Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

AMD's Mantle Graphics API For Linux?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by 89c51 View Post
    I support this.
    +1 (10 char)

    Comment


    • #17
      The problem OpenGL has is it's insistence on backwards compatibilities.
      It makes it difficult to make progress.

      Curious to see how Mantle will handle.

      Would like to see the following things in a good graphics api:
      • Avoiding legacy cruft.
      • Shaders being used together in a easy to work with way, avoiding ubershader situations.
      • Heavy support for all kinds of instancing.
      • Good Bindless textures way from the beginning.
      • No state stuff, where DSA was needed for in OpenGL, from the beginning.
      • How to deal with all sorts of transparency.
      • How to deal with depth sorting or equivalents.
      • Easy of iterating over things.
      • Coordination between GPUS and CPUS (both plural)!
      • Good patent-free texture compression formats and algorithms.
      • Deduplicate kinds of texture ways.
      • Good efficient Transform feedback.
      • Interoperability with OpenCL.
      • Gamma correction.
      • Efficient processing for mixed and non-mixed 3d and 2d content.
      • Good buffering algorithms and ways to specify what to prioritize in buffers.



      Optional:
      Last edited by plonoma; 09-27-2013, 11:49 AM.

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by log0 View Post
        What??? So GLSL is for Linux fans only now?
        I don't think he means it was only for Linux fans, but that it was a hard requirement for Linux fans (since HLSL implies Direct3D, not really Linux friendly).

        Originally posted by DanLamb View Post
        The world needs a good OpenGL competitor that provides vendor neutral, OS neutral, device neutral access to 3D graphics hardware.

        This doesn't sound like it's it:

        - Anandtech says this is derived from Microsoft's Xbox One APIs. That doesn't speak well for neutrality, ideal licensing, and rallying the non-MS world.
        - No mention of cooperation or collaboration with any of the other important players such as Apple, Google, Sony, even Mozilla, and the Linux guys. No mention of Linux support.

        I don't see an official website. The official slides headline "Uniting both worlds". If both worlds mean Microsoft Xbox consoles and Microsoft Windows PCs/tablets, this isn't what I want.
        The fact it's designed unilaterally by AMD doesn't sound like vendor neutral either.
        Also, I don't really see how we need another competing API. I could see how OpenGL might need to drop legacy support in newer versions and improve some areas, but having two different graphics APIs to support seems like enough work. I'd expect a good reason for a third one.

        Originally posted by iniudan View Post
        After the presentation AMD mentioned that it was open, just didn't mention which under which license.

        http://www.techspot.com/news/54134-a...rformance.html
        It might be open as in not requiring to pay royalties to implement it, but if NVIDIA and Intel can't have a say on decisions, I don't think they'll use it.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
          It might be open as in not requiring to pay royalties to implement it, but if NVIDIA and Intel can't have a say on decisions, I don't think they'll use it.
          This is a very strange development, really. It's essentially AMD pulling a CUDA, and proprietary lock-in APIs are not what anybody really wants.

          At the same time, I can see how they had to provide a low-level API for the consoles, so the existence of this API is not really controversial. Console programmers want low-level access and low-level, hw-specific optimisations.

          It's just that I don't see where this is going to go on the desktop...

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by pingufunkybeat View Post
            This is a very strange development, really. It's essentially AMD pulling a CUDA, and proprietary lock-in APIs are not what anybody really wants.

            At the same time, I can see how they had to provide a low-level API for the consoles, so the existence of this API is not really controversial. Console programmers want low-level access and low-level, hw-specific optimisations.

