LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksRead more.Lowers power consumption too.
Read more.Lowers power consumption too.
It would be interesting to know what the technical differences are between Vulkan and DX12, does DX12 have enough extra features to make being locked into a single operating system worth while?
This is big news, ISV's can gain the benefits of DX12 in terms of increased efficiency, while still including Windows 7,8 and 8.1 users. Big design wins if this gains enough traction with (presumably) the major engine developers. PC gaming has been held back long enough by APIs... fingers crossed!
hexus trust : n(baby):n(lover):n(sky)|>P(Name)>>nopes
Be Careful on the Internet! I ran and tackled a drive by mining attack today. It's not designed to do anything than provide fake texts (say!)
This sounds promising, if we can get DX12 or better graphics improvements without having to downgrade to windows 10 then I think it should be a big win for them.
DirectX has never had features to make being locked into one operating system worthwhile. Even when it was a dire choice back in the early 3D days DirectX got widely used though, because the world isn't about technical superiority. Vulkan is modular, so any features can be added, but then DirectX isn't going to stand still either, which again makes technical differences rather moot long term.Originally Posted by Corky34
The difference here is that Vulkan will be directly usable on phones and tablets, and Windows 7, without needing a cut down ES version. Not sure that is enough to make a dent in the Windows world tbh, but could make for better mobile games.
I also hope it will make AMD a proper front line player on SteamOS. The driver is simpler to write, they have good form with Mantle, so they have everything going for them. AMD also have Intel breathing right down their neck as it pushes Intel into a better place for low end SteamOS boxes using integrated graphics.
I look forward to benchmarks giving Gnomes per Second
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P_I8an8jXuM
No need to go reminding me of the early days of 3D and how DirectX was (at the time) shown to be (supposedly) superior to 3DFX's Glide.
Sad days when 3DFX closed up shop.
Last edited by Corky34; 01-09-2015 at 12:36 PM.
I was thinking more of how bad the Microsoft OpenGL layer was in Windows NT & 95. Some thought it could only be that bad on purpose to make DirectX look better, though I think that is underestimating how good Microsoft was at just simply writing slow buggy softwareNo need to go reminding me of the early days of 3D and how DirectX was (at the time) shown to be (supposedly) superior to 3DFX's Glide.
Sad days when 3DFX closed up shop.
Was just watching an Nvidia presentation on Vulkan. A comment made was that wherever Nvidia ships an OpenGL capable driver it will ship Vulkan, so that includes Windows XP. I do wonder how many people are running a Fermi or better on their Windows XP box, but still it made me chuckle.
Windows XP the OS that refuses to die.
Although I do understand why people are still using it, personally, and people are welcome to disagree, but personally I think Microsoft have been on a downward trajectory since Windows XP when it comes to gaming on a PC.
Nah, in XP I still expected crashes and for the OS to hose itself and require reloading occasionally. Win7 was the first time I felt I could rely on Windows. Not Linux stable, but easily good enough for everyday client use and not a disaster for performance like XP was. I was forced to upgrade from XP for the 64 bit support of 7, but I really didn't look back (apart from my steering wheel peripheral was XP only, but never mind).
Why did I want 64 bit? Games.
I thought the unkillable OS was windows 3.11 and 98se what with all the ATM's still running on them?Windows XP the OS that refuses to die.
And Win98se here too, it has so little overhead you could run it in a decent processor with just the on-chip cache and an install size measured in Mega not Giga bytes.
If you are going to be rose tinted about the past, I think Win98se was a big step down from the Atari ST.
I don't think even the Amiga could run Vulkan though
I still run a dual boot of XP64 (and a vm for xp32 for the few things that won't run in 64bit period) and never had a game issue or anything else for that matter. No crashing, can stay up monthly until patches come which used to be the only time I'd reboot xp64. xp64 has all the drivers also, including creative, my nic, my wifi (edimax card) etc. Ignorance is the only reason the OS didn't catch on. Unless you had some really odd device, you can get drivers for pretty much everything. I spend more time in win7 these days by far, but not because xp64 sucks (has more to do with being the same as work at home than anything else). I hate win7 and up in Windows Explorer (all versions are useless and slow me down, always have to replace with xyplorer, xplorer2, total commander etc take your pick).
MSFT seems to keep taking things away that used to make me faster, and adding things that just make me slower, in both their OS and Office apps. I'll stop before I start ranting about all the crap they did to screw up excel, word, outlook etc...LOL. Change is only good if it makes me FASTER. Pretty is ok, but again ONLY if it makes me FASTER. Anything less than FASTER is FAILURE. MSFT has been failing for quite some timeI'm praying vulkan KILLS DirectX ASAP.
The common mistake people make (including those that previously attempted to answer your question) is thinking DirectX is just a rendering API. Vulkan and Direct3D 12 will have little over on each other. However, DirectX includes APIs for sound, input, etc.
If you were a gamedev, would you either pick an option that:
A)
- has a cohesive set of APIs all built to run together
- targets the vast majority of your target market
B)
- has graphics on par with A
- requires additional libraries/utilities for anything not graphics
- supports the small percentage of users *not* on Windows (and that requires that any libraries/utilities used also support those platforms, which is an added expense in testing and development)
Just to be clear, I'm a Linux user. I hope developers see the utility in developing their engines with Vulkan for the greater utility it would have. Mobile gaming is already bigger than most expected, and Vulkan represents one graphics API for all platforms. However, most PC developers are already on the DX12 bandwagon.
Maybe I'm thinking (incorrectly) back to the early days of DirectX and Glide, they looked very different at the time, Glide looked so much better.
They did, and the DirectX sound API worked for anything that looked like a SoundBlaster which pretty much killed off the far superior Gravis Ultrasound and generally held things back for years.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
