• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

The Division DX12 patch is out- no multi-GPU support

W

Wag

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Aug 29, 2006
Messages
1,584
On the benchmark (on high @ 4k/60Hz) on my 5820k@4.3GHz, 3x 980Ti setup I'm getting 30fps vs ~42fps with the DX11 renderer. I checked Afterburner and am getting no activity on my 2nd and 3rd GPU with DX12 renderer.

Oddly enough there is no improvement on the DX11 renderer whether I use 2 or 3 cards: I still get around 42fps. The game crashes randomly with 3x SLI anyways, so I disable a card when I play.

Maybe I'm mistaken about the lack of multi-gpu support- someone else want to check?
 
Well, I just got it for $10 so...

When BF1 is $10 I'll pick it up.

I thought people would be interested because it's one of the few games that supports DX12.
 
Last edited:
it's also the only game with DX12 where it actually improves my framerate. too bad it crashes when you alt tab.
 
Last edited:
Fiji seems to be the only one with a real benefit.

10133513680l.jpg


10133537976l.jpg

10133657807l.jpg
 
So what the fuck is the point in using DX12?
This game is not bad but it's such a technical mess. How the hell can game, which requires insane hardware, not support SLI/Xfire?
Moron developers. This is what happens when a game is developed for consoles firsthand.
 
Nebell said:
So what the fuck is the point in using DX12?
This game is not bad but it's such a technical mess. How the hell can game, which requires insane hardware, not support SLI/Xfire?
Moron developers. This is what happens when a game is developed for consoles firsthand.
Click to expand...

One day these game engines are going to be DX12 first. None of the current ones envisioned DX12 coming out when they were designed. Everything you've seen or played so far has been a band aid applied to a burn victim. Let the developers play and experiment with adding it to current game engines. Every 5 years or so, unless your name is Bethesda, new game engines come out from a developer. That's when we will see a true DX12 implementation. Same goes for Vulkan.
 
cageymaru said:
One day these game engines are going to be DX12 first. None of the current ones envisioned DX12 coming out when they were designed. Everything you've seen or played so far has been a band aid applied to a burn victim. Let the developers play and experiment with adding it to current game engines. Every 5 years or so, unless your name is Bethesda, new game engines come out from a developer. That's when we will see a true DX12 implementation. Same goes for Vulkan.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but the thing is, The Division didn't have multi gpu support for DX11 either, so DX12 not only made no difference, it made things worse. If developers want to experiment, they can do so "in house". If I buy something, I want a finished product, not an experiment.
 
Nebell said:
Yeah, but the thing is, The Division didn't have multi gpu support for DX11 either, so DX12 not only made no difference, it made things worse. If developers want to experiment, they can do so "in house". If I buy something, I want a finished product, not an experiment.
Click to expand...
you have dx11 then. although you have a point as all they are doing when they release dx12 is showing they aren't doing it right.
 
Nebell said:
Yeah, but the thing is, The Division didn't have multi gpu support for DX11 either, so DX12 not only made no difference, it made things worse. If developers want to experiment, they can do so "in house". If I buy something, I want a finished product, not an experiment.
Click to expand...

It probably makes a difference for customers with low end CPUs, and it made a difference for some AMD video cards. Of course Nvidia hasn't cracked the DX12 Da Vinci Code so less performance for them in DX12 / Vulkan is the norm. Nothing wrong with Nvidia users sticking to DX11. SLi / CrossfireX shouldn't be in a DX12 game in my opinion. DX12 mGPU should be the standard, and not a lot of game engines support that yet. I bet at some point next year, they roll out experimental DX12 mGPU support.

All this work is probably for a future DX12 engine.
 
Nebell said:
So what the fuck is the point in using DX12?
This game is not bad but it's such a technical mess. How the hell can game, which requires insane hardware, not support SLI/Xfire?
Moron developers. This is what happens when a game is developed for consoles firsthand.
Click to expand...

