It is a common sense if it was 40 to 50% advantage than they would have hyped and showed results to gain market and more dev and they know it is not more than 20% can be a bit more but not more than that they hyped for.
It is a common sense if it was 40 to 50% advantage than they would have hyped and showed results to gain market and more dev and they know it is not more than 20% can be a bit more but not more than that they hyped for.We'll see, I guess.
And if UnReal 3 runs 20%-50% faster with Mantle, what then?
It is a common sense if it was 40 to 50% advantage than they would have hyped and showed results to gain market and more dev and they know it is not more than 20% can be a bit more but not more than that they hyped for.
Lol I just looked it up, Thief is apparently on Unreal 3 still. What the heck? http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/thief4/1009/preview.html
50% is very improbable imho. As Johan from EA said, there are tons and tons of bottlenecks. Let's say that some operation "A" is the biggest bottleneck. If Mantle speeds up operation "A" by a factor of 1000, that doesn't mean the program runs 1000 times faster. it just means that the next-biggest bottleneck now controls.
I think 20% might be more realistic, as one or more game devs has already stated (see the APU13 interviews).
20% faster means somewhat better performance for people who aren't already glued to the refresh rate ceiling (minimum fps, not just average). In theory you can give up that performance in favor of slightly better image quality, but as we've seen over the years, you reach diminishing marginal returns on image quality very quickly, so for most people I think they are better off getting higher min. and avg. framerates, especially if they were starting from a low base such as an APU or lower-end graphics card.
I think Mantle means better ports for PC games. As a PC gamer, I approve. Mantle is a blessing for Valve. I would be shocked if Valve isn't keeping a very close eye on Mantle and perhaps collaborating closely with AMD to make sure Mantle works well with Steambox and Linux in general.
But NV has lots of influential partners like Epic, so if NV may be able to get gamedevs to drag their heels long enough to get NV's version of Mantle up and running. Even if that happens, it's still good for PC gaming because Mantle forced change.
I think AMD has leveraged its XBO/PS4 GCN architecture as a beachhead for an all-out assault on NV's gaming-GPU marketshare. Unfortunately for AMD, PC gaming is not exactly a growth industry, especially with the rise of casual and cloud and mobile gaming.
Lastly, I think graphics are overrated, so I'm not super-excited about gaining more fps or slightly higher image quailty. Graphics are important, but so are lots of other things like gameplay, AI (this is huge and I hate how so many games have such bad AI), storyline, audio, game balance, etc. I'm not going to comment much on TrueAudio here because it is offtopic, but I think it's a positive development.
To the extent Mantle frees up CPU bottlenecks so that we might get better AI or something, I'm all in favor of that.
AMD is always known for hypes and marketing at the end of the day results are not that they hyped for.We have not seen any benchmark or demo.No one will jump on Mantle before knowing what really it is.I remember some guys here talked about double the performance and they were so confident but i dont see there anywhere in this section?You've missed the entire point and instead decided to grasp on to the 50% and discredit it. Then you go on about how 20% is only going to be somewhat better performance. 20% translates into a lot of money to get there through hardware. 20% is the difference between a 780 and a 780ti, $200.
What is nVidia's version of Mantle? I've heard nothing. Can you link us to it?
You might think graphics are over rated, but it's what the hardware is all about and people buy $1000 cards, not because it improves game play, AI. storyline, but improved graphics. Sometimes a lot less than 20% over the next slower card.
Lol I just looked it up, Thief is apparently on Unreal 3 still. What the heck? http://www.strategyinformer.com/pc/thief4/1009/preview.html
I think 20% might be more realistic for most games, as one or more game devs has already stated (see the APU13 interviews). I suppose you could get 50% in some genres like RTS, because CPU bottlenecks are par for course in those games, but for stuff like FPS I think 50% is way too optimistic. As Johan from EA said, there are tons and tons of bottlenecks in programs like games. Let's say that some operation "A" is the biggest bottleneck. If Mantle speeds up operation "A" by a factor of 1000, that doesn't mean the program runs 1000 times faster. it just means that the next-biggest bottleneck now controls, and that one might have been as big of a bottleneck as "A" was. So it is theoretically possible that Mantle gives ZERO performance gains.
So let's say 20%.
20% faster means somewhat better performance for people who aren't already glued to the refresh rate ceiling (minimum fps, not just average). In theory you can give up that performance in favor of slightly better image quality, but as we've seen over the years, you reach diminishing marginal returns on image quality very quickly, so for most people I think they are better off getting higher min. and avg. framerates, especially if they were starting from a low base such as an APU or lower-end graphics card.
I think Mantle means better ports for PC games. As a PC gamer, I approve. Mantle is a blessing for Valve. I would be shocked if Valve isn't keeping a very close eye on Mantle and perhaps collaborating closely with AMD to make sure Mantle works well with Steambox and Linux in general. (As an aside, I think Steambox will help PC gaming more than anything, if it removes the ludicrous Microsoft Tax and fear of driver updates/etc. that keeps a lot of people away from PC gaming. I for one am 100% fed up with paying for Windows licenses on all of my PCs and would gladly go to SteamOS if it's not locked down and messed up. I have faith in Valve and the Linux community to pull it off, eventually.)
