The reason why AMD shows higher performance gains is because their cards aren't made well (come at me bros) they throw these inefficient cores that often don't get used or don't for now at least. AMD has had ACE (asynchronous compute units) built into the cards architecture

and we believe Nvidia Pascal only has it software side which is not as good. However the main reason why AMD gpus show so much gain is because Async is making use of those unused cores that I called inefficient above. In the end a Fury X will never beat a  GTX 1080 even at full optimization it just isn't fast enough so I wouldn't worry about that happening.

 

regarding this " Is it possible for Nivida to make hardware changes on their next graphics cards to include built in a-sync and better performance in DirectX12 overall?"

I really doubt any such thing would be in the 1080ti it would have to be a new architecture or they would get major back lash from 1060/70/80 owners and it just doesn't make sense. However Nvidia could certainly come up with a solution for their Volta series but that is late 2017 to early 2018 until then they have plenty of time to come up with a better software emulation of ACE. Keep in mind AMD has their own solution to Shadow Play which actually isn't that bad.

[App4that]

9 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Nvidia is not going to be able to match an equivalently priced AMD graphics card in Vulkan or DX12 performance for this generation (Pascal).

However they will still provide playable frame-rates and smooth gaming.

 

It's not healthy to decide in advance that your next card has to be Nvidia. You need to research the competitive situation at the time of purchasing. But if you do have a objectively good reason to buy Nvidia then you should do so and enjoy the games. e.g. if you do buy a 1080ti in 2017 then you should just enjoy it, there is no point worrying that AMD Vega users are getting better performance in Vulkan/DX12 (it doesn't affect you).

Tell that to Doom and Vulcan.

 

Pascal gets a boost. Fans want one company to run away with it and that would be horrific for our hobby. We're lucky that both are healthy.

[Curufinwe_wins]

Technically speaking Pascal already supports A-sync. It just doesn't get much out of using it. Maxwell can pseudo support it, but generally it makes more work than it would otherwise gain back.

 

The 980ti already goes from being much better than the Fury X to being at least on par OC to OC (the only metric you should ever care about since free preformance is free.)

 

The 1080 is still unmatched in literally every game. I wouldn't worry much about Nvidia's "dominance" primarily because if AMD actually challenged them on the top end, you can be sure they would come back swinging (just like Intel has done with AMD over the last decade.)

[Curufinwe_wins]

3 minutes ago, Notional said:

snip

Not that overall this isn't a proper takedown, but it is vital to remember GM200 has no problems whatsoever on DX12 relative to competition. GM204 and 206 however yes are fucked.

 

Also the 290 only coming up to meet the 780ti isn't what I'd consider a huge smackdown (it's half a tier on the same gpu die relative to 3? years ago). I'd be much more annoyed with the 290 v 970 adjustment.

[Humbug]

9 minutes ago, App4that said:

Tell that to Doom and Vulcan.

 

Pascal gets a boost. Fans want one company to run away with it and that would be horrific for our hobby. We're luck that both are healthy.

i know that Pascal gets a boost. I even posted about nvidia users claiming gains on reddit when the patch was released. never claimed otherwise.

[BuckGup]

12 minutes ago, App4that said:

Tell that to Doom and Vulcan.

 

Pascal gets a boost. Fans want one company to run away with it and that would be horrific for our hobby. We're lucky that both are healthy.

VulKan with a K

[App4that]

6 minutes ago, Humbug said:

i know that Pascal gets a boost. I even posted about nvidia users claiming gains on reddit when the patch was released. never claimed otherwise.

 

18 minutes ago, Humbug said:

Nvidia is not going to be able to match an equivalently priced AMD graphics card in Vulkan or DX12 performance for this generation (Pascal).

However they will still provide playable frame-rates and smooth gaming.

 

It's not healthy to decide far in advance that your next card has to be from one particular IHV. You need to research the competitive situation at the time of purchasing. But when you do buy if you do have an objectively good reason to buy Nvidia then you should do so and have fun. e.g. if you do buy a 1080ti in 2017 then you should just enjoy it, there is no point worrying that AMD Vega users are getting better performance in Vulkan/DX12 (it doesn't affect you).

We don't have that match up yet, do we? So why not wait for that match up before deciding the outcome?

[Notional]

4 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Not that overall this isn't a proper takedown, but it is vital to remember GM200 has no problems whatsoever on DX12 relative to competition. GM204 and 206 however yes are fucked.

