I assume, because OSX does not have touch support to the level iOS does...
Also, Apple might actually want to keep the two separate...for whatever reason(s) they may have.
Also, Apple might actually want to keep the two separate...for whatever reason(s) they may have.
I think this is a minor problem, most "touch games" are just try to reproduce what other physical input do .. Games with pure touch only, specific input, are really rare on smartphone, tablet ..Most just try to emulate physical ( for most gamepad ) use..
If Nvidia can sell you a console with Android games, i dont see why a iOS compatibility with their own "desktop" system cant work... Marketing wise, they could try a big thing there... how it work in reality ? not much that Android games can surviive in front of PC gaming.
Last edited:
I understand the hype for Vulkan, but I'm not convinced it will have the big impact that everybody else seems to be believe it will have unless the two elephants in the room declare their support for it: Apple and Google.
For the PC market, Vulkan doesn't really add material benefits over DX12, at best some compute related things that Microsoft could add if they wanted to. This market has always been DX and I don't see a reason why it'd switch to something else anytime soon. The argument that was always used in favor of Mantle, "it's easy to make an existing engine like UE4 to support both", works the other way around as well in favor of DX12. As usual, we can expect DX12 to have a way better test suite than Vulkan will ever have, so in terms of compatibility, DX12 will still have the upper hand.
And so, Vulkan will be an OpenGL replacement only.
Professional OpenGL applications are not exactly the most dynamic field in existence, so that's going to be a long term thing at best.
iOS has Metal.
Linux is still very much niche and will probably stay that way. (I fail to see the appeal of a Steambox over an identically equipped Windows machine.)
I put my money on Metal for OSX rather than Vulkan for OSX.
The only thing left is Android. Vulkan has a chance for larger adoption once Google commits to that. But until then, I don't see it going anywhere soon.
I can see why Apple might not want to support Vulkan, since they already have Metal and they like to do their own thing, mostly so they can control everything.
But I don't understand why Google isn't supporting Vulkan. After all, the more successful Vulkan is, the more viable Linux-based OSes (Android and Chrome OS included) become as gaming alternatives to Windows. Maybe they plan to support it but prefer to keep quiet until they have something to show off.
But I don't understand why Google isn't supporting Vulkan. After all, the more successful Vulkan is, the more viable Linux-based OSes (Android and Chrome OS included) become as gaming alternatives to Windows. Maybe they plan to support it but prefer to keep quiet until they have something to show off.
Why would Google care about e.g. Ubuntu being better for Crysis 4? Android and Chrome OS are Google OSes, Google would care about those, and perceived osmotic benefits derived from the fact that at some point they were Linux are likely to be overstated. So the question is if Vulkan is something that would bring tangible benefits to those two products.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
As long as they remain the dominant player (unit marketshare) for smartphones, they likely won't care. The dominant player rarely cares about what smaller players do unless they are perceived to be a threat (DX - Windows v. OGL - everyone else for example). Apple already has Metal so they don't necessarily need a low level API and Android is still dominating the market (so Google won't care). The only thing that might get Google to do something is if Windows phones start to take away Android smartphone marketshare due to more performant games (how performant do they need to be on smartphones?) or significantly better battery life playing the same games (if game is already performant enough why not save battery power instead?).
But that's a bit of a stretch to think that Windows Phone will be threatening Android's grasp of the market anytime soon, if ever. So yeah, there's not a huge incentive for Google. Although there is definitely a potential for Windows tablets to eventually overtake Android tablets. So, who knows.
Regards,
SB
Google probably first needs buy-in from a number of SOC makers before it can announce its support.
I'll take you up on that.
My bet, Vulkan for os x at wwdc 2015.
Why? Mac is not a priority platform. A simpler API with most of the heavy lifting done by others is best for apple. They would ofcourse be controlling the future of ios by keeping metal around.
Excellent! There's a virtual beer at stake here!
But wouldn't it be easier to make Android/Chrome OS more appealing by supporting Vulkan rather than by introducing their own low-level API, which would require quite a bit of work and be unlikely to have any tangible benefits over Vulkan?
I'd argue not in the long run though. Google would gain full control of the API. Do you think IHVs wouldn't support whatever custom API Google comes up with? Why should Google cede any power?
let's make that vulkan for os x, whenever vulcan is ready.
It's pointless to bet virtual beer over schedules into which I have no insight.
I'm just here for the 980ti. Wake me when it arrives
GTX Titan X benchmarks ???
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/geforce-gtx-titan-x-3dmark-benchmarks-surface.html
http://www.guru3d.com/news-story/geforce-gtx-titan-x-3dmark-benchmarks-surface.html
Last edited:
Frenetic Pony
Veteran
Seems a guaranteed fake. A GTX 980 also runs at up to 1.2ghz, indicating (here) there's no clock advantage for the Titan. Meanwhile the new Titan manages to almost double the score of a 980 despite only a sixty percent increase in transistor count. So, somehow, on the same architecture and with the same clock speed, the new Titan scales 1.5x in performance with transistor count over the 980.
If everything is scaled up by 50%, and the clocks are a little lower, you don't even need (potentially fake) benchmarks have high confidence in it being 40-45% faster than a GTX980.
