Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Quote:
And today the GeForce GTX 1080 Ti FE goes on sale across 238 countries and territories.
Read more.
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Quote:
For example performance has "increased by 33 per cent in Rise of the Tomb Raider"
Yes, from an abysmal 20fps to a merely poor 27fps, at 4k....
Seriously nvidia, asking us to be excited about a large percentage increase on a small baseline...? What are the results like with a 1060 at 1080p?
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Yes, from an abysmal 20fps to a merely poor 27fps, at 4k....
Seriously nvidia, asking us to be excited about a large percentage increase on a small baseline...? What are the results like with a 1060 at 1080p?
Well at least it is positive scaling!!
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Yeh great driver I get Wildlands can't be optimised
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Quote:
For example performance has "increased by 33 per cent in Rise of the Tomb Raider"
Yes, from an abysmal 20fps to a merely poor 27fps, at 4k....
Seriously nvidia, asking us to be excited about a large percentage increase on a small baseline...? What are the results like with a 1060 at 1080p?
33% is a huge improvement... what do you prentend, it is drivers.
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Quote:
For example performance has "increased by 33 per cent in Rise of the Tomb Raider"
Yes, from an abysmal 20fps to a merely poor 27fps, at 4k....
Seriously nvidia, asking us to be excited about a large percentage increase on a small baseline...? What are the results like with a 1060 at 1080p?
20 to 27 FPS is a more useful change than 100 to 133 FPS, they are showcasing improvement in the most demanding areas where a few extra FPS actually makes a real difference to how playable a game is. Sure 27 FPS is still a bit jerky but it's a lot closer to playable than 20 FPS...
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
scaryjim
Quote:
For example performance has "increased by 33 per cent in Rise of the Tomb Raider"
Yes, from an abysmal 20fps to a merely poor 27fps, at 4k....
Seriously nvidia, asking us to be excited about a large percentage increase on a small baseline...? What are the results like with a 1060 at 1080p?
If you read the fine print it's running 4K with all games at MAX settings. So, not bad. Obviously you can turn some stuff down (I hate that) like reviewers do and still hit 30+. I'll say it again, we aren't at 4K yet, not until 4K is capable of MAX (as they chose to run above) in EVERY current game. I want to see EVERY detail the developer intended in all its glory. Otherwise I'd rather just drop res and do the same. Which is why no 4K monitor is in my vocab at least this year or next. I'll be 1600p or bust for my next monitor. I refuse anything other than 16:10 :) and 27-30in (will still use dell 2407wfp-hc as 2nd monitor, just upgrading the smaller 22in).
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Sounds good. Any chance Hexus plans to test some NVIDIA cards with this and previous drivers to show performance difference?
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
I did a quick search for benchmarks, and found that the improvement is quite small from the previous driver. Indeed the only major difference is in Hitman, which no longer loses big time to DX11, and if fact is a tad faster.
So nothing to see here. Move along, move along.
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nobodyspecial
I want to see EVERY detail the developer intended in all its glory.
Are you sure that's what the average 'max setting' or 'ultra' preset is?
A lot of the time there is one or more 'features' which do nothing for visual quality, but have a monstrous effect on frames.
Especially with Nvidia's Gameworks it seems there a lot of needless features which don't add anything visually but have huge performance cost. So of these extra details are probably not something which the developers intended for all its glory but rather something which was easy to add from Gameworks but has little visual impact. And who in the developer team is responsible for that? The model designers, texture makers, lighting people? Or someone tinkering with the engine at the last minute and adding some pre-made feature found in the binary blob which is Gameworks?
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
Quote:
Originally Posted by
nobodyspecial
I'll say it again, we aren't at 4K yet, not until 4K is capable of MAX (as they chose to run above) in EVERY current game. I want to see EVERY detail the developer intended in all its glory. Otherwise I'd rather just drop res and do the same
Each to their own but I am finding it near impossible to tell the difference between high and ultra in most modern games.....and some of the things that make the smallest differences, take the most power it seems!
Even with a GTX980 I was managing to use 4K happily in most games, now with a 1080 its a breeze.
Re: Nvidia crows about 378.78 WHQL driver perf in DX12 and Vulkan
The results are not so good as I was expected.
