I really don't see BF going anywhere over the past few releases, at least tech wise, and as for the last entry it's not too hard to understand the issues which it had to deal with during development.
The last thing we want is IHVs "fixing" game performance.
Hasn't that been a thing for decades? Nvidia and AMD writing in various driver fixes for games due to issues the developer creates with their game code?
I think past a point new cards are mostly always going to have more than enough brute force power to easily proved a great experience in older titles anyway. After a point you have to just stop optimizing for older architectures and let the chips fall where they lie and focus on the future.
Sounds good on paper, but try playing Saints Row 2 even on today's best hardware.
This was always the case. Drivers can only do that much, and generally there aren't a lot of driver level optimization happening for old game code anyway. These should ideally be put onto original developers and not IHVs so D3D12/VK doesn't change much here.
So happy to see HUB report on this - this is quite the change of circumstances for ACV. It is also a bit concerning if it means each release requires so much lifting from the developer side. Hmmm. What a situation indeed.
Yep, "lazy devs" has been a thing for decades.
Most releases tend to get it right from launch these days. ACV was one of these D3D12 titles which showed weird performance results between AMD and Nv, and this always was a clear sign of a badly optimized renderer, if only for PC h/w (Radeons tend to do well on console optimized code for obvious reasons). The fact that it's "fixed" now just proves that.
There never was such a time. Some GPUs don't get any speed up from using async compute, and may even get slowed down due to cache fighting between different kernels. Such GPUs are not limited to Nvidia and can in fact be from AMD as well due to async compute gains being fairly specific to a particular compute/bandwidth ratio of some product.
Things are getting better as we move away from the need to support anything but Win10(11)+D3D12/VK. That transition period where there was a business need to support >1 OS and >1 renderer was hard for everyone, including designers even.
Hardware isn't doing a 180' between generations architecturally... so it's very unlikely that something which performs extremely well on one generation is going to perform unacceptably bad on the next. These companies can't turn on a dime, and I think the arc in which they do turn is large enough that by the time the architecture has change sufficiently enough, there's far more than enough power there to easily satisfy the demands of those past games.
Yea, a lot of it seems to simply be a matter of time/budget, and priority. How many titles are releasing which are "sponsored by X or Y" or designed around a specific architecture which come with limited features and support... only to receive that support later on through patches. You know, like Radeon supported games suddenly receiving DLSS and other updates which have come WAY later than expected... almost as if certain pubs/devs are catching on to the fact that supporting these features is great for sales and advertising. It's quite clear to me, that if you add DLSS to your game.. it instantly becomes more desirable. It has a knock on effect of showing the market that you're putting in "effort" for the release, and that you're pursuing the best performance possible. FSR falls in here as well, because despite not being the critical darling that DLSS is... it shows support for AMD and nobody is being left out. Developers putting in the work to drastically improve performance for the other side, whichever it may be, goes a long way.
Is there a MSRP for the 12Gb? I thought it was just created as a profiteering GPU.
