HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Stardocks CEO, Brad Wardell, claims that he saw a 920% increase in performance between DirectX 11 vs. DirectX 12 on an unreleased GPU.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please, journalists, start getting this right.
It already started at 100% performance, meaning it increased by 820% for a total of 920%. You say it increased by 920% which is wrong.
Why do so many people suck at math even when they're technically-oriented?
It says n-% increase.
A 100% performance increase means performance effectively doubled.
That's a lot of fucking overhead in DX11 if those numbers are accurate.
Right, but it increased 820% but he included the original 100% in his claim, saying it increased 920%. It is 920% the performance, not a 920% increase. It increased 820% for a total of 920%.
Nearly every tech writer on any site I browse makes this mistake and it gets old. I put a certain degree of trust in these writers to help me decide what products I buy but when almost all of these people can't do basic math, it makes them hard to trust.
Please, journalists, start getting this right.
It already started at 100% performance, meaning it increased by 820% for a total of 920%. You say it increased by 920% which is wrong.
Why do so many people suck at math even when they're technically-oriented?
Stardocks CEO, Brad Wardell, claims that he saw a 920% increase in performance between DirectX 11 vs. DirectX 12 on an unreleased GPU.
920% is weaksauce, the author shoulda said. "DX12 offers a 1,000,000% increase in performance using my magical GPU made from pure extract of leprechaun farts, take my word for it!"
If you are curious about what Brad Wardell is working on then you should drop by his personal blog. Especially check out this interesting post on if DX12 and Mantle can deliver movie quality visuals in games.
Right, but it increased 820% but he included the original 100% in his claim, saying it increased 920%. It is 920% the performance, not a 920% increase. It increased 820% for a total of 920%.
Nearly every tech writer on any site I browse makes this mistake and it gets old. I put a certain degree of trust in these writers to help me decide what products I buy but when almost all of these people can't do basic math, it makes them hard to trust.
Just what I need, more lens flare in games.
This is why I hate when tech sites and products use the intentionally confusing % instead of x when referencing performance. For the mass majority we often see 100% as double on first impact until we pay attention to the wording. If you say it's 1.5x or 8x the performance that's more easily understood.
Marketers can be brilliant bastards sometimes doing these sly little tricks.
this!! better to say it performs 9.2x better than dx11.
Zarathustra[H];1041436841 said:Exactly what I was thinking.
Lens flare is in no way a desirable effect, except for in some unusual circumstances where you are looking through a lens in game.
Games shouldn't artificially appear more like movies, they should appear more like you were there in person, and unless you have really shitty glasses, the world doesn't have lens flare effects
It's clearly a corner case i.e. in the real world you won't see this sort of improvement. Still, as long as it doesn't have any major regressions in other cases, it's still nice.
920% is weaksauce, the author shoulda said. "DX12 offers a 1,000,000% increase in performance using my magical GPU made from pure extract of leprechaun farts, take my word for it!"
I would prefer is even the movies lacked lens flare. That's one aspect of JJ Abrams' Star Trek I absolutely hated.