Marketing BS for a certain IHV trying to convince people that only its GPUs can handle DX12 :p
 
cageymaru said:
One day these game engines are going to be DX12 first. None of the current ones envisioned DX12 coming out when they were designed. Everything you've seen or played so far has been a band aid applied to a burn victim. Let the developers play and experiment with adding it to current game engines. Every 5 years or so, unless your name is Bethesda, new game engines come out from a developer. That's when we will see a true DX12 implementation. Same goes for Vulkan.
Click to expand...
Um...
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2016/11/23/gears_war_4_dx12_performance_review/#.WFLPjlL2aUk
 
cageymaru said:
Not exactly as it is Unreal Engine 4 with DX12 tacked on. I bet if the game wasn't financed by Microsoft to showcase Windows 10, then it would be DX11 / DX12 compliant. Just like Quantum Break was DX12 exclusive due to a WIndows Store only deal, then came to Steam, and suddenly it grew a DX11 only client.
Click to expand...


It was heavily financed by Microsoft as they were the publisher and also they wanted to make sure it ran well on both PC and Consoles for their UMP. Not only that Epic is fully against the UMP and the way MS is using it right now, but they had no say in it with GOW4 cause its Microsoft's game and Halo product for Xbox and PC.
 
Last edited:
cageymaru said:
$10? Where? :)
Click to expand...

The physical version was on sale a couple of weeks ago from Amazon for $10.

AFAIK Gears of War 4 DX12 doesn't support multi-GPU or SLI/Crossfire either.

Are there any DX12 games that support multi-GPU yet? Or actually offer a performance improvement with more than 1 GPU? I thought that was one of the points of DX12- better performance with multiple GPUs?
 
Wag said:
The physical version was on sale a couple of weeks ago from Amazon for $10.

AFAIK Gears of War 4 DX12 doesn't support multi-GPU or SLI/Crossfire either.

Are there any DX12 games that support multi-GPU yet? Or actually offer a performance improvement with more than 1 GPU? I thought that was one of the points of DX12- better performance with multiple GPUs?
Click to expand...

mGPU would be the last thing added after they fix things like Nvidia performance regressing under DX12. That's not me being mean; just common sense. Imagine if two GPUs meant that you regressed twice as fast. ;) :) :) Now that's me being slightly devilish.
 
Shintai said:
Fiji seems to be the only one with a real benefit.
Click to expand...
generally it seems to improve framerates if you were CPU capped prior. for example, on the hardest to run mission in the game (lincoln tunnel checkpoint) my framerate when up on the balcony in the 2nd half of the mission went up by about 10-15; ~95 to ~110. i use settings lower than max because of diminishing returns and because i want my framerate to be over 100 as much as possible. in general DX12 just feels smoother, although it's possible that that's placebo. i'm leaning towards it not being placebo, though. i'm not going to use it anyway because i need to be able to alt-tab.
if anyone was expecting it to increase framerates on nvidia cards when they're running the game at max settings and heavily GPU-bound, well, i don't know why they would.
 
Shintai said:
That's a huge increase for the GTX 1080in their test.
Click to expand...
Simply improved performance under CPU bound loads. when you switch to 4K you see DX11 being slightly ahead of DX12 for NV. DX12 maintaining slight lead over DX11 for AMD. The usual
 
I'm seeing the same problems with the DX12 rendering and SLI, I have 2 GTX 980tiSC cards and notice a significant drop from DX11 due to single GPU usage, when I force Alt Rendering in nVidia control panel (on 1 or 2) it crashes TD.

Below is screenshot of timeline of first using DX12 and then using DX11, note the 0% usage on GPU1 for DX12 (all at 4k high settings)

unknown.png
 
Nebell said:
So what the fuck is the point in using DX12?
This game is not bad but it's such a technical mess. How the hell can game, which requires insane hardware, not support SLI/Xfire?
Moron developers. This is what happens when a game is developed for consoles firsthand.
Click to expand...

It is not a console first issue but an issue with the developer not putting the time into it to do it right. It is cool that there are play anywhere games now and am looking forward to that getting more significant in the future, if it does. I do have an mGPU setup with 2 x R9 Furys and it works quite well for the games that support it.
 
DX12 doesn't support multi-GPU, GTX 1080 gets 70/101 in their test.
 
