Mantle no more? GDC sessions point to the next DirectX

AMD introduced its Mantle API in order to create a more efficient means of programming today’s GPUs, with a model that better fits how modern GPUs actually operate. Part of its promise is a reduction in the CPU overhead currently associated with Direct3D and OpenGL.

Now, not long after the first Mantle-based game has arrived—and after a couple of years of stagnation in PC graphics APIs otherwise—it appears the keepers of both Direct3D and OpenGL may have responses in store. (Thanks to TR reader SH SOTN for the tip.)

The sessions for next month’s Game Developer’s Conference have been posted online, and there are several very intriguing offerings among them. One entitled "DirectX: Evolving Microsoft’s Graphics Platform" will be hosted by Anuj Gosalia, Development Managet for Windows Graphics. The description reads:

For nearly 20 years, DirectX has been the platform used by game developers to create the fastest, most visually impressive games on the planet.

However, you asked us to do more. You asked us to bring you even closer to the metal and to do so on an unparalleled assortment of hardware. You also asked us for better tools so that you can squeeze every last drop of performance out of your PC, tablet, phone and console.

Come learn our plans to deliver.

So… closer to the metal? Better performance? Sounds familiar.

Also, there’s another session to be led by Max McMcullen, Development Lead for Windows Graphics, entitled "Direct3D Futures." Here’s the session abstract:

Come learn how future changes to Direct3D will enable next generation games to run faster than ever before!

In this session we will discuss future improvements in Direct3D that will allow developers an unprecedented level of hardware control and reduced CPU rendering overhead across a broad ecosystem of hardware.

If you use cutting-edge 3D graphics in your games, middleware, or engines and want to efficiently build rich and immersive visuals, you don’t want to miss this talk.

Again, more direct control of the hardware and lower CPU overhead are key points of emphasis. Sounds to me like we’ll be hearing about the next version of Direct3D—and that it may follow the path Mantle has blazed.

Of course, the best thing about such a development, if it were to happen, would be broader compatibility with GPUs made by Nvidia, Intel, and others, as well as by AMD.

Meanwhile, there’s another session listing of note related to the other major graphics API, OpenGL. In this case, a team of presenters from AMD, Nvidia, and Intel will talking about "Approaching Zero Driver Overhead in OpenGL." The description reads:

Driver overhead has been a frustrating reality for game developers for the entire life of the PC game industry. On desktop systems, driver overhead can decrease frame rate, while on mobile devices driver overhead is more insidious–robbing both battery life and frame rate. In this unprecedented sponsored session, Graham Sellers (AMD), Tim Foley (Intel), Cass Everitt (NVIDIA) and John McDonald (NVIDIA) will present high-level concepts available in today’s OpenGL implementations that radically reduce driver overhead–by up to 10x or more. The techniques presented will apply to all major vendors and are suitable for use across multiple platforms. Additionally, they will demonstrate practical demos of the techniques in action in an extensible, open source comparison framework.

I’m not quite sure what to make of the phrase "high-level concepts available in today’s OpenGL implementations that radically reduce driver overhead." Since OpenGL is curated collaboratively and can be extended by any vendor, it’s possible many of the components of some fairly radical new approach to graphics programming may already be available—or could be made available for download in time for this session.

Will both of the major graphics APIs be taking major steps soon to replicate what Mantle has promised to do? Sure sounds like it, but we may have to wait for GDC in order to find out more.

Comments closed
    • Ninjitsu
    • 6 years ago

    I think this is worth checking out:
    [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bCeNzgiJ8<]"Beyond Porting: How Modern OpenGL Can Radically Reduce Driver Overhead"[/url<] Nvidia talk from Steam Dev Days. Nice and technical. Links to slides in the description below the video. Main points of interest (directly on topic) should be from the beginning and after 28 mins, there's a section on textures in between that you may want to watch too.

    • ronch
    • 6 years ago

    AMD just couldn’t catch a break now, could they? The moment they make headlines about introducing a revolutionary, new API, the other boys come in and steal their thunder.

      • Mr. Eco
      • 6 years ago

      AMD did show what Mantle does; GDC sessions are empty talk for now, might take 1 or 2 years to materialize.

      Oh, God, moved 3 times that semicolon 🙂

      • sschaem
      • 6 years ago

      But they already made MS looked bad, really really bad.
      and whatever MS do to optimize DX to save face, we have to thank AMD for it.

      BTW, how many people think those future optimization and improved functionality will work on windows7?

      I refuse to install windows8 again, I wouldn’t be surprised if mantle is available on Linux/steambox before the next version o direct3d is available for wndows7…

    • sschaem
    • 6 years ago

    This is the reality today.

    [url<]http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Battlefield-4-PC-238749/Specials/Battlefield-4-Second-Assault-Benchmarks-1109970/[/url<] Lets rerun that benchmark with the next version of Direct3D and see if we get any improvements from Microsoft. But from what I can see, we wont be able to do this for another year or so. So proclaiming that the most advanced and most efficient graphic API ever created is dead is a bit premature.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      I’m a bit leery on the results .. need to see AT,TR or HARD get the same numbers…

    • marraco
    • 6 years ago

    Don’t be so happy. Knowing Microsoft, they will mantleize DirectX 12. But it would only work on Windows 9,but will be too bugged until Windows 9.1, and older versions of windows will not support it, because MS needs your money, and wants you to but a slower, newer, windows.

    Anyways, game developers will only adopt DX 12 after the release of Windows 10, and it will be only a checkbox support, due to games also needing to run on older APIs. No real benefits will be extracted from DX 12 until Windows 11, which will be released 15 years after the introduction of Mantle.

      • tanker27
      • 6 years ago

      M$ doesn’t need the average consumers money, this is a fallacy that is perpetuated by the uninformed and ignorant.

      The bulk and mainstay of all of Microsoft’s sales comes from Client Access Licensing or CALs, Volume Licensing, and Enterprise Agreements.

      The home user and even the ‘xbox’ are a fraction of this.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      So? I’ll pay for win9 when it has a start menu and get dx12 as a bonus, sounds fine to me.

    • tanker27
    • 6 years ago

    Since all the talk recently was Mantle this and Mantle that I just assumed that M$ was working on something and that they would release ‘something’ to turn said talk back there way. I also kinda assumed that NVIDIA too would do much the same with maybe their own take/ API. But what I didn’t expect was that both M$ and NVIDIA would go at it together. I guess it makes sense…………

      • tanker27
      • 6 years ago

      Jesus a thumbs down for that? I really hate this system. :/

    • Klimax
    • 6 years ago

    [quote<]AMD introduced its Mantle API in order to create a more efficient means of programming today's GPUs, with a model that better fits how modern GPUs actually operate. Part of its promise is a reduction in the CPU overhead currently associated with Direct3D and OpenGL.[/quote<] I'd rewrite as: [quote<]AMD introduced Mantle API in order to fix their drivers and avoid their development costs, which better fits their failure. Part of its promise is to move costs of real multithreading onto developers without having to support DCL.[/quote<] There still distinct lack of evidence that there is real overhead to DirectX, but there is quite evidence then AMD¨s drivers sucks.(Also some alphas used for Mantle are quite badly coded and their targets are at best misdirected) == Anyway, we'll see what changes Microsoft will bring. Most likely case will be portion of API from Xbox brought here. Well, fun is ahead... (And I bet NVidia has framework in drivers already ready for any changes) ETA: Forgot to finish tags. ETA2: Forgot that tags here are case sensitive...

    • rahulahl
    • 6 years ago

    “OpenGL implementations that radically reduce driver overhead–by up to 10x or more. ”

    What does that even mean?
    Isn’t 1x 100%?
    10x would imply 1000% less overhead.

    I’m sure you can increase it by 10x, but you can never decrease something more than 1x.

      • mark625
      • 6 years ago

      I take “10x less overhead” to mean “1/10th the overhead”. Sure it’s convoluted, but as long as your math cortex has a contextual auto_invert() function, you’re good.

      My problem with that statement is the phrase “up to 10x or more”, which is semantically meaningless. Just like the Geico commercials. “Up to” sets the ceiling, then “or more” blows right past it. Pure drivel. Why even put a “10x” qualifier in there if it doesn’t mean anything?

        • sschaem
        • 6 years ago

        Simple.

        They expect a target of 10x, to be reached in some cases.
        But they also think, it could be potentially be greater in more rare cases.

        They want to give an estimation, but don’t want to bound the upper limit.
        At this stage they might not even know the upper limit.

        So “reduce overheard by up to 10x or more” is perfectly phrased.
        (And coming from me, that’s says a lot)

          • GrimDanfango
          • 6 years ago

          The point is, what the hell is a reduction of 10x?

          A reduction to 10% of something’s original value, that is clear and precise. If you’re determined to convert it into mumbo-jumbo marketing-speak though, 10% of something would still be more accurately described as “0.1x as much”. This is an added pointless confusing inversion that flips it to “10x less”, and at that point, it gets very murky what the exact meaning even is.

          We know they’re only giving a ballpark estimation, but it’s still using pointlessly confusing and ambiguous language, when it’s very easy to simply state exactly what you mean.

    • crabjokeman
    • 6 years ago

    I declared Mantle stillborn, and I stand by that meme despite the number of downvotes I received.

