Vulkan 1.0 Graphics API Brings Cross-Platform Performance Boost; Intel, AMD, Nvidia Contribute

[ThE_MarD]

Heyyo, eh, Apple is probably trying to push Metal since they've had that out for a while meow... It is a dick move though that will limit Mac OSX for gaming potential... But they haven't taken gaming on OSX seriously for over two decades so I guess it won't chance anytime soon. Their machines are only good for video, photo editing and other workstation tasks... Meh, maybe this will boost Linux support then? That would be cool to see a free OS overtake OSX.

 

[TEAMSWITCHER]

The differences between Vulcan and Metal are probably semantic. There will be Vulcan-to-Metal middle ware to smooth things. I happen to think that Apple should focus on Metal - OpenGl on the Mac never lived up to it's potential. Maybe Metal will.

 

[bit_user]

Apple is probably trying to push Metal since they've had that out for a while meow... It is a dick move though that will limit Mac OSX for gaming potential...

I thought the main concern was iOS.

In fact, even if it added Vulkan support, there'd still probably be few games on MacOS.

 

[bit_user]

The differences between Vulcan and Metal are probably semantic. There will be Vulcan-to-Metal middle ware to smooth things.

That would be nice.

I happen to think that Apple should focus on Metal - OpenGl on the Mac never lived up to it's potential.

Metal as opposed to... Vulkan? In that case, why not focus on Vulkan?

 

[hannibal]

I happen to think that Apple should focus on Metal - OpenGl on the Mac never lived up to it's potential.

Metal as opposed to... Vulkan? In that case, why not focus on Vulkan?
[/quotemsg]

Because iPeople are willing to pay?
iDevices has their own cult and it will be very good for busines for long time. iWorld is so popular and all who makes programs to iDevices know that iPeople are used to pay premium. Thats is why Metal will get focus on iWorld.

 

[TripleHeinz]

Like others, I love the idea to switch OS for gaming and programming from Windows to something like, for example: SteamOS, a Linux distro or even FreeBSD.

Vulkan is the first step but now we need the second in the form of an audio API like XAudio2 on Windows, there's nothing like it.

If you've developed or are developing a game engine the you know what I'm talking about.

My welcome to Vulkan. I already have my paws in the SDK and the spec.

 

[bit_user]

I happen to think that Apple should focus on Metal - OpenGl on the Mac never lived up to it's potential.

Metal as opposed to... Vulkan? In that case, why not focus on Vulkan?

Because iPeople are willing to pay?
iDevices has their own cult and it will be very good for busines for long time. iWorld is so popular and all who makes programs to iDevices know that iPeople are used to pay premium. Thats is why Metal will get focus on iWorld.

I agree that's what Apple is doing, and that's their reason for it. Kinda like how MS quit Kronos, years ago, and has all their own proprietary APIs. When you're big enough, you can do that, and it helps lock developers into your platform.

But, if we're talking about wishful thinking, then I wish Apple would focus on Vulkan.

 

[photonboy]

I happen to think that Apple should focus on Metal - OpenGl on the Mac never lived up to it's potential.

Metal as opposed to... Vulkan? In that case, why not focus on Vulkan?

Because iPeople are willing to pay?
iDevices has their own cult and it will be very good for busines for long time. iWorld is so popular and all who makes programs to iDevices know that iPeople are used to pay premium. Thats is why Metal will get focus on iWorld.

I agree that's what Apple is doing, and that's their reason for it. Kinda like how MS quit Kronos, years ago, and has all their own proprietary APIs. When you're big enough, you can do that, and it helps lock developers into your platform.

But, if we're talking about wishful thinking, then I wish Apple would focus on Vulkan.

Apple is a member of Khronos and do have people involved with Vulkan.

However, Vulkan is not mature yet so Apple requires their own solution similar to DX for Windows.

It seems likely that Apple will begin to integrate Vulkan as the technology matures to the point of replacing Metal. I see no financial incentive to resist this path. They make money from software sold on THEIR hardware so i don't think it matters how the software gets there.

 

[Alec Mowat]

It's all nice and all but there is still uncertainty.

