Printable View
ok tried it again just 5 mins ago, indeed a restart of the game was necessary. Game just feels so much quicker, but the difference isnt in the max frames but undoubtedly in average frames, game feels as fast as older fps games.. its honestly very impressive
Yea no stutter nor pauses for me, and I was just in Zavod 64 full server
it does seem like the image quality is different though on close inspection i couldnt really tell if there was quality loss/gain but it does look slightly different
Fraps doesn't display fps count when using Mantle renderer either . Same in starswarm benchmark .Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMuppet
@MaddMuppet : concerning the stutter you mentioned before . What's the used GMEM when that happens ? I'm noticing that with everything ultra on 2560 resolution my used GMEM is constantly around 3gbyte .. hence the stutter could be some swapping/caching going on ?
What resolution are you playing at btw ?
I get massive pauses of 1-3 seconds every few minutes using 3 different machines Athlon II X4 620 @3.6GHz, 4770K @ 5GHz & 960T (6c) @ 3.6GHz with 7870 2GB, 7950 CF & 7970 GHz respectively but no pauses at all with CF 7870's on a 960T (6c) @ 3.6GHz). I have also had to completely remove 14.1 from 2 PC's and a Laptop as Minecraft breaks completely under those drivers (no textures at all).
It is noticeably faster and smoother on all 4 290X machines though which is a good thing.
It says in the release notes that there is no 'DX9 Dual Graphics support' in the 14.1 drivers @DeathReborn.
Since I can't use fraps to bench Mantle, I wrote a Java program that parses the BF4 FrameFileLog and outputs my FPS from the frame-times :) I knew a BS in CS would come in handy.
snip...
Known Issues
Mantle performance for the AMD Radeon™ HD 7000/HD 8000 Series GPUs and AMD Radeon™ R9 280X and R9 270X GPUs will be optimized for BattleField 4™ in future AMD Catalyst™ releases. These products will see limited gains in BattleField 4™ and AMD is currently investigating optimizations for them.
Multi-GPU support under DirectX? and Mantle will be added to StarSwarm in a future application patch
Intermittent stuttering or stability issues may occur when utilizing Mantle with AMD CrossFire™ technology in BattleField 4™ - AMD recommends using the DirectX code path when playing Battlefield 4 with multiple GPUs. A future AMD Catalyst release will resolve these issues
Notebooks based on AMD Enduro or PowerXpress™ technologies are currently not supported by the Mantle codepath in Battlefield 4™
AMD Eyefinity configurations utilizing portrait display orientations are currently not supported by the Mantle codepath in Battlefield 4™
AMD Eyefinity technology is not currently supported in the Star Swarm application
AMD testing for the AMD Catalyst™ 14.1 Beta Mantle driver has been concentrated on the following products: AMD Radeon™ R9 290X, R9 290, R9 280, R9 270, R7 260X, R7 260, HD 7000 Series, HD 8000 Series, A10-7850K and A10-7700K. Future AMD Catalyst™ releases will include full test coverage for all AMD products supported by Mantle.
Graphics hardware in the AMD A10-7850K and A10-7700K may override the presence of a discrete GPU under the Mantle code path in Battlefield 4™
Frame Pacing for Dual Graphics and non-XDMA configurations above 2560x1600 do not currently work with Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4. An upcoming release will enable support
DX9 Dual graphics is not supported in AMD Catalyst 14.1 Beta. An upcoming release will enable support
...
I'm only running 1920x1080p 120hz.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimInalA
Glad that helped. Sometimes we miss the easiest things.Quote:
Originally Posted by mars
just to expand a bit, my system specs are
3930k@4.6
290x@ 1080/1500
16gb @ 2133 11-11-11
2560x1440@110Hz
Windows 8.1
and yea smooth no stutters etc
this is for all ultra except MSAA which is 2x
No OSD can be displayed on Mantle because it doesn't run on the DX API. Overlays require DX to work. It's also why all sorts of streaming program that relies on hooking to DirectX doesn't work either, but capturing window and playing windowed mode should work, regardless.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMuppet
I thought that might be the case. Will try out the windowed mode. Thanks for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
I don't like running in windowed mode too much.
The machines with Minecraft on are all running single GPU's (5850, 5750 & 660M). I will be finding out at the weekend how the LAN group like Mantle in BF4, got 8 coming so lots of feedback to be had.Quote:
Originally Posted by DefStar
only thing that disgusts me about mantle is 7xxx and 280x optimization part. ok of course they will need optimizations but they already should have a noticeable performance increases over directx because of mantles less overheads compared to directx.
Agreed, but just to check out a few things, I would really like some form of OSD.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
There is absolutely zero performance increase using 7970/280x cards. Since we can use BF4 in-game console to capture frame-times...I wrote a java program to parse the frame-times in the output file "FrameTimeLogxxx.csv" and Mantle's Min, Avg, Max frames are always the same or within 1fps of DX 11's Min, Avg, Max. On a good note though, there are no spikes in the Mantle frame-times so at-least its not breaking anything.
Edit: also, I don't know what your'e need for OSD in BF4 is but, I can use the in-game console to display FPS and Graph.
Using the specs in my signature (crossfire enable)
BF4 1080p Ultra (no FXAA)(yes 4x MSAA) Tashgar SP Jeep Ride:
Mantle: Min 98, Avg 115.7, Max 129,
DX: Min 98, Avg 115.4, Max 130,
SP isnt much of a CPU load
Your right about that hahaha! But no I'm not going to waste my time benching for performance they have yet to implement, I just wanted an excuse to write a quick app. Maybe you could bench MP STEvil?
i'm waiting for 14.2 I think, havent had much time for gaming recently due to work so just reading stuff for now
It was just to keep an eye on temps and compare memory usage and GPU usage compared to DX11.Quote:
Originally Posted by DefStar
Some other results from another website that did some serious tests:
780ti vs 290x DX11 vs 290X Mantle
nice performance gains if you don't use msaa. it will be better after some optimizations of course but i am not expecting much more from this generation.
I use a second monitor to keep the main one clutter free while gaming :pQuote:
Originally Posted by MaddMuppet
Now why didn't I think of that. Such a simple thing. :rofl:Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
Or use a G19 keyboard and aida64Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMuppet
I like my Mechanical to much for that though.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrimInalA
The strange thing at the moment is that Mantle uses so much more memory compared to directx . Maybe that's the reason they only optimized BF4 for 290X because those cards have 4gbyte memory . 3gbyte is not enough for pretty high settings/resolution . I use over 3gbyte gmem in BF4 using mantle .
I've ran starswarm benchmark with 300 glare overdraw and 1000 shading samples , motionblur off . When i start the benchmark with mantle used gmem : 7600 mbyte , to drop to 3200 after some time . When i start the directx version it only uses gmem 1600mbyte .. .
People have been reporting stutters with Mantle on BF4 which seems to indicate memory issues, that could be remedied by dropping the texture quality. It doesn't seem to be a separate issue since Star Swarm is experiencing it, perhaps it's a bug?
I hope people are patient with Mantle. It seems to have much potential.
Amen to that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethro
i agree, people tend to forget that mantle is being tested against the 11th version of directx. Considering that mantel looks very promising.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jethro
its not even that....
something that's just come out of the developers den is already competing and beating something which has been refined for well over a decade.
when you put things into perspective it becomes apparent quite quickly the potential of Mantle.
only if the "I want it now and I want it FREE" generation stopped complaining.....
But they expect everything now and don't want to work hard to get it.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
still the question is why we didn't see performance gains in bf4 with 7xxx series. optimizations ok but will all the overhead reduced by mantle we should have seen some. we need a good explanation from amd about this. i believe this answer will make us understand mantle better.
Simple, DICE optimized it more towards GCN 1.1 than GCN 1.0. Heck, DICE themselves said it's not optimized for 7xxx. So you're questioning something that has been answered.Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
You misunderstood his point. At a fundamental level mantle should enable CPU overhead reductions before optimizations (he even used that word). He is hoping that if AMD provides an explanation we'll have a better understanding of why architecturally speaking GCN 1.0 can't (as in possibly unable to under any circumstances) leverage mantle like GCN 1.1.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
Perhaps, but do you have any numbers for GCN 1.0 coupled with a weak GPU and compared direct3d and Mantle against each other to back that up? All the reviews I see on the Internet are on 290x. In my defense, this sentence -> "optimizations ok but will all the overhead reduced by mantle we should have seen some" is pretty damn hard to understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by mutantmagnet
EDIT: Actually, here you go. http://battlelog.battlefield.com/bf4...4-mantle-live/ . GCN 1.0 is seeing performance increase with CPU limited scenarios. I'm pretty sure he meant GPU-limited scenarios, then.
Also, someone needs to ask what is Johan's driver's smoking for it to be able to run CFX. Many are saying that CFX isn't working with Mantle.
Thank you mutantmagnet believe me i can't express it anywhere near that. :)
I answered you as well as of above (sorry for being edit-happy). GCN 1.0 works well with Mantle for reducing CPU overhead, contrary to your belief.
From blindbox's link, "Level was tested with 64 ?pseudo players? that we have for our own internal testing that simulates heavy game workload that we have in multiplayer in order to get more deterministic results compared to full real multiplayer. "
We need that 'test', a deterministic performance analysis tool for MP would be great for comparing system configuration results.
I mean obviously AMD if you want us to be able to see how Mantle is improving performance we need to use the Scientific Method which requires a deterministic test...I would have totally took the time to bench my system and publish/post the results for everyone one to see = free advertising...AMD, you listening?
The test would require a server sending pre-determined updates/pseudo player actions to a client were you would bench from...so we would probably need a server software running to do this.
So true.Quote:
Originally Posted by kuroikenshi
Microsoft DirectX became competitive against 3DFx Glide only with the 5th revision. :)
Why does Mantle use so much Memory ? it's Terrible!!
If it doesn’t :banana::banana::banana::banana: something else, who cares?? Besides, now average Joe will be making the right choice when choosing a VGA with 3483484334 of RAM!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by behrouz
Yup, I always use afterburner's OSD to watch my temps to...i'm always paranoid my water pump will give out since it is so quite I can't here it.Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMuppet
@STEvil, yeah...14.2 drivers will hopefully take care of us GCN 1.0/7000 series...I'm pretty confident they will as AMD stated they will, its just takes time to optimize and bug test. Ever since they released that Frame Pacing driver I've been pretty impressed with AMDs driver team.
blindbox's link shows that they have optimized 7000 series some, but no one else (I've heard of) has been able to use that test to verify those results.
Hopefully it use the right memory usage, linked to cores / threads use.. lol....Quote:
Originally Posted by behrouz
I believe you would need multiple systems to create such a repeatable test. I don't know how many you would need, but essentially you would have to have multiple copies of BF4 running, run scripts to make bots run around in the same way each time, then run a script for the system you are benchmarking. It would be rather complex and expensive. The less precise way, but much easier, is to do multiple long tests of someone playing BF4 and doing an average of these sessions to give you a number. Over a long enough period of time you should be able to iron out most non-repeatable elements and get a ballpark figure for performance comparison.Quote:
Originally Posted by DefStar
No, if you wrote a program that 'mimicked' a server and that program just followed a script and always sent the same information to the client...then you would have a deterministic benchmark. You wouldn't need multiple clients logged into the server. Think of how Sacred 2 runs a server and a client on your pc at the same time. On the client end, the client would not even have to interact with anything...just receive server messages and benchmark the session. How Dice does it I have no Idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stukov
I was just thinking of doing a few DX11 server matches and then a few Mantle server matches and then taking the average of those...or within the same match, a few 3 minutes periods of DX11 and Mantle alternating between the two and then taking the averaGE of those. But I shouldn't need to go through that much trouble to bench mark Mantle when it is AMD who needs to promote Mantle and thus needs to provide us with deterministic analysis tools...AMD providing a test allowing the community to promote and advertise would not be expensive, it would be beneficial to AMD.
i don't believe so. Most of the users sees no difference (like me), for some problems begin (as expected for a beta) and a little reported performance gains but they can be wrong (because of testing methods) or just exceptions. also at the begining ea excluded 7970 and 280x from mantle support but then amd came and said no we will it will support them but we are going to make optimizations for them seems like a confession to me about 7xxx series. but actually all these are not that important for general mantle impression on mantle but i want to know what is happening to understand mantle better (as much as i can of course).Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-bCeNzgiJ8I
Its a presentation from the steamworks devs days talking about driver overhead reduction on ogl, its by nvidia but its pretty general about ogl.
If its get things done as nice as the presentation suggests mantel is pretty much meaningless, since ogl is multi platform, supported by pretty much every major graphics vendor and much on the instructions are already in current hardware and only needs to be exposed by the driver.
Thanks for bringing tht up but it has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the thread title.Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
If you want to discuss nvidia ogl then I strongly suggest you start a new thread.
Bringing this point up in this thread is simply PROVOKING trouble.
:clap:
yeah it has nothing to do with except that this is exactly the same thing as mantle does, reducing driver overhead and giving the developers easier times in optimize there games/applications.
Hey and its not like OGL hasn't already been mentioned and compared to mantle over a dozen times in this thread. :stick:
You REALLY think that, if OpenGL allowed such low level to the metal coding AMD would even bother with this whole mantle thing ?Quote:
Originally Posted by Hornet331
If someone thinks logically, only real answer is, no.So, it must mean that AMD could not get same results with OpenGL.
Also as for GCN 1.0 optimizations, to me it looks its right there, not as stellar as GCN 1.1 but still , with a weak cpu you will see gains.
http://imageshack.com/a/img198/927/2h3d.png
I think you missed his whole point.Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
Kromosto said there was no gains in BF4 using mantle with GCN 1.0 cards ,280X is a tahiti based card, thats GCN 1.0.The tests i provided say otherwise...Quote:
Originally Posted by MaddMuppet
So what did i miss ?
yes i admit for lower cpu's it is better then i know (most of the community doesn't use that lower cpus so never got feed back from that kind) but still what i am trying to ask is didn't answered. this problem generally occurs because i can't express myself clear :) have to learn to tidy up my mind before asking questions i guess. but the site you gave results will help me to ask my question better i think.
from the same site you gave test results for 290x:
4670k stock with dx11: 79.8 mantle 108.3
4670k oc with dx11: 96.3 mantle 110.1
stock dx11 to mantle %35
oc dx11 to mantle %14
stock dx11 to oc dx11 % 20
stock mantle to oc mantle %1
it is obvious that fps gains comes from lesser overheads. if 290x gets this amount of performance from lesser overheads for stock and oced 4670k why 280x gets only %1 or %2 ? cpus are same driver is same mantle api is same. what optimizations can make this difference? what i want to know is this.
EDIT: Also what should i think about stock oc mantle difference is only %1 but dx11 %20. Mantle is that good to lessen cpu overheads and still supports and emphasizes my main question.
Obviously this kind of question can only be answered in depth by an amd engineer.However, simple part of this would be the fact that tahiti based cards are siginificantly slower to start with so they have less room to "work with" using mantle.So it can mean that it is in big part just from the fact that tahiti cards get saturated sooner and "the blame" shifts from CPU to GPU part.Have a look at this, its from the same site, just in this instance they set high MSAA to bring 290X down:Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
http://imageshack.com/a/img33/1289/wdoo.png
So when the GPU is being hammered down, mantle doesnt bring high gains even on GCN 1.1.But you have to keep in mind that hawaii has more computing power, it has faster memory access and was built in mind with mantle.
As i said earlier , this thing is gonna be hard to quantify, it will all depend on the hardware used, on the settings used, and even with same hardware and same gfx settings it can be almost no difference in scene where there arent LOADS of objects on the screen to a MASSIVE difference when there are thousands of them.Thats why i think amd works with starswarm, they want to have the capability to show what it CAN do.Lets remember that mantle isnt only for same games and same scenes like on dx just with less overhead, its also for things that DX ultimately wouldnt be able to handle.
yes msaa results indicate what you are saying. so based on all of these if we make another assumption in a system with stock 4670k and 280x, 280x is the bottleneck.
That is a wide generalization, as i said earlier, its gonna be helluva tricky because that statement CAN be true, but only on specific settings ,with specific things going on the screen at the moment taking the tests.Also, its the first iteration, beta in fact, with first title supporting it (beta in fact) so theres probably a long way to go in terms of mantle and what it can bring on the table.Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
However its pretty logical that the BIGGEST improvements RIGHT OF THE BAT , will see people with weakish CPUs, and highest performing GPUs ,AND crossfire on all CPUs be it weak or fast ones, .Thats with titles made with DX in mind doing just a port with no added content, things could change dramatically with mantle only settings or titles made with mantle in mind.
I am not interested if it is beta or not my onlu concern is a good explanation of 290x and 280x performance gain difference from amd. Actually i dont believe i can get one but i stuck at that point.
...
Now add extra CPU time into the equation .Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
In these benchmarks you are seeing the card get maxed out, but you arent seeing (very well) the spare free cycles the CPU has with which to do things like physics or anything else its can now do.
yes that will be a good input too.Quote:
Originally Posted by STEvil
One thing that hasn't been answered yet is how much work or extra development time does it take to implement mantle?
Depending on how much work it takes, its going to really going to affect developer adoption of it and affect if AMD has to pay developers to use it. If it's easy on the other hand, then developers are more likely to use it. But regardless, I think at this point, I think we can say it takes a significant amount of effort.
As I understand it, developers had requested this. I cannot imagine they would ask for something intentionally to create more work for themselves for little gain.
I don't think mantle brings a very new way of 3d programming beside some low level access to hardware for optimizations so i believe adoption is not a big problem.
Exactly, DICE approached both Intel and Nvidia to create Mantle but they said no, only AMD said yes. I've not seen any developers that have actually used Mantle say anything against it, so I imagine the gains outweigh the costs by a large margin.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace123
I think the ideal for developers is Directx 11.1 to be dead and developers have to only deal with a low level API and have to program only for it. As it is now, developers have to code for both directx 11.1(this they have to do) and a mantle version. Considering that Dice has been working on mantle before BF4 release till now and even now it is still very beta, there seems to be considerable work done for each game that uses it. No one wants to work for free, particularly when the only hardware that supports it makes up the minority share compared to Nvidia based cards + pre GCN hardware.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ace123
Some developers were asking for it, but not all. And even if they wanted it, it doesn't mean they will work for nothing.
if unreal make a mantle engine then it is over.
If Unreal was going to make something, i think they would go out on to their own and make their own low level API. Unreal is a market leader when it comes to these things and not a follower. And if unreal made one, I am not sure if it would be open, but with the Mantle threat, I bet nvidia would be willing to open up its close to 5 billion dollar cash reserves and try to hammer out a deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
i don't think mantle didn't take unreal's attention. if they be quick to respond to problems and make a good mantle 2.0 in a year i am sure we can see a mantle unreal engine.
also of course nvidia unreal pact for a new api is a high probability but mantle has a very huge being early advantage.
I think unreal could develop something quicker and better than mantle(atleast when it comes to bugs) for two reasons. They have far more experience and programmings with this type of thing. Secondly, they don't have EA breathing down their backs so they could divert more resources and attention on developing it. EA crazy deadlines and pushing DICE for their own agenda wrecked BF4 and delayed Mantle.Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
developing api and engine have some similarities but actually they are very different and no way unreal can make it by itself only. they must work with a gpu manufacturer.
Finally a fix for the hitching
PC Game Update Feb 13
Mantle
-Fix for a crash that would occur when activating full screen in portrait mode
-Fix for stuttering that could appear during video sequences on multi-GPU PCs
-Fix for a memory system leak that could cause stalls, which would result in frames taking longer to process
-Reduced the amount of stalls that occurred when running with high graphics setting that require more GPU memory than is currently available
-Fixed screenshots on multi-GPU PCs
-General stability improvements
-Fix for an issue where spawning into, or switching to, a gunner seat in an IFV/MBT sometimes could cause the game to crash
-Fix for missing sound in Team/Squad Deathmatch
-Fix for an issue in the Defuse game mode, where a bomb carrier would be permanently spotted
-Decreased the rate at which the kill card would incorrectly display 0 health, while the enemy was clearly alive
-Fixed an invisible wall that was incorrectly positioned in one of the fallen concrete pipes on Zavod 311
-Fix for an issue where bullet impact sounds weren’t properly matching the actual number of impacts
-Fix for an issue where the “Draw” message would not display on-screen once a Conquest round ended with both teams having the same amount of tickets
-Fix for an issue where long IDs wouldn’t scroll on dog tags
-Fix for missing grass physics in terrain
Nice to see new Batlefield 4 game patch fix including some for Mantle ^^^
Having new system update including CPU, motherboard and graphic cards (in my signature) I decided not to use the Beta 14.11 drivers for now, looking up for more stability while checking the overclocking and benches.
The 13.12 drivers work great for me, guess will try out the next Beta drivers.
Confirmed to fix stutter on HD 7970!
My brother just did 45 min stint in BF4 MP Mantle edition without any hicups!
Everything Ultra except MSAA 1x and it is fluid on his A10-5800K oc to 3.9/4.3GHz. On that CPU Mantle rocks :D
can't wait to go home and try this new patchQuote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
And now with my recently bought 280x cfed with good old 7970 lightning :) :) :) :)
Unreal engine is made by Epic Games, also why in the hell they would want to make an api ? They have nothing to gain here, also im pretty sure they cant do anything serious without them engineering their own gpus.Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
but yea, in order to really get off the ground with mantle AMD needs epic to be on board.
Unreal api was not my idea :)Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
So is CF working for you now?Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
I might give it another go on my 290X CF as before it was almost instant crash (5-10s max.)
got myself cooler master seidon 240m too installation is still going on. but i will report then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lightman
setup is ready but no bf4 servers :( going in to single player mode
for single player cf is working
i just wish nvidia will end up supporting mantle too...it would be best for everyone
I hope the same.Quote:
Originally Posted by Evantaur
Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
You really are a wet blanket aren't you :|Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
Mantle is still technically beta, and a work in progress. You can't really expect it to be easy-peasy and polished right away particularly when compared to something like DirectX that has been around for years and on its 11th version. I think everyone who is actually involved in actually working with it were and are fully aware there will be more work to start off with and some bumps along the way. Considerable work, the first couple go arounds. DirectX was a lot of work in the beginning too. That doesn't mean it is a ton of extra work for everything forever.
I highly doubt developers would ask for a new API and at the same time demand that they get paid extra to use the API they requested. That's a little ridiculous.
Unreal has always made use of an existing API. They've been using DirectX for all their game engines so far after all. Aside from Unreal typically being an nvidia group, there is nothing stopping Unreal from making a Mantle-based game engine.
Epic with unreal engine had some support for different apis, opengl, S3 metal and of course console versions ;-).Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
And people, Unreal Engine is made by EPIC MEGAGAMES
Derp, yeah, Epic makes Unreal.
But yeah, my point still stands they have never made APIs.
Well Dice got exactly that. They asked for Mantle and got paid 8 million dollars for the BF4 work which included their mantle work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
No matter what happens, all these games will be coded for Directx 11. This is a fact. Its going to be number 1 priority because it is the largest user base and every single computer with windows supports it. Once the developer finish this version their job is done and they can go home so to speak. They full filled that end the contract with the publisher.
Next comes the optional mantle version. Who is going to pay the developers a months or so(possibly more if its like BF4) of work to finish the mantle version? It isn't a direct copy of the console code as xbox one doesn't use it and PS4 has its own API. It's basically another job. Even though Dice asked for it, doesn't mean they are going to work for free to support it. Their contract with EA ends with them getting a direct x 11 version out(and the console versions). What ever they do after is on their own free time and they are not getting directly paid by EA. In addition, any resources spent on mantle means less resource(time or man hours) to work on other projects. To make matter less attractive, it only works on 20% of the computers at best(remove pre-GCN and Nvidia cards from the equation). The only way mantle has a success of taking off is if Nvidia supports it as well and both companies are able to enable it on all directx 11 hardware.
From what Tim Sweeney said, mantle has some good ideas. I think directx 11 should be more like mantle. But the crux which hurts mantle is its support and the fragmentation it introduces. Here's what Tim Sweeney said.
Sweeney: there's some good ideas in Mantle we really liked the idea of having low overhead access to the GPU, if you look back at DX/OGL, there's a lot of overhead in those APIs and the fact that they date back to the old SGI model of rendering which is very different than the current model, potentially unified memory, good ideas there I hope it really helps the OGL community and MS evolve their APIs. Would I like to have a low level API? Yes. Five of them? Absolutely not. To have yet another API on the PC that's still different than the DX API and OpenGL, and OpenGL ES and different than PS4 low level API, I don't think it's a good idea.
http://www.anandtech.com/show/7437/t...real-live-blog
Adding another API out there, that only supports a small portion of hardware is what hurts it compared to existing solutions. Its just more work for a comparatively small user base. For mantle to really take off and I think you guys(even with AMD googles on) should be able to see, is Nvidia needs to support it too, and mantle in general needs to supports older directx 11 hardware. By having a wider range of hardware support, it gives developers more reason to support it and it gives Mantle a chance to kick out one of the existing API's.
I was going to post but I think I will just wait for mantle and catalyst 14.2 support for 7000 series, that way I wont be pulling crap out of my ass to make a comment like tajoh does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sparky
hey Tajoh, an API is used to connect "a something" to "a something else" making an API for a graphics engine which has a limited life cycle is quite pointles.
so under your pretense:
"a something" = the current unreal engine
and
"a something else" = what did you have in mind?
I started this and i take full responsibility :) .Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
If Thief and Star Citizen is going to support Mantle, wouldn't this mean that Unreal Engine 3 and CryENGINE will be supporting Mantle?
Yes please, you know what's about to be unleashed sooner or later right....?Quote:
Originally Posted by kromosto
"If Thief and Star Citizen is going to support Mantle, wouldn't this mean that Unreal Engine 3 and CryENGINE will be supporting Mantle?"
blindbox: the API is not written for the graphics engine, its written for the hardware, which then devs generate drawcalls into their graphics engine such as Unreal, Crybaby (see what I did there), or any other engine or application to talk to the API which in turn talk to the hardware.
Just checked it, new thief uses unreal engine 3 and star citizen uses cryengine 3 so youre right!Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
kuroikenshi, okay, but doesn't this mean UE3 and CryENGIUNE will support Mantle? I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to tell me here. What you just said doesn't stop my question from being a wrong question, and thus the question still stands. All future frostbite games support mantle for example. Also, here's a nice interview with Dan Baker on why he went mantle and not anything else.
http://www.maximumpc.com/AMD_Mantle_Interview_2014
That's nonsense, Dan Baker knows nothing. He needs to listen to a certain person here who knows all about it... :p:Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
It just means that a developer can do the work for a engine to support mantle, Epic and Crytek haven't jumped on the boat yet, however I don't know how much support they are giving to developers with the transition. Considering the fact that developers are taking the initiative, it would probably be prudent for both companies to step up to the plate sooner rather than later.Quote:
Originally Posted by blindbox
i gave up on mantle until new driver and api release. saturday fps fluctuations begin suddenly and what ever i do nothing solved it so changed setting to directx and everything becomes perfect. never had any problem before with single 7970 beside sudden fps drops which wasn't that much a problem.
Both use heavily modified versions of those engines with the game devs adding Mantle support to the engines, not Epic/CryTek doing the work.Quote:
Originally Posted by vario
CryEngine 3 is so Beautiful!...that is awesome news. I am going to download that StarSwarm demo and also 'hope' they release a new Crysis game or any other CryEngine powered futuristic FPS game. Titanfall is fun and high-paced but I don't feel like taking a moment to look at anything except where the enemy is. I keep replaying levels in Crysis 3 to remember/experience what next-gen visuals are...cause I'm not seeing them anywhere else.
While the above is "technically" true... The low level APIs might still be close enough that "another job" is still or will be far easier than writing for dx11. We can't just assume that since its named different that the workload for porting the game to mantle api is as much work as porting a console game to directx.Quote:
Originally Posted by tajoh111
It really depends on whether Epic/Crytek wants to pay Eidos/Cloud Empirium to backport it or not. That said, there's still the maintenance part of it which is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by DeathReborn
Interestingly, Tim Sweeney (as quoted by tajoh111) and Dan Baker has a different way to things. Dan Baker is like, 'I'm already supporting 5 APIs, one more couldn't hurt...' and Tim Sweeney is the opposite. AMD seems to be aiming for Mantle to be one day be the de facto standard, when you look at how many times they keep saying they want to make the API open, so it all depends on trust here. DisplayPort and GDDR5 is where you should be looking at to see whether AMD will deliver, as those two standards were mostly written by AMD.
Second Assault benchmarks using Mantle and DX11
First set is run on i7 3770K stock and W7 x64 for all cards:
http://cdn.overclock.net/5/57/900x90...ks_02-pcgh.png
2nd set is on overclocked i7 4770K and W8.1 x64
http://i60.tinypic.com/24qitmo.jpg
http://i61.tinypic.com/126ecuu.jpg
I also noticed that first set of benchmarks is done on Cat. 14.1 beta 1.7 instead of released 1.6, but that might be just a typo.
Thanks to PCGH for the results!