DirectX 11 or DirectX 12

[Chibi310]

Which version of DirectX is the DirectX option referring to? I know that performance and looks should go like (From what I understand):

DirectX 12 > Vulkan > DirectX 11

But I can't tell because it just says "DirectX - Default" which doesn't tell me if it's using the newer or older APIs.

[KriKitBoNeZ]

I believe it is DirectX 10 and Vulkan 1.1.

[Chibi310]

DirectX 10, really? That's... Kind of surprising for a game of its age.

[0restes]

Why would you use anything newer if you are not using its features? Using a newer API just for the sake of it makes it run worse (or not at all) on older hardware and OSs.

[Chibi310]

Performance, which is something that can be effective regardless of why. And for future proofing (Which is the obvious reason why you should use anything new). While DX12 and Vulkan both can offer up superior performance over DX11 (And below) and OpenGL, their main weakness is in their difficulty to use. But, that's not why I started this thread.

My question is which version of DirectX is being used, since DX12 even for a game this simple can benefit from the lower level API to make it more responsive and smoother playing. It can actually improve the visuals by supporting newer Display Technologies that can be exploited by the newer API like more clearer and vibrant colors and smaller details like that. HDR for example isn't really available on DirectX 10 and below, which would be incredibly beneficial for a game like this.

There's a lot more to the more advanced and newer APIs than just "Moar 3D Graphics".

I only asked because Option #2 is "Vulkan" when booting up the game, meaning there could definitely be more to the game's visuals than advertised. And I would like to enjoy this game at its absolute best. So knowing full well which API is being used, would allow me to select the developer's real vision.

[0restes]

Hades isn't a taxing game. In fact there aren't minimum requirements for the GPU but VRAM buffer size and API. The rest of the requirements are equally low. So the performance point is moot.

Hades doesn't support HDR. Why would you even bring that up? In fact the API used can tell you the features that the game doesn't have. Again the reason why you shouldn't use a more modern API if you don't need it.

For everything else:

https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/Hades

[Chibi310]

I wasn't saying that Hades did, I was answering your question. But if you want an alternate answer to that question: Price.

As for what prompted me to ask the question, it was the existence of "Vulkan" which voids out your argument for this specific game. Vulkan is the alternative to DirectX 12, why would Vulkan exist in this game if the devs didn't use any State of the Art tech? Why isn't OpenGL 4.0 the alternate option instead of Vulkan then?

Also, after doing a bit of research I found out that it indeed uses DirectX 10 (Before your link). I also had my suspicions that it wasn't DX12 when I played the Vulkan version and the colors where suddenly more vibrant and detailed than the DirectX version (Why I brought up HDR), plus my framerate shot up from around 300 to a solid 600 after I switched, and frame times also improved (the animations looked more "Smoother" than before). The responsiveness of the overall game feel also dramatically increased. I use a 144hz monitor, so I know anything over 144FPS is what many would think to be "wasted", but no, the overall "Feel" of how the game handles is definitely improved in the Vulkan version over the DirectX version.

So yes, the Vulkan one is the way to play this game.

[0restes]

Originally posted by Chibi310:

As for what prompted me to ask the question, it was the existence of "Vulkan" which voids out your argument for this specific game. Vulkan is the alternative to DirectX 12, why would Vulkan exist in this game if the devs didn't use any State of the Art tech? Why isn't OpenGL 4.0 the alternate option instead of Vulkan then?

Because porting to Vulkan is cheap as hell and OpenGL is on its way out. You can even do it on the fly with DXVK and other API translators. Even I play it on Linux.

Originally posted by Chibi310:

Also, after doing a bit of research I found out that it indeed uses DirectX 10 (Before your link). I also had my suspicions that it wasn't DX12 when I played the Vulkan version and the colors where suddenly more vibrant and detailed than the DirectX version (Why I brought up HDR), plus my framerate shot up from around 300 to a solid 600 after I switched, and frame times also improved (the animations looked more "Smoother" than before). The responsiveness of the overall game feel also dramatically increased. I use a 144hz monitor, so I know anything over 144FPS is what many would think to be "wasted", but no, the overall "Feel" of how the game handles is definitely improved in the Vulkan version over the DirectX version.

So yes, the Vulkan one is the way to play this game.

Your feelings are yours and yours alone. Treasure them.

[Chibi310]

Ahh, a Linux user, that explains a lot. Alright.

Also when I said "Feel" I wasn't using the "Emotional" definition. I was using the physical one, which is Control responsiveness, framerate smoothness, and frametime evenness.

[KriKitBoNeZ]

Originally posted by Chibi310:

Ahh, a Linux user, that explains a lot. Alright.

Wtf does this have to do with anything? Using an OS doesn't make it mutually exclusive from using another one anymore than saying '...oh, a Vulkan user, eh?'

[Chibi310]

It has to do with the opening statement that he had:

Originally posted by 0restes:

Why would you use anything newer if you are not using its features? Using a newer API just for the sake of it makes it run worse (or not at all) on older hardware and OSs.

I detected some hostility in this. But now I get the source. Linux users are known for being... Hostile when it comes to these subjects. I'm not stereotyping, but it's a known fact of the hostility the community has. One I have firsthand experience with.

