Mantle allows the developers to use code they already written for the consoles though.
Even without support on the next consoles.
What next? Mantle allows developers to port OpenGL directly to Mantle? D:
Mantle allows the developers to use code they already written for the consoles though.
Even without support on the next consoles.
What next? Mantle allows developers to port OpenGL directly to Mantle? D:
Really, what? I can write C and cobol code and let them run on the same machine. But that does not mean that i can port it with one click to the one or other language.
Mantle is not on the next gen consoles. There is no 1:1 porting. Without hand optimizing Mantle is worthless.
Ubisoft has a deal with Nvidia atm, so its natural for them to show Mantle in a different light then what DICE says..
No dev worth their salt is going to leave performance on the table if it really is as significant as Mantle could very well deliver. That's why I believe we are seeing statements such as this, and others saying "we will have to support it". At worst it will light a fire under Microsoft, and force them to stop with the nonsense of artificially limited new versions of DX to their latest OS to try and force adoption.
An API isn't a language.
Games aren't written in DX or OpenGL.
Until now, console optimization couldn't be used in the PC because either the hardware architecture was different and/or there is no API (actually NVIDIA and AMD have their own but just aren't widely used for understandable reasons) in the PC market that allows low level access to the metal.
Heh if this were true. Why do AMD and Nvidia have developer programs? You know the programs that come in an optimize code for their hardware? Devs will use the least path of resistance because it is the least cost of producing a video game. That is what I couldnt wrap my head around the hype behind mantle. It will require as Ubisoft said a seperate rendering path. Which means more debugging and cost to produce as well more cost to maintain after release. Given some of the shoddy performance by many games. It appears to me many devs dont do much more than basic optimization unless Nvidia or AMD do it for them.
We had Glide, glide died to a broader API DX. And I dont think it was because glide sucked or wasnt fast on 3dfx cards. But because developers wanted an API that made producing a game cost less and would work across multiple hardware vendors. Now we are to believe we are going back to the glide way of doing things?
After other api's have been maxed out they will have no choice but to go mantle. Mantle could double or even tripple the performance in theory. Mantle will be on consoles, pc, and steambox most likely. No other api other than opengl has that reach. Its only logical to use mantle.
Sure they are. What do you think HLSL or GLSL is? :\
The xbox360 used the r600 architecture and the ps3 had a G70 derivative.
You port your OpenGL Shader Language (GLSL) code to Microsoft High Level Shader Language (HLSL) code when you port your graphics architecture from OpenGL ES 2.0 to Direct3D 11 to create a game for Windows 8. The GLSL that is referred to herein is compatible with OpenGL ES 2.0; the HLSL is compatible with Direct3D 11. For info about the differences between Direct3D 11 and previous versions of Direct3D, see Feature mapping.
Comparing OpenGL ES 2.0 with Direct3D 11
OpenGL ES 2.0 and Direct3D 11 have many similarities. They both have similar rendering pipelines and graphics features. But Direct3D 11 is a rendering implementation and API, not a specification; OpenGL ES 2.0 is a rendering specification and API, not an implementation.
The XBone and the PS4 use current architecture and not derivatives. Plus the CPU is also x86 for both.
Porting. Exactly. No positive effect. You need to optimize the path because the whole software stack is different. Would it be so easy every game would be come out with a D3D and OpenGL path.
"Current" right. And in the future the "current" will change to the last one. If you believe AMD can stay for the next 10 years on the exact same architecture then i guess we should pray for them every sunday.
That what people dont understand.AMD has to pay dev to use mantle for each game.None Dev request AMD to make an API and why dev will ask AMD which dont have a market in GPU or CPU none of that makes sense.http://www.techpowerup.com/192552/amd-explains-why-mantle-doesnt-work-on-xbox-one.html
AMD confirmed. Mantle is entirely their version of Glide. Mantle will never take off. Here is my take on how BF4 Mantle went down:
AMD : We want you to code BF4 in Mantle.
DICE : Why would we do that? DX version works just fine, it creates extra unnecessary work for us, and you have a minority in both dGPU and CPU share.
AMD : We will pay you $8 million dollars.
DICE : Ok.
AMD does not have enough money or software engineers to throw at developers. Mantle will never, ever get wide spread adoption. And for the titles that get Mantle, it will never get 100% dedication to take full advantage of. Mantle will be flopping like a fish out of water every bit as much as GPU physx.
Amd paid dice to use mantle, then got the rights to use bf4 on their cards, in their marketing material and bundles the game for free right?
Copies are included with the special edition cards no?
http://www.techpowerup.com/192552/amd-explains-why-mantle-doesnt-work-on-xbox-one.html
AMD confirmed. Mantle is entirely their version of Glide. Mantle will never take off. Here is my take on how BF4 Mantle went down:
AMD : We want you to code BF4 in Mantle.
DICE : Why would we do that? DX version works just fine, it creates extra unnecessary work for us, and you have a minority in both dGPU and CPU share.
AMD : We will pay you $8 million dollars.
DICE : Ok.
Actually, its the other way around, EA paid AMD for exclusive Mantle rights according to a poster on page 2.
I ignored that post because logically it's the dumbest thing I've tried to decipher in the past month.