And what am I supposed to get pray tell? The developer said it was enabled in the driver, but it just wasn't working the way it should be working.
If Maxwell 2 doesn't support AC as the dev suggests, then why on Earth would they enable it in their drivers?
The likely answer is that it's supported, but either not properly implemented (due to hardware design), or not properly optimized in their driver codebase.
I'm betting on the latter..
He said the architecture does not support it. This info can come from knowing arch details from documentation etc. This can not be cancelled by speculation on why it's in drivers.
The other thing is that it might not matter much on Maxwell. They wouldn't likely gain the same performance benefit
I think people are having trouble accepting the extra power in gcn. E.g. 8.9tflops fury x, ~5.6-6tflops 980ti. This matters now because Amd hardware has the extra power top be tapped with better efficiency provided by async. 30% probably lines up well with the difference. With 30% more performance gcn is going to end current Maxwell
Spot on.
However, Async Compute is just one of the DX12 features. A game can simply not use it at all and rely purely on lower API overhead & native multi-threading, in which case there is no negative for NV in DX12. But that case alone, helps GCN tremendously due to their DX11 bottlenecks. Async Compute on top of that, is just icing on the cake for AMD.
Now knowing more about the uarchs, its definitely a case of AMD making a major gamble with GCN (one uarch, designed to be long lasting, forward looking [maximize return for $ investment]) and using their console advantage to push forward an new API that gives them the edge.
Regarding your second point, based on what we've seen so far, there's no way GameWorks titles will have Async Compute, that much is certain. The PC port will have those features disabled. It will also push some FL12.1 to give NV GPUs an edge. Contrary, AMD GE titles will push Async Compute, to use it to offload the main rendering threads onto the ACEs giving them a major speed boost. Basically both companies will have a powerful stick they can beat each other with. How bad for AMD this will be, it will depend on whether FL12.1 is optional fluff in games like HBAO, GodRays etc (since AMD hardware can't run FL12.1 at all due to no support) or its a core feature, if its core, a title is basically NV exclusive.
I think I remember someone saying conservative rasterization through software might have been faster on AMD hardware than the hardware implemetation on nvidia. Someone post a link to a dev possibly saying this on twitter. Either way, that at least can be done in software well enough.
The other feature saves VRAM? Won't matter much.
It is the same company who blames nVidia's drivers while warning reviewers to not use MSAA under DX12 because they havent optimized their engine for it.
Why should we believe them? And where is the proof that AS isnt working?
Oxide official said that their MSAA implementation under DX12 has problem because Oxide hasnt optimized it.
The ball is in their court.
Now they are saying that nVidia doesnt support Async Compute, although Microsoft demonstrated Async Compute on their hardware.
I still wait for an explanation why nVidia's DX11 path should be faster than DX12. They cant even blame Async Compute for the performance degression anymore. :sneaky:
You post a lot of misinformation.
They never said reviewers should not use MSAA, nvidia did. They did not say they hadn't optimized their engine for MSAA AFAIK.
Your english is good so i don't get why you seem to be shifting sentences and meanings around. They said their dx12 MSAA was standard and ran the same on all hardware. They said that some modifications nvidia might have made in dx11 driver might not have carried over and are willing to make those driver like changes in their own game FOR NVIDIA.
Microsoft did not demonstrate asynchronous compute on nvidia hardware AFAIK. If you are talking about the fable legends demo you or someone else posted, that was demonstrating Typed UAVs or something of the sort. It was not async compute.
I have yet to see anyone claiming maxwell 2 has it much less does well at it. A game having effects does not mean its being done asynchronously. You can do those things the normal way, but AMD having async means they can do it faster, separately from the graphics pipeline or do more.
They can enable it in drivers through software but clearly the hardware chokes.
That's pretty damn ballsy. Basically Oxide is challenging NV to prove them wrong.
They sound damn certain, so the ball is in NV's court.
I dont think it is. Seems just a this is how it is statement. nvidia won't disagree because they know the truth and got over their initial butthurtedness.