Nvidia and Carmack's response.

[deathjester]

http://www.geeks3d.com/20140123/how-to-increase-the-number-of-draw-calls-in-opengl/

 

So...my money is on Open GL, especially with Steam OS/steam machines in the mix. No native OpenGL on steam machines would be very bad. Mantle uses the Direct X shader library (MS ain't letting DirectX run on Steam OS).

 

Now this is still a win for AMD.

 

AMD previously said that they don't care if Mantle is the new standard or another API is a new standard. They spent money on Mantle instead of R & D and die shrinks.

 

Whatever API wins out, if AMD CPU's can now compete with Intel's and offer the same gaming experience or close for cheaper? Huge win for AMD and for all gamers. 

 

 

 

 

 

[martinrox1568]

This is just like AMD's free sync. They don't actually have anything to support it, but they want to prove that their hardware is capable too.

[Rassilon]

I don't care about the OS race. But I like AMD more than the Linux Foundation, so good for them. They deserve a win.

[ajoy39]

Except that OpenGL performance across the board is piss poor right now. 

[<boss2939>]

I thought that you could develop on Mantle and than easily convert it to DX 11 so my money is on mantel and dx11 but, if they find a way to easily convert it to open gl than mantel and gl will be the future

[PortentousLad]

In a way I hope people will not use steams in-house-streaming as much as Linus is expecting.... If there is no MS machine in the background a DX alternative is needed for steam machines and that could push dev's to go full-on Linux which I would luv

[GoodBytes]

Except that OpenGL performance across the board is piss poor right now.

No, this is false.

OpenGL is harder to program as it lacks the debugging power of DirectX, making it harder to optimize things. But when well optimized, it performance is similar than DirectX more or less (some things are faster, others are slower). Oh, DirectX has vastly more documentation than OpenGL, which helps a lot in coding in DirectX.

The thing is, that AMD really focuses on OpenGL performance, not DirectX (well Direct3D if we want to be exact). Nvidia is the other way around. They focus on DirectX performance. So really what mantle does is catch up AMD cards to Nvidia's in terms of DirectX performance in game more or less. It's that Mantle has this big hype around it. And where is the promised 40% increase in performance? Even BF4 has trouble showing this.

I am not saying that Mantle is crap. It's good and has excellent intentions. But its just overly hyped. Like Nvidia PhysX in gaming. PhysX is amazing for those making simulations with CUDA on their GPU, which is where Nvidia makes most of it's money (Quadro's and Tesla GPUs), not GeForce.

[Eroda]

if mantle was on linux and apple then it would be a truly viable contender to replace direct X

[Immort]

Some people fail to realize that implementing vendor specific extensions for OpenGL is analogous to implementing Mantle (which is also vendor specific).
The only issue here is that these efficient OpenGL extensions would still have to go through the garbage code remnants of piles upon piles of legacy OpenGL code.
It's like putting beautiful cake dressing on dog food. It looks better but it's still crap underneath.

For the industry to go forward we need a new API from the ground-up, one that contains absolutely no unnecessary or otherwise pointless legacy code.
Mantle is just that, it's no longer a question of whether we need or in fact can have a very efficient very advanced and very performant API, because the answer is yes to all three.

The actual question now is how to transform Mantle into an industry standard, this is obviously AMD's goal and Nvidia is fighting it.
I can't see a future where Nvidia welcomes their competitor's API with open arms, such a future does not exist.
What I see however is a future where an equivalently promising API, perhaps a direct or indirect derivative of Mantle is handed over to Khronos to become the next OpenGL.

In which case Nvidia and other GPU vendors for that matter have no choice but to support it because it is an industry standard.

[Humbug]

And where is the promised 40% increase in performance? Even BF4 has trouble showing this.

When did AMD promise this? All I remember them saying is up to xx%

[MatheusSanzo]

I thought that you could develop on Mantle and than easily convert it to DX 11 so my money is on mantel and dx11 but, if they find a way to easily convert it to open gl than mantel and gl will be the futureI

I don't think mantle works the way you think it works.

