AhhzzWhere did you find these numbers?
I see where you used the Steam numbers, but does that include people who aren't on Steam?

Steam is the only thing we got to get a slight idea of how the gamers market looks like. Steam isn't exactly an underground niche platform, even if a lot of people hate steam, it's still really popular. Beside steam isn't as specialised as the other gaming service wich make it more mainstream. If the number of gamers playing on steam is higher than the number of gamers on gog, uplay, origin, windows store, battle.net, then steam users is the better sample.
If square enix isn't going to release their new games on GOG, I don't see why they would care for GOG data.

Right now steam alexa rank is still higher than the competitor, and they are also the only one doing public survey.

AhhzzWhere did you find these numbers?
I see where you used the Steam numbers, but does that include people who aren't on Steam?

Steam numbers are the best we have at the moment unless you have another source we can look at for gamers. Please do share with the rest of the class ;)

Granted the Steam Survey isn't a scientific survey but I use it to get a general idea of what PC gamers are running. It's pretty humbling for me to see what so many are making do with in gaming when I have so much. People on tech sites should really take note of what PC gamers are reporting for their hardware and that a large chunk of gamers would consider an upgrade to a 1080p monitor and a GPU from the last generation to be a very nice upgrade.

newtekie1So the game works just fine with DX11, looks good enough DX11, and performs good enough with DX11. But, yeah, that DX12 is super important...:rolleyes:

Improves performance so it can run on a broader range of hardware.

newtekie1So the game works just fine with DX11, looks good enough DX11, and performs good enough with DX11. But, yeah, that DX12 is super important...:rolleyes:

Hey Crysis 1 looked great. You're right we should just stick with DX9. Good point.

FordGT90ConceptImproves performance so it can run on a broader range of hardware.

Thing is, I doubt it will suddenly make the game playable on hardware that it wasn't playable on with DX11. So kind of a moot point. It's nice to have the performance improvement, but is it super important?

Captain_TomHey Crysis 1 looked great. You're right we should just stick with DX9. Good point.

I'm not saying we shouldn't move to DX12 and progress. But my point is that at this point in time, DX12 is not the super important thing that some people are making it out to be. It's nothing more than a novelty and an after-thought to developers. So much so, to the point that they aren't even worried about having it working on release day. Eventually DX12 will be important, when game developers start developing for DX12 first and working backwards. But right now, we have games developed and optimized for DX11 and then DX12 just thrown in afterwards, and it will continue to be that way for a good while IMO.

newtekie1DX12 is not the super important thing that some people are making it out to be. It's nothing more than a novelty and an after-thought to developers. So much so, to the point that they aren't even worried about having it working on release day.

Tests are coming out that show the Titan XP is getting CPU bottlenecked by Intel's latest i7's in several games. That is a major problem considering in less than a year AMD/Nvidia will have far cheaper cards with comparable performance for FAR less money. Better CPU utilization is needed NOW, and the situation will only get worse.

A novelty is the dumbest thing I have heard someone call this long-overdue API upgrade... Possibly ever.

Captain_TomBetter CPU utilization is needed NOW, and the situation will only get worse.

Wow, it's such a dire emergency, most of us gamers haven't even noticed. I'm glad you've got our back! :rolleyes:

rtwjunkieWow, it's such a dire emergency, most of us gamers haven't even noticed. I'm glad you've got our back! :rolleyes:

LMAO ok buddy again - we should just stick with DX9. Most people didn't notice an issue with that either.

Captain_TomLMAO ok buddy again - we should just stick with DX9. Most people didn't notice an issue with that either.

It'll be a long time til I move to 10, so I'm happy with <DX12, and many of us are.

Captain_TomLMAO ok buddy again - we should just stick with DX9. Most people didn't notice an issue with that either.

You write some funny stuff. No one says don't go to 12. And definitely no one said stay at 9. I think you're trying to create conflict where there is none.

I think that the thing most of us should be mad about is the fact the dev who are working on deus ex are from the same company as the one who worked on rise of the tomb raider. Meaning that the DX12 patch have a chance to be useless as it will bring little performance wise, or even be slower. The transition to DX12 looks a lot like the transition from DX9 to DX10. DX10 was not only bringing more eye candy, but also better performance on compatible hardware. Yet we were stuck for DX9 for a long time, The witcher 2 (2011 !) was a DX9 title, even though it would seem that CDPR had no reason to not use DX10.

The same story will happen with DX12, it might even be worse since it apparently require more work from the developers. It will actually be great to wait if that allow the people from Nixxes and other studio to learn how to use it. AAA developers are under a lot of pressure, and right now DX11 is just faster to develop for while also being the api with the most potential customers.

The 14nm era is likely going to be another long period like the 28nm era, so Titan x performance for the common people isn't going to happen anytime soon. And until zen actually hit the market, we don't know if taking advantage of more than 4 thread will actually be worthy. In 2006 dualcore were the mainstream gaming cpu, 2009 was when quadcore became the mainstream cpu, only 3 years. However Intel doesn't seem in an hurry to make hexa/octocore maintsream, and keep asking an hefty premium for it even though 7 years already passed. Until 200$ 6 core/12thread cpu become a thing, DX11 is going to stay for a while.

newtekie1Thing is, I doubt it will suddenly make the game playable on hardware that it wasn't playable on with DX11. So kind of a moot point. It's nice to have the performance improvement, but is it super important?

