Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vulkan SDK Now Formally Available For Apple Platforms - Including Apple Silicon Support

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

  • dragon321
    replied
    Originally posted by wizard69 View Post

    OpenGL is in its current form because the big users of it (CAD companies for one) are very reluctant to evolve it in a way that companies like Apple and others would like to have seen. That drove Apple and others into these alternative solutions. I really doubt that we will see OpenGL evolve in a way that many would like. There are just too many very large code bases that would break and a lot of incentive to keep it as stable as possible for the key users.
    Vulkan is better but it's not total OpenGL replacement. If you don't care about controlling everything and simply wants to render some things on screen then clearly Vulkan isn't option. Amount of work it requires before "just drawing" makes it not very suitable for these purposes. That's why OpenGL is alive and will be alive. It's for developers that simply want to render things. Maybe in future native OpenGL drivers will disappear in favour of OpenGL on Vulkan implementations but OpenGL as API won't disappear soon.

    Apple, just like Microsoft, wanted to make their own API to maintain full control over it. That's why instead of creating and adopting Vulkan they decided to make Metal. They also abandoned OpenGL long time ago - macOS supports only OpenGL 4.1, released in 2010.

    Originally posted by emblemparade View Post

    (I am both a Vulkan and OpenGL programmer.) You (and Khronos) are right that the two APIs don't exactly compete. Indeed, many of us are hoping that OpenGL will evolve to be a higher level API on top of Vulkan, which would greatly simplify GPU drivers (and also make it easier to squeeze more performance out of them in some situations). We already have some decent implementations of OpenGL on top of Vulkan, but there's various awkwardness there due to different underlying concepts built into each. It would be great to see a future version of OpenGL (5?) that is more aligned with Vulkan and specifically designed to run on top of it, perhaps with a reference implementation published by Khronos/Lunar.
    Yes, I also think that in future native OpenGL drivers will disappear and will be replaced by Vulkan implementations. Probably next OpenGL releases will be focused more on interoperability with Vulkan, just like 4.6 added SPIR-V support.
    Last edited by dragon321; 19 January 2021, 08:16 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard69
    replied
    Originally posted by dragon321 View Post

    To be honest Vulkan doesn't even kill OpenGL. At least not directly. Khronos stated many times that Vulkan is not OpenGL replacement and latter will be still supported and developed. In reality Vulkan slowly replaces OpenGL. It's happening because Vulkan simply is superior. It is harder and requires more work but also lacks OpenGL issues. It's also better suited for multi threading.
    OpenGL is in its current form because the big users of it (CAD companies for one) are very reluctant to evolve it in a way that companies like Apple and others would like to have seen. That drove Apple and others into these alternative solutions. I really doubt that we will see OpenGL evolve in a way that many would like. There are just too many very large code bases that would break and a lot of incentive to keep it as stable as possible for the key users.

    Leave a comment:


  • wizard69
    replied
    This is hilarious and I still use Mac computers and the OS.

    Originally posted by Scellow View Post
    That is very misleading
    Not as much as this post. The wording is less than ideal with the subject line so I can agree there, but the body of the article is pretty straight forward.
    Vulkan is not available on macOS, it is the Emulation Layer that is available, with it comes huge performance cost
    It isn't what I would call emulation.
    Stop misleading people, this is a problem with open source and "linux" people, their strategies are ugly, they love to mislead people, and they take everything for granted
    Well yeah that is true about people heavily involved in Linux or open source. That has little to do with this article though.
    I am glad apple went with Metal wich is cleaner and more performant than Vulkan
    It is derived from the same historical body of software.
    Wine and Vulkan are a huge mistake, no wonder why linux usage on steam is stuck bellow 0.7% despite MASSIVE investments
    Actually WINE is pretty nice. However I don't use it for gaming so your BS about steam doesn't mean much.

    As for Vulkan, the more places it can be used the more software that will be written for it. In many case performance isn't even a concern, portability of code is.

