Impications of Mantle and AMD's slower per core but more core strategy...

[sm625]

If it turns out that BF4 runs at double the fps on GCN w / mantle vs nvidia, then you can bet AMD will totally dominate the gpu market for at least the next couple years. If they were to add a special set of cpu instructions specifically designed to accelerate mantle API calls to yield a doubling of FPS, then AMD would wipe out nVidia and Intel in gaming.

But come on, this is AMD. They should have had these advantages in place 4 years ago! Afaik there is still nothing in the cpu core that is specifically designed to accelerate any sort of graphics API calls. This is most unfortunate, as I've said many times. They really missed a golden opportunity.

 

[JDG1980]

I think this is really a shot across Microsoft's bow. If Mantle is the default API on XB1 and/or PS4, then all AMD has to do is make it available on Linux, and ports of A-list games to Steambox suddenly become a lot more viable.

 

[ams23]

I think this is really a shot across Microsoft's bow. If Mantle is the default API on XB1 and/or PS4

LOL, are you kidding? DirectX and OpenGL are the industry standard API's used by most game developers across all computing platforms. Mantle will only be used as a backup for those game developers who are paid handsomely by AMD to use it. And considering AMD's dwindling cash balance and heavy debt burden, there is only so far they can push it.

 

[OCGuy]

Intel has > 4 cores AND they are better....so I see zero advantage for AMD here on this.

In the Video section they are hyping this up, which is strange because new GPUs were announced yesterday...you would think that would be exciting...but it wasn't apparently.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Intel has > 4 cores AND they are better....so I see zero advantage for AMD here on this.

In the Video section they are hyping this up, which is strange because new GPUs were announced yesterday...you would think that would be exciting...but it wasn't apparently.

Its the same rerun year after year with those hypes. And it never delivers.

 

[Smartazz]

I don't get what the big deal is for people with fast CPUs. Aren't GPUs always the bottleneck these days?

 

[BrightCandle]

I don't get what the big deal is for people with fast CPUs. Aren't GPUs always the bottleneck these days?

Definitely not with SLI. A lot of games become CPU dominated. Unfortunately I play Arma 3 and that engine is severely limited by the CPU to sub 60 fps in real multiplayer games unfortunately. The more mods we add the worse the situation gets. There are quite a few games that no amount of CPU performance will get two graphics cards up to full usage or get the game into good FPS.

Most games are GPU limited even up to 2 cards but its far from universally true.

What AMD is talking about is going from 100 to 900 ish draw calls a frame I guess. But draw calls aren't really a bottleneck, but they are difference in the way the PC and directX works. Could be a good thing so long as NVidia/Intel agree its a good idea and they come to an agreement and develop for the API. If that isn't possible I suspect it wont succeed, 2/3s of the gaming market today is NVidia GPUs and most of the GPUs are actually Intel embedded. No developer is going to focus on an API regardless of its benefits if its not got support from the 3 major players (Intel, NVidia and AMD). Its only so long they will be willing to develop for both.

 

[Smartazz]

Good call, I forgot that multi GPU can be CPU limited. I guess my Crossfire 7950s were never fast enough to be CPU limited in the games I played.

 

[24601]

Good call, I forgot that multi GPU can be CPU limited. I guess my Crossfire 7950s were never fast enough to be CPU limited in the games I played.

Battlefield 3 is actually fairly CPU limited in multiplayer scenarios, which is mostly because of the large amount of actors on the screen (probably a much larger amount of draw calls? http://stackoverflow.com/questions/4853856/why-are-draw-calls-expensive )

The same can be said for games like Rome Total War II or any large unit count RTS.

 

[MightyMalus]

1- "Hardcore" Gamers will go for the best hardware to run their favorite games.

2- Most PC consumers won't care, as long as it runs.

3- Mantle is just another option.

4- As much as OpenGL(OGL ES is another story) is defended, where are the "everywhere running" games for it? The biggest supporter, iD, uses it on Windows...tho, I forgot Valve, but I highly doubt "SteamOS" will get "anywhere".

5- If Mantle is the lowest API and best performing API in either the PS4 or XOne, it WILL be used by every mayor developer.

