With DX12 you are stuck with relatively new versions of Windows (and Xbox, if you care about that), while Vulkan can work on multiple OS platforms and mobile too. Finally, if you want any sort of cross-platform support, then Vulkan is better. On the bright side, it might actually mean there's less code that needs to be written and that open source might catch up a bit, it says it'll run on top of all platforms that support OpenGL ES 3.1 which might become a much bigger goal than OpenGL 4.x. So in that case, you will probably have a better time with Vulkan because there is more help around. That of course gives you more room to optimize, but it remains to be seen how many will be able to take advantage of it. How important it is remains to be seen, outside of drawcall benchmarks it's unclear how much real world difference it makes, what is certain is that it exposes a lot more of the complexity to the developer. So in the end we'll probably have feature parity again. AMD announces there'll be no public SDK of Mantle, use OpenGL/DirectX. At 1080p, Ultra, we observed a performance disparity. Khronos Group panics and announces OpenGL Vulcan, aiming for pretty much the same thing.Ĥ. Two charts are below one for the reference GTX 980 Ti, one for the MSI R9 390X (410). Microsoft panics and announces DirectX 12, aiming for pretty much the same thing.ģ. The load is more evenly distributed across all cores, making multi-core CPUs more relevant for gamers. One of the core advantages of low-level APIs like DirectX 12 and Vulkan is improved CPU utilization.
#VULKAN VS DIRECTX 12 FULL#
AMD announces Mantle, a low level graphics API which may give consoles an edge over the PC.Ģ. And how many Windows-powered devices have support for DirectX 12 and WDDM 2.9, both of which are required for this OpenGL-on-DirectX-on-GPU-PV Frankenstein of a setup to work My computer has full support for OpenGL 4.5 and Vulkan, but only WDDM 2.1. DirectX 11 vs DirectX 12: What Does it Mean for PC Gamers.