AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 2019 Edition 19.3.2 Supports DX12 on Windows 7

cageymaru

Fully [H]
Joined
Apr 10, 2003
Messages
19,949
The AMD Radeon Software Adrenalin 2019 Edition 19.3.2 driver has been released and it is optimized for Tom Clancy's The Division 2 and Sid Meier's Civilization VI: Gathering Storm. AMD Radeon VII owners should see a 4% performance uplift in Sid Meier's Civilization VI: Gathering Storm when compared to the 19.2.3 driver. This driver brings DirectX 12 to Windows 7 for supported game titles. AMD supports more Vulkan extensions in this driver.

Fixed issues include: Radeon ReLive for VR may sometimes fail to install during Radeon Software installation. Fan curve may fail to switch to manual mode after the manual toggle is switched when fan curve is still set to default behavior. Changes made in Radeon WattMan settings via Radeon Overlay may sometimes not save or take effect once Radeon Overlay is closed.

Known issues include: Rainbow Six Siege may experience intermittent corruption or flickering on some game textures during gameplay. DOTA2 VR may experience stutter on some HMD devices when using the Vulkan API. Mouse cursors may disappear or move out of the boundary of the top of a display on AMD Ryzen Mobile Processors with Radeon Vega Graphics. Performance metrics overlay and Radeon WattMan gauges may experience inaccurate fluctuating readings on AMD Radeon VII.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,692
Better to give the windows 7 folks 12 then loose them to Linux I guess. lol

As to why developers don't just use Vulkan. Who knows keeping their MS console contacts happy I guess. We all know the min they all start using Vulkan windows looses one of its last compelling reasons to be.
 

ZodaEX

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
3,729
Better to give the windows 7 folks 12 then loose them to Linux I guess. lol

As to why developers don't just use Vulkan. Who knows keeping their MS console contacts happy I guess. We all know the min they all start using Vulkan windows looses one of its last compelling reasons to be.
Nah, I wouldn't have gone Linux anyway since GTAV doesn't run on it, nor does it benefit from DX12. (I'm one of those Windows 7 peeps) Would still be on Windows 2000 if GTAV ran on it too.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,692
Sorry I can't watch videos on any of my computers. I stripped out JavaScript and my internet is below YouTube's requirements. Can you type out what's in your video?
GTA V playing on ultra settings on Linux via steam play. lol

Not having to worry about java security in the same way is another advantage of dumping windows.... just saying.

GTA / Witcher and pretty much every other windows game people say they are sticking with MS over... all run perfect via steam play these days. Click install just like windows. DXVK and VKD3D take care of DX 11/12 -> Vulkan and as long as your not gaming on a 5 year old machine you won't noticed much difference. Perhaps a bit smoother on Linux. lol
 

ZodaEX

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
3,729
GTA V playing on ultra settings on Linux via steam play. lol

Not having to worry about java security in the same way is another advantage of dumping windows.... just saying.

GTA / Witcher and pretty much every other windows game people say they are sticking with MS over... all run perfect via steam play these days. Click install just like windows. DXVK and VKD3D take care of DX 11/12 -> Vulkan and as long as your not gaming on a 5 year old machine you won't noticed much difference. Perhaps a bit smoother on Linux. lol
Oooh. Your talking about Steam Games. Yeah I don't use Steam because they banned my account when I didn't do anything wrong so fuck that noise I'm not giving them any more of my money to steal. I'm talking about GTAV on PC I bought on retail DVD disc.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,692
Oooh. Your talking about Steam Games. Yeah I don't use Steam because they banned my account when I didn't do anything wrong so fuck that noise I'm not giving them any more of my money to steal. I'm talking about GTAV on PC I bought on retail DVD disc.
Steam play is powered by proton. Valves fork of wine.

GTA under Linux... install wine, install DXVK (valves open source DX11->Vulkan layer)... insert DVD run install, play.

Steam on LInux makes it easier with a single store just like Steam on windows. But its not doing anything magical, just adding a one click install method, just like windows.

But anyway... run what you like. But yes GTA5 runs fine on Linux. If you want a Steam like 100% open source non Valve solution you can even install it via an open game installer / launcher like Lutris.
 

ZodaEX

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
3,729
Steam play is powered by proton. Valves fork of wine.

GTA under Linux... install wine, install DXVK (valves open source DX11->Vulkan layer)... insert DVD run install, play.

Steam on LInux makes it easier with a single store just like Steam on windows. But its not doing anything magical, just adding a one click install method, just like windows.

But anyway... run what you like. But yes GTA5 runs fine on Linux. If you want a Steam like 100% open source non Valve solution you can even install it via an open game installer / launcher like Lutris.
Wow I really hope this works! I'm going to try it soon!
 