    • puppetworx
    • 6 years ago

    I hope OpenGL delivers. Buying a new version of Windows is less and less appealing to me these days, I’d rather game on Linux.

    • NovusBogus
    • 6 years ago

    Five bucks says it’s Win8 only, and thus has an even slower adoption curve than DX10.

      • Laykun
      • 6 years ago

      Ten bucks says it needlessly requires new hardware.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        10 says you both are wrong on most counts. (It wouldn’t make to require new HW anyway)

    • fhohj
    • 6 years ago

    Looks like Mantle has already succeeded. Ya know, this was the one thing I didn’t really buy into concerning the talk about the impact of Mantle, but it’s already arrived.

    And it seems everybody is content to try and keep Microsoft from doing something similar by all getting together around OpenGL if necessary.

    I highly doubt Microsoft could do something easily, however. They would need to be arch-exclusive to Nvidia, AMD, and Intel. Essentially needing to do Mantle x3. Unless everybody at AMD and DICE are just idiots and there is a magic fix for more performance while maintaining board support.

    I think what Microsoft should do is cuddle up with Intel. Intel improves their graphics architecture all the time. I think if Microsoft could sell Intel on some Intel-specific low-level DirectX, then Intel might agree, and that’s gonna be a big problem for AMD and Nvidia. Given Intel’s massive install base, and their far superior manufacturing advantage, if this were combined with a low-level, maybe kernel-level, API supported by Microsoft at its core levels, then all of a sudden you have a standard that developers will support regardless. They don’t particularly care if people have graphics cards, just that they can run the games, and today, graphics cards are the biggest hurdle to overcome with regards to running them. Still that’s sort of unlikely too. But if helps Intel achieve their monopoly and catch up in graphics then it’s not so unlikely. It’s more realistic than Microsoft providing Mantle-like low-level DirectX to three or more (when you include mobile) different architectures. Maybe Microsoft has plans for surface maybe here.

    • Krogoth
    • 6 years ago

    [url<]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0[/url<] Unless you are a game developer.

    • The_ENLIGHTENED_One
    • 6 years ago

    Mantle no more! Mantle is still around, you know… CUDA’s still around and physx still around and so forth. Mantle is not going away anytime soon!

    Mantle works with all the GCN based cards despite not being “OPTIMIZED” for a portion of ’em. Mantel delivers! And Mantle is expected to be more dynamic than any API out there. Should it become open source? YES! But I don’t expect AMD to just give it away for free. Maybe Microsoft should buy the patent and rights associated with Mantle and integrate it into Direct3D?

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Oh yes, mantle is here to stay on 2 games.. But to the other point the xbox custom build of DX is already close to metal-ish. This announcement really is if fluff and all there going to do is port over a advanced DX kit. Hardly cost them a dime.

        • The_ENLIGHTENED_One
        • 6 years ago

        2 games while it’s still in beta. All EA upcoming titles are gonna have built in Mantle renderers.

        Sure, you’re free to stick with Nvidia and keep rendering your games over MS’s Direct3D.

          • maxxcool
          • 6 years ago

          Since TR has not run that headline i will have to ask you for a press release on EA’s site to confirm that .. AND list actual titles and RELEASE DATES.

          Pictures… or it did not happen.

          • maxxcool
          • 6 years ago

          Thought so… next!

      • chuckula
      • 6 years ago

      Can’t decide… legitimate koolaid drinker or secret Nvidia fanboy who intentionally spews crap to make legitimate AMD fans look stupid….

        • maxxcool
        • 6 years ago

        I’m betting on paid.

        Viewing profile – The_ENLIGHTENED_One
        Username:The_ENLIGHTENED_One Rank:
        Gerbil In TrainingGroups:
        Add friend
        Add foe
        CONTACT THE_ENLIGHTENED_ONE
        PM:Send private message
        USER STATISTICS
        Joined:Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:02 am
        Last visited:Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:37 pm
        Total posts:0 | Search user’s posts
        (0.00% of all posts / 0.00 posts per day)

      • torquer
      • 6 years ago

      Yes we all desperately need an extra 10% FPS when running a GPU that is crippled by our poor CPU performance.

      AMD should spend that time developing better CPU per-core performance to go with their great GPUs then it wouldn’t be an issue. I don’t see my Core i7 holding back my dual GPUs.

        • Ringofett
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]Yes we all desperately need an extra 10% FPS when running a GPU that is crippled by our poor CPU performance.[/quote<] That's what I've been getting downvoted saying for a while, who the heck buys a relatively expensive mid range or high-end dedicated video card and then pairs it with a crap processor? AMD fanboys can't help themselves, but who else? Certainly not enthusiasts I'd assume. Sure, if every game developer out there adopted this, it might render some Bejewelled game better for grandma and the integrated, low-end solutions AMD does do well that we'd likely put in a grandma-class system, but if those low end systems are what enthusiast websites are targeting for an audience then we've all lost our edge a bit.

    • The_ENLIGHTENED_One
    • 6 years ago

    Mantle no more! Mantle is still around, you know… CUDA’s still around and physx still around and so forth. Mantle is not going away anytime soon!

    Mantle works with all the GCN based cards despite not being “OPTIMIZED” for a portion of ’em. Mantel delivers! And Mantle is expected to be more dynamic than any API out there. Should it become open source? YES! But I don’t expect AMD to just give it away for free. Maybe Microsoft should buy the patent and rights associated with Mantle and integrate it into Direct3D?

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Oh look, duplicate paid post..

    • Sahrin
    • 6 years ago

    I honestly don’t care who does it, just so long as games are as performant and stable as they can possibly be.

    This MS hate is hilarious. “It’s important to me that the invisible API that runs *on Windows* is not made by MS!”

    …right.

      • slowriot
      • 6 years ago

      Not all of us want to game on Windows. There’s also this whole SteamOS thing.

        • maxxcool
        • 6 years ago

        Then don’t game on windows and don’t worry about it.

        • Sahrin
        • 6 years ago

        DirectX is not available on SteamOS. The article is about DirectX. The MS hate is directed towards DirectX…which is only available on Windows.

        If you game on another platform, you don’t have to worry about it – and the article isn’t relevant to you, because it’s about DirectX.

          • slowriot
          • 6 years ago

          It’s about DirectX and OpenGL receiving improvements, possibly in response to Mantle.

          I want to play games on my platform of choice, ideally. Right now this is not a realistic option because developers/publishers are faced with tough choices. If the dominate API were one that’s widely available across many platforms then publishers/developers would not face the same decisions, or at least be far less burdened.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            It will be YEARS before you see mantle on linux.

      • odizzido
      • 6 years ago

      It’s not that I don’t like MS. I think windows is a good OS. I just don’t like that directX effectively locks me into using windows if I plan on playing games.

        • Sahrin
        • 6 years ago

        How does it lock you in? All OS’es use custom API’s, you can’t install a single binary on all OS’s.

          • slowriot
          • 6 years ago

          ….. seriously? Obviously the developer would be recompiling with the necessary code changes and ship multiple binaries. This is far, far, far, far, far easier if you start with OGL, rather than maintaining two separate code paths if a developer wants to release on more than Windows.

            • TO11MTM
            • 6 years ago

            … Then the developer can use OGL from the start… nothing’s stopping them from doing so.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            “”This is far, far, far, far, far easier if you start with OGL, rather than maintaining two separate code paths if a developer wants to release on more than Windows.””

            Which is EXACTLY why mantle will have limited impact. It is neat, like a magic trick at a party. but after that audience has moved on… done. DEVS do NOT want to code a mantle engine + a d3d engine + a ogl engine. they will pick their martket and code to that which will bring the most PROFIT$.

            aka d3d for pc, ogl for ps4, ogl for linux and steam. Not mantle.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            I didn’t mention Mantle once in the replies under Sahrin’s post, and most certainly not to the one you’re replying. So why are you bringing it up?

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            What else is there besides ogl and DX? .. Mantle .. ergo that’s all you are talking about.

      • Deanjo
      • 6 years ago

      You are missing the point. It’s that they don’t want to be locked to a Windows only API that only works on Windows. In fact the open APIs would welcome contributions from MS with wide open arms.

        • Sahrin
        • 6 years ago

        [quote<]It's that they don't want to be locked to a Windows only API that only works on Windows.[/quote<] All Windows API's are Windows only. OpenGL for Windows is not compatible with OpenGL for Linux. You can't run an OGL Linux game on Windows or Max, or vice versa.

          • chuckula
          • 6 years ago

          OpenGL for Windows is not compatible with OpenGL for Linux.
          –> Objectively false statement. Just because software has to be ported between OS platforms does [b<]NOT[/b<] mean that OpenGL isn't cross platform. I've been running tutorials for OpenGL where the exact same source code files can be compiled for Linux or Windows. You are making the false assumption that the 3D graphics API == the entire game, which of course is complete nonsense.

          • Deanjo
          • 6 years ago

          The API implementation is OS specific, not the specifications or calls.

    • dragosmp
    • 6 years ago

    This response from MS and Chronos is what is to be expected. They want to show they have something that improves upon the stale offering they propose today.

    If Mantle takes off and MS just shuts up, media would just say “DX offers the same graphics quality with a 30% performance penalty, DX is obsolete”. With this announcement the incumbents just throw doubt upon how much resource developpers should assign to Mantle; hearing a revamped DX is around the corner may give developpers pause before investing in a new API.

