Support us on Patreon
PayPal
Valve just recently published a new Steam beta, and they have fixed up the Steam Overlay rendering issue that was causing it to bring down Vulkan performance.
I've run some fresh tests as requested on my Nvidia 980ti to show you the difference now with the Steam Overlay on and being used (FPS counter) vs before.
You can click the spoiler tags to expand the full output if that tickles your fancy.
Just Vulkan
All together
You can see Valve has made the Steam Overlay not impact performance really at all, so that's fantastic news. This is great, as when more games begin to use Vulkan there shouldn't be issues like this (hopefully).
The OpenGL performance has stayed the same as there wasn't really an issue with the Steam Overlay and OpenGL.
4K
Vulkan Average: 112.5 FPS (before it was 75.1 FPS)
OpenGL Average: 91.8 FPS
1080p
Vulkan Average: 136.4 FPS (before it was 82.7 FPS)
OpenGL Average: 102.7 FPS
When there are other games available that use Vulkan, I will most likely take a look at benchmarking them. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
I've run some fresh tests as requested on my Nvidia 980ti to show you the difference now with the Steam Overlay on and being used (FPS counter) vs before.
You can click the spoiler tags to expand the full output if that tickles your fancy.
Just Vulkan
All together
You can see Valve has made the Steam Overlay not impact performance really at all, so that's fantastic news. This is great, as when more games begin to use Vulkan there shouldn't be issues like this (hopefully).
The OpenGL performance has stayed the same as there wasn't really an issue with the Steam Overlay and OpenGL.
4K
Vulkan Average: 112.5 FPS (before it was 75.1 FPS)
Spoiler, click me
20:56:53 INF: Gfx API: Vulkan
20:56:53 INF: Duration: 60.0 seconds (6747 frames)
20:56:53 INF: Average: 112.5 FPS (113.8 w/o extremes)
20:56:53 INF: Extremes: 267.8 max, 20.9 min
20:56:53 INF: Sections: AI=6%, physics=2%, sound=1%, scene=70%, shadows=13%, misc=7%
20:56:53 INF: Highs: 612 in 4.3 seconds (141.5 FPS)
20:56:53 INF: Lows: 743 in 8.3 seconds (89.8 FPS)
20:56:53 INF: > 60 FPS: 100%
20:56:53 INF: Duration: 60.0 seconds (6747 frames)
20:56:53 INF: Average: 112.5 FPS (113.8 w/o extremes)
20:56:53 INF: Extremes: 267.8 max, 20.9 min
20:56:53 INF: Sections: AI=6%, physics=2%, sound=1%, scene=70%, shadows=13%, misc=7%
20:56:53 INF: Highs: 612 in 4.3 seconds (141.5 FPS)
20:56:53 INF: Lows: 743 in 8.3 seconds (89.8 FPS)
20:56:53 INF: > 60 FPS: 100%
OpenGL Average: 91.8 FPS
Spoiler, click me
20:28:12 INF: Gfx API: OpenGL
20:28:12 INF: Duration: 59.3 seconds (5444 frames)
20:28:12 INF: Average: 91.8 FPS (100.7 w/o extremes)
20:28:12 INF: Extremes: 226.5 max, 4.5 min
20:28:12 INF: Sections: AI=5%, physics=2%, sound=1%, scene=70%, shadows=16%, misc=6%
20:28:12 INF: Lows: 352 in 8.8 seconds (40.2 FPS)
20:28:12 INF: 30-60 FPS: 7%
20:28:12 INF: > 60 FPS: 92%
20:28:12 INF: Duration: 59.3 seconds (5444 frames)
20:28:12 INF: Average: 91.8 FPS (100.7 w/o extremes)
20:28:12 INF: Extremes: 226.5 max, 4.5 min
20:28:12 INF: Sections: AI=5%, physics=2%, sound=1%, scene=70%, shadows=16%, misc=6%
20:28:12 INF: Lows: 352 in 8.8 seconds (40.2 FPS)