Derangel

Fully [H]
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
19,063
Better to give the windows 7 folks 12 then loose them to Linux I guess. lol

As to why developers don't just use Vulkan. Who knows keeping their MS console contacts happy I guess. We all know the min they all start using Vulkan windows looses one of its last compelling reasons to be.
Vulkan doesn't automagically mean a Linux version will exist. It simply makes it easier. Studios that don't want to deal with Linux support aren't suddenly going to want to if they started using Vulkan. The why is pretty simple: Its what they know and likely the path of least resistance/cost. Most publishers also likely don't see it as being worth the added cost to move away from what has worked for them for a long time.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,692
Vulkan doesn't automagically mean a Linux version will exist. It simply makes it easier. Studios that don't want to deal with Linux support aren't suddenly going to want to if they started using Vulkan. The why is pretty simple: Its what they know and likely the path of least resistance/cost. Most publishers also likely don't see it as being worth the added cost to move away from what has worked for them for a long time.
No need for a Linux "port" once a game uses Vulkan. It runs via wine with zero issues. (the last year has seen that mostly happen anyway with DXVK and to a lesser extent VK9 and VKD3D)

We don't need publishers to create Linux binaries anymore. Their windows .exe libraries work just fine. Windows vulkan games run faster on Linux. They also install with one click via steam and for the most part Lutris. Really once wine and DXVK are properly installed installing windows games is mostly no different then it is on windows. The only games with issues at this point are games with heavy malware like DRM schemes. (and honestly buy the game cause its the right thing to do... and download a cracked version without the DRM and it will install perfectly. lol)
 

Lakados

2[H]4U
Joined
Feb 3, 2014
Messages
2,421
I honestly think I’ll see Microsoft natively release a DX version for Linux and OSX before I see mass adoption of Vulkan. But hey I’ll take either scenario.
 

Stimpy88

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 18, 2004
Messages
1,271
Didn't take long, did it? Couldn't have been much work.

So much for impossible, aye Microsoft?
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
Better to give the windows 7 folks 12 then loose them to Linux I guess. lol

As to why developers don't just use Vulkan. Who knows keeping their MS console contacts happy I guess. We all know the min they all start using Vulkan windows looses one of its last compelling reasons to be.
The last game dev ship I worked for looked into Vulkan, but was not comfortable with it for the same reasons they were not confortable with OpenGL. Inconsistency of support was the big concern. With DirectX you can compile to a specific release of any given major release. You cannot do that with Vulkan. At least, that is what I took away from the meetings.

Even if you could compile to a specific verision release, there is no guarantee the support would be consistent from one video card to another. Every driver release could change the support levels on you.
 

TrailRunner

Limp Gawd
Joined
Feb 15, 2012
Messages
393
Better to give the windows 7 folks 12 then loose them to Linux I guess. lol

As to why developers don't just use Vulkan. Who knows keeping their MS console contacts happy I guess. We all know the min they all start using Vulkan windows looses one of its last compelling reasons to be.
Perhaps because switching graphics APIs is tougher than you think. A number of years ago, before Vulkan’s release Carmack acknowledged that DirectX had surpassed OpenGL as an API, but that ID would still use OpenGL. Now assuming that Vulcan is the better API than DirectX and OpenGL, it seems that there’s still a huge barrier to switching. Take the following quote, substitute ‘OpenGL’ for DirectX and ‘DirectX’ for ‘Vulkan’ and that might be the problem that modern devs have.

OpenGL still works fine,' said Carmack, 'and we wouldn’t get any huge benefits by making the switch, so I can’t work up much enthusiasm for cleaning it out of our codebase. If it was just a matter of the game code, we could quite quickly produce a DirectX PC executable, but all of our tool code has to share resources with the game renderer, and I wouldn’t care to go over all of that for a dubious win.'

https://bit-tech.net/news/gaming/pc/carmack-directx-better-opengl/1/
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,194
Wow! This could get tempting to go back to Win 7, maybe on one machine.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,692
The last game dev ship I worked for looked into Vulkan, but was not comfortable with it for the same reasons they were not confortable with OpenGL. Inconsistency of support was the big concern. With DirectX you can compile to a specific release of any given major release. You cannot do that with Vulkan. At least, that is what I took away from the meetings.

Even if you could compile to a specific verision release, there is no guarantee the support would be consistent from one video card to another. Every driver release could change the support levels on you.
How is that different then DX ? Open GL 4.5 is OpenGL 4.5 it makes no difference if the card and driver support 4.6 they still do 4.5. Ogl and Vulkan both have full backwards compatability. Its no different then DX 9 code working just fine on cards with 9.1 drivers or 10 11 12 ect.

Are you suggesting that games with vulkan paths won't work in a year or two cause Vulkan 1.5 drivers won't work with 1.1 code. That is just incorrect.

Sounds to me like your employer simply knows who butter$ their bread. Because I can't think of a single instance where Kronos has changed how an existing extension worked in a way that broke backwards compatability. That would be an insanely stupid thing for any API maintainer to do.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,692
Perhaps because switching graphics APIs is tougher than you think. A number of years ago, before Vulkan’s release Carmack acknowledged that DirectX had surpassed OpenGL as an API, but that ID would still use OpenGL. Now assuming that Vulcan is the better API than DirectX and OpenGL, it seems that there’s still a huge barrier to switching. Take the following quote, substitute ‘OpenGL’ for DirectX and ‘DirectX’ for ‘Vulkan’ and that might be the problem that modern devs have.


https://bit-tech.net/news/gaming/pc/carmack-directx-better-opengl/1/
That is just a moment in time. That was from back in 2011. Yes at that specific point (around OpenGL 4.2 and the year and a half wait for 4.3) Yes MS was talking about DX 11.1... and it took Kronos a year to add vertex and other compute stuff with 4.3. 4.3 brought parity with DX 11. Open GL is now up to 4.6 which is superior to DX 11 hands down. It adds SPIR-V it offers GL_ARB_shader_draw_parameters for reduced CPU overhead and it catches up on a few features the DX has had that where kept off of Ogl due to licencing issues. It now supports everything DX does +.