    If they could kill Mantle with these powerpoints, then there won’t be any improvement whatsoever in their offer either and all they declare now would be left in a drawer. As it goes, hopefully Mantle takes off, at least a bit, so MS and Chronos actually do something about bringing their APIs more up to date. And then, may the best API win

      • PixelArmy
      • 6 years ago

      αἴκα

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      So far, those who bothered to investigate like TR, discovered that Mantle just fixed AMD’s drivers and has nothing to do with DX…

    • bittermann
    • 6 years ago

    I wonder if this is Microsoft’s yearly commitment to focus more on pc gaming that never materializes? Smells like it…

    • PainIs4ThaWeak1
    • 6 years ago

    I’m still trying to figure out why it took “nearly 20 years” to realize optimization could be had at the level in question?

    … Profits?

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      I suggest to read history of computer graphics…this assertion is not correct. Also history of graphical APIs.
      Like:
      [url<]http://www.alexstjohn.com/WP/2013/07/22/the-evolution-of-direct3d/[/url<]

      • marraco
      • 6 years ago

      It took consoles, showing how underperforming are video cards under windows bloatware. And AMD trying to liberate his cards from Microsoft chains.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Lack of competition .. while it is my opinion mantle wont be more than a notch in the tech belt for AMD, but it did stimulate MS to advance their plans.

    • snook
    • 6 years ago

    the announcement will go like this:

    DX: we are instituting Mantle in our upcoming DX release

    OpenGL: what MS said.

    errbody wins. also, this explains the secrets. thank you thank you thank you. *bows*

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 6 years ago

    Anyone remember when MS went into panic mode after Firefox came out?

    EDIT: The question is, will Mantle see widespread adoption like FF? I doubt it…

      • the
      • 6 years ago

      Mantle isn’t causing the panic but rather OpenGL is (again). Mobile platforms like iOS and Android both use the embedded version of OpenGL and that is where developers are going.

        • ermo
        • 6 years ago

        Exactly. Microsoft’s traditonal hegemony over the PC gaming sector (largely achieved by offering and controlling the best development tools and the proprietary APIs to which they are coupled) is eroding. Fast.

        The irony is of course that OpenGL had stagnated for a long while, in part because of Steve Jobs not caring about/believing in gaming on Mac OS X which uses OpenGL. Then mobile gaming and OpenGL ES happened. AIUI, OpenGL is also only now reaching feature parity with DX11. And OpenGL is the only credible multi-vendor graphics API standards body as far as I am aware.

        The way I see it, for all its failings, Valve might be a better steward of gaming/graphics APIs (via the Open Source Linux-based SteamOS) than Microsoft. At least for now. Better games = more money to Valve via Steam cuts, so gamers win and Valve wins and everyone has access to the source, which allows bright souls to code up new and clever proof-of-concept features which can then be adopted, refined and folded back into the main SteamOS code base (and be pushed upstream).

        Microsoft simply can’t compete with that kind of development, given its fundamentally proprietary approach.

    • jihadjoe
    • 6 years ago

    R.I.P., Mantle. January 2014 – February 2014.

      • NeelyCam
      • 6 years ago

      Poor baby spent its whole life in the NICU, yet never had a chance. I feel unbearable sadness.

      • Generic
      • 6 years ago

      Let’s take a nostalgic look back on all the Mantle announcements:
      – “X game will not support Mantle until Y month.”
      – “Mantle support for X game has been delayed until Z time frame.”

      Did I get ’em all?

    • jihadjoe
    • 6 years ago

    [quote<]In this unprecedented sponsored session, Graham Sellers (AMD), Tim Foley (Intel), Cass Everitt (NVIDIA) and John McDonald (NVIDIA) will present [b<]high-level[/b<] concepts available in today's OpenGL implementations that radically reduce driver overhead--by up to 10x or more.[/quote<] lol! Don't they mean [b<]low-level[/b<] concepts since this new code is supposedly [i<]closer to the metal?[/i<]

      • Melvar
      • 6 years ago

      Probably not. Concepts are high level, specific implementations of those concepts are (or at least can be) low level.

        • jihadjoe
        • 6 years ago

        That’s the joke!

        If the concept is all about low-level code, do you call it high-level for the thought behind the concept? Or low-level for the code it represents?

          • Laykun
          • 6 years ago

          Well they mention that they are opengl concepts, so yes it’s high level.

          • danny e.
          • 6 years ago

          “High level” just means “a general overview”.
          As in, a birds eye view of something. Not details or specifics, just general overview of something.

    • albundy
    • 6 years ago

    stagnant api’s? amd and nvidia have been charging hundreds of dollars for the old api junk, ripping people off with their pricing schemes and rebadged bs.

    • anotherengineer
    • 6 years ago

    Get your new version of DX with your new version of Windows.

    Insert money here!

      • kilkennycat
      • 6 years ago

      YEP !!

      You can bet FOR CERTAIN than MS will reserve any improvements to DirectX for Win8 and above. Pairing the latest DirectX with that UI abortion called Win8.x would be just what the MS bean-counters ordered.

        • Puiucs
        • 6 years ago

        you will not see this on win8 because of “things that are present only in future windows releases”

        • jihadjoe
        • 6 years ago

        DX11 did eventually get ported to Vista, just saying.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        As soon as it requires changes in driver model, it can’t get fully backported.

        Although I suspect that API itself will get mostly backported and only features requiring new driver model (WDDM 1.3 I think) will be missing. As was case with DirectX 11.1

        Nothing to do with money, that is just talking out of ignorance…

      • bittermann
      • 6 years ago

      Guaranteed you will need to upgrade to Windows 9 next year to see the benefits…that’s just the way MS rolls…and that’s just to dam bad for everyone but MS.

        • UnfriendlyFire
        • 6 years ago

        And if you want to stop using Win8’s UI, you also have to upgrade anyways. Or downgrade to Win7.

      • Umbragen
      • 6 years ago

      That was my first thought: new DirectX = Windows 9.

      • Laykun
      • 6 years ago

      I was gonna post this but it seems like it’s a pretty well understood fact about Microsoft by now. It’ll probably also require new hardware as well despite the fact that it can be done at software/driver level.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Like DX 11.1 SW features? Windows 7 and NVidia’s Kepler got them…

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Win9 will have a start menu and dx12 ala clm? Sounds fine to me. Sign me up.

    • windwalker
    • 6 years ago

    Will these new versions of graphic APIs require new cards or do current ones already have the hardware support needed?

      • Damage
      • 6 years ago

      Depends on the APIs. Right now, much of the talk is about better supporting existing hardware and in doing so reducing CPU overhead, so it’s a little unusual compared to past versions of DirectX, which have extended the feature set exposed in order to support new GPUs.

      An update to D3D could conceivably offer better support to existing GPUs and/or add support for the features of new GPUs.

      The best possible world would probably include a portion of DX12 that allows a better programming model for current DX11-class hardware and another, extended bit that establishes support for a next-generation set of GPU features.

        • Deanjo
        • 6 years ago

        The best possible world would simply adopt an open, low overhead cross-platform API. It’s called openGL.

          • chuckula
          • 6 years ago

          OpenGL could certainly use some improvements for making the lives of developers easier. However, the performance features that people are clamoring for are already in there even in already released versions. An OpenGL 4.5/5/whatever that improves some of the interfaces and makes it easier to actually use the high-performance features would be a big step forward in a truly cross-platform graphics API.

            • Deanjo
            • 6 years ago

            Absolutely it could use some improvements (name me an API that couldn’t use some). If MS actually put some effort into contributing into openGL there would be no real reason to keep DX. It would take just a bit of effort to address the peevs of openGL and everybody would be better off.

            • demani
            • 6 years ago

            We all know how well it worked out the last time MS tried to “work” on OpenGL. And they have very little reason to do so since it doesn’t support their Windows Phone/Xbox/Windows gaming environments. Why should they even consider it given the likely lack of impact on their bottom line.

    • Andrew Lauritzen
    • 6 years ago

    > I’m not quite sure what to make of the phrase “high-level concepts available in today’s OpenGL implementations that radically reduce driver overhead.”

    It’s this stuff: [url<]http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=64685.[/url<] i.e. a bit of a different way to do rendering that ends up bypassing a lot of the traditional overhead (vs. directly reducing it like Mantle).

    • bthylafh
    • 6 years ago

    I hope this isn’t going to bring back Direct3D 9-style “capability bits”; at first glance, it appears that might be necessary to make each chip architecture go at maximum speed.

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      Or original OpenGL extensions…

    • slowriot
    • 6 years ago

    Direct3D updates are nice but the idea of Microsoft continuing to play a role as Gatekeeper in PC gaming doesn’t sound exciting at all.

      • Chrispy_
      • 6 years ago

      ….especially when the gatekeepers go away for a while and leave the gates locked in their absence.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Go away? I wasn’t aware that there was complete absence of any updates and DX 11.1 never existed…

        People have expectations that are simply incompatible with reality…

      • nanoflower
      • 6 years ago

      So you would rather AMD be the Gatekeeper in PC gaming? I’m sure Nvidia would love that.

        • puppetworx
        • 6 years ago

        AMD isn’t the gatekeeper. Mantle is intended as a supplement to the DirectX not a replacement. AMD is never going to be the gatekeeper. AMD is the company forcing the gatekeeper to respond.

