AMD unveils "Mantle", an open graphics API that allows console like direct to metal optimization on
126 replies, posted
so if I have an Nvidia GPU this won't be available to me? because I wouldn't mind the fully utilizing all 8 cores part.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42313822]so if I have an Nvidia GPU this won't be available to me? because I wouldn't mind the fully utilizing all 8 cores part.[/QUOTE]
Unless nVidia decide to implement the API, but according to AMD it is tied to their GCN so even if nVidia did there would likely be a performance penalty.
[QUOTE=danharibo;42313839]Unless nVidia decide to implement the API, but according to AMD it is tied to their GCN so even if nVidia did there would likely be a performance penalty.[/QUOTE]
that's pretty dumb. I don't see why my AMD CPU should be excluded just because I don't have one of their GPUs.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42313978]that's pretty dumb. I don't see why my AMD CPU should be excluded just because I don't have one of their GPUs.[/QUOTE]
The drivers have to actually have the API, their CPU has nothing to do with it.
[QUOTE=danharibo;42313988]The drivers have to actually have the API, their CPU has nothing to do with it.[/QUOTE]
I know but they have the capability to utilize all 8 cores of 8 core cpus and they decided to make it part of what is essentially a GPU centric API, effectively making it exclusive to Radeon GPU users.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42314007]I know but they have the capability to utilize all 8 cores of 8 core cpus and they decided to make it part of what is essentially a GPU centric API, effectively making it exclusive to Radeon GPU users.[/QUOTE]
It's a completely different API that's (supposedly) based on their GCN architecture, unless nVidia adds support for Mantle to their GPU drivers then it won't matter how many cores you have.
"Direct to metal optimization" sounds like something amazing.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42313978]that's pretty dumb. I don't see why my AMD CPU should be excluded just because I don't have one of their GPUs.[/QUOTE]
You don't see why, because you have no idea how this works.
Mantle reduces the overhead from rendering with your GPU, you can't utilize all the CPU cores for CPU-related tasks if you have to take care of the overhead of using your GPU.
3D rendering is complex, really complex.
[QUOTE=danharibo;42314026]It's a completely different API that's (supposedly) based on their GCN architecture, unless nVidia adds support for Mantle to their GPU drivers then it won't matter how many cores you have.[/QUOTE]
it does matter because 8 core utilization is part of mantle, which is what I have issue with. if non-radeon gpu users can't use mantle then they should have either implemented a separate API that isn't GPU reliant or just made 8 core utilization part of the game. they don't need the GPU drivers or a GPU centric API to use all 8 cores so there's no reason for that to be part of it.
[editline]26th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=nikomo;42314143]You don't see why, because you have no idea how this works.
Mantle reduces the overhead from rendering with your GPU, you can't utilize all the CPU cores for CPU-related tasks if you have to take care of the overhead of using your GPU.
3D rendering is complex, really complex.[/QUOTE]
maybe you couldn't get everything you possibly could out of them but you could definitely allow the game to use all of them.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42314168]it does matter because 8 core utilization is part of mantle, which is what I have issue with. if non-radeon gpu users can't use mantle then they should have either implemented a separate API that isn't GPU reliant or just made 8 core utilization part of the game. they don't need the GPU drivers or a GPU centric API to use all 8 cores so there's no reason for that to be part of it.
[/QUOTE]
They could have, but they didn't. I'm sure nVidia will respond either in kind of with their own implementation, AAA developers have been asking for this kind of access for a long time.
[QUOTE=danharibo;42314195]They could have, but they didn't. I'm sure nVidia will respond either in kind of with their own implementation, AAA developers have been asking for this kind of access for a long time.[/QUOTE]
I'm not so sure they will. I don't really anticipate them doing their own version of exactly what AMD is doing for fear of appearing to be behind AMD. and if they do, it'll probably have nothing to do with core utilization and if anything will only incorporate Intel CPUs.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42314236]I'm not so sure they will. I don't really anticipate them doing their own version of exactly what AMD is doing for fear of appearing to be behind AMD. and if they do, it'll probably have nothing to do with core utilization and if anything will only incorporate Intel CPUs.[/QUOTE]
Why would they do something like only Intel CPUs? there's nothing AMD centric about Mantle on the CPU side (according to what AMD have said).
