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

    • 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!