And yet there's usually performance parity between both competitors. AMD using HBM doesn't automatically makes Fury X a better product than the 980Ti, as demonstrated.
Hollow victory if you ask me.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
AMD launching open-source GameWorks alternative; GPUOpen
- Thread starter TaintedSquirrel
- Start date
And yet there's usually performance parity between both competitors. AMD using HBM doesn't automatically makes Fury X a better product than the 980Ti, as demonstrated.
Hollow victory if you ask me.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
It is funny you write this after I told you spoon feeding crap coders does not work never mind how much money you throw at it.
https://youtu.be/qKbtrVEhaw8?t=612
You keep forgetting that AMD pushes the industry forward and not build a wall around it .
It is apparent that people like you cripple games in the name of "cool features" that do not work for your user base because proprietary shit that is peddled by management for the cheap way out because they hire failing upwards tool coders which are not suited for the gaming industry to begin with but enjoy the money and have no problems making shit games which do not matter in the gaming industry but makes management happy..
Full-blown one sided victory if you ask me
Lol. This.
JustReason
razor1 is my Lover
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2015
- Messages
- 2,483
Have to agree with your point, although you come off a little angry. Don't really blame you seeing the short-sightedness of the contrarians.
In any case, I have to say the mentality of most for the past 2 years in regards to open-source has been disheartening. Maybe if they spent more time touting its benefits rather than being negative nancies it would garner greater support they claim it needs. How any poster who claims to be a gamer would rather shower praise upon proprietary software over an open-source version is beyond rational reason.
And to the argument of money, Freesync has taken off quite well and I am sure AMD didn't throw a whole lot of money at it.
cageymaru
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2003
- Messages
- 22,089
Going by track records I would emphatically say no to this. AMD makes great open source tools that software and hardware developers can manipulate as they see fit to develop their products. AMD does not hold hands like Nvidia. Nvidia hired 300 scientists to sit down and assist gaming software developers with their games. AMD will never do this. AMD will simply give you the comparable tool and help you with documentation on how to fully customize it to work for your game.
Because AMD isn't going to hire a gang of scientists to run around and do the work for you, GPUOpen will see limited success initially. Later on maybe some University students will take some of it and create compelling content with it. Besides AMD backed developers like DICE, everyone else will still flock to Nvidia for the easy way out even if it means inserting square pegs into round holes. It is always easier and cheaper to take another tool and round the square pegs into a circle than to actually have to think about how to solve a problem. It would be financially irresponsible to pay someone to figure out an issue when you can grab an Nvidia solution for free with 300 scientists to shave down the pegs also for free.
.
Are they working on Vulkan anymore?
What is their role in Vulkan development?
There is another much better committee and a much more dedicated committee for it.
As you can see what happened with Mantle, after MS came out with Dx 12 they ditched it, because they need to save money. You can see where their head is at. Just like when they didn't let Intel help with Mantle, everything they have done and are trying to do, is ass backwards when it comes to Dev Programs.
You don't know what you are talking about, so simple.
Still haven't heard you state anything about their dev/open source programs that have any success, so list them if you got them and please enumerate. Until then don't post. Because I asked you directly about their dev programs thus far. And have rebutted your points even before getting your responses. Its pretty simple you can't because AMD's success in this area is none. They can't show you a dime for it.
Oh if you want to take about crap game code, lets talk about HL 2 water shader?
or what else ATi/AMD have done the same tricks in the past as well. So no no no, don't put them on a pedestal, they are a corporation, they will try to do what they can to get into you pants to get that wallet. And you sure seem to be enjoy being groped.
Last edited:
Freesync has been "some what" of a success. IMO the whole idea of Gsync was to sell more nV cards. And this is the same for Freesync, but the marketshare numbers don't really show that Freesync has been a success.... So for AMD to really have success with something like Freesync is to push their hardware to help Freesync garner more marketshare. It has to go hand in hand. This is the same thing with their dev programs, without their GPU's laying the ground work for them, these programs don't help AMD, and this is why AMD/ATi have dropped, renamed, rebranded them so many times. By doing so its hurts their image too, it shows they are not capable of bringing a compelling dev program out, to some it might even look like incompetence of their management. Its like dressing a pig in new cloths. The program has to change with solid direction and management.
