The AMD Mantle Thread

[DownTheSky]

Again i saying this that if u full benefit from Mantle u need to have APU.

Because you'll be able to offload some of the processing from the main GPU to the APU. If both are GCN that is.

 

[krumme]

What I really care about is how much minimum FPS is raised. Average doesn't mean much if I drop low enough in certain situations that makes the game choppy.

I agree. But go watch the vid before. And you will have your question answered

Mantle gives the dev transparency. Eg with mantle its far easier to identify the bottlenecks and correct them meaning less spikes of bottlenecks = not only more performance but more smooth and consistent gaming experience.

Add with added dev control of mantle the devs know what they can do and what is driver territory. Its much more clear cut.

With the old dx it was more trial and error and finding a solution often had to be done together with driver development.

The most frightning thing about mantle seems debugging even in mantle beta stage is already much faster and easier than dx !

 

[blastingcap]

Sorry if this is a repost. I saw this today and thought some might want to know: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/76653/star-citizen-pc-ps4-and-consoles

Some of you may have seen that we announced our intention to support AMD’s Mantle with Star Citizen. We didn't do this because AMD sends us lots of high cards (although that doesn’t hurt). We are doing this because it increases the ability of a PC to get the most out of its incredibly powerful hardware. Going to the hardware without an huge inefficient API like DirectX allows us to radically increase the number of draw calls in a frame – At last week’s AMD developer conference Nitrous, which is a new company working on a next gen PC engine, demoed a scene with over 100,000 drawcalls per frame running at over 60 FPS through Mantle. To put that in context last gen stuff (and a bunch of PC games gated by DirectX) have been stuck around 2,000 - 3,000 drawcalls and next gen consoles (like PS4) can do 10,000 - 15,000 or so. We’re supporting Mantle to push PC graphics performance higher – it’s been gated too long by DirectX’s inefficiency and abstraction, which has only gotten worse as Microsoft becomes less interested in the PC as a gaming platform. I would love NVidia and Intel to have Mantle drivers (as the API is designed to be non GPU architecture specific) but if not we would support NVidia or Intel drivers that would allow us to get to the metal (GPU Hardware) efficiently and take advantage of parallelism in CPU cores (for efficient batching of data between the game and the GPU).

This is ironically the advantage the next gen consoles have like PS4 and Xbox One – they abstract the low level hardware much less, so what is essentially a mid-level gaming PC of today (which are what the PS4 and Xbox One specs are) punches above its performance weight while Windows and Direct X do a nice job of handicapping the high end PC.

I'm supporting Mantle to push the PC as a gaming platform even further and negate one of the advantages of a console over a PC. Hardly the actions of someone about to sell out!

 

[chimaxi83]

Sorry if this is a repost. I saw this today and thought some might want to know: https://forums.robertsspaceindustries.com/discussion/76653/star-citizen-pc-ps4-and-consoles

Some of you may have seen that we announced our intention to support AMD’s Mantle with Star Citizen. We didn't do this because AMD sends us lots of high cards (although that doesn’t hurt). We are doing this because it increases the ability of a PC to get the most out of its incredibly powerful hardware. Going to the hardware without an huge inefficient API like DirectX allows us to radically increase the number of draw calls in a frame – At last week’s AMD developer conference Nitrous, which is a new company working on a next gen PC engine, demoed a scene with over 100,000 drawcalls per frame running at over 60 FPS through Mantle. To put that in context last gen stuff (and a bunch of PC games gated by DirectX) have been stuck around 2,000 - 3,000 drawcalls and next gen consoles (like PS4) can do 10,000 - 15,000 or so. We’re supporting Mantle to push PC graphics performance higher – it’s been gated too long by DirectX’s inefficiency and abstraction, which has only gotten worse as Microsoft becomes less interested in the PC as a gaming platform. I would love NVidia and Intel to have Mantle drivers (as the API is designed to be non GPU architecture specific) but if not we would support NVidia or Intel drivers that would allow us to get to the metal (GPU Hardware) efficiently and take advantage of parallelism in CPU cores (for efficient batching of data between the game and the GPU).

