Recommended Posts

Some leaked performance claims for Mantle and Kaveri processors, probably being readied for the launch or CES.

 

http://wccftech.com/amd-kaveri-apu-a107850k-gaming-general-performance-unveiled-mantle-45-faster-directx/

More than 3 times the speed of DirectX  :| I was expecting good results for Kaveri but not of that order of magnitude... If this actually materializes it could be excellent news for mobile gaming. No need for discrete cards to get decent framerates at decent settings in the latest AAA shooters is something we couldn't even dream of a few years ago.

Maybe its Microsoft's lack of interest in the PC gaming market, Its eyes are set on the Xbone now days, which is competition. Directx probably needs quite a team to keep it upto date and would be lots of cooperation between Microsoft, Nvidia and AMD, teams that may not always whish to share hardware information.

Maybe its Microsoft's lack of interest in the PC gaming market

As little developer interest as there was in DX10/11 for a long time I can't really blame them.  I know the reasons, but it still confuses the crap out of me.

 

Now devs are finally interested in the high end again, so there's plenty of reason to move forward.  I suspect MS will have a proper response within a few years, but it might well be too late for it to matter.

Figure I would post this here since it's along the same lines, the slides from nVidia's OpenGL talk at Steam Dev Days.

 

http://de.slideshare.net/CassEveritt/beyond-porting

 

Of note, yet more evidence for the pile that OpenGL is indeed faster than DirectX. And the MSFT fans said that Valve was lying. :rolleyes:

Figure I would post this here since it's along the same lines, the slides from nVidia's OpenGL talk at Steam Dev Days.

 

http://de.slideshare.net/CassEveritt/beyond-porting

 

Of note, yet more evidence for the pile that OpenGL is indeed faster than DirectX. And the MSFT fans said that Valve was lying. :rolleyes:

I believe a large part of it is talking about future extensions, not current.  And Valve has yet to show evidence that they've even experimented with DX11.

 

I wouldn't say Valve lied, just was very selective about what they showed.

 

Considering how behind the times their games are, go figure.

  • Like 2

Note that a large part of it is talking about future extensions, not current.  And Valve has yet to show evidence that they've even experimented with DX11.

 

I wouldn't say Valve lied, just was very selective about what they showed.

 

Considering how behind the times their games are, go figure.

 

The extensions listed are a part of OpenGL 4.4 - which is current (At least for NVidia, AMD are approaching full support).

 

There is also evidence Valve has experimented with newer DirectX versions, such as the existence of shaderapidx10.dll and mat_dxlevel 100 in dxsupport.cfg in certain games.

 

As the slides indicate however, D3D11 is still slower.

The extensions listed are a part of OpenGL 4.4 - which is current (At least for NVidia, AMD are approaching full support).

 

There is also evidence Valve has experimented with newer DirectX versions, such as the existence of shaderapidx10.dll and mat_dxlevel 100 in dxsupport.cfg in certain games.

I did reword that before you posted again heh :)  I wasn't actually sure.

 

As for OGL 4.4, it is much newer than DX11.  It took three years for OGL to reach feature parity with DX11 IIRC.  They are currently ahead from what I know, but there's also very little in the way of DX11.1/11.2 or OpenGL 4+ games.

 

My point about Valve still stands.  It is more than a little suspicious that they chose to benchmark their OpenGL code against their DX9 code and yell LOOK HOW AMAZING THIS IS.

  • Like 2

I did reword that before you posted again heh :)  I wasn't actually sure.

 

As for OGL 4.4, it is much newer than DX11.  It took three years for OGL to reach feature parity with DX11 IIRC.  They are currently ahead from what I know, but there's also very little in the way of DX11.1/11.2 or OpenGL 4+ games.

 

My point about Valve still stands.  It is more than a little suspicious that they chose to benchmark their OpenGL code against their DX9 code and yell LOOK HOW AMAZING THIS IS.

 

OpenGL 4.x has "feature parity" with D3D11, 3.x with 10, 2.x with 9. In this case, 4.4 is better compared to 11.2. (Both added implementations of PRT for instance)

 

It seems you're trying to imply Valve were being disingenuous by comparing an OpenGL 4 codepath vs D3D9, however that was not the case. Given the were using L4D2 as the testbed, the likely comparison was D3D9 vs D3D9 ontop of a GL 2.x layer. Since Source 1 does not natively support OpenGL, unlike Source 2 which is native OpenGL.

 

That, and the notion of "fixing" the comparison doesn't help anyone - if anything it hurts Valve more than MSFT.

OpenGL 4.x has "feature parity" with D3D11, 3.x with 10, 2.x with 9. In this case, 4.4 is better compared to 11.2. (Both added implementations of PRT for instance)

 

It seems you're trying to imply Valve were being disingenuous by comparing an OpenGL 4 codepath vs D3D9, however that was not the case. Given the were using L4D2 as the testbed, the likely comparison was D3D9 vs D3D9 ontop of a GL 2.x layer. Since Source 1 does not natively support OpenGL, unlike Source 2 which is native OpenGL.

