Vulkan and DX12 are the APIs that will drive most of the new games the next couple of years. And as we all know, Vulkan supports a wide range of hardware and operating systems, whereas DX12 does not. However, it appears that The Khronos Group – the team behind Vulkan – is not trying to fight Microsoft in order to “make” developers choose Vulkan over DX12.
In a lengthy interview with RedGamingTech, Tom Olson (Director of Research over at ARM and chair of the Vulkan Working Group) and Neil Trevett (Vice President of Mobile Ecosystem at Nvidia and elected President of the Khronos Group) shared their opinion about the inevitable fight between DX12 and Vulkan.
As Tom Olson claimed when asked about it, The Khronos Group is not really trying to ‘combat’ anything, and they’re trying to make a great API that can run on all modern hardware and platforms.
“We’re not really trying to ‘combat’ anything – we’re trying to make a great API that can run on all modern hardware and platforms. We think it’s obvious that that’s what the market needs, and that if we do a good job, people will use it. We recognize of course that it’s about more than just the API – we have to create and support a complete solution, a whole ecosystem. Hence the emphasis on defining a standard loader, validation and debug layers, a shader compiler, and other tools, all available in open source.”
Neil Trevett went one step ahead and stated that not only is DX12 a fine API, but that it will be the right commercial choice for some developers addressing a certain set of platforms.
“DX12 is a fine API and it will be the right commercial choice for some developers addressing a certain set of platforms. It may not be good for readership ratings to say this – but I think the ‘API wars’ are often overblown – developer choice in APIs is a good thing. Additionally, I think that over the years healthy competition between Direct3D and OpenGL has been a positive incentive for both families of APIs to improve – which ultimately is good for the developer community. But, if you look at the industry as a whole, it is a healthy thing to have the choice of a graphics API that is not being defined by a single platform vendor, as it provides an avenue for API innovation that is independent of the underlying platform dynamics of the day.”
Bold words from both Tom and Neil, however we don’t know whether this approach is the right one. We do know that MS will try its best to force DX12 on its consumers. After all, we’ve already seen a number of DX12 titles from Microsoft that take little to no advantage of DX12.
Bottom line is that a lot of PC gamers want to see more games taking advantage of Vulkan. However, it remains a mystery whether developers are ready for such a thing.
John is the founder and Editor in Chief at DSOGaming. He is a PC gaming fan and highly supports the modding and indie communities. Before creating DSOGaming, John worked on numerous gaming websites. While he is a die-hard PC gamer, his gaming roots can be found on consoles. John loved – and still does – the 16-bit consoles, and considers SNES to be one of the best consoles. Still, the PC platform won him over consoles. That was mainly due to 3DFX and its iconic dedicated 3D accelerator graphics card, Voodoo 2. John has also written a higher degree thesis on the “The Evolution of PC graphics cards.”
Contact: Email
I’m Pro Vulkan since Doom got so much performance increase with it.
I’m pro DX12 because its better for developers and games. Thanks to DX12 developers can write single code between PC and Xbox so is much cheaper for them. Because of that gamers can buy games between PC and Xbox – single cross buy. Pay once and get game on PC nad Xbox because there is single universal code between PC and Xbox (UWP). Vulkan isn’t supported on any game console so developers can’t create single game code between PC and any of consoles
BTW. There are new steam survey results – July 2016:
Hey, but what about the fact that games on Xbox and PC can differ? They have different graphics and sometimes features.
Level of details isn’t a problem – there is still single game code with different assets (textures, models, effects). Take as example ‘Gears of War 4’ or ‘Forza Horizon 3’. Single game code between PC and all Xbox consoles. On Xbox One S game support HDR which is not available on PC or Xbox One. On PC there are better 4K textures which is not supported on Xbox One but will be available on Xbox Scorpio.There are different level of details but game code is single so you can cross buy this game between PC and Xbox
why isn’t this person banned yet
You want ban all users who want games to be cross buy between PC and Xbox (UWP) or be faster than DX11 thanks to DX12?
Freedom of Speech works every which way imaginable, unfortunately 😛
I’d be pro DX12 if Microsoft could simply stop doing the dumbest sh*t imaginable;
“Windows 10 Anniversary Update makes it harder for admins to remove advertising”
“Cortana is mandatory in the Windows 10 Anniversary Update”
“Administrators can no longer shut off certain apps, content with Windows 10 Pro Anniversary Update
Microsoft quietly has disabled the ability of administrators to use Group Policy and mobile-device-management to shut off certain apps and content with the Anniversary Update.”
