OpenGL vs Vulkan
Вставка
- Опубліковано 24 сер 2018
- This video demonstrates a performance comparison of OpenGL and Vulkan under almost identical conditions.
The performance, measured in fps and CPU/GPU load, is testet and recorded against different antialiasing settings (2x-8x MSAA and FXAA). The performance indicators, shown in the top left corner of the realtime simulations, are slightly inferior than the measured and averaged values due to the recording software.
The simulation shows an FFT generated ocean, an atmospheric skydome and a sun. The scene is generated with a deferred rendering engine an post processing bloom effect. The GUI overlay in the top left corner is blended on top of the scene image.
MSAA is applied by means of a sample coverage mask during the deferred rendering process. FXAA is deployed between deferred rendering stage and post processing effects.
Oreon Engine (Java/LWJGL - OpenGL/Vulkan): github.com/oreonengine/oreon-... - Ігри
I hope to see Vulkan become the standard for ALL of the gaming industry. I think we deserve better than Direct X 12 to run games.
We don't, we give money to shitheads like EA and Activision. Shouldn't stop us from hoping though.
@Gerson Ferreira as is Vulkan... Before it got it's name Vulkan was often called GLNext or some shit like that.
@Gerson Ferreira OpenGL is not really Open Source, it's just a public specification with vendor individual implementations and glsl compilers
@Gerson Ferreira In fact, it isn't more open source than DirectX or Metal - at least for the final consumer. The only ones who profits of the "Freedom" in OpenGL are hardware vendors like Nvidia. While they have to contact Microsoft for Direct graphics support, and may have to pay some licenses, they can work freely with OpenGL. If the final implementation of OpenGL is open source or not relies on how the implementation is delivered - in most cases the implementation comes with the drivers and these keeps being proprietary.
For developers OpenGL isn't that fine. Because of backward-compatibility it has a lot of ancient stuff in it, what makes it very hard sometimes. My hope was, they would clean up a little with Vulkan, but they didn't. While Vulkan supports a lot of low-level-stuff, what brings a lot of performance, the base keeps being OpenGL 4.
What makes OpenGL so difficult for developers, makes it very good for users. You can use it everywhere and have very few system requirements. It is mostly backwards compatible so you can run it on nearby every hardware. (even if many features get lost)
Direct graphics/Metal on the other hand are modern and very comfortable for developers. They only have to run on their home systems, what makes it relatively easy to let them do this highly efficient. Developers don't have to worry about portability, because there is none.
What makes Direct graphics/Metal so comfortable for developers makes it very bad for users. You are forced to use one system, you have high system requirements and so on.
The main difference between OpenGL vs. DirectX/Metal are the same as for open source vs. proprietary software: DirectX/Metal are good for software which is written to make quick money, while OpenGL is good for software which is written for the users.
Yeah, go learn how to program Vulkan and see if you still have the same opinion. That is, if they don't change the API every 5 years again. The OpenGL implementations may vary, but all the hardware manufacturers have a say in the OpenGL specification and adding to it which keeps it compatible with the different cards. It's also not OS specific. I just get sick and tired of having to learn a new API all the time. I took one look at what you needed to code for Vulkan and vowed to not bother. Otherwise I'll spend the rest of my life learning new APIs and getting nothing done.
Seems the Vulkan renderer is missing some things like atmospheric scattering...? The water looks noticeably darker...
No there are no missing effects, there was a minor bug when interpreting the rgb values at ocean refraction/reflection color generation.
The only difference is a missing lens flare effect, but as you can see I turned of the lens flare effect in OpenGL when comparing performance results
@@oreonengine9444 Will we get the same bright picture as on OGL after bugfixing? At comparison the picture from OGL looks much better and more attractive.
@Grishko Mikhail yes I fixed it already, it looks similar
@@oreonengine9444 no, there are noticeably fewer ripple breaks in the vulkan mesh. The procedural texture detail doesn't match at all.
