AMD Mantle vs NVidia G-SYNC

[virtualTune]

Mantle is a long term project from which the entire industry benefits. Even users that do not have cards which benefit from Mantle, it will push Microsoft to improve DirectX and possibly inspire OpenGL developers. 

G-Sync is a marketing concept that allows nVidia to make more money off of less demanding users by telling them "you can still use your midrange card (or old Kepler card) and use G-sync for smooth gameplay" but within 1 year that card will have to be replaced by a better one assuming they still want to play demanding games at high resolutions/settings. 

[ofr057]

G - Sync is out of the market since I do not game on 120 - 144 hz monitors, plus if someone had a monitor i would doubt they would cough money up again to get it. Also for people not having a kepler GPU it makes it even more expensive

 

so at the moment I will go with mantle, I am not fussed if AAA's dont take it on board - i am hoping it makes indie games alot better

 

 

Mantle is a long term project from which the entire industry benefits. Even users that do not have cards which benefit from Mantle, it will push Microsoft to improve DirectX and possibly inspire OpenGL developers. 

G-Sync is a marketing concept that allows nVidia to make more money off of less demanding users by telling them "you can still use your midrange card (or old Kepler card) and use G-sync for smooth gameplay" but within 1 year that card will have to be replaced by a better one assuming they still want to play demanding games at high resolutions/settings.

 

also on this ..... I could see nvidia using this to get into the monitor market, forcing people to buy a new monitor so its more compatible with future GPU's

 

i can see this having compatibility issues meaning you need to buy a monitor to match the GPU

[nokturrduk84]

I'll be completely honest. PhysX at the moment is not something I would consider a factor when I'd make the decision on what card to get. It's just way to proprietary and there's definitely not enough games that utilise, let alone utilise it well to even impact my decision to the slightest. PhysX is not a necessity and I'm sure a lot of people would agree.

Disagree with you. Lots of great & popular video games use Physx and it's a great feature.

[LetEmQuake]

I'm really excited about both of these technologies. I feel like they're areas that have been massively neglected (hardware on nvidia side and software on amd).

MANTLE

-it's exciting to think what a truly optimized engine might actually gain over directx

-I don't think it will catch unless steam box really sky rockets

-Encourages a new iteration of directx to finally come out. Were due for some update.

-Can cause further differentiation between the two hardware vendors and more favoritism between different games if each company adopts their own standard.

-MANTLE is ultimately furthering software implementation for games and when paired with true audio and other things amd has it makes a nice little bundle

G-Sync

-I question why it hasn't been done in quite some time

- I want to see the performance increase over panels with very high refresh rates like plasma.

-I'm more excited for this to be implemented with movies because they only run at 24hz

-I want to see how expensive it will be after it becomes a standard

-if it's what it's cracked up to be it should make most games much more immersive.

-G-Sync to me is probably something I won't be able to afford so I won't allow myself to become too excited by it.

I view both things as standards that will be adopted widespread eventually. Right now they're just starting though and will take a while to get built up. I think ultimately Mantle is going to make the bigger difference. When BF4 comes out and (if) it gets a 50% improvement everyone is going to turn their noses at Microsoft and say hey your holding out on us. This will increase support for the steam box and cause Microsoft to do some thinking and try and make the PC market better instead of worse.

[Tajl3r]

http://i.imgur.com/64EmN.gif

[MdX MaxX]

I may be in the minority, but I think G-Sync is HUGE.  MASSIVE.

 

Gamers have always had to make a compromise.  If we want the more consistent visual experience offered by V-Sync, we have to accept a capped 60fps (for most of us), higher input delay, and jarring drops in framerate if the GPU drags the tiniest bit.  If we want the highest framerate possible and a nice continuum of possible framerates, we have to accept horrible tearing that destroys the visual fidelity of the game.

 

Adaptive V-Sync is kind of a hack solution that doesn't fix the problem; I get terrible tearing when using it and so I haven't bothered with it.