Good sh*t Microsoft, good sh*t. Now watch as your oh-so-precious Enterprise clientele invites you to go f*ck yourself, just as so many PC Gamers did this past year by not upgrading to your Microsoft Spyware 10.
Oh, btw, as I already said – Windows 10 adopters =/= DX12-capable Windows 10 users, & also – wow, hey, surprise! There’s a spike in Windows 10 numbers right before the free offer expires! Amazing! Who could have guessed that was going to happen? Oh, certainly not me, no, never!
Oh, wait……. 😮
Let’s see what that number’s dropped to with next month’s numbers, on the other hand.
What about support SLI? DX12 support SLI/Crossfire and as you know Vulkan 1.0 dosn’t support that. You can read about this in source article
Q: For high end gaming on DirectX 12, we’ve seen Microsoft tout Explicit Multi Adapter, allowing multi vendor GPUs to work together in the same system. Is this to achieve in Vulkan?
Tom: “Full multi-GPU support was definitely a goal when we launched the project, and there is some support in the API, but we weren’t able to finish the job in time for the 1.0 release
I remember that few months ago you are angry about UWP have problem with SLI. Are you also angry about Vulkan without support of multiple GPU? What are you thinking about support multiple GPU in DX12 and lack of that in Vulkan?
Sh*tty SLi/CrossFire adoption rates/support throughout recent AAA games aside (& excluding the whole problem wherein single-GPU cards are consistently outclassing the needs of even the latest AAA games), yes, it is annoying to see that feature lacking in Vulkan, but as with all competing software throughout history, one program will always do something better than the other.
For now, DX12 has an overall lead on Vulkan in certain features, & overall, in age, since it was launched considerably sooner than Vulkan. Eventually, Vulkan will catch up on these features however, & then we’ll be down to the whole “Windows 10 exclusive vs. multi-platform” argument, & nothing but.
Not to mention, as I’ve previously said on multiple occasions, developers have stated how easy it is to make a Vulkan-powered game & then port it over to DX12, making Vulkan a superior choice even for “Microsoft-oriented” developers, so long as they choose to release on non-Windows 10 Operating Systems (i.e. Windows 7, 8, 8.1).
I think that Khronos should wait a on more year and finish “real full version 1.0” with support of multiple GPU. Why are they so hurry to release 1.0 version even if they know that they can’t complete specification with support of multiple GPU on time? It’s strange.
They should name it “Vulkan 0.5 Preview” or something like that. Take some time, finish support od multiple GPU and release true complete 1.0 version.
A year? LOL. If the “completed” version of Vulkan 1.0 were still more than a year out, id Software would never have been able to use Vulkan in DOOM, because the API would have been constantly crashing, generating bugs, tanking FPS instead of augmenting them spectacularly, etc. etc. etc.
If the “completed” Vulkan 1.0 API were still more than a year out, it probably wouldn’t even be in any sort of functional Beta stage, it would still be in some weird, half-broken, half-functioning Alpha stage which nobody in their right minds would ever reveal to the public, because “OHMAHGAWD, EETZ BROKEN!”
As I said, Multi-GPU support is nice, but at the same time, it’s no longer a major game-breaking feature, it’s just a semi-niche feature that has an ever diminishing level of developer support, which is aggravating people, myself included, so it makes perfect sense that while they did get the preliminary support for it done, it wasn’t a priority feature for the Khronos Group. It sucks, but it is what it is.
“Single code between pc and xbox”
That has to be why every major DX12 title suks azz on performance…
Caugh caugh
Quantum break
Gears of wars
Funny they’re both xbox exclusives. I bet they did exactly what you like, write the code for xbox and sell it on pc with no optimization at all. That part of dx12 is rubbish,
I’m sorry.
im pro whatever gives me best graphics or fps. either or a new api is fine by me. games will benefit by a per basis. which is great. no shoehorning this api, etc. i agree with khronos group on that. true gamers. they want whats best for the industry.