 

That, and the notion of "fixing" the comparison doesn't help anyone - if anything it hurts Valve more than MSFT.

OpenGL 4.3 was the first to offer compute shaders, which were a feature in DX11 that extended to DX10 cards.

 

Really?  Making Windows look bad doesn't help SteamOS?  I'm not sure I'll ever believe it wasn't intentional.  Whatever works.

OpenGL 4.3 was the first to offer compute shaders, which were a feature in DX11 that extended to DX10 cards.

 

Really?  Making Windows look bad doesn't help SteamOS?  I'm not sure I'll ever believe it wasn't intentional.  Whatever works.

 

Linux doesn't factor in, I'm talking purely on Windows.

I hope mantle is a success and is as good as they claim it be but tbh with all talk of will mantle be good or wont it be good etc weve only got wait till BF4 comes out and can look ourselves, i know what framerates i get so ill tell instantly if theres a boost or not and an approximation of how big of a boost.  Im getting thief for free from AMD's game bundle although that comes with mantle out of the box?? so wont be able to tell unless theres an option to use DX or mantle then you could switch between API's and gauge is theres more performance or not.

 

Nvidia does to much proprietary stuff and doesnt give jack away for free.... think some opengl extensions are proprietary to Nvidia so no one could prolly use em without a license fee maybe??

 

With DX 11.2's PRT stuff i think it could be used to generate highly detailed procedurally generated game environments like in a space game when you fly through the atmosphere and come down to ground level and fly around a planet. Think that would be good but cant see something like call of duty needing it or battlefield etc

Nvidia does to much proprietary stuff and doesnt give jack away for free.... think some opengl extensions are proprietary to Nvidia so no one could prolly use em without a license fee maybe??

 

That would defeat the point of OpenGL if swaths of the spec were proprietary.

 

There are vendor extensions, but those essentially exist so they can be later ratified by the OpenGL ARB.

 

OpenGL 4.4's ARB_sparse_texture extension is an example of this, it's more or less a copy of AMD_sparse_texture with some improvements/adjustments.

Sweet. Dice has measured performance improvements ranging from 14% to 58% (!) - apparently, this is most beneficial to systems with very fast GPUs under graphically heavy workloads. Can't wait for Kaveri numbers and more benchmarks. http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4/news/view/bf4-mantle-live/

Ive benchmarked my DX 11 performance

 

===========================================================
Oxide Games
Star Swarm Benchmark - ?2013
C:\Users\amell_000\Documents\Star Swarm\Benchmark_14_01_30_2210.txt
Version 0.95
01/30/2014 22:10
===========================================================
 
== Hardware Configuration =================================
GPU: AMD Radeon R9 200 Series
CPU: GenuineIntel
Intel® Core i7 CPU         950  @ 3.07GHz
Physical Cores: 4
Logical Cores: 8
Physical Memory: 12875575296
Allocatable Memory: 140737488224256
===========================================================
 
 
== Configuration ==========================================
API: DirectX
Scenario: ScenarioAttract.csv
User Input: Disabled
Resolution: 1920x1080
Fullscreen: True
GameCore Update: 16.6 ms
Bloom Quality: High
PointLight Quality: High
ToneCurve Quality: High
Glare Overdraw: 16
Shading Samples: 64
Shade Quality: Mid
Motion Blur Frame Time: 16
Motion Blur InterFrame Time: 2
Detailed Frame Info: Off
===========================================================
 
 
== Results ================================================
Test Duration: 120 Seconds
Total Frames: 2248
 
Average FPS: 18.73
Average Unit Count: 3624
Maximum Unit Count: 5314
Average Batches/MS: 552.50
Maximum Batches/MS: 913.88
Average Batch Count: 33284
Maximum Batch Count: 131851
===========================================================
 