 

With G-Sync, we finally can have a no-compromises gaming experience.  None of the delay and stuttering that comes with V-Sync, and none of the tearing that normally comes with an unrestricted framerate.  If my framerate hovers between 50 and 80 in a particular game, I will be able to have a silky smooth experience, which has not been possible until now.

 

Even for those with dual Titans pushing everything at 120/144 frames per second, I presume G-Sync will offer framerate capping without delays or tearing since the monitor and GPU are working in tandem.  Rather than the GPU drawing a frame then waiting for the monitor to refresh, they will be able to sync with each other.  And any drop below 120 will be unnoticeable and silky smooth with no tearing.

 

Mantle is something that's cool for developers to experiment with, but may not mean much to the end user when it's all said and done.  G-Sync will make a massive difference for anyone who invests in the technology, for every game, and users will no longer have to buy an overpowered GPU just to guarantee a smooth gaming experience.

[Artorias]

Well, my eyes aren't that sensitive to tearing. So, I'll vote Mantle.

[NoVaGuy]

These are completely different things. Why are we comparing them?

[GIJew]

What Mantle seems like to me is AMD trying to stick there foot in the door of a technology thats perfectly fine.

 

DirectX doesn't need to be replaced, its doing the job quite all right, it manages all GPU's- across PC's and consoles- perfectly fine.

 

However AMD have touted some cool features, all of which sounds mostly like a marketing stunt to me but I'll guess we see next week when BF4 rolls out.

 

Is it better than Gsync? 

Well thats a pathetic question. They're completely different.

[MdX MaxX]

These are completely different things. Why are we comparing them?

I believe the whole point of this is not to say "Which is the better technology?" but rather "Which is going to make the greater overall impact on the game industry?"

 

Obviously there's no way to directly compare the two since they're totally different things, but we can compare their relative importance.

[TymmVonD]

I hope Mantle turns out to be a useful tool for developers to more accurately scale the performance from console to PC, but I was assuming that with similar architecture, that would be a given anyways.

With G-Sync....

I have a high refresh monitor. Screen tearing is no longer an issue over 60 fps. It would be great if the software could be configured so that fps under 45 or so would use double frame interpolation like current HDTVs to smooth out the choppyness.

[unidentical]

I expect both to fail magnificently.

 

Mantle has a chance if it isn't kept proprietary.

 

nVidia has already failed. If I buy a video card with tec on it, I shouldn't then have to buy a special monitor to get full functionality out of it. It's going to be physX all over again.

 

There's going to be a few monitors, they'll be too expensive, 99% of the people won't care and it will be a silly little hole. This is my prediction.

[c4pt1n54n0]

Anything like this that I have seen implemented in the past increases response time, and if this does, even by half a millisecond, I want nothing to do with it. I need things to be instant, anything less renders my PC useless

[VSyncGamer]

What I would like to know is the following:

 

Would G-Sync be able to get rid of the stuttering/hitching that we see today in some game engines that were poorly optimized? (Far Cry 3 for example).

 

If that's a definite Yes, then It would make G-Sync a bit more relevant to me (I play on a 144Hz BenQ XL2411T).

 

But I still stand firm that these two technologies shouldn't me named in the same sentence, they're completely different things.

 

What I find interesting is that repi (Johan Andersson) mentioned several times over the weekend that Mantle would bring "the robust stable performance that we have on consoles today", so if Mantle is able to close the gap significantly between Min FPS and Max FPS, then it would make something like G-Sync less relevant in Mantle enabled games.

 

I for one I'm excited for BOTH technologies, but given that I just spent ~300 EUR on my BenQ XL2411T 144Hz monitor, and ~$370 on a Sapphire HD 7970 GHz Vapor X edition, I don't see myself going out and spending ~$800 more for a problem that might not even exist on my current situation (Mantle enabled GPU and a 144Hz monitor).

[Abakan]

First time I've been actually a bit frustrated looking at opinions around here, mostly because so many posts are just dead wrong about Mantle and G-Sync, especially G-Sync Really wish people would do their own research rather than regurgitate everything they read. :angry:

[NJM1112]

Clearly G-Sync, because Mantle will already die when the 20nm GPU's come out wich should be next year or the Support of the 7000/9000 will go away.