“im pro whatever gives me best graphics or fps”
Vulkan is much faster than OpenGL. I think that DX12 will be even faster especially for people who have multiple GPU’s. Support for multiple GPU is clear win for DX12 after Khronos said that Vulkan doesn’t support that in 1.0 version (source article):
Q: For high end gaming on DirectX 12, we’ve seen Microsoft tout Explicit Multi Adapter, allowing multi vendor GPUs to work together in the same system. Is this to achieve in Vulkan?
Tom: “Full multi-GPU support was definitely a goal when we launched the project, and there is some support in the API, but we weren’t able to finish the job in time for the 1.0 release
But I hope that all developers choose what they want. Vulkan if they want multiple OS, or DX12 if they want support of multiple GPU. As long as they stop using old DX11 I’m happy.
Except that only affects the ever-diminishing minority of people that actually have Multi-GPU’s, that’s not a feature that will directly amount to an FPS boost for every-single-person who uses DX12.
Also, as the quote you yourself are using clearly states; there is incomplete support for Multi-GPU’s in Vulkan 1.0, with completed support “coming soon.” It nowhere says that Vulkan absolutely will not support Multi-GPU’s, meaning DX12’s lead in this regard is at best, a short-term advantage.
Don’t get me wrong, Multi-GPU support is great, but Multi-GPU adoption rates, not so much, especially with Nvidia’s ever-more-inflated price tags, the performance of a single high-end GPU in comparison to the performance requirements of the latest AAA games, etc.
So when DX12 support multiple GPU and Vulkan 1.0 doesn’t then “support of multiple GPU” is not important anymore?
How many games released in 2016 do you know of that actually support Multi-GPU’s?
By “support”, I mean properly, without stuttering, FPS drops, random crashes, lag spikes, freezes, etc. etc. etc.
Exactly. Over the last few months, I’ve slowly come to realise, that number won’t be going up very much by this Fall either, even after the big releases are out. Next year, they’ll be even less, & the year after, even less so by this pace.
DirectX12 & Vulkan might change that, with their different approach to Multi-GPU support, but as long as adoption rates continue to dwindle because there’s no real reason to actually have two GTX 1080’s working in unison anymore (aside from the 1% of Gamers who’re running 4K &/or Multi-Monitor Systems), developers will continue to not give a sh*t anymore.
Few months ago you and many others are angry about UWP because someone said that UWP doesn’t support SLI (which was incorrect). Now when Khronos said that Vulcan 1.0 doesn’t support multiple GPU then multiple gpu is no longer important?
You’re repeating yourself. Do you expect me to do the same? Fine;
I changed my mind over the last few months, having realised the ever-diminishing amount of developer interest in barebones (not to say proper) Multi-GPU support, the ever-decreasing amount of people actually using Multi-GPU rigs, & the ever-increasing amount of power present in each individual GPU (i.e. the GTX 1080 specs, for example).
As such, while Multi-GPU setups continue to have (an ever-decreasing amount of) people interested in them (currently primarily 4K &/or Multi-Monitor users, since the 3D fad died off ages ago, & good riddance to it), they are simply no longer a priority for developers, & will most likely not return to being one any time soon.
At least not without a new Crysis game that actually pushes top-tier GPU’s, which AAA games no longer do, or some kind of super-VR setup that requires even more power than a single GTX 1080 is capable of granting a user. Needless to say, both those situations seem to (currently) be rather unlikely, wouldn’t you agree?
I don’t know if you know what the purpose is of version, but this is the first version of Vulkan meaning that there will be multiple versions. Versions in the future will have multiple GPU support. They couldn’t release it with this one, because they wanted Vulkan to get finally released and didn’t want it delayed again.
Also keep in mind that DirectX 12 was released officially along side Windows 10 which is now over a year ago. Vulkan was released in the beginning of this year. So Windows 10 has an advantage over Vulkan, because Microsoft had more time to work with same for other developers.
“Also keep in mind that DirectX 12 was released officially along side Windows 10 which is now over a year ago. Vulkan was released in the beginning of this year”
But DX12 was released fully featured with full support of multiple GPU. Vulkan is released half-baked without support of multiple GPU but still named as “version 1.0” instead “0.5 preview” or something like that. Why they release “1.0” when they know that its not fully complete?
Do you actually have or even know, someone who has a Multi-GPU setup?
I mean, you’re seriously taking this personally, considering the Khronos Group isn’t the one trying to violate you by forcing their overly-intrusive Operating System down your throat.
