Nvidia’s ace in the hole against AMD: Maxwell is the first GPU with full DirectX 12 support

[humbug]

Well, we know already that reading comprehension is not one of your strong points.

In this case, not only did I quote that actual line of text a few posts above, but that thread describes how many other features have to be emulated in GCN which imposes a huge and untenable performance penalty. Add that to the other posts I have linked to where people have created software that generates DX12 instances and enumerates the feature support, and it adds to the overall picture which is that Maxwell v2 has a commanding functionality lead over GCN 1.x

You brought in a 75 page thread, say this that and the other is in it when infact it isn't, and hope no one spends 2 hours reading through it all to check the validity of your claim.

You do this all the time, because you can't make your own arguments, you have to rely on others to make it for you, and when that fails you make it up and claim its backed up somewhere among these 500 posts.

 

[humbug]

What complete and utter tosh from both you guys. Mantle was never going to be for the consoles. Never. It was designed to bring a console like API to the PC. That's it. AMD did make a statement saying that Mantle could be used on other platforms but that would only happen if Microsoft or Sony approached AMD about using it.

For that to be true one would have to assume that AMD never intended Mantle for Console along with their GCN hardware, that they never wanted Console + PC synergy, despite saying for years that this is exactly what they wanted.

Ofcourse it was, can you honestly sit there and say it wasn't?

So AMD would have had to go to MS and put the proposal to them, MS must have turned them down, and MS did it at the expense of 2 more years of development, actually probably 4 years since the proposal, at a huge financial cost, allow their arch rivals Sony to get a jump on them, a 3 year jump to establish their market share, lose their rep as thie console to have.

When what AMD offered them was exactly what they needed 4 years ago.

No, instead MS embarked on a 4 year expensive mission to come up with their own API that just so happens has a lot of similarities with Mantle, so much so that the DX12 dev literature was almost identical in instructing features identical to Mantle.

No, thats utter tosh ^^^

MS didn't want what AMD wanted, Console + PC synergy, its detriment to their much more profitable console market, MS get nothing form PC gamers, nothing. that's why they turned AMD down, and MS gambled that AMD could not or would not go ahead with their API on PC anyway, when they did MS realised they were going to lose their API monopoly and went back to AMD asking for the Mantle source code, because everyone else would be getting it.

 

[Rroff]

By the time games and applications actually use any of these features to any significant extent current GPUs will be history anyhow.

 

[melmac]

For that to be true one would have to assume that AMD never intended Mantle for Console along with their GCN hardware, that they never wanted Console + PC synergy, despite saying for years that this is exactly what they wanted.

Ofcourse it was, can you honestly sit there and say it wasn't?

So AMD would have had to go to MS and put the proposal to them, MS must have turned them down, And MS did it at the expense of 2 more years of development, actually probably 4 years since the proposal, at a huge financial cost, allow their arch rivals Sony to get a jump on them, a 3 year jump to establish their market share, lose their rep as thie console to have.

When what AMD offered them was exactly what they needed 4 years ago.

No, instead MS embarked on a 4 year expensive mission to come up with their own API that just so happens has a lot of similarities with Mantle, so much so that the dev literature was almost identical in instructing features identical to Mantle.

No, thats utter tosh ^^^

LOL, sorry, where do you get this stuff? How do you make any of it up? Of course I can honestly say it wasn't what happened because it's rubbish.

Are you drinking or something? I know AMD are prone to doing stupid things, but, I highly doubt approaching Microsoft or Sony to sell them an API for their consoles would be one of their mistakes. AMD, a company with no knowledge of APIs approaching Microsoft, a company with years of making APIs for consoles and windows, and trying to sell them Mantle to put in the Xbox one. You must be having a laugh if you think that's true.

Microsoft and Sony went with AMD for their consoles because AMD were the only company at the time that could do an X86 SOC. Great contracts for AMD to win.

Now which do you think more likely, that AMD approached Microsoft and Sony to sell them a console API or that AMD took the knowledge gained from working with the two biggest console makers and decided to try and make a low level API for the PC.

Isn't it also more than likely that AMD shared some of the coding with Microsoft for programming DX12 to work with AMD cards.

