Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [GURU3D] AMD Explains Why Mantle Is Exclusive To PC & Not Present On Xbox One
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[GURU3D] AMD Explains Why Mantle Is Exclusive To PC & Not Present On Xbox One - Page 16

post #151 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moragg View Post

Okay...

Firstly, I'm not the one going "PhysX is like Mantle". I know the difference between the two, my post was purely a comparison of the end result for the gamer. Most people honestly couldn't care less how they make games look better so long as they do.

I'd love to hear how my arguement is weak or has ridiculous predictions. Especially since my comments seem very reasonable given what we know about Mantle, and I put in enough ifs to make sure no-one took it as fact.

From what we know, both Mantle and PhysX can boost visuals - PhysX drops fps, Mantle could boost fps, and imo would look better than PhysX because it is so different. Happy now?

Edit: Mantle's extra draw calls can make games look better than with the exact same game+setup with DirectX. I was too specific when I said "Nvidia card" what I meant was "non-GCN" since that would mean no Mantle. PhysX didn't even enter my mind for that point.

Mantle is the direct coding to GPU technology. It isn't anything near similar to PhysX. Developers can write how they desire their hardware to function.
post #152 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post


Mantle is the direct coding to GPU technology. It isn't anything near similar to PhysX. Developers can write how they desire their hardware to function.

 

I know that, as I've said enough times. The only reason anyone (read: not me) is comparing this to PhysX is because both are "locked" (for very different reasons) to a company and both potentially improve visuals (in hugely different ways). To those people, I say "the end result is still a lot better for Mantle users".

post #153 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

To simply be the devil advocate this maybe proprietary but it does truly go beyond traditional false proprietary shoved down the throats of NVidia fanboys. No offense. Let's use CUDA! tongue.gif Seriously people?

That doesn't make any sense at all. It seems like the ramblings of a tantrum of someone hating NV that had to promote AMD no matter the cost.

Any of them can make proprietary APIs and yes, they can all stall technological progress if they are too Anal about, but none is better at it.


Besides, people often think "oh it's hardware specific, OpenGL and Direct3D are so general". Absolute nonsense, OpenGL and Direct3D are already hardware specific so they are already "partially Mantle" and they already have "NVIDIA [or Intel] submitting to part of Mantle" (so to speak) since a lot of what you see there is not too general but quite specific, e.g. the APIs, the "general" APIs have now a Tessellation stage and that has a real, actual real hardware parallel on the GPUs themselves.
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
Reply
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
Reply
post #154 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm View Post

That doesn't make any sense at all. It seems like the ramblings of a tantrum of someone hating NV that had to promote AMD no matter the cost.

Any of them can make proprietary APIs and yes, they can all stall technological progress if they are too Anal about, but none is better at it.


Besides, people often think "oh it's hardware specific, OpenGL and Direct3D are so general". Absolute nonsense, OpenGL and Direct3D are already hardware specific so they are already "partially Mantle" and they already have "NVIDIA [or Intel] submitting to part of Mantle" (so to speak) since a lot of what you see there is not too general but quite specific, e.g. the APIs, the "general" APIs have now a Tessellation stage and that has a real, actual real hardware parallel on the GPUs themselves.

I don't think you entirely understand NVIDIA could be putting out low level access to their GPUs like AMD, utilizing AMD API like Intel utilizes ISA x86-64 by AMD. Aspects of an API can be legally patented, but simple utilization of an API over it's hardware can't be. The fact is that NVIDIA and Intel have never choosen to play cooperatively with other companies. I'm not giving out fanboy crud, because I realize that both companies NVIDIA and Intel currently have the best products on the market for price with exception to the 290X which is a lot more affordable than the Titan and provides similar performance. OpenGL and Direct3D go through the CPU and then to the GPU. Mantle goes to the GPU and then to the CPU. My only thoughts are does this require a processor from AMD? Because the only processors capable of that are those who have APUs operating on the same bus as the CPU half. Anyway more questions come with more answers, but this is all fascinating to me.
post #155 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moragg View Post

I know that, as I've said enough times. The only reason anyone (read: not me) is comparing this to PhysX is because both are "locked" (for very different reasons) to a company and both potentially improve visuals (in hugely different ways). To those people, I say "the end result is still a lot better for Mantle users".

No worries I thought I'd help simplify it for people to understand. It's not quite the game changer AMD is claiming it to be, because all companies can support it if they choose to. Key word is choose to.
post #156 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by SpeedyVT View Post

I don't think you entirely understand NVIDIA could be putting out low level access to their GPUs like AMD, utilizing AMD API like Intel utilizes ISA x86-64 by AMD. Aspects of an API can be legally patented, but simple utilization of an API over it's hardware can't be. The fact is that NVIDIA and Intel have never choosen to play cooperatively with other companies. I'm not giving out fanboy crud, because I realize that both companies NVIDIA and Intel currently have the best products on the market for price with exception to the 290X which is a lot more affordable than the Titan and provides similar performance. OpenGL and Direct3D go through the CPU and then to the GPU. Mantle goes to the GPU and then to the CPU. My only thoughts are does this require a processor from AMD? Because the only processors capable of that are those who have APUs operating on the same bus as the CPU half. Anyway more questions come with more answers, but this is all fascinating to me.

I'd suggest to stop assuming AMD are Saints. You will find that out soon in life anyway. Besides, they are publicly not Che Geuvara, e.g. the x86/x86-64 world is clearly a duopoly of AMD+Intel Patents, not allowing others to enter the market on the threat of lawsuits, something similar may exist in GPUs I suspect.
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
Reply
PC
(9 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
4790K 4.6G 1.24v/1.74v, 5.1G 1.35v validation. GA-Z97X-Gaming 7 Tri-X R9 290 1100/1350 +0.012v G.Skill 2400 c10 
CoolingMonitorPowerCase
Noctua NH-D15 24EA53 IPS 76Hz OC EVGA 1000 G2 Phanteks Enthoo Pro 
Audio
SoundMagic E10 
  hide details  
Reply
post #157 of 157
Quote:
Originally Posted by fateswarm View Post

I'd suggest to stop assuming AMD are Saints. You will find that out soon in life anyway. Besides, they are publicly not Che Geuvara, e.g. the x86/x86-64 world is clearly a duopoly of AMD+Intel Patents, not allowing others to enter the market on the threat of lawsuits, something similar may exist in GPUs I suspect.

AMD are not saints. Nor are the other two. Can't be legally sued for making hardware that speaks a similar language. Intel sued AMD for using x86 but then AMD won. It's simple, you can't patent a language. Google got sued by who ever owned Java at the time, Google won. Only some aspects of APIs copyprotected like totally copying the language and stating it's theirs to use and forcing people to buy rights to it then AMD can invite them to play the shark tank. Sorry for the run on sentence. HOWEVER the big question is this language also specific to hardware design?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Video Game News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Video Game News › [GURU3D] AMD Explains Why Mantle Is Exclusive To PC & Not Present On Xbox One