Hopefully the new GPU group has noticed this and has the approval and backing of the upper management to do this. But again with the money constraints they are at right now, that is what will probably hold it back in the short term. If Zen is good and takes them into the black, I can see it taking off in a couple of years. AMD has to start prepping for Zen to come out and if that is lukewarm this program is not going to be any better than what they have now. I say this because they have to start paying the principles of their loans in 2020, so if Zen isn't going to help them get out of the red don't expect anything outside of their focus on new hardware to get their first $.
Last edited:
Anarchist4000
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,659
I'm not sure calling an internal tool beta is really accurate. They still use it internally to the best of my knowledge. Nor is saying it was killed when it was transitioned to OpenMantle aka Vulkan. That's like saying DirectX was killed when Microsoft made DX12.
They shouldn't need to hold hands though. The only reason all those scientists are needed now is because the old high level APIs were ambiguous and a developer would never know how to properly optimize for it. Even if they did the drivers could still undo it or change behavior in a future driver.
OpenSubDiv is probably a better idea of the kind of thing AMD wants with their tools. Gameworks is nice, but how well does it port to other platforms (consoles, mobiles, etc) in regards to licensing and performance? How well can a toolkit like Qt3D wrap up effects and use them from something like Gameworks? The company making that is also a Khronos Contributor. AMD benefits more from developing a Vulkan/open ecosystem for developers. Releasing tools as open source allows engine and tool developers to pick up the parts they want and freely develop them.
Last edited:
What do you mean by cheat? Rendering video games is not a competition - as long the system produces the desired image within the expected time frame, it doesn't really matter how it arrived at that result.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Is DirectX open source yes/no?
DirectX has done more good for gaming than OpenGL.
"Open Source" is not some magical definition that gives a default "victory".
I mean look at Linux...open source...what Linux's market share (on desktops...you know gaming) compared to the proprietary Windows eco-system?
And don't think about start dragging developers into your "open source" is better, I know this forum has a a lot of posters that thinks developers only touch GameWorks due to NVIDIA paying them money....but then again this forum also have too many posters writing pure FUD on topics the have far to insufficient knowledge to understand. /shrugs
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
When AMD starts making money and is successful again, call me. I am not a contrarian but someone who just sees things as they are. Open source has not really made them any money and regardless of what we want or do not want, Gameworks has made Nvidia a ton of money.
Basically, you cannot stay in business without making money and all the altruistic motives will not mean squat. Amazing that folks honestly see those that see things as they are as really just negative nancies. I am an AMD fan but guess what, I cannot run their slideshows in my 16x PCIe slot or non existent motherboard socket.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
I still remember Intel trolling AMD about Mantle:
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2365909/intel-approached-amd-about-access-to-mantle.html
Mantle turned out not to be very open...or very long lived.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2365909/intel-approached-amd-about-access-to-mantle.html
Mantle turned out not to be very open...or very long lived.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Here is the question for you, you state I don't know what I'm talking about and yet you keep posting questions have you made your mind up already?
There are open source "programs" that is something that you can not state for Nvidia.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Did you just post "Mantle = Vulcan"?
Because if you did...you are one of those posters that needs to stop posting...just stop.
(HINT: Could you give me the specifications for Vulcan..or is it not ready for "prime time" yet?)
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
No one has specs for Vulcan ...
That is true, a foundation like OpenSubDiv, first we have to look at who has a vested interest in AMD's open sourced libraries to understand how far they will get to a position such as that.
Companies that have vested interest order by what is important as of right now:
AMD
nV (since they are in competition they have an interest even though AMD's version at its current state is not competitive with Gameworks)
Intel as they will be happy to help on something like this to help thier IGP
Game devs since its not out yet they have very low interest in prusing something that they can get from Gameworks already.
