Quantum Break: More like Quantum Broken.

[ShintaiDK]

their talk is enough proof about their limited capabilities
also i stated that they dont have FULL support of dx12 which they dont

and also amd themselfs told us that no one has a full dx12 support i dont really know why you are blabbing about amd
https://www.google.gr/search?q=Ther...=chrome..69i57j69i60&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

Full feature support (including optional) and DX12 compliancy isn't the same.

 

[airfathaaaaa]

Its about optimization and you know it. There is no single reason DX12 should be slower than DX11 unless its due to optimization.

Then you can try excuse it with whatever you wish. Async have been the only sole way to increase performance, but at the expense of power consumption. As much as up to +100W.

so how you will try to explain how the 780ti (a superscalar desing) on aots can reach 980 on 1080 and beat 970 on 1440p?

its about choices they ditched a superscalar design that worked well they got a pipelined design dropped much of the hardware on the trash can call it a day on the driver and now that the big companies pushed dx12 and vulkan hard they cant really do nothing

 

[airfathaaaaa]

Full feature support (including optional) and DX12 compliancy isn't the same.

really?so compliance is not only a conformity you know unless ofc for your reasons you choose to see it like that..

ful dx12 compliance means full dx 12 support you cant have full compliance and say its different than full support dont play with words to justify it

 

[Silverforce11]

Only from an Async point of view, that developers hate due to very hard complexity.

And the games released have shown the effect. One disaster after the other. DX12 is hard enough in itself, add async and you are pretty much guaranteed a failure.

Do you think DX11 only would have resulted better for Hitman? Or rather it failed to sell due to Episodic and online DRM for SP? You can't be THAT ignorant, really.

AMD don't actually determine the gameplay, content or such. These are studio management decisions. AMD just helps implement DX12 in these games, and so far, it works great, as long as the hardware is capable.

Ashes is a bug-free game compared to many titles. It also runs excellent in massive battles. It actually met it's technical goals and the gameplay also met it's goal for a small studio.

Ashes isn't a huge budget production, they don't need a million sales to recuperate the investment. In fact, Oxide was saying that the 25K it sold in EA on Steam was actually enough to to pay for development costs (Stardock pay them to develop Nitrous for it's next-gen games btw). Now it's ~50K on Steam, more on Stardock's service and GOG. If in a month it ends up over 100K total, that's success for a lot of smaller developers.

If you want to base it on sales, Battlefront sold in excess of 11M copies at last count. -_-

Plenty of pixel art games crack multi-million copies sold, better than most AAA blockbusters of late in the same time period. Let's all benchmark our GPUs with those 2d games instead, right?

 

[ShintaiDK]

AotS has no such issues. Hitman will be fixed next patch. There's a small learning curve but that will improve in a short period of time.

AOTS is a flop and nothing but a PR event. It cant run on Intel DX12 either because there is no such path.

Hitman is a game released 6-9 months early in episodes and a huge flop.

If you think its just about a small learning curve I'm sorry to tell you that you have no idea how either economy or game development works. And you should read the Remedy GDC slide to get an idea on the development part.

For the economy part I will be happy to lecture you about increased cost and development time what impact it got on the bottom line.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Do you think DX11 only would have resulted better for Hitman? Or rather it failed to sell due to Episodic and online DRM for SP? You can't be THAT ignorant, really.

AMD don't actually determine the gameplay, content or such. These are studio management decisions. AMD just helps implement DX12 in these games, and so far, it works great, as long as the hardware is capable.

Ashes is a bug-free game compared to many titles. It also runs excellent in massive battles. It actually met it's technical goals and the gameplay also met it's goal for a small studio.

Ashes isn't a huge budget production, they don't need a million sales to recuperate the investment. In fact, Oxide was saying that the 25K it sold in EA on Steam was actually enough to to pay for development costs (Stardock pay them to develop Nitrous for it's next-gen games btw). Now it's ~50K on Steam, more on Stardock's service and GOG. If in a month it ends up over 100K total, that's success for a lot of smaller developers.

If you want to base it on sales, Battlefront sold in excess of 11M copies at last count. -_-

Plenty of pixel art games crack multi-million copies sold, better than most AAA blockbusters of late in the same time period. Let's all benchmark our GPUs with those 2d games instead, right?

I'm not saying its AMDs fault. But people have a completely misplaced idea what DX12 requires from the developers in both time, resources and continual support. And we see it one after the other now. And even better when Polaris/Pascal releases and we can see old unpatched games. Remember BF4 and Mantle on GCN 1.2? Ye...that's going to get a rerun.

Would Hitman be better with DX11 only? Quite likely.

AOTS is an unfinished game tried to sell as a finished. Lots of refunds as well for the same reason. And lets face it, its nothing but a sponsored PR showcase.

You should now by now that the only thing that matters is sales. You dont work for free either at your job, do you?

 

[Silverforce11]

It cant run on Intel DX12 either because there is no such path.

Did anybody credible tested Intel Skylake GPUs on recent DX12 games? lol

I still want to see their paper spec FL12_1 claims tested. Surely it should be able to run VXAO and HFTS GimpWorks since the latter claims it leverages FL12_1!!