[matin94]

Some people fail to realize that implementing vendor specific extensions for OpenGL is analogous to implementing Mantle (which is also vendor specific).

The only issue here is that these efficient OpenGL extensions would still have to go through the garbage code remnants of piles upon piles of legacy OpenGL code.

It's like putting beautiful cake dressing on dog food. It looks better but it's still crap underneath.

For the industry to go forward we need a new API from the ground-up, one that contains absolutely no unnecessary or otherwise pointless legacy code.

Mantle is just that, it's no longer a question of whether we need or in fact can have a very efficient very advanced and very performant API, because the answer is yes to all three.

The actual question now is how to transform Mantle into an industry standard, this is obviously AMD's goal and Nvidia is fighting it.

I can't see a future where Nvidia welcomes their competitor's API with open arms, such a future does not exist.

What I see however is a future where an equivalently promising API, perhaps a direct or indirect derivative of Mantle is handed over to Khronos to become the next OpenGL.

In which case Nvidia and other GPU vendors for that matter have no choice but to support it because it is an industry standard.

im gonna copy this and send it to my nvidia fan boy friend who thinks mantle is pointless

[matin94]

When did AMD promise this? All I remember them saying is up to xx%

they didnt promise anything, the showed stuff, anandtech has a preview where it performs up to %40 better for APUS and up to 20% for highend gpus, in this case 290X, it really does depend on every component in your rig. http://www.anandtech.com/show/7728/battlefield-4-mantle-preview

[<boss2939>]

I don't think mantle works the way you think it works.

than how does it work because I heard developers could easily translate the code that DX 11 could work so please explain what you mean when you say," I don't think mantle works the way you think it works"

[xAcid9]

http://www.geeks3d.com/20140123/how-to-increase-the-number-of-draw-calls-in-opengl/

 

So...my money is on Open GL, especially with Steam OS/steam machines in the mix. No native OpenGL on steam machines would be very bad. Mantle uses the Direct X shader library (MS ain't letting DirectX run on Steam OS).

 

Now this is still a win for AMD.

 

AMD previously said that they don't care if Mantle is the new standard or another API is a new standard. They spent money on Mantle instead of R & D and die shrinks.

 

Whatever API wins out, if AMD CPU's can now compete with Intel's and offer the same gaming experience or close for cheaper? Huge win for AMD and for all gamers. 

 

Mantle is coming to OpenGL/Linux, just that it probably need another year or two. lol

 

 

Sauce: https://twitter.com/AMDAPU/status/428995100816195584

 

No, this is false.

OpenGL is harder to program as it lacks the debugging power of DirectX, making it harder to optimize things. But when well optimized, it performance is similar than DirectX more or less (some things are faster, others are slower). Oh, DirectX has vastly more documentation than OpenGL, which helps a lot in coding in DirectX.

The thing is, that AMD really focuses on OpenGL performance, not DirectX (well Direct3D if we want to be exact). Nvidia is the other way around. They focus on DirectX performance. So really what mantle does is catch up AMD cards to Nvidia's in terms of DirectX performance in game more or less. It's that Mantle has this big hype around it. And where is the promised 40% increase in performance? Even BF4 has trouble showing this.

I am not saying that Mantle is crap. It's good and has excellent intentions. But its just overly hyped. Like Nvidia PhysX in gaming. PhysX is amazing for those making simulations with CUDA on their GPU, which is where Nvidia makes most of it's money (Quadro's and Tesla GPUs), not GeForce.

 

AMD focus more on OpenGL? Nope, Nvidia is the biggest contributor to OpenGL. 

 

"UP TO"

 

Btw Mantle give over 80% performance increase compare to DirectX and the game is still in Alpha and Mantle is still in Beta. 

[Humbug]

im gonna copy this and send it to my nvidia fan boy friend who thinks mantle is pointless

Your boyfriend may be an nvidia fan, but he should still be capable of appreciating mantle. It's only going to help push the industry into better optimization.

