It's official, Nvidia will not support Mantle

Knil said:
Intel wouldn't adopt mantle for the simple reason their architecture is so different from the current dedicated graphics cards. As AMD has pointed out many times mantle was designed for GCN. Low level api's must be tailored to their hardware, that's why it can access these low level functions.
Click to expand...

You know that Intel have said that they will support Mantle right?

In fact they asked AMD for early access to it.
 
Knil said:
Low level api's must be tailored to their hardware, that's why it can access these low level functions.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Low-level access to the hardware seems to be the fad right now, but it's not a new idea or anything like that. Many seem to be under the impression that you can have something like mantle that works on almost all cards like DirectX currently does. Low-level access means that every architecture it works on has to be specifically taken into account and optimized for. A lot of the performance increase Mantle shows comes from being able to optimize for GCN. If you move to another architecture, all of those optimizations immediately become irrelevant. Does anyone believe that it would even be practical in the long-term to try to optimize low-level access for so many different architectures simultaneously? At that point you are talking about an exponentially larger amount of work for devs compared to simply developing for DirectX.

While DirectX has overhead, there are considerable benefits that come from not having to develop specifically for every card the game will be played on. This is a large part of the reason DirectX exists in the first place.
 
Knil said:
Intel wouldn't adopt mantle for the simple reason their architecture is so different from the current dedicated graphics cards. As AMD has pointed out many times mantle was designed for GCN. Low level api's must be tailored to their hardware, that's why it can access these low level functions.
Click to expand...

Then explain to me why intel went to AMD and asked about mantle? AMD response that it wasnt ready (which we all know its still not open yet)

WHEN AMD opens it, intel would have it available to them.

Why would Intel ask AMD about mantle if they werent interested?
 
Spazturtle said:
You know that Intel have said that they will support Mantle right?
Click to expand...
This is actually what they've said:
"At the time of the initial Mantle announcement, we were already investigating rendering overhead based on game developer feedback," an Intel spokesman said in an email. "Our hope was to build consensus on potential approaches to reduce overhead with additional data. We have publicly asked them to share the spec with us several times as part of examination of potential ways to improve APIs and increase efficiencies. At this point though we believe that DirectX 12 and ongoing work with other industry bodies and OS vendors will address the issues that game developers have noted."
Click to expand...
 
fanboy said:
I guess Eyefinity was a joke also ..but they [Nvidia] copied it
Click to expand...
Just a quick reality check: The first (and second) company to make a large push into multi-monitor gaming was Matrox. AMD Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround are both copies of Matrox's idea.

They released gaming-oriented graphics cards with triple-head spanning support long before AMD or Nvidia. Here's a review of the Matrox Parhelia 512, doing triple-head gaming back in 2002: http://www.anandtech.com/show/911/11

Once Matrox exited the gaming-GPU market, they went back and released the TripleHead2Go, which adds triple-head spanning support to ANY graphics card. This was still long before either AMD or Nvidia had multi-monitor gaming on the books.
 
Unknown-One said:
Just a quick reality check: The first (and second) company to make a large push into multi-monitor gaming was Matrox. AMD Eyefinity and Nvidia Surround are both copies of Matrox's idea.

They released gaming-oriented graphics cards with triple-head spanning support long before AMD or Nvidia. Here's a review of the Matrox Parhelia 512, doing triple-head gaming back in 2002: http://www.anandtech.com/show/911/11

Once Matrox exited the gaming-GPU market, they went back and released the TripleHead2Go, which adds triple-head spanning support to ANY graphics card. This was still long before either AMD or Nvidia had multi-monitor gaming on the books.
Click to expand...

We can say the same about Anti-Aliasing and how 3dFX was the first video company to do it, only to have Nvidia (buy) and AMD (copy) take the idea.

lol matrox....funny man

P.S. Matrox was never able to do it the way AMD or Nvidia has. Although you could say display port wasnt available when triple-head was out.,
 
DASHlT said:
lol matrox....funny man
Click to expand...
What's funny, exactly? Matrox did it first, and Matrox did it well.

Flight and race simulator fans were in love with those last few gaming cards that they released. There was simply nothing else out there like it.

And then they go on to release the TripleHead2Go, which kicked-off interest in triple-head gaming (because now high-power AMD and Nvidia graphics cards could be used to drive large triple-monitor setups).

