|
mcbexx posted:Well, it looks like AMDs Mantle is dead. Well, the actual killer was Vulkan. It's also, honestly, a much better solution. There is also the debate that without Mantle showing the performance overhead of outdated standards/implementations, nothing would have been done.
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
mcbexx posted:Well, it looks like AMDs Mantle is dead. Mantle is dead, long live Mantle. The TechReport posted:Huddy told us AMD has done a "great deal of work" with the Khronos Group, the stewards of the OpenGL spec, on OpenGL Next. AMD has given the organization unfettered access to Mantle and told them, in so many words, "This is how we do it. If you want to take the same approach, go ahead." Khronos is free to take as many pages as it wants out of the Mantle playbook, and AMD will impose no restrictions, nor will it charge any licensing fees. http://techreport.com/news/26922/amd-hopes-to-put-a-little-mantle-in-opengl-next EDIT: Note, that this does not mean that OpenGL will be able to run Mantle code. It's just that some of the ways that Mantle does things may or may not make their way into OpenGL. This could mean one line of code, it could mean entire libraries. At the earliest, we won't know until... oh hey, today. I'd almost forgotten GDC was now. Edit the second: 3/3 at 3:00, and Valve is going to be on stage with Khronos. The irony would be palpable if you-know-what happened. EoRaptor posted:Well, the actual killer was Vulkan. It's also, honestly, a much better solution. Now, let's see if Microsoft continues to give OpenGL the screwjob on Windows, even after rejoining the Khronos Group and playing nice on WebGL. (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/08/11/hell_freezes_over_microsoft_joins_khronos/) SwissArmyDruid fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Mar 3, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
I should be a gaming prophet. everything I say off hand months before hand based on absolutely nothing relavent come true.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 21:26
|
|
|
Nah, it'll still be a vector for AMD-specific improvements, just not for optimizing away draw-call overhead since that's solved in new D3D/GL.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:There is also the debate that without Mantle showing the performance overhead of outdated standards/implementations, nothing would have been done. I don't think there's much debate, Microsoft would have absolutely kept their thumbs up their asses if Mantle hadn't showed up. I think AMD can be proud of shaming everyone else into taking optimizations seriously even if competitors are uh, picking up the Mantle, so to speak.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
Zero VGS posted:I don't think there's much debate, Microsoft would have absolutely kept their thumbs up their asses if Mantle hadn't showed up. I think AMD can be proud of shaming everyone else into taking optimizations seriously even if competitors are uh, picking up the Mantle, so to speak. The Xbox 360 and Xbox One both featured a hugely modified version of DirectX that had many of these optimizations already done, so Microsoft clearly knew there was an issue and how to fix it. I think they also knew the cost of bringing those changes to windows would be pretty steep if they had to upgrade existing versions. My basic thinking is the development looked like this: 1. MS develops improved DX for consoles 2. AMD, the supplier of console CPUs and GPUs for the then current and the future xbox, says they should port that to windows. 3. MS says they aren't willing to discuss that at this time 4. AMD takes everything they learned from during the xbox driver development and begins the same process on their windows drivers. 5. AMD partners with some dev studios, and hammers out how to access these driver improvements to benefit games, brands it Mantle at some point. 6. Mantle is publicly announced along with game support 7. Turns out, MS and nVidia have been working on DirectX improvements for windows for a while now, covered by an NDA that excluded AMD. 8. MS announces the 'new' DirectX version as part of a new Windows version 9. nVidia instantly (in hardware timeline terms) announces DirectX 12 support for their brand new video cards, even though the spec isn't final and there is not even a beta sdk to test with. The timing involved is just to weird. There is no way MS could turn around an announcement with feature set so quickly if they didn't already have it in the pipeline, and nVidia was really, really quick of the mark to guarantee DX12 compatibility for the 9x0 series cards. nVidia's and MS's action here really smell like AMD was being deliberately shut out to try to cost it an entire hardware cycle without DX12 support. AMD has plenty of problems, but this feels like just nasty behavior against them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:45
|
|
|
But didn't AMD also say it would support DX12 pretty much right off the bat
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
1gnoirents posted:That for real sucks, but I would personally hunt for something else (monitor). Or perhaps, a $10 gpu someone doesnt want anymore For posterity, the PCH (*97 chipset) only handles the analog signal and provides the clock lines for the digital interfaces - the data lines come directly off the CPU. As for analog, in Lynxpoint it's coming from the CPU via two 2.7 gigabit 'Flexible Display Interface' lines (180megapixels/s), whereas I guess in Panther/Cougar it had a much faster connection - looks like 350mhz for panther and 400 for cougar. In the end, I bought a BenQ 1440p. I just hope my motherboard documentation is wrong - it says max of 1080p over all connections but Intel's datasheets are extremely clear that HDMI, DVI and DP all support 4k@60hz on the 4590 - including simultanious 4k on 3 monitors via HDMIx2+DP, DVIx2+DP, HDMI+DVI+DP or DPx3. I'm resistant to buying a videocard because both nVidia and AMD really need the binary drivers to work decently, and since part of my job is kernel development their delays in supporting new versions really make life a pain for me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 3, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
EoRaptor posted:The Xbox 360 and Xbox One both featured a hugely modified version of DirectX that had many of these optimizations already done, so Microsoft clearly knew there was an issue and how to fix it. I think they also knew the cost of bringing those changes to windows would be pretty steep if they had to upgrade existing versions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:01
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:Do you have some sort of blog where I can read more of these... creative interpretations of technology? Yeah, that's some good stuff. (NVIDIA and AMD both announced support for DX12 the same day that MSFT revealed it, right?)