Odellus said:
DX12 doesn't support multi-GPU, GTX 1080 gets 70/101 in their test.
Click to expand...

UBISOFT and other corporations really need to work harder on mGPU in DX12. It's like some companies just "get it" and others are clue f*cked. Wait until Vulkan has 100% certified mGPU support and we all sit around the reviews asking Brent_Justice why didn't he test mGPU in the review. Then find out that the company skipped it because of "technical reasons".
 
cageymaru said:
UBISOFT and other corporations really need to work harder on mGPU in DX12. It's like some companies just "get it" and others are clue f*cked. Wait until Vulkan has 100% certified mGPU support and we all sit around the reviews asking Brent_Justice why didn't he test mGPU in the review. Then find out that the company skipped it because of "technical reasons".
Click to expand...

Do they? It cost a lot of money and gives what? Then you see the core issue. SLI and CF was incentive for AMD and Nvidia, selling more cards. But you dont sell any more games for including mGPU, it just cost you time, money, resources and increases complexity. The only times it makes sense is if someone else sponsors it and that's very inefficient. Its about equal to reinvent the wheel every time contra CF/SLI.

Single GPU won due to financial reasons ;)
 
For the moment at least, 2 GPU's are still needed to run the cutting-edge games in 4k at high settings. Sure, a GTX Titan Pascal might be able to do it- but it's not cost effective and not nearly as good as having 2 1080s. As long as the PC gaming industry pushes 4k gaming, mGPU support is needed.

Maybe in a year or two this won't be the case, but right now it is.
 
Wag said:
For the moment at least, 2 GPU's are still needed to run the cutting-edge games in 4k at high settings. Sure, a GTX Titan Pascal might be able to do it- but it's not cost effective and not nearly as good as having 2 1080s. As long as the PC gaming industry pushes 4k gaming, mGPU support is needed.

Maybe in a year or two this won't be the case, but right now it is.
Click to expand...

Clock for clock Titan X is 140% perf of a single 1080.

1080 SLI with 80% scaling (boner inducing for SLI users) is only 29% faster than single Titan X. Let's say you're a lucky person and 50% of all the games you'll play support SLI with 80% scaling. The other 50% don't support it at all. Half the time a single titan x would be 40% faster, half the time your SLI 1080s would be 30% faster. Meh. CHeaper to buy titan x
 
I got a 12% increase in performance running DX12, but my game is hanging/freezing now after a longer session -- especially when I am manhunt. I think it's a memory leak.
 
Ieldra said:
Clock for clock Titan X is 140% perf of a single 1080.

1080 SLI with 80% scaling (boner inducing for SLI users) is only 29% faster than single Titan X. Let's say you're a lucky person and 50% of all the games you'll play support SLI with 80% scaling. The other 50% don't support it at all. Half the time a single titan x would be 40% faster, half the time your SLI 1080s would be 30% faster. Meh. CHeaper to buy titan x
Click to expand...

Still need more than a Titan X though for the frame rates that people are used to. Telling someone that is used to 120Hz, 144Hz, 240Hz and faster gaming that 60Hz or in many instances; sub 60Hz gaming is fine just because it is 4K isn't going to fly. A lot of people don't like to lower the resolution on their monitors also. I can tell you that I have some friends that absolutely refuse to. They are the untapped market that AMD and Nvidia are targeting. These guys spend thousands a year on games alone. Imagine that they could be shown a product that makes them spend some of that cash on hardware.

I think Intel shot themselves; and the rest of the PC industry, in the foot by making CPU upgrades stagnant. There are a lot of people are waiting for programs that task their CPU so that they can buy a whole new machine. As long as they read 5% more performance or no performance at all; just adds DRM, they are never going to upgrade.
 
naticus said:
I got a 12% increase in performance running DX12, but my game is hanging/freezing now after a longer session -- especially when I am manhunt. I think it's a memory leak.
Click to expand...

Locks my PC up after some hours too. It is really smooth the entire time until it just says, "I'm not taking this abuse Cagey!" and commits suicide by system hang. It doesn't even stutter before the lockup! I give UBISOFT a pass for trying and being new to DX12.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top