This is ironically the advantage the next gen consoles have like PS4 and Xbox One – they abstract the low level hardware much less, so what is essentially a mid-level gaming PC of today (which are what the PS4 and Xbox One specs are) punches above its performance weight while Windows and Direct X do a nice job of handicapping the high end PC.

I'm supporting Mantle to push the PC as a gaming platform even further and negate one of the advantages of a console over a PC. Hardly the actions of someone about to sell out!

It would be awesome for Nvidia and Intel to support Mantle in one way or another. Free performance increase? Yes please.

 

[3DVagabond]

It would be awesome for Nvidia and Intel to support Mantle in one way or another. Free performance increase? Yes please.

Would be kinda out of character for those two companies though.

 

[chimaxi83]

Would be kinda out of character for those two companies though.

Yep, and neither one has anything to counter. Ah well. I'm looking forward to whatever Mantle ends up being, unless it's complete crap

 

[blastingcap]

Yep, and neither one has anything to counter. Ah well. I'm looking forward to whatever Mantle ends up being, unless it's complete crap

Not sure if Intel really wants to counter given that Mantle may effectively make multicore CPUs more viable for games and thus detract from their single-core-performance lead.

 

[3DVagabond]

Not sure if Intel really wants to counter given that Mantle may effectively make multicore CPUs more viable for games and thus detract from their single-core-performance lead.

Well, it was only a matter of time. Looks like AMD got tired of waiting though. It's amazing how no competition in the OS field stifles advancement.

Intel has 12 core HT chips, Moar cores is not a problem for them.

 

[blastingcap]

Well, it was only a matter of time. Looks like AMD got tired of waiting though. It's amazing how no competition in the OS field stifles advancement.

Intel has 12 core HT chips, Moar cores is not a problem for them.

Intel hates lower margins so yes it is a problem if they sell fewer quadcore i5's due to AMD's moar cores CPUs.

 

[beginner99]

Not sure if Intel really wants to counter given that Mantle may effectively make multicore CPUs more viable for games and thus detract from their single-core-performance lead.

Single-core performance is still the most important thing even if games finally make use of more. Most CPUs go into laptops and most people don't play games especially not on laptops. Hence low-power and single threaded performance will still matter. it will always matter because not everything can be parallelized.

 

[3DVagabond]

Intel hates lower margins so yes it is a problem if they sell fewer quadcore i5's due to AMD's moar cores CPUs.

Who cares what Intel hates. I hate paying more for something. I Mantle makes AMD cut into Intels sales and they lower prices because of it, I won't cry a tear for Intel's margins.

Single-core performance is still the most important thing even if games finally make use of more. Most CPUs go into laptops and most people don't play games especially not on laptops. Hence low-power and single threaded performance will still matter. it will always matter because not everything can be parallelized.

Nobody is saying that single thread doesn't matter. Nobody is saying efficiency doesn't matter. Intel's market share going down a bit will be a would for consumers though.

 

[blastingcap]

Who cares what Intel hates. I hate paying more for something. I Mantle makes AMD cut into Intels sales and they lower prices because of it, I won't cry a tear for Intel's margins.



Nobody is saying that single thread doesn't matter. Nobody is saying efficiency doesn't matter. Intel's market share going down a bit will be a would for consumers though.

That is great but I'm just saying Mantle is a potential problem for Intel because Mantle allows people to use cheaper AMD CPUs and get similar performance. So I don't know how enthusiastic they'd be in supporting Mantle.

On the other hand if PC gaming makes a big comeback, that benefits the PC industry including Intel and would be better for Intel than losing sales to consoles where Intel isn't even inside, so maybe Intel does have SOME interest in supporting Mantle.

 

[bystander36]

That is great but I'm just saying Mantle is a potential problem for Intel because Mantle allows people to use cheaper AMD CPUs and get similar performance. So I don't know how enthusiastic they'd be in supporting Mantle.

On the other hand if PC gaming makes a big comeback, that benefits the PC industry including Intel and would be better for Intel than losing sales to consoles where Intel isn't even inside, so maybe Intel does have SOME interest in supporting Mantle.