But none of your arguments make any sort of sense. Microsoft turned down Mantle you say, then you say DX12 is Mantle. Did Microsoft steal it or what?

And if you are making that sort of leap then isn't it more than likely that AMD copied Microsoft? I mean isn't that funny how AMD came up with an API after years working with Microsoft developing the xbox one. And my, isn't that strange that it's announced a few months after the xbox one. Gosh, doesn't the coding in Mantle look a lot like DX12?

Give me a break.

 

[melmac]

MS didn't want what AMD wanted, Console + PC synergy, its detriment to their much more profitable console market, MS get nothing form PC gamers, nothing. that's why they turned AMD down, and MS gambled that AMD could not or would not go ahead with their API on PC anyway, when they did MS realised they were going to lose their API monopoly and went back to AMD asking for the Mantle source code, because everyone else would be getting it.

Synergy, must be word of the day. You must take up writing because you are amazing at fiction.

Myself, I think Occham's razor is generally a good guide in these situations. The simple explanation is most often the right one. Your history of things is way too convoluted and most likely wrong. But I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt and don't mind been proved wrong. AMD trying to sell an API to Microsoft would be impossible to keep out of the forums. I am sure you have some evidence backing some of what you say? or is the sole basis of your theory the fact that DX12 and Mantle look kind of alike?

 

[humbug]

LOL, sorry, where do you get this stuff? How do you make any of it up? Of course I can honestly say it wasn't what happened because it's rubbish.

Are you drinking or something? I know AMD are prone to doing stupid things, but, I highly doubt approaching Microsoft or Sony to sell them an API for their consoles would be one of their mistakes. AMD, a company with no knowledge of APIs approaching Microsoft, a company with years of making APIs for consoles and windows, and trying to sell them Mantle to put in the Xbox one. You must be having a laugh if you think that's true.

Microsoft and Sony went with AMD for their consoles because AMD were the only company at the time that could do an X86 SOC. Great contracts for AMD to win.

Now which do you think more likely, that AMD approached Microsoft and Sony to sell them a console API or that AMD took the knowledge gained from working with the two biggest console makers and decided to try and make a low level API for the PC.

Isn't it also more than likely that AMD shared some of the coding with Microsoft for programming DX12 to work with AMD cards.

But none of your arguments make any sort of sense. Microsoft turned down Mantle you say, then you say DX12 is Mantle. Did Microsoft steal it or what?

And if you are making that sort of leap then isn't it more than likely that AMD copied Microsoft? I mean isn't that funny how AMD came up with an API after years working with Microsoft developing the xbox one. And my, isn't that strange that it's announced a few months after the xbox one. Gosh, doesn't the coding in Mantle look a lot like DX12?

Give me a break.

Well i have been called a lot of things in my time for lots of different reasons, but a drunk on an internet forum is a new one, if your going to lose your head like this when debating me i suggest putting me on ignore because insulting me wont work with me mate.

AMD with no knowledge of making API approaching Micrsoft, you laugh at that and think the whole premiss is silly, thats your argument as to why AMD would never approach Microsoft with said API, what? embarrassment of their API? an API that shows up Microsoft's API for the junk that it is? really?

Mantle was designed in tandem with GCN, the very architecture that's gone into the consoles, AMD went to Microsoft with a far better API than what they had, what Microsoft had was DX11, its a tweaked version of that which currently runs the XBONE, its that API which is one of the reasons the XBONE is crap. if anyone should be embarrassed its Microsoft.

Microsoft didn't steal it, Microsoft went back to AMD and asked them for it.

 

[triss]

Mantle idea' were stolen from what AMD seen of sonys way of doing things with a PS's API.
About as easy to prove as most of the claims in here and easily as valid

 

[layte]

You brought in a 75 page thread, say this that and the other is in it when infact it isn't, and hope no one spends 2 hours reading through it all to check the validity of your claim.

You do this all the time, because you can't make your own arguments, you have to rely on others to make it for you, and when that fails you make it up and claim its backed up somewhere among these 500 posts.