20:28:12 INF: 30-60 FPS: 7%
20:28:12 INF: > 60 FPS: 92%
1080p
Vulkan Average: 136.4 FPS (before it was 82.7 FPS)
Spoiler, click me
20:43:11 INF: Gfx API: Vulkan
20:43:11 INF: Duration: 60.0 seconds (8186 frames)
20:43:11 INF: Average: 136.4 FPS (138.9 w/o extremes)
20:43:11 INF: Extremes: 261.2 max, 29.5 min
20:43:11 INF: Sections: AI=7%, physics=2%, sound=1%, scene=66%, shadows=15%, misc=9%
20:43:11 INF: Highs: 942 in 5.6 seconds (167.2 FPS)
20:43:11 INF: Lows: 1216 in 11.0 seconds (111.0 FPS)
20:43:11 INF: > 60 FPS: 100%
20:43:11 INF: Duration: 60.0 seconds (8186 frames)
20:43:11 INF: Average: 136.4 FPS (138.9 w/o extremes)
20:43:11 INF: Extremes: 261.2 max, 29.5 min
20:43:11 INF: Sections: AI=7%, physics=2%, sound=1%, scene=66%, shadows=15%, misc=9%
20:43:11 INF: Highs: 942 in 5.6 seconds (167.2 FPS)
20:43:11 INF: Lows: 1216 in 11.0 seconds (111.0 FPS)
20:43:11 INF: > 60 FPS: 100%
OpenGL Average: 102.7 FPS
Spoiler, click me
20:32:07 INF: Gfx API: OpenGL
20:32:07 INF: Duration: 60.0 seconds (6163 frames)
20:32:07 INF: Average: 102.7 FPS (111.7 w/o extremes)
20:32:07 INF: Extremes: 229.7 max, 19.1 min
20:32:07 INF: Sections: AI=6%, physics=2%, sound=1%, scene=67%, shadows=18%, misc=6%
20:32:07 INF: Highs: 530 in 3.2 seconds (166.2 FPS)
20:32:07 INF: Lows: 936 in 14.8 seconds (63.4 FPS)
20:32:07 INF: 30-60 FPS: 5%
20:32:07 INF: > 60 FPS: 95%
20:32:07 INF: Duration: 60.0 seconds (6163 frames)
20:32:07 INF: Average: 102.7 FPS (111.7 w/o extremes)
20:32:07 INF: Extremes: 229.7 max, 19.1 min
20:32:07 INF: Sections: AI=6%, physics=2%, sound=1%, scene=67%, shadows=18%, misc=6%
20:32:07 INF: Highs: 530 in 3.2 seconds (166.2 FPS)
20:32:07 INF: Lows: 936 in 14.8 seconds (63.4 FPS)
20:32:07 INF: 30-60 FPS: 5%
20:32:07 INF: > 60 FPS: 95%
When there are other games available that use Vulkan, I will most likely take a look at benchmarking them. Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
All settings were the same of course. 4K always uses more resources in all games I've tested. Some games are unplayable at 4K.
0 Likes
Quoting: pete910Serious improvement then !
I see what you did there ;)
1 Likes, Who?
Quoting: maodzedunWhere does the bottleneck come from, though? There is about 20% performance difference between 1080p and 4K which makes zero sense.
The fact that it's 4k makes a lot of sense. It's that demanding.
0 Likes
Quoting: maodzedunWhere does the bottleneck come from, though? There is about 20% performance difference between 1080p and 4K which makes zero sense.
It makes all the sense in the world? 4k is only EIGHT TIMES as many pixels to calculate and draw for each frame.
Last edited by Beamboom on 16 April 2016 at 4:34 pm UTC
0 Likes
AskQuestionsLater Apr 16, 2016
Quoting: BeamboomQuoting: maodzedunWhere does the bottleneck come from, though? There is about 20% performance difference between 1080p and 4K which makes zero sense.
It makes all the sense in the world? 4k is only EIGHT TIMES as many pixels to calculate and draw for each frame.
Firstly, a correction to your numbers. HD is 1920x1080. 4k is NOT 8xHD pixels - 4K resolutions are typically 3840x2160, despite the implication that 4K has 4000 vertical lines. 4k has 4xHD pixels.