          • UnfriendlyFire
          • 6 years ago

          At a huge cost though.

          They could’ve used the money to improve their regular DirectX graphic drivers, or into CPU/memory-controller R&D for their APU (anemic memory bandwidth and somewhat anemic CPU).

          Or attempt to persuade Nividia to also convince MS to improve DirectX.

            • Visigoth
            • 6 years ago

            Fully agree with this!!! I wish I could vote you up 1000x times.

            • alientorni
            • 6 years ago

            And of course m$ could give what developers have been asking for years.

            • sschaem
            • 6 years ago

            What make you think AMD/ nvidia / and software developers haven’t tried?

            And for improving the Dx drivers… you can squeeze a bit more with a lot of hacking around,
            but its close to plateau. Maybe they feel its wasted effort to get that last 10% compared to what they can achieve with a clean & modern API ?

            And Mantle goes beyond efficiency, its also closer to what GPU have become.

            • WaltC
            • 6 years ago

            Huh? Uh, the reason AMD is doing Mantle is precisely *because* Microsoft is so unresponsive in API discussions. Why on earth would you assume AMD didn’t discuss any of this with Microsoft before committing to Mantle? [i<]Microsoft wasn't interested![/i<] You don't think all of those Mantle developers haven't been after Microsoft to make these kinds of changes? Of course they have--for years. But Microsoft didn't act, AMD did. It doesn't even make sense to think they'd ask AMD about these things but never mention them to Microsoft...;) You need to think again, and this time go a bit deeper than just on the surface of things. AMD is acting--and so AMD's actions *may* inspire Microsoft to actually do something profound with D3d--but I won't believe it until I see it. When it comes to gaming, because of the xBox, Microsoft is a house divided against itself--because what pushes the PC gaming space forward hurts xBox sales to some extent. AMD is not conflicted in that way. Bully for AMD. That's Microsoft's view, not AMD's, obviously. Edit: Considering that AMD makes the xBox hardware and sells it to Microsoft for branding and resale, what's Microsoft's excuse?

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Agree..

          • lilbuddhaman
          • 6 years ago

          All this gatekeeper talk and no “I am the keymaster” joke. I’m disappointed.

        • maxxcool
        • 6 years ago

        oh jebus no.. not with their execution blunders..

      • Mopar63
      • 6 years ago

      I am going to have to disagree with you. One of the things that we NEED in PC gaming is standardization. We do not need nor should we want ever hardware companies to have proprietary technologies when it comes to game developers usage. Things like PhysX hurt gamers in the fact they are limited to a single company and thus not a tool that is used consistently in development, we need API standardization.

      Games today should not be about the choice of the API used in development but rather about the actual game itself and the game play. For all the evil people claim with MS and DX the truth is they have done a solid job.

        • spugm1r3
        • 6 years ago

        You do understand that the development world is so stratified because efforts towards standardization have been insufficient. Standardization means compromise in most instances, sometimes you just don’t have the right tool for the job and waiting for the tool company to recognize the need, develop a solution and propagate said solution just isn’t an option.

        Sadly, your options are a) one-of solutions, b) wait for the gatekeeper, or c) operate in an environment that has no gatekeeper. A is expensive, b is slow and c means working in a Linux type environment, which has no marketshare to speak of.

        I’m certainly not saying these are impossible circumstances, but I don’t believe trying to say everyone has to use the metric system now (metaphorically) is the solution.

      • WaltC
      • 6 years ago

      It’s too bad, but Microsoft long ago sacrificed PC gaming on the altar of xBox. I have very little confidence in anything the company says these days about PC gaming, because time after time the company has demonstrated complete inconsistency on the subject. One day it’s “We’re back into computer gaming full throttle!” and the next day someone else says, “Huh? What’s ‘PC gaming’?”

    • Bensam123
    • 6 years ago

    Yup… MS loses the power and they flail around randomly like a spoiled kid trying to get it back. I’m sure we’ll see something like the DirectX version of Windows 8 Start Screen. Added functionality to make it better and catch up with the competition.

    It’s stupid. If MS gave two-shots they wouldn’t have pretty much sat on DX since DX 9, which came out more then a decade ago.

    Fuck MS, fuck DirectX. I really don’t care if it’s OGL or Mantle, but no more DX. AMD is on the right path right now and I really think a graphics company should be at the helm of designing the protocol state of the art graphics rides on. There is always incentive for improvement there, there is always a willingness to change… Unlike MS that doesn’t care till it’s gone.

      • Meadows
      • 6 years ago

      Remove your bias.

        • Bensam123
        • 6 years ago

        Considering I’m suggesting multiple solutions and rational behind my strongly worded opinion, I don’t think there is a reason to ‘remove my bias’ whatever that means of context of the above post.

          • Flying Fox
          • 6 years ago

          The moment you dragged Windows 8 Start Screen and used ****, any credibility of being “rational” goes out the window.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            Why? The Start Screen issue is a perfect, recent example of Microsoft exercising their market power to force negative changes onto customers.

            Would it surprise you if an updated release of DirectX required the purchase of a new Windows release? It wouldn’t surprise me at all, and this type of behavior (start screen being a recent example) is precisely why PC gaming should move away from Microsoft having such a crucial role.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            So? dx 11.2 wont run on win7 already, or dx 11.1 on vista or dx10 on xp… been done for years and it doesn’t have any affect.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            Why do you want that to continue? The only beneficiary of this business model is Microsoft. Customers and developers are both hurt by it.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            I don’t use 7\10 year old OS’s. So it doesn’t bother me at all.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            Windows 7 is not 10 years old. Neither will Windows 8 or 8.1 be 10 years old when the new version of DirectX is released. But you can bet none of those be provided support. I fully expect any new release of DirectX to be tied to Windows 9 or a 8.x release number and for MS to charge for it (the OS that is. Well for now, but if we continue to give them this control who knows). This is their MO and is again a significant reason not to allow them to continue being the Gatekeeper.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Sounds fine to me. Windows 9 will have a start menu.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            I never said win7 was 10 years old. That reference was toward vista and xp.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            Right, which is why you’ve now edited your post…. I’m done here. You’re nuts.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            I edit *every* post I make to shorten them, get over it. I’m right your not.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]I edit *every* post I make to shorten them, get over it. I'm right your not.[/quote<] You edit them because they're often incoherent messes. Here's a solution: proof read before posting. And no, "your" not right.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Welcome to the internets. The games are made up and the points don’t matter!

            • NeelyCam
            • 6 years ago

            Don’t you mean ‘dont’..?

            • kamikaziechameleon
            • 6 years ago

            Your statement displays your ignorance of both what OS changes in 8 were to the detriment of the consumer vs what was for the customer.

            There is a large user base(Many of them on this site) that is against growth and change. They hated the Button more than the intrusive push towards MS store apps.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            And here we go. Personal bias and dislike is used to assert that any change you hate is negative. Also evidence missing this is in anyway related to market share…

            Frankly, whole post is quite wrong and baseless.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            lol wtf…

            MS tries to copy other OS’s… MS tries to copy other APIs… I see a trend here…

            As for colorful metaphors? I think they do their job quite well when used in small doses and I reserve the right to use them Mr. Prude… especially when they’re ****s.

          • nanoflower
          • 6 years ago

          You want multiple solutions? so developers need to decide will they support Intel, AMD or Nvidia in their games instead of deciding between OpenGL or DX?

            • Billstevens
            • 6 years ago

            All hail the full screen non-scientific calculator app. Perhaps that can use the new direct-x to make it look like a real 27” calculator instead of a stylized one.

            I don’t really care who takes the strides to improve graphics development in games, I just wan’t to see progress.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            You do know that that metro calculator has scientific mode too?

            And that W7 calc is still there too?

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            Multiple solutions to the greater problem, which is that PC gaming is still largely tied to Windows/Microsoft because the dominate APIs are controlled by them. Bensam isn’t suggesting that developers use multiple solutions, rather that there’s multiple potential solutions that are not DirectX.

        • NeelyCam
        • 6 years ago

        Take it off… slowly…

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Oh, and mantle is better? Proprietary, forcing developers to spend more time and money into 2 code paths. Uneven results, and poor return after debugging, publishing and patching two code paths… terrible.

        • slowriot
        • 6 years ago

        If you read his post you’d note that he’s arguing the need for a replacement for DirectX. Not that Mantle is the ideal replacement. OpenGL for instance is something I wish had more support at the AAA studio level. It’s extremely common among indie titles though.

        Frustrating people like you, who clearly don’t even read what you respond to, are upvoted.

          • maxxcool
          • 6 years ago

          No re-read his post. He is calling for Vendor level API(s). More = Worse for the consumer.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            He specifically mentions OpenGL for crying out loud. Now I just believe you can’t read.

            Ideally, AMD/Nvidia/Intel/etc work together on an API.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            “”I really think a graphics company should be at the helm of designing the protocol state of the art graphics rides on.””

