Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linux? Irrelevant?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • MH
    replied
    Just regarding the D3D9 performance.

    The performance is absolutely nothing to do with the API used. Instead it's how the API is used.

    As a general rule:

    - Badly-written OpenGL code will run faster than badly-written D3D9 code.
    - Well-written D3D9 code will run faster than well-written OpenGL code.

    The stock GLQuake OpenGL code is bad. It uses the API in the worst possible ways at almost every step.

    The D3D9 code I wrote for MarkV is neither good nor bad: it's mediocre at best, but it's still good enough to outperform the stock OpenGL code.

    It does this by taking the GL calls and doing unspeakable things with them to make them into efficient calls under D3D9.

    But you could do the very same and convert them into efficient calls under OpenGL too, and it would also run fast.

    Or you could replace it with better-written OpenGL code and it would run fast; probably faster than the D3D9 code too.

    Leave a comment:


  • enderandrew
    replied
    Awesome. I'll have to check it out.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baker
    replied
    Spike has a Vulkan version of his FTE engine.

    http://triptohell.info/moodles/win64/fteqw64.exe

    enable it via 'setrenderer vk' or via the menus.

    Leave a comment:


  • enderandrew
    replied
    Vulkan support INCLUDES Intel chipsets without an additional video card (AMD/Nvidia) and goes back about 5-6 years on supported devices.

    That's basically 100% of desktop and laptop users.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spike
    replied
    if you're counting all the computers sold to companies that will never run a game or those with both discrete nvidia gpus and crappy onboard intel chips, then yeah, intel would be the one that sells the most gpus by numbers.
    I personally trust steam's stats better (nvidia 58%, intel 17%), but on the other hand, steam users will still have better hardware than the average person playing a 20-year-old game...
    so yeah, the players who actually need extra help running quake are those that don't have vulkan drivers. vulkan is definitely not 100%.

    Leave a comment:


  • enderandrew
    replied
    Intel, AMD and Nvidia all offer Vulkan support on a wide variety of GPUs going back several years, which covers 100% of users.

    https://software.intel.com/en-us/blo...ows-78110-1540

    Leave a comment:


  • Baker
    replied
    GeForce cards represent 16% of machines out there, and are the least likely to have frames per second issues.

    The other 84% are not using Nvidia.

    And Quake runs on anything.

    2016 marketshare:

    Leave a comment:


  • enderandrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Baker View Post
    The high-end graphics cards that support Vulkan are the least likely to need help in the fps department.

    R00k said something about 1600 fps in Mark V with his high end graphics card.

    1600 fps is over 5 times the useful fps. In single player Quake physics in most engines is broke at around 250 fps, 72 fps is standard Quake physics.

    In most multiplayer engines, fps in excess of perhaps 144 fps is faster than the server can use, because any true Quake server runs 72 fps.
    Vulkan support goes back to GeForce 600 cards from 5 years ago. You don't need a recent/high-end card for it.

    I'm running DarkPlaces exclusively because I love the SMC. Out of the box you can get hundreds of FPS, but by the time I turn on RT lights, install tons of HD textures, tons of particle effects, etc. I drop way back down. I think I'm getting 30-90 FPS with all the sexyness turned on and HD textures across the board. I'm not getting 1,500 FPS, and I have an overclocked GTX 970.

    Leave a comment:


  • Spike
    replied
    regarding vulkan with nvidia, my experience is that at normal resolutions (ie: 1920*1080), vulkan runs at about half the framerate of d3d9 (1500 vs 3000 or so on my 750ti).
    however if you're running at tiny resolutions like 320*200 then you can expect higher framerates in vulkan. maybe in time nvidia's drivers will stop sucking (they don't even support VK_PRESENT_MODE_IMMEDIATE_KHR).

    but yeah, as baker says, if the gpu is modern enough to have vulkan drivers then you're going to get decent framerates regardless of the api used.
    that said, complex scenes will favour vulkan, especially with weaker cpus.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baker
    replied
    Originally posted by enderandrew View Post
    I wonder if your OpenGL renderer moved to Vulkan if you'd see massive speed improvements like you're seeing with the DX9 renderer?
    The high-end graphics cards that support Vulkan are the least likely to need help in the fps department.

    R00k said something about 1600 fps in Mark V with his high end graphics card.

    1600 fps is over 5 times the useful fps. In single player Quake physics in most engines is broke at around 250 fps, 72 fps is standard Quake physics.

    In most multiplayer engines, fps in excess of perhaps 144 fps is faster than the server can use, because any true Quake server runs 72 fps.

    Leave a comment:


  • enderandrew
    replied
    I wonder if your OpenGL renderer moved to Vulkan if you'd see massive speed improvements like you're seeing with the DX9 renderer?

    Leave a comment:


  • lennox
    replied
    I'll give it a build at some point tonight or tomorrow and see how it runs.

    Leave a comment:


  • gulliver-trans
    replied
    I was gonna add to your Reputation meter on this forum, but apparently I need to "spread it around" to 50 or so *other* people first, and it can't be anyone whose posts I've recently approved. Tricky!

    Anyhow, it's a great engine for a great OS. Giving it a "highly recommend!"
    Last edited by gulliver-trans; 01-25-2017, 05:39 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Baker
    replied
    Originally posted by Lucifex View Post
    dx9 build as it seems to run the best for now
    DirectX is so much faster than OpenGL that -- well --- MH's DirectX 9 augmented version of Mark V is what I consider the main Windows build.

    And the plan moving forward is that while the Open GL builds on Windows will always be supported, DirectX 9 on Windows is going to be the main build.

    MH has gone out of his way to provide the speed and the complete feature set that I use.


    Originally posted by Lucifex View Post
    I have dabbled with QuakeC here and there and also attempted to modify the DP source. Couldn't wrap my head around it whatsoever. The fact that people can actually grasp engine coding is amazing
    Engine coding is tough. When I started, it was "all Greek to me" for a long while.

    Leave a comment:


  • Lucifex
    replied
    Good to know! r_mirroralpha is set to 1 and I was using the stock Quake particles.

    Suppose I'll stick with the dx9 build as it seems to run the best for now. Mainly using it for online play as Darkplaces (my usual engine of choice) seems far clunkier for some reason.

    I have dabbled with QuakeC here and there and also attempted to modify the DP source. Couldn't wrap my head around it whatsoever. The fact that people can actually grasp engine coding is amazing.

    cheers

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X