Back in the early days of GPU cards, once you hit the pixel fill rate, that was basically the bottleneck. So 4x the pixels would be 1/4th the frame rate.
Modern cards are highly parallel, typically 100+ pipelines even at the midrange. Pixel rate is no longer the bottleneck, shader texel rates and data across the GPU bus are more critical. If the texture data needed by the GPU fits into the VRAM, along with the compiled pixel and vertex shaders, very high frame rates at high resolutions will run nearly as fast as the lower resolutions.
0 Likes
Quoting: GuestQuoting: ThePierrasseWow Vulkan is just murdering OpenGL
While this is all nice for one particular game, and I'm sure there will be performance benefits across the board anyway, it's a bit early for such a generalised statement. Especially when the OpenGL version is of such importance. At least on my rig, Talos is using GL3.0, GLSL 130. Modern OpenGL (i.e GL4.5) would allow much greater performance improvements.
Again though, that they have something nicer with Vulkan is good. Just don't expect it everywhere.
nope, it wouldn't for 3 reasons
1. only NVidia implements it well. just try looking trough all the threads where developers tried AZDO. and then there is the problem where Apple is at old GL and to make it worse, their GL is terrible which is what forces developers to go with older one
2. AZDO < Vulkan since it only covers part of functionality in Vulkan
3. AZDO is even harder to grasp/write than Vulkan
face it, GL problems will never be fixed since most vendors focused on Vulkan
Last edited by vulture on 16 April 2016 at 10:07 pm UTC
0 Likes
Quoting: GoboQuoting: pete910Serious improvement then !
I see what you did there ;)
0 Likes
cRaZy-bisCuiT Apr 17, 2016
[quote=AskQuestionsLater]
Firstly, a correction to your numbers. HD is 1920x1080. 4k is NOT 8xHD pixels - 4K resolutions are typically 3840x2160, despite the implication that 4K has 4000 vertical lines. 4k has 4xHD pixels.
/quote]
( 3840 * 2160) / (1920 * 1080) = 4 - so it's 4 times the amount of pixels! ;)
Your statement about the impact of resolution is still not true though: Yes, there's no difference in between resolution like 720p and 1080p. But 1080p vs 4k does have a big impact on performance! If you check out modern benchmarks on e.g. computerbase you'll notice that there's allmost no video card (not even 980ti, Titan X, Fury X) that can handle modern (windows) games in 4k resolution with modest frame rates (=> 60 FPS). One reason is the amount of video memory (even cards with 8 GB of VRAM can ran out of it) as well as the lack of raw performance.
Last edited by cRaZy-bisCuiT on 17 April 2016 at 11:10 am UTC
Quoting: BeamboomQuoting: maodzedunWhere does the bottleneck come from, though? There is about 20% performance difference between 1080p and 4K which makes zero sense.
It makes all the sense in the world? 4k is only EIGHT TIMES as many pixels to calculate and draw for each frame.
Firstly, a correction to your numbers. HD is 1920x1080. 4k is NOT 8xHD pixels - 4K resolutions are typically 3840x2160, despite the implication that 4K has 4000 vertical lines. 4k has 4xHD pixels.
/quote]
( 3840 * 2160) / (1920 * 1080) = 4 - so it's 4 times the amount of pixels! ;)
Your statement about the impact of resolution is still not true though: Yes, there's no difference in between resolution like 720p and 1080p. But 1080p vs 4k does have a big impact on performance! If you check out modern benchmarks on e.g. computerbase you'll notice that there's allmost no video card (not even 980ti, Titan X, Fury X) that can handle modern (windows) games in 4k resolution with modest frame rates (=> 60 FPS). One reason is the amount of video memory (even cards with 8 GB of VRAM can ran out of it) as well as the lack of raw performance.
Last edited by cRaZy-bisCuiT on 17 April 2016 at 11:10 am UTC
0 Likes
What can I say - good work Khronos group and everyone involved. Seems you have nailed this one!
0 Likes
See more from me