Recommended Posts

If Mantle does offer substantive performance benefits in addition to greater flexibility from exposing more GPU hardware functionality then NVidia will likely be forced into picking it up. I wouldn't be surprised if they pick it up in a limited fashion and try to push for some form of standardisation.

 

Really the only people that stand to lose here are Microsoft, a competing API that offers better perf/flexibility with the bonus of being cross-platform? Could be the end of DirectX as the #1 API.

mantle isn't magic. NVidia will just roll their own. the way I see it playing out is, either Microsoft creates a low level api in directx,which interfaces with drivers, or a low level api which hooks into mantle and nvidias version.

Especially since the same performance can be achieved on their own hardware with OpenGL and hardware specific extensions. I said it before, Mantle will not achieve what AMD hopes it will.

Especially since the same performance can be achieved on their own hardware with OpenGL and hardware specific extensions. I said it before, Mantle will not achieve what AMD hopes it will.

 

 i think it will i watched the 45 minute video and seems like it should be quite good. eliminates sli crossfire scaling problems cus you manage the queues to which cards yourself etc theres tons of stuff which you can do with it but its new and will take time to perfect

Especially since the same performance can be achieved on their own hardware with OpenGL and hardware specific extensions. I said it before, Mantle will not achieve what AMD hopes it will.

 

They said they would support Mantle feature parity for OpenGL with extensions, that says nothing about performance.

They said they would support Mantle feature parity for OpenGL with extensions, that says nothing about performance.

I'm talking about John Carmack's quote and I agree with him. We'll all have to see how it plays out, but I'm not betting on Mantle being the next big API, rather that its strenghts will be translated to the other API's sooner rather than later.

I'm talking about John Carmack's quote and I agree with him. We'll all have to see how it plays out, but I'm not betting on Mantle being the next big API, rather that its strenghts will be translated to the other API's sooner rather than later.

 

I don't agree with Carmack here simply because with the performance claims being thrown around, OpenGL should have sparked an exodus away from Direct3D.

 

If the technical side isn't a problem, the lack of momentum behind OpenGL certainly is. If Mantle is the momentum needed to push a cross-platform API to the #1 spot, then that's a fair trade in my opinion.

I don't agree with Carmack here simply because with the performance claims being thrown around, OpenGL should have sparked an exodus away from Direct3D.

 

If the technical side isn't a problem, the lack of momentum behind OpenGL certainly is. If Mantle is the momentum needed to push a cross-platform API to the #1 spot, then that's a fair trade in my opinion.

Yeah, but that's the thing, it isn't cross platform yet as it hasn't been adopted by nVidia and very likely won't if they can achieve what they claim with OpenGL.

It's kind of a chicken and the egg thing, but I don't see it happening for Mantle.

Yeah, but that's the thing, it isn't cross platform yet as it hasn't been adopted by nVidia and very likely won't if they can achieve what they claim with OpenGL.

 

That's my point, if "they" could of done so with OpenGL then why hasn't anyone?

 

As I said, even if OpenGL is technically capable it seemingly lacks the momentum needed to do so. If Mantle does have that momentum then NVidia will be forced into supporting it.

That's my point, if "they" could of done so with OpenGL then why hasn't anyone?

 

As I said, even if OpenGL is technically capable it seemingly lacks the momentum needed to do so. If Mantle does have that momentum then NVidia will be forced into supporting it.

Right now Mantle doesn't have any momentum unless more developers pick it up and VERY FAST. It's only got hype and one developer implementing it in engine. You're just jumping ahead of things.

But because there is a push for more draw calls, those functions will be adopted by the ARB faster than Mantle will ever gain traction among more developers and I'm betting MS is working on a similar lower level solution for DX as well (at least for the Xbox One for now). Competition is great and helps improve things, but it's not going to happen for Mantle, but we'll see how far they can get.

Right now Mantle doesn't have any momentum unless more developers pick it up and VERY FAST. It's only got hype and one developer implementing it in engine. You're just jumping ahead of things.

But because there is a push for more draw calls, those functions will be adopted by the ARB faster than Mantle will ever gain traction among more developers and I'm betting MS is working on a similar lower level solution for DX as well (at least for the Xbox One for now). Competition is great and helps improve things, but it's not going to happen for Mantle, but we'll see how far they can get.