6- Mantle is for "all" GCN based architectures, not sure why people keep mentioning CPU's...and a plus, for all other future architectures, because GCN is "programmable", like most GPU's now a days.

Well, that's my side of it. See a lot of crying everywhere for something so good and already being used by an incredible engine. And isn't this an open API that other vendors can implement? Kinda read something about that.

 

[NTMBK]

The only way I can approve of this is if it is literally just a PC port of the console low level API, and basically giving developers free performance for console->PC ports without writing a whole new implementation. If it draws away from open multiplatform development, then it needs to die in a fire.

 

[Ventanni]

What happens in situations where the GPU is the bottleneck for gaming?

Intel and AMD CPU perform virtually the same.
In situations where the CPU is bottleneck Intel has a big advantage over AMD CPUs.

Now with mantle there is the possibility of removing some of the CPU bottleneck by allowing the engine to talk closer to the hardware, bypassing the high level API that requires the OS and the CPU.

What do you think it will happen to AMD CPU performance vs Intel CPU performance if the CPU has to do less work?

We get better performance across the board, regardless of whether we get an AMD or Intel CPU. That's kinda why I said what I said.

 

[Kenmitch]

We get better performance across the board, regardless of whether we get an AMD or Intel CPU. That's kinda why I said what I said.

You might get better but then again it's not a given you'll get BEST. You get a compatibility compromise.

I think what AMD is trying to do with Mantle is give you the BEST performance the hardware can give.

It's too early to tell....But then again most people stated nothing will come from the AMD console sweep.

 

[mindbomb]

i think what we might see from mantle is actually a boon to memory sales as well.
I think memory bandwidth will play a greater role with mantle than directx, leading to increased demand for ddr3-2400, etc.

 

[Exophase]

How does this have anything to do with slower but more cores? Isn't this purely a software thing? Sounds to me like AMD is trying to make sure developers who focus on console first aren't burned by new overhead when moving to PCs. Or to put it another way, allows approaches that are draw-call heavy (DX11 will usually allow draw-call light approaches to the same problems, if you work it out that way)

But so long as they still have to run well on nVidia hardware too they'll still have to do a good plain DX11 path.. that is, unless nVidia starts supporting this API..

 

[BallaTheFeared]

It has to do with more cores utilized by this API as well as a reduction in draw call overhead.

The speed up should be two fold for AMD x8 users, first going from 2-4 core support to more threaded support up to 8 cores. The second and more obvious benefit is the reduction in draw call overhead, AMD is stating around 9 times the draw call performance of current CPUs under DX.

If you can't see how that will positively impact AMDs CPU lineup, even their quad and hex core chips I'm not sure what to tell you.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It has to do with more cores utilized by this API as well as a reduction in draw call overhead.

The speed up should be two fold for AMD x8 users, first going from 2-4 core support to more threaded support up to 8 cores. The second and more obvious benefit is the reduction in draw call overhead, AMD is stating around 9 times the draw call performance of current CPUs under DX.

If you can't see how that will positively impact AMDs CPU lineup, even their quad and hex core chips I'm not sure what to tell you.

The API doesnt use more cores. It doesnt solve that part at all. (I dont see how it could anyway.)

Also AMDs future CPUs are 2M/4T. No more 6 or 8 cores. And 8 core support is only in BF4. DX or mantle.

And saying 9x with no relation is meaningless information. If draw calls takes 5% of a CPU core usage. Then it doesnt matter much if it was 10000x less. There is a reason why we got no performance examples. Because its not gonna change much.

 

[BallaTheFeared]

The API doesnt use more cores. It doesnt solve that part at all.

Also AMDs future CPUs are 2M/4T. No more 6 or 8 cores.

And saying 9x with no relation is meaning less information. If draw calls takes 5% of a CPU core usage. Then it doesnt matter much if it was 10000x less.

It's right there in the slide.


I have no idea what AMDs CPU desktop future is.

Must mean something since so many devs complain about draw calls, and most advances in DX since DX9 has been to address draw calls and mulithreading.