            Clearly means Amd\Mantle, Nvidia\whatever-they-come-up-with, Intel\*shudder* god no intel graphics api please… 😛

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            This is not the same as saying each vendor should have their own API. It’s suggesting that the people who should be involved with the API should be the vendors supplying the hardware. This makes sense. It does not mean that each vendor should have their own specific API…

            This very well could happen with OpenGL, which all three of the companies are already members. Or it could mean something new entirely.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            I do not interpret that post in that manner.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 6 years ago

            > It’s suggesting that the people who should be involved with the API should be the vendors supplying the hardware

            What makes you think that is not already the case? Check the minutes for Khronos GL meetings for instance. And if you think the hardware vendors are not major contributors to DirectX then you’re completely out of touch with the process.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            The issues with DirectX are not entirely technical. They’re far more political in nature and the issues caused by that tend to have a greater impact on end users than technical ones. Microsoft has ultimate control of DirectX. I don’t think AMD, Nvidia, or Intel want it being only released behind a paid-for OS upgrade. Nor do the game developers who might want to use the new features/improvements.

            And no doubt the graphics vendors are heavily involved in OpenGL, but it could definitely use some improvement and for them to act in a more unified manner.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 6 years ago

            > I don’t think AMD, Nvidia, or Intel want it being only released behind a paid-for OS upgrade.

            I think you’d probably be surprised to hear that most people in general (including at Microsoft) don’t want that either. However there are legitimate *technical* issues that make back-porting non-trivial related to WDDM and the driver interface. Ultimately there always has to be a cutoff too… due to China game developers would love to see DX11/12 on XP too, but that’s not going to happen and it has nothing to do with a belief that China is going to start buying their OSes…

            > And no doubt the graphics vendors are heavily involved in OpenGL, but it could definitely use some improvement and for them to act in a more unified manner.

            Right, but that’s exactly what Microsoft provides – a mediator. They don’t come up with these APIs in a vacuum and thrust them on the hardware vendors… it’s a collaborative process with Microsoft effectively mediating between the software and hardware folks. The Khronos model hasn’t exactly proven to be much more successful to be honest… from an API point of view GL is a huge mess compared to DX still.

            That said – both of these processes already exist. I’m not sure what you’re proposing that would solve the inherent problem of disagreement on direction within the community itself. I guess my question is really what do you propose as a better solution? Nothing that you’ve said so far is significantly different from how it already works.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            I’m not at all suggesting the new DirectX should be backported to Windows XP. I do believe it should be available to Windows 7 users. I’d personally be surprised if its available to those still on Windows 8.0 when its released. And recent history certainly justifies my expectation.

            Mediator? No, a mediator does not decide who can and cannot have it. Yes, they build it collaboratively but they have ultimate control at the end of the day. Which means they’re going to act in what they think is their best financial self interest. This is often directly opposed to what hardware vendors want, software developers want, or end users want. This is the problem.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 6 years ago

            Meh, it’s clear from your other posts that you have an agenda here, and I don’t really have an interest in arguing about graphics API “ideology”. Just wanted to clear up some misleading statements you made, so enough said.

            You still didn’t suggest a significantly better system than the two we have today. Going further down the Khronos “design by committee” path is not a very compelling argument given how relatively poorly that has gone to date (i.e. there’s a reason why folks use DirectX on Windows…).

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            Agenda? That suggestions I’m in some type of position to matter. I do have an opinion and that should be clear given that I stated it in my first comment on this TR news post and haven’t backed away or stopped bringing it up.

            I think it’s extremely important for the health and progress of PC gaming that the controlling party of the dominate graphics API not be the same company who has a incredibly long history of abusing that power in an attempt to lock customers to their OS.

            If you don’t have an interest in discussing that then feel free to stop.

            Suggest a significantly better system? Look, if I had the already wrote the paper I’d be sharing it. I think OpenGL is a better solution already because it helps bring real choice to consumers. It’s far from ideal and I wouldn’t disagree on that issue either. But the hurdles in improving OpenGL I feel are actually surmountable. Unlike the above mentioned issue with DirectX, which is never going to become a multiplatform API.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Yes… and for what it’s worth, Slowriot and myself rarely get along or agree.

            • Flying Fox
            • 6 years ago

            And you think the OpenGL process is not political? Especially when there is a “committee”, the standards process will almost always be political to some degree.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            It very much is political. Where did I claim it wasn’t? The comment you replied to, the last sentence is literally talking about how the OpenGL organization also stands to be improved.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            hahah.. OGL has the worst political overhead between the two.. There is a reason that api moves on a glacial pace.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            Well, it seems they picked up pace, but for how long it will last…

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Which is why what AMD is doing with Mantle is even better.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            And that’s why DirectX succeeded. Because it was controlled by non-GPU vendor and thus acted as unbiased standard without overhead of GPU-vendors arguing with CAD companies…

            They were able to drive graphics, while Khronos was deadlocked.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Agree big time…

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Xbox? How does this make it unbiased?

            Why would GPU vendors make it biased as long as all GPU vendors can support it and no one is locked out? I see the word ‘biased’ being thrown around a lot here, but it seems like no one has any idea what it means. Word of the week I suppose.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            Frist, learn your bloody history. DirectX exists for hell longer then Xbox line of consoles.

            Also you might want to explain how making a console makes Microsoft biased, because there is quite a leap in logic in that assertion.

            Why would GPU vendor make it biased? Are you ignorant or are you blind? (maybe trolling me) Competitive advantage, of course. If they don’t lock it down (like Glide or OpenGL extensions) then they architect API to suit their GPUs. (Glide again; also downfall of Glide)

            wiktionary
            [quote<] bias (countable and uncountable, plural biases or biasses) 1.(countable, uncountable) inclination towards something; predisposition, partiality, prejudice, preference, predilection [/quote<] Mantle is definition of biased API, it is controlled by particular GPU vendor (Microsoft is neutral party, Khronos is industry group; thus both are by their operations unbiased regarding any API for GPU), it is made for particular architecture (only GCN cores are supported) and any code written against it is sponsored by AMD and will be written against GCN and due to nature of API drivers won't have that many options how to convert it for other architectures. = Hm, how can one tell fanboys and jokers apart?

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Yes… MS owns this other thing called a Xbox and it, like it’s other console brethren, does not change for close to a decade… which means if PC gaming gets the edge, people will leave it. Therefore, it’s not in their best interest to help improve it… which is what happened for the last decade with only tiny little improvements to pretend they’re doing something.

            They didn’t even go out of their way to make a new version for W8… And all of a sudden out pops this revitalized interest in improving their API!

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Seeing as DX hasn’t really changed in over a decade I don’t think that’s wrong at all. MS has their own agenda.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Yup… It could be AMD/Nvidia/Intel, as long as they come up with something that is unified and works across the board, like Mantle or OGL

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Nope…

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Yup… and push forward into a new era of graphics that aren’t trying to be controlled by one company with motives in their back pocket (which is what we have with DX, Xbox).

            It’s not like MS hasn’t ever been known for stifling competition…

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Nope… you like others under my post seem to be shoving words and intent in my mouth.

          • Meadows
          • 6 years ago

          Indie titles only use OpenGL through Unity lately because it simplifies development for them.

            • slowriot
            • 6 years ago

            It’s not remotely the only reason. The ability to easily port to multiple platforms is a huge draw for an indie. You wan’t as many people to be able to access your game as possible. Even then, your statements discounts why Unity would have focused primarily on OpenGL.

            • Andrew Lauritzen
            • 6 years ago

            Unity uses DirectX on Windows because it crashes way less for their end users. That’s just the technical reality.

            And yes, the portability of GL is the primary reason indies use it. But indeed there’s the rub for this discussion… it’s not because the API is better, it’s because it works on non-Windows and small developers don’t have the resources to do two paths.

            [Edit]Guys this is not a difficult statement to corroborate… read Unity’s release notes or here: [url<]https://unity3d.com/unity/multiplatform/desktop[/url<] or here: [url<]http://docs.unity3d.com/Documentation/Manual/DirectX11.html[/url<] or just use FRAPS...

            • Diplomacy42
            • 6 years ago

            aka, simplifies development… thanks for playing

          • Bensam123
          • 6 years ago

          Yup…

        • xeridea
        • 6 years ago

        Mantle is AMD for now, but they have stated multiple times it was made to be flexible for architectures, and it would be released for more operating systems and vendors in the future. At that point, everyone could just do Mantle only. As far as multiple codepaths, Mantle is a lot closer to how console games are developed, and is a lot easier to optimize reliably, so its actually less work for developers who support both consoles and PCs.

          • maxxcool
          • 6 years ago

          Unless you design your silicon and drivers to use mantle, It is not a option. NV and Intel will **NEVER** use the mantle api path.

            • xeridea
            • 6 years ago

            It was made to be generalized, just closer to how GPUs work. You don’t need to do anything with your silicon, it would just be driver support, which would be easier to implement and maintain than DX support because it is just low level functionality, and DX support requires constant tweaking to get reasonable framerates in AAA games because of how unpredictable it is.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Mantle expects the cluster resources to respond and behave in x,y,z fashion. So sure you could have old silicon work… kinda like how mantle will work for NEW gcn, but does not work as well on older parts.

            BUT in terms of political ramifications and ideology… NV and Intel will NOT hand business to AMD by coding support.

            • xeridea
            • 6 years ago

            Mantle doesn’t expect things to line up in a certain manner. Doing so would make it harder for for everyone, including AMD to support it now and in the future. It will work for all GCN, it just isn’t fully optimized for all chips yet because its an entirely new API just released. Most games aren’t really well optimized for any cards until at least a year after game release, so a couple months for a brand new API isn’t bad.