Regardless, I repeat; DX12 did “this”, Vulkan did “that.” Microsoft & Khronos chose different development approaches. Microsoft chose to prioritise Multi-GPU support, the Khronos Group didn’t.
The Khronos Group chose to make sure Vulkan could function on multiple Operating Systems, Microsoft didn’t. They’re not exact mirrors of each other, they have different features, & thus function in different ways in regards to each of those features. No doubt, in a year’s time or so we’ll find that DX12 actually does [insert] better than Vulkan, just like we’ll find that Vulkan does [insert] better than DX12.
Why? How? Simple; because it’s software, which is made by humans, not machines, & as a result always comes out different, based on who programmed it, & how they approached programming it, & especially each individual feature. They don’t make these damn things on a f*cking assembly line, ffs.
Hey, I have a hard one for you. Here, between my legs. No, just kidding, it’s actually a question:
Tell me a DX 12 title that sees a massive improvement in performance like Doom saw from Vulkan, and that also has multi-gpu support.
and you know people are angry of UWP is not just because of that right?
multi gpu actually is gpu maker interest so they can sell more gpu. the added performance are nice but multi gpu also bringing in a lot of complexity. and that complexity is one thing developer are not fond of. add to the fact the feature is exclusive to PC and to make it more less attractive to developer only very small amount of pc user have such system. so did developer want to add unnecessary complexity to their games just to satisfy this small group of pc gamer? gpu maker will always try to create a situation where multi gpu will stay relevant. stuff like eyefinity, stereoscopic 3D is one of their effort to keep multi gpu alive.
Exactly. 3D used to be the big “Multi-GPU support pusher” post-Crysis (read: once Consoles started lagging behind), but 3D f*cked off & died in a corner (good riddance IMO), so we’re back to the old Multi-Monitor (EyeFinity, Nvidia Surround) rigs, & now 4K, for as long as AMD & Nvidia can’t give the currently rather niche group of people running 4K Monitors 60 FPS off a single GPU.
Hopefully the new approach to supporting Multi-GPU’s presented in the new API’s (DX12 & Vulkan both) will result in an at least minor resurgence in developer interest in regards to supporting Multi-GPU’s properly, but even then, the same old issues remain of “it’s a nice, PC-only feature that most people don’t even give a sh*t about” which is the major problem right now, since there hasn’t been a real GPU-breaking AAA game on the market in years.
this issue actually reminds me of gpu accelerated physics effect. vendor neutral solution has been available for years by Bullet Physics (accelerated by OpenCL/Direct Compute) but so far no game that use Bullet physics engine (like GTA V) ever use the gpu accelerated feature. and when you think about it gpu physics are much less niche than multi gpu setup since you don’t need specifically dedicated gpu for gpu physic acceleration. and yet no game ever use them. why? i suspect that the feature as being PC exclusive making developer have no interest implementing such feature in their games.
That, & the Nvidia – The Way It’s Meant To Be Played & AMD – Gaming Evolved programs that developers keep signing up for.
With Nvidia they get access to GameWorks & PhysX, so they prefer to go for the surface-level “flick leaves off the floor” physics instead of the in-depth “actual serious sh*t” physics that also take up a certain amount of the already-limited console resources in order to actually “make sh*t look good.”
For all the idiocy they manage to produce over there at DICE, the one thing they can never be faulted with is having a sh*tty, high-power-draw physics engine with Frostbite (no seriously, that thing is just glorious), but unfortunately they seem to be the only one who even so much as actively uses that damn physics engine in the first place, so it’s like it barely matters in the end, anyway.
“Effort.”
and SFR is not that better either. they have some advantage vs AFR but looking at the scaling alone will make you questioned if the cost added for buying the second card are worth the performance increase you get from it. and looking at CIV BE SFR implementation gpu maker still don’t have solution for SFR very poor scaling issue.
3D IS NOT DEAD. I use it. I love it. Witcher3D (see what i did there)
is awesome!
Sure, but ever since it stopped being a “mega-fad” it’s no longer a “hey, check me out, I’m on the back of the box cover” feature anymore, so every year you get some developers that decide to go for it, whereas most don’t.
Granted, it’s not like nobody goes for it these days, at all, but for the large majority of people it’s no longer a deal breaker, or a “big thing” to them.