Then after quantifying how much interest there is to each party then we have to look at the resources they will put in to improve the product:
AMD has the most interest in this because they know competing with Gameworks it will help them in the mid to long term.
nV, no resources unless Gameworks gets some serious competition
Intel, they will not be willing to put money into something unless its viable to help them, that means there needs to be a fairly solid ground work done
Game Dev's, they will need something that competes well with Gamworks, it needs to have fairly the same amount of work done or close to it others wise there is no reason to spend resources on another product, because graphical effects don't sustain game sales, at least not these types.
Now based on this which companies have to put in resources and how much:
AMD has to put in the bulk of the resources at least initially to get it off the ground and to the point its viable for other companies to help. This is only because Gameworks is freely available, even though source isn't free. Since source isn't free if AMD gets close to Gameworks features and tools wise it will take over.
Last edited:
They aren't even close, just look at what features are available to Vulkan vs Mantle and you can see that.
Vulkan also needs many of the older OGL features, also since the focus is on mobile gpu's features for them and one API for both desktop and mobile. That is why its has taken them so long and still a bit longer to get Vulkan out.
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
This is not surprising is it The Khronos group is not known for their lightning fast work they do. They acknowledged that they got Mantle and they could do with it what they wanted (just don't break it) what was said ....
Anarchist4000
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 10, 2001
- Messages
- 1,659
The full specification isn't out yet, but you'll just have to take the Khronos president and Nvidia VP's word along with AMD's. The whole Mantle -> OpenMantle -> Volcano(Opening to the mantle) -> Vulkan (Volcano) play on words isn't difficult to follow either. Everything Khronos has presented on the matter lends itself to the Mantle design with HLSL (Microsoft proprietary shader language) being replaced by Khronos's newer SPIR-V intermediate language. The SPIR-V part is already available through OpenCL. There have been some early code samples that were basically renamed Mantle functions as well. Even the variables and data structures they ingested were identical. Again that may have changed as nothing was final, but it was there in initial versions.
As for prime time, my guess is that occurs when the "driver" issues that seem to be holding back the DX12 games right now get addressed. It's probably not a coincidence that both both APIs, which share similar models, seem to be getting delayed.
This argument ONLY applies to PC developers though. A developer originating on a console thinking about porting to a PC could care less about Gameworks as AMD controls the entire market. Even then just because the tools are available doesn't mean they need to be used. More options are good for everyone.
The features between the two don't seem to differ that much. No more than you would expect from an iteration on an API. Was functionality added? Sure, but the scope also increased greatly from what even AMD was likely imagining. Mobiles will still have OpenGL ES in addition to Vulkan according to developers. I can't think of any spokespeople who have suggested Vulkan will maintain backwards compatibility with OpenGL.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
My point exactly...it's one thing to make a API for selected SKU's on a single GPU arch (Mantle).
Another is to make a multi-vendor API for multiple SKU's on multiple GPU archs. (DirectX 12)
This is just another tidbit of reality that goes to prove, that unlike some poters here, that DirectX 12 has been in development a long time and that Mantle was trying to ride the "API to the metal" that DirectX 12 would bring.
And then there is this:
http://techreport.com/review/26239/a-closer-look-at-directx-12
If you read that, the conclusion is either:
A) Microsoft are lightyears ahead of coding compared to AMD and did in a couple months what AMD could not do in years, even surpassing them, making their API multi vendor, multi SKU, multi GPU arch (even for AMD GPU's).
B) AMD knew about DirectX 12 (as a key launch partner) for ages in advance, but decided to get some PR, took the information they had...and made vinegar from lemons.
I know what solution fits the universe we inhabit.
So where is the source code for Mantle, Freesync, TrueAudio, etc?
AMD keeps making these claims about being "open", but so far it's all been a steaming pile of bullshit.
I'm willing to bet a lot of people will be disappointed when and or if this gets released and a lot of it is closed up.
AMD keeps making these claims about being "open", but so far it's all been a steaming pile of bullshit.
I'm willing to bet a lot of people will be disappointed when and or if this gets released and a lot of it is closed up.
It does make me wonder if there is another model that would allow smaller less experienced and or greedy devs to get some help/expertise for adding the more generalized effects to their games aside from having nvidia do a bunch of hand holding.
