21–30 of 51 posts
According to http://www.techspot.com/news/54134-amd-launches-mantle-api-t... : "We've been told at the GPU14 Tech Day event that the Mantle API is open, so theoretically Nvidia could purpose the technology in their GPUs." How feasible that is in reality is of course up for question. And I doubt that nVidia would be willing to implement an AMD-controlled API.
Probably about as feasible as Intel implementing AMD64 CPU extensions.
According to http://www.techspot.com/news/54134-amd-launches-mantle-api-t... : "We've been told at the GPU14 Tech Day event that the Mantle API is open, so theoretically Nvidia could purpose the technology in their GPUs." How feasible that is in reality is of course up for question. And I doubt that nVidia would be willing to implement an AMD-controlled API.
Probably about as feasible as Intel implementing AMD64 CPU extensions.
This is not for performance. OpenGL has very low overhead, and already allows you to "directly tap into the hardware" and "fully exploit the capabilities of modern GPUs". AMD wants people to write code that will not run on Nvidia and Intel hardware. Nvidia has been doing the same thing for years with CUDA.
This is not for performance. OpenGL has very low overhead, and already allows you to "directly tap into the hardware" and "fully exploit the capabilities of modern GPUs". AMD wants people to write code that will not run on Nvidia and Intel hardware. Nvidia has been doing the same thing for years with CUDA.
Follow some of the top-end OpenGL developers on Twitter sometime; you'll change your tune quickly. There's a significant amount of overhead in the existing OpenGL API, which currently can only be mitigated somewhat through vendor-specific extensions. But extensions alone aren't sufficient to address some of the serious issues that the OpenGL API has today. OpenGL forces you to maintain a tremendous amount of state in…
This is not for performance. OpenGL has very low overhead, and already allows you to "directly tap into the hardware" and "fully exploit the capabilities of modern GPUs". AMD wants people to write code that will not run on Nvidia and Intel hardware. Nvidia has been doing the same thing for years with CUDA.
What, and people haven't been ragging on and even trying to replace OpenGL for years? Everyone used the GPU-specific API rather than OpenGL on PS3 to make it harder to port their code, not to get the maximum possible performance? The "leading game developers" that allegedly inspired Mantle aren't going to show? Standards are great, and I'd love OpenGL drivers to be as fast as possible, but OpenGL being what it is, th…
It's quite fascinating how many of the PS3's APIs are wrappers around established standards/libraries, almost as if they were deliberately crafted to require more porting effort from developers.
This is not for performance. OpenGL has very low overhead, and already allows you to "directly tap into the hardware" and "fully exploit the capabilities of modern GPUs". AMD wants people to write code that will not run on Nvidia and Intel hardware. Nvidia has been doing the same thing for years with CUDA.
OpenGL can introduce a lot of overhead, especially when moving data back and forth between CPU and GPU. As just one example, OpenGL gives you no control over texture swizzling, which can be a serious performance issue during texture upload.
My first thought when I saw the slides, especially the "cross-platform part", was "yay, no more DirectX!!!". This might mean that we're finally going to have AAA games on Linux too (DirectX was a big obstacle to that).
According to http://www.techspot.com/news/54134-amd-launches-mantle-api-t... : "We've been told at the GPU14 Tech Day event that the Mantle API is open, so theoretically Nvidia could purpose the technology in their GPUs." How feasible that is in reality is of course up for question. And I doubt that nVidia would be willing to implement an AMD-controlled API.
Major coup for AMD. This is a CUDA that will affect all gamers.