AMD Mantle API [updating]

Discussion in 'Rendering Technology and APIs' started by MarkoIt, Sep 26, 2013.

  1. Alexko

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2009
    Messages:
    4,515
    Likes Received:
    934
    Mantle doesn't compete with D3D, it just supplements it.
     
  2. Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    82
    Well all standards have to start somewhere, and it's often from companies that have the money to do the initial work. Who's to say that a low level API for those that want to hit the metal can't exist alongside a high level DirectX? It's of benefit to AMD's customers, regardless of what any competitor does or does not do.
     
  3. gkar1

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    7
    You have no point, all you need is help parsing the English language
    Microsoft has likely known Mantle was coming all along.
     
  4. Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.

    Legend

    Joined:
    Jun 24, 2003
    Messages:
    6,363
    Likes Received:
    82
    I'm not sure you can consider the new cards to be simply a chip. They are a whole product that includes drivers (DX, OGL and Mantle), along with Truesound, and the whole eco-system that AMD are trying to build around it and off the back of their console domination.

    All these surrounding features make it more attractive than without. It is finally evidence of AMD stepping up and going the extra distance that many customers (including myself) have been asking for.
     
  5. xDxD

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2010
    Messages:
    412
    Likes Received:
    1
    let's see in APU 2013

    really you can expect that Amd in public says: "hey Microsoft, it's war!!" :grin:

    then of course the impact of mantle goes evaluated in perspective, may go the way of 3dfx's glide (i hope) or have a huge success who knows now?

    This!
     
  6. willardjuice

    willardjuice super willyjuice
    Moderator Veteran Alpha

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    NY
    I hear you, but we already have two mantle threads. And remember this is the "3D Architectures & Chips" sub-forum. Mantle (or other drivers, software, etc.) don't quite fall under this category. To be clear, I'm not saying we can't discuss mantle, but could we do it in one place in the right sub-forum? I don't feel like I'm asking a lot here...

    From here on out, off-topic posts we be baleted. I'll try to move these posts to the right thread when I have more time (my break only lasts so long!).
     
  7. lanek

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2012
    Messages:
    2,469
    Likes Received:
    315
    Location:
    Switzerland
    For what i have understand, its absolutely not a problem for MS and let alone Sony, who will even be on APU2013 for the presentation of Mantle. (along with some MS guy it seems )

    But well lets the question, discussion about mantle in the software thread.
     
  8. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    3,523
    I would like to shed some more light on the issue of Draw Calls, it was mentioned in AMD press conference that developers want to increase the number of draw calls on the PC.

    After some investigation , it is my understanding that developers chose to have lower numbers of draw calls with each draw call carrying larger body of data so as not to become CPU dependent . I see no real issue here .

    On Consoles :
    Many Draw Calls , Little Data for each one.
    On PCs:
    Few Draw Calls , Large Data for each one .

    In the end things seem to equal out , however some developers want to increase the number of draw calls hence delve deeper into the territory of CPU dependency , I can only imagine two reasons for this :

    1-Tap into more CPU performance to increase number of objects drawn on the screen, while at the same time putting Low-end and medium-end CPUs at danger.

    2-Increase draw calls at the expense of data carried on each call to achieve some kind of flexibility in programming their games.

    In either cases , I don't see how Mantle's would help comes into play.
     
  9. Gipsel

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    I may misunderstand you, but how can't you see it? One can use more draw calls to achieve more flexibility without overwhelming the CPU. Or use even more draw calls on high end systems. You fullfill the second point with a reduced effect of the latter part of your first point (running into a CPU limit).
     
  10. gkar1

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    7
    I find it particularly interesting the lengths people will go trying to paint Mantle in a bad light. I hope to see these same people say the same things when/if Nvidia releases their counterpart.
    We've had the complete gamut, from nitpicking semantics to selective out of context quoting to theoretical examples without knowing full details. Congratulations "3D enthusiasts" though the name hardly fits you anymore.
     
  11. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    3,523
    So how can you do more draw calls without overwhelming the CPU ? in my humble knowledge draw calls stem from the CPU, how can you reduce CPU involvement in that matter through Mantle ?
     