-_-

 

[Sweepr]

AOTS is a flop and nothing but a PR event. It cant run on Intel DX12 either because there is no such path.

They are not even ashamed to admit it. Of course if this was NVIDIA's GameWorks our locals would say they're gimping the competitor's performance on purpose.

 

[Silverforce11]

I'm not saying its AMDs fault. But people have a completely misplaced idea what DX12 requires from the developers. And we see it one after the other now.

Would Hitman be better with DX11 only? Quite likely.

AOTS is an unfinished game tried to sell as a finished. Lots of refunds as well for the same reason. And lets face it, its nothing but a sponsored PR showcase.

You should now by now that the only thing that matters is sales. You dont work for free either at your job, do you?

How would Hitman be better with DX11 only? Care to explain. Does it being DX11 only somehow remove the online DRM that players despise? Does it being DX11 only remove the episodic plan that Square Enix had in place years ago when they canceled IO's other games, fired staff and downsize so they can focus on Hitman episodic release to pay for the development cost?

Don't be daft man. You have more logic than that.

Ashes is finished, it's a large scale multiplayer RTS, it works, flawlessly, I've been playing it the past few days. No crashes, very stable performance. It's not for everybody, just as Planetary Annihilation and Grey Goo isn't for everybody. These are niche RTS, their sales will never be epic.

What's a recent RTS that sold heaps? Even the new Homeworld failed to generate mass interest. If Ashes reaches 250K units in a few months, that's already a ton of profit for a small studio like Oxide. Being profitable is the key part here.

 

[Silverforce11]

They are not even ashamed to admit it. Of course if this was NVIDIA's GameWorks our locals would say they're gimping the competitor's performance on purpose.

If they wanted to gimp NV, Oxide wouldn't include a toggle to disable Async Compute so that NV's GPUs run DX12 FASTER than DX11. Use your logic because it's embarrassing.

 

[ShintaiDK]

How would Hitman be better with DX11 only? Care to explain. Does it being DX11 only somehow remove the online DRM that players despise? Does it being DX11 only remove the episodic plan that Square Enix had in place years ago when they canceled IO's other games, fired staff and downsize so they can focus on Hitman episodic release to pay for the development cost?

Don't be daft man. You have more logic than that.

Ashes is finished, it's a large scale multiplayer RTS, it works, flawlessly, I've been playing it the past few days. No crashes, very stable performance. It's not for everybody, just as Planetary Annihilation and Grey Goo isn't for everybody. These are niche RTS, their sales will never be epic.

What's a recent RTS that sold heaps? Even the new Homeworld failed to generate mass interest. If Ashes reaches 250K units in a few months, that's already a ton of profit for a small studio like Oxide. Being profitable is the key part here.

Its about time, resources and economics. Then you can try excuse it with whatever you wish, including your runaway emotions.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If they wanted to gimp NV, Oxide wouldn't include a toggle to disable Async Compute so that NV's GPUs run DX12 FASTER than DX11. Use your logic because it's embarrassing.

That requires an ini file edit. So why is it on in the first place as default? And without Async AMD pretty much performs like in DX11.

 

[ThatBuzzkiller]

Did anybody credible tested Intel Skylake GPUs on recent DX12 games? lol

I still want to see their paper spec FL12_1 claims tested. Surely it should be able to run VXAO and HFTS GimpWorks since the latter claims it leverages FL12_1!!

-_-

VXAO doesn't use any of the feature level 12_1 features and HFTS is only enabled though a driver extension via NVAPI ...

The DX12 downplay from the other side is extremely amusing but I guess they'll learn it the hard way soon enough when Total War and Deus EX: Mankind Divided will show them the same reality ...

 

[airfathaaaaa]

That requires an ini file edit. So why is it on in the first place as default?

if you didnt know better i would assume that you are derek smart for real...

you have no idea about the game
you have no exp on the game
you have not searched nothing about the game
and yet you claim you have knowledge about it

no sorry you are derek smart


insulting other members is not allowed
Markfw900

 

[Mahigan]

Its about optimization and you know it. There is no single reason DX12 should be slower than DX11 unless its due to lack of optimization. And its no surprise, DX12 is new, DX11 is optimized like mad. Its no different when we got DX10, DX9 was faster and better until developers learned to use it. However this time it requires more than learning, it requires extra time and money as well. Success? Very questionable. DX12 is one of those cases where you wish there was a GPU monopoly and not 3 IHVs.

Then you can try excuse it with whatever you wish. Async have been the only sole way to increase performance, but at the expense of power consumption. As much as up to +100W. Not to mention one epic disaster and fop of a game after the other due to development failure.

Nothing to do with optimizations.

CPU overhead mate. NVIDIA have higher CPU overhead. It has nothing to do with optimizations. NVIDIA's current architectures suffer a higher CPU overhead than AMDs under the DX12 API than they did under DX11. AMD suffered this under the DX11 API.

Basically, NVIDIA, when coupled with a fast CPU, are able to achieve 100% of their GPUs performance under DX11. NVIDIA driver have hidden driver threads when operating under DX11. These driver threads are able to be used to schedule and translate work for the GPU. Basically they're hidden submission threads. This allows NVIDIA GPUs to achieve their full potential with a strong CPU under DX11 because the GPU suffers less idle time. These threads offset the extra CPU cycles consumed by NVIDIA's static scheduler.