15 Frostbite 3 games, Thief, Star Citizen, and Oxide Games upcoming engine are all confirmed.  Hardly one developer.

Right now Mantle doesn't have any momentum unless more developers pick it up and VERY FAST. It's only got hype and one developer implementing it in engine. You're just jumping ahead of things.

But because there is a push for more draw calls, those functions will be adopted by the ARB faster than Mantle will ever gain traction among more developers and I'm betting MS is working on a similar lower level solution for DX as well (at least for the Xbox One for now). Competition is great and helps improve things, but it's not going to happen for Mantle, but we'll see how far they can get.

 

15 Frostbite 3 games, Thief, Star Citizen, and Oxide Games upcoming engine are all confirmed.  Hardly one developer.

 

^ 'Nuff said pretty much.

 

You accuse me of jumping ahead of things, personally I think you've made your mind up already that it's going to be a failure regardless. (See how this works both ways?)

 

We've had years and multiple revisions of both DirectX and OpenGL since GPUs moved to general purpose designs over fixed function, and yet neither API vendor has taken the initiative to bring these performance levels to mainline. And yet we've seen squat.

I guess it's more of a long-term investment on what forms the basis of next-gen consoles and their whole APU strategy. By the time Mantle gets any kind of significant adoption, the HD 6950 will be 4 years old; I'm not sure how it's in AMD's interest to pour money into new features for GPUs that are already a few generations behind, and I don't expect NVIDIA to do anything similar. It's not like they were selling anymore of these. That doesn't mean it wouldn't make sense for NVIDIA to support it in their actual and next-gen GPUs, with big names in the gaming industry like Johan Andersson asking for it and taking advantage of it on AMD's cards and APUs.

I can understand that, but it is still disappointing as an owner of one of those cards. Oh well...guess I'll just have to wait and see what happens with mantle.

Then as far as I'm concerned, AMD's showboating about how mantle can be supported on anything rings very hollow, when they won't even support their own hardware properly. This is still a perfectly good and pretty powerful card, I'm quite disappointed if it won't be supported.

 

I own the same card, it's not a bad card so it would be disappointing for it not to be supported

 

As long as this is not a threat to DX I am fine with it existing.

 

If the performance numbers are anything to go by it will be.

If the performance numbers are anything to go by it will be.

Hopefully DX will emerge victorious, just like with OGL vs. DX.

 

Needless fragmentation. Drivers and support are subpar as is, especially with AMD's support for "old" graphic cards.

Hopefully DX will emerge victorious, just like with OGL vs. DX.

 

Needless fragmentation. Drivers and support are subpar as is, especially with AMD's support for "old" graphic cards.

 

As opposed to needless OS version restrictions, complete lack of cross-platform support and being tied to Microsoft?

 

I don't think you really understand the meaning of fragmentation either.

As opposed to needless OS version restrictions, complete lack of cross-platform support and being tied to Microsoft?

 

I don't think you really understand the meaning of fragmentation either.

Wait, but that is the same as mantle then.

Anyhow, I don't think there are any DX forks so there is no fragmentation. Not sure about OGL.

 

It is just giving developers / GPU manufacturers more work - supporting three architectures.

Wait, but that is the same as mantle then.

Anyhow, I don't think there are any DX forks so there is no fragmentation. Not sure about OGL.

 

It is just giving developers / GPU manufacturers more work - supporting three architectures.

 

It's not like Mantle at all, Mantle can run on NVidia hardware and non-Windows OSes. Meanwhile DirectX is still needlessly tied to various Windows versions in an attempt to try and drive OS sales.

 

OpenGL is a standard, standardisation as a process exists to combat fragmentation. So to bring it up in this context shows you don't really understand what fragmentation is, as arguably DirectX is/was by far the most fragmented API.

Meanwhile DirectX is still needlessly tied to various Windows versions in an attempt to try and drive OS sales.

It's just adding new features.. can you list any games that require DirectX 11.2?  I can't.  A handful are starting to make version 10 the bare minimum..IE, Vista.  The overwhelming majority still support XP's version 9.  Not exactly driving OS sales.

 

 

So to bring it up in this context shows you don't really understand what fragmentation is, as arguably DirectX is/was by far the most fragmented API.

It's no different than a game requiring a certain version of OpenGL.  How is one ok and one not?

Hopefully DX will emerge victorious, just like with OGL vs. DX.

