gamerk316
Glorious
colinp :
gamerk316 :
[strike]DX12[/strike]MANTLE is [strike]MANTLE [/strike]DX12 in disguise, no strange that AMD logo is in it.
I understand frustration of all those who have been saying nonsense about [strike]MANTLE[/strike]DX12 during months. The same guys that now praise [strike]DX12[/strike]MANTLE.
Fixed it.
Let me try to understand what you're trying to say here.
You're saying that Microsoft went to AMD with their proposals for DX12 first. Then AMD, who are so poorly resourced and innefective that they couldn't organise a booze up in a brewery, somehow managed to steal MS's idea, develop their own version of it, make it look sufficiently different so that MS can't sue them into oblivion, enough even that AMD have made indications they want to open source it, and make it available to current versions of Windows. That they've managed to do all this and release Mantle a full 18 months ahead of DX12, despite Microsoft's programming resource dwarfing AMD's?
Best April Fools I've heard all day.
Not really. As DX is just the API layer that interacts with the graphic drivers, NVIDIA, AMD, and Qualcomm would have been involved in its development. As a result, AMD would have had full access to the API and the low level design details during its development. All AMD would have to do is simply re-implement a subset of the API and release a driver, which they likely already had as part of the DX12 developmental process. Heck, would have been trivial to do really.
Lets look at the timeline here:
~4 Years ago: MSFT begins working on DX12
~3-4 Years ago: MSFT defines HW for XB1, mandates Full DX12 support.
~3 Years ago: First details on AMD GCN based GPUs released to public
Look at that timeline for a second. Lets assume MSFT mandated future DX12 support for the XB1 GPU. And look at the time frame where GCN was likely under development. If you take the ~4 year dev time for DX12 as true, then you also have to accept GCN started very shortly afterward. Coincidence? [I for one would be VERY interested to see if GCN supports the fixed-function pipelines full DX12 support needs; I bet it does.]
~1 year ago: AMD declares there will be no DX12
Its worth noting, MSFT was non-committal, and NVIDIA was strangely silent. MSFT's stance makes sense; they don't want to tick off their partner by saying "you lie", and NVIDIA (like AMD) would have been under NDA until news of DX12 dropped. So no one could really stand up and correct AMD.
6 months ago: MANTLE
AMD releases Mantle, and the internet goes insane
2 weeks ago: DX12
Internet claims MSFT "stole" Mantle. Despite MSFT and NVIDIA claiming DX12 had been in works for "over three years".
Timeline wise, its QUITE possible AMD not only borrowed parts of Mantle (reimplementing a subset of the DX12 API with minor changes would be simple, given the AMD driver team would almost certainly have a working DX12 driver working internally), but built the GCN arch around the proposed DX12 spec (kinda like they did with the 4000 series being built around the proposed DX10 spec, including the proposed Tesselation engine that never made it in until DX11). Which had the (totally intended) side benefit of guaranteeing them the XB1 GPU,
So yes, timeline wise, it works. Whether its true or not is just substructure, but the timeline works.