No the difference between you and I, is that I ensure what I say has a solid backing in provable evidence, I notice that I am being attacked rather than what I am saying, surely it should be easy to counter if what you say is true. I have posted direct links to pertinent information on this matter on numerous occasions to back up the arguments I have made, it is not my fault if you choose to wilfully ignore them. Whilst you tend to make things up and then either attempt to deflect what is being said or accuse people of bullying when proven wrong and/or asked to back up your claims. It's a tired old shtick, and one that is frustrating for those who wish to discuss the facts at hand.

 

[layte]

Mantle idea' were stolen from what AMD seen of sonys way of doing things with a PS's API.
About as easy to prove as most of the claims in here and easily as valid

Amusingly, that may have more basis in fact than anything Humbug has said in this thread: http://www.redgamingtech.com/ice-te...apis-sonys-libgcm-first-modern-low-level-api/

 

[humbug]

No the difference between you and I, is that I ensure what I say has a solid backing in provable evidence, I notice that I am being attacked rather than what I am saying, surely it should be easy to counter if what you say is true. I have posted direct links to pertinent information on this matter on numerous occasions to back up the arguments I have made, it is not my fault if you choose to wilfully ignore them. Whilst you tend to make things up and then either attempt to deflect what is being said or accuse people of bullying when proven wrong and/or asked to back up your claims. It's a tired old shtick, and one that is frustrating for those who wish to discuss the facts at hand.

"No the difference between you and I"

Ok, here is a link that proves i'm right https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/news-rumors-xbox-one-codename-durango.52436/

 

[drunkenmaster]

Amusingly, that may have more basis in fact than anything Humbug has said in this thread: http://www.redgamingtech.com/ice-te...apis-sonys-libgcm-first-modern-low-level-api/

That directly suggests that people not involved at a high level with the PS3 had no access to it. Which confirms there is no basis in fact to that. No one claimed Mantle was the first low level api, low level api is what Mantle was called by people because the term low level api has been around forever. PS3 wasn't the first console to use a low level api and what they say about it being the first 'modern' low level api is... questionable. Potentially if you're describing modern in terms of gpu and fully programmable shaders, ie modern meaning DX10 type architecture. But then afaik the PS3 didn't have programmable shaders.

AMD had a much closer to DX10 class gpu in the 360 than Nvidia had in the PS3.

AMD having taken a very large step with the x1900 towards a shader heavy architecture, the 360 consoles gpu being somewhat a mix between x1900/2900xt architectures (more x1900 power with more 2900xt architecture) while Nvidia basically put a 7800/G70 architecture based gpu in the PS3.

 

[drunkenmaster]

By the time games and applications actually use any of these features to any significant extent current GPUs will be history anyhow.

It's an old argument and really doesn't hold true. People said this and were relatively accurate when saying so about DX 9, 10, 11. The key difference being when DX10 launched for instance zero old gen cards supported any dx10 features.

When a dev has a choice to support lets say DX10 when it was first available they might have 1% of their target audience who had DX10 capable cards. While things like xfire/sli are very small target audiences as well there is a monumental difference between some fairly basic testing/coding to push.

This time it's the general gist I get is, pre Maxwell there is very basic support for DX12 from Nvidia then within Maxwell only v2 has what would be considered pretty much full support, v1 Maxwell we'll see what it can really do in the end. For AMD it seems most of GCN has significant DX12 support and no doubt Fiji and any other new gpus coming out before DX12 is even out will also have increased DX12 support. So we have potentially 3-4 years of gpu's from both sides with some level of DX12 support. That simply wasn't remotely the case for DX9-11. Likewise devs started to implement DX10 then DX11 features when the install base made it worthwhile. That was also with an API that had limited performance benefits and no significant bonuses like the ability to add drastically more draw calls.

This time devs will be all over DX12 and you can't compare it to previous API launches for that reason.

 

[smilertoo]

Hmmmm, maxwell is currently a tiny % of gaming systems so developers probably wont put much effort into it yet. Look at the complete shambles dx10 was. They'll probably be targetting xmas period when people will be looking for new pcs/gpus.