 

[Exophase]

It has to do with more cores utilized by this API as well as a reduction in draw call overhead.

The speed up should be two fold for AMD x8 users, first going from 2-4 core support to more threaded support up to 8 cores. The second and more obvious benefit is the reduction in draw call overhead, AMD is stating around 9 times the draw call performance of current CPUs under DX.

If you can't see how that will positively impact AMDs CPU lineup, even their quad and hex core chips I'm not sure what to tell you.

I'm not seeing how this means games go from using 2-4 cores to 8 cores. Why would it? It does decrease CPU overhead, but probably not for more than one thread, and proportional to draw calls or how much you benefit from messing with low level stuff. Not all games need a ton of draw calls.

 

[Blue_Max]

The only way I can approve of this is if it is literally just a PC port of the console low level API, and basically giving developers free performance for console->PC ports without writing a whole new implementation. If it draws away from open multiplatform development, then it needs to die in a fire.

Agreed. Of course, the other side of the coin is that if it's sOoper-easy to port from console to Mantle, will there still be another "full" PC port? Sounds like console game makers have to make the choice; easy-port their console ONLY to Mantle (treat it almost like an OS) or rewrite it for a standard Windows retail box.

Nice if you can think of it as a "freebie" - they had no intention of porting to PC, but now they can so they will.

Still... I envision too many people getting REALLY ticked that the PC game they bought will ONLY work with AMD cpu & video - and you can't return software.


On the plus side, AMD has some affordable 12 & 16-core Opterons... time to bring that technology to the consumer.

 

[Ajay]

Well, certain high profile devs have been clamoring lower level access for years. Maybe this is just AMD's answer for them. Lower level access is never going to be cross platform, so any devs looking for this knew from the start that they would have to write separate code paths and resultant libraries for areas that they wanted to optimize better.

Now I wonder what Carmack and Sweeney have to say...

 

[24601]

It's right there in the slide.


I have no idea what AMDs CPU desktop future is.

Must mean something since so many devs complain about draw calls, and most advances in DX since DX9 has been to address draw calls and mulithreading.

This BETTER not be the reason why AMD said there would be no DirectX 12.

Stonewalling the consortium of them and Nvidia (and Microsoft)'s development of the next DirectX version will be the ultimate doom of PC gaming if it is true.

http://tech.slashdot.org/story/13/04/12/1847250/amd-says-there-will-be-no-directx-12-ever

If AMD plans on GCN being their last architecture until PS4 and Xbone are replaced that would explain their stonewalling on a DirectX 12 specification. The prophetic recalling of the fate of 3DFX doing the same shit are just showing parallels everywhere here.

 

[ShintaiDK]

It's right there in the slide.

Dont mix Mantle and the Frostbite Engine. BF3 also support 8 cores.

Must mean something since so many devs complain about draw calls, and most advances in DX since DX9 has been to address draw calls and mulithreading.

Its AMD PR talk. All developers wanted PhysX too, and OpenGL, and...

Draw calls is just the latest hype after consoles was announced. And Raja is utilizing that in the best Apple manner.

 

[MightyMalus]

Draw calls is just the latest hype after consoles was announced.

Draw call complains are "openly", at least 3 years old.



Still not sure why "everyone" keeps mentioning AMD CPU's when this is a GCN technology.

Maybe its not obvious by this slide...

 

[frozentundra123456]

Draw call complains are "openly", at least 3 years old.



Still not sure why "everyone" keeps mentioning AMD CPU's when this is a GCN technology.

Maybe its not obvious by this slide...

The slide above (edit:in post 47) does show that they claim "perfect parallel rendering" to utilize all 8 cores. Not sure what that really means or if they can actually do it. But that should give an advantage to AMD cpus, or at least close the gap with intel. I still have a hard time believing that they can make the game so perfectly multithreaded that it will not be limited by a single thread though. Maybe it can be "perfectly parallel" for some parts of the game, but AI and so forth, I dont know how parallel you can make it.

It does seem strange though to say it will decrease the cpu load, but use 8 cores. Would seem like decreasing cpu load would also favor fewer cores. Guess we will have to wait for some BF4 benchmarks to really know.