Top
260°

The state of DX12 games in 2017, is DirectX 12 losing its steam?

DSOGaming writes: "Back in 2016, we published an article about the state of DirectX 12 in PC gaming. As we wrote back then, DX12 failed to impress as a new API. Most of the DX12 versions of PC games were running slower than their DX11 versions, something that really surprised us. However, back then we only tested NVIDIA’s GPUs. So, time now to take a look at all the DX12 games that were released in 2017 on both AMD’s and NVIDIA’s hardware."

Read Full Story >>
dsogaming.com
The story is too old to be commented.
Cyborgg132d ago

"In conclusion, things are not looking good for DX12 as most triple-A developers are not currently supporting it. As Tiago Rodrigues, 3D programmer at Ubisoft Montreal, claimed, most developers will most probably won’t be particularly satisfied with DX12 if they only care about raw performance. Rodrigues also claimed that it takes a lot of effort to get a DX12 game up and running as fast as its DX11 counterpart. And while DX12 was hyped as the next big API, it may end up as one of the biggest API failures!"

Interesting I must say. Hopefully it works out in the future

Bigpappy132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

Dice has it built into their engine, so does square, unreal4, Cry. So the DX12 API is being heavily supported even passively, by using all those engines. If you are building your own engine or programing at a very low level, I can see it getting in the way, because it would try to make adjustments at that level, were as DX11 doesn't. So some developers that like to low level program will actually go with and older engine, our build their own and use and older API like DX11. Doing low level work makes it easier to port to PS4 and switch.

Leila___131d ago

I’m making over $17k a month working part time. I kept hearing other people tell me how much money they can make online so I decided to look into it. Well, it was all true and has totally changed my life.

This is where i started>>> http://4u.fyi/4h5

BigWan78131d ago

Rather dumb article...

Microsoft made DX12 available while quite a few of those games were already im development...

Tell me what dev is going to scrap their current project just to use the new API...

Any game that started in late 2016 or so will most likely be using DX12 from ground up

rainslacker131d ago

I think this statement is a bit off. i work with DX12, making tools for game engines and developers, and overall, I haven't found it to be that difficult to do stuff in it. It has a few nuances which are baffling at times, but that's what keeps me employed.:)

Anyhow, it's not really any harder to get up and running on DX12, however, since a lot of games are started with DX11, it makes the porting of those to DX12 a bit less manageable. DX12 actually will run the DX11 code, however, it runs it in a kind of compatibility mode which isn't as optimized as DX12 can be.

There is more work required with native DX12 code, but games that start off in DX12 are just as easy to get up and running as their DX11 counterparts. Optimization on the other hand is a different issue. Routine functions actually are about the same as DX11, however if the developer uses the low level API's, they can be burdensome to actually get working properly. The reason for this is more a hardware issue, as not all hardware makers provide a full set of low level interfaces for their hardware, so what may be available on one card, isn't available on another. This means that for the most part, the low level stuff is mostly restricted to what is the minimum requirement for getting DX12 compatibility approval. This means that they have to make two versions of the same code....one that runs on higher levels like we normally see with DX12 functions, and one that actually takes advantage of specific hardware that may be available. If the dev doesn't do the former, then they greatly reduce the number of people who can run the game properly, and that almost never happens, as the lowest common denominator is still a thing.

@bigpappy

All engine makers have built it into their engine. That doesn't mean that all the hardware out there is using it. High profile games in general don't usually always use the engines default implementations of API code, as that would not be as optimized as the fine tuning that can be done through developmental experimentation.

Also, if one is building their own engine, DX12 is much better than DX11, as the interface level is much more fluid. DX11 is much higher level than DX12, so you kind of have to do workarounds to get certain functions to work the way you may want to, whereas in DX12, the hardware level is much more exposed.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 131d ago
BigWan78131d ago

Actually it wasn’t over hyped... DX12 is better than 11 in every conceivable way...

Microsoft released DX12 while most pf the games that just recently released were still in development..

What piblisher/development team is gonna scrap what their doing just to use a new API??
They would be wasting millions

rainslacker131d ago

The API itself is fine. The hype came from people expecting it to see immediate improvements to games.

This was never going to happen. It has never happened in the history of Graphics API's....particularly on PC. There is just too many people who don't have the required hardware, or operating system in the case of PC, to warrant developers moving as fast into the new API's as they may want to.

It doesn't help that MS itself hinders the adoption by restricting these API's to newer operating systems for no reason other than to push the new operating system. We have seen several DX generations go completely unused because of this, because people don't see the need to update their OS.

DX12 itself is a very capable AI, whose adoption is hindered by OS adoption and more importantly hardware implementation. Unlike many prior versions of DX, you actually do need a DX12 capable GPU in order to see the most benefit from what DX12 has to offer. The creation of these GPU's has been slow, because MS itself hasn't seemed to finalize what exactly is low level, and what isn't, and they keep adding new things, or changing the requirements to be able to use the low level aspect of it. On top of that, a full on DX12 GPU requires a departure from DX11, so DX11 still has to be supported in GPU's, and making a GPU which supports two completely different and distinct rendering pipelines is expensive, so for the time being, every GPU runs DX11 more than DX12, while DX12 runs in a kind of compatibility mode which is more brute force than streamlined design.

maybelovehate132d ago (Edited 132d ago )

The biggest advantages with DX12 is low level programming against hardware and also gpu compute. Which is huge for integrated graphics but hard to take advantage of with split CPU and GPU architectures that do not natively share memory. NVidia especially still designs as a split architecture that will not be as useful to DX12's compute advantages. This will change over time though. DX12 was built for the future. And AMD, Intel and NVidia's long term goals are to have shared memory systems without bottlenecks.

rainslacker131d ago

There is no discernible difference between split and pooled memory when it comes to low level programming. All it means is that certain functions require an extra step. The system itself can handle the transfer of data between two memory pools, and it's already built into the API's so there is really nothing the developer has to do to implement two different source codes. The nature of the memory is determined at run time, so the code is automatically adjusted so the pointers are at the proper place.

If DX12 was built for the future where pooled memory structures are more common, then it's going to be a very long time before we see the advantages that you posit. Pooled memory is not likely to be a mainstream thing in PC's for a very long time, and in that market, it makes more sense to have more tiers by allowing the GPU makers to handle how much memory is available to users through different options.

Show all comments (26)
The story is too old to be commented.