Steamをインストール
ログイン
|
言語
简体中文(簡体字中国語)
繁體中文(繁体字中国語)
한국어 (韓国語)
ไทย (タイ語)
български (ブルガリア語)
Čeština(チェコ語)
Dansk (デンマーク語)
Deutsch (ドイツ語)
English (英語)
Español - España (スペイン語 - スペイン)
Español - Latinoamérica (スペイン語 - ラテンアメリカ)
Ελληνικά (ギリシャ語)
Français (フランス語)
Italiano (イタリア語)
Bahasa Indonesia(インドネシア語)
Magyar(ハンガリー語)
Nederlands (オランダ語)
Norsk (ノルウェー語)
Polski (ポーランド語)
Português(ポルトガル語-ポルトガル)
Português - Brasil (ポルトガル語 - ブラジル)
Română(ルーマニア語)
Русский (ロシア語)
Suomi (フィンランド語)
Svenska (スウェーデン語)
Türkçe (トルコ語)
Tiếng Việt (ベトナム語)
Українська (ウクライナ語)
翻訳の問題を報告
I ran DX12 today and that went fine.
350 fps, I think that's important....
It's not that simple, almost ever. DX12 being by MS is fine, it's how it's used and implemented. On a general level (painting with a broad stroke here), Vulkan can get better performance with less legwork from the Developers. Technically speaking, DX12 is VASTLY more performant, but requires a lot more time, effort and polish from the developers, and potentially some support from Microsoft if they're a big enough studio.
Each game has different strengths and weaknesses, different requirements for specific hardware, and each dev team has their own strengths and weaknesses too. Vulkan and DX12 can trade performance depending on the game, depending on the team, depending on the platform you're using.
I noticed this as well...