AMD CPU speculation... and expert conjecture

[juanrga]

Do you mean MANTLE? Then yes, Nvidia began to work in the DX12 driver when MANTLE was ready and licensed to Microsoft.

And now, you start making up facts (again) to try and prove your point.

As others have noted you are the one who is spreading your petit conspiracy theory about AMD "stooling" DX12 and presenting it as MANTLE.

I have given a rough resume of how things happened (timeline) and I provided three or four links to people with inside information supporting my description.

And to prove that isn’t just marketing talk, they ported 3DMark from D3D11 to D3D12 in order to demonstrate the improved CPU scaling and utilization. The CPU time was roughly cut in half.

Emphasis mine. Cutting CPU time and improving scaling does not necessarily lead to any performance gain. The benchmark simply showed the reduction in overhead on one core (about 50% less core usage), and a slight improvement to loading on the other cores. The actual performance increase for that benchmark is likely on the order of 10-15%.

But again, you ignore the facts and fail at READING and COMPREHENSION.

The presentation by Microsoft gave the total CPU time spent and this time was roughly cut in half: 6.6ms --> 3.2ms

Evidently the performance is not a 10--15%, it is bigger.

Also from the Microsoft presentation of DX12:

Where does this performance come from?

Direct3D 12 represents a significant departure from the Direct3D 11 programming model, allowing apps to go closer to the metal than ever before. We accomplished this by overhauling numerous areas of the API. We will provide an overview of three key areas: pipeline state representation, work submission, and resource access.

You have been for months claiming that MANTLE was evil by providing close to the metal access. Now Microsoft is claiming the same close to the metal access, you no longer write anything about this kind of evilness. I wonder why...

 

[Cazalan]

If this is true i lost all faith in Amd and i will fight with any Amd fan when they say Amd is better than Intel or Nvidia. I never heard of anything so nonprofessional.

This was a talking point here about a year ago, with me, alone (as per usual) saying this was bogus. And I can't believe at all AMD wasn't consulted ahead of time in the development of DX12 (which would be idiotic for MSFT).

Either way, those comments look idiotic for AMD now.

Unless AMD knew at the time that Direct X12 wasn't intended for PCs. Microsoft could have kept it for their consoles only. Then AMD releases Mantle and forced Microsofts hand.

Microsoft has a bigger mouth so eventually whatever they say will become the "truth".

 

[Cazalan]

lying is being unprofessional to their consumers and to their business partners. Just because it happens doesn't make it ok. However you should never put any faith into any company.

Like how Microsoft went behind all the OEMs backs and made the Surface product, competing with their own customers.

 

[blackkstar]

@gamerk,

I find it far more likely that DX12 is a knee-jerk reaction to:

1. SteamOS and Valve doing what they can to pro-actively reduce reliance on Windows
2. AMD releasing Mantle, which has potential to go cross platform.
3. EA is a major part of Mantle. Origin is developed in QT4 which is cross-platform, which to me hints that EA is keeping that door open
4. MS has lost power. Do you not find it odd that game developers went to someone besides MS to come up with an answer to a lousy graphics API when DX is the standard?
5. Game developers are turned off by Metro and Windows 8 and feel the need to no longer depend on MS

DX12 is a reaction to "Mantel" as you love to call it. It is also a reaction to trying to maintain vendor lock in for gaming PCs. It is a reaction to keep game developers in Windows.

One thing you more than likely love, because you seem to be so resistant to any form of change that you'd go as far as to derive insane conspiracy theories with absolutely zero evidence to continue justifying your beliefs.

You are in the wrong field if you are so opposed to changes. Technology is rapidly evolving. You remind me of a crotchety old man who whines about every new change. "OMG BLACKS CAN VOTE!!! THE WORLD IS OVER", "OMG GAYS CAN MARRY SOCIETY IS FINISHED!!!"

I just imagine you on some Pentium G running DX12 on an Nvidia card yelling at kids with fast CPUs playing games with Mantle on Linux going "YOU RUINED EVERYTHING I HATE YOU DAMN KIDS"

 

[eidolon171]

PCmark is a synthetic benchmark.

I understand what you mean.

"

Which reproduces the average performance of real world applications, like several posters noted before...

