Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vulkan 1.0 Released: What You Need To Know About This Cross-Platform, High-Performance Graphics API

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

  • Originally posted by timofonic View Post
    Of course not going to happen, but that fantasy is the utopia for the users!

    X86 has been a headache for Intel, but no more as their competitors are now totally behind them:

    - Their only actual real competitor is AMD. AMD has been exponentially losing both technical progress and market, with financing and resource issues everywhere. Their 64bits miracle was just that, then Intel put their big machine to win the market.
    In my opinion, Intel was able to quickly catch up to AMD with Intel's Core2 CPUs because Intel was pursuing 2 strategies concurrently. They had (1) the Prescott low-IPC desktop CPUs and (2) the Core (Core1) high-IPC mobile CPUs. With K8, AMD showed that Core-like high-IPC CPUs are generally more efficient than Prescott. This lead Intel to give priority to Core-like CPUs and that resulted in Core2 which was competitive with K8.

    IPC = Instructions Per Clock

    I am not saying that this is the only explanation.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by timofonic View Post
      We are still in "The Matrix", with a fake alternative just like in the movie
      I believe Matrix movies are an application of the general idea of meta-levels, Turing machines, interpreters, emulation.

      Movies based on a similar idea:
      • The Thirteenth Floor (1999)
      • eXistenZ (1999)
      • Inception (2010)
      All of these movies are, maybe except Inception in some scenes, abstracting away from the fact that the next meta-level in emulation executes substantially slower than the previous meta-level.

      I strongly believe that for example studying programming language interpreters or implementing an emulator of an 8-bit CPU will get a person much closer to understanding the general idea than watching the movies.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by eidolon View Post
        I would refer you to the second paragraph of the post you quoted from. And nobody with Windows currently needs Vulkan, though that doesn't mean it is unwelcome there.
        my point was that xp users are not going to buy vulkan-supported card and vulkan-supporting game

        Comment


        • Originally posted by pal666 View Post
          my point was that xp users are not going to buy vulkan-supported card and vulkan-supporting game
          If they don't have the option, then you are absolutely right.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by eidolon View Post
            If they don't have the option, then you are absolutely right.
            of course they don't, they are unable to upgrade from dead unsupported os

            Comment


            • Originally posted by azari View Post

              In any case, my point wasn't that XP/Vista support was "likely", just that given those slides, it was not an unreasonable expectation.
              I'm going to have to chalk this up to a difference of interpretation then. I don't consider the slides damning or demonstrably indicative. Perhaps I'm jaded by US politics. If/when AMD, Intel, or NVIDIA make promissory commitments to supporting Vulkan on XP, then I will expect such support (and even then they could fail to deliver). Until then, I have no such expectation, nor should anyone else realistically. If you think people reasonably could/should have said expectation based on those slides alone, then we will have to agree to disagree.

              Perhaps Vulkan support makes its way to XP and Vista, it's certainly not impossible, but I'll believe it when incontrovertible, objective proof to that end presents itself.

              Originally posted by azari View Post
              XP still seems to have more than double Linux's marketshare in the Steam hardware/software survey... There is a PR/marketing case to be made, that supporting the few stubborn users that refuse to upgrade could foster some brand loyalty, or perhaps even establish some street cred for Vulkan.
              Would you find that to be a compelling reason to support Vulkan on XP if you were in the position to make the call?

              Comment


              • Originally posted by eidolon View Post
                I'm going to have to chalk this up to a difference of interpretation then. I don't consider the slides damning or demonstrably indicative. Perhaps I'm jaded by US politics. [...]
                I think that's possible; you appear to be reading the slides the way a lawyer would, but what I'm saying is that the vast majority of people do not read them that way, and when considering what is "reasonable" or "unreasonable", I think it's only fair to consider what a normal human understanding would be. It's not like the idea of XP/Vista support is a complete fantasy, a casual reading of the slides does give the impression it will be supported, and it's only when you switch on the legalese/politics filter in your brain that you realize otherwise.

                Keep in mind that I've already mentioned the likely possibility that the companies are being intentionally misleading, which if you are indeed jaded by politics, you know is extremely likely. In other words, they probably know full well that people will misread the slides, and thus it should come as no surprise that people are falling into this trap.

                Would you find that to be a compelling reason to support Vulkan on XP if you were in the position to make the call?
                I'd have to see the numbers to guess, as well as the effort/workhours required; on the Linux side of things, a Vulkan driver is more or less just a new userspace component, sort of like a lower-level gallium with a stable ABI. I'm not familiar with WinXP's driver architecture, but if all they have to do is add the new userspace component to the already-existing (in Nvidia's case) XP drivers, then it may end up being fairly easy.