@@paxdriver no there aren't, the gamma is just wrong so a lot of those details are getting squished. I thought the same thing but I double checked on a color calibrated monitor and tried correcting the image back and it is the same. Look at the specular reflections too. Same number of subdivisions for sure. The specular reflections just fade out a bit weird because the gamma is wrong
To the people blaming developers for not using Vulkan:
Using Vulkan is a lot harder, OpenGL allows for quick development. That's why most devs stick with it.
And probably the reason why Vulkan is not so widely adopted.
It'll change, so have patience.
Isn't like changing engines
@@silentfilms7459 "OpenGL is easier to use, but has more latency" - Silent Films 2020
@@miguelhenriques539 lmao
@@oldbonniegamer938 No not at all. Changing engines is already a very expensive stunt in triple AAA games that will cost a big budget to do so (you need the time to port all game and also developers that are fluent in both engines to make the transition).
Changing graphics API is even harder. If the company is using an inhouse engine then it would be necessary to rewrite the whole rendering engine foundation to also support a new API which requires professionals in developing with vulkan (which there are way less compared to directx).
Changing engines is like changing from microsoft word to LibreOffice.
Changing API's is like rewriting a book in a different language.
(The comparisons are a bit stretched and not 100% applicable but it should be enough to pass an idea).
This is not the point, Vulkan is not supported by older video cards, it seems that this is not so important, but many studios do not want to lose this audience.
Vulkan is a nice API, but the reason most stick with OpenGL is because it's easier, requires less code, has far more info available on the Internet, and they are familliar with it. This in most cases outweighs the fps adventage.(Which can be smaller when one does good optimizations)
Since when is OpenGL easier, i would not say it easier at all.
@@ralfreicke9143 it literally takes 30 minutes to get some basic phong lit-objects on a screen with opengl. vulkan requires a lot more; it's very verbose with a lot of descriptors to fill out and failsafe checks, and there's synchronization stuff in the rendering end of things which is very hard to get right.
@@henryso4 Vulkan requires more in the “configuration stage”. Once you’ll have a proper PIL it should all be a breeze, and Vulkan makes multi-threading easier than that one state machine OpenGL.
@@henryso4verbose is not about complexity or intelligence or anything.You need to think and optimize the system not just rely on modern APIs.Because if your program is poorly writen,it will be ten times slower than opengl.
Yeah we got recommended by vulkan but OpenGL sticks around profit people and developers to code this too. But i think it might be a graphic test quality but also it has pixel backwards compatibility too.
Updated video here with similar look of the water between both demos:
👉 ua-cam.com/video/O28yzCRcuxg/v-deo.html&ab_channel=OREONENGINE
Many people have mentioned that the OpneGL part looks more realistic and hence the comparison is not valid. There is no lack of details in the Vulkan demo compared to the OpenGL demo.
There is simply a tiny bug in a Vulkan bloom shader where a wrong color format was passed to the shader which made the blue color looking a bit darker and the lighting exceeding the high dynamic color range. This is resolved in the mentioned video.
You can download the approved thesis to the corresponding demo video for free:
www.grin.com/document/456305?lang=en
The research paper of the ocean FFT theory and implementation you can get here for free:
tubdok.tub.tuhh.de/handle/11420/1439?locale=en
Wow that's your master thesis. Cool demo, Vulkan is certainly a lot faster and less CPU intensive
Congrats on your master's thesis. I've looked through it and it looks great.
But you appear to have missed out mantle completely (you even have a source that mentions it in their title). And for a chapter named "Origin and History of Vulkan" it's a bit like starting lord of the rings at the two towers. Like can you imagine the confusion when a short hairy teenager is making the hike of his life to throw a ring into a volcano? Perhaps it's a bit of a controversial topic for a master's thesis though.
Most gamedevs advise to use frametimes instead of FPS for measuring performance. This is due to knowing that if you have one effect that takes 2ms and another 3,5ms you get a total time of 5,5ms. But if you say one is 500FPS and the other is 285 FPS then it's kinda hard to intuitively see that the final FPS is 181FPS once you've added those together.
what's most impressive is the low load on the CPU from Vulkan, it's also obviously missing a few features that openGL has but those will come with time
Actually, Vulkan is really flexible, so I doubt there's something you can do in OpenGL but can't in Vulkan
Vulkan does exhibit higher GPU load though. I suppose performance can't come from nowhere -- perhaps, by design Vulkan utilizes the GPU where OpenGL deferred to the CPU, for one reason or another. But this is me speculating.
