id Software on OpenGL versus DirectX 11 and on why it chose Vulkan over DirectX 12

DSOGaming writes: "A couple of weeks ago, we had the pleasure of interviewing id Software’s Tiago Sousa and Axel Gneiting. And as you may have guessed, we asked the team about the advantages of OpenGL over DX11 (and vise versa) and why it chose Vulkan over DX12."

[darthv72]

Vulkan and DX12 are very similar but their decision to support Vulkan was based on W7 and W8 support unlike DX12 which is W10. Supporting the ones who havent upgraded to a DX12 gpu / W10 is very considerate.

[Timesplitter14]

Considering that my DOOM ran at 50 fps on medium without Vulkan, and 110 fps on ultra with Vulkan, I'd say they made a pretty great choice

I lowered my quality settings in order to get a constant 144 fps and it was really incredible to see such a good looking game run with such mind-blowing smoothness and responsiveness. 144 fps is my new favorite thing and I can't wait until it becomes the new standard. When most TVs will support 144 hz, I say all console games should downgrade their visuals until they hit 144 fps. It's so, SO worth it

[UltraNova]

Wow thats some significant if not unheard off leap in performance!

What are your PC's specs, might I ask?

[Timesplitter14]

intel core i5 and GTX970 x2

I gotta admit that performance leap is really extreme. I'm wondering if it's maybe because the OpenGL version of DOOM didn't make good use of SLI? In most comparisons I've seen, the leap was more like 90 fps instead of 60 fps, both on ultra settings (which is still pretty great)

[RedDeadLB]

Let me guess, an AMD GPU?

Prior to Vulkan, AMD cards ran Doom like dogcrap. I'm actually not surprised you got that much of an increase.

[dreadz74]

Doom does not use sli or crossfire.. You are seeing single gpu performance.. I have a r9 390 I get up to 130 fps ultra @ 1440p https://www.youtube.com/wat...

[2pacalypsenow]

I had some FPS drop with my GTX1080 at 4k with Vulkan its a lot more stable

[medman]

People are always chasing some unicorn in performance....soon, 144fps won't be good enough either and people will want more. I'm happy with 60 fps, to be perfectly honest. In fact, I'm waiting for the 1080ti or Titan to get me the single card solution that enables 4k@60fps with ultra settings for all games I seek to play. If some games hit 80, 90, or above fps in ultra settings I wouldn't complain, but it's not a necessity for me the way 60fps is. But to each his/her own...we all have our preferences.

[Timesplitter14]

@medman
Well, framerate is just as important as visuals (if not more important), so I don't see the harm in wanting more, just like there's no harm in getting excited for better visuals.

Until we've reached the point where we can move our mouse cursor around and see no noticeable "ghosting" ( https://i.gyazo.com/d94fe5a... ), framerate improvements will always improve the gameplay and overall exprerience of a game. That would probably mean something like 1500 fps

[medman]

@timesplitter
1500 fps? Yosemite Sam that's fast....will we be getting retinal implants for our eyes and metal endoskeletons to strengthen and protect our fragile phalanges? We shall need them.

[DevilOgreFish]

whichever works for the developers. i think DX12 though will be a popular choice.

[nitus10]

Why? DirectX only works on the Microsoft operating system and DirectX 12 is confined to those devices running Windows 10. Vulkan can run on a variety of operating systems including Microsoft Windows and therefore is portable so it makes more economic sense for developers to develop their software using Vulkan.

Of course, if said developers are only going to develop for Microsoft Windows then DirectX 10 would be a logical choice but it would cost more to port their software to other platforms if they choose to do this at a later date.

[LightofDarkness]

If those developers were going to make their application seamlessly portable to Xbox and compatible with practically all gaming PCs, DX12 becomes a lot more attractive. Vulkan is not currently supported on PS4 so they'd have to port their graphics code to Sony's API anyway. So what other platforms are there?

Mac: dying a serious death at present.
Linux: very limited gamer support at current, with SteamOS very slowly leading the "charge"

Honestly, getting people to switch from Windows for gaming is not happening any time soon. No one is going to break compatibility with 90%+ of their library built up since the 90s in the name of sticking it to MS or patting long suffering Linux evangelists on the back for their years of dedication and shouting on internet forums.

Vulkan is a nice curiosity and probably a good clean alternative on PC to DX12, but it only makes sense if you're willing to work with much more limited toolsets and want to do direct-to-metal GPU coding while maintaining Windows 7/8 compatibility. There's a lot of headaches involved with going straight Vulkan.

[uth11]

@LightofDarkness - I've never seen Mac more popular than it is at present
Linux is more niche, but it too has a better gaming scene than ever before, so it's made good progress.

