Vulkan requires Kepler and higher. We should have such lists once it comes out, and http://gpuinfo.org/ will get a nice vulkan section about capabilities.
I want to have a supported card when Vulkan is released.
But I am more concerned for the game consumer than I am for dev's. Not supporting Fermi is going to cause at least a small uproar. Most have been lead to believe that any card that supports modern OpenGL 4.x will support Vulkan.
I don't think this is good...
According to an NVIDIA public presentation, Fermi will get Vulkan support. I don't know where he got that information.
Vulkan requires Kepler and higher. We should have such lists once it comes out, and http://gpuinfo.org/ will get a nice vulkan section about capabilities.
I want to have a supported card when Vulkan is released.
But I am more concerned for the game consumer than I am for dev's. Not supporting Fermi is going to cause at least a small uproar. Most have been lead to believe that any card that supports modern OpenGL 4.x will support Vulkan.
I don't think this is good...
According to an NVIDIA public presentation, Fermi will get Vulkan support. I don't know where he got that information.
Fermi support coming with Rapture maybe? How's the status of the d3d12 fermi driver? Last time I checked WDDM 2.0 support was only at draft level..
Vulkan requires Kepler and higher. We should have such lists once it comes out, and http://gpuinfo.org/ will get a nice vulkan section about capabilities.
I want to have a supported card when Vulkan is released.
But I am more concerned for the game consumer than I am for dev's. Not supporting Fermi is going to cause at least a small uproar. Most have been lead to believe that any card that supports modern OpenGL 4.x will support Vulkan.
I don't think this is good...
According to an NVIDIA public presentation, Fermi will get Vulkan support. I don't know where he got that information.
Well pixeljetstream works there, but I would like clarification on the situation.
SlimDX | Ventspace Blog | Twitter | Diverse teams make better games. I am currently hiring capable C++ engine developers in Baltimore, MD.
If there is no Fermi support, then I'm fucked. GPUs are stupidly expensive where I live (prices ranging from twice to four times as much as you'd find them on newegg). And to be honest, not sure if its a wise idea to be as carefree with older GPU support like they could afford to be a decade ago. Economy is going to shit worldwide. Then again, they know better than I do about their sales...
"I AM ZE EMPRAH OPENGL 3.3 THE CORE, I DEMAND FROM THEE ZE SHADERZ AND MATRIXEZ"
From an IHV point of view Fermi is dead and gone; by the time Vulkan focused engines appear (as in totally killed GL support) it'll be another couple of card releases down the line and matter even less. Financially it makes zero sense to invest in Fermi based tech at this point - it is already two generations old and isn't selling after all. (Pascal is due later this year too...)
Sucks for the developers who can't get one, but such is life... and it's not like GL is going away any time soon so you can still continue development and, to be frank, chances are the majority of games going forward will be either AAA in-house or built on engines such as UE4 and Unity, both of which will support the tech so it Just Works on target platforms.
Same reason you won't see Vulkan on pre-GCN hardware from AMD, and I'd be surprised if the 1.0 hardware got much love at this point...
Can confirm that it's Kepler and above. The presentation Matias refers to was from the early Vulkan days and plans do change. The driver engineer presenting just like myself is an engineer foremost, so what we say is not like press release type statements and final commitments. My statement here is what to expect driver-wise when Vulkan gets released. As for an official support commitment about operating systems and which hardware exactly, you have to wait until release. Sorry for this, but I hope you as developers understand that until something really ships, there is always some changes compared to what was originally planned.
agreed, that's unfortunate, a simple "most" instead of "any"... it was an optimistic statement in good faith. However, that briefing imo is not an official commitment by any vendor about the level of support they want to give for certain hardware (obviously that doesn't help anyone who is now disappointed)