Well it must not use any real world programs every other benchmark uses. Such as but not limiting to video encoding,editing software -handbrake it beats an I3 but loses pretty badly to a I5. Adobe After Effects 6 its 50% slower than a I5. In 7-Zip 9.2 its slower compared to its older A10 6800K. In MediaShow Espresso Video Transcoding Its 22% slower than a I5 and still slower than a 6300 even. But as long as its on level with a I5 in passmark i guess its ok.

I have heard that although benchmarking a specific program is more accurate for real-world performance (like doing FRAPS results for specific games), that benchmarking software was better for testing individual hardware components. Honestly, whether you or I agree or disagree on that point is only mildly relevant. I offered the PCMark score in the same spirit I offered a WEI score; because people want to see it.

 

[juanrga]

Unless AMD knew at the time that Direct X12 wasn't intended for PCs. Microsoft could have kept it for their consoles only. Then AMD releases Mantle and forced Microsofts hand.

Microsoft has a bigger mouth so eventually whatever they say will become the "truth".

Bingo!

As Mantle technology began appearing in actual games, AMD officials wondered aloud whether a new version of DirectX would ever arrive, given Microsoft's strong focus on Xbox. Mere weeks later, here we are, and at first blush DirectX 12 appears awfully similar to Mantle. (That's what happens when you poke the bear!)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2109596/directx-12-vs-mantle-comparing-pc-gamings-software-supercharged-future.html

Also

Suddenly Microsoft actually cares about pc gaming

Microsoft's new DirectX, then, is an obvious challenge to widespread Mantle adoption. Interestingly, the language Microsoft used in its DirectX 12 announcement was oddly reminiscent of marketing materials AMD has long used to promote Mantle: the phrase "closer to the metal" stands out, suggesting that Microsoft is well aware of AMD's API push.

 

[juanrga]

The DX12 announcement is because of Valve as well.

Valve said they got better performance from OGL in Linux than DX in Windows. COLOR ME SURPRISED! haha.

What better way to tell MS "we'll take away your XBox candy and Windows honey gamers, muahaha!" than stating they're faster and better.

Now, the idea might have been from 4 years ago and all, but since OGL has had extensions since like a bazillion years ago, it has always been there. AMD just played the "hey, look at me doing something no one knows it already exists!".

Could be factual incorrect, but its still funny to think the guys at Redmond got angry/fired up with MANTLE+Valve.

Cheers!

And Microsoft has now more reasons to be worried. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia have given a join conference on reducing overhead on OGL and promise us from 7 to 15 times more performance

OpenGL Vs DirectX: Nvidia, AMD And Intel Confirm OGL Can Unlock Performance Gains 15 Times That Of DX! Will PC Games Switch To OpenGL?

 

[jimmysmitty]

Unless AMD knew at the time that Direct X12 wasn't intended for PCs. Microsoft could have kept it for their consoles only. Then AMD releases Mantle and forced Microsofts hand.

Microsoft has a bigger mouth so eventually whatever they say will become the "truth".

Bingo!

As Mantle technology began appearing in actual games, AMD officials wondered aloud whether a new version of DirectX would ever arrive, given Microsoft's strong focus on Xbox. Mere weeks later, here we are, and at first blush DirectX 12 appears awfully similar to Mantle. (That's what happens when you poke the bear!)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2109596/directx-12-vs-mantle-comparing-pc-gamings-software-supercharged-future.html

Also

Suddenly Microsoft actually cares about pc gaming

Microsoft's new DirectX, then, is an obvious challenge to widespread Mantle adoption. Interestingly, the language Microsoft used in its DirectX 12 announcement was oddly reminiscent of marketing materials AMD has long used to promote Mantle: the phrase "closer to the metal" stands out, suggesting that Microsoft is well aware of AMD's API push.

I think that MS cares a bit about PC gaming. It is one of their biggest why we are better than Mac arguments. Otherwise I don't think we would have gotten DX11 at all.

The DX12 announcement is because of Valve as well.

Valve said they got better performance from OGL in Linux than DX in Windows. COLOR ME SURPRISED! haha.

What better way to tell MS "we'll take away your XBox candy and Windows honey gamers, muahaha!" than stating they're faster and better.