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42314168]
maybe you couldn't get everything you possibly could out of them but you could definitely allow the game to use all of them.[/QUOTE]
What the hell do you think they're currently doing?
There is a very definite wall that you will hit when spreading out a task over multiple processing cores, and games are a very good example.
Games don't split into 32 equally-sized bits that you can just throw onto 32 cores, game developers aren't intentionally not taking advantage of multiple cores.
[QUOTE=danharibo;42314249]Why would they do something like only Intel CPUs? there's nothing AMD centric about Mantle on the CPU side (according to what AMD have said).[/QUOTE]
apart from the fact that there are no 8 core intel CPUs, in general games favor intel+nvidia or AMD+radeon and I don't see this as being any different. they're making the API open and available to competitors but that doesn't mean they're taking steps to ensure functionality with Intel hardware. intel isn't really interested in high core counts, they generally favor per core performance and things like hyperthreading, so an Nvidia counterpart to mantle would probably focus on that rather than higher core counts.
[editline]26th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=nikomo;42314274] game developers aren't intentionally not taking advantage of multiple cores.[/QUOTE]
well some are, actually. in the sense that they're not implementing multithreading in their code bases, or upgrading to better code bases that already have it. skyrim is a good example of that. there's no reason for a game like that to only use 2 cores but it does and 80% of its performance problems can be traced back to that.
everything in skyrim can be traced back to lazy devs
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42314317]apart from the fact that there are no 8 core intel CPUs, in general games favor intel+nvidia or AMD+radeon and I don't see this as being any different. they're making the API open and available to competitors but that doesn't mean they're taking steps to ensure functionality with Intel hardware. intel isn't really interested in high core counts, they generally favor per core performance and things like hyperthreading, so an Nvidia counterpart to mantle would probably focus on that rather than higher core counts.
[editline]26th September 2013[/editline]
well some are, actually. in the sense that they're not implementing multithreading in their code bases, or upgrading to better code bases that already have it. skyrim is a good example of that. there's no reason for a game like that to only use 2 cores but it does and 80% of its performance problems can be traced back to that.[/QUOTE]
Why are you so hung up on the number 8?
I'm not sure what you believe, but that exact amount of cores available for usage isn't some magical key to everything.
If it scales well, it will scale well with 4, 6 or 8 cores, if per core effficiency is better with a Intel CPU, it'll end up operating in that manner instead.
It's nothing locked to AMD CPU's just because Intel don't have any 8 core CPUs.
Honestly, it just sounds like you're throwing a lot of words around. "upgrading to better code bases that already have multithreading"?
I couldn't care less about BF4 as a game, but I will be paying attention to the performance reports regarding Mantle. If Mantle enables midrange cards to max out a game that previously required top tier hardware to max I'll definitely be on board.
OpenGL is great when you program everything well.
DirectX Is really easy to use to make the games.
Mantle seems to be the next step forward.
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;42312363]So what makes OpenGL not a "game API" but Direct3D a "game API"?
Direct3D can be run in software too, no idea what that has to do with anything.[/QUOTE]
DirectX was made for one game, then just sprung from there.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42314317]apart from the fact that there are no 8 core intel CPUs, in general games favor intel+nvidia or AMD+radeon and I don't see this as being any different. they're making the API open and available to competitors but that doesn't mean they're taking steps to ensure functionality with Intel hardware. intel isn't really interested in high core counts, they generally favor per core performance and things like hyperthreading, so an Nvidia counterpart to mantle would probably focus on that rather than higher core counts.
[editline]26th September 2013[/editline][/QUOTE]
What?
What does core counts have to do with this?
What does Nvidia+Intel, two separate companies, have to do with this.
What do CPUs have to do with this at all?
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;42312363]So what makes OpenGL not a "game API" but Direct3D a "game API"?