But, I'm not here to argue the semantics to these things. I have my answer to my initial question. I am someone who likes talking/arguing/debating the subtle nuances of these particular subjects, which is why I continued going, but from that last one with the "Your feelings are yours and yours alone" statement, it became clear that my comments were falling on deaf ears.

[0restes]

Not my fault that you are confusing telling you the things as they are with hostility. The last bit of my previous post was about how unscientific your argument sounded because I was literally at loss for words and didn't know how to answer. Sorry if I hurt your feelings.

When I said older OSs I was talking about W7 and W8 that make up for 5% in the Steam Hardware Survey this month but were over 35% when it was announced in Dec 2018. Leaving 35% of users out doesn't seem very good business to me. Even today leaving 5% out doesn't seem that smart either as they made a Mac port for ~3% of users.

But be my guest and keep going on with your delusions.

[3zekiel]

Originally posted by Chibi310:

Which version of DirectX is the DirectX option referring to? I know that performance and looks should go like (From what I understand):

DirectX 12 > Vulkan > DirectX 11

But I can't tell because it just says "DirectX - Default" which doesn't tell me if it's using the newer or older APIs.

Actually performance wise there is no reason dx12 > Vulkan. They look a lot alike in fact, but vulkan is open, and has a bit of a cleaner base due to being done really from scratch, dx12 does not have a lot of legacy either tho. In fact, Vulkan > dx12 is not extremely likely either, I'd expect to simply perform a lot alike, with some game a bit faster on one, and some others faster on the other, probably with some little driver differences too but that's it.
Overall supporting Vulkan does make more sense though, since you get cross platform support for free: Switch, psX, Linux, MacOS, android and iOS, probably even xbox. So in term of reaching your audience, Vulkan tend to make more sense.

[Chibi310]

I meant that in relation to Windows. Yea, Vulkan is epic, I had fun learning Vulkan (And I struggle to understand the clusterf/// that Microsoft has written with DX12) although, Vulkan is hampered by the simple fact that it isn't a "Native" API, where as APIs like Metal (MacOS) and DX12 (Windows) Can outperform it more frequently in their home territory. If we're to talk compatibility, this is Vulkan's biggest strength without question, as it is more than capable of running on just about anything with or without Windows, so long as the GPU supports it.

At a glance there is almost no difference between DX12 and Vulkan, but DX12 updates a bit faster than Vulkan does at implementing newer feature, like Real-Time Ray-Tracing where DX12 had it long before Vulkan did. As for Performance, I have found that DX12 outperforms Vulkan on a lot more cases. But, due to the variable nature of Coding, It'll be hard to find an "Elite DX12 vs Elite Vulkan" comparison.

[3zekiel]

Originally posted by Chibi310:

I meant that in relation to Windows. Yea, Vulkan is epic, I had fun learning Vulkan (And I struggle to understand the clusterf/// that Microsoft has written with DX12) although, Vulkan is hampered by the simple fact that it isn't a "Native" API, where as APIs like Metal (MacOS) and DX12 (Windows) Can outperform it more frequently in their home territory. If we're to talk compatibility, this is Vulkan's biggest strength without question, as it is more than capable of running on just about anything with or without Windows, so long as the GPU supports it.

At a glance there is almost no difference between DX12 and Vulkan, but DX12 updates a bit faster than Vulkan does at implementing newer feature, like Real-Time Ray-Tracing where DX12 had it long before Vulkan did. As for Performance, I have found that DX12 outperforms Vulkan on a lot more cases. But, due to the variable nature of Coding, It'll be hard to find an "Elite DX12 vs Elite Vulkan" comparison.

For the feature part is true, well ray tracing though, Nvidia added their extension to vulkan a while ago, but was not part of API, the "native" api only came recently.
For the performance, indeed is hard to say, if you do vulkan engine second, their is a big chance you just end up with faster dx12 since is where you put the most work, and vice versa. Doom performs awesome as an example. I agree it is hard to get a strict comparison of API due to the nature of how things are done. From a theory point of view they should really be about the same (and metal too for that matter).

On the driver front, for windows, vulkan should be about as good as Linux on Nvidia since it is the same driver, so I would say choice is rational to still invest on vulkan more.
For AMD is a bit more complicated indeed since they use a driver which is supposed to be cross platform, but Linux/Mesa community made a better job at it with their own open source driver. Hopefully AMD comes around and accept to use the Linux open source driver on windows, there is a point where you must admit the community did better and embrace it AMD ... Especially when it costs you litterally nothing and makes you save money + get better quality.

For the overall advantage of vulkan, except for pure portability, is really the option to participate in the api and avoid microsoft lock in. Also, you have some cool extensions to emulate legacy APIs like older directx(and even 12 in fact ) and opengl, which can be pretty useful.

[droaan]

Originally posted by Batman:

dx 9/10 are fine ... dx12 is dog💩
vulkan is bae

Seriously, for all the hype DX12 was getting like 5 or so years ago, it never once impressed me. Every game I've used it in was meh, and I ended up going back to DX11 and getting better frames.