DASHlT said:
P.S. Matrox was never able to do it the way AMD or Nvidia has. Although you could say display port wasnt available when triple-head was out.,
Click to expand...
What does Displayport have to do with anything? If you're talking about the TripleHead2Go I linked...well, the TripleHead2Go started out as an anlog VGA-based device. The DVI and DisplayPort versions are later revisions with additional features / higher resolution support.

Matrox provided a totally vendor-agnostic triple-head solution before either AMD or Nvidia got it figured out. You can still use Matrox's solution on modern AMD and Nvidia cards (and it's potentially a better solution in some instances due to various hardware and software bugs in AMD and Nvidia's implementations). Matrox has their head on right, as far as I'm concerned.
 
Unknown-One said:
What's funny, exactly? Matrox did it first, and Matrox did it well.

Flight and race simulator fans were in love with those last few gaming cards that they released. There was simply nothing else out there like it.

And then they go on to release the TripleHead2Go, which kicked-off interest in triple-head gaming (because now high-power AMD and Nvidia graphics cards could be used to drive large triple-monitor setups).


What does Displayport have to do with anything? If you're talking about the TripleHead2Go I linked...well, the TripleHead2Go started out as an anlog VGA-based device. The DVI and DisplayPort versions are later revisions with additional features / higher resolution support.

Matrox provided a totally vendor-agnostic triple-head solution before either AMD or Nvidia got it figured out. You can still use Matrox's solution on modern AMD and Nvidia cards. Matrox has their head on right.
Click to expand...

My point is every company copies another company all the time.

Nvidia/AMD copies 3DFX

Nvidia/AMD copies Matrox.

Basically matrox/3dfx started a standard and Nvidia/AMD made them better.
 
Unknown-One said:
"Better" is debatable. There are still use-cases where using a TripleHead2Go is preferable to using either AMD or Nvidia's built-in triple-monitor support.


Bingo.
Click to expand...

Not really since Tripleheadgo is limited to DX9 games only. At least last time I heard.
 
Unknown-One said:
"Better" is debatable. There are still use-cases where using a TripleHead2Go is preferable to using either AMD or Nvidia's built-in triple-monitor support.


Bingo.
Click to expand...

So its the same as DX12 and Mantle.

MSFT talks to AMD about mantle, then MSFT takes mantle and makes it DX12 which will hopefully be better.
 
DASHlT said:
Not really since Tripleheadgo is limited to DX9 games only. At least last time I heard.
Click to expand...
The TripleHead2Go isn't limited to anything... it's a hardware-based solution. Your graphics card and games don't even know it's there.

As far as your graphics card is concerned, it has one very wide monitor plugged into one port. Anything that will run on one monitor will run on the TripleHead2Go.

Edit: Here's someone playing Battlefield 3 on GTX 480 SLI using a TripleHead2Go instead of Nvidia's built-in Surround functionality: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bTziKrtgeA4

DASHlT said:
So its the same as DX12 and Mantle.
Click to expand...
Uh, what?

How exactly is a hardware-based vendor-agnostic solution that works on any graphics card with any API "the same" as these two API's in any sense?
 
Last edited:
Unknown-One said:
Uh, what?

How exactly is a hardware-based vendor-agnostic solution that works on any graphics card with any API "the same" as these two API's in any sense?
Click to expand...

Directx was announced after AMD talked with MSFT about mantle. 1 can only use common sense that MSFT copied AMD.

It was even mentioned in an interview somewhere, cannot remember which one.
 
Microsoft hasn't "taken Mantle". They claim, in fact, that their development predates Mantle.

In any case, these are two different APIs: Mantle is not DX12 and the inverse is similarly true. You could, of course, argue that DX12 leverages some concepts present in Mantle along with some of those present in OpenGL, but that would not make DX12 both Mantle and OpenGL. The basic approach to GPU design has, over the years, coalesced into architectures that are actually very similar, so low-level APIs to those architectures end up looking relatively similar. That's not evidence of one "being" the other or having been built atop the other.
 
DASHlT said:
Directx was announced after AMD talked with MSFT about mantle. 1 can only use common sense that MSFT copied AMD.
Click to expand...
How does common sense dictate that Microsoft copied Mantle when Microsoft has their own low-level graphics API's that predate Mantle by many-many years?

