Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 29

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

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    3,176

    Default

    Quote 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.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    97

    Default

    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.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Posts
    339

    Default

    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.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    553

    Default

    Quote 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.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    121

    Default

    Quote 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.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Mar 2014
    Posts
    8

    Default

    It's better to improve and support OpenGL which Linux already has, than to bring over mantle which is brand new and may not even be practical to use.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by MWisBest View Post
    "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.
    Well in fairness it was NVIDIA alone that was pushing that OpenGL presentation for a year+ until Intel and AMD decided to join the talks.

    And it was NVIDIA alone that was pursuing D3D11 optimizations in their latest Windows driver.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    553

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by johnc View Post
    Well in fairness it was NVIDIA alone that was pushing that OpenGL presentation for a year+ until Intel and AMD decided to join the talks.

    And it was NVIDIA alone that was pursuing D3D11 optimizations in their latest Windows driver.
    Consider, though, that for AMD and Intel, their principle OpenGL implementation is still at 3.3. For all intents and purposes at least. Very few games use OpenGL on Windows. WebGL might change that a bit, but in practice almost all real OpenGL demand comes from CAD and Linux use cases. Since Apple iron fists their OpenGL anyway.

    So why would Intel and AMD be pushing anything major while the Mesa project still hasn't hit 4.0 yet? I'd worry about the immediate needs to implement the rest of what is out there rather than push the API forward, set themselves further behind, and give Nvidia an edge by sharing their Windows and Linux codebases in an unauditable behemoth driver.

  9. #19
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Posts
    1,560

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zanny View Post
    Consider, though, that for AMD and Intel, their principle OpenGL implementation is still at 3.3. For all intents and purposes at least. Very few games use OpenGL on Windows. WebGL might change that a bit, but in practice almost all real OpenGL demand comes from CAD and Linux use cases. Since Apple iron fists their OpenGL anyway.

    So why would Intel and AMD be pushing anything major while the Mesa project still hasn't hit 4.0 yet? I'd worry about the immediate needs to implement the rest of what is out there rather than push the API forward, set themselves further behind, and give Nvidia an edge by sharing their Windows and Linux codebases in an unauditable behemoth driver.
    Well one clear benefit is that it gives game developers a reason to actually adopt OpenGL. We see just how hesitant they have been to walk away from D3D, and we know that the absolutely awful OpenGL drivers of at least one of the vendors is partly to blame.

    So when you're going up against the best rendering API out there (D3D), you might need to bring something a little bit better than a 5-year old implementation. But I think what you said can basically be reiterated by acknowledging what we already know: AMD and Intel don't really care jack about OpenGL. AMD so much so that they made their own friggin' API instead of just working inside OGL.

    JMO.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by phoronix View Post
    NVIDIA and others (including AMD) are instead more focused on reducing the OpenGL driver overhead
    That right thing to do.

Posting Permissions

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