AMD Mantle: A Graphics API Tested In Depth

Not open for further replies.


Oct 4, 2011
Mantle is not glide. 3DFX had 85% of the GPU share when they had glide so it was easier for developers to use the glide (AMD has 35% right now).
But Mantle did something really good for gamers. Till now Microsoft with no competition didn't gave too much attention in performance optimising the DirectX. They gave Microsoft a reason to improve DirectX (so they will bring DX12) in the way mantle works. This benefits all the gamers.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that Microsoft will give DirectX12 only with Windows9 (due to kernel limitations at their pockets).
If this will be true then Mantle might have more life than most users expected to (since it wil take time for windows 9 to rule the market share)...


Sep 26, 2013
Next Open GL specification is almost redy & will be announced next month in (ironically) Vancouver Canada. Naturally it will be available on all platforms (that want to integrate OGL) & it will be addressing lover overheads. As gaming market is getting more fragmented it's getting natural to develop for api that can run on all platforms.


May 18, 2011
Is the battlefield 4 tested in multi-player?

[Answer By Cleeve:]

It was tested in single player, as its easier to get consistent results. We're trying to eliminate variables except the graphics engine as much as possible.


Nov 2, 2012
"AMD Mantle: AMD's PhysX "

please do a research what is Mantle before post
it seems you don't understand what are you writing about.

[Answer by Cleeve:]

I think the problem may be that you don't understand the context of the answer, which does not equate Mantle with PhysX on a technical level.

We equate Mantle with PhysX in the sense that it's a value-add that assists in a limited number of games. Its not a universal advantage.


Nov 22, 2012
User testing around the Internet shows Intel are at least as fast in Mantle as AMD CPUs.

Its obvious there is something very wrong with your testing.

[Answer by Cleeve:]

Actually, nobody on the internet has really tested anything but Radeon R9 290s when it comes to Mantle. Instead of assuming it always works in every situation like everyone else, we actually tested it, not only with the 290, but with a wide range of CPUs and GPUs. We did this with feedback from AMD.

Mantle is not the perfect, slick API that people assume it is. AMD stresses that its considered a beta and is not yet a final product.

I believe that our test results are quite accurate. The problem is that the API, something the developer considers unfinished at this point, probably still needs work and has room to grow. And I'm sure it will get better over time.

But pretending it works 100% perfectly doesn't help anyone. That's not even something that AMD would try to say at this time as it has obvious issues. They are working on it. But there is a value to in-depth testing and to sharing the inconsistencies.

i7 with 4 cores and 8 threads right here

Using your settings.

Min 62 FPS
Max 82 FPS

here is one with a 4770K @ 4.5Ghz

Avenged7Fold: 290X @ 1300/1604, 4770K @ 4.5Ghz - Mantle FPS: Min 71.8 / Avr 88.5.

That ^^^ is actually on the highest possible settings.

I know a lot of people using i7's with mantle, in Thief and BF4, some with CF 290's, they all report FPS gains with Mantle over DX, especially when in CF. in BF4 averaging 170 FPS with 120 FPS minimums. over 50% higher than they do in DX.

I don't know where you have gone wrong. but everyone on our forum is utterly confused by your i7 results.


Apr 1, 2009
As a programmer of 30 years, that's arguably the worst description of an API I have heard.

An API is a set of commands, with required parameters, a software package presents to another application that wishes to use its services. It's essentially the language to use the services it provides.

Mantle isn't just an API. It's an abstraction layer that makes it unnecessary for the developer to write directly to the hardware, which is tedious, time-consuming and extremely difficult to do on a large product. The API is what Mantle accepts to tell it what to do, and what the programmer must learn to use it, but it is NOT all Mantle is. It's just how to talk to it.

A pure API would be something someone demented would write, because it would mean you could issue commands to do nothing. I'm guessing Apple is patenting this technology now.

[Answer by Cleeve]

I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree as I feel it's a useful high-level primer for folks who haven't been programming for 30 years, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. :)
On page 4 its clear mantle doesn't work well with Intel's Hyper-Threading but what about Intel's 6 core CPU's? Does mantle give an Intel 6 core a bigger advantage in games that dx? I wouldn't throw mantle under the bus just due to its unoptimized for Hyper-Threading. Please add an Intel's 6 core to these tests.


Sep 16, 2010
I can see intel supporting mantle in its future gpu hardware. I mean just recently intel asked amd for its mantles api specs. So intel using mantle in the future is much more plausible then Nvidia using mantle.


Feb 10, 2011
Mantle can actually become quite relevant in any next-gen ultra-portable x86 APUs that AMD come up with. Especially useful if coupled with proper integration with Steam-OS.


Aug 9, 2010
Nice analysis.

Probably there wasn't a DirectX 12 on the works because of maturity (what else add to DirectX that it pays for?) and Mantle showed the way.

I don't like the comparation to PhysX (because of what has finally become) and the fact that Mantle won´t bring new features to games.

It is Mantle here to stay, probably, sadly, not. Its success as an universal graphics API is complicated:
if it was on time for PS4, XBox One (M$...) and Linux / Valve Steam OS and above all: Mobile devices (ARM...), if it could get NVidia involved also, perhaps Mantle would gain enough momentum to become an accepted universal standard.

The other battle field is on the developer front: get major 3D Engines to support a Mantle code path (and what are the costs related to maintaining that code path from a developer standpoint).

ta512, as deep as a naming convention discussion can go, what AMD is doing is an API which implements a Hardware Abstraction Layer for the graphics cards of any hardware vendor (AMD, NVidia, Intel). What have tested here is the AMD own implementation of that API made to run on AMD hardware.

What is open source is the API, not the AMD own implementation.

This Is like discussing if ARM it is a processor or an instruction set... and what / where the difference is.

In a case scenario where you have BattleField 4 running on an i7 with an NVidia card with a Mantle enabled driver (let's suppose Nvidia gets on the Mantle train) the only thing AMD would have done would be decide how the game will talk to the graphics card, but neither the game, the driver, the graphics card, none of these would be AMD's work,,,




Urmehghurd, I LOLed. Nice one.

Yeah, this is a little ugly. Note that I made the mantle results thicker so it'd be slightly easier to pick out the Mantle trends, but yeah. Would be a little easier to pinpoint specific cards with less data.


Jul 16, 2014
Is it just me, or is that last Frame Time Variance graph on the 8th page labeled wrong? I wouldn't think frame time variance would be displayed in frames per second, and if it was, the majority of the items on the chart would (hopefully) not be between 0-10 if "higher is better".

Maybe I misunderstand what the chart is trying to show.

[Answer by Cleeve:]

Doh! You're quite right, I'll get that fixed.


Jun 4, 2012
I think Tom's doesn't really understand the difference between the OS API and a regular API. The entire first page muddies the discussion. Mantle isn't an API it's the low level driver behind the API, and that can be made as lean or as bloated as possible with no changes to the API itself. As an example Android uses the Java API but it's a completely different implementation than what you would see on an EA game.

I'm also concerned that Battlefield was used as a benchmark. Although I understand that the available benches are limited by those that support Mantle Battlefield is notoriously difficult to get consistent results with, I would consider the differences well within experimental error and therefore unreliable.
Alright, I think I have a handle on the basics of Mantle. What now?
For the sake of professional image, please remember that Alright is Alwrong. All right?
To the meat of the article, it does look like Mantle will help some of AMD's weaker CPUs some of the time, but if that isn't what you have, Mantle does not make a large enough difference to influence buying decisions (sort of like PhysX; in only a few cases does it really matter). If your system is one of those cases, it is a pretty substantial difference, but for many people it won't be.




I'm not sure I read you here. There's a Mantle API and a Mantle driver, these are separate entities.

I've been at briefings and talked to developers, and it's been made very clear that Mantle is a graphics API, which requires a Mantle-compatible driver to work with specific hardware.

I'll have to disagree on this one. We have a BF4 test run that has been extremely reliable and repeatable for us, usually with less than 1.5 FPS difference in three runs.

When there's an issue found in data, it's easy to assume its the test. Sometimes it's what you're testing, though. We can't ignore issues out of convenience.

You guys need to test MP... I know its hard and blah blah, but you can just add error margin to results and just describe the differences if you guys notice any.

You guys are testing a grippy car in just a drag race. That's unfair. You need to add cornering as well.




An API is an API: a set of conventions between two otherwise unrelated pieces of software. It makes very little difference if that API is between the kernel and drivers, drivers to API back-ends, API back-end to front-end, front-end to end-user or any other possible shortcuts in-between.

The only differences between a kernel APIs and user-land APIs are restrictions on how they can be used and those differences are part of the conventions you agree to by choosing to use a given API.



I hear you. But in this case it's not about difficulty, it's about adding unnecessary variables.

The point of benchmarking is to target specific data. For this Mantle article, that data is the graphics API in BF4, not SP vs. Multiplayer performance in BF4.

In this particular case, testing MP wouldn't make sense. it would just muddle the data with a less-consistent test case.


Jan 22, 2007
A small note on early OpenGL: SGI solved the issues of scalability
and host processing bottlenecks by developing IRIS Performer, a
higher-level API which was incredibly effective at allowing their
high-end systems to scale to multiple graphics pipes, while
exploiting tens or even hundreds of CPUs. Initially limited to 16
gfx pipes in parallel, I was told this limit was arbitrary and
there had been an intent to remove it with InfiniteReality5,
allowing scalability to 256 gfx pipes, but alas with the company's
demise that never happened.

Anyway, I was wondering to what extent any of the effort that went
into IRIS Peformer made its way into later OpenGL development after
SGI went belly-up? Because of Performer, there are things a max-
spec Onyx3900 can do which are still impossible on any other
platform even today, because of the combined host/gfx scalability
it supports while at the same time enabling enormous I/O for big
data such as GIS, defense imaging, etc., at the same time as
enabling complex interfacing for industrial control mechanisms, VR
devices, motion tracking & suchlike, all on the same system.

Cleeve, do you know if the Performer API tech ended up going
elsewhere? SGI did sell a lot of its IP in later days to rake in
much needed cash, but I don't remember a reference to Performer
being sold off. Maybe all that experience with exploiting OpenGL in
a scalable manner just faded away.


PS. Old ref:



Feb 2, 2013
"AMD Mantle: AMD's PhysX "

please do a research what is Mantle before post
it seems you don't understand what are you writing about.
I copied this to my clipboard before even scrolling down to the comments because I knew there'd be at least one person:

we're looking at it as a value-added feature like PhysX. We don't mean this in a technical sense, obviously, but in the sense that it provides an advantage to one graphics card manufacturer in a handful of games.
Not open for further replies.