3 ms·

> It’s that a lot of the performance difference comes from the difference between a mobile tile based GPU and a desktop one. I just told you - a tile-based GPU

> It’s that a lot of the performance difference comes from the difference between a mobile tile based GPU and a desktop one. I just told you - a tile-based GPU can impliment every single raster feature Vulkan 1.2 requires. You haven't demonstrated a single reason that couldn't be true, and instead you're just claiming it's too different to work. Why can't Apple Silicon support a Vulkan API, from your informed perspective? I must have missed something - Qualcomm's tile-renderer GPU has no problem with it. Even Nvidia's steaming dogshit Vulkan drivers get pixel-perfect DXVK coverage, mobile or desktop. > And yes I know there’s proton on Android, but it’s far from prolific of performant It's incredibly performant. The GPU was at a fraction of max usage while translating the entirety of GTA-V's shaders. I'll say it again - the GPU side of Proton is "solved". Pending a better solution, it is the definition of performant.

dagmx 3y ago
I'm not saying it cannot implement Vulkan. Go back and read my responses, that has never been in any of them. You're injecting an argument I'm not even close to making. I am saying that your idea that Proton would necessarily be faster than D3DMetal is making assumptions that nobody outside Apple can realistically know. You don't know what their GPU supports natively and what would require software emulation. It might be faster, I'm not saying it wouldn't be. I'm just saying you cannot know without making a lot of logical leaps first. If by your own earlier comment, you allow for software emulation of certain features to get support parity, then you cannot make a realistic claim on the comparison of the performance of the translation layer since they're not 1:1 With regards to tile based rendering, many games do suffer when ported to tile based renderers. A lot of access patterns change, and things like post processing effects and full screen deferred buffers become more expensive. You cannot compare NVIDIA's tile based implementation to Apples. The similarity is in name only. Anyone who's ported desktop engines and games to mobile devices has experienced this. with regards to GTA:V, GPU usage alone doesn't tell you enough unless you specifically know where your bottlenecks are. Going by the gamer concept of "its gpu/cpu bound" doesn't really mean much for performance analysis beyond trying to guess what you should upgrade. GTA-Vs lowest resolution shaders (as in that video) would not be demanding for any modern GPU. The Rockstar engine scales very well by design. But unless you know where the CPU side is stalling, you don't know how you're starving the GPU or not. Anyway to reiterate, because you keep trying to insert a different argument: "You cannot know your claims are true because you don't have enough reasonable data to do so" <- That's it. You can hypothesize all you want, but it'll come down to that and that is ALL I am arguing.
- smoldesu 3y ago
  I never said Proton would necessarily be faster than D3DMetal. I'm saying that upstream DXVK support would be better than D3DMetal and enable SPIR-V optimization. In essence, my original comment was a response to what this person is asking for: "Apple needs to level up its game porting toolkit" Apple realistically has two roads to improving DirectX support. They can either commit to updating D3DMetal to support every new and old feature around, or enable the community to do that work for them. And let me tell you, the strategy of "trust Apple to fix it all" has yielded us just about nothing the past 6 months. This is how they fix their strategy. It's not a complex or radical suggestion at all, a lot of OEMs support DXVK by accident.

dagmx 3y ago

I'm not saying it cannot implement Vulkan. Go back and read my responses, that has never been in any of them. You're injecting an argument I'm not even close to making. I am saying that your idea that Proton would necessarily be faster than D3DMetal is making assumptions that nobody outside Apple can realistically know. You don't know what their GPU supports natively and what would require software emulation. It might be faster, I'm not saying it wouldn't be. I'm just saying you cannot know without making a lot of logical leaps first. If by your own earlier comment, you allow for software emulation of certain features to get support parity, then you cannot make a realistic claim on the comparison of the performance of the translation layer since they're not 1:1 With regards to tile based rendering, many games do suffer when ported to tile based renderers. A lot of access patterns change, and things like post processing effects and full screen deferred buffers become more expensive. You cannot compare NVIDIA's tile based implementation to Apples. The similarity is in name only. Anyone who's ported desktop engines and games to mobile devices has experienced this. with regards to GTA:V, GPU usage alone doesn't tell you enough unless you specifically know where your bottlenecks are. Going by the gamer concept of "its gpu/cpu bound" doesn't really mean much for performance analysis beyond trying to guess what you should upgrade. GTA-Vs lowest resolution shaders (as in that video) would not be demanding for any modern GPU. The Rockstar engine scales very well by design. But unless you know where the CPU side is stalling, you don't know how you're starving the GPU or not. Anyway to reiterate, because you keep trying to insert a different argument: "You cannot know your claims are true because you don't have enough reasonable data to do so" <- That's it. You can hypothesize all you want, but it'll come down to that and that is ALL I am arguing.

smoldesu 3y ago
I never said Proton would necessarily be faster than D3DMetal. I'm saying that upstream DXVK support would be better than D3DMetal and enable SPIR-V optimization. In essence, my original comment was a response to what this person is asking for: "Apple needs to level up its game porting toolkit" Apple realistically has two roads to improving DirectX support. They can either commit to updating D3DMetal to support every new and old feature around, or enable the community to do that work for them. And let me tell you, the strategy of "trust Apple to fix it all" has yielded us just about nothing the past 6 months. This is how they fix their strategy. It's not a complex or radical suggestion at all, a lot of OEMs support DXVK by accident.