using MSI 280x gaming edition (pretty much bog standard) will have to try again when i get my sapphy toxic back but least ive got a benchmark to see if mantle improves it :d
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • GitHub removes manual model selection from Copilot free and student plans by Karthik Mudaliar GitHub is removing the ability to manually select an AI model from its Copilot Free and Student plans, making its automatic routing system the default and only way to choose a model. This means users on these tiers will no longer be able to deliberately select a particular OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, or Microsoft model for a task. In its announcement, GitHub said Copilot Auto will dynamically choose what it considers the best model for each request. Free and Student accounts will retain access to models from multiple families, although the available selection will continue to depend on the restrictions attached to each plan. GitHub did not identify a fixed pool of models that Auto will always use, and its documentation warns that model availability can change over time. GitHub describes Auto as more than a random fallback system. On supported surfaces, its task-optimization technology evaluates the complexity of a request alongside real-time information about model health and availability. Straightforward prompts can be routed to faster and less expensive models, while more demanding coding tasks may be sent to higher-cost reasoning models. The company says this approach should reduce rate limiting, latency, and failed requests. Auto generally selects one model along natural prompt-caching boundaries rather than repeatedly switching models during a session, as GitHub found that mid-session changes increased costs without producing sufficient improvements in output quality. Users can still check which model generated a response. In Copilot Chat, the information appears when hovering over an answer, while Copilot CLI and the Copilot cloud agent display the selected model alongside their output. Auto is available in Copilot Chat, Copilot CLI, and the cloud agent, with the exact implementation and release status varying between supported development environments. The latest restriction follows several months of adjustments to Copilot’s individual plans. GitHub temporarily halted new Pro, Pro+, and Student subscriptions in April as it sought to manage demand and service reliability. It later introduced token-based billing and began gradually reopening individual-plan registrations on June 17. Alongside the picker change, GitHub is retiring the “Preview” label from Microsoft-developed models. It argues that the label is no longer necessary because Auto handles model routing and models are continuously updated behind the scenes.
    • Look up 'inflation' kid. Ask an AI for the numbers between both games.
    • Google reportedly set to lose two key Gemini and DeepMind researchers to Anthropic by Karthik Mudaliar Google is reportedly preparing to lose two more prominent artificial intelligence researchers, with Gemini contributors Jonas Adler and Alexander Pritzel planning to join rival AI developer Anthropic. According to a report from Bloomberg, both researchers are viewed internally as important contributors to Google’s flagship Gemini model family. Adler worked on Google’s AI coding efforts, while Pritzel was involved in the process used to train AI systems. Neither company has publicly confirmed the moves. The report also does not say when the researchers will formally leave Google or what positions they will hold at Anthropic. Training a large AI model requires decisions covering its architecture, data preparation, distributed computing infrastructure, and post-training methods that shape how the finished system behaves. Researchers with experience operating at the scale of Gemini are consequently difficult to replace quickly. Both Adler and Pritzel have previously contributed to Google DeepMind’s scientific research as well. They are listed among the authors of the company’s work on expanding AlphaFold protein-structure predictions across entire proteomes, alongside AlphaFold researchers including John Jumper. The reported departures arrive shortly after another important change within Google’s Gemini organization. Gemini co-lead Noam Shazeer is leaving Google for OpenAI, after returning to the search company in 2024 through its deal with Character.AI. Shazeer is particularly well known as one of the authors of the Transformer paper, whose architecture became the foundation for most modern large language models. Anthropic, meanwhile, has been recruiting recognizable figures from other leading laboratories. OpenAI co-founder and former Tesla AI director Andrej Karpathy joined Anthropic’s pre-training team in May. His move, followed by the reported recruitment of several Google researchers, suggests Anthropic is strengthening the research teams responsible for the core capabilities of future Claude models rather than concentrating solely on product and enterprise sales. The competition is complicated by the companies’ extensive commercial relationships. Anthropic competes directly with Google’s Gemini models, but it also relies on Google as an infrastructure partner. In April, Anthropic announced an expanded agreement with Google and Broadcom covering multiple gigawatts of next-generation Tensor Processing Unit capacity. TPUs are Google-designed accelerators used to train and run large AI models. via Bloomberg
    • This article makes my head hurt. Lots of confusing words
    • Google adds built-in computer control to Gemini 3.5 flash by Karthik Mudaliar Google has added Computer Use as a built-in tool in Gemini 3.5 Flash, giving developers a single model that can reason about a task and operate graphical interfaces across browsers, mobile devices, and desktop environments. The feature is available through the Gemini API and Google’s Gemini Enterprise Agent Platform, although it remains a preview feature for now. Computer Use enables an AI agent to examine screenshots and return actions such as mouse clicks, scrolling, and keyboard input. A developer’s application must execute those actions, capture the resulting screen, and send it back to Gemini, creating a continuous loop until the task is completed. Google says the integration can be used for activities including repetitive form filling, application testing, research across multiple websites, and longer enterprise workflows. Gemini 3.5 Flash can work with browser, mobile, and desktop environments, whereas Google’s earlier standalone Computer Use model was primarily positioned around browser interaction. The main change is consolidation. Computer control was previously offered through the separate Gemini 2.5 Computer Use preview model. As Neowin reported when that model was introduced, it was designed to interpret a visual interface and generate actions without requiring a website-specific API. Google later brought Computer Use to preview versions of Gemini 3 Pro and Gemini 3 Flash in January 2026. The latest release now incorporates the tool into the stable Gemini 3.5 Flash model rather than requiring developers to select a specialized model solely for interface automation. Gemini 3.5 Flash itself was announced in May as Google’s latest fast model for coding and multi-step agent workflows. It supports a one-million-token input context window and up to 65,000 output tokens, along with adjustable thinking levels that let developers trade additional reasoning for lower latency and cost. Google also added that Gemini 3.5 Flash received targeted adversarial training for computer-use scenarios. The company is also offering safeguards that can require user confirmation before sensitive or irreversible actions and automatically stop a workflow when suspected prompt injection is detected. Its developer documentation describes configurable protections for areas such as financial transactions and changes to sensitive records. Google isn't the first to bring Computer Use to its platform. Anthropic has made computer control available through Claude, while OpenAI has continued improving computer-use performance in its recent models. Microsoft has also applied the concept to business workflows, including a Computer Use capability for the Researcher agent in Microsoft 365 Copilot.
  • Recent Achievements

    • 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
    • One Year In
      Tom Schmidt earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      463
    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!