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:30
|
|
|
Subjunctive posted:Yeah, that's some good stuff. (NVIDIA and AMD both announced support for DX12 the same day that MSFT revealed it, right?) The truth comes out; it's actually a massive conspiracy against Intel!
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:32
|
|
|
Did we find out yet which cards have full feature hardware DX12 support?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 00:38
|
|
|
sauer kraut posted:Did we find out yet which cards have full feature hardware DX12 support? IIRC NVIDIA said that all their DX11 cards would also support DX12 (which says interesting things about their architecture in terms of the pre-emption stuff), and AMD as well. E: AMD says all GCN parts, and NVIDIA says Fermi, Kepler, Maxwell Subjunctive fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 01:53
|
|
|
Khronos Group Press Release posted:About Vulkan: Emphasis mine. I believe this to mean that GLNext will come to the PS4. As we know that DX12 will run on existing Xbox One hardware, from a purely scientific standpoint, I am now curious to see how much additional graphical fidelity a console can now output relative to now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 02:32
|
|
|
 Wonder how much boost this has
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Fallows posted:
Somehow this makes me angrier than a standard donk. I think it's because nvidia fanboys are some of the biggest idiots around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:42
|
|
|
Wonder how long it'll take that NVidia driver to crash...
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
1ms of wait what nvidia drivers are very stable 2ms later  - my brain
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 16:47
|
|
Weirdoman posted:Wonder how long it'll take that NVidia driver to crash... 
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Looking to get a new card and I can't decide between the 970 or the 960 with 4gb of vram that just got announced by evga. Would it be worth the extra money? I'm still gaming on 1080p and do t plan on going 4k anytime soon but I would like to get another year or so out of my new card before upgrading again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:29
|
|
|
Zig-Zag posted:Looking to get a new card and I can't decide between the 970 or the 960 with 4gb of vram that just got announced by evga. Would it be worth the extra money? I'm still gaming on 1080p and do t plan on going 4k anytime soon but I would like to get another year or so out of my new card before upgrading again. Don't waste your money on a GTX 960 with 4GB of VRAM, the price will be close enough to the 970 that just getting the 970 will be a better value.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:36
|
|
Zig-Zag posted:Looking to get a new card and I can't decide between the 970 or the 960 with 4gb of vram that just got announced by evga. Would it be worth the extra money? I'm still gaming on 1080p and do t plan on going 4k anytime soon but I would like to get another year or so out of my new card before upgrading again. The 4gb on a 960 is pretty pointless since the memory issues of the 970 only crop up at higher resolutions. I'd say to just get a 970, at 1080p the memory issue won't really matter much and it will be a good bit faster than the 960. I'll also say that the 970 will last you 2-3 years or so, at least if you stick with 1080p and are willing to game at high down the road instead of ultra.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 17:46
|
|
|
Zig-Zag posted:Looking to get a new card and I can't decide between the 970 or the 960 with 4gb of vram that just got announced by evga. Would it be worth the extra money? I'm still gaming on 1080p and do t plan on going 4k anytime soon but I would like to get another year or so out of my new card before upgrading again. The 960 and 970 are not even close. If you have the money for a 970 then you shouldn't even be looking in the direction of a 960, you should have bought a 970 already. The Radeon 280X and 290 are the cards you should be looking at if you don't have the money for a 970, but want a card faster than a 960. HalloKitty fucked around with this message at 18:28 on Mar 4, 2015 |
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
oh boy titan x http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/GDC-15-NVIDIA-Shows-TITAN-X-Epic-Games-Keynote tiny text on the black box: "INSPIRED BY GAMERS. BUILT BY NVIDIA." Gamers, indeed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 19:47
|
|
|
I thought the original titan series was supposed to be some sort of big processing compute platform for businesses.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