            Politically, if other vendors support it, it wouldn’t hurt AMD, it would help gaming as a whole. Its not like AMD is charging some royalty for using it. Its not the same as say DX, where MS has a reason to get people to use it (to try to keep people on Windows). Its not like CUDA where it is locked to Nvidia cards.

            AMD is actually doing something about the stagnating PC gaming industry, whats so bad about that?

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            Even if Mantle itself is architecture agnostic (which it isn’t by AMD¨s own statements and support) code using it will be.

            • xeridea
            • 6 years ago

            I don’t know what you read, but the multiple articles I read say otherwise.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            They were all over the place, but IIRC in statements for Anandtech, they admitted it.

            Frankly, all we have is AMD’s assertion and claims. I don’t trust AMD about that. And then even if somehow it was true, nobody will allow AMD such amount of control, so nobody will adopt Mantle anyway.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            AMD has stated to Anandtech directly that mantle ONLY works for GCN, because of the silicone and API combination. which is why Mantle does not work for older AMD silicon. NV or Intel would need to re-code their drivers, and then optimize their silicon in order to see similar questionable gains.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            The very second, you code a engine to use mantle.. you hand control over to AMD because you are increasing its application base. Intel and NV would rather eat molten glass 1st than support a direct competitor that ‘could’ displace them in the hotly contested budget market.

            WORSE.. if you champion a single api versus the general API what happens when AMD starts charging for it? Or making changes that have negative impacts on other vendors.

            The 1st crack hit is always free..

            • xeridea
            • 6 years ago

            AMD is about improving the gaming situation. They heavily support OpenCL, they didn’t go the CUDA route as a ploy to lock coders into them, they heavily support DisplayPort, which is an open standard, unlike HDMI. Every technology that Nvidia comes up with is proprietary, for no technical reason (CUDA, GSync, 3D stuff, etc).

            They made Mantle because for years developers have been complaining about high overhead, and extreme unpredictability and difficult to optimize D3D. Nvidia and Intel would support Mantle because it gives AMD an edge in performance, and the GPU market is extremely competitive. If AMD could get 15% extra performance for free in every game, and have more consistent frame times, it would make Nvidia and Intel look bad. Similar to the effect Glide had (developers loved it, performance gap was huge), but not proprietary.

            • maxxcool
            • 6 years ago

            Does not matter the intent, it is the effect of increasing “required to have amd hardware to play” factor that is the issue.

            As i put in the last post. if NV or intel code for mantle.. they are supporting mantle and increasing its value and market share ”to a direct competitor”, which leads us back to them eating broken glass vs coding for mantle.

            • Essence
            • 6 years ago

            Who`s asking them to use Mantle? I don’t understand why everybody keeps on spouting Mantle is closed to Nvidia and Intel!

            Nobody is stopping Intel and Nvidia making their own API… The developers even said they will support it as they are already supporting a dozen or so API`s and anther two wouldn’t make much difference but a couple of months time added to the game.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            Yup… They just like playing this argument without giving it any context and hope no one responds to it.

            • Bensam123
            • 6 years ago

            They wont use DX because MS owns it? They wont support OGL because a lot of games don’t use it?

          • Klimax
          • 6 years ago

          Why? Nvidia likes DX and OGL and has drivers in order. Second reason is, that it would be competing with AMD on AMD’s turd using AMD controlled hardware against code written against AMD hardware.

          Won’t happen. So it will be de facto (if we are to believe AMD…) proprietary and vendor-only…

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Not to mention it only works for one vendor… options? not.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 6 years ago

      Microsoft is just doing what they did with Internet Explorer. They’re fine as long as they own the standard, but the second it appears they’ve lost control of the narrative, suddenly they’re back to try and win you over so they can go back to ignoring you again.

      That much is just typical Microsoft.

      Mantle is not the answer, though. Sorry. It’s not. It’s got the support of only one GPU maker and only a very select group of that one GPU maker’s own products. You can’t even say it’s the products from just the last two years because the APU’s that support it only include the ones since… January.

      A proprietary standard is not the answer. Until AMD takes Mantle open standard with a committee and offers a finalized spec AND you get support announced from Intel and nVidia, Mantle is a closed standard by a single GPU maker. For a limited portion of its own products.

      And that is destined to be nothing but a faint memory.

      I’m glad Microsoft and OpenGL are catching up. It’ll just make Mantle’s irrelevance all the more obvious to developers who won’t waste another moment on it. Why should them wasting time on it matter to me or you?

      Because every moment they have someone working on that Mantle port is a moment they aren’t having that person or people working on the main version everyone else is playing. PC ports are already a cash grab for the games that would normally push Mantle and since no publisher is going to make a Mantle-only game, they’d have to be spending money to support at least two API’s, if not three (with OpenGL for Linux/OSX/SteamOS/iOS/Android/PS3/PS4/PSvita). There’s just no reason to think they’d do that and not cut corners by reducing money spent on the main branch to afford the Mantle branch.

      Better just to have one API. Really, it’d be better if it was just OpenGL since Windows also supports that.

      I think that’s the reality that lit a fire under Microsoft’s butt. They realized that there a LOT of reasons suddenly for OpenGL to become the defacto standard IF the OpenGL committee gets its act together. If that happens, games might start flooding to SteamOS and by extension, all of Linux.

      Suddenly, Microsoft’s money tree will start dying. That’s the real reason they’ll move to update DirectX suddenly and aggressively as part of the build up to Windows 9.

      Options for PC gamers besides Windows begin to materialize. You never know what you got till it’s walkin’ out the door…

        • Bensam123
        • 6 years ago

        So typical MS makes it right? Nope…

        Supporting the past three generations of it’s products on a brand new api isn’t ‘select’ at all.

        Of course Nvidia and Intel don’t support it yet, it just came out. That isn’t the same as saying they can’t support it, which seems to be what you and a lot of other people are implying.

        Proprietary doesn’t matter as long as it’s not vendor locked (this is nix community BS). Tons of things are proprietary. DX is proprietary.

        Oh please. Every moment they have someone working on OGL is another moment they could have them working on Mantle. It’s suprising how many people here support SteamOS, which means all games will need to support OGL, but wont support Mantle because it takes extra ‘time’. These are the same people who are citing arguments about developmental time. It’s BS and playing both sides of the fence.

      • the
      • 6 years ago

      Functionally, DX 11.2 is state of the art as far as features go. The problem isn’t being feature complete, but rather being bloated from years of incremental updates without trying to re-engineer the entire software stack. The last major shift was with DX10 back when Vista launched and that was hyped with lower CPU overhead and increased performance. That never materialized though DX10 did enable developers to improve visuals overtime.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Wrong. DirectX doesn’t have any bloat for a long time. in fact that was DirectX 10 which removed it. (By shedding support for fixed pipeline)

        So your comment is outdate for almost 8 years… (And what was left, got finished in DX 11)

        DirectX 9 and 10/11 is not even remotely similar. Way too many changes, but I guess one would have to program against DX API to know that…

          • the
          • 6 years ago

          It was a major re-engineering of the DX 10 spec with even a new driver model to go along with it. We’re in agreement on that point.

          DX10 was a bit bloated from the beginning. There were two reasons for this: features creep and the need to cover an unknown hardware base. The feature creep aspect is that simply the DX10 spec changed over Vista’s 5 year development cycle. Case in point, the Xbox 360 actually adhered to an early revision of the DX10 spec. The hardware feature set was locked-in before several additional changes were made to the PC version of the API. (Recall that Vista’s original release date was supposed to be before the Xbox 360.) Things like 10 bit floating point color channels were dropped (allowing for HDR in a 32 bit pixel, often used in the Xbox 360) were removed from the final PC version. The other reason for DX10’s bloat, one that I empathize with is the lack of hardware to test alongside the new API. MS intentionally made its API broad so that it could be implemented in several ways. For such a major rewrite of the API and no hardware on the market to validate, being overly broad here was a good engineering decision then. The thing is that after the release of both Vista and DX10 hardware, MS should have gone back and focused on optimizations. DX11 was an opportune time but instead MS focuses on increasing image quality and general compute.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            Ok for most part, wrong about DirectX 11. Not just image quality, but they did work on optimizations. That’s why there is not much of overhead anymore. (Currently, DirectX user + kernel components account at worst for 8% (Civilization V) <3% for most of games/engines (Haven))

            Examples:
            Civilization V – Late Game View, batch size set to 1000 – 7,4%
            [url<]http://1drv.ms/1cZyZnF[/url<] Heaven - 2,4% [url<]http://1drv.ms/1cZzvSG[/url<] In screenshots one can see various DirectX functions as called by engine and number of calls and number of instructions. (first one is estimate, would require specialized call counter for precise measurement) Should give some idea. Frankly, not sure on what you base your assertion that MS didn't optimize DirectX. Note: Screenshots are from investigation of StarSwarm and thus show only some functions, which useful for determination how engine is written.

            • the
            • 6 years ago

            Would you be able to host those images else where? I’m curious but I’m currently being blocked with a malware warning when attempting to access that site.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            It’s Onedrive (originally Skydrive) by Microsoft. no idea what hell is that warning about.

            • the
            • 6 years ago

            Different system now and I’m able to see them without issue. I do have a couple of comments.

