Doom which was coded directly into Vulkan API (through wrappers of course) is not hundreds of times faster. Please, be precise on your post. For me, it would be already good as hell being on par with Dx12, any 10% plus would have me completely satisfied, but I really wish it to be 30% faster.
There was a huge difference in my Unity project between DX11 and Vulkan. I got over 700 fps with Vulkan.
This means each frame was rendered in 1.42ms, what did you have in the scene? can you provide a sample build in vulkan made there for us to take a look?
Usually, my project consume much resources because I donāt care of optimization (LOD etc.). My Unity project is designed to do all the stuff at runtime for users. First, we wanted to use UE4, but the lack of C++ documentation killed me and I was forced to use Unity. Yes, I switched to Vulkan from the default DX11 because my complex application was frozen because of a very low FPS. I was surprised of boosting my project. I am sure the Unity Team made a great work in implementing Vulkan. I wish the Epic Team would do the same in UE4.
Because there is much stuff (very complex UI system plus editors for browsing and creating avatars, objects, panels, terrains, places and particles and many more; all with thousands objects and all done at runtime) on the huge scene, we got only 188 FPS now. But with directx11, I was unable to use me app. And Vulkan coped to render that. [ATTACH=JSON]{ādata-alignā:ānoneā,ādata-sizeā:āfullā,ādata-tempidā:ātemp_132491_1521273948278_608ā}[/ATTACH]
https://forums.unrealengine.com/core/image/gif;base64
ā
So, to be comparing apples to apples and not pineapples, you said you got 188FPS in the complex scene in Unity, which is the FPS when you switch from Vulkan to DX11 in Unity then?
I donāt want to extend the discussion, because the thread itself is not about Unity (and shouldnāt), but I do see a useful statistic to know here, so this is why my question in 1st place. Indeed, Vulkan would be a change, since it was made to run in several different systems, makes us to want it badly and also to not be dependent on DX12 and future generations of it.
There are a number of people waiting for a good quality Vulkan renderer for Unreal for high quality PC as Unreal Engine has some of the best visual quality on that platform. Being able to extend that same fedelity to Linux as well would just be cherry. So far we have been eyeballing Cryengine and Unity but they are not quite there yet on the Vulkan front either. If Epic were able to cut ahead of the race and deliver a Vulkan renderer for PC that could dish out the visuals they are known for, I think they would see a nice market return. I am holding out hope for the next quarter before having to make a final call.
For me, the two biggest things Iād like to see are support for PC-specific effects (alternate shading models like Subsurface Scattering, GPU particles, cloth, motion blur), and draw call performance improvements. Vulkan can take care of draw call performance, a must-have for larger open world spaces.
You mean you want these features on mobile correct? The desktop Vulkan implementation supports everything the D3D11/12 path does.
On AMD we are faster than D3D11, once the slides from my GDC talk are out you can see the numbers.
@ Oculus added Vulkan support in https://developer.oculus.com/downloads/package/oculus-sdk-for-windows/1.15.0/ (current SDk is 1.24.0) and I am wondering when UE4 will fully support that so that we could finally enjoy better performance in PC VR using Vulkan (or same performance with increased visual fidelity).
Does it mean NVidia Vulkan implementation is not on par with AMD? Or is this something regarding hardware concept helping Vulkan implementation at AMD side?
Means the way we are generating Vulkan commands seems to be better suited for AMD for some reason. We need to do more profiling to find why itās not as great on NV.
Thatās great news! I know this will be answered when the slides and/or the full talk is finally available, but does Vulkan fully make use of parallel rendering now in UE4?
When you say āfaster than D3D11ā, with what amount of draw calls did you test to get that number? āNormalā amounts that are common currently with D3D11, or more crazy numbers that only really become possible with Vulkan?
But the way you generate DX11 command in UE which is better suited for Nvidia, do you ever do profiling to find out why itās not as great on AMD? Or its when Nvidia performs worse you think there is something wrong?
Hello ! Very interesting. I am deeply interested in Vulkan for my Open World, Technical Demo featuring UE4. With 4.19 as it is, would you recommend porting the Project over to Vulkan right now? Or wait for the 4.20 Branch?
Also, where can I find your GDC Slides on Vulkan, interested on that too! Thanks in advance!
Just registered to respond to this because it made me facepalm, no offence.
AMD cards are expected to be faster in Vulkan than NV because Vulkan is based on the open sourced AMD Mantle API. Just look up AMD and Khronos Group statements on the topic.
It would take Nvidia to redesign their GPU architecture to have significant performance gains, it is not something that will happen fast. Rather than that expect smaller step-by-step improvement in the future as Vulkan evolves and implements changes proposed by the each member of the Khronos OpenGL/Vulkan workgroups.
The MAJOR goal with Nvidia 700/900/1000 series GPUs was to NOT have a detrimental performance using Vulkan, which you can observe on older Fermi architecture based 400/500/600 Nvidia cards, which they have accomplished successfully.
So in short, itās working as it should, save yourself some time on the profiling.
You do not need to get that harsh with Rolando, hes not saying that NV should be as fast or faster than AMD, hes just trying to explain that Vulkan on NV should be at least on par with D3D11, it isnāt so hes profiling that.
Maybe I donāt understand something, but letās look at this:
While the article mention that results on AMD are better, as you can see, Doom performs a way better with Vulkan than with OpenGL on Nvidia. If idSoftware could do it, I am sure Epic can make it happen too.
Still Vulkan giving 30% performance boost over OpenGL for AMD against the 10% performance boost for NVidia, seems really something on NVidia is quite not suitable for Vulkanā¦ I would really be interesting in some explanations from NVidia about this 
Thatās not the point. The point is that Vulkan should perform better on Nvidia regardless. It shouldnāt be just on par with DX11 because several other engines already proved that Vulkan is faster on Nvidia than older APIs.
Ah now I got your point.