For example, what if there was a company of graphics visual effects engineers where their ENTIRE suite of expertise was not game design, but integrating advanced graphical effects into different engines. In lieu of direct payment for services rendered, perhaps they could have a contract that allowed for a % of revenue of games sold, 1-5%.
Too much? Too little? It seems like it could be a mutually beneficial arrangement. Ideally a game developer that is large like EA/DICE has this expertise internally, and they do, but other large game makers who SHOULD have it like ubisoft seem content to farm out large chunks of those jobs to nvidia. Perhaps those companies are a lost cause. But if an indie dev wanted to create a new space game, and needed help with implementing some tech, would it be so terrible to set aside some small percent of the potential revenue to a dedicated team that helped with the tech to make it run? The revenue share could even have a sunset.
Is this a crazy idea?
.
Are they working on Vulkan anymore?
What is their role in Vulkan development?
There is another much better committee and a much more dedicated committee for it.
As you can see what happened with Mantle, after MS came out with Dx 12 they ditched it, because they need to save money. You can see where their head is at. Just like when they didn't let Intel help with Mantle, everything they have done and are trying to do, is ass backwards when it comes to Dev Programs.
You don't know what you are talking about, so simple.
Still haven't heard you state anything about their dev/open source programs that have any success, so list them if you got them and please enumerate. Until then don't post. Because I asked you directly about their dev programs thus far. And have rebutted your points even before getting your responses. Its pretty simple you can't because AMD's success in this area is none. They can't show you a dime for it.
Oh if you want to take about crap game code, lets talk about HL 2 water shader?
or what else ATi/AMD have done the same tricks in the past as well. So no no no, don't put them on a pedestal, they are a corporation, they will try to do what they can to get into you pants to get that wallet. And you sure seem to be enjoy being groped.
Not directly driver related, but their opening up of vrr support in displayport and monitor makers has been a huge success. The monitor landscape for vrr is more vast and varied on the amd side and that is a mix of both hardware support from monitor/scaler vendors and their own driver improvements.
I suppose the barriers to implementation of these sorts of advanced rendering effect middle ware solutions will be higher, but their more open policy has not always failed. Freesync was not a failure.
Mantle was as short lived in the best possible way. People think the victory condition for mantle was only if they carved out their own walled garden like ecosystem ala an apple or nvidia with their gsync initiatives. But mantles fingerprints are all over dx12 and vulkan, if the ultimate goal of mantle was to expand low level apis, then it succeeded in its mission because the idea did not die.
The true loss would have been mantle being stopped, and dx11 reigning supreme for years to come, and open gl remaining a hodge podge mess.
I just want everyone here reading this post to consider the point that it is EASIER For him to imagine that microsoft was the originator and instigator of low level apis long before amd pushed for it (at the behest of game devs that got rebuffed from other graphics vendors, and presumably microsoft), than AMD being the kickstarter of the trend.
Microsoft, that brought us games for windows live, and focused far more on console development with a seeming abandonment of pc gaming for YEARS. It is EASIER for him to believe microsoft were the ones that wanted to drive pc gaming forward than AMD.
Even if that turned out to be true, the evidence is so weak and slim that it tells us more about his own psyche than reality.
Ocellaris
Fully [H]
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2008
- Messages
- 19,077
So you believe that MS, with a history of fucking up nearly everything, created DX12 in the span of a few months just because AMD release Mantle? Hell no, nothing moves that quickly inside of Microsoft.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
You think DirectX 12 was hoobled together in a few months as a knee-jerk reaction to Mantle?
Really?
And you are putting the cart before the horse, there are DirectX 12 fingerprints on Mantle, not the other way around.
Making up stuff like "DirectX 11 would still be "top-dog" if not for Mantle" is sad.
Talks about DirectX 12 started before 2013...way before...in 2013 DirectX 12 was in full development.
But according to you, DirectX 12 didn't exist in 2013, and in a few months Microsoft was able to do this:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ET1SZM2zhBE
And in under a year (with their DirectX 12 launch partner Intel) to do this:
https://software.intel.com/en-us/blogs/2014/08/11/siggraph-2014-directx-12-on-intel
Do you believe what you posts yourself?