Now, the idea might have been from 4 years ago and all, but since OGL has had extensions since like a bazillion years ago, it has always been there. AMD just played the "hey, look at me doing something no one knows it already exists!".

Could be factual incorrect, but its still funny to think the guys at Redmond got angry/fired up with MANTLE+Valve.

Cheers!

And Microsoft has now more reasons to be worried. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia have given a join conference on reducing overhead on OGL and promise us from 7 to 15 times more performance

OpenGL Vs DirectX: Nvidia, AMD And Intel Confirm OGL Can Unlock Performance Gains 15 Times That Of DX! Will PC Games Switch To OpenGL?

Ahhh the good ol insane performance gains promise. Of course we will have to see this to be able to believe it.

One issue I have with OpenGL, and a lot of open source, is that they don't get the proper support to make it viable. If OpenGL got the support it needs, like DX has from Microsoft, it would be great. But without it there will be issues.

Anyone remember RAGE? None of the drivers, AMD or NVidia, had the right OGL driver when RAGE hit. Bit DX is normally not as much of an issue.

 

[-Fran-]

Ahhh the good ol insane performance gains promise. Of course we will have to see this to be able to believe it.

One issue I have with OpenGL, and a lot of open source, is that they don't get the proper support to make it viable. If OpenGL got the support it needs, like DX has from Microsoft, it would be great. But without it there will be issues.

Anyone remember RAGE? None of the drivers, AMD or NVidia, had the right OGL driver when RAGE hit. Bit DX is normally not as much of an issue.

You have a point and at the same time you don't, haha.

Good thing you mentioned RAGE as an OGL example, because that game is amazing (tech wise). Too bad nVidia and AMD had to rush out the OGL component they missed out from their drivers when it launched. That's not an issue with the API at all; ID Software just used something from the API no other DEV was using at the moment, so AMD and nVidia didn't have it tested or fully implemented in their drivers.

You can put anything you want in an API, but it's not up to you to implement everything from it. It's like being "3G" or "4G" in cellular networks. It's just a set of items you need to have covered to be "3G" or "4G" compliant. Missing parts of the API doesn't mean you're not XXXX-standard compatible; it's just business mambo-jambo, but that's the way it is. SQL is another good example from a programming API side. DB2 and Oracle weren't fully SQL compatible until some years later down the road. And we can have more API-compliant examples if you want.

So, long story short, RAGE's problems at launch time were because of nVidia and AMD abusing the small letter of being "OGL capable/compatible". And in terms of seeing the gains, it will depend on who implements the API the way its supposed to be. OGL had problems in earlier revisions of leaving too much for the implementer to interpret, so there were some broken code paths between different vendors implementing the same API, but that's like a side story. I believe that's supposed to be corrected by OGL 3+.

Anyway, I do agree that we have to wait and see, because one thing is having the API and the other is having the implementation of it in hardware

Cheers!

 

[jimmysmitty]

Ahhh the good ol insane performance gains promise. Of course we will have to see this to be able to believe it.

One issue I have with OpenGL, and a lot of open source, is that they don't get the proper support to make it viable. If OpenGL got the support it needs, like DX has from Microsoft, it would be great. But without it there will be issues.

Anyone remember RAGE? None of the drivers, AMD or NVidia, had the right OGL driver when RAGE hit. Bit DX is normally not as much of an issue.

You have a point and at the same time you don't, haha.

Good thing you mentioned RAGE as an OGL example, because that game is amazing (tech wise). Too bad nVidia and AMD had to rush out the OGL component they missed out from their drivers when it launched. That's not an issue with the API at all; ID Software just used something from the API no other DEV was using at the moment, so AMD and nVidia didn't have it tested or fully implemented in their drivers.

You can put anything you want in an API, but it's not up to you to implement everything from it. It's like being "3G" or "4G" in cellular networks. It's just a set of items you need to have covered to be "3G" or "4G" compliant. Missing parts of the API doesn't mean you're not XXXX-standard compatible; it's just business mambo-jambo, but that's the way it is. SQL is another good example from a programming API side. DB2 and Oracle weren't fully SQL compatible until some years later down the road. And we can have more API-compliant examples if you want.

