DirectX and OpenGL will start offering low-level access in order to reduce draw overhead

humbug · 14 Mar 2014 at 14:21

Steampunk said:
Nvidia will never support Mantle unless it is part of DirectX, and even then, they have the option of ignoring it. So the first step for AMD is to get Microsoft to fold Mantle into DirectX. Then Nvidia has to follow, because they don't want to have non-DirectX 12 compliant cards.

Nvidia will also not want to lose out in the performance stakes, because Mantle games are getting a big boost. If AMD users are getting more performance out of a thin DX12, and Nvidia cards are still struck with a slow, fat, bloaty DX11 that strangles their performance... Jen-Hsun will not be happy.

Exactly why AMD will persuade MS to make Mantle DX12.

Silent_Scone · 14 Mar 2014 at 14:22

Answer from a very much alive and kicking developer with access to the API, in relation to Steampunks question:

The majority of the driver work is carried out by Microsoft's Xbox One OS driver team in Redmond (or wherever they are based these days) and they work alongside a select team from AMD as and when needed (seeing as they obviously produced the GPU for the system). It is Microsoft that drives the evolution of the drivers and incremental updates may be released to address serious bugs, performance issues, security vulnerabilities, housekeeping, new features, and so forth. At a higher level, it's analogous to the PC world in many ways (e.g. updated driver from X to support new features exposed by DirectX version Y.Z). The beauty, if you can call it that, is the nature of the system and the fact that it's a fixed platform... which causes less headaches for the developers. If, for example, Microsoft were to support DirectX12 on Xbox One then there would be an update to the drivers to support new features made available in that new version of the API. However, legacy and backwards support is essential as they must absolutely not break what worked before.

humbug · 14 Mar 2014 at 14:39

MjFrosty said:
Answer from a very much alive and kicking developer with access to the API, in relation to Steampunks question:

Yes, the XB1 is an x86 platform, its a PC in a box, it has an OS and it has Drivers.

The difference is you don't update the drivers unless its something you want to do, this can be done automatically when the user logs on, same for the OS and any API's that are in it.

Other than that it is essentially a fixed system, unlike Desktops which have a vast array of different hardware's and combinations all of which need to be accounted for in a games development stage, a Console always has the same components so you can design a template to work in.

Ian Evey · 15 Mar 2014 at 11:16

When is mantle going to be released for Nvidia cards and intel graphics ?

Steampunk · 15 Mar 2014 at 11:44

Ian Evey said:
When is mantle going to be released for Nvidia cards and intel graphics ?

You'll have to ask Nvidia and Intel when they are going to support it.

Gregster · 15 Mar 2014 at 11:48

Steampunk said:
You'll have to ask Nvidia and Intel when they are going to support it.

Is Mantle now open source then?

humbug · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:00

Gregster said:
Is Mantle now open source then?

It doesn't need to be Open Source, if Intel / Nvidia express interest in it i'm sure AMD will work with them. failing that they will make it Open Source later this year, or wait for it to appear in DX12.

Intel / Nvidia will get it before to long

andybird123 · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:15

Mantle is never going to be open source, it *might* become an open standard

I may as well make this my sig for all the use ever trying to explain the most basic of information around here is

humbug · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:17

andybird123 said:
Mantle is never going to be open source, it *might* become an open standard

I may as well make this my sig for all the use ever trying to explain the most basic of information around here is

AMD have said they will make it Open Source.

andybird123 · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:20

humbug said:
AMD have said they will make it Open Source.

Link me that exact statment, they have said they will makemit "open" meaning an open standard, NOT open source, very big difference

humbug · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:27

andybird123 said:
Link me that exact statment, they have said they will makemit "open" meaning an open standard, NOT open source, very big difference

Not in the mood for arguments, this must be about the third time this has come up and each time the links, the statements were provided, i don't see what good it will do doing the same thing yet again a few pages on.
AMD said they want Mantle to be available to all platforms 'which includes Nvidia' and will make it avalable to everyone later this year, take it or leave it.
It is what it is.

andybird123 · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:33

You are failing to grasp one of the most basic definitions in software development, open does not equal open source, Amd want mantle to be open, meaning an open standard, NOT open source

OpenGL is an open standard, AMD and Nvidia are both free to implement it, however it is also NOT open source, the source code is not free to download by the general public

Saying Mantle will be open source is literally the same as saying a cow is a type of fish, they are totally different things

Directx is proprietary to MS, it is also not open source, yet both Amd and Nvidia are free to implement it, things dont need to be open source to be available to implement

Rusty0611 · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:34

humbug said:
Not in the mood for arguments, this must be about the third time this has come up and each time the links, the statements were provided, i don't see what good it will do doing the same thing yet again a few pages on.
AMD said they want Mantle to be available to all platforms 'which includes Nvidia' and will make it avalable to everyone later this year, take it or leave it.
It is what it is.

That's still ignoring the difference between open standard and open source though.

humbug · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:38

andybird123 said:
You are failing to grasp one of the most basic definitions in software development, open does not equal open source, Amd want mantle to be open, meaning an open standard, NOT open source

OpenGL is an open standard, AMD and Nvidia are both free to implement it, however it is also NOT open source, the source code is not free to download by the general public

Saying Mantle will be open source is literally the same as saying a cow is a type of fish, they are totally different things

Ian Evey / Gregster want to know if / when Mantle will available to Nvidia, when is unknown, but it will happen. how is a pointless semantics argument, its not important.

andybird123 · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:45

humbug said:
Ian Evey / Gregster want to know if / when Mantle will available to Nvidia, when is unknown, but it will happen. how is a pointless semantics argument, its not important.

This is only a pointless semantics argument if you know nothing about software development
Mantle being open source would be a wonderful wonderful thing for a wide variety of people and for lots of reasons (anyone could take it and use it as the basis for an API for any Os and any hardware)
It being an open standard controlled by a third party would be just "good" (limited to what Os the third party deems, possible uptake by hardware vendors)
It being an "open standard" controlled by AMD would mean no one would touch it with a barge pole

humbug · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:47

andybird123 said:
This is only a pointless semantics argument if you know nothing about software development
Mantle being open source would be a wonderful wonderful thing for a wide variety of people and for lots of reasons (anyone could take it and use it as the basis for an API for any Os and any hardware)
It being an open standard controlled by a third party would be just "good" (limited to what Os the third party deems, possible uptake by hardware vendors)
It being an "open standard" controlled by AMD would mean no one would touch it with a barge pole

Oh i see the concern.

Just as with DX it will be controlled by Game Developers, you don't need to worry about AMD interfering with Nvidia.

Sugarhell · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:48

Open source means that everyone can see the source code. Wait for the public sdk after GDC for that.

If amd decide to give mantle for nvidia then they cant control nvidia-mantle portion because nvidia needs to develop a new abstraction layer within mantle for their architecture.So nvidia needs to develop and maintain the nvidia part of mantle.

andybird123 · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:53

humbug said:
Oh i see the concern.

Just as with DX it will be controlled by Game Developers, you don't need to worry about AMD interfering with Nvidia.

Dx is proprietary to Microsoft, game devs get sod all control

Sugarhell said:
Open source means that everyone can see the source code. Wait for the public sdk after GDC for that.

If amd decide to give mantle for nvidia then they cant control nvidia-mantle portion because nvidia needs to develop a new abstraction layer within mantle for their architecture.So nvidia needs to develop and maintain the nvidia part of mantle.

A public sdk only give you example code to make calls in to the API, it doesnt give you the API's source code, again, see Dx SDK's and DX is totally closed
For best performance you are probably right, this would be the best way to let nvidia add mantle support, however it isnt neccesary and probably isnt what AMD intend, no one gets the source code for DX and they add support just fine, you just need the interface specs

humbug · 15 Mar 2014 at 14:54

andybird123 said:
Dx is proprietary to Microsoft, game devs get sod all control

A public sdk only give you example code to make calls in to the API, it doesnt give you the API's source code, again, see Dx SDK's and DX is totally closed

Game Developers are not going to do anything to hinder Nvidia. why would they do that?

andybird123 · 15 Mar 2014 at 15:01

That isnt what I said. Mantle wont be handed off to Game Devs to control, DX is not controlled by Game Devs, it is controlled by Microsoft alone

Mantle would need to be handed off to a third party such as khronos (OpenGL)
There is no single coherent third party that represents Game Devs, so which devs do you hand it off to?
Surely not EA/Dice? that would be madness