You do realize that if AMD CPU's become more competitive, their pricing is bound to go up. Intel's may come down some as well and they'll meet closer in the middle.

If more cores becomes important, Intel has no issues selling more cores, they just haven't needed to, because games haven't been using them.

 

[3DVagabond]

You do realize that if AMD CPU's become more competitive, their pricing is bound to go up. Intel's may come down some as well and they'll meet closer in the middle.

If more cores becomes important, Intel has no issues selling more cores, they just haven't needed to, because games haven't been using them.

AMD needs marketshare. I don't think they would raise prices. I would love to see Intel's processors with higher numbers of cores become more mainstream. Get some of those big Xeons unlocked and into our hands, please.

 

[mindbomb]

i think it's fairly neutral for intel, considering it will make ppl value hyperthreading on their quad cores and opt for more expensive chips. Maybe if it made good use of those amd specific cpu extensions, it would benefit amd more.

Idk why that guy mentions the idea of an nvidia mantle driver, obviously that can't happen...there isn't even gonna be a mantle driver for AMD's own radeon 6000 series. Just seems like he might be planting that idea so that later, he can point to it and say "See, I thought there would be nvidia support! I didn't mean to essentially force you to get a gcn card."

 

[blastingcap]

You do realize that if AMD CPU's become more competitive, their pricing is bound to go up. Intel's may come down some as well and they'll meet closer in the middle.

If more cores becomes important, Intel has no issues selling more cores, they just haven't needed to, because games haven't been using them.

To your first sentence. I don't know if AMD has that kind of pricing power, but it's possible.

To your second sentence: What the hell? Nobody is saying Intel can't sell more cores. The thing is, they don't want to. Intel likes fat margins and milking the consumer dry. They don't want to HAVE to give consumers more cores unless they are forced to. More cores means more die space means higher cost means smaller profit margins. If Intel could get away with it, they would sell you a single-core CPU for $999. As it is, they are only marginally better price/perf than AMD for gaming. Mantle might shift it so that Intel loses that edge and has to compete more to get business. Hence I think Intel may be hesitant to support Mantle. But Intel benefits if PC gaming makes a comeback, and Mantle could help that comeback. Think about what would happen to PC hardware sales if SteamOS takes off and becomes a major rival to XBO/PS4. So I think Intel is ambivalent about Mantle since it can both help and hurt its revenues and profits.

 

[3DVagabond]

To your first sentence. I don't know if AMD has that kind of pricing power, but it's possible.

To your second sentence: What the hell? Intel can more than compete, they can snuff out AMD if they wanted to, but they keep them around to avoid anti-trust scrutiny. Intel just destroys AMD when it comes to making CPUs. But Intel likes fat margins and milking the consumer dry. They don't want to HAVE to give consumers more cores unless they are forced to. More cores means more die space means higher cost means smaller profit margins. If Intel could get away with it, it would sell you a single-core CPU for $999. As it is, they are only marginally better price/perf than AMD for gaming. Mantle might shift it so that Intel loses that edge and has to compete more to get business.

Nobody thinks Intel can't compete.

 

[bystander36]

I don't know if AMD has that kind of pricing power, but it's possible.

What the hell? Do people really think I'm saying Intel can't compete? Of course they can compete, Intel destroys AMD when it comes to making CPUs. But Intel likes fat margins and milking the consumer dry. They don't want to HAVE to give consumers more cores unless they are forced to. More cores means more die space means higher cost means smaller profit margins. If Intel could get away with it, it would sell you a single-core CPU for $999. As it is, they are only marginally better price/perf than AMD for gaming. Mantle might shift it so that Intel loses that edge and has to compete more to get business.

I really don't think Intel selling 2-6 core CPU's is a matter of trying to get away with anything. Intel knows what consumer/gaming CPS's require and they deliver that without wasting cores. They knew 99% of the games sold, were never going to need more than 4 cores, so they delivered what was needed. It actually makes it easier to deliver higher speed cores and keep power and heat down.

AMD has likely been trying to sell higher cores as a way to stand out, even if they know they aren't useful. Now they may be finding a use for those cores. Or maybe they've just been hopeful that if more cores exist, dev's would use them.