So, long story short, RAGE's problems at launch time were because of nVidia and AMD abusing the small letter of being "OGL capable/compatible". And in terms of seeing the gains, it will depend on who implements the API the way its supposed to be. OGL had problems in earlier revisions of leaving too much for the implementer to interpret, so there were some broken code paths between different vendors implementing the same API, but that's like a side story. I believe that's supposed to be corrected by OGL 3+.

Anyway, I do agree that we have to wait and see, because one thing is having the API and the other is having the implementation of it in hardware

Cheers!

There was another side to the issue. You had to actually copy the OGL driver to the RAGE folder. Still have to for RAGE and the Doom 3 BFG Edition.

I know it is not an issue with the API but it just shows the lack of proper support, even when a major company for PC gaming (id) is pushing out a very hyped game, the major hardware vendors fail to deliver or deliver it properly even.

 

[Cazalan]

What we'd need is a game like Sim City, Civilization or Starcraft II to be written for Mantle to see what it can really do.

 

[de5_Roy]

i have a question or two about graphics apis and stuff.
1. if apis enable "lower level" access to gpu architecture, then shouldn't it help with gfx performance regardless of cpu overhead? i was under the impression that extracting more performance from a gpu using near metal level access and reducing cpu overhead can be mutually exclusive because what you'd really be doing is reducing the overhead created by higher level apis. after that the cpu overhead would come into play because of the way directx is programmed to work, yes? this is one of the reasons i think mantle as it is now, is not good enough. all that raving about console class performance and the incessant blame on directx (however justified) seem to divert away from the goal that apis like mantle should be enabling significant performance improvement regardless of cpu or directx, not just single to lower double digits in gpu bottlenecked situations. it looks like amd went for the utter-lowest hanging fruit and trying to pull the wool over our eyes instead of continuing to work to improve mantle's proper uses.
long rant short: shouldn't mantle enable significant (instead of minor, as seen in benchmarks) amount of absolute gfx performance from gpus instead of comparative (to directx and high cpu bottlenecks) gfx performance?

2. would it help igpu performance if amd increased the igpu's L2 cache from 512KB to 1MB or 2MB? i don't know how much L2 cache was in trinity's igpu. but trinity seemed to focus on improving performance by using less resources more efficiently. if amd, for example, used 384 gcn 2.0/2.1 shaders instead of 512 (keeping the number of a.c.e.s the same), and 1-2MB L2 cache in carrizo. carrizo will use 28nm process (hopefully s.o.i., not bulk....?) like both trinity and llano used 32nm process, the trend fits, imo.

3. if carrizo uses the high density library technology hyped by amd before, shouldn't it open up die area to keep all of the 512 shaders and raise igpu L2 cache and add more components?

promo slides need not apply.

 

[jimmysmitty]

What we'd need is a game like Sim City, Civilization or Starcraft II to be written for Mantle to see what it can really do.

Games that are RTS based are normally CPU dependent because the AI relies on multiple threads acting differently. GPUs are normally great for doing one thing very well compared to a CPU which can juggle multiple processes all at once.

My 4670k is currently handling 3 applications, 41 background processes and 22 Windows processes. Throw tat on a GPU and it will not handle it that well.

i have a question or two about graphics apis and stuff.
1. if apis enable "lower level" access to gpu architecture, then shouldn't it help with gfx performance regardless of cpu overhead? i was under the impression that extracting more performance from a gpu using near metal level access and reducing cpu overhead can be mutually exclusive because what you'd really be doing is reducing the overhead created by higher level apis. after that the cpu overhead would come into play because of the way directx is programmed to work, yes? this is one of the reasons i think mantle as it is now, is not good enough. all that raving about console class performance and the incessant blame on directx (however justified) seem to divert away from the goal that apis like mantle should be enabling significant performance improvement regardless of cpu or directx, not just single to lower double digits in gpu bottlenecked situations. it looks like amd went for the utter-lowest hanging fruit and trying to pull the wool over our eyes instead of continuing to work to improve mantle's proper uses.
long rant short: shouldn't mantle enable significant (instead of minor, as seen in benchmarks) amount of absolute gfx performance from gpus instead of comparative (to directx and high cpu bottlenecks) gfx performance?