Think Intel HD 530. D3D12 hardware but really poor performing. Those 5 FPS it adds (or whatever it is) may make the difference between unplayable and playable. If that translates to a 1000 fewer customer service calls and refunds, it was worth it. So yeah, super important. If it wasn't, developers would still be using D3D9.

FordGT90ConceptThink Intel HD 530. D3D12 hardware but really poor performing. Those 5 FPS it adds (or whatever it is) may make the difference between unplayable and playable. If that translates to a 1000 fewer customer service calls and refunds, it was worth it. So yeah, super important. If it wasn't, developers would still be using D3D9.

I still don't see it happening. DX12 does not provide enough of a performance boost.

newtekie1Thing is, I doubt it will suddenly make the game playable on hardware that it wasn't playable on with DX11. So kind of a moot point. It's nice to have the performance improvement, but is it super important?

If you're the proud owner of AMD hardware, it's the only thing that makes it look good.

FordGT90ConceptThink Intel HD 530. D3D12 hardware but really poor performing. Those 5 FPS it adds (or whatever it is) may make the difference between unplayable and playable. If that translates to a 1000 fewer customer service calls and refunds, it was worth it. So yeah, super important. If it wasn't, developers would still be using D3D9.

This line of thinking is just wrong. If you were seeing 25fps and now you'd be seeing 30, than it may be playable. However, there are two things that are wrong with this:
1. 25 -> 30 is a 20% - not the thing we see from going from DX11 to DX12
2. You're assuming that title constantly runs at 25 fps, whereas this is typically an average. Meaning there are times where you'd see 10-15fps (if not less) and those would still remain into unplayable territory.

DX12 is just an evolution, not the second coming.

FordGT90ConceptThink Intel HD 530. D3D12 hardware but really poor performing. Those 5 FPS it adds (or whatever it is) may make the difference between unplayable and playable. If that translates to a 1000 fewer customer service calls and refunds, it was worth it. So yeah, super important. If it wasn't, developers would still be using D3D9.

Btw, did we have any numbers about Intel graphics perfomance with dx 12 ? Does they have async ?

newtekie1I still don't see it happening. DX12 does not provide enough of a performance boost.

It's still too early to juge the real benefit of DX12, most implementation were either bad, or just meh, meanwhile vulkan showed that you can expect 20-30% improvement when it's well optimised.

newtekie1I still don't see it happening. DX12 does not provide enough of a performance boost.

Well, if you judge DX12 performance on Tomb Raider's implementation, then of course not...

Captain_TomTests are coming out that show the Titan XP is getting CPU bottlenecked by Intel's latest i7's in several games.

Relax. Only in 1080p or lesser resolutions. Not on 1440p or 2560p

Prima.VeraRelax. Only in 1080p or lesser resolutions. Not on 1440p or 2560p

Yeah well now there are 240Hz 1080p pro gaming monitors, and I think we can expect 240Hz 1440p monitors in a few years.

The point is that this NEVER used to happen a few years ago, and the fact that it is becoming an issue at all is quite troubling. Right now almost no one is effected, but it is easily feasible that this could become a major issue in a year if CPU's and API's don't catch up.

240Hz is just a gimmick, nothing serious. If you think you will notice any improvement over 120Hz, well, let me break it down for you, is just placebo. ;)

Prima.Vera240Hz is just a gimmick, nothing serious. If you think you will notice any improvement over 120Hz, well, let me break it down for you, is just placebo. ;)

I play at 150 Hz and I can 100% tell the difference over 120.


But nvm you are right the human eye can't see above 24 FPS.

Captain_TomI play at 150 Hz and I can 100% tell the difference over 120.


But nvm you are right the human eye can't see above 24 FPS.

Well, you're absolutely right, of course. But you see, not everybody is stuck on a CRT.

Huh, wasn't DX12 supposed to be sept patch? Perhaps the DX12 here is clunky like in Hitman?

maybe it's a beta patch. If it's accurate, it looks like nixxes still don't know how to use DX12. The performance loss on Amd gpu is huge O.O.
If things keep being that way, I'm expecting to see great DX12 games when DX13 will be announced. The hype was huge, the disapointement is too.

If the game isn't developed from the start with DX12 / Vulkan in mind... the later optimization patch is only slightly nice to have... but it really is rather pointless.

the POINT to DX12 and Vulkan is to have massively more stuff on screen all the time... like 7+ times more draw calls and whatnot. What exactly do you gain with the DX12 patch later on, if you still have the same amount of geometry and polygons to draw and that has not increased by 7+ times? NOTHING really (yes, small tiny gain to draw the insignificant amount of geometry slightly faster) ... in the end it's rather pointless.