Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

It Doesn't Look Like AMD Mantle Is Coming To Linux, SteamOS

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

  • It Doesn't Look Like AMD Mantle Is Coming To Linux, SteamOS

    Phoronix: It Doesn't Look Like AMD Mantle Is Coming To Linux, SteamOS

    A few days ago when word got out that Civilization: Beyond Earth is coming out for Linux, many speculated and wondered whether this game would be the launch title for AMD's Mantle graphics API to be introduced on Linux. It's already been confirmed that Beyond Earth will feature a Mantle renderer to complement OpenGL, but will AMD's Catalyst Linux driver bring support for Mantle?..

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTY2NDA

  • #2
    Why lucky.

    OpenGL 3.3 is sound. All games work. And most should have less troubles on r600g by now (radeonSI depends on LLVM present in system)

    Comment


    • #3
      I'm happy with that.Mantle is probably still too new for "productive" gaming. Paying customers dont want a testbed. They expect well-performing, stable drivers for SteamOS, so also expect AMD to focus on that currentlyt. After the first round of steam machines we'll see.

      Comment


      • #4
        Fact that guy working for Aspyr Media commented on is worst news ever. This might mean that even if there will be Linux version it's can be bugged like crap and incompatible with Windows version.

        Comment


        • #5
          Not a big deal

          I'm not an AMD customer, but knowing they are already short on ressource to support properly their hardware on Linux, I would prefer them to stay focus on proper OpenGL support rather than diluting theirs efforts in supporting Mantle, whose expected gains will be near to zero regarding the continuous OpenGL improvments.

          Comment


          • #6
            Right decision, Mantle has fringe benefits, mainly in the low end. I'd much rather they focus on the open source driver.

            Comment


            • #7
              OpenGL 3.3 + 4.* extensions available on 3.* hardware(e.g, SSBO, ARB_buffer_storage) is extremely good anyways.

              Comment


              • #8
                Like others, I'm not worried at all with Mantle on Linux and rather prefer that AMD solve their problems with Catalyst like the stuttering in (some) Source Engine games....and Catalist A.I. option should be by default disabled (when enabled it makes graphical glitches in several games) so users will have a better experience out-of-the-box.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by _SXX_ View Post
                  Fact that guy working for Aspyr Media commented on is worst news ever. This might mean that even if there will be Linux version it's can be bugged like crap and incompatible with Windows version.
                  Or it can be wrapped in wine

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Sorry but this is nothing to do with wider Mantle support on Linux

                    To me this seems like Phoronix has blown it out of proportion. This is NOT about Mantle itself being on Linux, this is about the new Civ being able to use Mantle on Linux, which it can't since Mantle hasn't been ported yet.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by liamdawe View Post
                      Sorry but this is nothing to do with wider Mantle support on Linux

                      To me this seems like Phoronix has blown it out of proportion. This is NOT about Mantle itself being on Linux, this is about the new Civ being able to use Mantle on Linux, which it can't since Mantle hasn't been ported yet.
                      Yep, pretty typical Phoronix.

                      At this point it's not even clear Mantle provides any real benefits over OpenGL. I'm guessing anything missing could be added in a couple new extensions.

                      It's pretty obvious now that the point of Mantle was to replace Direct3d on windows by providing easy porting (keeping HLSL, for example). And the reason is that AMD can't add extensions to Direct3D like they can OpenGL.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        You know what? Regardless of whether or not Mantle sticks around or makes it to Linux doesn't matter. IMO the point of Mantle was to show what's possible with reduced overhead, and with people now doing serious work on just that for OpenGL and D3D, Mantle probably played at least some role in that. I also think that if OpenGL can get ahead of D3D on reduced overhead, it has the potential to increase its presence on PC gaming and ultimately improve the outlook for the future of gaming on Linux.

                        This statement in the article is ridiculous and misleading:
                        NVIDIA and others are instead more focused on reducing the OpenGL driver overhead and improvements to Direct3D.
                        "others" includes AMD, but unless somebody clicks the link to the article talking about that they'd most likely assume it's just Nvidia and Intel doing that while AMD is doing nothing. I'd appreciate it if that could at least be reworded.

                        Stop acting like Mantle is something bad, because it's quite the opposite.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Mantle can be a success if AMD decides to open source it. As long as it's closed source we are better off with Mesa.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by sarmad View Post
                            Mantle can be a success if AMD decides to open source it. As long as it's closed source we are better off with Mesa.
                            It isn't about source-iness. Though I don't even think Mantle's API specifications are public yet, which doesn't help it any. But at this point we can soundly assume AMD has no intention to make Mantle any kind of royalty free standard, so I'd say its done its job - it got people talking about OGL 5 and DX 12 as ways to provide less overhead in the graphics APIs, which is what it was meant to do in the first place, with the added benefit of selling some GPUs in the short term as consumers see choice games with Mantle backends as getting better value with AMD cards.

                            But now that the other APIs are finally taking things seriously since AMD showed what could be done, we can pretty much forget about it. Same way Mir got Wayland serious, so now that Wayland is on the precipice of prime time we should forget about Mir.

                            And like others have said, I'd much rather see AMD engineers working on Mesa and Gallium OpenGL and CL stuff than trying to implement a scantly used API that isn't even a standard.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by kaprikawn View Post
                              Right decision, Mantle has fringe benefits, mainly in the low end. I'd much rather they focus on the open source driver.
                              there is one benefit, than many underestimate- the fact that you can make an effortless straight port from directx to mantle without having to change much of the code. It's the reason we are seeing so many engines taking support, cause it's easier to support mantle than porting to opengl.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X