2. would it help igpu performance if amd increased the igpu's L2 cache from 512KB to 1MB or 2MB? i don't know how much L2 cache was in trinity's igpu. but trinity seemed to focus on improving performance by using less resources more efficiently. if amd, for example, used 384 gcn 2.0/2.1 shaders instead of 512 (keeping the number of a.c.e.s the same), and 1-2MB L2 cache in carrizo. carrizo will use 28nm process (hopefully s.o.i., not bulk....?) like both trinity and llano used 32nm process, the trend fits, imo.

3. if carrizo uses the high density library technology hyped by amd before, shouldn't it open up die area to keep all of the 512 shaders and raise igpu L2 cache and add more components?

promo slides need not apply.

1. Yes and no. Mantle is still an API and while it does give a more direct access to GCN, it is still a driver and API layer between the GPU and the game. If it was just writing directly to the hardware (like before APIs were really used and a game crash also caused a BSoD) then it would benefit but since there is still some overhead it only benefits it by allowing the GPU to take more of the time instead of the CPU in CPU bound situations.

That is why a 290X can benefit even a good CPU like a i5 or i7 when you make the game run on lower settings. When it is on higher settings it will not benefit as much, if any, because the GPU is already the bottleneck.

2. Not really sure. Maybe but then again so would a on die DRAM like Iris Pro has for some Intel CPUs.. As well it will be 28nm Bulk as AMD has stated they are moving to it from SOI. SOI had advantages but also disadvantages to it.

3. That is to be seen. But the other side is TDP. Will those 512 shaders fit in a thermal envelope? As well, cache takes a lot of transistor space so that means a larger heat area, will that be worth it?

These are things they consider. If the 512 shaders cause too much heat, they wont go with it. A APU that uses 300w would not be acceptable.

 

[gamerk316]

The DX12 announcement is because of Valve as well.

Valve said they got better performance from OGL in Linux than DX in Windows. COLOR ME SURPRISED! haha.

What better way to tell MS "we'll take away your XBox candy and Windows honey gamers, muahaha!" than stating they're faster and better.

Now, the idea might have been from 4 years ago and all, but since OGL has had extensions since like a bazillion years ago, it has always been there. AMD just played the "hey, look at me doing something no one knows it already exists!".

Could be factual incorrect, but its still funny to think the guys at Redmond got angry/fired up with MANTLE+Valve.

Cheers!

And Microsoft has now more reasons to be worried. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia have given a join conference on reducing overhead on OGL and promise us from 7 to 15 times more performance

OpenGL Vs DirectX: Nvidia, AMD And Intel Confirm OGL Can Unlock Performance Gains 15 Times That Of DX! Will PC Games Switch To OpenGL?

Those extended ARB calls have been in the API for over a year now, and have had supporting drivers for just that long. NO ONE like OGL because its a horrid API for development, and DX has a far superior toolchain to work with.

 

[gamerk316]

@gamerk,

I find it far more likely that DX12 is a knee-jerk reaction to:

1. SteamOS and Valve doing what they can to pro-actively reduce reliance on Windows
2. AMD releasing Mantle, which has potential to go cross platform.
3. EA is a major part of Mantle. Origin is developed in QT4 which is cross-platform, which to me hints that EA is keeping that door open
4. MS has lost power. Do you not find it odd that game developers went to someone besides MS to come up with an answer to a lousy graphics API when DX is the standard?
5. Game developers are turned off by Metro and Windows 8 and feel the need to no longer depend on MS

DX12 is a reaction to "Mantel" as you love to call it. It is also a reaction to trying to maintain vendor lock in for gaming PCs. It is a reaction to keep game developers in Windows.

One thing you more than likely love, because you seem to be so resistant to any form of change that you'd go as far as to derive insane conspiracy theories with absolutely zero evidence to continue justifying your beliefs.

You are in the wrong field if you are so opposed to changes. Technology is rapidly evolving. You remind me of a crotchety old man who whines about every new change. "OMG BLACKS CAN VOTE!!! THE WORLD IS OVER", "OMG GAYS CAN MARRY SOCIETY IS FINISHED!!!"