Almost certainly not as the false assumption is when DX12 supports multiple GPU’s, and here your use of the word when, implies, currently DX12 has no support (or is that UWP, same result in practice).
You assume Vulcan, will still be on v1.0 and not also providing multi GPU functionality by that time.
The simple fact is, MS has a closed market agenda, I have no problem using DX12, it’s Windows 10, I wont use. MS made that link not me.
multi gpu this multi gpu that. but did most developer actually care about it?
Ah right, good point. Those infernal APU’s were going to (allegedly) finally kick in, alongside our dedicated GPUs (with whatever little power they actually have, to be fair, but yeah).
Whatever happened to that idea, in the end? >.<
do you think supporting multi gpu is an advantage to DX12 over Vulkan when in reality developer are mostly not interested with multi gpu?
Full multi-GPU support is coming in Vulkan 1.1 soon, along with many other features
.
Nonetheless, the game is beautiful and performs well. Doesn’t that count for something ?
The point was that with vulkan the game looks good (enjoyable) and is easy to run over 60fps.
Well, we have to bear in mind that OpenGL was never as good as DX11 performance-wise (should be noted though: I tried the new Vulkan demo on my R9 270x and it runs like a dream on High settings). That being said, I’d love to see it taking off.
Did Nvidia have great OGL drivers? Yes. Doom is proof of that. I don’t think is much of a stretch to imagine Nvidia pushing OGL over Mantle and DX12 if you take into account how they perform in low level APIs. It was clear that they saw no benefit from adopting Mantle, unlike AMD, and thus they preferred to downplay its improvements.
Whether they saw a benefit or not is debatable, considering how even if they did see a benefit, they’d never admit to it anyway, since then they’d be slammed by everyone for not adopting Mantle, which they were never going to do regardless, “because AMD.”
Turning it into Vulkan was really the only way Nvidia was ever going to accept it & officially support it.
#TeamVulkan
Uh huh.
count me in!
#TeamVulkan
Whatever it takes to move towards another OS…
Yup. Nothing wrong with DX12 itself, only the rock it’s tied to.
What? What?
Oh boy, this should be good.
What kind of advertisement?
Candy crush, they’re disabling the registry hack used to remove it
OMG, Microsoft is so pathetic nowadays…
“Nowadays”
That’s right. Did you hate MS for Windows XP, for example?
No, but that was a different time, I didn’t have knowledge.
So is this Avatar rotation thing a thing with you now, or are you just trying out a few different possibilities until you settle on something? 😛
lol, it’s me, I never settle with avatars. xD
They have been bad since the 90s, that’s why I’ve been using Linux for over 12 years. sometimes exclusively.
Thank goodness for Mantle giving the base for Vulkan.
Mantle support multiple GPU. Vulkan doesn’t. You can read about that in source article
So, the Khronos Group didn’t just copy/paste Mantle, rename it Vulkan & release it.
Surprise!
Right, they remove some features before rename
Yes, I’m sure they purposefully crippled their own creation in order to give Microsoft an edge.
Damn, you’ve got me, I confess, it’s all part of an over-reaching conspiracy to give the Khronos Group absolute dominion over all Graphics API’s in the entire IT Industry!
I mean, there’s really just no chance in hell they just accidentally broke Multi-GPU support while programming in the rest of Vulkan, as happens so often when people fiddle around with programming. Nope. Absolutely not. No chance at all!
Yes, since multi-gpu is so widely adopted.
Vulkan>>>>>>>>>>>>>dx12
as long as it gains traction with the devs…. we really need to cripple ms iron grip over game development
I truly do wonder what is better 12 or vulkan i don’t mean for multiple OS’s cause in reality sorry never going to happen linux fans at least not with every major game.
But from a pure performance side i might side with Vulkan as it seems like at least for that one game it made a big difference but then again it was using Opengl which does suck compared to directx 11.
Some benchmarks show 11 and vulkan are about even which isn’t good. In reality 10 keeps getting more share compared to all other copies of windows.
I do understand why people hate 10 man and with that new update coming its kind of making me mad. Cause i do not like ad’s on my bought(yes peasants i bought my copy) copy of windows. Also do not use the extra crap that they keep shoving down my throat. All i do is game and use Chrome and VLC player and a few more applications.
It’s just an icon in the start menu.
Also right click and uninstall is a very complicated operation it seems.