Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Intel Expresses Interest In AMD's Mantle API

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

  • phoronix
    started a topic Intel Expresses Interest In AMD's Mantle API

    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

  • curaga
    replied
    Tell me about it. I only knew GL when I first started hacking around gallium, and I was constantly wondering why the heck they used these weird names and conventions for everything that did not make sense.

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Originally posted by pixo View Post
    My understanding is that we already have a low lever api used for all 3 vendors, Gallium3D API.
    Is it too low level for use by game engine devs?
    It would be great if it was pushed as standard.
    I could be totally wrong, but looking at gallium/include/pipe/p_context.h, the calls there (the few I've compared) look very D3D10 like.

    I mean function names and parameters (resource_copy_region -> ResourceCopyRegion, create/delete/bind_*_state -> Create/Delete/Bind*State, ...). There are of course some differences too (set_constant_buffer -> PsSetConstantBuffers, VsSetConstantBuffers).

    Also I remember reading that TGSI (Gallium3D IR) is inspired by D3D10/11 bytecode.

    So writing against Gallium would be like writing against D3D10? This would also explain the existence of a Direct3D 10 state tracker.

    Leave a comment:


  • brosis
    replied
    Originally posted by przemoli View Post
    Gallium is tool to build better drivers. Mesa is FLOSS implementation. That mean huge stability outside, not so much inside.
    Unsuitable for games.
    On Radeon, its fast, stable and plays games very fast.

    Leave a comment:


  • przemoli
    replied
    Originally posted by pixo View Post
    My understanding is that we already have a low lever api used for all 3 vendors, Gallium3D API.
    Is it too low level for use by game engine devs?
    It would be great if it was pushed as standard.
    Gallium is tool to build better drivers. Mesa is FLOSS implementation. That mean huge stability outside, not so much inside.
    Unsuitable for games.

    Leave a comment:


  • pixo
    replied
    My understanding is that we already have a low lever api used for all 3 vendors, Gallium3D API.
    Is it too low level for use by game engine devs?
    It would be great if it was pushed as standard.

    Leave a comment:


  • log0
    replied
    Originally posted by 0xBADCODE View Post
    I would rather call this phrase as commitment to DOUBLE standards. DX? Open? Ha-ha-ha, what a double-standards speech. They should also try to rename black into white.
    With open he meant open to them (IHVs) and not to you and me, as they usually work together with MS on each new DX API version.

    Leave a comment:


  • 0xBADCODE
    replied
    Commited to DOUBLE standards?

    open standards like Microsoft's DirectX API
    I would rather call this phrase as commitment to DOUBLE standards. DX? Open? Ha-ha-ha, what a double-standards speech. They should also try to rename black into white.

    Leave a comment:


  • tuubi
    replied
    Originally posted by profoundWHALE View Post
    I don't want to see Dx12 win and leave OpenGL in the dust, so I've been racking my brain trying to think of something and this is the best I could come up with.
    No fear of that as long as D3D is only available on MS platforms. Unless by winning you mean simply monopolising the pc gaming sector, which D3D has already done. Never quite killed off OpenGL though, for obvious reasons.

    If Linux as a gaming platform fails to survive (which I doubt), OpenGL and its shortcomings won't be to blame. In any case, we can probably expect lots of positive changes from the next iteration of the API with all this feedback flowing in from the game industry lately. I doubt it'll materialise any time soon though due to the way Khronos works. Where's a benevolent dictator when you need one?

    Leave a comment:


  • profoundWHALE
    replied
    Originally posted by sarmad View Post
    Actually, some of his suggestion make sense, i.e. the part about creating a "converter" of GL4 APIs into GL5. In other words, if they restart from scratch in GL5 with a simple and clean lower level API and write a single user mode implementation of GL4 using GL5 then that should solve the problem. This way manufacturers will only need to worry about supporting the simpler GL5 without worrying about backward compatibility as they will get that for free. Basically, it's the same as the DX-GL wrapper that some developers use for porting. Obviously, hardware that is not GL5 compatible will just have to provide its own GL4 implementation the same old way.
    This^ I was thinking of something like this.

    P.S. I know I have very little knowledge of what I'm talking about, but I have an idea of how things work... kind of? I just wanted to know if any of those ideas are sort of possible.

    I don't want to see Dx12 win and leave OpenGL in the dust, so I've been racking my brain trying to think of something and this is the best I could come up with.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X