I just imagine you on some Pentium G running DX12 on an Nvidia card yelling at kids with fast CPUs playing games with Mantle on Linux going "YOU RUINED EVERYTHING I HATE YOU DAMN KIDS"

No, its not. DX12 has been kicking for YEARS. That's how versioned development works: You have one team working LTS, and another starting up the next version as soon as the previous one is finished. Hence why NVIDIA confirmed they were working on the specifications with MSFT four years ago.

As for your individual points: Tell me when Linux market share actually gets past 2% on Desktops.

 

[juanrga]

Unless AMD knew at the time that Direct X12 wasn't intended for PCs. Microsoft could have kept it for their consoles only. Then AMD releases Mantle and forced Microsofts hand.

Microsoft has a bigger mouth so eventually whatever they say will become the "truth".

Bingo!

As Mantle technology began appearing in actual games, AMD officials wondered aloud whether a new version of DirectX would ever arrive, given Microsoft's strong focus on Xbox. Mere weeks later, here we are, and at first blush DirectX 12 appears awfully similar to Mantle. (That's what happens when you poke the bear!)

http://www.pcworld.com/article/2109596/directx-12-vs-mantle-comparing-pc-gamings-software-supercharged-future.html

Also

Suddenly Microsoft actually cares about pc gaming

Microsoft's new DirectX, then, is an obvious challenge to widespread Mantle adoption. Interestingly, the language Microsoft used in its DirectX 12 announcement was oddly reminiscent of marketing materials AMD has long used to promote Mantle: the phrase "closer to the metal" stands out, suggesting that Microsoft is well aware of AMD's API push.

I think that MS cares a bit about PC gaming. It is one of their biggest why we are better than Mac arguments. Otherwise I don't think we would have gotten DX11 at all.

The above links are not reporting the old Microsoft strategy when developed and released DX11, but the new situation with Windows 8, Surface, phones, and all that. Valve has given extensive talks on why Microsoft didn't care about game developers anymore with the new Windows 8 and why they and other developers switched to linux then.

It is the same recent situation that forced developers to ask AMD to develop MANTLE.

Microsoft is doing a 180º change in strategy. DX12 was not planned. All the above links claim so. Recall also Roy public talk about "No DX12".

The DX12 announcement is because of Valve as well.

Valve said they got better performance from OGL in Linux than DX in Windows. COLOR ME SURPRISED! haha.

What better way to tell MS "we'll take away your XBox candy and Windows honey gamers, muahaha!" than stating they're faster and better.

Now, the idea might have been from 4 years ago and all, but since OGL has had extensions since like a bazillion years ago, it has always been there. AMD just played the "hey, look at me doing something no one knows it already exists!".

Could be factual incorrect, but its still funny to think the guys at Redmond got angry/fired up with MANTLE+Valve.

Cheers!

And Microsoft has now more reasons to be worried. Intel, AMD, and Nvidia have given a join conference on reducing overhead on OGL and promise us from 7 to 15 times more performance

OpenGL Vs DirectX: Nvidia, AMD And Intel Confirm OGL Can Unlock Performance Gains 15 Times That Of DX! Will PC Games Switch To OpenGL?

Ahhh the good ol insane performance gains promise. Of course we will have to see this to be able to believe it.

One issue I have with OpenGL, and a lot of open source, is that they don't get the proper support to make it viable. If OpenGL got the support it needs, like DX has from Microsoft, it would be great. But without it there will be issues.

Anyone remember RAGE? None of the drivers, AMD or NVidia, had the right OGL driver when RAGE hit. Bit DX is normally not as much of an issue.

Same mistake the past wouldn't be confused with the present.

If you look at the past, when DX11 was almost the only choice. you find a Microsoft-exclusive AMD company that didn't really care about Linux and a Nvidia company which was labeled as the worst company to work with, by Linux leaders.

Check it now: Nvidia has opened its hardware, released tons of technical documentation, is heavily contributing with open source linux devs, and is participating in the development of SteamOS. AMD has claimed in public that are not anymore Windows-exclusive company and are heavily contributing to linux drivers. The last version of their open-source drivers already provides a 80% of the performance of the closed ones, and even can provide more performance in some special cases.

 

[Lessthannil]

Even if OpenGL improves I just dont see most gamers moving towards Linux in the shape its in right now.