(Because thats how a Low Level API works)

With G-Sync 40FPS on an Nvidia will look better then 60FPS on AMD wich could make a mid range Nvidia GPU a better option then a High End AMD GPU.

Stable 30FPS are better then jumping higher Framerates.

why will it die exactly? MANTLE is an API that's being developed for amd archetextures. to think that they wouldn't support their own stuff is stupid.

[Abakan]

AMD won't be going away from GCN anytime soon, new architectures can easily be deployed and vary greatly while still supporting what needs to be supported to keep Mantle alive. I don't care much, at this time, but I don't mind AMD trying something new, especially with a huge title that will reach many many people. Anyway, there's no reason for AMD to drop support and I'd be amazed if they did. Their new GCN is pretty epic, although at this time I drive Keplers at home.

[AceHunter]

G-sync

 

Just like what Linus said mantle takes time let game makers to adopt. In the meanwhile, NVIDIA can come up with something too, and it would be modified to address issues that Mantle will have.

 

G-sync, 2014 new monitor, and that is it. As long as you have 660+.

The problem with the two is which will be major in the future.

Who takes the most of the cake wins.

[ACatWithThumbs]

why will it die exactly? MANTLE is an API that's being developed for amd archetextures. to think that they wouldn't support their own stuff is stupid.

Because a Low Level API can only support 1 architecture thats how it works.

And they will go away from GCN sooner or later and so will the support.

Also it doesn't matter if you get 20FPS more when the game looks better with 20FPS less with G-sync.

 

[NJM1112]

Because a Low Level API can only support 1 architecture thats how it works.

And they will go away from GCN sooner or later and so will the support.

Also it doesn't matter if you get 20FPS more when the game looks better with 20FPS less with G-sync.

 

Mantle 2.0

 

we've seen this with otherAPIs a little more different apis but still apis

 

EDIT: that and we know mantel is NOT going away because it's being dev'd for consoles. The fact that consoles have a long life by nature means that they will keep support for it, and when the PC architecture moves forward why would they not dev mantel for more comparability on their own stuff?

[ThyNameisWAR]

I just got a 2560x1600 dell u3011. Although not designed for gaming, I do like gaming a high resolutions. The chances of me adopting either either technology will be I about 4-5 years at the earliest. So buying another expensive monitor or an expensive GPU just isn't going to happen. Though I am interested to see how the technology will be implemented.

[leipero]

As many said, not a valid question, refuse to vote.

 

But that type of synchronization is really technology that display manufacturers needed to develop, independent on GPU manufacturers. It is very likely that Intel or AMD will develop open platform similar yo g-sync, and take over the market. That type of technology should not be premium nor closed to begin with. 

 

Just my opinion.

[XPhoebusApolloX]

These are completely different things. Why are we comparing them?

 

Maybe read the thread and you might understand. Both are technologies to reduce tearing and stutter.

[Saladin]

As many said, not a valid question, refuse to vote.

 

But that type of synchronization is really technology that display manufacturers needed to develop, independent on GPU manufacturers. It is very likely that Intel or AMD will develop open platform similar yo g-sync, and take over the market. That type of technology should not be premium nor closed to begin with. 

 

Just my opinion.

I have no doubt that Nvidia has a patent on this (and they should, they spent however many millions on R&D to develop it) so if Intel or AMD want to develop something it MUST be in a form that doesn't violate the patent. Further, if we get competing technologies all that does is force consumers to purchase their monitor/monitor upgrade with their GPU, it splits the market into obligate Nvidia and obligate AMD due to cost to the consumer, this limits competition instead of encouraging it. In my mind the best case scenario would be if Nvidia were to license it to AMD (would be good for both parties, Nvida increases the demand for their product and AMD gets to solve a major issue, that being artifacts). Honestly if G-sync works as advertised (all signs point to yes) we should hope it becomes a standard not a point of competition.

[GamersCouch]

G-Sync. This

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gbW9IwVGpX8