Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Expresses Interest In AMD's Mantle API

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

  • justmy2cents
    replied
    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.
    actually, i was corrected on that note. and when checking facts i noticed that amd changed its story from "licensed GCN is requred" to "most of mantle does not require GCN". which begs the question... how much is missing from "most"?

    not to mention, developing open API in closed manner? where even Intel has no access. says it all. mantle is vaporware

    Leave a comment:


  • volca
    replied
    Well, that's somehow true. That does not matter though, it only lessens the impact of d3d, not the other way round.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nille
    replied
    Originally posted by volca View Post
    PS3, PS4, X360, XBONE, PC, MAC. Only 3 out of those 6 are D3D compatible at all, so the engines are pretty API agnostic.
    I see one D3D, one OpenGL and the rest use Custom APIs.

    Leave a comment:


  • przemoli
    replied
    Originally posted by volca View Post
    Well, I am not that sure of that. Nowadays, the AAA gaming genre spits out titles to PS3, PS4, X360, XBONE, WIN, MAC. Only 3 out of those 6 are D3D compatible at all, so the engines are pretty API agnostic.
    Fixed that.

    Leave a comment:


  • przemoli
    replied
    Originally posted by Nille View Post
    I bet that D3D win.
    Good waiting to you.

    Thats 1,5y from release. 2-3y from general adoption. (Depending on MS ability to push it to Win7 and not only Win9+Win8.1)

    Mantle is a bit better as that is 0,5y from release, 1-1,5y from general adoption or quicker, depending on paths for porting from XOne, PS4.

    Metal same. Though general adoption may be accelerated by general level of support by Apple hw.

    OGL is right now part way there. Just lack strong show (platform) case. So its hard to estimate general adoption. But it should start no letter then any other desktop API gain serious traction. (On the basis that "if we can make that faster, then not this?")


    But APIs by them selfs are not so important. GPU abstraction concepts are more important. And here we can see 3 camps:
    1) mobile/Apple, hw is just not so good to support 2) or 3) so CPU concepts are more crystallized then GPU ones.
    2) DX/Mantle, explicit CPU parallelization, thread safe on CPU, assign jobs to sparate GPU parts independently on GPU
    3) OGL lets remove API altogether on CPU, lets make GPU self sufficient on GPU side of things.

    OGL abstraction system have better potential actually in my opinion for long term goals.


    And most important are toolings:
    Mantle will gain some tools from consoles even if PC specific wont come.
    DX will get tools from MS. And that is main focus from MS.
    Metal. Apple can do wonders here, will have to see if they are focused enough.
    OGL. Valve is pushing this currently. Google may start to, as Metal hit Android hard.


    Also ALL those APIs will need NEW toolings. Everybody start from clean slate.


    Drivers:
    Mantle, working driver, close coop with game devs.
    DX, ??, close coop with game devs and gpu vendors.
    Metal, working driver, ?? at least some input from some game devs.
    OGL, working and proved drivers for AZDO, need more work for making specs for getting to long term goals, constant input from game devs.


    Core (pun intended) of my post is that all APIs start from roughly same base line. (Nobody is really ready: Metal/Mantle do not have production ready drivers, OGL need to make its vision be heard loud and clear, DX is 1,5y off; Nobody have ready tools; etc.)

    "War is far from won"



    And of course OpenGL have its secret weapon. FLOSS drivers! GPUs drivers no longer are black boxes.

    Leave a comment:


  • volca
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Nille
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Luke_Wolf
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • volca
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • przemoli
    replied
    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"

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X