Direct3D can be run in software too, no idea what that has to do with anything.[/QUOTE]
Nothing, Microsoft has just managed to convince everyone that is the case. Either way both APIs do have a state overhead and it will be interesting to see if Mantle can really deliver increased performance.
[QUOTE=Doomish;42311520]Hahaha holy hell what does the title even mean to normal uninitiated people
[/QUOTE]
It means that the GPU does an API with four ICORES, rendering the CMDs digiplexes faster, better and with a 121% increase in third degree polyploxes.
[QUOTE=Xion12;42311062]It will definitely be better than DirectX, but I want to know how it stacks up against OpenGL.[/QUOTE]
DirectX > openGL
The documentation and sheer accessibility is much better, the performance is often in favour of DirectX
Now there's a few applications where openGL actually does trump directX and GPU vendors do work it in better into cards for these scenarios - CAD applications will generally work better with it and a lot of workstation based stuff as well.
Also kinda not excited abotu it very much - since we were in this situation in the ninetees already and there's a reason why openGL and DirectX won - it's much much easier to write to a system you know will work across a large amount of hardwarethan have multiple seperate branches depending on what APIs the hardware vendor uses.
You still sometimes have to fix stuff, but nowhere near as much.
What would be the NVIDIA equivalent of the R9 290X?
[QUOTE=wraithcat;42314570]DirectX > openGL
Also kinda not excited abotu it very much - since we were in this situation in the ninetees already and there's a reason why openGL and DirectX won - it's much much easier to write to a system you know will work across a large amount of hardwarethan have multiple seperate branches depending on what APIs the hardware vendor uses.
You still sometimes have to fix stuff, but nowhere near as much.[/QUOTE]
Now that we have the portable OpenGL and only two high-end GPU vendors it could become the case where there are two or three main rendering paths OpenGL + (Mantle / Whatever nVidia does) that covers the broadest spectrum, since there are a few games that already have dual DirectX9/10/11 rendering paths.
Even happier now that I bought 7870 some months ago - I'm already SO satisfied with the purchase, and this will defiantly give it an even longer lifetime if this actually gets used as intended by developers and works as great as advertised
cant wait for real benchmarks
[QUOTE=Profanwolf;42314440]Why are you so hung up on the number 8?
I'm not sure what you believe, but that exact amount of cores available for usage isn't some magical key to everything.
If it scales well, it will scale well with 4, 6 or 8 cores, if per core effficiency is better with a Intel CPU, it'll end up operating in that manner instead.
It's nothing locked to AMD CPU's just because Intel don't have any 8 core CPUs.
Honestly, it just sounds like you're throwing a lot of words around. "upgrading to better code bases that already have multithreading"?[/QUOTE]
if skyrim was using ID Tech 5 instead of that horrendous pile of shit they call creation engine, the game probably would have used 4 cores efficiently. so yeah, upgrading to better code bases that already support multithreading and don't need to be entirely re-written. I'm using the number 8 because 1: this thread is about new technology that, among other things, allows a game to utilize 8 cores, and 2: I have an 8 core CPU and I want to see games start taking advantage of it.
[editline]26th September 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;42314498]What?
What does core counts have to do with this?
What does Nvidia+Intel, two separate companies, have to do with this.
What do CPUs have to do with this at all?[/QUOTE]
reading the op will answer 2 of those, common sense will answer the other one.
[QUOTE=Zephyrs;42311077]"So AMD finally acknowledges they have molten core tier drivers. Well I guess the first step to fixing a problem is to acknowledge that you have one."[/QUOTE]
That's simply wrong. The only issue with their drivers is the unresponsive UI of the control panel (nvidia is not a lot better in this regard), and 3rd party tools easily workaround this.
[QUOTE=Bruhmis;42314783]reading the op will answer 2 of those, common sense will answer the other one.[/QUOTE]
Actually no it doesn't. Why does it matter what your CPU is for a [b]graphics api[/b]? In addition, for most tasks that aren't absolutely perfectly multithreaded (like encoding video or compressing files), intels quad cores very frequently beat AMD octocores, even on multithreaded applications.
You're just parroting the marketing bile.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.