 

[Rroff]

Not saying we won't see any DX12 adoption at all - but its going to take awhile for current dev cycles to clear, developers getting upto speed with new techniques, etc. often they'll hold off stuff like that until the next iteration of an engine rather than majorly recode/retool existing engine(s) - by the time use is at a level thats going to separate the wheat from the chaff hardware wise current stuff will be pretty long in the tooth.

 

[humbug]

Not saying we won't see any DX12 adoption at all - but its going to take awhile for current dev cycles to clear, developers getting upto speed with new techniques, etc. often they'll hold off stuff like that until the next iteration of an engine rather than majorly recode/retool existing engine(s) - by the time use is at a level thats going to separate the wheat from the chaff hardware wise current stuff will be pretty long in the tooth.

We know UE are already working on engine level DX12.
Frostbyte no doubt are.
Cryengine have just released a big update, they are working on another tho no one but they know what that is, i'm willing to bet they have been working on DX12 for a while now.

Its different this time, with DX11 Game development with big engines was the privilege of big developers.

Now the latest and greatest UE can be had for free.
Cryengine can be had for an affordable fee, for that you get all the documentation, all the support and tools any developer gets, whats more they actually listen to you when you talk to them about what you want to see in future builds, they are constantly asking for that sort of feedback and they do come back implementing suggestions. i and others asked for an SDL Mixer because we didn't like Wwise, and we got it.

Thanks to declining PC gaming profitability some of the big engine developers have had to rethink how they do business, approval on individual by individual basis just isn't profitable.
Now they are looking to unknown start-ups, hobbyists and indy, in the case of Cryengine, aside from a small re-curing fee all they ask is that you send them the finished product before publishing so that they can iron out bugs you missed before stamping their logo on it.

Its a brave new world, a much better one IMO, a huge verity of new and original games coming on stream.
What PC gaming should be.

 

[DarrenM343]

What's different today than when DX11 was released? I remember nVidia was slow on the uptake back then where as AMD introduced it on cheaper cards, and it was touted that the next nVidia cards would be DX11 done properly (specifically tessellation done properly from memory). Maybe because XBox is already DX12(is this right?) it's specifications are better established so early implementation of it's features on graphics cards is worth doing at this stage? I seem to recall nVidia back then was in no rush to get DX11 cards out as there would be no games supporting it for a while so made sense to take time getting it's implementation right, but I'm not sure if this was official speak or spoken by enthusiasts.
If nothing really changed then the DX12 cards worth having could probably be the next gen, at least for nVidia

 

[PieEater]

I would suggest that the reason developers are working on DX12 right here and now is that games designed around the DX12 API running on Windows 10 will be able to make use of the "50% improvement in CPU utilization, and better distribution of work among threads" available to the good number of cards and devices said to support this feature. The associated performance gains should allow for higher FPS, smoother gameplay and the option to increase graphical quality levels whilst still maintaining decent FPS rates, so for devs it's a no brainer.

 

[melmac]

Well i have been called a lot of things in my time for lots of different reasons, but a drunk on an internet forum is a new one, if your going to lose your head like this when debating me i suggest putting me on ignore because insulting me wont work with me mate.

LOL this is an example of you arriving at a wrong conclusion. I was neither insulting you or angry with you. Maybe I should have said "What are you smoking?" I said it because I was incredulous, that there had to be some reason why an intelligent person would look at the facts at hand and arrive at the conclusions you arrived at.

AMD with no knowledge of making API approaching Micrsoft, you laugh at that and think the whole premiss is silly, thats your argument as to why AMD would never approach Microsoft with said API, what? embarrassment of their API? an API that shows up Microsoft's API for the junk that it is? really?

Mantle was designed in tandem with GCN, the very architecture that's gone into the consoles, AMD went to Microsoft with a far better API than what they had, what Microsoft had was DX11, its a tweaked version of that which currently runs the XBONE, its that API which is one of the reasons the XBONE is crap. if anyone should be embarrassed its Microsoft.

Microsoft didn't steal it, Microsoft went back to AMD and asked them for it.

Ok I asked for some proof of these statements in a previous post but you still haven't supplied any.

Because nothing you say fits in with anything that has actually happened. It also doesn't fit in with what AMD themselves say.