            It's just that I don't see where this is going to go on the desktop...
            I agree. It makes sense on a console with fixed hardware to choose something specific to the hardware instead of something general, since this usually means better optimizations. But in PCs, it's just another API to support. Even if game developers choose to support only one API for their game, it's still another API the driver needs to expose, and this means an implementation for its functionality.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by BreezeDM View Post
              Supporting Mantle on PS4/XB1 is different then supporting it on PC. For games that will benefit the most, games with high res textures and big game engines, they won't commit the resources for testing, bug fixes, compiling if only 33% of the market uses AMD/ATI cards and only 15% total use GCN cards unless there are some impressive performance gains. Without the PC they have to support 2 hardware configurations that specs wont change. Supporting Mantle on the PC would take additional resources, and if I were a game developer supporting Mantle would not be on my top 10 of things I would want to spend resources on for the game I am creating unless it was at least 20% frame rate improvement on a mid-range card or allowed much higher quality settings.
              hahahahaha oh wow so it's not worth it to mantain a port to mantle since gcn has only 15% of the market? You say this on a linux forum? Let's put aside the whole ease of porting from Xbone and PS4 for a minute and just look at the numbers, Mac OS X + GNU/Linux < 15% market share.

              GUYS IT'S OVER NO ONE WILL BE MAKING OPENGL GAMES! SORRY.

              Comment


              • #22
                I was expecting something alike from Apple...

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
                  hahahahaha oh wow so it's not worth it to mantain a port to mantle since gcn has only 15% of the market? You say this on a linux forum? Let's put aside the whole ease of porting from Xbone and PS4 for a minute and just look at the numbers, Mac OS X + GNU/Linux < 15% market share.

                  GUYS IT'S OVER NO ONE WILL BE MAKING OPENGL GAMES! SORRY.
                  Yes, this was clearly a shot against Valve's ambitions.

                  Anyone who can't see that is a moron.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
                    hahahahaha oh wow so it's not worth it to mantain a port to mantle since gcn has only 15% of the market? You say this on a linux forum? Let's put aside the whole ease of porting from Xbone and PS4 for a minute and just look at the numbers, Mac OS X + GNU/Linux < 15% market share.

                    GUYS IT'S OVER NO ONE WILL BE MAKING OPENGL GAMES! SORRY.
                    Do you realize the amount of work is completely different, right?
                    Compare supporting OpenGL for Windows, Linux and OS X, where you only need to handle differently context creation. Then, remember there are libraries that handle all of this work for you. Then, take into account how much of the code is actually in the graphics code in a game engine. There's a lot of code there. A big lot. So, porting to Linux is far easier (if you already use OpenGL) than porting from OpenGL to Mantle.

                    EDIT: Also, you are comparing porting from something that is supported everywhere to something with limited support (you gain performance in 15% of your users, but you don't really get new users) against porting from something less supported to something more supported, which means more users, which means more money.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by johnc View Post
                      Yes, this was clearly a shot against Valve's ambitions.

                      Anyone who can't see that is a moron.
                      Not saying it was clearly a shot against Valve's ambitions I'm just saying it's a bit ironic that a user of a system with ~2% market share is saying 15% market share is no big deal.

                      Originally posted by mrugiero View Post
                      Do you realize the amount of work is completely different, right?
                      Compare supporting OpenGL for Windows, Linux and OS X, where you only need to handle differently context creation. Then, remember there are libraries that handle all of this work for you. Then, take into account how much of the code is actually in the graphics code in a game engine. There's a lot of code there. A big lot. So, porting to Linux is far easier (if you already use OpenGL) than porting from OpenGL to Mantle.

                      EDIT: Also, you are comparing porting from something that is supported everywhere to something with limited support (you gain performance in 15% of your users, but you don't really get new users) against porting from something less supported to something more supported, which means more users, which means more money.
                      No tell me about the work involved, I'm genuinely curious. I wouldn't think going from one api to the same api on another platform would be that difficult, wouldn't it just me like going from XNA to iOS game using monogame?
                      Last edited by chris200x9; 09-27-2013, 01:34 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        If it does get brought over to Linux, could it lead to a better OpenGL implementation than AMD's default?

                        Rewrite AMD's horrible horrible thing in Mantle...