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Mantle followed in the footsteps of GLIDE by 3DFX (now part of NVIDIA). So I guess you could say that they were just several years behind NVIDIA once again.
From what I have read and seen, the push for low level apis was instigated by certain game devs in the industry that wanted more low level access to the hardware. That was people and groups like Johan Anderson from DICE.
I imagine they shopped the idea to microsoft and nvidia in addition to amd. It would make more sense to get microsoft to implement such a change as it would be vendor neutral, what they likely got was a more lukewarm response from the non amd parties, or a timeline that was much slower and on the back burner than AMD offered.
You all can make claims about dx12 being fully baked and planned in its current form from 4-5 years ago, but guess what. dx12 barely shipped in the tail end of 2015, and we STILL have no released games that run dx12.
Mantle shipped late 2013, bf4 was the first title that I recall using it and the mantle version was pushed back to early 2014.
That is at LEAST a 2.5 year head start to actual released low level api versions of a shipped game, not just talk.
People on these boards keep bitching about things actually being SHIPPED having more weight than talk and slides, well guess what? THAT IS WHAT MANTLE WAS. That fact that actual GAMES running on the api shipped 2.5 years earlier than the soonest estimated dx12 title suggests to me that AMD pushed harder on the lower level api front than either nvidia or microsoft.
Microsoft might have been working on similar things in the back burner, but they sure as hell were not as aggressive getting it to market compared to amd, mantle showed the proof of concept and actual GAMES released and then and only then did microsoft seem to get off its ass and push faster and harder.
These are suppositions of course, I was not in the back rooms and privy to the internal discussions, and neither were any of you. But we have examples of a YEARS long lead time to actual RELEASED games that can be used as evidence by objective non biased people to support the notion that AMD was the company that pushed harder on this.
What is gained by being so incredulous on this point? Because it might give a positive point in AMDs favor? Even though I prefer amds approach to variable refresh rate monitors and support, I am not going to deny that it was nvidia that pushed that tech forward first. Of all the hills to fight and die on, just to avoid having to say the most infinitesimally positive thing about AMD... against all reasonable evidence. How god damn petty.
I imagine they shopped the idea to microsoft and nvidia in addition to amd. It would make more sense to get microsoft to implement such a change as it would be vendor neutral, what they likely got was a more lukewarm response from the non amd parties, or a timeline that was much slower and on the back burner than AMD offered.
You all can make claims about dx12 being fully baked and planned in its current form from 4-5 years ago, but guess what. dx12 barely shipped in the tail end of 2015, and we STILL have no released games that run dx12.
Mantle shipped late 2013, bf4 was the first title that I recall using it and the mantle version was pushed back to early 2014.
That is at LEAST a 2.5 year head start to actual released low level api versions of a shipped game, not just talk.
People on these boards keep bitching about things actually being SHIPPED having more weight than talk and slides, well guess what? THAT IS WHAT MANTLE WAS. That fact that actual GAMES running on the api shipped 2.5 years earlier than the soonest estimated dx12 title suggests to me that AMD pushed harder on the lower level api front than either nvidia or microsoft.
Microsoft might have been working on similar things in the back burner, but they sure as hell were not as aggressive getting it to market compared to amd, mantle showed the proof of concept and actual GAMES released and then and only then did microsoft seem to get off its ass and push faster and harder.
These are suppositions of course, I was not in the back rooms and privy to the internal discussions, and neither were any of you. But we have examples of a YEARS long lead time to actual RELEASED games that can be used as evidence by objective non biased people to support the notion that AMD was the company that pushed harder on this.
What is gained by being so incredulous on this point? Because it might give a positive point in AMDs favor? Even though I prefer amds approach to variable refresh rate monitors and support, I am not going to deny that it was nvidia that pushed that tech forward first. Of all the hills to fight and die on, just to avoid having to say the most infinitesimally positive thing about AMD... against all reasonable evidence. How god damn petty.