In DX12, there are no hidden driver threads. Each CPU core (thread for SMT cases) can record, translate and submit work to the GPU. That's a lot of parallel command lists. For NVIDIA, their Static Scheduler has to schedule work submitted by each thread. So NVIDIA's static scheduler is taking up more CPU time, under DX12, than it does under DX11.

So on a very fast CPU, that extra time translates into less performance relative to DX11.

On slower CPUs, the extra parallelism of DX12 buys performance increases because of the alleviation of a CPU bottleneck relative to DX11.

The end result is a net loss of performance, for NVIDIA hardware, going from DX11 to DX12 when running a strong CPU. This is across the board. Any game. Provided that the CPU was strong enough to feed NVIDIAs GPUs with work under DX11.

AMD don't have this issue because.
1. Their DX11 driver wasn't as refined as NVIDIA's in terms of multi threading support.
2. AMDs hardware scheduling handles the scheduling tasks on the GPU thus not taking away CPU cycles.

We've only recently seen AMD make an effort with its DX11 drivers in terms of multi-threading support. That's why AMD has great performance in recent DX11 titles.

 

[ShintaiDK]

If overhead was the case, why does it perform better on slower CPUs?

 

[Mahigan]

AOTS is a flop and nothing but a PR event. It cant run on Intel DX12 either because there is no such path.

Hitman is a game released 6-9 months early in episodes and a huge flop.

If you think its just about a small learning curve I'm sorry to tell you that you have no idea how either economy or game development works. And you should read the Remedy GDC slide to get an idea on the development part.

For the economy part I will be happy to lecture you about increased cost and development time what impact it got on the bottom line.

The content of your posts are filled with apologetics and zero explanations or details. You have Zero evidence. You demand evidence and explanations from others but provide nothing yourself.

My "theories" are backed up every single time. I make long posts, detailing everything with links and proof to back them up. You don't do that. You dabble in apologetics day in and day out.

Where's your knowledge? Where's your evidence which refutes Kollock's statements? And how does "AotS doesn't sell well" refute architectural facts?

How does "NVIDIA need optimizations" explain away their extra CPU overhead under DX12 on a fast CPU?

Details mate, details. I could, and I'd be near equally logical as you, claim that AMDs poor DX11 multi threaded driver is due to the migratory patterns of African Swallows. Just a general statement without explaining how it relates to the issue at hand.

 

[Mahigan]

If overhead was the case, why does it perform better on slower CPUs?

Simple. The extra parallelism makes up for the slower per core performance. So we get a performance increase.

On a fast CPU, the per core performance negates the extra parallelism.

It's all about parallelism vs single core performance.

 

[Silverforce11]

That requires an ini file edit. So why is it on in the first place as default? And without Async AMD pretty much performs like in DX11.

At least it was a valid option that they described to the press so folks know about it.

Btw, I am still waiting for someone to test Intel's DX12 and especially FL12_1 claims. You got any sources of Skylake running QB or GoW:U or even RotTR DX12? -_-

^ Don't avoid it btw, since you like to quote me falsely in your sig.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Simple. The extra parallelism makes up for the slower per core performance. So we get a performance increase.

On a fast CPU, the per core performance negates the extra parallelism.

It's all about parallelism vs single core performance.

If that was the case you should see a decrease relatively as you increase CPU. But it doesn't.

 

[ShintaiDK]

At least it was a valid option that they described to the press so folks know about it.

Btw, I am still waiting for someone to test Intel's DX12 and especially FL12_1 claims. You got any sources of Skylake running QB or GoW:U or even RotTR DX12? -_-

^ Don't avoid it btw, since you like to quote me falsely in your sig.

Its you saying they dont support it.

 

[Silverforce11]

Its you saying they dont support it.

Cos they don't run DX12 games.

Unless I am wrong and Intel GPU can run these recent DX12 games.... but where? I haven't seen it. We already have quite a few DX12 titles and oops, Intel iGPU DX12 is nowhere to be seen in these games. I wonder why!

Surely if they are DX12 compatible, there must be a major game that shows it working!

Surely if they have FL12_1 as they claims, they can run HFTS in The Division because NVIDIA told everybody that feature uses FL12_1 hardware.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Intel IGP ran the DX12 star swarm. So either you have to say that Star Swarm wasn't DX12. That Its simply not been tested by a source you demand and admit you know nothing. Or that the games dont have an Intel DX12 path. Pick one of the 3

 

[Silverforce11]

Star Swarm ain't a game. Try again.

DX12 compatible or not? Why can't it run real DX12 games?

 

[ShintaiDK]

Star Swarm ain't a game. Try again.

DX12 compatible or not? Why can't it run real DX12 games?

You forgot to prove it. And its funny how you already are willing to dismiss Star Swarm. Also MS ran a demo with Intel.

But I am looking forward to this. Because you can raise one hell of a lawsuit if its Intels fault. And that must be sweet music in your ears. Assuming you can prove it.