Microsoft knows how low-level API's work, they've had them on all three Xbox consoles. DX12 just seems like a PC-side extension of that knowledge and past experience.
 
Unknown-One said:
How does common sense dictate that Microsoft copied Mantle when Microsoft has their own low-level graphics API's that predate Mantle by many-many years?

Microsoft knows how low-level API's work, they've had them on all three Xbox consoles. DX12 just seems like a PC-side extension of that knowledge and past experience.
Click to expand...

Richard Huddy said in one of his interviews that MS approached them and said (im paraphrasing here) 'Ok, if you guys think you can get rid of the overhead, go head and lets see'.

This indicates that the basis for DX12s "low CPU overhead" is actually Mantle.
 
The Mac said:
Richard Huddy said in one of his interviews that MS approached them and said (im paraphrasing here) 'Ok, if you guys think you can get rid of the overhead, go head and lets see'.

This indicates that the basis for DX12s "low CPU overhead" is actually Mantle.
Click to expand...

wonderfield said:
Microsoft hasn't "taken Mantle". They claim, in fact, that their development predates Mantle.
Click to expand...

Two conflicting stories here.

I clearly remember Microsoft and Nvidia saying that DX12 had already been in the works when they did their unveiling event. AMD's guy is claiming the opposite (that Mantle came first). Who do we believe?
 
Why does it matter what came first or who copied who? All that really matters is who does it best.
 
DASHlT said:
We can say the same about Anti-Aliasing and how 3dFX was the first video company to do it, only to have Nvidia (buy) and AMD (copy) take the idea.
Click to expand...

Anti-aliasing of images has been around since the 70s.
 
jimmyb said:
Anti-aliasing of images has been around since the 70s.
Click to expand...

DASHIT said:
Anti-Aliasing and how 3dFX was the first video company to do it
Click to expand...

Mhmm. Great job adding nothing, as usual jimmyb. We're all talking about video games and APIs, not images. Not sure where you get off making prodding irrelevant remarks. Is it an exciting ego boost for you?


On topic: it's completely expected that Nvidia wouldn't support Mantle. Just like they disable physx when they detect an AMD primary card. It'll be their loss, ultimately, and they'll either lose face and support it later or lose market share.
 
Unknown-One said:
I clearly remember Microsoft and Nvidia saying that DX12 had already been in the works when they did their unveiling event. AMD's guy is claiming the opposite (that Mantle came first). Who do we believe?
Click to expand...

The whole argument is, of course, ridiculous. Low-overhead GPU access has been in production since ancient OpenGL 4.x days with nvidia pushing the concept on Kepler w/ bindless textures.

I guess the takeaway then is that Mantle is a copy of nvidia's work.

See we can play this all day long.

The irony is that the big news after the initial press conference was that Mantle was a rip straight from the consoles. "Ohh yeah, this is *THE* XB1 API, just available on PC now!"
 
Unknown-One said:
Two conflicting stories here.

I clearly remember Microsoft and Nvidia saying that DX12 had already been in the works when they did their unveiling event. AMD's guy is claiming the opposite (that Mantle came first). Who do we believe?
Click to expand...

Huddy's implication was it was early in DX12s development, so not really conflicting.

My guess is DX was in development, but they werent making much progress until AMD found a better path.
 
Again, Microsoft is no stranger to low-level graphics APIs. D3D12 is not their first foray. Why would a company that's shown no difficulty in this realm in the past suddenly inept without AMD assistance?
 
wonderfield said:
Again, Microsoft is no stranger to low-level graphics APIs. D3D12 is not their first foray. Why would a company that's shown no difficulty in this realm in the past suddenly inept without AMD assistance?
Click to expand...

AMD shills gotta shill.
 
wonderfield said:
Again, Microsoft is no stranger to low-level graphics APIs. D3D12 is not their first foray. Why would a company that's shown no difficulty in this realm in the past suddenly inept without AMD assistance?
Click to expand...

Because MS wasn't doing a darn thing until AMD decided to make waves by releasing Mantle. If DX12 is further in development then why is it taking so long to come out? Seems to me that as much money that MS has they could have done something earlier with the technology.

I think that they simply don't care about the PC sector as much as before as they have their beloved XBONE and tablet products to make money off of.
 
Be happy they have competition now, if DX12 and Mantle both turn out to be awesome, it'll be good for everyone.
 