[GoodBytes]

When did AMD promise this? All I remember them saying is up to xx%

Yea ok.. "UP TO". When you say Up to, it is under assumption that you'll get something around that area, like your internet provider, when they say "up to 20Mbps", you'll get 18, 19, 16 at worst, not 2. In this case, while there is a difference, Mantle is not close to the 40% mentioned.

It's like if AMD came out and said "up to 600% faster"... oh well it's only 10%.. don't blame us, we said "up to". Please. They should have have something like, more than 20 or 5% faster. That would be more truthful, and more impressive when it does get 30-35% faster with certain hardware configurations.

[GoodBytes]

AMD focus more on OpenGL? Nope, Nvidia is the biggest contributor to OpenGL. 

 

"UP TO"

 

Btw Mantle give over 80% performance increase compare to DirectX and the game is still in Alpha and Mantle is still in Beta.

They contribute for the Quadro and Tesla GPUs. The GeForce drivers are more DirectX focused optimized, as you can see from reviews on card. Nvidia, in many cases, beat AMD in DirectX performance. Not so much on OpenGL, it's more the reverse. Like I said, many cases, not all.. and I guess we are limited on the select games by reviewers, and not the entire library of games, so it could be a different picture in real world.

Also, where do you see 80% performance increase compared to DirectX?

[TERAFLOP]

Yea ok.. "UP TO". When you say Up to, it is under assumption that you'll get something around that area, like your internet provider, when they say "up to 20Mbps", you'll get 18, 19, 16 at worst, not 2. In this case, while there is a difference, Mantle is not close to the 40% mentioned.

It's like if AMD came out and said "up to 600% faster"... oh well it's only 10%.. don't blame us, we said "up to". Please. They should have have something like, more than 20 or 5% faster. That would be more truthful, and more impressive when it does get 30-35% faster with certain hardware configurations.

AMD was frankly being fairly modest, the performance improvements can be far more dramatic than what AMD was indicating even on very high end CPUs.

64 Spieler, Ultra Details, FoV @ 90 Grad (Core i7-3770K, 16 GB DDR3-1333, Radeon R9 290X @ 1.000/2.500 MHz, Windows 8.1 x64, Catalyst 14.1 Beta)

http://www.golem.de/news/amds-mantle-api-im-test-der-prozessor-katalysator-1402-104261-3.html

[xAcid9]

They contribute for the Quadro and Tesla GPUs. The GeForce drivers are more DirectX focused optimized, as you can see from reviews on card. Nvidia, in many cases, beat AMD in DirectX performance. Not so much on OpenGL, it's more the reverse. Like I said, many cases, not all.. and I guess we are limited on the select games by reviewers, and not the entire library of games, so it could be a different picture in real world.

Also, where do you see 80% performance increase compared to DirectX?

 

Indeed, their driver is more optimized in DirectX especially on CPU bound game like Skyrim, SC2, AC3 etc. AMD in the other hand, didn't bother so much to optimize their D3D performance because they developing Mantle.

 

In StarSwarm test, i forgot to include it in my previous post.  :blush:

[MatheusSanzo]

than how does it work because I heard developers could easily translate the code that DX 11 could work so please explain what you mean when you say," I don't think mantle works the way you think it works"

Ok, so first of all i haven't looked up much on mantle because i'm not that interested at all, but here is my understanding.

 

Mantle is an extension for DirectX not something you code and it translate for DirectX code, it's designed to remove some of the DirectX's bottlenecks by letting the GPU doing some of the CPU work, and i think the mantle code is closer to the "new generation" consoles than it is to DirectX.

[<boss2939>]

Ok, so first of all i haven't looked up much on mantle because i'm not that interested at all, but here is my understanding.

Mantle is an extension for DirectX not something you code and it translate for DirectX code, it's designed to remove some of the DirectX's bottlenecks by letting the GPU doing some of the CPU work, and i think the mantle code is closer to the "new generation" consoles than it is to DirectX.