@@armenmichaeli6704 FPS is higher, thus the higher gpu usage
@Dex4Sure I have never said anything to the contrary, in fact I remarked exactly the same thing -- that Vulkan exhibits higher GPU usage, presumably exactly because it uses the GPU well, more. I even argue that higher CPU usage through OpenGL software stack is, inversely, because OpenGL does not offload certain computations to the GPU and these run on the CPU instead, presumably again.
@Dex4Sure Did you have to insult him?
Impressive, as always! Vulcan is a beast!
Vulkan*
@@alonsopalazuelos7599 he is talking about Aston Martin Vulcan!
is a beast, but... OpenGl seems more realistic, the water in vulkan is sooo dark, and the saturation is so excesive.
@@MrPotatoMan The creator has said elsewhere that's a bug in the code for the demo making the gamma wrong. With the bug corrected they look almost identical. I think he needs to re-release this video with the bug-fix version so that people are not confused or put off by it :)
@@MrPotatoMan Oh ffs, it's the developers that decide on the colors, shapes, shaders, etc. API HAS NOTHING TO DO with it...
The second life Metaverse, after 20 years is switching from OpenGL to Vulcan, and I personally am excited as lower spec hardware will deliver a better more immersive experience, I will personally appreciate not having a room over 90f and not having to run two overclocked watercooled computers with RTX 4090’s to get 4k 120fps . thanks for the demo
It's seriously impressive that this is still one of the best - if not the best - Vulkan v OGL comparison videos out there. I would've loved to see more people transition their self-made engines from OGL to Vulkan. Since noone is making videos about that I keep coming back to this video now and then and marvel at it.
In Linux we have DxVK which translates DirectX calls insto vulkan calls allowing you to play direct X games under linux with wine. Yes there is overhead but it plays real well.. Very Cool!
You forgot "(I use Arch BTW)"
@@Newbyte Maybe he's ubuntu n00b
btw i use arch
I use mint
Will use Linux when almost all games work with little performance difference.
@@dylwintftw and there you have the catch 22. What incentive do developers have to release games on Linux with Vulkan when almost everyone sticks to Windows? I hear people complain about how much they hate Windows 10 all the time, but as long as they're not prepared to make some sacrifices to switch over, like missing out on a game or two, nothing will change.
Vulkan vs Dx12
Josias Souza_#L2G DX12 is better on details, Vulkan is better on FPS :-)
@@Interestingworld4567
What you said doesn't make sense, the APIs are not responsible for the detail fidelity you put into your graphics. The graphics quality is solely in the hands of developers, APIs are just tools, they do not define your result.
@@d1oftwins can't agree more on that
@@Interestingworld4567 windows user
@@Interestingworld4567: You will notice the details, you won't notice the FPS while playing.
So Vulcan is tad bit more GPU depending, WAY less CPU dependant, and almost 2 times FPS?
Hi, I read about OpenGl AZDO back in 2016 which claims to be as good as Vulkan but as of today I never heard OpenGL softwares that starts implementing it.
Do you mind implementing and testing AZDO technique on this demo?
Which cpu and gpu were use?
Awesome ! Vulkan seems well better overall even that it consumes more the GPU than OpenGL.
Vulkan relieves the CPU by enveloping many gpu calls in one (or few) command buffers (and further specifying all kind of settings in renderpasses and pipelines etc.), further you can spread the tasks over multiple threads. By telling the driver everything explcitly in advance, the GPU can highly optimize the work. Hence, the CPU load is decreased while the GPU load is increased and the fps is higher. As you can see at high antialiasing settings, the GPU loads of OpenGL and Vulkan move towards each other. That's because the shaders are more complex and the GPU needs more time to execute them, but the shader execution itself makes no difference about OpenGL or Vulkan.
@@oreonengine9444 Thank you for the explanations :)
Opengl is a global state machine so maybe it can only render on a single thread ?
are you reusing command buffers or smth or just simple vulkan performance?
