calin_banc

Correct, ArmA 3 most likely never, others, yes. Most definitely. It's not the game that's too complex, it's the tech behind it that it's old and inefficient.

http://www.dualshockers.com/2016/03/14/directx12-requires-different-optimization-on-nvidia-and-amd-cards-lots-of-details-shared/ http://wccftech.com/remedy-dx12-matching-dx11-gpu-performance-trivial-architectures-driver/ What is has be known before: if go that route, you need to put some effort into it and require some skill and knowledge about each of the IHV strengths and weaknesses. Gears of War recently just released a patch that fixed the performance on AMD and at some point it reversed the order of performance - http://www.overclock3d.net/reviews/gpu_displays/gear_of_war_ultimate_edition_performance_retest_-_the_game_has_been_fixed/3 . You're the driver as well. http://www.anandtech.com/show/10067/ashes-of-the-singularity-revisited-beta/5 Even the old gtx680 got a healthy 20% increase in performance, while the others... not so much. Naughty, naughty nVIDIA! :D

You can have Vulkan 3.0 and DX30 installed if the game is not properly coded to make good use of it; just like... multithreading.

The FPS is lower because everyone likes the bragging rights of DX12, but have a hard time delivering it. They are not the only ones - see TR. I'm getting around 11% gains in Hitman even at high, GPU intensive and vRAM limiting details (5280x1050, max), dx11 vs dx12 on a R290. Around 30% extra performance in low details (less GPU intensive), same resolution, if I down clock the CPU to force it run at stock settings. That's a new and modern API: speed and efficiency.

Like I've said: Some mess around with the damage values or it can be packet loss, etc., so that's that. I've experience it myself while playing Wasteland a while a back. Check yourself with the editor. The 3d one allows you to easily customize each soldier with the gear you want. Without body armor, pretty much everything will kill in the chest area within close range. Even the 6.5mm from the USA faction will kill in 3 hits from that close (under 100 or 50m), even with body armor.

The problem is with the server/mod/whatever. 7.62 kills in one shot and so does a pistol round if there is no protection. .50/12.7 also kills in one hit even close to 900m from what I've tested using the BEST body armor provided in the game via the sniper dlc. Of course, you have to actually HIT the target, 'cause sometimes it seems it misses and even more so with the 7.62 rifles available - at that range. 7.62 is still one shot if it hits unprotected areas.

Why not DX8? The ultimate cinematic experience, with that "old school" feel. :P

It's simple: -you gain more performance from a faster CPU or from overclocking -> CPU bottleneck. -you gain more performance from a faster GPU or from overclocking -> GPU bottleneck.

I've updated the post, forgot about the video card: R290@1100/1380MHz. vRAM isn't an issue in single card configuration. The card runs of out power well before. Besides, Tilled Resources allows a developer to overcome that - if they really want high detailed textures. Anyway, there is an issue of CPU bottleneck an of course AMD will suffer the most from it since they're running on many slow cores, instead of a few, but with higher IPC. It's Eyefinity, mix resolution ( 1 x 27" 1920x1080 + 2 x 22" 1680x1050). Works quite well.

Light scenario: 1200m view distance and object distance what the game sets by default, object details low, terrain on standard. The rest are high, without MSAA, only CMAA. Heavy scenario: 12000m view distance + 12000m object distance + very high terrain, objects details ultra, the rest is as previous. i5 2500k@3,3GHz and 4,5GHz, 16GB RAM@1600MHz (1T, 9 9 9 24), standard HDD. LE: Forgot about the video card: R290 @1100/1380MHz, latest AMD drivers. Light scenario 4,5GHz - http://imgur.com/WympNr3 70fps Light scenario 3,3GHz - http://imgur.com/9PYQDg3 53fps Heavy scenario 4,5GHz - http://imgur.com/1g2I29h 12fps Heavy scenario 3,3GHz - http://imgur.com/5GeLeSN9fps LE: here is the album, for some reason imgur decided to move/rearrange/whatever. http://imgur.com/a/I6PUj The OC and downclock are strictly made using the multiplier, so no other features of the system are changed such as FSB speed, memory speed or whatever. It's strictly a CPU performance gained or lost. Please explain how the CPU is not the limiting factor in here? Even if AMD would have a significant overhead, that would mean to hummer that 1st cord hard, but it doesn't happen. Only when the settings are low enough and the bottleneck doesn't come from who knows what part, we see a significant use on core 1. You'd think the game would at least use the 1st core to its max possibility, but that doesn't happen as settings go up. As a funny thing, the CPU usage increases as the frequency increases (both in light and heavy scenarios). "Only in ArmA". :D In terms of CPU performance: ~33% increase from 3,3 to 4,5 in heavy scenario and ~32% in light scenario. As you can see the CPU is very much a limiting factor - remember, nothing else in the system is changed, except the multiplier. Bottom line: the engine needs to be changed/heavily upgraded. PS: 9 or 12fps as you look at... nothing. That's what I call "efficiency!" / irony. PS: resolution is 5280x1050.

