Imagination Technologies released a video, showing the performance difference between Vulkan and OpenGL. Both of these APIs were running the Gnome Horde demo and as we can see, Vulkan can handle things way better and faster than OpenGL.
As Imagination Technologies claimed:
“On the left-hand side of the video, we are showing Vulkan and on the right we have OpenGL® ES 3.0. We have attempted to ensure both versions run equivalent code and both run without extensions. The demos are not using instancing either, each draw call could be a different piece of geometry with a different material or texture and the CPU performance would be very similar.”
Enjoy!
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
Awesome!
The CPU efficiency :O / 😀
Better than that only if we have those types of choices back (I miss them so much :/ )
I remember getting near 60fps with that S3 metal driver and high resolution texture pack with 1024×1024 textures. 🙂 We had a games room with about 10 machines with S3 32Mb graphics cards all playing UT99. 🙂
That picture brought back so many memories.
ah, we need more of those
I think choice isn’t a good thing when it comes to APIs. I’m thankful we’re past those days when every manufacturer came up with their own API. Now we can all agree to standardize DirectX on Windows and Vulkan on Unix.
Thanks for the nostalgic picture by the way.
I see your point, but I have to disagree. PC gaming is always a matter of choice for me. Standards? Go for console.
I think you mean meaningful choice. Not all choices are meaningful and beneficial for PC gaming. Having choices for the sake of choices is pointless. Furthermore, if you think standards exist only on console, I’d respectfully point out that you’re mistaken. The internet you’re on right now, that’s built on standards. The software you use… standards. The way you simply plug in a new processor or graphics card… standards. Think about it. If standards didn’t exist, PC gaming wouldn’t either.
You misunderstood me. I’m not for “choice for choice sake” and I perfectly know standards. What I meant is that today we are practically alienated.
PC gaming today is: Steam, Windows, DirectX, Intel, Nvidia. Everything (and to stretch a little, everyone) else is treated like second thought (if given any thought at all). Effectively there’s no competition. What I’ve meant by choices are simply that, more ways that the so called standards could be built so different people can experience what fit their own standards.
I simply consider it survival of the fittest. People decide which service/company wins in the long run. Choices are there of course… but do they matter to the PC gaming population? That’s the question one needs to ask. Some PC gamers refuse to play games not on Steam. Majority of PC gamers buy Intel processors. Is that restrictive in any way? I don’t think so. In fact, these gamers have already made their choices known loud and clear, to such an extent that any competing product simply cannot cope up if it’s not good enough. That’s how it should be in my opinion. DirectX and OpenGL for example won the API war because they were better than the others, not because the choices were lessened intentionally over time.
I can agree with the lack of interest (survival of the fittest serves his own right on the enterprises analogy) but if anything life taught me is that the majority isn’t always right and, going back to my point, I think we need more choices because what we have now isn’t without it’s glaring flaws. Not everything will be perfect always, but it can at least serves different types of thinking.
Absolutely. I’m against the notion of herd mentality as much as you. But from a business perspective, I think a lot of other factors such as support, usability etc.also come into play, which is why only few products eventually make the cut. The majority may not always be right, but it’s the majority that sustains an ecosystem, in this case PC gaming.
software rendering, the slowest of slow. why even put it as an option? maybe a more viable option with today’s cpus
I see this as the “low setting”, why not support people with less power?
It’s not a low setting because it performs WORSE than other modes.
Still low. It may performe worse, but then again, a lot of people experienced low FPSs back in the day, now we just raised the bar.
Also, mind that I’ve used quotes.
so this runs on some ultra low end hardware ? OpenGL ES = for Embedded Systems.
not even using its latest version. I’d be more interested in desktop (preferably ‘real-life’) performances.
also, a few quotes from Imagination Technologies’s blog post:
“we are deliberately using OpenGL ES in a way that it was not designed for”
“this is an exaggerated scenario that is intended to highlight and amplify Vulkan’s strengths”
“the use of Vulkan does come with added code complexity compared to OpenGL ES”
I wish my balls were as smooth as the frame rates Vulkan is making. I could use my nuts as billiard balls.
how the hell did they manage to break opengl like that? good engineering?:D
It uses what is ireally needed and being as efficient as it can get. Amazing API.
I’m more interested in next gen OpenCL features, apps & tools I am using are GPU hungry…
That’s all well and good but has any games coming been confirmed to be using
Vulkan? I don’t think so. Unlike DirectX 12