So they won't give it to Intel and NVIDIA does not want it. Mantle's popularity it dropping faster than AMD's stock. Mantle was just a marketing gimmick anyways, so nothing of value is lost.
 
cageymaru said:
Because MS wasn't doing a darn thing until AMD decided to make waves by releasing Mantle. If DX12 is further in development then why is it taking so long to come out? Seems to me that as much money that MS has they could have done something earlier with the technology.

I think that they simply don't care about the PC sector as much as before as they have their beloved XBONE and tablet products to make money off of.
Click to expand...

They didn't need to. They were firmly in control. The only business reason they've had to advance DX is to sell newer versions of Windows. Mantle usurped that control. All of a sudden there was another API that was offering the features and access the game devs wanted. And considering that it's AMD's GCN hardware in all of the new consoles it gave AMD the leverage they needed to implement it on the PC. Not surprising msft responded with DX12 and the promise of similar features and performance.

I agree if msft had been working on DX12 prior to Mantle it wouldn't take them til 2 years after Mantles release to release DX12. If AMD could develop Mantle in 2 years seems to me that msft, with far greater resources, wouldn't need so much time to respond.
 
meh.

next month the newest version of OpenGL gets announced.

that'll bring all this DX12 and Mantle talk to a hush. :D
 
DooKey said:
AMD shills gotta shill.
Click to expand...

Nvidia shills gotta shill...

works both ways

as a side note, the fact that nvidia trolls are now screaming "shill" pretty much cements the fact that AMD is doing something right....
 
Last edited:
I suggest you relax.

cageymaru said:
Because MS wasn't doing a darn thing until AMD decided to make waves by releasing Mantle. If DX12 is further in development then why is it taking so long to come out?
Click to expand...
I never claimed D3D12 is further along in development. Microsoft, however, does claim that their development efforts predate Mantle, and NVIDIA suggested that it's been in the pipeline for four years or so. Whether there's any veracity to those claims is pointless to speculate.

jwcalla said:
next month the newest version of OpenGL gets announced. that'll bring all this DX12 and Mantle talk to a hush. :D
Click to expand...
If Khronos actually had a marketing machine, who knows what kind of ground they could cover. It might be nice if highly-distilled marketspeak and the constant stream of Huddybabble didn't completely overshadow everything they do, but they unfortunately don't run the bingo.
 
So much ego in here its crazy. Its great if DX12 has actually been in development for a while, but they shouldnt be bragging because AMD was able to start from the ground up and get something into the wild before we've seen even a glimpse of a DX12 demo. Mantle only exists because some game devs went to the other guys and didn't get any help, but AMD was willing to step up. This whole situation could have easily gone the other way if nVidia was willing to work with the Oxide guys.
 
Nvidia talks the talk but are they walking the walk? If low level drivers not benefit them why would they support DX12?
We all know this, what is Nvidia really saying?
So where is this magical DX11 driver that will beat the pants out of Mantle for Nvidia hardware ?
Nvida offers great lip service.
 
Last edited:
Pieter3dnow said:
Nvidia talks the talk but are they walking the walk? If low level drivers not benefit them why would they support DX12?
We all know this what is Nvidia really saying?
So where is this magical DX11 driver that will beat the pants out of Mantle for Nvidia hardware ?
Nvida offers great lip service.
Click to expand...


That was the 337.5's

zdCjwlF.jpg


Rmrmber the single GPU performance claims? And the SLI performance claim was because they fixed one game that had zero scaling and made a profile for it.

This is what Anandtech really found out
62483-640x393.png


And it was here at [H] that they found they increased the thermal or power limit which is where the improvements actually came from.
 
The Mac said:
Nvidia shills gotta shill...

works both ways

as a side note, the fact that nvidia trolls are now screaming "shill" pretty much cements the fact that AMD is doing something right....
Click to expand...

1. I'm not a NV shill. I like both companies and don't have a favorite or video card company evangelical agenda. I just call them how I see them.
2. I've seen you call people shills so I guess NV must be doing something right and it makes you an AMD troll.
 
Last edited:
Back OT: I don't blame NV for not supporting Mantle. Doesn't make sense for a couple of reasons.

Mantle is controlled by their competitor. DX12 will incorporate Mantle like features.

With that said I like what Mantle brings to the table in BF4. Seems to work well with my 290s. Can't wait to see what DX12 is going to do.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top