It's logical that Dx12/Vulkan/Mantle will bring new life into AMDs CPUs, they aren't properly utilized under DX11 and lower due to the way the software is build and there isn't much you can do. In the GPU sections, GCN is build for a DX12/Vulkan kind of a ecosystem (the CPUs as well, work best here rather than single threaded apps like dx11), while nVIDIA build their cards for DX11. This means DX12 allows AMD cards to reach more of their peak theoretical performance. Here is an explanation - http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38055079&postcount=932

Also CPU testing dx11 vs. dx12 - http://www.computerbase.de/2016-02/ashes-of-the-singularity-directx-12-amd-nvidia/5/

Latest update from AoS has AMD and nVIDIA working together in multi GPU - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:AfZFqjhp4CMJ:www.nordichardware.se/Grafikkort-Recensioner/ashes-of-the-singularity-beta-2-vi-testar-directx-12-och-multi-gpu/Prestandatester.html+&cd=3&hl=ro&ct=clnk&gl=ro

http://www.computerbase.de/2016-02/directx-12-benchmarks-ashes-of-the-singularity-beta/ + http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Graphics-Cards/Fable-Legends-Benchmark-DX12-Performance-Testing-Continues/Results-1080p-Ultr In Fable, as I understand, they're gonna use Asynchronous Shaders for spells and other effects that weren't in the demo, so possibly more advantage for AMD. ATM AMD stands very well in all DX12 benchmarks available. At lower resolution (or in other words, not in GPU bottleneck scenarios, but rather CPU), the AMD cards stretch their legs quite well.

1st benchmark shows worse performance under Vulkan compared to DX11. http://www.computerbase.de/2016-02/vulkan-erste-benchmarks-der-neuen-api-in-talos-principle/ . Interesting to see that AMD wins under Vulkan.

You're quoting all the wrong scenarios and it looks like you know more about what they need than Johan himself (one of the major guys behind Mantle and low level APIs). Of course a linear part in single player won't pose much of challenge. Multiplayer is where is at.

Actually you gonna see more improvement over high end cards rather than slower cards and that's logical. Look in the test I've posted above -> R390 gains more compared to R280x. Also AoS is in development, you can download and I think it's playable. It's not just a demo.

Funny you should say that - https://twitter.com/repi/status/585556554667163648 Here's a presentation of DX12 and this part is a good indicative of what could be good in ArmA aka: More objects, more variety while you have less CPU usage. However, the devs already said their engine is multi threaded enough. So that's that. How DX11 works vs. DX12 - https://youtu.be/H1L4iLIU9xU?t=15m12s You can watch the whole thing, is quite good and informative. Vulkan will not fix the engine as well if they don't wanna go into deep optimizations. PS: I can also show that ArmA is rather GPU bound and not server side or CPU side. Post figures that are relevant to subject at hand please. LE: Here is a more recent test of AoS. http://www.computerbase.de/2016-02/directx-12-benchmarks-ashes-of-the-singularity-beta/#diagramm-ashes-of-the-singularity-1920-1080 24% increase moving to DX12 on R390 and is doing that while doing more work than nVIDIA. An that's in an engine already proper multi threaded.