  12. Gipsel

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    1,620
    Likes Received:
    264
    Location:
    Hamburg, Germany
    Because one has less API requirements and restrictions and can fill the command buffer however one likes (as long as it results in legal code understandable by the GPU)? Less synchronization is enforced (is done explicitly only when one needs it and not implicitly for everything on each draw call). That kind of stuff. But I have to admit, that I'm not so deep into graphics programming.
    But one example I keep hearing is that the D3D deferred contexts are not really working well. They are meant for submitting draw calls from multiple threads but in practice it is often not faster or even slower than if the engine reserves a single thread for doing all the draw calls (probably because some requirement of the D3D API implies some synchronization point so it simply doesn't thread well, no idea, but that can be observed in practice). If Mantle gets rid of this requirement, multi cores can in principle multiply the amount of possible drawcalls (probably even more than just a multiplier with the core count).
     
    #152 Gipsel, Oct 4, 2013
    Last edited by a moderator: Oct 4, 2013
  13. firstminion

    Newcomer

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2013
    Messages:
    217
    Likes Received:
    46
    Developers do that because they have to work around the CPU dependency, it adds complexity to coding and is far less flexible. Reducing the CPU workload from draw calls is a simple solution.
     
  14. silent_guy

    Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2006
    Messages:
    3,754
    Likes Received:
    1,380
    Forums would be a better place if people with a victim complex stopped whining about how their favorite platform is being unfairly treated. It happens on both sides, but your confirmation bias just makes you blind to it.

    (Don't worry: I'm going to resist the temptation to go through your posting history to see if you've ever blasted PhysX for being proprietary. :wink: )
     
  15. DavidGraham

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2009
    Messages:
    3,278
    Likes Received:
    3,523
    Sounds like either an example of idiotic programming or a horrible bug ! draw calls can't exploit multi-cores? that is the definition of an epic failure right there !
     
  16. Andrew Lauritzen

    Moderator Veteran

    Joined:
    May 21, 2004
    Messages:
    2,526
    Likes Received:
    454
    Location:
    British Columbia, Canada
    There are spec problems that make it hard, compounded with drivers that try to play all sorts of games to get a leg up over competitors. To be fair, GPU hardware is not exactly helpful in how you have to give it commands (a lot of heavy lifting is still done on the CPU, even on consoles), so while the standard APIs need to improve here, there's improvements that could happen all-around, in both hardware and software.

    That said, the alternative direction of simply removing the need for the CPU to spoon-feed the GPU by providing more expressive power and increased ability of the GPU to (efficiently) handle pulling more commands/data directly from memory is just as viable. As I've mentioned, stuff like bindless textures and indirect dispatch is moving in this direction to the point that you can draw large parts of the scene with one draw call if you want, without any decrease in flexibility.

    It's simply a question of whether the CPU is responsible for going through a "thin" API that creates a "dense" command buffer with lots of state commands or whether the application basically sets up its own "command" format in memory, does a big dispatch and has the GPU pull whatever if needs from that memory. Probably as an industry we should pursue making both paths better, but to be honest we only need one way...

    So again, it's unfair to claim that the rest of the industry hasn't been addressing this too. Don't you guys remember the threads about how many more draw calls you can get by using bindless textures (GL extension)? And that was even before all the new indirect stuff in GL...
     
  17. tunafish

    Regular

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2011
    Messages:
    576
    Likes Received:
    254
    The biggest single problem is that the programming model of DX and GL implicitly synchronize everything. Synchronization is expensive, especially so when the synch primitives need to travel across cores.

    The problem isn't that the system is programmed badly -- it's that it's *designed* badly. All actions simply should not be implicitly synchronized.
     
  18. gkar1

    Regular

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2002
    Messages:
    614
    Likes Received:
    7
    I currently use a physx card but I have to use their 2+ year old system software because Nvidia's anti consumer bullshit left me no option :lol:

    I don't see what that has to do with anything tho.

    First news in 10 years bringing something fresh to 3d graphics instead of the same old baby steps keeping the status quo and milking consumers and people bend over backwards to discredit it. Thankfully actual developers asked for it and someone listened to them.
     
  19. willardjuice

    willardjuice super willyjuice
    Moderator Veteran Alpha

    Joined:
    May 14, 2005
    Messages:
    1,385
    Likes Received:
    299
    Location:
    NY
    Folks this is a mantle thread. If you want to discuss if one ihv is more "open" than another, I'd suggest you start a thread in the proper sub-forum.
     
  20. WaltC

    Veteran

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2002
    Messages:
    2,710
    Likes Received:
    8
    Location:
    BelleVue Sanatorium, Billary, NY. Patient privile
    Yea, I see Mantle as possible only because of AMD's somewhat novel position in the consoles. I can't imagine a Mantle incompatible with either current high-level API--that would seem highly counterproductive as I don't see developers ever clamoring for a 3rd high-level API, but rather a tool which will make programming for either high-level API that much easier and provide superior performance results at the same time.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...