 

[blastingcap]

You sure have a positive view of profit-seeking behemoths like Intel. I don't think this is a case of Intel not wanting to waste cores for the sake of consumers. IMHO, they just don't want to waste PROFIT. Intel does not want to use more silicon than is absolutely necessary. They'll do just enough to beat out their only real rival in gaming CPUs and that's it. Intel is not a nice company and its history bears that out. Intel is very good at making money, though, and cutting unnecessary expenses.

Anyway, back to thread topic, I think Intel is ambivalent about supporting Mantle for reasons above. They do not have a lot of market share with gaming PCs unless you count mobile power-sippers, so maybe it doesn't really matter what Intel thinks about Mantle--they'll just be along for the ride whichever way the tide turns.

 

[redhotiron2004]

Single-core performance is still the most important thing even if games finally make use of more. Most CPUs go into laptops and most people don't play games especially not on laptops. Hence low-power and single threaded performance will still matter. it will always matter because not everything can be parallelized.

New age computing is all about parrallelized apps and performance. There is a limit to which the GHz or single thread performance can be optimized. The way things are going. I believe that single thread performance have/ or is about to hit a wall.

Single thread performance matter most for old games and apps.
Now-a-days, if any app or game uses only single thread or is not optimized for multi core. It is seen as bad programming. And it's not a good thing.

Also, the old apps that depends heavily on single thread performance are easily handled by modern day AMD CPU's extremely well.

It's true that battery life matter. But as far as consumption is laptop is concerned, screen is the biggest culprit. Cpu power have become negligible and won't really make much difference going forward.

Intel have to rethink it's strategy if it have to survive. Because single core optimization and lower cpu power usage would soon loose there strategic position.

Merely having the capability to manufacture better iGPU and many multicore CPU is not enough. Intel have to do that at an comparable/competitive price level to survive.

 

[3DVagabond]

Or maybe they've just been hopeful that if more cores exist, dev's would use them.

There is a bit of a "chicken or the egg" scenario. Who's going to code for more cores if the hardware doesn't exist? I honestly think AMD believed that if they gave people more cores that they'd use them. They got tired of waiting for DX to take advantage, and knew the Devs. were ready, so they came out with Mantle.

Mantle has a lot of facets that AMD's hardware can take advantage of. I think after the console wins, AMD decided that the time was right to take matters into their own hands. Everyone's always saying how AMD needs to stop waiting on everyone else to do the work for them. Maybe someone at AMD feels the same way and got the wiser heads there to listen?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Idk why that guy mentions the idea of an nvidia mantle driver, obviously that can't happen...there isn't even gonna be a mantle driver for AMD's own radeon 6000 series. Just seems like he might be planting that idea so that later, he can point to it and say "See, I thought there would be nvidia support! I didn't mean to essentially force you to get a gcn card."

You are assuming that the radeon series 6000 architecture supports all the features of mantle.

I don't see NVIDIA implement Mantle drivers because they would have to follow the feature set imposed by AMD.

 

[3DVagabond]

You are assuming that the radeon series 6000 architecture supports all the features of mantle.

I don't see NVIDIA implement Mantle drivers because they would have to follow the feature set imposed by AMD.

Now I see what's going on. It's all a big ploy by AMD to get nVidia to give up PhysX.

 

[Skurge]

I'm pretty sure AMD will raise prices.

 

[seitur]

To your second sentence: What the hell? Nobody is saying Intel can't sell more cores. The thing is, they don't want to. Intel likes fat margins and milking the consumer dry. They don't want to HAVE to give consumers more cores unless they are forced to. More cores means more die space means higher cost means smaller profit margins. If Intel could get away with it, they would sell you a single-core CPU for $999.

Every company wants to sell you things for most profit possible.
If AMD would have market position and products of Intel then they would behave ("milk") like Intel.

Seriously stop treating corporations like flesh&blood individual persons. They are not.

Companies with framented ownership, especially publicly traded have law supported obligation to get as much profits as possible. That is job and responsibility of their managment and how current economic system is constructed.