Page 1 of 8 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 75

Thread: Intel Expresses Interest In AMD's Mantle API

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    14,555

    Default Intel Expresses Interest In AMD's Mantle API

    Phoronix: Intel Expresses Interest In AMD's Mantle API

    Intel has asked AMD about access to their Mantle technology for experimenting with this graphics API alternative to Direct3D and OpenGL...

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

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default

    When You actually, read the article, it mention several attempts on Intel part to get Mantle specs. With no definite answer for outcome (but that may be intended FUD..), it paints a bit different story.

    Its not so much Intel + AMD cooping, as Intel favoring OGL/DX cause they can participate in their creation.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    480

    Default

    A small correction: Intel expressed interest.

    But after this

    "I know that Intel have approached us for access to the Mantle interfaces, et cetera," Huddy said. " And right now, we've said, give us a month or two, this is a closed beta, and we'll go into the 1.0 [public release] phase sometime this year, which is less than five months if you count forward from June. They have asked for access, and we will give it to them when we open this up, and we'll give it to anyone who wants to participate in this."
    they will have moved on I guess.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    735

    Default

    I bet if AMD released all specs and NVIDIA wanted to join, they'd have it implemented in their Linux driver a year before we see anything from AMD on Linux.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    37

    Default

    AMD's attitude does not make much sense - they are locking the specs of that API against GCN with no intention for input from other architectures. This gives me only mild hopes of any further Mantle adoption. It is not like AMD going to intel and nvidia and saying, hey D3D sucks a huge ass, GL sucks two smaller asses, let's implement an API that will suck less.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Posts
    678

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volca View Post
    AMD's attitude does not make much sense - they are locking the specs of that API against GCN with no intention for input from other architectures. This gives me only mild hopes of any further Mantle adoption. It is not like AMD going to intel and nvidia and saying, hey D3D sucks a huge ass, GL sucks two smaller asses, let's implement an API that will suck less.
    It make sense... For them.

    It is designed to make use of all those games that will be optimized for consoles. "Locking to GCN" will be good. For them.

    Anyway, if I read MS correctly, they will make lots of same decisions as went into Mantle. Which suggest that GCN is good enough target for "baseline"

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    37

    Default

    I get that it may be a good short-term marketing decision, but it is a lousy long term decision, because it means that the API will probably have a short life. It depends on what they'll do after they reach v1.0 - will they handle it to some open body, like Khronos? Then maybe there is a chance for it to survive.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    862

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volca View Post
    I get that it may be a good short-term marketing decision, but it is a lousy long term decision, because it means that the API will probably have a short life. It depends on what they'll do after they reach v1.0 - will they handle it to some open body, like Khronos? Then maybe there is a chance for it to survive.
    Hopefully they either set up their own foundation or give it to ISO or ECMA, not Khronos. I don't trust the Khronos committees to not muck things up or to blockade work that *needs* to be done. Making their own foundation is the most preferred route as it will result in less kludgery but at least ISO and ECMA have been shown to work when needed.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    641

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by volca View Post
    hey D3D sucks a huge ass, GL sucks two smaller asses, let's implement an API that will suck less.
    I bet that D3D win.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nille View Post
    I bet that D3D win.
    Well, I am not that sure of that. Nowadays, the AAA gaming genre spits out titles to PS3, PS4, X360, XBONE, PC, MAC. Only 3 out of those 6 are D3D compatible at all, so the engines are pretty API agnostic.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •