It wasn't even directed at you. It was just in general terms to point out legal ramifications, although there are other countries where this is in the court systems as well. That said, this is a US based website and US laws apply on this website.
We can argue about the reasons, but it is very clear that DX has become bloated and stale, and MS does not appear to be interested in doing much of anything about it. There is no way Mantle would even exist if DX had not become a major pain in the neck for game developers.To those who say Microsoft isn't innovating DirectX because it has a monopoly - that's absolute rubbish.
Yep, which raises another point: Glide wrappers. Thanks to the abstraction of DirectX/OpenGL, you can now play those games on any card that has such drivers.
It takes a vendor-neutral API with the necessary level of abstraction to correct the mistakes of the past and achieve near-universal compatibility.
The opposite of a Glide wrapper is for Intel/AMD/nVidia to implement a Glide driver for their respective hardware. This is exactly where Mantle is poised right now, with AMD the only one who will do it.
This is why Mantle/NVAPI/PhysX/etc will never be a robust solution. IHVs won't support competitors' technologies, so these things are more marketing than any universal benefit for consumers.
But what is the alternative to DX? A Mantle for every architecture? Mantle only works on GCN cards. Dev's aren't going to like having to write different code for every architecture.We can argue about the reasons, but it is very clear that DX has become bloated and stale, and MS does not appear to be interested in doing much of anything about it. There is no way Mantle would even exist if DX had not become a major pain in the neck for game developers.
Fair or not, doesn't matter. Mantle fills a need that DX can't, or won't. GCN in consoles+desktop+mobile allows Mantle to be viable. And for the 100th time, Mantle doesn't make DX go away or make it any less useful....but to say it sucks because of what Mantle can do is not at all fair or accurate.
The thought that AMD could release something like Mantle without having serious talks with MS prior is very unrealistic. AMD is by far the smallest and weakest player in x86 side and with no technology for the arm side. They are dependant on good relations.
On contrast NV have the financial, branding and technological muscles to pose a threat to the x86 pc platform and thereby Windows monopoly. Denver is comming to arm and we are probably in for some new technolgy on the api side also, and Denver is probablyt one of the most important and interesting innovations, comming hopefully at the end at this year.
"AMD did not want to talk or show any performance differences between the traditional DirectX version of BF4."
^This quote from the article. Wonder why. Seems like AMD could easily demonstrate the supposed "45%" increase that their marketing department likes to mention all too often.
But what is the alternative to DX? A Mantle for every architecture? Mantle only works on GCN cards. Dev's aren't going to like having to write different code for every architecture.
DX is "bloated" for a reason, to support all GPU's. To say they can make it like Mantle is ludicrous. Mantle is designed around specific hardware, DX does not have that luxury.
Can DX be improved? I have no doubt. Everything has room for improvement, but to say it sucks because of what Mantle can do is not at all fair or accurate.
most AMD graphics cards..They already said mantle is forward compatible, also they can reuse the HLSL code since it can be used on both mantle and DX.
From what it sounds like much of what mantle does will be available on most graphics cards going forward. They won't be exact, but you can expect much of the same basics. If they come up with something more they can add that.
As far as I know, the issue is not getting Mantle to work, it's Dice taking forever to fix the problems with normal BF4 and not wanting to look bad by adding Mantle before they fix problems they're getting sued over.
Other Mantle things, like that Swarm demo, are not allowed to be released before the BF4 patch, at the request of Dice.
But what is the alternative to DX? A Mantle for every architecture? Mantle only works on GCN cards. Dev's aren't going to like having to write different code for every architecture.
DX is "bloated" for a reason, to support all GPU's. To say they can make it like Mantle is ludicrous. Mantle is designed around specific hardware, DX does not have that luxury.
Can DX be improved? I have no doubt. Everything has room for improvement, but to say it sucks because of what Mantle can do is not at all fair or accurate.
If oxide can get the cost/benefit they claim with mantle then why not an low level api for nv and Intel? 2 man months and we have 3 times application level improvement in the engine. Why should nv be that different?
Considering the years it takes to get comparable few fps and drawcalls from dx11 it actually looks like better cost/benefit to adapt 2-3 low level api for a handfull of performance engines and using dx for the rest.
most AMD graphics cards..
DX is what it is because it is backward and forward compatible and brand agnostic. What you consider a fault, is its strength and why it exists.
Should we stop supporting anything but current AMD hardware on PC's from now on or should we have separate API's for different brands, and architectures?
While is not gona be any different, 3 API gona be a mess, thats is even more incentive to program on DX and forget about dealing with 3 brands stuff.
It also gona be a dissaster for us too, i hope that never happen, thats also why i hope Mantle to fail badly, i dont want Intel and Nvidia to respond with their own APIs.
It's both, and leaning farther into fault territory.DX is what it is because it is backward and forward compatible and brand agnostic. What you consider a fault, is its strength and why it exists.
You seem unable to imagine a world where DX and Mantle can coexist. Now if Mantle becomes so successful that most game devs won't even want to bother with DX, then either MS will have to pull up their socks, or the likes of Nvidia will have to get on board with Mantle. If Mantle does little in the gaming world, then nothing will have changed and we'll continue to be stuck in DirectX mud.Should we stop supporting anything but current AMD hardware on PC's from now on or should we have separate API's for different brands, and architectures?
It's both, and leaning farther into fault territory.
You seem unable to imagine a world where DX and Mantle can coexist. Now if Mantle becomes so successful that most game devs won't even want to bother with DX, then either MS will have to pull up their socks, or the likes of Nvidia will have to get on board with Mantle. If Mantle does little in the gaming world, then nothing will have changed and we'll continue to be stuck in DirectX mud.
But most likely, Mantle is going to push gaming forward it is the inevitable progression of things. And more importantly (also very concerning for MS) Mantle is not specifically tied to Windows.
That's a whole lot of assumptions you're making. But you do agree that Mantle is going to at the very least show 45% uplift in some scenarios.45% faster on systems with weak APU and a powerful GPU.
Mantle reduce overhead and reduce bottleneck, making FPS much higher since the GPU can do its magic undisturbed.
For systems with a powerful enough CPU/APU which doesn`t have any bottleneck, less overhead means very small gains in FPS compared to DirectX.
Thats why they say "UP to 45% faster".
Those who think they will gain 45% more FPS on R9 290x/780Ti and a i7 CPU are out of their minds.
Pretty sneaky marketing, but hey, its AMD
We understand your concern, but DX is holding back the industry from making the games they want to.
I agree with the first part of this. Except you would have to define how AMD is the smallest and weakest X86 player, but that's not the point. I disagree nVidia could take on M$ and come out on top though. I think you are giving them way too much credit. Especially the "technological muscle". If, for example M$ didn't give nVidia any support or consideration with DX, nVidia's performance on the Win platform would tank almost immediately. I also have difficulty finding any reason any hardware manufacturer operating primarily on the Win platform (like nVidia) would want to pose a threat to M$. Sounds suicidal to me.