Mercennarius
n00b
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2015
- Messages
- 23
Honestly it really seems like Microsoft intentionally only designed DX12 for Windows 10 to promote a higher adoption rate. Windows 10 released with DX12 support, but DX12 potentially could have been available sooner if they designed it with Windows 7/8 compatibility.
ManofGod
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2007
- Messages
- 12,864
Mantle was not good enough to carry AMD since, as much as I like their videocards, they did not keep up in the last couple of years. (At least since the release of the 970 and 980.) Also, Mantle support was not wide spread enough for that to be a deciding factor on what video card a person purchased, for the most part. I will say it one more time: if you do not make money, you do not stay in business no matter altruistic the perception you are creating is.
Arguing otherwise will not make them money and that is what they need, money. Slide shows do not make money and they also do not motivate most to wait before they upgrade either. (It did not make me want to wait when I went with my 980 Ti.) Release something I want to buy and not have to replace my case in order to use it and we will talk, next time. (A Fractal Design Define R3 is not a crap case either.)
Arguing otherwise will not make them money and that is what they need, money. Slide shows do not make money and they also do not motivate most to wait before they upgrade either. (It did not make me want to wait when I went with my 980 Ti.) Release something I want to buy and not have to replace my case in order to use it and we will talk, next time. (A Fractal Design Define R3 is not a crap case either.)
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Again, that notion is based on Microsoft doing more with DirectX 12 in months than AMD did with Mantle in years.
Your "math" doesn't add up.
(Nothing that big (new API) moves that fast, I kid you not).
And your appeal to "warm feelings" for AMD does as little as PR slides to me...
Pieter3dnow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 6,784
Which is a speculative piece and proves nothing beside the fact that your universe Microsoft has people who write decent code in it that is not the universe I am Living in Windows is horrid and DX9 to DX11 were so very minor in feature upgrades that 10.1
with direct compute and some other improvements was DirectX 11.
Several developers on twitter already said that DX12 was using the same guide as what they saw in Mantle, so the techreport can kiss my ass but feel free to quote more speculation by more of the same websites.
Find 5 people that were happy with the Xbox1 development kit
https://youtu.be/qKbtrVEhaw8?t=612
Ask the Khronos group they got the source, you know which companies make up the Khronos group do you ?
SPIR-V isn't a shader language, it has the ability to precompile shader code from different sources, that is the only difference it will have, but in the for now it will only use GLSL later on other languages will be added to it. Direct X already has this feature, as with OGL, ES and i think other versions of Ogl as well *which already uses Spir-V.
Porting software over to PC, developers have to be aware low level languages don't port over well to different hardware, so there has to be individual paths for different ISV's which just doesn't bode well for AMD hardware... Fiji is a perfect example of how code that works well on older AMD hardware tends to bottleneck on Fiji. Maxwell too has this problem but with nV having 80% of the market developers are forced to look into nV's code path more.
Options are only viable if those options compete in the market place, money is the end results of a developer's endeavors, everything else matters little. If help creating something that already exists costs too much money, there is no reason to help create it.
No they are different. OGL ES integration into Vulkan or using them together like you have stated isn't going to happen. Vulkan's directive is to seamlessly integrate tile based rendering into a full 3d API. There has to be some major changes to accomplish that. Most mobile GPU's use tile based rendering vs fully 3d rendering like PC or console GPU's.
Which is a speculative piece and proves nothing beside the fact that your universe Microsoft has people who write decent code in it that is not the universe I am Living in Windows is horrid and DX9 to DX11 were so very minor in feature upgrades that 10.1
with direct compute and some other improvements was DirectX 11.
Several developers on twitter already said that DX12 was using the same guide as what they saw in Mantle, so the techreport can kiss my ass but feel free to quote more speculation by more of the same websites.
Find 5 people that were happy with the Xbox1 development kit
https://youtu.be/qKbtrVEhaw8?t=612
Ask the Khronos group they got the source, you know which companies make up the Khronos group do you ?
Do you even know why Microsoft uses cap updates for Direct X. Hint they usually don't like to do those types of updates.......
And being happy with Xbox 1 SDK, you tell us about it then lets go from there. There is a leaked version available for you to download or look at the documentation.......