I know its a difference api but I heard it could be easily translated back to DX 11 to make it more easy for the developers to make games for cards that don't support mantle I know that mantle is a different api and that it takes away the CPU bottlenecks.

[matin94]

Your boyfriend may be an nvidia fan, but he should still be capable of appreciating mantle. It's only going to help push the industry into better optimization.

OMFG, I SAID BOYFRIEND, i meant friend, im a male hahahahahhahahhahahhahahhahaha, i totally agree though

 

EDIT! you ass u made me think i was gay, i said fan, boy, friend fanboy! fanboy, not boyfriend hahah

[deathjester]

Some other tidbits. As far as Direct X being faster then native OpenGL? That is just false. DirectX9 would be faster then OpenGL now, but DirectX9 skips effects. 

 

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/133824-valve-opengl-is-faster-than-directx-even-on-windows

 

We have DirectX and non native OpenGL in games because of Microsoft. Without MS, this would have all been OpenGL a long time ago. Directx 9 was fast (and still is in things like Dolphin Emulator) but 9 didn't have all the effects. Also Direct X doesn't "look better". 

 

On Mantle. All benchmarks other then multiplayer are POINTLESS in a multiplayer game (BF4). Why? Because the engine is not being pushed to the max in single player. The entire game is made to work with 64 players running around. You will rarely be CPU bound in a multiplayer game on single player. In a single player game like say Mass Effect 4, I expect the engine to get pushed a lot harder. I would also like to see benchmarks of supersampling to see if there is an increase in BF4. I don't know how you wouldn't find these benchmarks impressive. An I3 is a FAST gaming chip in Mantle, which is incredible as a Duo Core with HT. 

 

http://pclab.pl/art55953-3.html

 

Just because I have a 4770k (that is oc) and might not gain huge dividends in single player, doesn't mean I can't appreciate Mantle. 

 

Now do I think Nvidia is "done". Hell no. Nvidia isn't stupid. There is a reason they won the early GPU wars.  They already were wanting OpenGL to be the future of gaming anyways. Mantle actually helps accomplish this if it succeeds, and speeds up the timeframe. If Nvidia is faster then ATI in OpenGL? Mantle becomes a push on the high end initially anyways. 

 

A steambox running enthusiast parts, way too hot didn't interest me. A steambox with an I3 and a r9 270, that can be built super cheap and put in a prodigy m, or something? That is pretty impressive. It won't be hard to kill console performance and the game library is gigantic if devs start using OpenGL native. A R7 260 turning a craptastic Dell into a Xbox One? That is also very impressive. 

 

Don't see why Nvidia people are so butthurt. Mantle is a good thing. I will enjoy my physx wolf fur on Witcher 3. Not like I am missing out on anything atm and feel the need to belittle really cool tech. Tomb Raider was Tress FX optimized for AMD, but my GTX 770 played it fine at Ultra.  If anything mantle really helps out budget machines. Why wouldn't you want to have PC gaming grow?

 

Buying Windows upgrades for a few Direct X changes is dumb anyways.  Always has been.

[Rassilon]

No, this is false.

OpenGL is harder to program as it lacks the debugging power of DirectX, making it harder to optimize things. But when well optimized, it performance is similar than DirectX more or less (some things are faster, others are slower). Oh, DirectX has vastly more documentation than OpenGL, which helps a lot in coding in DirectX.

The thing is, that AMD really focuses on OpenGL performance, not DirectX (well Direct3D if we want to be exact). Nvidia is the other way around. They focus on DirectX performance. So really what mantle does is catch up AMD cards to Nvidia's in terms of DirectX performance in game more or less. It's that Mantle has this big hype around it. And where is the promised 40% increase in performance? Even BF4 has trouble showing this.

I am not saying that Mantle is crap. It's good and has excellent intentions. But its just overly hyped. Like Nvidia PhysX in gaming. PhysX is amazing for those making simulations with CUDA on their GPU, which is where Nvidia makes most of it's money (Quadro's and Tesla GPUs), not GeForce.

I really doubt AMD focuses more on openGL than DirectX. More than Nvidia, sure.