- Joined
- Mar 10, 2015
- Messages
- 3,984 (1.19/day)
System Name | Wut? |
---|---|
Processor | 3900X |
Motherboard | ASRock Taichi X570 |
Cooling | Water |
Memory | 32GB GSkill CL16 3600mhz |
Video Card(s) | Vega 56 |
Storage | 2 x AData XPG 8200 Pro 1TB |
Display(s) | 3440 x 1440 |
Case | Thermaltake Tower 900 |
Power Supply | Seasonic Prime Ultra Platinum |
I wouldn't say amd shines I would say the ideal behind Dx12 can utilize a design that isn't really targeted directly at gaming
Not trying to be a jerk, but what really is the difference? When DX12 games are on hand, AMD generally does much better. Much of the time, even better than their NV contemporaries. If that isn't shining, I don't really know what it is. Compared to AMD's DX11 performance, DX12 is clearly shining.
It is supposed to let the developers get closer to 'bare metal'. That is, it is supposed to get rid of all the overhead of Microsoft's bloated, slow api calls. In theory, this should allow developers to seriously optimize their stuff for better performance. You can see that it works when you look at AMD's performance jump. They have all that 'theoretical, extra horsepower' that gets all clogged up in fat DX11 calls but is allowed to breath in DX12.At the end of the day, I'm still trying to work out what is so special about DX12
However, what we get is a bunch of lazy
This is why I see problems with RTX acceptance. Besides console adoption, if it is not stupid easy and have high returns, it isn't getting done.
Last edited: