Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
DoomerNL

GZDoom has Vulkan? Worth using?

Recommended Posts

Sup Doomers,

 

I just noticed that the new gzdoom build has vulkan mode it says its work in progress but how is it compared to GL?

is it worth it? does it give more performance? what does it even do? i thought vulkan just uses your hardware more making the game perform better if thats the case wouldnt vulkan be better than opengl?

crazy lol even source ports getting vulkan now ;p which is a good thing i think

Share this post


Link to post

The initial launch of Vulkan in GZDoom had a few visual bugs, but as far as I'm aware they've mostly been ironed out.  By all means, give it a go, it won't break anything.  I've seen performance improvements of up to 20% using it, so it's certainly worthwhile if your GPU can take advantage of it.

Share this post


Link to post

Yes, especially if you have a decent GPU, some of us have noticed up to 20% performance improvement with it, just like Bauul said above.

 

It is no longer considered an experimental feature and should be stable for general use. And hey, if it crashes or you encounter bugs, always report them so they can get fixed ;).

Share this post


Link to post

If you are on AMD hardware, you may even get something like a 30%+ performance improvement.

 

For Nvidia hardware, it depends. But generally speaking, even on Nvidia, you would most likely get some (5% to 10%) performance improvement.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

If you are on AMD hardware, you may even get something like a 30%+ performance improvement.

 

For Nvidia hardware, it depends. But generally speaking, even on Nvidia, you would most likely get some (5% to 10%) performance improvement.

wait i thought vulkan was a nvidia thing?

but i have a gtx 1050 ti 4gb should i use vulkan with it?

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, seed said:

Yes, especially if you have a decent GPU, some of us have noticed up to 20% performance improvement with it, just like Bauul said above.

 

It is no longer considered an experimental feature and should be stable for general use. And hey, if it crashes or you encounter bugs, always report them so they can get fixed ;).

thanks bud ill try it out right away doubt ill notice any boost tho since it already ran really good but we will see its always nice to have it run even better..

im using a nvidia gpu a gtx 1050 ti 4gb hope its good enough to profit from it

Share this post


Link to post
14 minutes ago, DoomerNL said:

wait i thought vulkan was a nvidia thing?

 

Vulkan is just a graphics API, like Direct3D and OpenGL. Modern GPUs of both Nvidia and AMD support Vulkan.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

When it comes to GZDoom, I generally get better performance with OpenGL myself, judging by the frame rates, so I've stuck with that.  That's with an nVidia 1080, mind you.

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

When it comes to GZDoom, I generally get better performance with OpenGL myself, judging by the frame rates, so I've stuck with that.  That's with an nVidia 1080, mind you.

hmm really? now im not sure what to use haha they look identical but ive only played 1 map so far when you did testing the opengl was still better?

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, DoomerNL said:

hmm really? now im not sure what to use haha they look identical but ive only played 1 map so far when you did testing the opengl was still better?

Oh sure, they look identical.  OpenGL just gives me a somewhat higher framerate.  That's testing both with the base game and with my own levels.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

Oh sure, they look identical.  OpenGL just gives me a somewhat higher framerate.  That's testing both with the base game and with my own levels.

Which is kind of ironic considering Vulkan is a lower level API that should utilize the hardware better.

Share this post


Link to post
45 minutes ago, DoomerNL said:

wait i thought vulkan was a nvidia thing?

If I remember well Mantle was an AMD thing, which later used as a basis for Vulkan and DX12.

Share this post


Link to post
28 minutes ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

Oh sure, they look identical. OpenGL just gives me a somewhat higher framerate. That's testing both with the base game and with my own levels.

 

25 minutes ago, Redneckerz said:

Which is kind of ironic considering Vulkan is a lower level API that should utilize the hardware better.

 

Nvidia has solid OpenGL drivers. That is why switching from OpenGL to Vulkan has less performance benefit (and some cases, even a performance drop). In my case, I have a laptop with a Nvidia GT 840M and my average framerate is slightly higher in OpenGL but Vulkan has more stable framerate.

 

AMD on the other hand has good Vulkan and DX12 performance but worse performance on older APIs (all OpenGL versions and also DX11 and below). If your AMD GPU supports Vulkan, it would almost always be a better choice to select Vulkan over OpenGL.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, DoomerNL said:

wait i thought vulkan was a nvidia thing?

but i have a gtx 1050 ti 4gb should i use vulkan with it?

 

It's actually the other way around, Vulkan was designed by AMD, which originally came out in 2015.

 

43 minutes ago, DoomerNL said:

hmm really? now im not sure what to use haha they look identical but ive only played 1 map so far when you did testing the opengl was still better?

 

Make some benchmarks, as in, run a hardware intensive map like I dunno, Frozen Time in GL and then Vulkan, and see which one gives you higher framerate. Use vid_fps to display the fps in GZDoom.

 

But yeah lol, it's really ironic if GL is sometimes faster on some configurations. That's not my story either. I think I get more than a 10% boost in Vulkan.

Share this post


Link to post
6 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

Nvidia has solid OpenGL drivers. That is why switching from OpenGL to Vulkan has less performance benefit (and some cases, even a performance drop). In my case, I have a laptop with a Nvidia GT 840M and my average framerate is slightly higher in OpenGL but Vulkan has more stable framerate.

In general, yeah.  Especially on Linux, which is what I'm on.

 

Oddly, vkQuake (which is Quakespasm, but using Vulkan) runs better than OpenGL Quakespasm.  Go figure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Share this post


Link to post
5 minutes ago, seed said:

 

It's actually the other way around, Vulkan was designed by AMD, which originally came out in 2015.

 

 

Make some benchmarks, as in, run a hardware intensive map like I dunno, Frozen Time in GL and then Vulkan, and see which one gives you higher framerate. Use vid_fps to display the fps in GZDoom.

 

But yeah lol, it's really ironic if GL is sometimes faster on some configurations. That's not my story either. I think I get more than a 10% boost in Vulkan.

ill do exactly that and see

 

Share this post


Link to post
18 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

I have a laptop with a Nvidia GT 840M

 

Ha?

 

Did you toss out the AMD card? I recall you used to have one.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
6 minutes ago, seed said:

Ha?

 

Did you toss out the AMD card? I recall you used to have one.

 

Actually there are 2 laptops. The other laptop has a AMD 530M. I don't use that one much anymore because the one with Nvidia GPU performs better in both gaming and other work tasks.

 

BTW Good memory you got there.

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

Actually there are 2 laptops. The other laptop has a AMD 530M. I don't use that one much anymore because the one with Nvidia GPU performs better in both gaming and other work tasks.

 

BTW Good memory you got there.

 

We have a winner then :D . Would've been even cooler if it was more powerful than that but hey, I know how it feels. Better than nothing.

 

I do remember what I talk about and see when it comes to people I interact with often, or so I would like to think buddy 1.0 . But I swear if I could remember what's important like all the random things I do, I would've probably been 100 years into the future by now.

Share this post


Link to post

Performance of Vulkan on Nvidia GPUs depends. In some cases it is better than OpenGL, in other cases it is worse.

 

AMD's Vulkan is far better than OpenGL, however.

 

3 hours ago, ReaperAA said:

AMD on the other hand has good Vulkan and DX12 performance but worse performance on older APIs (all OpenGL versions and also DX11 and below).

I found DX11 to be faster than OpenGL on my machine using AMD Radeon, though.

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Cacodemon345 said:

I found DX11 to be faster than OpenGL on my machine using AMD Radeon, though.

When I mentioned DX11 and below to be slower, I meant in comparison to Vulkan and DX12.

 

Of course it is possible for DX11 to be faster than OpenGL on AMD.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
42 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

When I mentioned DX11 and below to be slower, I meant in comparison to Vulkan and DX12.

 

Of course it is possible for DX11 to be faster than OpenGL on AMD.

 

I think AMD's DX support was always pretty good. A friend of mine used to have almost full AMD builds in the past and DX games and apps ran quite good on it.

 

AMD really sucks only when it comes to OpenGL I think, their DX and especially Vulkan support is top notch - from my experience and a few benchmarks I've seen recently.

 

I've also dug deeper into why AMD's GL support is so bad, and according to what I've discovered - so do very much correct me if it's bullshit, everyone - is that AMD has simply never invested in GL at all, in addition to their support for GL in their drivers being "incredibly standard compliant". What that means from what I gathered is that they simply support it according to the standards, but since they never invested into it unlike NVIDIA who spent a few millions (billions? Can't remember) to make GL perform really well on their own hardware, it is... what it is, with no optimizations whatsoever.

 

On Linux the open-source AMD drivers actually offer pretty good GL performance, but as expected, it still isn't as good as NVIDIA's - although a definite improvement. The proprietary drivers still suck when it comes to GL, however.

Share this post


Link to post
42 minutes ago, seed said:

I've also dug deeper into why AMD's GL support is so bad, and according to what I've discovered - so do very much correct me if it's bullshit, everyone - is that AMD has simply never invested in GL at all, in addition to their support for GL in their drivers being "incredibly standard compliant". What that means from what I gathered is that they simply support it according to the standards, but since they never invested into it unlike NVIDIA who spent a few millions (billions? Can't remember) to make GL perform really well on their own hardware, it is... what it is, with no optimizations whatsoever.

 

On Linux the open-source AMD drivers actually offer pretty good GL performance, but as expected, it still isn't as good as NVIDIA's - although a definite improvement. The proprietary drivers still suck when it comes to GL, however.

 

This is pretty much what I have read as well. And from what I read, the reason why AMD didn't invest much in OpenGL is because most modern big budget/AAA games don't use that API (they use either DX or Vulkan).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
17 minutes ago, ReaperAA said:

This is pretty much what I have read as well. And from what I read, the reason why AMD didn't invest much in OpenGL is because most modern big budget/AAA games don't use that API (they use either DX or Vulkan).

 

Yeah, pretty much the same here. But they've also ignored some important aspects as a result, because GL is used by plenty of games, especially older ones when DX wasn't as popular as it is nowadays - and a lot fewer people play only the latest, bleeding-edge games or utilize similar applications. Emphasis on apps, there's quite a few which rely on the API, so if you were to depend on it for productivity, hobbies, whatever, you were screwed with AMD. One example of be emulators, quite a few rely on it, so if you're into that culture, it probably doesn't look too good. Luckily though, more of them are, get this, receiving Vulkan support.

 

The fun thing is, that AMD kinda got away with it, as GL is ever-approaching its eventual retirement and complete replacement, and when only legacy software will depend on it, it won't matter anymore. Honestly AMD still tempts me, a lot. Their new CPUs are solid and much cheaper than Intel's in some cases too. And I don't really use GL-based applications or play a lot of games depending on it (although with classic Doom for instance, this will lock me out of some source ports such as GlBoom, so I'll have to move to GZDoom for anything more advanced for good), so maybe, in the future, my next build will indeed be a full AMD PC. Not because I hate NVIDIA or Intel or whatever, but simply out of curiosity and because I want to try out something new - I've spent 15 years on them, I think it's really time to try out something new and break the monotony. All I can hope is, that it won't be a mistake - CPUs won't be, but GPUs due to their drivers, are questionable.

 

Besides, I worship neither :p .

Share this post


Link to post
7 hours ago, Remilia Scarlet said:

Oddly, vkQuake (which is Quakespasm, but using Vulkan) runs better than OpenGL Quakespasm.  Go figure ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

The games hit different bottlenecks, so this is perfectly normal. Quake is simply a more modern game that can use the GPU's power more efficiently and on Vulkan this will pay off immediately.

 

I think with NVidia it is more the less performant cards that may take a slight hit on Vulkan. On my Geforce 1060 it's definitely faster than OpenGL but not by much, but the good thing with Vulkan is that AMD is no longer a second class citizen as they have been all those years with OpenGL and their poorly performing - and often buggy - drivers.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)
28 minutes ago, seed said:

The fun thing is, that AMD kinda got away with it, as GL is ever-approaching its eventual retirement and complete replacement, and when only legacy software will depend on it, it won't matter anymore. Honestly AMD still tempts me, a lot. Their new CPUs are solid and much cheaper than Intel's in some cases too. And I don't really use GL-based applications or play a lot of games depending on it (although with classic Doom for instance, this will lock me out of some source ports such as GlBoom, so I'll have to move to GZDoom for anything more advanced for good), so maybe, in the future, my next build will indeed be a full AMD PC. Not because I hate NVIDIA or Intel or whatever, but simply out of curiosity and because I want to try out something new - I've spent 15 years on them, I think it's really time to try out something new and break the monotony. All I can hope is, that it won't be a mistake - CPUs won't be, but GPUs due to their drivers, are questionable.

 

On the CPU side, AMD is doing a fantastic job. Infact nowadays, it would be an unwise decision to buy an Intel CPU over an AMD CPU.

 

On the GPU side, Nvidia still has the overall upper hand for now but AMD is also improving on that front, especially as more games are moving towards Vulkan. However, for those people (like me) who play older games or use source ports of old games, Nvidia is still the better choice simply because most of them rely on OpenGL.

 

28 minutes ago, seed said:

Besides, I worship neither :p .

 

Same here. I side with the one that gives me the best offer.

Share this post


Link to post

isnt vulkan a renderer that might boost fps kinda like multicore rendering

Share this post


Link to post

Vulkan us no magic. It's also something more designed for modern games, not source ports of Doom or Build-engine games where the CPU is often the bottleneck.

Share this post


Link to post
Posted (edited)

I found out about the new GZDoom (the version I downloaded was 4.3.3 x64) build and got it, but it's saying the GZDoom pk3 is overriding the mapinfotxt core lump when launching from ZDL. Am I missing something?

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×