Most of my 90s PC games won't work on windows without something like dosbox or Virtual PC anyway, these are things available to Mac and Linux users too.

Honestly, getting off Windows would be the best thing for PC gaming, since that OS is the source of half the problems people experience with PCs

[UltraNova]

@lightofdarkness

"So what other platforms are there? "

Let me think...W7 and W8 users? aka 50+% of all PC gamers out there???

And since when did xbox support became a PC dev's priority? If anything one would think ps4 would be their obvious choice since they have double the userbase...

[OpenGL]

@LightofDarkness

Mac is more popular now than it's ever been and is one of the only brand of computers that has not seen a drop in sales due to the rise of tablets and smart phones. With that said, Apple is irrelevant to this conversation because they has stupidly refused to support Vulkan despite their history of supporting OpenGL.

[Mystogan]

DirectX has always been the go to. Vulkan is not good enough.

[rainslacker]

"it makes more economic sense for developers to develop their software using Vulkan"

This isn't always true. It really depends on what the dev is trying to achieve. In some cases, using DX could be more beneficial to them, because, as this dev puts it, there are a broader range of tools to choose from. Those tools mean less work, which means less money to create the game.

However, if a dev is looking at cross platform portability, then Vulkan, or at least some variant, would likely be a better choice, and the better and more robust tools are coming, so it'll probably be a wash.

DX12 is probably still going to be a popular choice though, but DX is no longer the go-to choice that it kind of once was for PC development. Even when Win10 release becomes the only consideration for distribution, devs aren't locked into DX, and may prefer to have more customization options that Vulkan allows for.

@Light

that's a very specific scenario which isn't as applicable as it once was due to the multi-plat nature of many third party development houses. It does make sense from the point of view of a PC only developer looking to have their games on Xbox hardware as well, but that brings in it's own considerations of if they want to put in the work of making that version of the game.

Nowadays, game development isn't as locked down to one API on PC as it used to be. Vulkan is more versatile at it's core(fully featured as this dev puts it), but DX tends to get more support in the tools department, which may or may not be relevant to the developer depending on the game and their own skill set.

Vulkan itself isn't directly supported on PS4 by Sony yet, however, it does have it's implementations through the PS4 API, and can be interfaced about as easily as one could interface between DX12PC and DX12.X for Xbox.

The other platforms would be NX....at least in relation to console and PC space. Mac, while a smaller user base for games, has something to consider for those looking at bigger releases. Also, X1 can run a version of OGL, which can use Vulkan to interface with it, but it's not quite as robust as the other versions out there. Apple is using Metal, which is a kind of form of Vulkan, and Vulkan translates to it for the most part if need be, or in some cases, Vulkan can just be used.

People aren't going to switch from Windows for gaming on a mass scale anytime soon. But that really has nothing to do with DX12 or Vulkan itself. Both are perfectly operable on the Windows platform.

Vulkan is in no way a curiosity anymore than OpenGl was. Both DX12 and Vulkan are MS and OpenGL's implementation of Mantle, respectively. Vulkan is here to stay, and it'll be used in more devices than MS even has access to with Windows.

Hate to break it to you, but Vulkan is a big player in the development process. DX12 is just something you have to accept if you want to release on Xbox hardware or for now, Windows Store. Porting between them can be hit or miss, but Vulkan, more often than not, is the place most games start their development if it's meant for anything other than PC.

@openGL

Apple doesn't support Vulkan directly, but the translation between Metal and Vulkan is rather simple. Vulkan can run on Mac itself, but not on their closed handheld systems.

[joeorc]

Well the default Graphics API for Android N OS is Vulkan...so if you include it...Vulkan API serves all of the more popular Operating systems , than DirectX 12 does..and since Android OS is a rather large supported industry standard Mobile Operating System..that Also is inside Smart TV's...

The Vulkan graphics API-

Serves :
Windows 7, 8, and windows 10
Linux
Mac : through the
https://moltengl.com/molten...
AndroidOS
FreeBSD
Sony PS4 [PSVR] Has the Vulkan API support.for PSVR.yes you are not seeing things the PSVR does indeed have support with using the Vulkan Graphics API..if the developer wants to use it.

Vs

DirectX 12 being only just for Windows 10 OS..and yes Xbox, Windows Phone, surface.

Vulkan is just more accessible across more platforms, add the fact it supports Android OS as the default Graphics API..the OS going into the smartTV's the Vulkan Graphics API is the default Graphics API for smart TV's and not DirectX12, That Vulkan Graphics Api is now going to be used in more devices than Direct X 12, while Microsoft is still trying to put a PC Windows 10 OS box under the TV and by extension its DirectX 12 Graphics API.