First there is the timeline. By your reckoning AMD would have approached Microsoft over 4 years ago. There is a problem with this, AMD had no mantle back then. It didn't even exist. They only started development of Mantle in 2013.

And by AMD admission it was still in beta when when it was released. In fact it was still in Beta a year later. A fact that you and others used in it's defence in the mantle thread when people started pointing out it's flaws. When people questioned whether Mantle was really open it was pointed out that it would become fully open source when it was complete.

So tell me what did AMD approach Microsoft with? And even if they did approach Microsoft, how would it have speeded up the release of DX12 when it was still in Beta at the start of this year?

But let's say you are right and they did approach Microsoft (It never happened) But you say Microsoft refused them because AMD wanted a "synergy" between the consoles and the PC and Microsoft didn't want that. Helllo!!!! where have you been the last few years? It's something Microsoft have been working towards since the release of Windows 8. A unified system across all their devices, Tablets, phones, PCs and now with Windows the Xbox one as well. Streaming between console and PC, smartglass etc.

And windows 10/DX12 is the culmination of all that. One OS to rule them all.

 

[humbug]

LOL this is an example of you arriving at a wrong conclusion. I was neither insulting you or angry with you. Maybe I should have said "What are you smoking?" I said it because I was incredulous, that there had to be some reason why an intelligent person would look at the facts at hand and arrive at the conclusions you arrived at.



Ok I asked for some proof of these statements in a previous post but you still haven't supplied any.

Because nothing you say fits in with anything that has actually happened. It also doesn't fit in with what AMD themselves say.

First there is the timeline. By your reckoning AMD would have approached Microsoft over 4 years ago. There is a problem with this, AMD had no mantle back then. It didn't even exist. They only started development of Mantle in 2013.

And by AMD admission it was still in beta when when it was released. In fact it was still in Beta a year later. A fact that you and others used in it's defence in the mantle thread when people started pointing out it's flaws. When people questioned whether Mantle was really open it was pointed out that it would become fully open source when it was complete.

So tell me what did AMD approach Microsoft with? And even if they did approach Microsoft, how would it have speeded up the release of DX12 when it was still in Beta at the start of this year?

But let's say you are right and they did approach Microsoft (It never happened) But you say Microsoft refused them because AMD wanted a "synergy" between the consoles and the PC and Microsoft didn't want that. Helllo!!!! where have you been the last few years? It's something Microsoft have been working towards since the release of Windows 8. A unified system across all their devices, Tablets, phones, PCs and now with Windows the Xbox one as well. Streaming between console and PC, smartglass etc.

And windows 10/DX12 is the culmination of all that. One OS to rule them all.

You and i have very different ideas of cross-platform synergy, your talking about cross device connectivity, i can do that between my Android devices and my windows devices, also the same OS across its devices, although as they found out people are not fond of a tablet interface on their desktop.

None of that has anything to do with Gaming API's, you will never be able to hook up with your mates in BF4 through your Desktop to their XBONE.

What Microsoft want is for you to ditch your desktop and get an XBONE and then pay them a recurring fee for the privileged of playing your games on it, but your not going to do, why, because your desktop in better, its more powerful, high res, better graphics......
DX11 bottlenecks the crap out of your hardware and thats just the way Microsoft would like it to stay because if desktops get better and better at lower and lower cost consolers may also start moving to desktop, more revenues lost from those XBONE recurring fees.

The synergy i'm talking about is the one that makes the development and the users side of the game the same for PC as it is for the XBONE, its nice and easy for devs to only have to develop a game once for one platform, desktop get the benefits of low level API's and its AMD's hardware across both platforms that's native to these development projects, their hardware, their CPU's, GPU's and their API.

Microsoft didn't suddenly become desktop gamer friendly, after 10 years of junk API's, they had to, with Mantle, Metal and now Vulkan making DX11 look like the dogs dinner that it is Microsoft would have become obsolete had they not acted.

 

[Martini1991]

None of that has anything to do with Gaming API's, you will never be able to hook up with your mates in BF4 through your Desktop to their XBONE.

Sorry if I'm taking this snippet out of context, but what has this got to do with gaming API's?
Shadowrun certainly wouldn't have been running the same API, yet had cross compatibility.