-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
***The Official Vulkan API Thread***
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,303
- Location
- Planet Earth
Yeah,probably going to duck out now!
I get to use this image one more time.
LOL.
CAT-THE-FIFTH you seem to have misunderstand what I was arguing. I completely agree Mantle is an important contribution to Vulkan. What I was arguing is Mantle wasn’t the only important contribution to Vulkan and AMD didn’t do the majority of the work. AMD did the base line contribution to start the project. Other vendors did major contributions to take Vulkan away from the base line AMD created.
Without those vendor contributions Vulkan would be useless compared to what we have today and those company’s deserve credit for what they did.
In a worse state then it is now. But IMG and ARM both spent a lot of R and D on low level API’s and gave it away for free to Vulkan. Where do you think Vulkan would be today without them? What I am trying to get across is that it’s not only AMD that contributed a lot to Vulkan for free.
There is no way AMD could have killed Vulkan as without AMD we would still have ended up with a low level Vulkan API. Linux users do not benefit the most. The mobile world is the ones who benefit the most. As OpenGL ES & Mantle itself was very bias against the majority of the worlds GPUs. It was companies like IMG and ARM that turned Mantle from a bias useless API into great API that Vulkan is today.
It was said earlier on the thread that AMD did the majority of the work on vulkan. This all came about because I pointed out that wasn't correct and I said Vulkan is more then just Mantle with a few minor changes.
How can you possibly say Mantle is the basis for Vulkan when Vulkan existed previously ? In order for that to happen, Mantle would have to have been the foundation and bits of Vulkan added to have a final product. When in fact, Vulkan existed and we were told took the best bits of Mantle to form the finshed API.
Its inaccuracies and wording used that you just wrote for me gets my goat.
Vulkan didn't exist previously. Khronos themselves said its a completely new API based on Mantle.
Vulkan, BTW is German for Volcano, think about that....
Last edited:
dont you find it peculiar the change of direction in API after Mantle ? how everyone is making low level API, all advertising draw calls, overhead, and async compute ? before Mantle not a single firm announced any of that untill Mantle games showed up and benchs started rolling and the concept was proven and liked by users and devs alike ?
you can be anti-AMD, without being driven by the nose by your bias, let your emotions aside and use abit of logic
Humbug, actually it's quite funny that people don't even admit that the actual name Vulkan , is a contribution to mantle.
" A volcano erupts from magma coming from the mantle. "
But like said before, none of these actually matters.
" A volcano erupts from magma coming from the mantle. "
But like said before, none of these actually matters.
He gets it, education and logic.
LOL, I never expected to get a spelling lesson from you but indeed you are quite correct but that doesn't change the fact that everytime my head says Vulkan, I think of Star Trek
That’s incorrect. IMG had low level API’s for 20+ years and so far are the only GPU company to have massive success in Low level API’s. AMD and Mantle was just a copy of what IMG did with SGL and Metal. It was IMG that demonstrated and proved the advantages of low level API's not AMD with Mantle. If anything the change in direction happened to due IMG success, not due to what AMD did.
LOL, I never expected to get a spelling lesson from you but indeed you are quite correct but that doesn't change the fact that everytime my head says Vulkan, I think of Star Trek
Microsoft was talking about making a multi-threaded lower-level API since around 2007. Nvidia was pushing for a multi-threaded API since before that.
OpenGL Next was going in the direction of a multi-threaded faster API for mobile GPUs and modern desktops.
Console developer since the original Xbox were talking about the difference in draw calls between DX and the console APIs.
Mantle came late to the party but AMD acted on the desired of some developers. Nvidia just worked with Microsoft on DX12 which started before Mantle.
Why would developers ask AMD to develop a low level API if Microsoft are already doing it, and why did Microsoft use DX11 for the XBox One, why when announcing a new API for the XBox One after it had gone on sale did they also say no to a replacement API for desktop when pushed on the question? maybe thats why Developers asked AMD to do it.
If Microsoft has a new API in development before AMD they certainly didn't have it prepared for their own console and its not what they were telling Developers.
Its only after Mantle that Microsoft suddenly decided that they had and API in development for long before AMD. (why does it take Microsoft so much longer than AMD to come up with an API)
here is what i think. Mantle was intended for that console but it had strings attached, IE that it would also become DX12, Microsoft said no, they said no for the same reason there hasn't been a new API from Microsofty for 10 years, PC Gaming has no income for them. if anything it eats into their repeat superscription Xbox Live Console system.
The only reason they gave in is because AMD released it anyway, had MS not reacted they would have lost their API monopoly.
Last edited:
ok i never said Mantle was the First low level API on the market, how do you compare the need for lower API now and 20 years ago...
i meant announcement prior to Mantle and after the last iteration of DX, microsoft talking about multi-threading in 2007 and yet released DX11 in 2009 the way it is, and then didnt mention any plans for lower level DX again untill a year after Mantle
and one of the reasons why AMD got screwed, microsoft talked multi-threading, AMD focused on it for their CPUs, then microsoft went AFK, the reason for Mantle in the first place was to show that AMD had 150$ CPU performing as good as an Intel 1000$ cpu on gaming, and they proved it
It wasn’t just in use 20 years ago but thought out those 20years right up till today.
You said “before Mantle not a single firm announced any of that untill Mantle games showed up and benchs started rolling and the concept was proven”
Well I just gave you another company that had announced all of that before Mantle. Had demoed all of that before Mantle and had proven the concept before Mantle. AMD spotted how well IMG had done with low level API’s and copied them. It wasn’t AMD that kick started the new wave of low level API’s. It was IMG.
Mantle was 2013, last DX was 2008 and IMG did low level API between those dates. Two examples being the 2011 low-level, to-the-metal code with the Playstation Vita which later turned into the Metal API used in 10’s of millions of devices and 100’s of games which if anything is what kick started todays wave of low level API's . They also had the low level OpenRL for the desktop cards which was version 1.0 in 2012.
What makes you think that was due to Mantle and not the work IMG was doing demoing the advantages of low level API’s?