Microsoft doesn't have to create a close to the metal API. They really only need to find a better multithreading solution.Blasting Cap wrote:Why would Mantle die?
It is designed for use on CGN hardware....designed and made by AMD.
You think NV and AMD will hand over their latest hardware to Microsoft and then tell them to design an API to work at close to the metal level with it?
I dont think so.
I think DX will remain as the "layer above" to ensure decent compatibility across all platforms with specific low level APIs to come...first with Mantle for CGN and then an in house API for NV architecture.
Wow...that was uncalled for.:thumbsdown:
AMD used a Kaveri and a 290X.
Right now we will not really see a increase in the frames with a processor which doesn't imitate cpus from 2008.
i5 has 4 cores, Kaveri only 2C/4T.
Even in multithreaded applications a i5 will be around 40%+ faster than Kaveri.
Microsoft doesn't have to create a close to the metal API. They really only need to find a better multithreading solution.
It has been mentioned, that Mantle may only see about 10% gains on GPU bound games. It's biggest potential are on CPU limited games. If Microsoft can make better use of multiple threads, they'd really remove the need for Mantle. Dev's probably wouldn't bother with Mantle if all it did was give 10% boosts in performance.
i5 has 4 cores, Kaveri only 2C/4T.
Even in multithreaded applications a i5 will be around 40%+ faster than Kaveri.
i5 has 4 cores, Kaveri only 2C/4T.
Even in multithreaded applications a i5 will be around 40%+ faster than Kaveri.
if fp mattered that much amd design would be much slower and considerably more stupid than it already is.
Calling it 2c/4t is just sad at this point.
Ok, I loaded up some BF4 CPU benchmarks and turns out I was 10% too fast. I dropped the CPU down to 2.6 GHz no HT and ran the whole sequence:
http://www.mediafire.com/watch/28820jqn83dkdw9
The only time I dropped into the 60s was when the wave made a huge mist in the FOV, but the Mantle demo did that too, so that's not the 45%. In fact, the AMD demo didn't seem to have AI, so they weren't taking that significant penalty (see 80+ fps w/ AI vs 100+ fps after killing the enemies)
Look at the section of the run after I kill all the units: it's doing 100+ just like the AMD demo.
AMD looked like they were using a capture card too, since they had tearing in their BF4 demo. I'm still using ShadowPlay and still taking the minor performance penalty.
4i/2f/4t?
Anyhow, I've made my lovely i7 as slow as a FX-4300 and I still couldn't find the 45%... Instead I found ~0% over DX11 give or take a few. Someone want to try with their 290X?
except repi said the direct opposite on twitter.... but what would he know............
So, maybe it's not ~45% faster because of the CPU?
Although the fact that they used the Kaveri APU does add fuel to the fire that it will mostly help in CPU limited conditions. Who knows?
perfoverlay.drawgraph 1
I'm not sure how anything you wrote pertains to what I wrote.Carfax83 link to xbox dev explains ms perspective on this and how they solve it.
Gpu rendered frame to frame tend to be more consistent than cpu.
And the lowest fps and smoothness defines experience.
So what mantle and the console adresses is vital for experience. The solution seems to be on the software side exploiting the hw.
Explained in link. Nice but long read.
I'm not sure how anything you wrote pertains to what I wrote.
I'm just saying that on the GPU side, DX isn't that much slower. DX could still be made good enough by simply adding multithreading, and perhaps reduce some overhead on each call.
To the metal is faster, but you can see that to the metal on the GPU side of things, doesn't make much difference. It may not make all that much difference on the CPU side either if a few things were fixed.
I would like to read the link you referred to, it does sound interesting.
To the metal is faster, but you can see that to the metal on the GPU side of things, doesn't make much difference. It may not make all that much difference on the CPU side either if a few things were fixed.
I don't own Bioshock, but Skyrim runs extremely great on the PC. At least on a decent one. However, in the early days of Skyrim, it had CPU limiting problems, the same problems I said MS needs to fix.When you look at Skyrim and Bioshock Infinite and how well it runs and looks on an Xbox 360(console from 2005) vs a computer from 2005 even if it was a $3000 gaming rig(spoiler: it's not even close) you will better appreciate the difference between to the metal coding and DirectX overhead. You're very mistaken, it's an absolutely massive difference.
These are still all guesstimate benches. When mantle comes out there will be plenty of real benches. Mantle vs dx on i5 i7 fx with 270 280 290 290x. Just for 290X there will be 64 results for high end i7 i5 fx low end i7 i5 fx and all these for dx vs mantle. So keep your benches to yourself.