So what will the first DX12 game be?
From what Guru3D.com, it seems like Forza Motorsport 6 will be the first, but it's not official.
I don't care about the APUs like A10-7850 but if DX12 can push all 8 cores of a FX processor to 90-100%, that will hugely increase performance across all benchmarks.
For a PC Game, that's a big no. If the GPUs are offloading the work to produce images for the CPU, you don't want the CPU to be at 90% usage at this point. You'd only want all gpus and CPU cores to be at 99% is if you are rendering 3D Packages for a video or movie. You want the GPUs to be at 99% all the time while it's rendering the graphics for a PC Game, for the user. Now, what you do want is the 1th core to be less congested, and the other cores to que up task at the same time for the GPU to continue drawing images for the game. In a sense, this stops the 1st core from having to perform this task, or perform it less. This increases FPS because less time is spent waiting on the 1st Core. In a sense, this is what DX12 is going to do for gamers. Having more cores que up task for the GPU, synchronously with every core, is going to improve performance. Why. Task being done between the CPU and GPUs are taking up less time to execute. That's kind of the selling point for DX12. This doesn't fix the other problems. Problems like the CPU rendering shadows, particle effects, physics, and others. These things are going to drop the fps performance if they are waiting for the 1st core to que them up in the sequence of task, with DX12 or not.
Is it gonna make any significant improvements in terms of FPS to FC4 and Crysis 3 and the like?
If I am not mistaken, you will probably see a small gain in FPS with DX12 on these PC Games. Even though they aren't DX12 titles, it doesn't mean you won't get any benefits from DX12 API in Win10. Take into account that DX12 is in a sense, a CPU Optimizer. AMD Mantle was something similar, but it worked only with AMD Graphic Cards. DX12 works with both AMD and NVidia Graphic Cards that are optimized for it. It improves performance on the CPU level. If you notice a lot of other members talking about AMD CPUs with high amount of cores, whether you're using AMD or Intel, DX12 increases the usage of all the cores for the PC Game. So more cores "could" equate better FPS performance.
I'm sure DX12 will improve on DX11, but I never trust those graphs that suggest it's going to be twice as fast. There's just no way to validate that the game devs put the same honest effort into the DX11 and DX12 paths.
D3D12 is D3D11 plus the CPU optimizer aspects of the API. So when you say that D3D12 will improve on to D3D11, it doesn't mean that D3D11 is going to be optimized. The train-wreck that is D3D9 and below that doesn't get improved. I'm just pointing that out...
For people like me there's too much cores in play there. People with everyday use can still rock a dualcore and do the job and casual gaming. What makes computer companies fill the bank to reinvest in R&D it's freaks who need the latest technology like it was their last dose of drug.
I agree to an extent. You don't need anything more than dual Core processing for PC Games or everyday task. On the other hand, reinvesting in the latest tech makes life a lot easier and enjoyable. In addition, there are uses to having more than 2 Cores. Rendering is one of them. I think the bigger issue are two things. One, latest tech doesn't take large leaps. So we only get like the typical 15% to 30% increases in NVidia and Intel Tech. The usual 25% to 50% increases in performance in AMD graphic cards. The years it took in between D3D9, D3D11 and D3D12 are painfully slow. In a sense, we get less and less for the investments that consumers make for better products. The second thing is that with the US economy in it's current position, companies aren't eager to rush into investing in future tech as much because there's no guarantee that large revenue returns will be made.
I would just like to see a powerful CPU from AMD.
I don't care if new platform..not sure if DDR4 would be a good idea..
just something..
Dual-6-core CPUs on an OCing board would be OK with me.
This is a matter of perception and perspective. When you say you want a more powerful CPU from AMD, the word powerful has multiple definitions, but for the most part, it is just another word for control. You want AMD to have more control of the situation so they can provide you a better product that meets your expectations. What you mean to say is you want AMD CPUs to produce more efficient forms of work for less power. You want that work to be accomplished faster and more multiple task or executions to be done at the same time. Intel focus on single thread burst speed, and AMD focus on multi-thread burst speed. Now in video games, you really don't need multiple cores, and core frequency is king. This is one of the reasons why Intel CPUs are more loved by consumers for Video Games. On the other hand, Rendering uses all cores. Using all cores at a higher speeds for a cheaper price is what AMD sort of provides to it's customers. It's a matter of perception (input information from your 5 senses) and perspective (output from a means of communication to convey the thoughts and opinions of a single person) on why you want to see a powerful CPU from AMD. If you look at it this way, if AMD were to focus on single thread burst speed and Intel focused on multi-thread burst speed, would AMD be the least favorite, excluding it's performance to read/write memory, etc... I would say no. AMD wouldn't be the least favorite because I bet a larger portion of their revenue returns would come from PC enthusiast, everyday users, and Gamers. Demand for AMD products in this hypothetical scenario, would go up. You know that thing or x-factor that makes Intel Wealthy, and continue to produce better products: Consumers investing in their products...
Dual 6 core CPUs on an OCing board for a PC Game is overkill x2... It probably won't be worth it.
AMD needs better GCN architecture, at least better than the one in Hawaii, for DX12. But if that 50-60% is on 4K and comparing the water cooled 8GB model to the reference 4GB 290X, it could be very good, but not as much good as to call it amazing. Never underestimate marketing. Especially when the budget is so tight.
Just going off of what you and AMD Scorpion said, R9-390x is rumored to be performing at 50% to 60% above R9-290x at the same TDP as the R9-290x, and this is probably thanks to HBM. Whether it needs better GCN architecture is somewhat irrelevant right now. What AMD needs is to release it's next line of Graphic Cards faster, and continue to do so with the 30% to 50% increase each generation with less mess-ups. This in turn increases their revenue so they have more cash in their pockets. The better GCN architecture thing can come down the line in the next 1 or 2 generations. AMD has a 1 to 2 generation gap lead ahead of the competition because NVidia is basically going to release Volta (it's own version of HBM in a generation or two) in the not to distant future. Expectations of Maxwell GTX Titan-X has been overall, a flop in my opinion. Someone quoted that Maxwell GTX Titan-X is performing only 30% greater than GTX 980, someone else in another TPU threads was quoting 23% gains over a GTX 980. Overall, my point is AMD needs to push out Graphic Cards faster, and they need to stay reliable without the GTX 970 b.s. that NVidia pulled recently.
Why?
