The Next Generation of Graphics APIs

[GoogalyMoogaly]

It's not AMD's job to 'support' Nvidia, Mantle will have a spec and it's up to vendors to use it-or not.

Indeed, but this is going back to the question of if Multi-vendor support is a political issue or a technical issue.

And I think it's fairly likely that Nvidia won't support it, they have no reason to. Intel the same. I've no doubt that there are political reason, just question if the statement that there are no technical reasons is 100% definite.
How Mantle is supposed to become THE graphics API when it seems unlikely that other vendors will adopt it I don't know. If AMD don't want it to be supported by other vendors then why make it open? Just keep it proprietary.

 

[TheRealDeal]

Indeed, but this is going back to the question of if Multi-vendor support is a political issue or a technical issue.

And I think it's fairly likely that Nvidia won't support it, they have no reason to. Intel the same. I've no doubt that there are political reason, just question if the statement that there are no technical reasons is 100% definite.
How Mantle is supposed to become THE graphics API when it seems unlikely that other vendors will adopt it I don't know. If AMD don't want it to be supported by other vendors then why make it open? Just keep it proprietary.

You could put it this way. It's more political as it's Nvidia supporting a rival's software. As for technical i am sure Nvidia have the technical ability to make good use of mantle if they wished so it's really no hurdle technically. It certainly is more political.

 

[triss]

Taking it out of context or putting words in my mouth triss, I said my parents weren't interested, whatever, I'm sure if your relatives were interested to the point we are, they would be posting here too.

Ah sorry tommy i didnt see your snap
And after your complaint before when we were simply asking the AMD rep about 69 series which he kindly responded to in a informative way without complaining was a logical jump , but i apologise for that

But i sort most of there pc stuff so there no need for them to both make accounts and come on and ask the same questions really.

 

[humbug]

Thanks, Thracks, for taking the time to explain and clear up some confusion

 

[Thracks]

It's not AMD's job to 'support' Nvidia, Mantle will have a spec and it's up to vendors to use it-or not.

This is correct. This is how all APIs work, not just graphics.

 

[Boomstick777]

Mantle and Direct X12, it's all good. Glad there is so much focus still on PC gaming. So many years people say PC gaming is dead / dying, but it's still here..

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

You could put it this way. It's more political as it's Nvidia supporting a rival's software. As for technical i am sure Nvidia have the technical ability to make good use of mantle if they wished so it's really no hurdle technically. It certainly is more political.

You say that, but apparently AMD's non-GCN architecture isn't capable of Mantle. Even with all their technical ability. What if Nvidia is the same, how old is Nvidia's architecture now?
Unless Nvidia's architecture changed with the 600 series cards then they'd still be using the 500 series architecture (more or less) that was around with the AMD 6000 series cards. So unless Nvidia were on to what now seems to be a superior architecture back then, meaning AMD had to play catch up, then how do we know if they will have similar architecture issues to the non-GCN AMD cards.
Thracks said that GCN is one of the most programmable architectures out there (well ok he referred to someone else saying it), what if Nvidia's architecture isn't and that is a technical problem?

 

[rolypolyman]

Well I don't know about you guys but I want it all, DX12 and Mantle, is this possible? Why wouldn't you want both, if possible. Some folk need to get over the 'brand' hate, if Amd let mantle go public then why not. I may have an Nvidia card as my next purchase, I may not, if Nvidia 'coded'(is that the right word)their cards for mantle then that might be the clincher for me and sway me to them, I have no brand loyalty, bang for buck has always been my mantle.....sorry mantra.

 

[Orangey]

Indeed, but this is going back to the question of if Multi-vendor support is a political issue or a technical issue.

And I think it's fairly likely that Nvidia won't support it, they have no reason to. Intel the same. I've no doubt that there are political reason, just question if the statement that there are no technical reasons is 100% definite.
How Mantle is supposed to become THE graphics API when it seems unlikely that other vendors will adopt it I don't know. If AMD don't want it to be supported by other vendors then why make it open? Just keep it proprietary.

It's not supposed to become THE graphics API, it's an option that developers did not have before in the modern landscape.

I think that's an important point that's missing from the discussion.

 

[TheRealDeal]

You say that, but apparently AMD's non-GCN architecture isn't capable of Mantle. Even with all their technical ability. What if Nvidia is the same, how old is Nvidia's architecture now?
Unless Nvidia's architecture changed with the 600 series cards then they'd still be using the 500 series architecture (more or less) that was around with the AMD 6000 series cards. So unless Nvidia were on to what now seems to be a superior architecture back then, meaning AMD had to play catch up, then how do we know if they will have similar architecture issues to the non-GCN AMD cards.
Thracks said that GCN is one of the most programmable architectures out there (well ok he referred to someone else saying it), what if Nvidia's architecture isn't and that is a technical problem?

Nvidia do have a very programmable architecture and have done for a good while before Amd. From what i have seen amd's GCN architecture moved it in a way closer to Nvidia's fermi/kepler and further away from vliw 4.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

It's not supposed to become THE graphics API, it's an option that developers did not have before in the modern landscape.

I think that's an important point that's missing from the discussion.

<waffle >

That says they want it to have cross-platform support and be an active industry standard. While it's not exactly saying they want it to be "THE graphics API", it seems to suggest to me they want it to be more than just a nice optional extra that sometimes gets included with the odd game or two.

Nvidia do have a very programmable architecture and have done for a good while before Amd.