 

[etayorius]

Even if OpenGL improves I just dont see most gamers moving towards Linux in the shape its in right now.

Valve said most of their partners will support SteamOS, which means OpenGL will be supported.

 

[Lessthannil]

Even if OpenGL improves I just dont see most gamers moving towards Linux in the shape its in right now.

Valve said most of their partners will support SteamOS, which means OpenGL will be supported.

I want to hop onto SteamOS instead of WIndows, but it doesnt seem like Valve is going to get rid of the many niggles that I have with Linux outstanding.

I'm currently using Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and being despite being told that its easy, intuitive and user friendly, I cant use it to save my life. My Wi-FI card drivers dont want to install, the system doesnt want to reconize my GPU (as I was given this computer, I too dont know its SKU given its integrated), installing things outside the canned software center in simply such a pain in the rear that I just dont do it to begin with, and God help me if I need to use the terminal, which is basically typing in stuff and pleading to my system to do something without a hitch. I know I could fix it but the question is that why do these problems exist in the first place?

Windows isn't perfect, either. Its owned by MIcrosoft, for one. However, at least MIcrosoft understands (or used to. I dont know what they were thinking when they made Metro, but thats not to say that I have a huge problem with it) what people see their computer as; a tool. People just want to play games, do office work, watch movies, etc without jumping through hoops like (de)compiling x file, fixing y's problem with z driver, and going to a forum to get something to run.

 

[-Fran-]

Even if OpenGL improves I just dont see most gamers moving towards Linux in the shape its in right now.

Valve said most of their partners will support SteamOS, which means OpenGL will be supported.

I'll just leave this here...

Cheers!

 

[8350rocks]

@gamerk,

I find it far more likely that DX12 is a knee-jerk reaction to:

1. SteamOS and Valve doing what they can to pro-actively reduce reliance on Windows
2. AMD releasing Mantle, which has potential to go cross platform.
3. EA is a major part of Mantle. Origin is developed in QT4 which is cross-platform, which to me hints that EA is keeping that door open
4. MS has lost power. Do you not find it odd that game developers went to someone besides MS to come up with an answer to a lousy graphics API when DX is the standard?
5. Game developers are turned off by Metro and Windows 8 and feel the need to no longer depend on MS

DX12 is a reaction to "Mantel" as you love to call it. It is also a reaction to trying to maintain vendor lock in for gaming PCs. It is a reaction to keep game developers in Windows.

One thing you more than likely love, because you seem to be so resistant to any form of change that you'd go as far as to derive insane conspiracy theories with absolutely zero evidence to continue justifying your beliefs.

You are in the wrong field if you are so opposed to changes. Technology is rapidly evolving. You remind me of a crotchety old man who whines about every new change. "OMG BLACKS CAN VOTE!!! THE WORLD IS OVER", "OMG GAYS CAN MARRY SOCIETY IS FINISHED!!!"

I just imagine you on some Pentium G running DX12 on an Nvidia card yelling at kids with fast CPUs playing games with Mantle on Linux going "YOU RUINED EVERYTHING I HATE YOU DAMN KIDS"

No, its not. DX12 has been kicking for YEARS. That's how versioned development works: You have one team working LTS, and another starting up the next version as soon as the previous one is finished. Hence why NVIDIA confirmed they were working on the specifications with MSFT four years ago.

As for your individual points: Tell me when Linux market share actually gets past 2% on Desktops.

You may be hearing from him sooner than you think...since SteamOS will have the numbers for it tracked heavily, I suspect we may soon see a larger influx of linux users than in previous years over all of this. While Valve can be somewhat difficult to deal with on some levels, their promotion of open source OS software is commendable.

 

[8350rocks]

Even if OpenGL improves I just dont see most gamers moving towards Linux in the shape its in right now.

Valve said most of their partners will support SteamOS, which means OpenGL will be supported.

I want to hop onto SteamOS instead of WIndows, but it doesnt seem like Valve is going to get rid of the many niggles that I have with Linux outstanding.