I think AMD has leveraged its XBO/PS4 GCN architecture as a beachhead for an all-out assault on NV's gaming-GPU marketshare. Unfortunately for AMD, PC gaming is not exactly a growth industry, especially with the rise of casual and cloud and mobile gaming. Furthermore, NV isn't going to take Mantle lying down. NV has lots of influential partners like Epic, so if NV may be able to get gamedevs to drag their heels long enough to get NV's version of Mantle up and running. Even if that happens, Mantle would still good for PC gaming, because Mantle forced change.
Lastly, I think graphics are overrated, so I'm not super-excited about gaining more fps or slightly higher image quality. Graphics are important, but so are lots of other things like gameplay, AI (this is huge and I hate how so many games have such bad AI), storyline, audio, game balance, etc. If Mantle frees up CPU bottlenecks so that we might get better AI or something, I'm all in favor of that. I'm not going to comment much on TrueAudio here because it is offtopic, but I think it's a positive development.
You've missed the entire point and instead decided to grasp on to the 50% and discredit it. Then you go on about how 20% is only going to be somewhat better performance. 20% translates into a lot of money to get there through hardware. 20% is the difference between a 780 and a 780ti, $200.
What is nVidia's version of Mantle? I've heard nothing. Can you link us to it?
You might think graphics are over rated, but it's what the hardware is all about and people buy $1000 cards, not because it improves game play, AI. storyline, but improved graphics. Sometimes a lot less than 20% over the next slower card.
The latest I have read about Steam OS is that it is a far cry from a complete OS. I cant really see the point of having a PC unless you can run windows apps. That is the main appeal of PC gaming to me. You have the best of both worlds: gaming and productivity apps. Perhaps Steam OS will eventually reach that point, or one could use some combination of Linux and Steam OS, but honestly I would rather pay the "microsoft tax" and have an out of the box system that does pretty much everything than try to figure what will and will not work on some hybrid system.
AMD is always known for hypes and marketing at the end of the day results are not that they hyped for.We have not seen any benchmark or demo.No one will jump on Mantle before knowing what really it is.I remember some guys here talked about double the performance and they were so confident but i dont see there anywhere in this section?
From the some of u guys were not realistic when this thread was started and go and check my recent topic me and 2 or 3 guys were saying before and now to be realistic it will not be more than 20%.
Now u can argue,troll or what ever u want but is a fact.
Relax. You asked me an open-ended question, so I gave you an open-ended answer. Sorry if you did not like it. It's just my opinion and reasons why, including citing the game devs' own estimates like the EA guy saying realistically you might get +20%.
Most people think it's crazy to spend $200 on a video card, let alone $400-600 like the cards you're citing. For the vast majority of the market that buys video cards under $200, it's like getting 7870 performance for a 7850 price, a savings of what, $30? And I think most people would agree that you get diminishing marginal returns on improving IQ, like, you can turn on AA or DOF or Tess but in most games you gain very little despite a major fps hit. +20% perf. gain simply isn't a gamechanger. For RTS titles or whatever where the difference may be much bigger, it is a gamechanger, but 20% is not a gamechanger imho. And if your ultimate goal is smooth, tear-free, responsive gameplay, GSync is arguably a bigger gamechanger anyway, though I don't think it'll take off due to the necessity of compatible monitor hardware.
I've bought like $1000+ worth of AMD cards over the last 5 years so it's not like I have some sort of pro-NV bias, I am just calling them as I see them.
As I said, you asked me an open-ended question, so I gave you an open-ended answer. If you didn't like my answer, sorry.
What do you mean "didn't like what you posted", and why are you apologizing? Why are you defending your brand loyalty, or lack there of? I didn't attack you, merely stated a difference of opinion.
GSync?
You've missed the entire point and instead decided to grasp on to the 50% and discredit it. Then you go on about how 20% is only going to be somewhat better performance. 20% translates into a lot of money to get there through hardware. 20% is the difference between a 780 and a 780ti, $200.
What is nVidia's version of Mantle? I've heard nothing. Can you link us to it?
You might think graphics are over rated, but it's what the hardware is all about and people buy $1000 cards, not because it improves game play, AI. storyline, but improved graphics. Sometimes a lot less than 20% over the next slower card.
Um, 20% is enough to pull me away from Nvidia, even if I wasn't already headed that way. 20% is about what a typical hardware refresh cycle gives us. Being a year ahead in performance due to software alone is a huge deal, never mind if AMD is competitive with the hardware even without Mantle. If that 20% shows up on hardware reviews, it will be a VERY strong selling point for AMD hardware. I am a good example of how a PC gamer would be affected by such an increase, and I say if Mantle gives me 20%, then I give AMD my money.
EDIT: Just to clarify why 20% matters to me so much. I am a 120hz gamer. Staying close to such a refresh rate is difficult, no matter what hardware you buy. 20% closer to that 120hz for minimums sounds way too good to be true for me.
