I don't think he was considering those who play at low settings with high end cards.
If DX has a 20% overhead, isn't 20% the theoretical max improvement, with 10-15% more likely? Even that would be huge.Some of these predictions sound like they are actually setting Mantle up for failure. 50% - 80% FPS gains in high end systems? Didnt an AMD employee at a demo already give his FPS predictions on another game?
I guess we shall see....
Gosh! They do my 290x is 5.6 TFLOPS! With Maxwell (at least real ones) delayed it will be king of the jungle. Only Titan is better in double precision, but that's what Titan is designed for, graphical designers not gamers.Realistic improvements with mantle will be 5-10% maximum.........and even that's not a guarantee.......and beyond that fact Mantle will be on very few games in the up coming 2-3 years and beyond even........it will make Nvidia's PhysX feature looking mainstream and widespread in comparison.......its a lot of talk about nothing in reality.
AMD did its just once again.....tons of PR and marketing to try and keep their customer base intact and excited............if only they put that much effort into their hardware and software divisions...........
If DX has a 20% overhead, isn't 20% the theoretical max improvement, with 10-15% more likely? Even that would be huge.
10% isn't that huge when we're talking about going from 40FPS to 44FPS.
I say from 10% (minimum possible gain, people playing high res with all the eyecandy and AA) to 70-80% (people like me, playing all low with no AA and currently having my GPU sitting at 40% load most of the time).
Even at GPU limited settings (eg. 2560x1600/1440, ultra, with a strong processor like an extreme edition), improvements should be 10-15% with a card like a 290 or 290x. So going from 40-45 to 50-55 FPS maybe, nothing insane. Give it a lower end processor (FX-8350, i5-4570, etc.) or a lower resolution/graphics setting, improvements can range from 15-35% (big range I know, depends on settings and maps and stuff). At absolutely CPU limited settings, 40-50% usually, but that's unrealistic considering you're probably at minimum settings and min res or something.
But there are still improvements even when you aren't draw call limited.
That's the perf difference between a R9 290X and a GTX 780Ti.
I don't care what the 290x can put out for raw frames, the hardware quality and QC is still suspect. People think game fps #'s are what dictate a quality card from one that's suspect. Look at the bigger picture. The die quality, the power delivery components, the pcb, traces, the heatsink and its design etc etc.........its 2nd class hardware regardless if it outperforms a titan or a 780 or whatever else you can think of in a few benchmarks.Gosh! They do my 290x is 5.6 TFLOPS! With Maxwell (at least real ones) delayed it will be king of the jungle. Only Titan is better in double precision, but that's what Titan is designed for, graphical designers not gamers.
I don't care what the 290x can put out for raw frames, the hardware quality and QC is still suspect. People think game fps #'s are what dictate a quality card from one that's suspect. Look at the bigger picture. The die quality, the power delivery, the heatsink design etc etc.........its 2nd class hardware regardless if it outperforms a titan or a 780 or whatever else you can think of in a few benchmarks.
Give it a lower end processor (FX-8350, i5-4570, etc.) or a lower resolution/graphics setting, improvements can range from 15-35% (big range I know, depends on settings and maps and stuff).
Exactly, and some are willing to pay big bucks for that. Mantle is free. Why complain about a free performance upgrade, no matter how good it is?
No, its not that simple. When a card acts like an oven heating up your other components or comes with a piss poor cooler or weak vr circuits, I could care less if the cheaper card is a bit faster or not. I will gladly PAY more for a card that may show up on a "benchmark" as being a bit slower, but in real world performance looks and plays the same, yet does so with greater reliability and stability long term due to better hardware component quality on the pcb and in the die itself."Look man, I dont care how fast your Camaro is it will never have the elegance of Mercedes Benz engineering. I mean, I have windshield wipers. For my headlights."
You're just going to have to make piece with the fact that a video card is intended to render frames. If a card does it faster and for less money, it is better. There may be reasons why that choice is contraindicated, like heat or power draw but that doesn't negate that original selection.
Gosh! They do my 290x is 5.6 TFLOPS! With Maxwell (at least real ones) delayed it will be king of the jungle. Only Titan is better in double precision, but that's what Titan is designed for, graphical designers not gamers.
Did you buy a new GCN card based on these claims? If so, then maybe you have a right to complain. Otherwise, I have to agree with the naysayers on at least one point. "Up to 45%" covers a lot of ground.I'll complain (and do so loudly) if the performance benefit isn't anywhere near the "Up to 45% faster in Battlefield 4!" or the "Up to 3X Faster on our newest processor!" claims that we keep seeing in the AMD marketing slides.
They simply shouldn't be allowed to advertise that crap if it isn't true.
No, its not that simple. When a card acts like an oven heating up your other components or comes with a piss poor cooler or weak vr circuits, I could care less if the cheaper card is a bit faster or not. I will gladly PAY more for a card that may show up on a "benchmark" as being a bit slower, but in real world performance looks and plays the same, yet does so with greater reliability and stability long term.
There are plenty of Chevy Camaros that go faster from 0-60 than say a Ferrari..........but I'll still take the Ferrari......and will gladly pay more for it.
Besides...... a 290x might be a few bucks cheaper than my 780 Ti............but it in this case and scenario it doesn't perform as fast as it in FPS, it doesn't have as good driver support, with less visual artifacts and games don't play nearly as smooth. So considering I paid that premium for some of the features the 780 has(like G sync, or a quality reference cooler that doesn't throttle the clock down constantly, or drivers that still have mediocre frame pacing etc etc)was my choice because I value OVERALL quality vs just a few benchmark PR #'s.
Realistic improvements with mantle will be 5-10% maximum.........and even that's not a guarantee.......and beyond that fact Mantle will be on very few games in the up coming 2-3 years and beyond even........it will make Nvidia's PhysX feature looking mainstream and widespread in comparison.......its a lot of talk about nothing in reality.
AMD did its PR job once again.....tons of hype and marketing to try and keep their customer base intact and excited............if only they put that much effort into their hardware and software divisions...........
Willing to put that obtuse statement against some money via PayPal? If you think Dice and other devs are going to take their time out for this mininal bump in performance, you are surely mistaken. Take your pom poms off and come back to reality kid.
I think denial has begun to set in for you and you will become the laughing stock on this forum with such erroneous predictions that obviously are nothing more than pure hatred for AMD.
The cost of a CPU upgrade may be more useful, depending on your whole system. Sure, if Mantle does improve performance by 25%, it will only do so on Mantle games, which don't exist yet, and will not be taking over the gaming world in the near future. A CPU upgrade will net you positive results on all games that are CPU bound.I run BF4 with a CPU half as powerful as the FX-8350, so if that does show
a +25% improvement, I'll certainly be looking for a new GCN GPU.
Exactly, and some are willing to pay big bucks for that. Mantle is free. Why complain about a free performance upgrade, no matter how good it is?