Developers can instead use for both smartTV's & Windows 10 using Vulkan instead of Using DirectX12 and having to spend more money in Port and having to use two separate Graphics Api's

With Vulkan it supports them all, with DirextX 12 it only supports Windows 10 Powered device Only.

[Vulkan is a nice curiosity and probably a good clean alternative on PC to DX12, but it only makes sense if you're willing to work with much more limited toolsets and want to do direct-to-metal GPU coding while maintaining Windows 7/8 compatibility]

1)Nice curiosity?
2) And if you want work with much more limited toolsets?

Yes it's such a nice Curiosity, that outside of PC market , that in Mobile Operating systems Go , that between iOS, and AndroidOS Windows 10 OS is pretty much regulated to less than 1% market share..

So that's pretty much with Graphics Api's in Mind.

iOS it's : Metal
AndroidOS it's : Open GL & VulkanOS
Vs
Windows 10 OS : DirectX 12
Yes it's such a nice Curiosity indeed..lmao

This :
And if you want work with much more limited toolsets?

Umm Vulkan works on Windows 10 devices, so how is it more limited in tool sets? As a matter of fact all the major 3rd party game engines as well as the middle ware now or will be supporting Vulkan.

DirectX 12 , Other game engines also had to be tweaked to take advantage of the DirectX 12 enhancements also, so it was not like DirectX12 adoption is that much higher than that of Vulkan or that Vulkan would be ignored over DirectX12 only..as the main point is Even on PC Vulkan still supports Windows 10 devices also.

[TheCommentator]

How is it more limited in toolsets? Ask Axel, he's the one who said it in the interview that you appear not to have read. Otherwise, some very valid points being made. Maybe you know this, but I remembered hearing that MS was planning on running Windows 10 on more devices than currently supported, including the possibility of an Xbox app for Mac. I haven't seen anything recently about this Win10 expansion though, outside of the Mac thing. Anything you can add to support this notion?

[joeorc]

@TheCommentator33m ago
[How is it more limited in toolsets? Ask Axel, he's the one who said it in the interview that you appear not to have read. ]

I did read it, and again how is it limited in toolset whan the majority of 3rd party game engines and middle ware already Support Vulkan!

It's a very simple Question, and its very clear you do not know the answer.here is a Hint.. Some areas of the Api is still being worked on , just like DirectX12 , but if you only are making games and Apps for Windows 10 OS only , than its limited..LMAO

[I haven't seen anything recently about this Win10 expansion though, outside of the Mac thing. Anything you can add to support this notion?]

Windows 10 is able to be made to run on devices that Microsoft has a deal with or is in demand for Microsoft to make..example Raspberry Pi for instance. Microsoft is now putting Xbox live games with multiplayer assets on iOS & Android OS that require a Xbox live silver account and a subscription fee ..Micraft Pocket edition now has Xbox live subscription fee for multiplayer , over wifi only on Android OS and iOS.

And again as I pointed out,

[rainslacker]

Toolsets are things that allow the dev to do something easier. They aren't directly tied to the API itself. Dev was right, there are fewer tool sets available for Vulkan, but he was also making the point that Vulkan allows for more customization through extensions, which was more important for them, since ID makes their own toolsets and has the staff to be able to do that. Toolsets often allow for this kind of extension, at least in final product outcome, to be done more easily without having to go through the work of writing one's own extensions, or it allows the dev to interface with the API much more readily.

The toolsets thing isn't likely to be much of an issue as time goes on, and I'm not even sure it's that much of an issue now. Vulkan while not new, hasn't had a finalized form long enough to really build toolsets for. Over time, the toolsets will become just as robust and fully featured, and essentially be able to do the same things the DX12 toolsets can on a user level. MS, to it's credit, offers a rather diverse set of tools for DX12 for the developer to use, whereas with Vulkan, a lot of that is third party due to the nature of OpenGL.

Game engines aren't really considered toolsets in the way you imply. They interface with toolsets either created by them, or provided by third party, and then take that and interface it with the API. They add their own routines that work with the API. For the most part, whatever can be done in the engine itself, without the use of external tools, will translate to whatever API the developer needs to build to that the engine supports. Some optimization may be required for either version depending on the function being implemented, and should one API not have something the other does, the engine itself will have it's own implementation it can run through extension or in the case of DX through abstraction. The game engine itself can also act as an abstraction layer in order to achieve a more consistent result between builds, but does this through it's own interpretation and compilation of the source code.

