4 ms·
I'm pretty confident that the original commit meant 1000% compared to the previous Zink performance - not that it's 1000% better than current OpenGL implementat
by KingMachiavelli 5y ago
I'm pretty confident that the original commit meant 1000% compared to the previous Zink performance - not that it's 1000% better than current OpenGL implementations.
That said I certainly hope Zink becomes a suitable OpenGL implementation since it would simplify development of open source video drivers. i.e. just implement vulkan and you get OpenGL for free.
- cannyfox91 5y agoYeah, I doubt this meant in comparison with native implementations of OpenGL from AMD/Nvidia.
- bibaheu 5y agoAnd with DXVK you also get Direct3D for free too.
- greggman3 5y agoyou can already get OpenGL ES 3.1 in vulkan for free via the ANGLE project
- account42 5y agoOpenGL ES won't help you with most desktop applications.
- rjvs 5y agoApparently [1] the game that got 1000% improvement was previously unplayable at ~9fps. 1. https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Zink-Suballocator-Merged https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Zink-Sub...
- codetrotter 5y agoOk, that’s super weird for sure. I think 1000% improvement is not the appropriate description in that case. A more suitable headline would be like, “Zink (OpenGL over Vulkan) allocator now able to play more games at high frame rates”. 9 fps is not a video game, that’s a slide show. And indeed, playing tomb raider where you want to make jumps and stuff, I would not play that on 9 fps ever.
- remram 5y agoI wouldn't watch a slideshow going 9 slides per second.