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
                          Not saying it was clearly a shot against Valve's ambitions I'm just saying it's a bit ironic that a user of a system with ~2% market share is saying 15% market share is no big deal.
                          Ohh I agree with you. Most of the AAA engines are going to have code paths for XB1 and PS4. I think this thing will just make it nearly simple to reuse those same paths on Windows. Frostbite's already got their stuff coded up and apparently the API is available for other engine developers. Sooo... I see this as making it nearly trivial to bring console games over to Windows.

                          As for Linux......... What's that again?

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by chris200x9 View Post
                            hahahahaha oh wow so it's not worth it to mantain a port to mantle since gcn has only 15% of the market? You say this on a linux forum? Let's put aside the whole ease of porting from Xbone and PS4 for a minute and just look at the numbers, Mac OS X + GNU/Linux < 15% market share.

                            GUYS IT'S OVER NO ONE WILL BE MAKING OPENGL GAMES! SORRY.
                            Not a lot of people are and that's one of the reasons why. A lot of you are just glossing over the fact that even if it was 100% code compatible with PS4/XB1 (its definitely not), there is still a huge cost to use Mantle. For example, lets say Mantle is 10% faster. I have Direct X and/or OpenGL that already works, why and I going to maintain another API? It costs resources and I'd rather spend it on making the game 3-5% faster for everyone. Other than surfing on the Mantle hype and hoping to get sales from Mantle enthusiasts, there would be no reason if the 10% case were true. Think about the type of games that would benefit from Mantle: BF4, Crysis. Neither of them have Linux Clients. On the other hand if its 20% faster, everyone who loves BF4 would get a GCN card when they upgrade next. GCN market share would rise and other game developers would implement Mantle so their game looks better. My point was if the performances gains are not significant it dies in Windows before they even consider a Linux version.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              simpler driver = less buggy driver

                              Given that AMD's OpenGL drivers are mediocre, I can see other reasons (than performance) for wanting a way to talk to the hardware at the lowest level simpler driver → less buggy driver.

                              Is Mantle low-level enough that it would make sense to implement something like OpenGL in it? Would such a layered approach lead to less bugs overall?

                              I also hope Mantle isn't too AMD specific the buggiest OpenGL drivers are the blobs of the ARM world (according to the same article), so I guess that's where a low-level API is most acutely needed. Maybe also where it would make most sense in the long run, since ARM is big in the embedded market, where everything is sacrificed for power/price/performance.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by BreezeDM View Post
                                Not a lot of people are and that's one of the reasons why. A lot of you are just glossing over the fact that even if it was 100% code compatible with PS4/XB1 (its definitely not), there is still a huge cost to use Mantle. For example, lets say Mantle is 10% faster. I have Direct X and/or OpenGL that already works, why and I going to maintain another API? It costs resources and I'd rather spend it on making the game 3-5% faster for everyone. Other than surfing on the Mantle hype and hoping to get sales from Mantle enthusiasts, there would be no reason if the 10% case were true. Think about the type of games that would benefit from Mantle: BF4, Crysis. Neither of them have Linux Clients. On the other hand if its 20% faster, everyone who loves BF4 would get a GCN card when they upgrade next. GCN market share would rise and other game developers would implement Mantle so their game looks better. My point was if the performances gains are not significant it dies in Windows before they even consider a Linux version.
                                I'd be surprised if they were overstating the performance gains. What the consoles are able to do with decidedly inferior hardware is pretty amazing, and that's almost all because of the low-level API. I agree that many of the indie devs won't be jumping in feet-first. But the big publishers all run on back-room deals and if AMD can get widespread engine support I can see many games using it. And AMD needs this.

                                So the danger is that devs work on their PS4/XB1 games (their primary audience)... then drag their feet to port over to Windows. First they'll get Mantle running because that should be a quick port job from the console version. Then they'll put in the work to get their DirectX version working for other architectures. Then they'll say, "Phew! We're exhausted! What else is there left to do?" "Well how about OpenGL?" "OpenGL? Yeah f that... we have no time for that."

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X