 

Also the 290 only coming up to meet the 780ti isn't what I'd consider a huge smackdown (it's half a tier on the same gpu die relative to 3? years ago). I'd be much more annoyed with the 290 v 970 adjustment.

GM200 is the same generation though. They don't have the VRAM problem, granted, but on the new API's they will also slowly fall behind the Fury and Fury X over the next year or so.

 

Well the 780ti was afaik about twice the price of the 290 at launch. So yeah, I'd say that's a huge smackdown when you look at price/performance. Sure it's old now, and people might want to look at getting them replaced when the next gen comes around, but these cards should not perform so poorly after 3 years.

 

Byt yeah, I agree with the 970. And to think that is the single most popular card. The 390 will reck it in all games that require more than 3.5GB of vram for textures and stuff.

[App4that]

2 minutes ago, SamStrecker said:

VulKan with a K

Ah, I'll try to remember.

[NuclearPeace]

AMD cards are getting much faster, and NVIDIA not by much. NVIDIA cards arent getting slower from DX12.

 

I don't get why people, especially who already bought their cards, care so much about benchmarks. Play the games for yourself and if you don't like the performance then upgrade. The sky only seems like its falling for NVIDIA in DX12 if all you look at are benchmarks.

[LooneyJuice]

Welp, this is kinda how flame wars are started, but hey, what the hell, right? Almost got a heated argument yesterday on the same issue, out of an initially civil and factual conversation.

 

Doom is for all intents and purposes, an outlier. It is a great boon for the future of low-level API's, but it doesn't tell the whole story. For one, even if they have commonalities regarding their Mantle origins, DX12 and Vulkan aren't one and the same. First off, AMD's gains from DX12 so far have been minimal compared to Doom + Vulkan (Which was also OGL vs Vulkan not DX11/12 vs Vulkan). Not to mention, we don't even really have any other proper titles with Vulkan support. The closest I can think of right now is the Talos Principle. And that wasn't groundbreaking, it just worked.

 

So to reiterate, Doom has sort of turned into this phenomenal tech demonstration, but it's just 1 product. How many games are coming down the pipeline in the near future with Vulkan integration? Wolfenstein? Anything else? Yeah... So even if the tech has had a resounding success with one title, and even if more titles come along, development cycles dictate that this will become an important metric by which you purchase, later down the line. I've seen many people panic for some reason, and produce knee-jerk reactions to the news. Part of it is brand loyalty of course, which is just utterly pointless, but this is still way too early. And regarding DX12, even the titles we have already are a mixed bag.

 

The only good thing to extract out of this is that older GCN cards will in fact age better if this is a trend to be followed with low-level APIs, and of course, developer integration. 'Cause at the end of the day, it's also up to the fleshy bit writing the code whether he or she will include all the fancy tech. So until further notice, a reference RX 480 is still, for most intents and purposes a 970 with 8GB of VRAM, and the rest of the lineup of current AMD cards are still performing as advertised, and in some cases, pretty admirably already. This is only something to take note of as a technological shift, rather than "drop your green s**t now!".

 

After all, other than Doom, all of my current games still perform the same after this news

[App4that]

5 minutes ago, NuclearPeace said:

AMD cards are getting much faster, and NVIDIA not by much. NVIDIA cards arent getting slower from DX12.

 

I don't get why people, especially who already bought their cards, care so much about benchmarks. Play the games for yourself and if you don't like the performance then upgrade. The sky only seems like its falling for NVIDIA in DX12 if all you look at are benchmarks.

Status and othering. People want their graphics card to offer status, and buy them into a group. The first thing you do when in a group is attack the opposing group.

 

Pure silly business.

[Mira Yurizaki]

Asynchronous compute is solving a scheduling problem in which both NVIDIA and AMD have solved in their own ways.

 

The many difference here is AMD handles load balancing on the GPUs in hardware. NVIDIA handles load balancing in the drivers (and possibly some hardware, but who knows). Neither one is better than the other because graphical workloads are embarrassingly parallel.

[LeapFrogMasterRace]

2 minutes ago, LooneyJuice said:

Welp, this is kinda how flame wars are started, but hey, what the hell, right? Almost got a heated argument yesterday on the same issue, out of an initially civil and factual conversation.