Anyway Carmak wasn't wrong... as with any competing APIs or software. Depending on the time you look at one might be ahead of the other. Its been awhile but there where times when ATI was clearly ahead of Nvidia. :)
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
How is that different then DX ? Open GL 4.5 is OpenGL 4.5 it makes no difference if the card and driver support 4.6 they still do 4.5. Ogl and Vulkan both have full backwards compatability. Its no different then DX 9 code working just fine on cards with 9.1 drivers or 10 11 12 ect.

Are you suggesting that games with vulkan paths won't work in a year or two cause Vulkan 1.5 drivers won't work with 1.1 code. That is just incorrect.

Sounds to me like your employer simply knows who butter$ their bread. Because I can't think of a single instance where Kronos has changed how an existing extension worked in a way that broke backwards compatability. That would be an insanely stupid thing for any API maintainer to do.
What works in practice is not the same as what is on paper. The idea each video card manufacturer can provide a highly optimized version of OpenGL or Vulkan is not what really happens in practice. Every implementation has a different twist to it due to interpretation of the specification.

That has always hampered OpenGL support and it applies to Vulkan as well. DirectX, like it or not, has a consistent API across all video card platforms. No one can gaurantee that to be true for OpenGL or Vulkan. It is just the way it is.

Now, I am not saying that has actually happened in Vulkan (it has in OpenGL, many times), but it CAN happen and that is why they chose not to support it (I know longer work there). It is a major committment to make for any developer who has to pick one API to support. You bet your business on it, so the more conservative call is the one that is normally made.
 

ChadD

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Feb 8, 2016
Messages
4,692
What works in practice is not the same as what is on paper. The idea each video card manufacturer can provide a highly optimized version of OpenGL or Vulkan is not what really happens in practice. Every implementation has a different twist to it due to interpretation of the specification.

That has always hampered OpenGL support and it applies to Vulkan as well. DirectX, like it or not, has a consistent API across all video card platforms. No one can gaurantee that to be true for OpenGL or Vulkan. It is just the way it is.

Now, I am not saying that has actually happened in Vulkan (it has in OpenGL, many times), but it CAN happen and that is why they chose not to support it (I know longer work there). It is a major committment to make for any developer who has to pick one API to support. You bet your business on it, so the more conservative call is the one that is normally made.
If that where true the pro industry would rip the manufacturers apart. 4.0 is 4.0 ..... 4.6 supports all of 4.0s extensions. OpenGL doesn't break backwards compability. And AMD and Nvidia don't add to the APIs or subtract. If a driver supports 4.6 it does.

Sure Nvidia and AMD have suggested new features the other don't support yet. That is true of Directx as well. Plenty of cards that where 10.0 compliant but not 10.1 ect. Cause AMD or Nvida added some new feature that was exposed by a .1 version.

OpenGL is used heavily in professional 3D software... if as you say they couldn't rely on manufacturer hardware support they would also not use OpenGL.

Perhaps Nvidia or AMD or Intel drag their feet on opengl support at times ? perhaps but that hasn't really been my experience. Both are always trying to outsell each other in the pro market with pro cards, where opengl support is much more important then DX.

I hear what your saying, it just doesn't ring all that true to me. The only upside I can think of for using DX over opengl for a game developer (not counting perhaps easier MS console support and direct $ and dev support)... is that in the future Nvidia and AMD are likely to cheat code directly in the driver to speed up you game without you haven't to do nothing. We can all call it optimization... but the truth is its mostly just cheating forcing lower levels of filtering and the like in places where the Manufacturer decides its not going to impact IQ in a way anyone will notice. (most of the time)

For pro software that is the one big advantage of OpenGL really... little chance Nvidia is going to come along and cheat your code on the backend so they can win a benchmark. Quality does matter sometimes.
 

BSmith

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 9, 2017
Messages
1,323
OpenGL is the goto API for Pro adapters due to its efficiencies in dealing with hundreds of millions of vertices per object. DirectX sucks for that. Using DX for Pro video card support would be silly. It is not designed for that.

Now, understand I do not like DirectX. It has been gaining more and more bloat since the DX9 version. DX11 still has resource management issues you have to code around. For all the marketing MS has done about DX12, it still is not that great.

Then again, I have been through the nightmare, that is OpenGL, in trying to support games developed using that API. Not saying Vulkan is there, but it does have the same possibilities. Devs I know who have opted not to provide support are doing so for the same reasons they do not support OpenGL.

Right, wrong, or indifferent, that is what I have been privy to.
 
Top