            I’ve noticed that nVidia/AMD/Intel drivers do not appear in the call trace. What you’ve seem to have captured is Civ V -> D3D11 and Ungine -> D3D11 data. This is part of the picture but not the whole story. Looking at data for D3D11 -> driver calls would provide another layer of insight. Can you profile just d3d.dll without a parent application and see it goes any deeper?

            Another thing interesting is that Intel’s profiler tools do not seem to indicate a high GPU utilization. Civ V appears roughly at 50% GPU load where as the Ungine Heaven benchmark is about ~80%. There certainly seems to be room for improvement in Civ V though it isn’t immediately clear if it is GPU, driver or DX11 is the limiting factor. (Civ V according to the profile data you provided is not suboptimal so the CPU side in the application can be removed from consideration.) Ungine Heaven is weird. Looking at the CPU time, GPU usage, GPU software queue graphs at the bottom, the last 5 ms of data throws off the scale. GPU software queue size increase as well as the frame rate but CPU load doesn’t change (I’d have expected a CPU spike to coincide with the GPU software queue increase.). The data does indicate that the Ungine engine is rather CPU light for the Heaven benchmark.

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            1) I have specifically saved images of D3D calls, but all percentages down there are from total. I can post more views. Just profiling D3D is not possible, not a application and most of it is per-application and is loaded in its context (which communicates with user-mode GPU drivers). There might be few options for undirected capture, but I don’t think it would show anything more then I already have.

            However I might be able to center view around NVidia’s driver to show callsites of its functions, but there won’t be any function names for NVidia files, because no symbols are available. (at least I haven’t found them yet…)

            Anyway for overview how DirectX works:
            [url<]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff570589(v=vs.85).aspx[/url<] [url<]http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/hardware/ff570591(v=vs.85).aspx[/url<] 2)Civ V utilization is caused by suboptimal size of batches alias DCL. And that was already after adjustment. (Number in filename is number of objects in one batch) Because I used Titan, number was likely still too low. 3)No idea about last part. It might have been effect of gap caused by VTune, which captured so much data for this type of analysis that massive stalls happened if engine was too intensive. (Tried Crysis 3, got minute gap...) Note: Hopefully I didn't miss anything... 😉

            • the
            • 6 years ago

            1a) I’ve been doing a bit of digging on VTune as I have found some references to profiling non-applications.
            [url<]http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/the-problem-of-using-dll-level-call-graph-data-collection/[/url<] [url<]http://web.nmsu.edu/~usa/nmcac/apps/intel/vtune/doc/users_guide/mergedProjects/analyzer_ec/analyzer_hh/ecl_quick_start_with_drivers.htm[/url<] [url<]http://web.nmsu.edu/~usa/nmcac/apps/intel/vtune/doc/users_guide/mergedProjects/analyzer_ec/analyzer_hh/ecl_quick_start_with_libraries.htm[/url<] These are from older versions of Vtune so they may not apply. While not a Titan (I hate you 😛 ), Intel does provide [url=http://software.intel.com/en-us/node/496515<]similar hardware performance counting for its GPU's.[/url<] The extra data is nice but I'm not sure how useful it would ultimately be without another stick to measure it against, be it a Intel GPU implementation of Mantle or similar data from AMD/nVidia. 1b) The structure of DirectX as demonstrated by those links indicates that data for the user space drivers should be obtainable in addition to the user space Direct3D library. The kernel level modules may not be easily obtainable or distinguishable from other functions living in ring 0. My main issue with the screen shots provided is that the call trace stops at D3D11.dll and doesn't go into the user space driver or reference the kernel space drivers. As such VTune isn't capturing everything (in fairness with the high level architecture diagrams, I won't expect to capture [i<]everything[/i<] either). In other words, Vtune is just going one layer deep in tis analysis: capturing Civ V or Ungine Heaven and the application facing D3D11.dll calls but nothing what is called by D3D11.dll. 3) I forgot the obvious issue that certain debuggers and performance monitoring tools can do: reduce performance and introduce their own bugs into a system. There are even a few gaps in these captures. Subjectively, how much did performance change with Vtune capturing data vs. without?

      • The_ENLIGHTENED_One
      • 6 years ago

      AMD is indeed on the right path! There is no telling when Direct3D will be HSA aware, and AMD needs to put those teraflop HSA APUs into some worthy use in video games.

      Mantle delivers! with the new drivers released recently AMD has fixed most of the problems encountered with the first beta drivers. It’s fast to port to from consoles and it is basically a cross-platoform API, in that it can target the new consoles and half the PCs.

        • maxxcool
        • 6 years ago

        Paid post. Snakeoil…

        Viewing profile – The_ENLIGHTENED_One
        Username:The_ENLIGHTENED_One
        Rank:Gerbil In TrainingGroups:
        Add friend Add foe
        CONTACT THE_ENLIGHTENED_ONE
        PM:Send private message
        USER STATISTICS
        Joined:Sat Feb 15, 2014 9:02 am
        Last visited:Wed Feb 26, 2014 4:37 pm
        Total posts:0 | Search user’s posts
        (0.00% of all posts / 0.00 posts per day)

          • Bensam123
          • 6 years ago

          I agree and I somehow think he is another member posting something like this tongue and cheek to make my post look worse.

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      And 10 and 11 don’t count, right? Also since certain company still doesn’t support basic things like DCL in base DX 11…

        • Bensam123
        • 6 years ago

        They don’t. 10 didn’t do anything special and 11 was just basically tesselation and some performance tweaks that still aren’t nearly on any level of what AMD has done with Mantle or what everyone else (including MS) is now suggesting. It’s not like the draw problems haven’t been known for years.

          • Klimax
          • 6 years ago

          In that case you don’t know anything about them. There’s more to them then your ignorant assertion suggests.

      • torquer
      • 6 years ago

      Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.

      People would take you more seriously (possibly) if you could spew your opinions with less vitriol.

      Lets definitely go back to vendor specific solutions. That was great for the industry.

      You can thank DirectX and Direct3D for bringing PC gaming as far as it came as quickly as it came. Without standards like DirectX we’d still be dealing with GLide and other vendor specific versions of games and that’s not good for anyone even if it does mean better performance.

        • Bensam123
        • 6 years ago

        I don’t think the hatred here has anything to do with how I worded it. If Nvidia had made Mantle that vote would be completely reversed. Which is weird, considering all that Mantle is… is good. Even if Mantle flops, it seems like it’s kicking everyone else around enough where they’re willing to do something.

        Mantle is not a vendor specific solution. Just because Nvidia hasn’t decided to support it yet doesn’t mean it’s vendor locked. Also seems like a argument people are throwing around here which is non-sense.

        Thanking DX is one thing, sticking with it out of some misfounded form of loyalty is another. Just because it still exists doesn’t mean it’s outdated and it’s time has ended.

          • torquer
          • 6 years ago

          Standards are not outdated. Whether it is GL or DirectX I don’t personally care, but I want vendor agnostic APIs and so should you.

          A lot of you seem to be making this claim that Mantle was the thing that got Microsoft to hint that they’d bring DirectX ‘closer to metal.’ Fact is, you can’t prove that one has anything to do with the other any more than I can.

          If Microsoft can find ways to make DirectX perform better and be more flexible to developers, that’s great. Just don’t be so quick to embrace non-standard and vendor specific optimizations. I’d venture a guess that many of you have flipped your collective lids over one or more of the following past examples:

          1. EAX (Creative Labs)
          2. GLide (3Dfx)
          3. PhysX (before or after the Nvidia acquisition)
          4. K56Flex/X2
          5. SSE/3DNow

          Need I go on? The tech community is the most hypocritical group of people on the internet. Everything “the other guy” does is terrible and bad until your guy does it then its the saving grace of the industry.

      • Bensam123
      • 6 years ago

      Wow, so all this hateage was spawned by me comparing what MS is doing now with the Start Screen (which apparently there is a lot of hidden support around here for). Here I thought the start screen was a universally accepted flop of Windows 8. While Windows 8 was pretty good, the start screen and UI adjustments were horrible.

    • Meadows
    • 6 years ago

    On another note: if this goes through, then Mantle will be a stillbirth and all the Glide-doomsayers will be right.

      • Deanjo
      • 6 years ago

      I CALLED IT!!!!

      • tviceman
      • 6 years ago

      Mantle is already stillbirth. Every single person that was excited for Mantle was running fairly high end setups to begin with – 7950’s or better couple with good Intel processors. Mantle did next to nothing for those people. And even then it was delayed for months before coming out on it’s only current game (BF4). And it wasn’t released along side it’s second game (Thief) which already has incredibly high performance based on HardOCP’s early results.

      Mantle is doing nothing except improving really low end setups, and who is rushing out to buy low end setups specifically to play BF4 and Thief on? No one.

        • Essence
        • 6 years ago

        What a retarded comment if I ever saw one.. The low end compared to high end is like 92% to 8% lol

        Ignorance is bliss

          • Ringofett
          • 6 years ago

          And that latter group? That’s the vast majority of enthusiasts, which in theory is what sites like this is all about. Integrated graphics have always led the market but no one ever bought those old, crappy integrated graphics motherboards to game on.

      • Melvar
      • 6 years ago

      All the people comparing Mantle to Glide will still be wrong, because Glide was wildly successful at the time. OpenGL and Direct3D didn’t become viable options until a bit later.

        • Thrashdog
        • 6 years ago

        This. People forget that DirectX was pretty terrible until release 7 or so, but Glide worked great and looked awesome back then. I remember how amazing it was to switch from DirectX to Glide in NFS II — the cars were shiny! The lighting was better! There was mipmapping!

