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

[andybird123]

So youre saying that mantle is already dead and devs will just adopt DX12? And that you want to perpetuate the MS lock in forcing you to upgrade everytime someone suggests a new feature for DX? Surely a better for gamers situation would be for Mantle to remain a separate API independent of windows versions, possibly even adding Linux support?

 

[humbug]

So youre saying that mantle is already dead and devs will just adopt DX12? And that you want to perpetuate the MS lock in forcing you to upgrade everytime someone suggests a new feature for DX? Surely a better for gamers situation would be for Mantle to remain a separate API independent of windows versions, possibly even adding Linux support?

DirectX, Mantle or something else..... I really don't care.
All i care about is the performance and other things i like about Mantle offers. all i want is what Mantle is in whatever form or name in the mainstream and widely used, more actually, thie API used on mass like DX11, who the provider is is irrelevant to me.

 

[andybird123]

Quite ironic considering all the vitriol you espouse at Nvidia for "dirty tricks" and "ripping off consumers" that you are quite happy to get ripped off and dirty tricked by Microsoft. You seem to care quite a lot about who the supplier of your Gpu is and what that cost is, yet happy to ignore the cost of the API and OS that it runs on.

 

[humbug]

Quite ironic considering all the vitriol you espouse at Nvidia for "dirty tricks" and "ripping off consumers" that you are quite happy to get ripped off and dirty tricked by Microsoft. You seem to care quite a lot about who the supplier of your Gpu is and what that cost is, yet happy to ignore the cost of the API and OS that it runs on.

If OGL takes over as the main from DirectX then thats what i will use, i simply use what i must to do what i want / need. if thats a crime i'm guilty.

Its simple, If OGL has the games and the API thats what i will use.

 

[andybird123]

If OGL takes over as the main from DirectX then thats what i will use, i simply use what i must to do what i want / need. if thats a crime i'm guilty.

Its simple, If OGL has the games and the API thats what i will use.

Isnt that the whole point of mantle? If it were handed off to a third party (not Microsoft) it could be better than either Dx or OpenGL

 

[humbug]

Isnt that the whole point of mantle? If it were handed off to a third party (not Microsoft) it could be better than either Dx or OpenGL

Whatever it takes, personally i would like Nvidia and AMD to partner up and creat something great between them, unfortunately thats not going to happen.

 

[Gregster]

Please be some good news

GDC 14: WebCL 1.0 Specification is Released by Khronos
Subject: General Tech, Graphics Cards, Mobile, Shows and Expos | March 19, 2014 - 09:03 AM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: WebCL, gdc 14, GDC

The Khronos Group has just ratified the standard for WebCL 1.0. The API is expected to provide a massive performance boost to web applications which are dominated by expensive functions which can be offloaded to parallel processors, such as GPUs and multi-core CPUs. Its definition also allows WebCL to communicate and share buffers between it and WebGL with an extension.

View Full Size
Frequent readers of the site might remember that I have a particular interest in WebCL. Based on OpenCL, it allows web apps to obtain a list of every available compute device and target it for workloads. I have personally executed tasks on an NVIDIA GeForce 670 discrete GPU and other jobs on my Intel HD 4000 iGPU, at the same time, using the WebCL prototype from Tomi Aarnio of Nokia Research. The same is true for users with multiple discrete GPUs installed in their system (even if they are not compatible with Crossfire, SLi, or are from different vendors altogether). This could be very useful for physics, AI, lighting, and other game middleware packages.

Still, browser adoption might be rocky for quite some time. Google, Mozilla, and Opera Software were each involved in the working draft. This leaves both Apple and Microsoft notably absent. Even then, I am not sure how much interest exists within Google, Mozilla, and Opera to take it from a specification to a working feature in their browsers. Some individuals have expressed more faith in WebGL compute shaders than WebCL.

Of course, that can change with just a single "killer app", library, or middleware.

I do expect some resistance from the platform holders, however. Even Google has been pushing back on OpenCL support in Android, in favor of their "Renderscript" abstraction. The performance of a graphics processor is also significant leverage for a native app. There is little, otherwise, that cannot be accomplished with Web standards except a web browser itself (and there is even some non-serious projects for that). If Microsoft can support WebGL, however, there is always hope.

Boring

 

[humbug]

Please be some good news

GDC 14: WebCL 1.0 Specification is Released by Khronos
Subject: General Tech, Graphics Cards, Mobile, Shows and Expos | March 19, 2014 - 09:03 AM | Scott Michaud
Tagged: WebCL, gdc 14, GDC

The Khronos Group has just ratified the standard for WebCL 1.0. The API is expected to provide a massive performance boost to web applications which are dominated by expensive functions which can be offloaded to parallel processors, such as GPUs and multi-core CPUs. Its definition also allows WebCL to communicate and share buffers between it and WebGL with an extension.

View Full Size
Frequent readers of the site might remember that I have a particular interest in WebCL. Based on OpenCL, it allows web apps to obtain a list of every available compute device and target it for workloads. I have personally executed tasks on an NVIDIA GeForce 670 discrete GPU and other jobs on my Intel HD 4000 iGPU, at the same time, using the WebCL prototype from Tomi Aarnio of Nokia Research. The same is true for users with multiple discrete GPUs installed in their system (even if they are not compatible with Crossfire, SLi, or are from different vendors altogether). This could be very useful for physics, AI, lighting, and other game middleware packages.

Still, browser adoption might be rocky for quite some time. Google, Mozilla, and Opera Software were each involved in the working draft. This leaves both Apple and Microsoft notably absent. Even then, I am not sure how much interest exists within Google, Mozilla, and Opera to take it from a specification to a working feature in their browsers. Some individuals have expressed more faith in WebGL compute shaders than WebCL.

Of course, that can change with just a single "killer app", library, or middleware.

I do expect some resistance from the platform holders, however. Even Google has been pushing back on OpenCL support in Android, in favor of their "Renderscript" abstraction. The performance of a graphics processor is also significant leverage for a native app. There is little, otherwise, that cannot be accomplished with Web standards except a web browser itself (and there is even some non-serious projects for that). If Microsoft can support WebGL, however, there is always hope.

Boring

It is a bit, and with no forseeable intrest from the establishment its going nowhere, besides, doesn't something similar already exist in the main?

 

[cwgk91]

Whatever it takes, personally i would like Nvidia and AMD to partner up and creat something great between them, unfortunately thats not going to happen.

this is surely the best option? Both gfx manufacturers getting together to get the best out of both of their hardware. Dont think Nvidia would like that though Also would presumably mean that they would have to have more similar technologies than they currently do