As good multi threaded engines, you also have Frostbyte and Cry Engine, engines that are already there and working. FB was the first in low level APIs world under Mantle and it shows. Anyway, coming back to ArmA, although it's indeed multi threaded, it's not that efficient in what it does. Dwarden in the way he phrase it, would make you think everything is just fine and that just some crazy people are there that just complain for the sake of complaining. But if you look at ArmA, let's say they add DX12, is that the limiting factor, as in a MAJOR one? Well it depends on the scenario, but that isn't a magic wand that you move around and it fixes everything. Let's remember Bohemia said they didn't saw major improvements experimenting with the API, but then let's remember about Ark and how it should have received DX12 a while back. After AoS story broke out, that was postponed for "ASAP" and almost half a year later, nothing... Is it because nVIDIA is having problems and they have a partnership with them? The latest Tomb Raider used an Ambient Occlusion solution developed by them and Asynchronous Shaders on XBOX1, but came without those on PC, but had some GW love. Again, nVIDIA sponsored game. Going back to AoT, under DX12 nvidia is using more of the CPU by drivers, due to the way it's working with A(synchronous) S(haders) and how it goes around the lack of a hardware scheduler in their cards. Add that to an already high demanding game on the CPU and you have the situation where it's actually loosing performance. Considering how RV 4 works (the engine under ArmA 3), that is a problem most likely Bohemia already encountered. If they can't go around that, DX12 could be scraped or put there by name alone, no AS, no nothing. Just AMD's install base won't matter to them, just as DX11.2 and tilled resourced didn't matter, although it can bring great benefits to the game. More on AMD, Mahigan (the guy that was quite vocal about this in the past and that worked for AMD a few years back, so he knows hardware), says that under DX11 AMD can't do much to multi thread their drivers due to their hardware, but it performs great under DX12 - opposite to nVIDIA, which can use its "magic" to do wonders under DX11. The green team, may or may not have a solution with Pascal to AS, we'll see soon enough. Although I hope it would, because that would motivate developers to actually use what they put in their console ports. :D Of course, that's bad luck for every nVIDIA GPU sold until now. More on Ashes of Singularity, nVIDIA "fixing" solution implied removing some effects apparently: http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38023537&postcount=317 http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=38024684&postcount=343 So in this benchmark AMD is working harder and it's still competitive with the green team. Zlatan is a game developer: So basically under DX11 you depend a lot to Microsoft and AMD plus nVIDIA, while DX12 gives you liberty to fix your own problems. Getting back to ArmA 3 and DX12. Even though they manage to extract some performance from there, there is still de matter of 32 bit client and AI that isn't that well multi threaded. Those require "fixes" as well, but at least the 64 bit is worked on and with some luck, DX12 will arrive as well. I'd guess the major bonus of this will be a higher draw distance and object details, while in situations with high number of Ais we'll be limited just as we are now.

That is the render. Besides that you have AI, physics, sound, etc., that all have been multithreaded for quite some time now. For maximum efficiency you need all aspects of the engine to be able to properly use multiple cores.

You have your answer in that post and in your quote. Let me rephrase it: if my job is to guard something and while it's a simple job, I do it well. There is no need for a guy from special forces to stay guard at the entrance of... don't know, a small warehouse. However, although if a train conductor can do the same job and probably more, if he cannot do what he suppose to do at his workplace properly, he fails in his duties. It doesn't matter the job is more complex, it doesn't matter that no other small time guard duty guy doesn't do what the train conductor does (he's not suppose to and most likely, he's not interested). The 2nd one fails! I don't mind the AI of Half Life 2 is not as complex and capable, because it works in that scenario, I don't experience its limitations in the way I am in ArmA. It doesn't matter the AI in Just Cause 2 is basic, because the gameplay allows to overcome that and doesn't put much emphasis on it. For the last time: If you cannot do your job properly you fail. It doesn't matter others can't do it as well (it could be because they're not even interested in doing it anyway).

That's a big fallacy, Roadkill. You'd probably want a game very similar if not exactly like ArmA as an example, however it doesn't work like that. The AI has to work for the game it's design to work in. You can't make a quite realistic game without an advanced enough AI. You may get away with some of its flaws in games in which the gameplay is designed in such way that overcomes the limitations and you're not forced to work around that with everything you do - at points, even more than focusing on the experience, on the gameplay. PS: And no, it's not perfectly fine even now, far from it. Quite the opposite.

Don't confuse the multithreading of the render part with the overall MT optimizations of a game/engine.

Go in editor and play with the settings, you have an FPS clock right in the menu, so you don't have to install any other software. Shadows drawing distance taxes the CPU as well, so leave it at 50, put object details to low or medium at most and also the drawing distance keep it at some reasonable settings. I wouldn't go beyond 1,5k for terrain and 500-1k for objects. Leave some room for the AI and physics once you're in a mission. You can play with the AA and supersample if you have the GPU power to have a sharper image.

Some of these reviewers really need to play what they're testing or at leas show some interest/knowledge about what they're doing. Infantry scenario is more GPU limited than CPU limited. Look here - http://gamegpu.ru/action-/-fps-/-tps/arma-iii-test-gpu.html. Don't know about frame times, but that old i3 2100 is ~ equal to a fx8350@4,5GHz. The GPUs are fairly equal AMD vs. nVIDIA.