Oct 1 2018 Hoover1979 UltraHD Doom Texture pack Demo 4 comments. This is the second demo release of my work in progress UltraHD Texture pack for Doom, Doom II, Plutonia Experiment and Evilution. This pack is still a.
Numbers are in. Solid improvement for people with amd gpus.
Go pound sand, no improvement (because pascal still can't do concurrent graphics + compute in the same way as amd). But take heart, the 1070 is still faster. Rx 480 = 77% the performance of a 1070 in vulkan doom @ 1080p, for half the price. We'll see if future driver updates improve the gap for nvidia. Without the added hardware schedulers I think their software engineers have to go in and try to micromanage performance boosts in a way amd no longer needs to when games are designed to utilize the right tools. So nvidia may be able to increase the gap again. This really is a sweet change, amd always used to be the one blasted for taking longer to improve performance over launch day, now with the added man hours that may change with dx12/vulkan when the teams don't do a hatchet job and just bolt it on top of dx11 like tomb raider.
Click to expand. And now, that 'advantage' will boost them less and less. More and more shackles on amd performance are being removed by the day. More nvidia engineers to throw at optimizing the cesspool known as opengl 4.5, great. And now less relevant than ever for the devs looking for performance who learn to optimize it themselves for vulkan instead. Granted, the indie dev creating squirrel simulator may not bother, and I'm sure tears will be shed for not being able to see a game like that run at 120fps. But for devs worth their salt who bother to optomize for the higher end titles, shackles off guys.
Click to expand. People keep saying this, but how well does it track? How much space on a gpu die is devoted to resources that do not scale with chip size? Is there literally zero difference performance wise from an nvidia chip designed for a 300mm die size on the same architecture that was cut down by say, 25% for an 'effective' die size of 225mm compared to a full nvidia chip designed from the ground up to fill out a 225mm die size? There is zero difference between a cut down gpu vs a full chip gpu? Or are there some extra advantages to being cut down to a similar effective die size? I don't know, asking, because this keeps being parroted as if one ought to expect perfectly linear scaling between cut down chips and full chips of equal size and presumed equivalent hardware resources.
People keep saying this, but how well does it track? How much space on a gpu die is devoted to resources that do not scale with chip size?
Is there literally zero difference performance wise from an nvidia chip designed for a 300mm die size on the same architecture that was cut down by say, 25% for an 'effective' die size of 225mm compared to a full nvidia chip designed from the ground up to fill out a 225mm die size? There is zero difference between a cut down gpu vs a full chip gpu? Or are there some extra advantages to being cut down to a similar effective die size? I don't know, asking, because this keeps being parroted as if one ought to expect perfectly linear scaling between cut down chips and full chips of equal size and presumed equivalent hardware resources. People keep saying this, but how well does it track? How much space on a gpu die is devoted to resources that do not scale with chip size?
Is there literally zero difference performance wise from an nvidia chip designed for a 300mm die size on the same architecture that was cut down by say, 25% for an 'effective' die size of 225mm compared to a full nvidia chip designed from the ground up to fill out a 225mm die size? There is zero difference between a cut down gpu vs a full chip gpu?
Or are there some extra advantages to being cut down to a similar effective die size? I don't know, asking, because this keeps being parroted as if one ought to expect perfectly linear scaling between cut down chips and full chips of equal size and presumed equivalent hardware resources.