 

Needless fragmentation. Drivers and support are subpar as is, especially with AMD's support for "old" graphic cards.

How old?

 

HD5xxx is supported via the current driver (same age as nV GT/GTS/GTX5xx, which is supported by the mainstream version of Forceware).  Nothing older (AMD HD4xxx OR nV GT/GTS/GTX4xx) is supported by either company in their mainstream drivers.

 

What's the real issue here?  You don't want to spend a lot of money, or you don't want to spend money at all?

 

If you own a portable PC (laptop, notebook, etc.) then you are screwed, plain and simple.  It's not a GPU issue, but a form-factor issue - portable GPUs are NOT (by and large) user-upgradable.

 

If you own a desktop, then you have options by the pound (if not the ton).

 

For AMD, you have HD5xxx and newer - all of which can use the current (as in mainstream) version of Catalyst Unified.  

 

nVidia has GT/GTS/GTX5xx and newer - all of which can use the current (mainstream) version of Forceware.  While GT/GTS/GTX6xx and newer can use more features in the current Forceware driver set, that does NOT mean that support for the 5xx series is lacking.  (I have a GTX550 Ti, and run the *current* version of Forceware - specifically, 331.65.)

 

I'm not campaigning for or against either nVidia or AMD - my position is, surprisingly, rather neutral, despite this being my first nVidia GPU for my own use.  (That is because I did not switch due to issues with Catalyst - AMD's mainstream graphics driver - in fact, I have recommended AMD *since* my crossgrade.  I went with nVidia this time strictly due to availability and price.  Not features, and not fanaticism.  Had I found an AMD GPU that met my criteria, I would have purchased it instead.  No regrets choosing nVidia this go-round, but no hatred of AMD, either.)

 

Therefore, I ask again - what's the real issue?

They said they would support Mantle feature parity for OpenGL with extensions, that says nothing about performance.

if mantle is supposed to support other types of cards, then there is going to be an abstraction layer. how is this different than what can be achieved with DX or OGL?

 

hardware->driver->HAL->mantle

hardware->driver->HAL->DX/OGL

 

in my opinion, if AMD wants to create a cross platform API, its a tough hill to climb. DX/OGL will just plug in the low level stuff,and these are already well established solutions. If they want to target only AMD cards, well the fragmentation will make this a failure. I just don't see how they are going to come out of this on top, I just don't. 

 

Actually required an API version is hugely different from requiring a certain OS version...

If you are requiring a specific API to be supported, then the issue is self-explanatory - you purchase hardware that supports that API.

 

Doesn't matter what API you are referring to (D3D, GLide, RRedline, etc.).

 

D3D was a most-agnostic-API approach in that it supported all the features of other APIs at a lowest-requirement basis (including OpenGL, RRedline, etc.) without using specific-to-individual-API calls - it was why you could use ATI (later AMD) 3D Rage chipsets and Voodoo I chipsets in tandem in D3D games (such as Forsaken, or even Hellbender).

 

The bugbear with GLide (and RRedline, and other brand-specific APIs, including console APIs prior to both the original Xbox and PS2) is that they were TOO specific - you basically got "hemmed in".

 

What Mantle has to overcome is that rather nasty tendency for any API that is supported by a hardware manufacturer to be tied TO that hardware manufacturer - either by real resistance from the manufacturer in question (AMD) or from the competition (nVidia, Intel, etc.).  Either possibility would eventually doom Mantle to failure as an API.

It's just adding new features.. can you list any games that require DirectX 11.2?  I can't.  A handful are starting to make version 10 the bare minimum..IE, Vista.  The overwhelming majority still support XP's version 9.  Not exactly driving OS sales.

 

 

It's no different than a game requiring a certain version of OpenGL.  How is one ok and one not?

 

Paid OS-tied updates are the same as free open API spec releases? Riiiight.

 

if mantle is supposed to support other types of cards, then there is going to be an abstraction layer. how is this different than what can be achieved with DX or OGL?

 

hardware->driver->HAL->mantle

hardware->driver->HAL->DX/OGL

 

Simple, the "thickness" of the abstraction. In much the same way as low vs high level programming languages.