Wiggly Wayne DDS posted:Do you have some sort of blog where I can read more of these... creative interpretations of technology? I prefer to keep my madness purely in random forum posts. And I also missed the AMD list of supported cards announcement. It hasn't appeared anywhere on their branding, where nVidia puts it everywhere, which is a bit odd. I still wonder about why AMD went faffing about with Mantle if they knew MS was making DX12. It just seems like, at some point, MS simply didn't tell them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Fajita Fiesta posted:I thought the original titan series was supposed to be some sort of big processing compute platform for businesses. Titan still did not have all the compute enabled on it. It was basically just the full chip. Bet it's over 1000 bucks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Fajita Fiesta posted:I thought the original titan series was supposed to be some sort of big processing compute platform for businesses. That is partly correct. Titan did not have all of its compute enabled. However, there are economies of scale, and I can only assume that at the point where you're loading up multiple Titans per ATX box, you'd probably be better off loading Teslas into a server instead. Linus doesn't count, he got those things sponsored as part of the whole-room-watercooling thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 20:37
|
|
|
nVidia sold more Kepler Titans than was expected. Those individual consumers also happened to be very vocal about justifying it as a new tier of halo product for the consumer market--definitely ended up doing a lot of the marketing for them, as well. The term "gaming supercomputer" popped up somewhere, and the world was never the same (read: worse) again.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
On the Freesync/G-Sync thing - would I be right in assuming that Nvidia are going to have to abandon G-Sync at some point? It requires an extra bit of custom hardware per monitor and it pushes the price up. Freesync requires nothing extra to work besides maybe a firmware update on old monitors. I can't see how they can keep it going once Freesync parts start arriving in volume. Right? And if so, does that mean I can buy a 970 without worrying about getting locked into a dead ecosystem, which is the main thing preventing me from doing so at the moment? I'd like an adaptive-sync monitor at some point in the near future, after all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
nVidia explicitly refused to update the DisplayPort spec on their Maxwell I cards to the level that includes Adaptive Sync so they could flog G-Sync some more. An actual GPU wonk could tell you whether it requires extra hardware or if nVidia could just update the firmware for it, but nVidia would probably refuse to.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
They will if it gets popular enough.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Eventually NVidia will have to support FreeSync since it's part of the DisplayPort spec. Otherwise they'll be in a position where there are monitors that are being sold with DisplayPort 2.0 ports but sorry they can't connect to your GTX 1170 because they still just have DisplayPort 1.2 ports. Realistically that point is still at least a couple of years away so in the mean time they might as well try to push as many GSync monitors as they can.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
They're going to drag their heels as long as they can. Sucks for me since I was looking at getting a 4K adaptive sync monitor next year and I'll probably be stuck paying a premium for G-SYNC. G-SYNC feels a bit like NVIDIA's Mantle.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Krailor posted:Eventually NVidia will have to support FreeSync since it's part of the DisplayPort spec. Otherwise they'll be in a position where there are monitors that are being sold with DisplayPort 2.0 ports but sorry they can't connect to your GTX 1170 because they still just have DisplayPort 1.2 ports. Buying a kickass 1080p gsync monitor now and a kickass 4k freesync monitor in a few years (when the rest of the components for 4k gaming become more reasonable) doesn't seem like such a bad thing. The XL2420G I have just looks sooooo good @ 144Hz with no tearing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:15
|
|
|
Not sure if this is thread or if someone could recommend another but why is the focus of nearly all game engines lighting? Whatever happen to environmental destruction such as Red Faction?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:16
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Not sure if this is thread or if someone could recommend another but why is the focus of nearly all game engines lighting? Allowing the player to alter the level is Hard and also a poke in the level design team's collective eye. Lighting is flashy as hell.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Tab8715 posted:Not sure if this is thread or if someone could recommend another but why is the focus of nearly all game engines lighting? Writing better and better real-time lighting engines is one of the core technologies driving engines closer and closer to near-photorealistic real-time rendering every graphics generation. Environmental destruction, on the other hand, is a gameplay feature.
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:32
|
|
|
Sir Unimaginative posted:nVidia explicitly refused to update the DisplayPort spec on their Maxwell I cards to the level that includes Adaptive Sync so they could flog G-Sync some more. Whoa. Where were they explicit about that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 19:04 |
|
|
Destruction is more on the game developer side of things isnt it ? I mean, I don't really know, but if I had to guess. Lighting is indeed important for graphics though. Realistic lighting will be a huge milestone whenever it comes
|
|
#
?
Mar 4, 2015 23:37
|
|