Why one of CPU\GPU load in this test is not 100%? Is CPU load based on all CPU cores?
I wish water in 'X-Plane 11' could look this good !
Does this mean bottlenecks will be less of an issue between cpu and gpu.
I saw the low CPU usage and slightly higher GPU usage along with the increase in performance and thought "Minecraft needs to run Vulcan".
It's in works actually. It's called *Nova Renderer*
@@LegendLength Yeah, sadly, hype seemed to killed it, but Focal Engine seems to be promising, already has working shaderpack working in newest OpenGL, currently moving to Vulkan
Will Vulcan increase s GPU demand for games and limit the fps of GPU demanding games?
if you have to much cpu load, doesn't that mean that you didn't use opengl right? i mean, opengl has ways to reduce driver calls
Are you planning to continue with making videos?
Vulkan is future
*Mark my word*
Wow what a wise and controversial statement to make when Vulkan has already started replacing OpenGL and has seen major game releases based on it. You are a true visionary.
Awesome!
Which OpenGL version is this? 4.5?
Hardly matters. You can mix and match features.
The problem with these videos is that they generally appeal to people who know nothing about rendering and engineering. The APIs always get portrayed as "X is better than Y", which is very incorrect. All these comparisons can tell you is "IN OUR APPLICATION X is better than Y". Your Vulkan implementation can suck and be slower than the OpenGL one. Does that mean Vulkan sucks? NO.
I have seen some garbage OpenGL implementations being compared to Vulkan to show just how amazing and magic Vulkan is.
Compare World War Z Vulkan to DX you see right away the difference so there is no bs comparison Vulkan has been used in big titles already. Holding on to DX and OpenGL is a joke this is free and open and works on all platforms a good way to make money on all platforms also Win, Mac, Lin we need games on all platforms not just windows.
@@lyonsautoracingiracing211don't you question if Vulkan is better,opengl will be too in the future?And the big brains will make opengl even better base on what they tried on vulkan.No place for amateurs to say which is better.
@@lanchanoinguyen2914 From what you guys say, You are Opengl fan boys and are against Vulkan. You never really looked at vulkan and seen what it can do. Vulkan offers more control over your GPU infact its more direct than opengl meaning it cuts out anything in the middle and is direct API and GPU lets get one thing straight. Vulkan is better why because it offers direct control to your GPU over Opengl or DirectX with nothing in between. Also lower overhead witch mean more preformance for your hardware meaning it will use all the hardware even not stack programs on 2 or 3 cores of a 6/12 cores of GPU/CPU games just run better your say its crap cause your on a crap os like windows get on GNU+Linux and you will see the difference until then your comments mean jack. Also lower power consumption is a advantage on Vulkan and much more. Real game devs know what i am talking about and want full control over what goes on with there cpu and gpu and Vulkan gives just that Valhiem is an example Cursed and War Thunder many more are examples but you wont experience a good Vulkan api port unless on GNU+LINUX windows just sucks ass.
@@lanchanoinguyen2914 Have you used both if not they maybe you should not speak.
In what ways are Vulkan better at utilizing the hardware's resources as compared to OpenGL? I am sure this is possibe to read in the thesis report
Generally translates to reducing bubbles on the GPU and reducing CPU overhead. Vulkan doesn't gain you much on the GPU.
What is the advantages on paper between Vulcan and other APIs?
Multithreading, overall better performance, more flexible.
Would it be possible for you to create a Tutorial where you show how to create a complete Game Engine with the Vulcan-API?
lmao
Mt bom video
I have two questions. First, when will you continue the game engine tutorial series, becuase i found it so useful. Secondly, will you start a Vulkan tutorial series? If yes, then in java, or in c++?
I will release a video about motion blur I guess, soon when I have time.
I don't think that I will do a C++ Vulkan series soon (I prefer using Vulkan with C++ even if this video uses Java), sorry, it is so much effort.
@@oreonengine9444 I understand it, you are amazing man, keep up the good work!
