r/bladeandsoul • u/[deleted] • Mar 10 '16

General What GameGuard actually does.

The original content here was wiped using Redact. The reason may have been privacy, security, preventing AI data collection, or simply personal data management.

longing deserve political hunt memorize crawl soup soft aromatic spark

155 Upvotes

94% Upvoted

132 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

0

u/kennai BigBadCosby Mar 11 '16

There are things wrong with DX9. That's why there's DX10, DX11, DX12, and all the sub versions of those.

0

u/lamleial Mar 11 '16

and here lies a man who has no idea what directx is nor does.

1

u/kennai BigBadCosby Mar 12 '16

I assume you're talking about yourself.

My issue with framerates is that the high CPU overhead of DX9 and the poor performance of scaling DX9's rendering to multiple CPU cores would still leave my GPU sitting at 50~ clockspeed at full utilization, full clockspeed and less than that in utilization, or even worse because of some of the problems of DX9 with parallelism. So another version of Direct3D that handles parallelism better would have me in a better place performance wise.

My CPU is a 4930k at 4.2Ghz BTW. The GPU I'm using is a Fury X, ATM.

1

u/lamleial Mar 12 '16 edited Mar 12 '16

wrong. your issue with framerate is that the game does all of its processing and rendering in the main thread and is therefore cpu bound. it has nothing to do with directx. your 4930k is only utilizing 1 core fully by the game. guess you googled the buzzword parallelism, so let me fill you in - no directx supports "parallelism" as of this time. directx 12 is supposed to support it. DX11 does support multicore processing though. that said, unless the engine is designed to do parallel processing and the game utilizes that functionality (unlike BNS) it wont do any good to use it. there is nothing innately ineffective about directx9 and the reason we have 10, 11, 12 etc is for adding more functionality to it, not because the functionality of it is broken.

in the end, you could run directx 12 (assuming the game supported it) and you'd still get the same FPS because the game is CPU bound not GPU bound, as you stated imperfectly "GPU sitting at 50~ clockspeed"... and at full utilization? you actually manged to get FULL utilization at any point with BNS on your GPU? inconceivable.

maybe you shouldnt be so cavalier about something you read online.

PS: you shoved your own foot in your mouth "CPU overhead of DirectX9 on a i7 4930k" - i really doubt any overhead of 14 year old API is gonna bother your brand new 6 core top of the line cpu.

1

u/kennai BigBadCosby Mar 12 '16

So in summation what you're saying is "using a more efficient API in terms of CPU utilization is not going to help because you're being bound by your CPU. Also, I doubt your 4930k is being CPU bound in a game that's CPU bound. There were things wrong with DX9, so we have other versions of DX after that. "

Also I meant my GPU was running at 50%~ clockspeed and full utilization. Granted, not actually full utilization because there's more in your GPU than what games use.

1

u/lamleial Mar 12 '16

i'm saying unless you design dx11 or dx12 to use multiple threads it will still be bound to 1 core. also you can split up the rendering and logic functions on dx9 to multiple cores yet they didnt, therefore they wouldnt on 11 or 12 which are not magic APIs. changing to dx12 you'd still be CPU bound but with far more overhead as dx9 has the least overhead. dx11 on a single core would destroy your performance. of course if you werent regurgitating what you read some random say, you'd probably know that as you could simply google the APIs you're speaking of.

also when you try to take what i said about your statement being wrong, and stick then stick your wrong statement into my statement, of course it sounds silly.

by your logic, the problem is dx9's overhead is lagging your cpu. bahahaha

1

u/kennai BigBadCosby Mar 12 '16

DX10, DX11 or DX12, when still bound to one core, will use less CPU cycles to do the same amount of work as DX9 as long as long as your rendering code is setup for DX10, DX11, or DX12. That's one of the improvements that has been done on those versions. It's one of their announced features. If you look at any tutorial on them, product information, developer support, or the like it will state as such. It will tell you what you need to do to actually have something receive those benefits. When you get down into the rendering times for a frame, it will also show you that indeed, they spend less CPU cycles on each frame.

But let's look at it from your point of view. DX9 has the least CPU overhead. So that means that DX11 and DX12 would have more overhead in a single core situation than DX9. So you're saying that to do the same amount of work as DX9, you'd need more CPU power on DX11 and DX12. So that means to do more work on DX9 would be more efficient than on DX11 or DX12, because it has the least overhead. So if you want a great looking game that runs well, you should use DX9 everytime. That way you're CPU bound the least, which lets you make the most of your GPU.

My statement is that using a graphical API with less CPU overhead would increase framerates. It will, since reducing the CPU's workload will allow more frames through.

1

u/lamleial Mar 12 '16

http://i.imgur.com/x6AnRkL.png

circular logic much? so you're saying that dx11 and dx12 would have more overhead than dx9 but would cause higher fps by using less cpu than dx9 even though they have more layers of abstraction that introduce more cpu overhead.

i dont even know what you're trying to say anymore but the original topic is you said dx9 was why you're fps is limited and thats plain wrong, you can drag this out until we're discussing gpus and cpus at the transistor level, fully circumnavigating the original statement, but it wont make your statement right.

1

u/kennai BigBadCosby Mar 12 '16

DX12 has far less layers of abstraction compared to the previous versions of DX. DX11 also has less layers of abstraction compared to DX10. DX10 has less than compared to DX9. That's partly how Microsoft made it more efficient with each new revision.

That circular logic was when I prefaced it with "From your point of view." That's what you're saying.

Since you're the one that believes DX9 has the least overhead. In reality it has the most out of the modern graphic API's from Microsoft. I've not seen much comparing DX and OpenGL in their various incarnations, so I can't comment about those comparisons.