          • Klimax
          • 6 years ago

          Bit earlier. IIRC it was with DX 6. (Also first version bundled with OS, Windows 98)

          • swaaye
          • 6 years ago

          3dfx built chips that worked properly and could truly use all of their features with high performance. They had to build an API that actually supported all of their chips’ features. So it all fell into place.

          But it was sort of a feature stranglehold too because the Voodoo architecture was stagnant and was never replaced. Rampage would have been the first new architecture from 3dfx but feature creep and project management failure killed that. It wasn’t going to support Glide though.

          I wonder if 3dfx hadn’t existed whether Rendition would be everyone’s favorite memory…

            • Melvar
            • 6 years ago

            [quote<]I wonder if 3dfx hadn't existed whether Rendition would be everyone's favorite memory...[/quote<] I doubt it. They were decent little cards for the time, but they weren't the big jump that Voodoo was. Any game you could play on a Rendition card you could play with the software renderer and only lose some image quality and a bit of speed. You were generally playing at the same resolution though. Voodoo was the first in the class of GPUs that actually ended the days of software renderers because they were so fast the CPU simply couldn't compete.

            • swaaye
            • 6 years ago

            Yeah, NVIDIA and ATI would probably just have powered up their duopoly sooner.

            I was going to say Rendition V2200 was nice enough, but NV RIVA 128 was around the same speed but with far better driver support.

    • chuckula
    • 6 years ago

    [quote<]In this unprecedented sponsored session, Graham Sellers (AMD), Tim Foley (Intel), Cass Everitt (NVIDIA) and John McDonald (NVIDIA) will present high-level concepts available in today's OpenGL implementations that radically reduce driver overhead--by up to 10x or more. [/quote<] Pshaw... only Mantle can give 10x draw calls. It would require OpenGL to reach version 4.4 or something for it to have those features and we all know that will never happen. I don't know who that Graham [b<][i<]Sellout[/i<][/b<] guy is, but he sure shouldn't pretend to represent AMD since AMD has ascended to a higher plane of existence that does not require primitive "open" protocols!

      • Melvar
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]AMD has ascended to a higher plane of existence[/quote<] China?

        • kilkennycat
        • 6 years ago

        For those not aware of the context for the “China” reference, please read:-

        [url<]http://www.digitimes.com/news/a20140224PD214.html[/url<] An interesting article. Will give everybody a warm and cozy feeling about AMD's long-term future....... Should make it much easier for the Chinese to "borrow" AMD's proprietary secrets. Concentration on the Chinese market should also help detach the desktop part of the company from paying much attention to comments on AMD products expressed on the top US tech forums.

    • Meadows
    • 6 years ago

    If I hear the pretentious phrase of “close to the metal” one more time, I’m going to murder someone. Please find a substitute or a synonym. Anything.

      • Flying Fox
      • 6 years ago

      I think they already have one: Zero Driver Overhead, ZDO.

        • stdRaichu
        • 6 years ago

        KNEEL BEFORE ZDO!

          • indeego
          • 6 years ago

          This deserves front page.

          • ssidbroadcast
          • 6 years ago

          [i<]Are you a God??[/i<]

        • Deanjo
        • 6 years ago

        It would be more API overhead than Driver overhead. ZAPIO

          • Terra_Nocuus
          • 6 years ago

          *pew pew*

      • Takeshi7
      • 6 years ago

      I believe a synonym is “assembly code”

        • Narishma
        • 6 years ago

        You don’t need assembly to do close to the metal development. On consoles it’s done in C or C++ since the PS1 days.

      • tipoo
      • 6 years ago

      Bordering the silicon

        • brucethemoose
        • 6 years ago

        Close to the metalloid.

          • Terra_Nocuus
          • 6 years ago

          adjacent to the alloy

            • Meadows
            • 6 years ago

            ATTA boy.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 6 years ago

      RECT’D – Reduce Erroneous Calls To Draw

    • Ryu Connor
    • 6 years ago

    I find it unlikely – given the length of development cycles – that Mantle prompted this.

      • brucethemoose
      • 6 years ago

      It probably brought these changes into the media spotlight, and possibly sped them up.

        • swaaye
        • 6 years ago

        Or perhaps the fact that we haven’t had a major DirectX update in years is a sign of the scale of effort being put into this new version. But, on the other hand, since AMD is obviously involved with OpenGL and Direct3D, why did they bother with Mantle? Oh secret secrets!

          • windwalker
          • 6 years ago

          Just like no update to Internet Explorer for many years after version 6 was because Microsoft was busy changing so much for version 7.

            • Milo Burke
            • 6 years ago

            Is that sarcasm?

            • Mr. Eco
            • 6 years ago

            What do you think?

            • swaaye
            • 6 years ago

            Good call. 🙂

            • Klimax
            • 6 years ago

            Bit different. MS assumed they get Vista on time out, and thus tied IE to OS development including transferring responsibility to that team and disbanding original IE team. We all know how Vista panned out… (Also they had to reassemble IE team)

            DirectX is split between two components: User-mode, which can be updated mostly independently of OS itself (see Vista – DX 11, 7 – 11.1) and kernel-mode, which also includes driver API, which requires new OS release. (Exception would be bugfixes, new features on that level would break things)

            ETA: Frankly, timespan is very short for any development, so it is not even similar in this way.

      • maxxcool
      • 6 years ago

      Agree.

      • the
      • 6 years ago

      Considering that MS is talking about future DX released in their sessions, I strongly suspect that Mantle was a catalyst for this. MS has been under pressure and now they’re actually listening to developers. The release of a lower level DX would likely coincide with the next major Windows release and that’s a year away at the earliest.

      • xeridea
      • 6 years ago

      One could whip up a presentation for an upcoming conference in a couple hours for things they are “working on”. Mantle has been around for plenty long.

      Chrome or FF could announce a cool new feature they just released, and MS could say 5 minutes later they have been “working on it”.

      • cynan
      • 6 years ago

      I don’t.

      I think MS has, on some level, been mulling about making improvements to DirectX for a while, but didn’t have any real impetus to actually commit to it until Mantle came along. Remember, these sessions are focused on “plans” and [b<]future[/b<] improvements to Direct3D, many of which may not have even begun development.

        • Klimax
        • 6 years ago

        Or there was no certainty what is possible with current and future GPU/CPU tech… (There are still many interesting graphical things coming out, but generally it is said that it always takes several years to get them into useful state)

    • wierdo
    • 6 years ago

    Looks like Mantle has served its purpose in some fashion, got the bureaucracy mobilized in response.

      • lilbuddhaman
      • 6 years ago

      Mantle?
      or PS4 and SteamOS pushing non-DX solutions?

      Every PS4 title developed is another title that isn’t tied to DirectX, another team of programmers able to work without it, another dev that says “yes, we can port that to (insert platform)”.

      edit: not understanding the hate on this comment. Do people really believe that mantle is making a bigger splash than a multi-million unit selling console? I’d dare say the ideas for Mantle came as a direct result of work that AMD+Sony did together on creating the api’s for the PS4.

        • brucethemoose
        • 6 years ago

        The PS4 uses a variant of DirectX, and SteamOS hasn’t taken off yet.

          • Narishma
          • 6 years ago

          The PS4 doesn’t use DirectX or any variant of it. It also doesn’t use OpenGL or any variant of it. It also doesn’t use Mantle. It has it’s own proprietary APIs.

          • Deanjo
          • 6 years ago

          Wow, when you are wrong, you are really wrong. PS4 utilizes it’s own libraries which are more a derivative of openGL ES.

            • Terra_Nocuus
            • 6 years ago

            the PS4’s graphics capabilities are frequently feature-compared to DirectX specifications, which is why many people believe it to be actual DirectX.

            • Narishma
            • 6 years ago

            Again, PS4’s graphics APIs have nothing to do with OpenGL (or any variant of it). If you want to compare them to PC APIs, GNM is closest to Mantle, while GNMX is a bit higher level than DX11.

      • Klimax
      • 6 years ago

      Sure, Xbox, Xbox 360 and Xbox One never happened… or any other console for that matter.

      Or even DX 9 -> DX 10 -> DX 11

    • kamikaziechameleon
    • 6 years ago

    This is a tedious place in PC development right now. Its probably the most upsetting development of the last couple years. I can’t wait for this to be resolved on some level in a user friendly fashion across all of pc gaming.

    Nothing like spending 2-3 hours getting your computer setup to play a game, patching, benchmarking, seeing if vsync will throw off your mouse latency or not.

      • Voldenuit
      • 6 years ago

      [quote<]This is a tedious place in PC development right now. Its probably the most upsetting development of the last couple years. I can't wait for this to be resolved on some level in a user friendly fashion across all of pc gaming.[/quote<] Beats the days of custom boot disks with EMS, XMS and Voodoo (for Ultima 7) configs. IRQ, DMA settings for soundblaster? Trying to find the DOS version and mouse drivers that free up the most RAM? Not to mention accidentally hosing your hard drive boot files because you misspelled a word in config.sys or autoexec.

        • windwalker
        • 6 years ago

        And all of this while walking uphill in knee deep snow.

          • kuraegomon
          • 6 years ago

          BOTH WAYS!!!

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This