I also being nice though.I now u have a AMD card but it is not hard to guess the facts.Some of u guys hyped so much that one guy said it will be double the performance compare to DX.Troll? I've actually tried to be nice to you because you don't really understand English. As far as facts go, you don't have any. You only have your own biased opinion.
Performance encompasses more than FPS. If Mantle allows twice as many individual objects to be on screen or twice the draw distance at the same frame rate, isn't that twice the performance?
I haven't stated as fact any particular performance increase. I used the 20%-50% because that is what was quoted in Fud's article and the percentages wasn't even the point of my post. Try rereading it. Maybe use Google Translate if you need to.
Why don't you re-read what you wrote:
Am I the only one who thinks you have a defensive or at least a negative tone of voice? I'm not trying to 'discredit' anything. You say I've "missed the entire point," but what is the "point" then? That rich people can get a little better price/perf? That APUs can punch a lot harder (25 to 30fps is a lot bigger of a deal than 50 to 60fps)? That instead of raw performance gains you can instead increase IQ? That even if Mantle fails, the mere threat of it would at least spur Microsoft, NV, etc. to work harder and possibly give us something similar or better? I doubt that I have missed "the point at all." I'm just not as easily impressed as you are.
Note that Gsync allowing game devs to increase image quality without worrying about fps drops as much is arguably a bigger deal if it actually succeeds, because there is a HUGE gap between 30 and 60 fps right now that Vsync users have to deal with. Adaptive Vsync sort of helped, but at the expense of tearing. Mantle at +20% can't close that kind of gap, but Gsync can.. Or more accurately, Gsync can reduce the human perception of stuttering Vsync and screen tearing at the same time. Not for nothing did Anand himself called Gsync a "game changer" at http://www.anandtech.com/show/7436/nvidias-gsync-attempting-to-revolutionize-gaming-via-smoothness (His exact quote: "I can't stress enough just how smooth the G-Sync experience was, it's a game changer.")
RE: NV's answer to Mantle: I would be surprised if NV isn't busy at work attempting to make a viable alternative to Mantle, which is my personal speculation, true, but so what? A dubious site speculating 20-50% isn't any better.
And 20% is in line with what an actual gamedev with Mantle experience said... he literally said that 20% gain is "not unrealistic" regarding Mantle's potential performance boost: http://www.guru3d.com/news_story/amd_mantle_could_get_you_20_more_performance.html I don't even know why you are bothering to cite Fud... FUD... of all places for your 20-50% number. That's like citing to the National Enquirer about celebrity "facts."
In the end, I hope the industry as a whole can agree on some sort of Mantle+Gsync solution as that would be huge and move the lowest common denominator up significantly. Mantle by itself can't get us all the way there, and although Gsync by itself sounds impressive, I don't think it'll succeed without the cooperation of both AMD and Intel and more monitor vendors than just ASUS.
In your case Gsync could be a bigger deal as you probably care about smoothness if you're running 120Hz. +20% can't close the big gaps in refresh rate multiples. Gsync can effectively cover those gaps. The problem is that it's a partial-hardware solution, so I'm pessimistic that it will take off anytime soon.
I also being nice though.I now u have a AMD card but it is not hard to guess the facts.Some of u guys hyped so much that one guy said it will be double the performance compare to DX.
3DVagabond go and check my recent post i was the one only who said APU will make the difference with Mantle but u guys were trolling and making jokes until AMD explain and show slides that APU will be difference maker.
I always post my source but not like u guessing and posting nonsense .
If u carefully search the whole topic than u will find that i was the first who posted Mantle will benefit APU.Actually you have no idea what hardware I own. You aren't the only one who realized that APU's would benefit. It will help all CPU's. This thread in AT VC&G is about graphics and GPU's.
We aren't talking about GSync. It's irrelevant to this discussion. Everything else is just going back and forth. I understand your position, just like I'm pretty sure you understand mine. I hate the continuous repetitive posts. Then stuff that's completely off topic gets dragged in. It makes discussing the topic at hand impossible.
If u carefully search the whole topic than u will find that i was the first who posted Mantle will benefit APU.
Again i saying this that if u full benefit from Mantle u need to have APU.The fact that Mantle will help APU's is obvious. It's going to help with APU's, CPU's, and GPU's.
Again i saying this that if u full benefit from Mantle u need to have APU.
because of Cores.Did u not read the slides that Mantle will unlock all 8 cores.Why?
because of Cores.Did u not read the slides that Mantle will unlock all 8 cores.
because of Cores.Did u not read the slides that Mantle will unlock all 8 cores.
i dont know what u read than?I don't recall reading anything about "unlocking all 8 cores".
At the end of the day, in a nutshell, Mantle will enable better CPU and GPU utilization. CPU cores will be fed more efficiently, and so will GPU cores. This is a given; it isn't opinion.
There is currently no hard data about whether or not APUs will benefit the most or whether AMD CPUs in general will benefits the most. Whether or not X product will benefit more than Y product is simply your own opinion.
i dont know what u read than?