Well go Nvidia! Showing them how it's meant to be done!
So based on how we owe AMD and Mantle for getting DirectX 12, I guess you could say we owe Nvidia for getting GCN, and thus Mantle and thus DirectX 12!

 

[TheRealDeal]

That says they want it to have cross-platform support and be an active industry standard. While it's not exactly saying they want it to be "THE graphics API", it seems to suggest to me they want it to be more than just a nice optional extra that sometimes gets included with the odd game or two.




Well go Nvidia! Showing them how it's meant to be done!
So based on how we owe AMD and Mantle for getting DirectX 12, I guess you could say we owe Nvidia for getting GCN, and thus Mantle and thus DirectX 12!

In a way yes. The gpu is now more than just something that is used for gaming and the market for these other tasks is growing. Amd had to follow to get in on the act.

 

[Thracks]

It's not supposed to become THE graphics API, it's an option that developers did not have before in the modern landscape.

I think that's an important point that's missing from the discussion.

This is an important and oft-overlooked point. Prior to the advent of Mantle, there was literally nothing on planet earth that gave these desiring developers what they wanted. Nothing. Not an API, not an extension. Mantle is and remains the only game in town if you want to go deep on the architecture and optimize the heck out of your engine, or if you want to remove a lot of the busywork that other APIs make you play to perform simple tasks like, say, drawing a high number of simultaneous objects or loading textures into memory.

Mantle is not a one-size-fits-all solution, and there continues to be a need and role for other APIs that more generally address hardware in a more abstract/easier way than what Mantle provides.

"The right tool for the right job" is a smart, age-old saying, and it was until Mantle that there was even a tool for the job these software vendors were attempting to undertake.

This is why we will continue to support, for example, DirectX 12 and sit on Microsoft's oversight board to help develop that spec with other hardware vendors. This is why we presented on "low-overhead OpenGL" at GDC2014.

We sincerely support any effort that brings more control into the hands of developers through whatever APIs they're utilizing most. They are our customers, we are not theirs.

 

[tommybhoy]

@triss,



@googaly,

Can't/won't support Mantle is only answerable by Nvidia.

The slides were pre-DX12 era(take out of that what you will).

AMD opened the door on bringing us a new gfx api, they can't enforce it on anyone, they are supplying the tool and choice.

 

[humbug]

Well I don't know about you guys but I want it all, DX12 and Mantle, is this possible? Why wouldn't you want both, if possible. Some folk need to get over the 'brand' hate, if Amd let mantle go public then why not. I may have an Nvidia card as my next purchase, I may not, if Nvidia 'coded'(is that the right word)their cards for mantle then that might be the clincher for me and sway me to them, I have no brand loyalty, bang for buck has always been my mantle.....sorry mantra.

This ^^^ the more choice the better.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

@triss,



@googaly,

Can't/won't support Mantle is only answerable by Nvidia.

The slides were pre-DX12 era(take out of that what you will).

AMD opened the door on bringing us a new gfx api, they can't enforce it on anyone, they are supplying the tool and choice.

Well, Nvidia and Josh Barczak apparently.
The slides were relevant enough for LtMatt to post them, again.

I'm not saying they should or even want to force it on anyone. I'm coming strictly from the point of view of if it's a technical or political issue behind Nvidia's adoption or lack thereof.
The fact that there is an issue at all works on the assumption that AMD even want multi-vendor support (hence the slide reference).

Personally I'm not worried, I just want DX12 to be good, anything after that is a bonus. My reason for favouring DX is the cross-vendor nature. Unlike Mantle I think DX12 does want to be THE graphics API. I think it's probably good that we do have one that is a levelling playing field, a lowest common denominator if you will. A base level for everyone, if Mantle can then offer a bit extra and developers use it, then that's great.

Also regarding it not being AMD's responsibility to get Nvidia onboard, which I agree it's not, Microsoft seemingly got Nvidia and AMD onboard for DirectX because they wanted cross-vendor support. If AMD truely WANTED cross-vendor support, could they not have done this too? It's a bit like they say one thing but do another.

 

[tayto_0]

GoogalyMoogaly you make my head hurt

I couldn't care less if nVidia get on board or not to be honest. I have AMD cards so i've a choice between DX and Mantle. Depending on the game it's a nice option to have.

Go ask nVidia if they'll get on board it's not up to AMD to answer that.

 

[Orangey]

Also regarding it not being AMD's responsibility to get Nvidia onboard, which I agree it's not, Microsoft seemingly got Nvidia and AMD onboard for DirectX because they wanted cross-vendor support. If AMD truely WANTED cross-vendor support, could they not have done this too? It's a bit like they say one thing but do another.

The time for this will be when beta ends and a standard can be considered for ratification and possible release to a working group.

 

[Lightnix]

I'm starting to think:

The majority of development studios making games do not make engines. They might modify engines with the help of those who developed the engine in the first place to support new features on whatever platform they're targeting, but that's their extent in the involvement of the engine development on their side. This is good, engine writers have their work to do and the game development studios have enough on their plates without having to dedicate a lot of resources to making their own engine.

With this current development infrastructure in mind, perhaps it could actually be time we turned back to the proprietary graphics API. Then the onus is on the middleware vendors to provide the level of abstraction and platform support that game studios actually care about. The proprietary APIs then provide the best level of hardware support for a given piece of hardware. Then you'd still have stuff like DX and OpenGL for those who want to 'roll their own' stuff without licensing an engine.

That said, if this vision of development future is untenable, then as far as I'm concerned Mantle is crap and should be gotten rid of ASAP because it threatens to fragment the marketplace.

 

[Orangey]