    Leave a comment:


  • paradroid
    replied
    When Metal came out 2014 it was not usable for serious 3D. This took apple 3 years and even then it was quite bad. 2019 was the stable release which could compete with Vulkan.

    Leave a comment:


  • pal666
    replied
    Originally posted by Scellow View Post
    Vulkan is not available on macOS, it is the Emulation Layer that is available
    does it expose vulkan interface? if yes, then vulkan is indeed available on macos
    Originally posted by Scellow View Post
    , with it comes huge performance cost
    it's a quality of implementation issue. anyone can write slow driver and it will still be vulkan. btw, now much "huge" is numbers?
    Originally posted by Scellow View Post
    this is a problem with open source and "linux" people
    this is a problem with imbecilic apple slaves
    Originally posted by Scellow View Post
    I am glad apple went with Metal wich is cleaner and more performant than Vulkan
    self-flagellating slaves are funny
    Originally posted by Scellow View Post
    Wine and Vulkan are a huge mistake, no wonder why linux usage on steam is stuck bellow 0.7% despite MASSIVE investments
    moron, do you know that macos is target audience for wine devs? which when combined with $billions of investments from apple is much more MASSIVE and got measly 3% of macos share on steam.

    Leave a comment:


  • Boland
    replied
    Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
    The bigger issue is that Metal is so limited and backwards that it is hard to even support Vulkan to Metal call translation at all. Metal is more of a restricted Mantel API clone.
    This isn’t entirely correct. The ‘limitations’ in metal that make fully supporting Vulkan tricky are legacy features such as Geometry Shaders that have no business being used today, but are needed for emulating older apis over Vulkan (and then to Metal). Metal also looks nothing like Mantle from an API standpoint.

    Metal also has a bunch for features that Vulkan doesn’t have that are especially useful on Apples TBDR Gpus. Image blocks, Tile Shaders, Function Pointers etc..

    Leave a comment:


  • emblemparade
    replied
    Originally posted by dragon321 View Post
    To be honest Vulkan doesn't even kill OpenGL. At least not directly. Khronos stated many times that Vulkan is not OpenGL replacement and latter will be still supported and developed. In reality Vulkan slowly replaces OpenGL. It's happening because Vulkan simply is superior. It is harder and requires more work but also lacks OpenGL issues. It's also better suited for multi threading.
    (I am both a Vulkan and OpenGL programmer.) You (and Khronos) are right that the two APIs don't exactly compete. Indeed, many of us are hoping that OpenGL will evolve to be a higher level API on top of Vulkan, which would greatly simplify GPU drivers (and also make it easier to squeeze more performance out of them in some situations). We already have some decent implementations of OpenGL on top of Vulkan, but there's various awkwardness there due to different underlying concepts built into each. It would be great to see a future version of OpenGL (5?) that is more aligned with Vulkan and specifically designed to run on top of it, perhaps with a reference implementation published by Khronos/Lunar.

    Leave a comment:


  • dragon321
    replied
    Originally posted by Steffo View Post

    Vulkan doesn't kill anything than OpenGL.
    To be honest Vulkan doesn't even kill OpenGL. At least not directly. Khronos stated many times that Vulkan is not OpenGL replacement and latter will be still supported and developed. In reality Vulkan slowly replaces OpenGL. It's happening because Vulkan simply is superior. It is harder and requires more work but also lacks OpenGL issues. It's also better suited for multi threading.

    Leave a comment:


  • ctwise
    replied
    Originally posted by Alexmitter View Post
    The bigger issue is that Metal is so limited and backwards that it is hard to even support Vulkan to Metal call translation at all. Metal is more of a restricted Mantel API clone.
    Believe it or not, this is potentially helpful. I've searched before for comparisons between current-ish Metal and current-ish Vulkan and not found anything useful at a technical level. Even coverage of the issues that MoltenVK runs into having to run on Metal. Do you have any links you can point me to?

    Leave a comment:


  • Steffo
    replied
    Originally posted by kpedersen View Post
    Vulkan is a DirectX and Metal killer
    Vulkan doesn't kill anything than OpenGL.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X