Is this only one thread?
yes I wanted to measure with identical conditions which implies one thread for both, with multiple threads (e.g. generate fft in parallel) the fps would be even higher for Vulkan
If the color are wrong then it's the gamut correction or whatever makes SRGB_NONLINEAR nonlinear
what's name of the song?
any words on the higher gpu-load of vulkan? do i understand it right, that this is favorable to cpu-load, as an idle gpu is likely not useful for much in a game besides graphics-calculations, whereas a cpu that doesn't have to put so much into graphics-processing, can still be used for the other aspects of a game?
Higher GPU load = better GPU utilization = higher FPS
THANKS YOOOUUU
How hard is to learn Vulkan as an intermediate OpenGL programmer?
Vulkan is like...really really low level because you gain full control of the graphic driver.
It's not that hard, but it needs big effort, since the programmer must tell the driver everything explicitly in advance. But in the end, it is easy to use and very reasonable
Thank you! :)
It doesn't matter how hard it is, the performance is there and it's worth it to put in the time to understand it. Though depending on your OpenGL knowledge you may just want to keep on doing that for now, because unless you're comfortable with the basics you can't move on to the lower levels of graphics APIs
The vulcan gpu is high from fps to fps, but I only have one problem in my mind. opengl is not loading too much on the processor, but fps is too low on the vulcan processor, fps is overloaded Well, how does the 100 fps difference, if we consider its hurricane because the vulcan is heavily loaded on the processor?
Now where is the used music mentioned? What is the music used?
Now we have:
Vulkan
Open GL
Direct 3d
And no specifications on which one is the best or how to preserve compatibility. Which one supports current specs on shaders rtx etc...
Vulkan is probably the answer.
@@FightRayTV Vulkan currently has rtx / shader / lighting issues I noticed in games from watching youtube videos on it where object appear less colorful and bright using Vulkan compared to Direct3D. Vulkan may also be missing the dynamic heap feature found in Direct3D. Vulkan is very promising but, as of not it simply needs work.
"no specifications on which one is the best"
Have you been born yesterday? Do you know anything about how the world works?
I really wish developers would get on board with Vulkan.. problem is many are working on updating their pipelines for DX12 since DX is what most were already using. it's a shame because it would be the better route. especially for cross platform releases!
Same thing with c++ and rust. Its always going to be hard for the community to move on to new technology especially companies
vilkan is much ahrder to work with
I remember games with no flicker/tearing and 100% lag free in the 80's. Im Europe/US/World they updated everything in the game engine at frequency of the vertical sync of a CRT at what ever country you were living in at the time. Mostly 60/50 Hertz or 60/50 frames per second (and the TV updated only half the screen at 30/25 frames per second). It was wonderful, it was never any screen tearing, lag or pretty much anything... It was very smooth. Sometimes in the 90's I played games on a PC and it was horrible, pretty much what ever game you played...
2015, 30-40 years later they came up with the wheel again and vertical sync was a "new" thing... just wow...
But anyway, a driver/api smarter and lower level (but "smarter" to actually use the stuff you got) is always better in my book!
Son, Ive got news for you.....VSync has been around ALOT longer than 2015....
@@Erlisch1337 There was something missing though even if the hardware supported it (Monitor/Graphics hardware) because screen tear (even today with relative new 2015 hardware) and you turn the VSync feature on it still screen tears like hell sometimes. Gaming on PC is a whole other aspect of games programming I guess then it was for a more or less fixed computer hardware or console. And maybe that is the problem as the awful screen tearing still exists on a newish game with V-sync "feature".
"Mostly 60/50 Hertz or 60/50 frames per second (and the TV updated only half the screen at 30/25 frames per second)."
Incorrect. Some games chose to run in 240p and still update at 50 or 60hz, not 30 or 25.
480i games also update at 50 or 60hz
@@alexanderwingeskog758 It's because you know nothing about V-sync. It's as simple as that. Use your driver's v-sync setting. What games nowadays call "v-sync" is actually "frame cap", that's why it's not working.
@@DasAntiNaziBroetchen 240p and 480i are not TV CRT resolutions, TV's in the 80's did not have progressive scan (maybe some did but they where not in consumer use by any means). 480i is a fixed resolution that TV's did not have either. I think you are talking about monitors (maybe even CRT monitors?).
why the vulkan one looks darker and less detailed?