[zerocarnage]

Some will choose and some won't, don't see why somepeople are trying to constantly make directx12 look bad as they both good. Basically it will fall down to what works best for the devs and what ticks the boxes while creating there games as to what tools they will use, but this is around the 4th time in a fortnight I've seen someone trying to make a fuss over it and basically making Dx12 to look like the bad guy, which is very sad.

It seems as though there will always be haterz and despite ms having a good thing with dx12, seems as though there's some very sour grapes around who want to try and give ms and dx12 some bad rep, shame on them as it won't work. It is obvious that not every developer will like one or the other and will choose one over the other.

It's even more sad that you guys pulling dx12 down are happy enough to report which devs scrubbed dx12 in favour of vulkan, but why not try reporting on who's scrubbed vulkan in favour of dx12, report both and let's see the numbers of devs on both sides rather than trying to humiliate one party.

[Aenea]

Then add the positive articles yourself! Someone needs to add them otherwise we won't see them.

Thing is though, I don't think this is a negative towards DirectX 12 as you seem to feel it is. Vulkan is good too and if you do cross-platform development it actually makes sense, but if you only want to target Win10 and/or X1 then DX12 seems the right choice.

As for you feeling people are trying to give MS and DX12 a bad rep comes across as funny to me, since there are a gazillion articles approved daily that bash Sony, the Neo, PSVR or their (console) exclusive games.

But again, this article doesn't seem to be negative and besides, devs aren't going to be swayed what some article on some website says, they will make up their own mind.

[rainslacker]

I'd say on the main graphics pipeline, which is really what's being discussed by these devs, and unknowingly by the users, they're roughly equal. Both have their strengths and weaknesses in how and what can be done, and it is up to the dev to decide what is best for them. Vulkan gives the same abilities as DX12 either direcly, or through extension, whereas DX12 requires a bit of abstraction to achieve some of the same results if it isn't supported natively. That's what a lot of these tool sets do, as DX12 itself isn't as extensible as Vulkan is, and can be kind of tightly controlled if one tries to deviate from the main rendering pipeline. DX12 itself makes this more difficult, but it's not impossible, and as this dev said, there are plenty of tools which make it much easier.

For the most part, when it comes to what devs like, the topic of OGL and DX can be quite divisive. Most work on what they're told to, because other people decide what they will work on for whatever reason they deem fit. I don't think from a devs perspective it's necessarily due to hate of MS, because for them, it's going to be about what offers them the best option for their own design, and in the development market, MS isn't hated on as much as you may see in a forum that hinges on console preference. However, with most things involving programming, and not just game devs, people get used to something they really like, and can often just not like something else because they either haven't had the exposure to it, or feel it's more complicated than it needs to be, or doesn't offer the versatility that they may be used to.

Personally, I work with DX12, and the company I work for handles both. I make some of the toolsets this guy mentions, although not sure Id uses any that we made. I also have experience with OGL before getting into DX. I find both Vulkan and DX12 to be quite nice to work with. I find they are roughly equal on performance, with the variations and their impact being highly dependent on the code design and what the dev is trying to achieve, so in some cases, DX12 may perform better, and in others Vulkan will perform better. There really is no "better or worse" between the two, they're just different in how the developer can interface with the API.

[GNCFLYER]

Does this hold true for AMD architecture only?

[Asuka]

no Nvidia products can make use of Vulkan and DX 12 alike, but AMD will have certain advantages when both the APIs mature and supported software becomes more prevalent. This is because AMD has dedicated hardware in their GPU's to support async computing, where as Nvidia employs a hybrid hardware and software to emulate async compute, but it really isn't.

However this isn't anything new. AMD is usually the company to innovate (created the x64bit platform, created Mantle API, first to implement GDDR5 memory in their GPU's, etc.) and eventually Nvidia/Intel play catch up and tend to improve from their work. So Nvidia will pick up the ball at some point and get true async compute and HBM2

[GNCFLYER]

Thanks. Cleared that up nicely

[joeorc]

@GNCFLYER2h ago
Does this hold true for AMD architecture only?

No..it's fully open as a graphics card and or chip API to support other Chipset vendors out , such as a matter of fact...example right off the batt.

http://www.digitaltrends.co...

[Chinkyinc18]

Obviously, if AMD had their own OS, they would be doing the same as MS. But, they don't thus it makes sense to push it across many platforms as possible since none of those platforms affect sales of any of AMD products and only increase their odds for profit.. I don't understand the hate when it comes to open-platform items. Competition is good; I like Nvidia and Windows 7, but I support FreeSync and Vulkan because that's how you keep companies on their toes. I will say that it is a shitty practice for another division of MS to hold their games hostage to help MS OS division make sells...