 

Doom is for all intents and purposes, an outlier. It is a great boon for the future of low-level API's, but it doesn't tell the whole story. For one, even if they have commonalities regarding their Mantle origins, DX12 and Vulkan aren't one and the same. First off, AMD's gains from DX12 so far have been minimal compared to Doom + Vulkan. Not to mention, we don't even really have any other proper titles with Vulkan support. The closest I can think of right now is the Talos Principle. And that wasn't groundbreaking, it just worked.

 

So to reiterate, Doom has sort of turned into this phenomenal tech demonstration, but it's just 1 product. How many games are coming down the pipeline in the near future with Vulkan integration? Wolfenstein? Anything else? Yeah... So even if the tech has had a resounding success with one title, and even if more titles come along, development cycles dictate that this will become an important metric by which you purchase, later down the line. I've seen many people panic for some reason, and produce knee-jerk reactions to the news. Part of it is brand loyalty of course, which is just utterly pointless on either side, but this is still way too early. And regarding DX12, even the titles we have already are a mixed bag.

 

The only good thing to extract out of this is that older GCN cards will in fact age better if this is a trend to be followed with low-level APIs, and of course, developer integration. 'Cause at the end of the day, it's also up to the fleshy bit writing the code whether he or she will include all the fancy tech. So until further notice, a reference RX 480 is still, for most intents and purposes a 970 with 8GB of VRAM, and the rest of the lineup of current AMD cards are still performing as advertised, and in some cases, pretty admirably already. This is only something to take note of as a technological shift, rather than "drop your green s**t now!".

 

After all, other than Doom, all of my current games still perform the same after this news

I can see many more games using Vulkan over DX12 it will be just so much easier to work with.

[LooneyJuice]

1 minute ago, LeapFrogMasterRace said:

I can see many more games using Vulkan over DX12 it will be just so much easier to work with.

I don't doubt it. Not to mention, you code with Vulkan in mind, you code for everything. Saves you a shitload of time. But even if say, the entire industry made a pact to release everything with Vulkan integration, we'd probably still be twiddling our thumbs in a couple of years waiting for enough major releases to make it worth our time.

[App4that]

1 minute ago, LeapFrogMasterRace said:

I can see many more games using Vulkan over DX12 it will be just so much easier to work with.

But Microsoft is already rolling out support for DX12. Why? Because it forces people into Windows 10.

[Curufinwe_wins]

16 minutes ago, Notional said:

GM200 is the same generation though. They don't have the VRAM problem, granted, but on the new API's they will also slowly fall behind the Fury and Fury X over the next year or so.

 

Well the 780ti was afaik about twice the price of the 290 at launch. So yeah, I'd say that's a huge smackdown when you look at price/performance. Sure it's old now, and people might want to look at getting them replaced when the next gen comes around, but these cards should not perform so poorly after 3 years.

 

Byt yeah, I agree with the 970. And to think that is the single most popular card. The 390 will reck it in all games that require more than 3.5GB of vram for textures and stuff.

Well remember the 290 was billed as a titan killer, while the 780ti was just one step up.

 

The 780ti launched at 650, the 290x launched at 550. Not that much different. Don't get me wrong, it is a step up, but the 290 and 290x were like 3% perf different.

[byalexandr]

53 minutes ago, App4that said:

Don't worry. The performance of Nvidia in DX12 titles and any concern is pure AMD marketing and fan rhetoric. The goal of owning a graphics card is that it fills your needs, not beats the competitors card in one measurement of performance in a game you might not even play. DX12 is still new, I have a 980ti and have yet to run into a problem. The only game that is a problem is Quantum Break, and that has nothing to do with the API being used, it's just a really bad port.

 

Stop letting propaganda get to you. Nether AMD nor Nvidia will have any issues making their customers happy.

Wait, you said no problems and then immediately go to list a problem?

 

How does that work

[afyeung]

The only real advantage I've seen AMD have API wise is in Hitman and Doom. And Doom is Vulkan which seems to hold much more promise than dx12 for AMD. If you're planning to drop a lot of money on a new card, go for the card that has better performance overall. Regular PC gamers don't care about one or two games for benchmark purposes. 

[App4that]

1 minute ago, byalexandr said:

Wait, you said no problems and then immediately go to list a problem?

 

How does that work

What problem did I list?

[afyeung]

3 minutes ago, Curufinwe_wins said:

Well remember the 290 was billed as a titan killer, while the 780ti was just one step up.

 

The 780ti launched at 650, the 290x launched at 550. Not that much different. Don't get me wrong, it is a step up, but the 290 and 290x were like 3% perf different.

The 770 classified was like $500 lol.