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Dude, im talking about simply disable it from settings app. Because of the eu regulation, you could disable it here for years.
    • One big question about Mars was answered thanks to Einstein's 100 year old theory by Sayan Sen Image via DepositPhotos Scientists at the U.S. National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) have calculated how time passes on Mars compared with Earth, adding detail to how timekeeping would need to work beyond Earth’s orbit. The study, published in The Astronomical Journal, found that clocks on Mars run an average of 477 microseconds, or millionths of a second, faster per day than clocks on Earth. A microsecond is one millionth of a second, a very small unit used in precise scientific timing systems such as atomic clocks, which measure time using consistent atomic behavior. This difference is not constant. Because Mars moves around the Sun in a non-circular path (an eccentric orbit, meaning its distance from the Sun changes over time instead of staying fixed) and is affected by gravity from other bodies, the daily difference can vary by as much as 226 microseconds over a Martian year. The study also identifies smaller repeating changes of about 40 microseconds per day linked to synodic cycles (repeating periods that describe how planets line up with each other as they orbit the Sun from different positions). These longer patterns affect how time differences slowly rise and fall. To make these estimates, researchers compared Mars with Earth and the Moon. The work looks at relativistic proper time (the time actually measured by a clock depending on its speed and the strength of gravity where it is located, as described in Einstein’s relativity). This shows that each world has its own slightly different “rate” of time. This becomes more important as space missions expand into cislunar space (the region between Earth and the Moon) and toward Mars. On Earth, time systems rely on atomic clocks and satellites, which stay closely synchronized for navigation and communication. The study is based on Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, which shows that time is affected by gravity and motion. Stronger gravity makes clocks run slower, while weaker gravity makes them run faster. “The time is just right for the Moon and Mars,” said NIST physicist Bijunath Patla. “This is the closest we have been to realizing the science fiction vision of expanding across the solar system.” A day on Mars is about 40 minutes longer than on Earth, and a Martian year lasts 687 Earth days. But the main question is not just about days and years, but how fast time itself passes. An atomic clock placed on Mars would function normally, but compared with one on Earth, the two would slowly drift apart due to differences in gravity and motion. This requires careful calculation of what is similar to a time-zone difference across planets. Researchers modeled Mars using a reference surface and included gravitational effects from the Sun, Earth, the Moon, and other planets. This includes a multi-body gravitational system (often described as a three-body or four-body problem, where predicting motion becomes difficult because multiple large objects all pull on each other at the same time through gravity). Mars also follows a Keplerian orbit (an idealized elliptical orbit based on simple gravitational laws that assume smooth motion, before adding real-world disturbances from other bodies). In addition, the researchers accounted for solar tides (small changes in gravitational force caused by the Sun that slightly distort planetary motion and timing, especially in systems involving Earth and the Moon). These combined effects are described as relativistic proper-time offsets (small but measurable differences in elapsed time between locations caused by gravity and motion), which must be included when comparing clocks across planets. “But for Mars, that’s not the case. Its distance from the Sun and its eccentric orbit make the variations in time larger. A three-body problem is extremely complicated. Now we’re dealing with four: the Sun, Earth, the Moon and Mars,” Patla explained. “The heavy lifting was more challenging than I initially thought.” Although the differences are extremely small, they matter for navigation and communication systems that depend on precise timing. Even modern networks on Earth, such as mobile systems, rely on timing accuracy at very small fractions of a second. Communication between Earth and Mars currently takes about four to 24 minutes or more depending on planetary positions, meaning signals are not real-time. A shared and accurate time system could help future missions reduce confusion in navigation and data exchange. “If you get synchronization, it will be almost like real-time communication without any loss of information. You don’t have to wait to see what happens,” Patla said. Researchers note that fully developed interplanetary communication networks are still far in the future. However, understanding how time behaves across planets helps prepare for those systems. “It may be decades before the surface of Mars is covered by the tracks of wandering rovers, but it is useful now to study the issues involved in establishing navigation systems on other planets and moons,” said Neil Ashby. “Like current global navigation systems like GPS, these systems will depend on accurate clocks, and the effects on clock rates can be analyzed with the help of Einstein’s general theory of relativity.” Patla added that the results also help improve understanding of time itself under relativity. “It's good to know for the first time what is happening on Mars timewise. Nobody knew that before. It improves our knowledge of the theory itself, the theory of how clocks tick and relativity,” he said. Source: NIST, IOPscience This article was generated with some help from AI and reviewed by an editor. Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, this material is used for the purpose of news reporting. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing.
    • TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 by Razvan Serea TeraCopy is a compact program designed to copy and move files at the maximum possible speed, also providing you with a lot of features. Copy files faster. TeraCopy uses dynamically adjusted buffers to reduce seek times. Asynchronous copy speeds up file transfer between two physical hard drives. Pause and resume transfers. Pause copy process at any time to free up system resources and continue with a single click. Error recovery. In case of copy error, TeraCopy will try several times and in the worse case just skips the file, not terminating the entire transfer. Interactive file list. TeraCopy shows failed file transfers and lets you fix the problem and recopy only problem files. Shell integration. TeraCopy can completely replace Explorer copy and move functions, allowing you work with files as usual. TeraCopy is free for non-commercial use only. For commercial use you need to buy a license. The paid version of the program includes the following features: Copy/move to your favorite folders. Save reports as HTML and CSV files. Select files with the same extension/folder. Remove the selected files from the copy queue. TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 changelog: Added support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. Improved exception handling and automated bug report upload. Fixed several minor bugs and small memory leaks. Build 26 (June 24) Fixed a rare exception when a transfer completed. Features added since version 3.17: Enhanced speed graph. New multi-threaded copy engine. Support for copying to multiple targets. Queue system for managing multiple copy operations. Support for receiving files via the LocalSend protocol. TeraCopy entry in the modern Windows Explorer context menu. Integrated toolbar in the title bar. Why receive LocalSend transfers with TeraCopy? Handle file conflicts: Skip, overwrite, or rename files when a file with the same name already exists. LocalSend always creates another copy, which can waste time and disk space, especially when resuming an interrupted transfer. Filter unwanted files: Apply ignore lists or remove files manually before accepting a transfer, so unnecessary files are not downloaded. Better performance on fast networks: In tests over a 10 Gbps connection, TeraCopy received files several times faster than the standard LocalSend app on Windows. Download: TeraCopy 4.0 Build 26 | 14.5 MB (Freeware, paid upgrade available) View: TeraCopy Website | Screenshot Get alerted to all of our Software updates on Twitter at @NeowinSoftware
    • Briefly used Turbo Pascal (and Turbo C++) in 97 and soon after that I bought PC magazine that included a full version of Delphi 2. I still use Delphi today, some 29 years later.
    • Age of Empires Mobile comes to PC, here's how to carry over progress from your phone by Ivan Jenic Image: YouTube/Microsoft Microsoft just released Age of Empires Mobile for PC. The game, officially called Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, is available for free on Steam and Microsoft Store, almost two years after its initial release for handheld devices. Age of Empires is one of those franchises that entire generations grew up with. The original came out in 1997, and immediately got people hooked to building civilizations and crushing their enemies on the battlefield. However, the franchise today is a far cry from its roots, as Age of Empires Mobile is, well, a game optimized for handheld devices, and not a classic RTS title we’ve all loved for years. And, of course, it includes in-game purchases. The PC version is still a mobile game at its core, but it’s been optimized for desktop play. There’s mouse control, full keyboard compatibility, and a refined UI. Microsoft also refreshed the visuals with some 4k textures, so the game should look better on larger screens. The game supports Crossplay, so you can switch between your phone, tablet, and PC without losing anything. But linked progress doesn’t come out of the box, as you have to enable it first. Here’s how to link your progress: On your mobile device, open Age of Empires Mobile. Go to Settings (Gear icon) > Account. Select Bind Account and choose a sign-in option. Once you enable account binding, sign in on PC using the same method, and your progress will be accessible across all your devices. Xbox Game Pass subscribers also get a bonus reward pack on PC, which includes: 1 Monthly Pass Token 1 Custom Resource Chest 10 Universal 60-Minute Speed-Ups 1,000 Empire Coins Exclusive Player Portrait Frame You can find more info about Age of Empires Mobile: PC Edition, as well as download links, on the Age of Empires official website.
  • Recent Achievements

    • One Year In
      Philsl earned a badge
      One Year In
    • Dedicated
      Scoobystu earned a badge
      Dedicated
    • First Post
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      First Post
    • One Month Later
      D0nn13 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Rookie
      +ChiefOfNeo went up a rank
      Rookie
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      458
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      177
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      124
    4. 4
      Michael Scrip
      79
    5. 5
      Xenon
      76
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!