ARB_copy_image Support Lands For AMD RadeonSI

[duby229]

I have Playstation 4 for that purpose - with that i am free of all PC bullshit APIs sometimes

Pros: There is no better API then API maded for any single GPU
Cons: It is tied to one single GPU

I think you'll be surprised how many graphics API's PS4 actually uses. GNM, GNMX, EGL, and even Vulkan when it gets released.

[dungeon]

I think you'll be surprised how many graphics API's PS4 actually uses. GNM, GNMX, EGL, and even Vulkan when it gets released.

OK but i think GNMX is major used one and GNM is like a Vulkan already But both are stright to that one hardware (just more or less), so why you want to use general purpose API like Vulkan when you alredy have i thing?

OpenGL and Vulkan are still (and does not matter how high or low level) they are just general purpose APIs, but GNM/X is custom just for that hardware.

[DMJC]

So why you want to use general purpose API like Vulkan when you alredy have i thing?

So that your code can be ported to multiple platforms duh. If you can write once and hit PC, xbox and ps4, of course you would. It'll save tons of money in development expenses.

[artivision]

OpenGL is not the constrained API, though. It's the low-level one that lets you do whatever you want. D3D is the constrained API that forces you to do things in particular ways. That makes it easier for drivers to optimize, since they better know how applications are going to use the driver.

Yes that is the 30% of it. The other 70% is that people need a High Level Shading Language to write and then to convert. You will not find anyone that wants to write in Assembly. D3D is more freely to program than OGL that is more stable.

[dungeon]

So that your code can be ported to multiple platforms duh. If you can write once and hit PC, xbox and ps4, of course you would. It'll save tons of money in development expenses.

I know of that, that way our Mac/Linux third party porters wants to save money and in the end they support nVidia only and performance is 60% only

Dunno what to expect of Vulkan, but I also expect Vulkan implementations to be broken like an OpenGL on performance across vendors, do you maybe expect things will be magically better or look similar for cross vendor i don't think so.

It is business in the first place, and I expect war of the next Vulkan extensions will be soon

[artivision]

OK but i think GNMX is major used one and GNM is like a Vulkan already But both are stright to that one hardware (just more or less), so why you want to use general purpose API like Vulkan when you alredy have i thing?

OpenGL and Vulkan are still (and does not matter how high or low level) they are just general purpose APIs, but GNM/X is custom just for that hardware.

Its most likely that they write with GNMX(source) and then they deliver in GNM(IR), or they build from GLSL or HLSL to GNM. I thing they will use Vulcan because devs want unification, the same reason that they use x86.

[duby229]

I know of that, that way our Mac/Linux third party porters wants to save money and in the end they support nVidia only and performance is 60% only

Dunno what to expect of Vulkan, but I also expect Vulkan implementations to be broken like an OpenGL on performance across vendors, do you maybe expect things will be magically better or look similar for cross vendor i don't think so.

It is business in the first place, and I expect war of the next Vulkan extensions will be soon

Well, I don't know for sure but I'd guess that performance will be more consistent because device drivers are simpler. With vulkan it's not up to device drivers to extract performance. It's up to the game developers to extract performance.

[dungeon]

Well, I don't know for sure but I'd guess that performance will be more consistent because device drivers are simpler. With vulkan it's not up to device drivers to extract performance. It's up to the game developers to extract performance.

OK and what you expect out of which hardware those game developers will "extract" that performance?

Of course of those they wish to target - nVidia 1243.9876 drivers needed, Intel and AMD not supported

Why not Intel? Because we maded it on nVidia's Vulkan and Intel's Vulkan is slow, AMD's too

So what differs? Nothing

[duby229]

OK and what you expect out of which hardware those game developers will "extract" that performance?

Of course of those they wish to target - nVidia 1243.9876 drivers needed, Intel and AMD not supported

You may well end up being exactly right. But I hope for the sake of all gamers that Vulkan drivers are so simple that game developers would have to be retarded to not support AMD.

[dungeon]

You may well end up being exactly right.

No, I am exactly right. nVidia with their blob wants to made any platform their gaming console - that is what they do all the time And also all other hardware vendors and their drivers looks like crippled just because people starts to depend on their hardware controled by their driver behavior.

Believe me it is simple as that, they will not change their practice - that is how it is . I don't even think it is something wrong, but they are not all alone in the world and it is not good for other vendors, you know