I'm currently using Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and being despite being told that its easy, intuitive and user friendly, I cant use it to save my life. My Wi-FI card drivers dont want to install, the system doesnt want to reconize my GPU (as I was given this computer, I too dont know its SKU given its integrated), installing things outside the canned software center in simply such a pain in the rear that I just dont do it to begin with, and God help me if I need to use the terminal, which is basically typing in stuff and pleading to my system to do something without a hitch. I know I could fix it but the question is that why do these problems exist in the first place?

Windows isn't perfect, either. Its owned by MIcrosoft, for one. However, at least MIcrosoft understands (or used to. I dont know what they were thinking when they made Metro, but thats not to say that I have a huge problem with it) what people see their computer as; a tool. People just want to play games, do office work, watch movies, etc without jumping through hoops like (de)compiling x file, fixing y's problem with z driver, and going to a forum to get something to run.

Ubuntu is one of the most intuitive linux versions out there, and your wi-fi card is likely made by broadcom which has known linux issues across many versions. If you check the forums for ubuntu, you need to get their closed source drivers (the reason why their cards do no work so well is because they refuse to allow open source drivers). Additionally, your GPU may either be too old or too new to have full support. If that is the case, you can download vendor closed source drivers to get it to function as it should, but the base drivers will at least get your video going.

As for the command line, all I can say is you must have missed the DOS train entirely, as linux is not terribly different from old DOS systems. Frankly, outside of a few different commands, the concepts are all really similar. It just takes desire to learn the OS. Though, that seems to be something you are not too fond of doing. There are books out there to take novice users and turn them into "power users" and ubuntu 12.04 LTS is a good OS to do that with. I am currently on 13.10 and will be going to 14.04 LTS soon when it comes out officially, I dual boot win7 x64 on my PC too, but only for those finnicky games that absolutely refuse to function in linux...

 

[Lessthannil]

Even if OpenGL improves I just dont see most gamers moving towards Linux in the shape its in right now.

Valve said most of their partners will support SteamOS, which means OpenGL will be supported.

I want to hop onto SteamOS instead of WIndows, but it doesnt seem like Valve is going to get rid of the many niggles that I have with Linux outstanding.

I'm currently using Ubuntu 12.04 LTS and being despite being told that its easy, intuitive and user friendly, I cant use it to save my life. My Wi-FI card drivers dont want to install, the system doesnt want to reconize my GPU (as I was given this computer, I too dont know its SKU given its integrated), installing things outside the canned software center in simply such a pain in the rear that I just dont do it to begin with, and God help me if I need to use the terminal, which is basically typing in stuff and pleading to my system to do something without a hitch. I know I could fix it but the question is that why do these problems exist in the first place?

Windows isn't perfect, either. Its owned by MIcrosoft, for one. However, at least MIcrosoft understands (or used to. I dont know what they were thinking when they made Metro, but thats not to say that I have a huge problem with it) what people see their computer as; a tool. People just want to play games, do office work, watch movies, etc without jumping through hoops like (de)compiling x file, fixing y's problem with z driver, and going to a forum to get something to run.

It just takes desire to learn the OS. Though, that seems to be something you are not too fond of doing.

Correct. I don't really want to learn the OS when all I want to do is some simple tasks. If what I had to do absolutely involved konwing the OS inside in out, then fair enough. However, I know what I want to do can be done in far simpler way so I just dont have the paitence to jump through the hoops.

For me, its really a shame about the state that desktop Linux is in because I like Android. The system for the layman works and "power users" can install custom ROMs and use a terminal if they want.

 

[colinp]

NO ONE like OGL

(citation needed)

 

[griptwister]

So, let's recap where Mantle is at in its short existence so far:

• 
  ■ Adopted by DICE for use in Frostbite
  ■ Adopted by Eidos for use in Thief
  ■ On its way in Starswarm
  ■ On its way in Cryengine
  ■ Allegedly to be adopted by Microsoft as part of DX12
  ■ Generally well received on review sites so far, while recognising that it is still early days
  ■ Well liked by developers, as it opens their games up to people with less powerful hardware (i.e. more sales for them)

Did I miss any?

In any case, I can basically guarantee Mantel is almost never going to get used.

:lol: On another note, I do agree with Gamer that AMD should jump on the 15% cache improvement thing he posted. I hope they'll figure out a way to implement that with their current architecture.