                It really depends on the specifics of the market; we know there's more XP users than Linux users but we don't know how often these people buy new hardware, or so on, so without AMD and Nvidia's private sales data, it wouldn't be possible for me to give a precise answer to your question. My guess however is that if Nvidia is supporting XP now, they likely still have a strong incentive to support the platform, whereas AMD on the other hand, may look at their marketshare demographics, and may have already lost the XP user market long ago, and feel they will not get it back prior to those users upgrading to Win7 or later.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by azari View Post

                  My guess however is that if Nvidia is supporting XP now, they likely still have a strong incentive to support the platform, whereas AMD on the other hand, may look at their marketshare demographics, and may have already lost the XP user market long ago, and feel they will not get it back prior to those users upgrading to Win7 or later.
                  I suspect that support for XP has been reduced to a bare minimum or is the process of being reduced to a bare minimum (if not eliminated) by most companies.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by bridgman View Post

                    Nothing to do with Vulkan readiness (the userspace driver is pretty much the same on Linux & Windows), just the fact that we happened to be in the middle of a transition from Catalyst to amdgpu hybrid at the moment the NDA lifted.
                    Not sure what you mean by "failing to support half of our HW"... we're going back a bit further than NVidia, aren't we ? (SI 2011 vs Kepler 2012)
                    From purely user's perspective, under Linux, picture is quite grim to the date. "A bit further than nvidia" translates into "we only support couple of APUs and GPUs under Linux". And somehow these aren't things in possession of most users around. Sure, if I've bought R9 270X less than 2 years ago, I'm so excited to learn there are neither plans to support it in AMDGPU, nor plans for Vulkan, etc. And even many newer GPUs are out of luck with unofficial support in AMDGPU at very most. Wtf, is this HW support policy BS serious? Sure, drawing line to get rid of ancient crap could make sense SOMETIMES. But if you do it every year or so, uhm, I think you'll manage to get rid of users. Sorry, but it has came to the fact most AMD GPUs to the date are just unsupported by AMDGPU, at least officially. Do you honestly think it is okay to do it like this? You see, even if I would buy e.g. GCN 1.2 thing, it means 6 months after I do, I can face yet another AMD marketing BS, telling they've released much better GCN 2.0 (or 3.0 or whatever), drawing new line, now GCN 1.2 suxx and I'm better (fuck) off to buy this one instead, because GCN 1.2 is no longer going to be supported. That's how I'm seeing AMD policy on AMDGPU and overall HW support, especially in Linux.

                    Transition to AMDGPU thing is good, sure. But how it was performed, overall timings and user experience... its SNAFU, especially when it comes to Linux. And sorry, but if company creates core of standard, I think it would be very logical if this company could afford better timings, unless something is terribly fucked up. On bright side, its nice to see you're working with gamedevs. Hopefully, you'll mange to put end to nvidia-only gamedev world. Vulkan is a good chance and it would be nice if AMD would manage to take this opportunity.

                    atomsymbol in case of GPU irony is that AMD GPUs on its own are quite epic things. But AMD management is quite opposite of this. They never manage to release epic drivers. Especially for Linux. When they have groundbreaking technical advantages... they fail to leverage it somehow, e.g. Fury with HBM showing really pathetic results in Linux so from pure price to performance ratio it looks like a really bad deal, while technically it is kinda epic and competitors can't even offer anything comparable. Then AMD further crashes their reputation by unfriendly HW support timings/policies. Even more fun to learn they had e.g. Linux support for %s like a half year, but it got stuck in legal dept and overall roundtrip time and release timings were screwed, as usually. Sorry, but 6 months is a big deal. Especially when AMD cuts off "official" support every year or so.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by SystemCrasher View Post
                      From purely user's perspective, under Linux, picture is quite grim to the date. "A bit further than nvidia" translates into "we only support couple of APUs and GPUs under Linux". And somehow these aren't things in possession of most users around. Sure, if I've bought R9 270X less than 2 years ago, I'm so excited to learn there are neither plans to support it in AMDGPU, nor plans for Vulkan, etc. And even many newer GPUs are out of luck with unofficial support in AMDGPU at very most. Wtf, is this HW support policy BS serious?
                      Ahh, now I see. You're not talking about our plans, you're talking about Michael's article where he hinted that "if we only ever supported the set of chips that was enabled by default today in upstream amdgpu then we would only support VI". That has nothing to do with our actual plans.

                      We have already said multiple times that we will be supporting Vulkan on all GCN parts including your R9 270X.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X