Firstly, Vulkan is probably at least 40%+ Mantle. If you followed Mantle, then you know this is the truth. There are many articles online explaining the story.
Secondly, there is the problem of this not taking off. Maybe it does offer more than what DirectX does or OpenGL, but I doubt many will adopt it. Mantle didn't take off, so I can't see this being getting much further. Maybe im wrong. I hope not, but who knows.

Mantle didn't 'take off' because nVidia refused to support it, and because AMD kept it for themselves since it was still in beta. They were trying to figure out whether to make it open as is, or doing something else to increase adoption. Rather than opening it up, they gave Mantle to Khronos instead, since they knew it would not get support if nVidia refused to adopt it.

Vulkan will very likely be successful. Since it's on a lot of different platforms, it will make porting easier for developers.There's little reason not to adopt it. Aside from that, it works even on Windows XP. Lots of people are refusing to upgrade from Windows 7 to Windows 10. DX12 is limited to W10, while vulkan works across pretty much all windows platforms... That alone increases the potential buyers for developers over DX12, so... It should do fine.

DX12 basically does what Mantel does, but better. They tossed it in.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ends-revolutionary-mantle-api-10-asks-devs-focus-directx-12-releasing-450-page-programming-guide-developers-public-sdk/

AMD can be as open source as they want, the problem is.. they are not making any money doing it.

 

[bit_user]

It seems likely that Apple will begin to integrate Vulkan as the technology matures to the point of replacing Metal. I see no financial incentive to resist this path. They make money from software sold on THEIR hardware so i don't think it matters how the software gets there.

They certainly do have an incentive not to use standard technologies. Anyone in the apps business cannot afford to ignore iOS, due to the share of iOS devices and the amount of money typical iDevice users spend on apps (they're less cost-sensitive than typical Android users). Therefore, developers will use whatever technologies Apple supports, whether it's standards-based or not. However, if it's non-standard, then it will serve as a hurdle to supporting other platforms.

Now, I know several people who've had iDevices and switched to Android. I know others who are considering the move (back) to Android. One concern people often have is whether their favorite apps are available on Android. So, if Apple makes it harder for developers to maintain apps for both platforms, it typically works in their favor.

This is a tried & true platform play. Nothing new about it. Microsoft long ago even showed how to tweak it with the "embrace and extend" maneuver, wherein they'd adopt standards and then make them proprietary by adding nonstandard features that would help lock in developers who (sometimes unwittingly) made use of them.

Basically, standards are for losers. Only if you're a minority player could adopting standards work in your favor. Sad, but true.

As soon as you understand this, you'll start seeing examples all over the place. For example, why do you think NVidia pushes CUDA and has crap OpenCL support? Meanwhile, AMD and Intel have supported OpenCL as a way to try to win developers away from NVidia. Just like your point about Apple, NVidia makes money on hardware. But the way they lock people in is through software. The day it'll change is the day NVidia loses dominance in HPC.

 

[bit_user]

DX12 basically does what Mantel does, but better. They tossed it in.

http://wccftech.com/amd-ends-revolutionary-mantle-api-10-asks-devs-focus-directx-12-releasing-450-page-programming-guide-developers-public-sdk/

AMD can be as open source as they want, the problem is.. they are not making any money doing it.

AMD got what they wanted from Mantle, which was to push for things like DX12 and Vulkan. Both APIs work in their favor, since they largely alleviate the CPU as a bottleneck. And in the short term, Mantle gave them an advantage in the engines that supported it.

If your APUs have more graphics horsepower but are weaker on the CPU side, this is a comparatively cheap way to win back ground from the competition.

I doubt AMD ever had any illusions that a significant number of developers were going to adopt their proprietary API. But, if MS didn't respond with DX12 and Khronos didn't respond with Vulkan, more certainly would've. So, it was a win either way. Plus, it was probably much less work for them to add DX12 and Vulkan support to their drivers.

 

[Djibrille]

Additionally, Vulkan is actually able to handle multiple CPU threads effectively, which can resolve the CPU bottlenecks from which many OpenGL applications.

I think this phrase "suffers" from a missing word(or more?).