Because creators of the presentation.
OpenGl seems so outdated, although it's compatible with just about anything though. I want to see a dx12 comparison.
Now this quality recreates and replicated real life style I think vulkan is outstanding and works again but will be replacing some OpenGL as a few from the either 80s or 90s idk
Many people still prefer opengl over vulkan. DirectX and OpenGL are still the most popular choices.
This video should be sent to exzap (cemu users will get it)
Year fui o número 1000 like
In my opinion, Vulkan seems to be better looking and it can utilize the power of GPU better. My PC has a bad CPU so less load for it would be better. And as a phone gamer, I must admit that Vulkan is better in emulators (at least for devices with Qualcomm snapdragon SoC's)
You can't really compare a Java-GL engine to a C++-Vulkan engine fairly, at least not in terms of CPU usage - except for, maybe, if you are barely performing any computations on the CPU. I'm also wondering why the GPU load is higher with Vulkan. Are you sure, both solutions are implemented in the same way?
it is both written in Java. Yes it is implemented in same ways within the same engine core, and it makes sense that GPU load is higher at Vulkan and the GPU load moving towards each other for higher antialiasing settings.
read read read and code, and start with OpenGL
I would prefer Vulkan and C++ then
Game Engines: Forget to open it: no cube
High Level libraries: Forget to call a function: no cube
Medium level libraries: forgot about a shader: no cube
OpenGL: used wrong enum: no cube
Vulkan: accidentally typed CPU instead of GPU: performance decrease of 90%
Vulkan for sure !
The water doesnt look the same between Vulkan and OpgenGL.
Open gl said:Stable
Vulkan:quite unstable but u definetly get high performance
Yeah I think so but if OpenGL stable at maybe 100 fps and then Vulkan can get like 300 fps, could we lock the Vulkan fps to 100fps and maybe Vulkan get better optimization with more less cpu usage?
I like the OpenGL API, but I think I'l have a peek at what Vulkan has to offer sinse I'm very unpleased by OpenGL's inconsistency
Why is there graphics quality difference between those two APIs?
Vulkan offers greater hardware control allowing it to perform better than OpenGl at high-resolutions
@@xlxnyx , hardware control has got nothing to do with graphics "quality". Having more control gives you control of the optimization handle, it doesn't mean OpenGL can't give you same graphics quality. Only difference will be in performance where Vulkan will surely win. This still doesn't explain why graphics quality differs in between those APIs in this video.
Vulkan is the future!!
Hi, hast du Discord?
Ne leider noch nicht
@@oreonengine9444 solltest du jemals Discord haben, vielleicht kannst du ja mal vorbeischauen. Das ist ein Server für (im Moment) OpenGL-Java-Programmierer auf dem wir Erfahrungen teilen und uns gegenseitig helfen:
discord.gg/hHcuhbw
Lol I read this in English and assumed that you were spelling stuff in a funny way (like Shakespeare). So I understood it. Lol I have wanted to learn German for a while now.
That's kinda funny :D
Like: "Hast thou discord?"
No sunsets on open ray tracing.
The math should be in every university.
Why Edu: misplace Hiram Abiff iQ=Wealth?
Vulkan is known for its efficient performance
Vulkan é ainda muito instável.
Si
I've noticed OGL has many popping textures.
In this??
Vulkan is low level, a better performance is expected. The optimizations used are missing in the video.
Vulcan + Doom 😎
why tho?
No lies
i like to jump on to vulkan but not sure my r9 270 support it or not :(
Look here: www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/4guzbm/does_the_radeon_rx_200_series_support_vulkan/
To my knowledge, any r9 card should support it. I have the r9 280, battlefield 4 supports Vulkan. But vulkan i found crashes alot more than directx on bf4.
i went.. holy fuck
yesterday i opened Rainbow six siege in vulkan instead of dx11, well in reality it's kinda disappointing my frames dropped like 20% or so
from 130-140 to 90-110
I still don't get the actual advantage of Vulkan over other APIs. Ok, it allows more control on the hardware but if "Vulkan is the future", why OpenGL won't be dismissed? I mean, if the Khronos group decided to create a new branch for Vulkan instead of creating OpenGL 5, I assume there are reasons to maintain OpenGL and Vulkan as two valuable possibilities. You simply decide what to use according to your needs, like choosing Java over C++ or Python.
You just answered your own question, do you realize that?
Yes,opengl can be easily improved.Or it does not even need to.Because we already have shaders,we can use zero cpu.But it does not mean gpu won't be over headed.And vulkan makes no sense,it is not even low level like drivers.And vulkan is verbose which makes less sense for developers
Vulkan best from the best)))
OpenGl runs with virgl so then causes weird colors
I saw that you can run Valheim with Vulkan and had to check if it's the way to go. Obviously!
DirectX 13
broke ass me who is watching this at 360p
Glide 3d and minigl ftw
What exactly are you gaining from using Vulkan here? There is no reason why you should load your CPU that much by just rendering a water plane, a sun disc, and a sky box. What am I missing?
Uncapped FPS I suppose?
@@Pately755 That's the dumbest response I could have expected to his question.
Vulkan is somewhat unstable, but it gives so much more performance while using less cpu and gpu power.
Rendered images are different. Not same techniques applied by both rendering engines, so this FPS/CPU/GPU comparison is not valid. Rendered images should be the same to evaluate each API
The only devs that care about Vulkan and OpenGL are emulators devs. Still i hardly find games ans other software that uses DX12, most still use DX9 and DX11. Vulkan is impressive. Writing everything the graphics driver must do offloads a bunch of processes from the CPU. But because of this, many devs still don't care to take the time to program in Vulkan. Its easier to stick with APIs that do everything for them.
Tell me 1 emulator for example
@@moioyoyo848 PCSX2
Ok
@@moioyoyo848 Yuzu (Switch emulator) devs are working on Vulkan API implementation. Dolphin (Game Cube and Wii emulator) already has Vulkan option for rendering.
The best exemple of Vulkan usage is Wine
Does nobody notice the clear difference in texture depth? The opencl comparison is clearly running higher detail...
alright I will upload a new video with the bug fix to convince. There are no differences in detail depth...
Vulcan cool
if you are NOT A GRAPHICS programmer, please listen.
Vulkan is not necessarily better than OpenGL.
two low level libraries however vulkan is MUCH MUCH harder.
you have to take ease of use into account when judging a library
I wish people would realise this. I have tried again and again to start working with vulkan but the sheer amount of work it requres to set up is insane
This is witchcraft.
ღKatyღ how
Im Vulkan API
0:52 1:00
Starcitizen
OpenGL uses mainly C++ to run it’s program, and c++ runs very close to the computer (cpu) to do it bidding. Vulkan is use the GPU way more, explaining the good FPS and graphics.
vulkan is the best
Porque en emuladores es tan malo Vulkan ?
Minecraft uses OpenGL I think
vulkan
Subnautica (?)
No, it is not.
@@theRPGmaster ok
You cant compare the two api's. Yoh know why? People have difderent optimization methods! You could probaly have a WAY better optimization on vulkan, by just the way you program it. Opengl could be better. Vulkan could be better. It just depends on how you optimize it!
Exactly what I've been saying.
Generally you should be able to get higher performance using Vulkan, but people make OpenGL look like it's TRASH in comparison.
@@DasAntiNaziBroetchenyes,i use opengl and i combine dozen of material and texture into one,even with pbr and so that i only bind one single texture for multiple material objects with ton of textures.It requires many maths.
Vulkan is defintely faster and gives better performance. But it's gpu taxing than cpu and gpus have shorter life than cpus, so if you're on budget just take it easy on vulkan and lower the settings (to an extent that it still looks good) if you want a longer life for the gpu.
DX 12🔥🔥😎😎
Honestly it's always best to go for performance over image quality and photorealism, because put simply, steady-and-fluid performance is the "real" realism.
VulkanGL, powered by Nividia.
*happiness noise*
😂😂😂😂
Vulkan лучше?
yes for alot of games including Minecraft Java Edition
If Game developers use Vulkan games will be optimized AF
Possibly. Not guaranteed.