AMD Radeon Supercharges Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth with Mantle API

[MxPhenom 216]

Not to mention mantle improves your performance by covering stuff you can usually see with fog or at least that's how I remember it works.

No, that was an issue with DICE implementation of it when they released the update to enable the API in Battlefield, then the community blew it up.

 

[arbiter]

Gotta be soon then, not much of 2014 left.

Its AMD, they haven't exaclt been hitting any time tables they set for a long time.

Well this debate has gotten quite odd but either way Mantle is getting a lot of support from game developers to the point its becoming quite a cool thing.

For the debate comparing Mantle to PhysX, there are some distinct differences. For starters Nvidia purchased PhysX from Aegia which at the time required a separate card to run PhysX calculations and was originally intended to work with ANY video card regardless of manufacturer. Nvidia purchased it and later incorporated the PhysX chips on the Nvidia GPU boards and locked it out as proprietary even limiting using an Nvidia card with another brand of GPU (ATI/AMD) without some elaborate mods of a driver from Nvidia which accidently allowed this to work for a short time. Mantle does not have a "Chip" or specifics that limit it to AMD other than software implementation which is why it could be supported by others on other pieces of hardware (GPU I mean). Its more of whether or not the company wants to program a driver to work with it which is why something like DX 12 can be supported on a variety of old GPU's that were not around even before it was announced. Its up to the companies what cards will support the API's and whether or not they want to devote resources to supporting something pretty old.

AMD is taking their time with it and making sure things are ready for the public before they start shoveling things to the masses. Not like things magically work perfectly and opening it up to to many people before they are ready could result in issues that harm Mantle more than help it. Though to be fair this could even be wrong and they could decide to lock it down, who knows.

Enjoying some AMD kool-aid I see. There is a hand full of games out that support it and AMD claim 70 more are interested but that doesn't mean they will release it in their game. As for Physx, AMD Could licensed it and added it but they refused to. As of now Mantle is Locked to AMD cards so Proprietary no matter how you try to spin that its not. Since info on Mantle is limited you can't say for sure that way mantle is writen it could work on nvidia cards, just cause directx12 is writen in a way dx11 cards and use the lower level part of it, that is likely cause MS wrote it in such a away to do that. The same can't be said for Mantle as there is no API documentation or SDK out to back such claims. AMD can claim it all they want if they want to but I won't go in to whole "AMD" making "claims" thing right now.

No, that was an issue with DICE implementation of it when they released the update to enable the API in Battlefield, then the community blew it up.

I remember that in BF4 screen shots. Haven't seen any screens proven they fixed that but Mantle had a lower draw distance then DX11 version did, which could be where the FPS boost comes from.

 

[eidairaman1]

Zzzzzzzzzs

Its AMD, they haven't exaclt been hitting any time tables they set for a long time.



Enjoying some AMD kool-aid I see. There is a hand full of games out that support it and AMD claim 70 more are interested but that doesn't mean they will release it in their game. As for Physx, AMD Could licensed it and added it but they refused to. As of now Mantle is Locked to AMD cards so Proprietary no matter how you try to spin that its not. Since info on Mantle is limited you can't say for sure that way mantle is writen it could work on nvidia cards, just cause directx12 is writen in a way dx11 cards and use the lower level part of it, that is likely cause MS wrote it in such a away to do that. The same can't be said for Mantle as there is no API documentation or SDK out to back such claims. AMD can claim it all they want if they want to but I won't go in to whole "AMD" making "claims" thing right now.



I remember that in BF4 screen shots. Haven't seen any screens proven they fixed that but Mantle had a lower draw distance then DX11 version did, which could be where the FPS boost comes from.

 

[Recus]

Who needs Mantle anyway?

In BF4 DX11 is faster. And stalactite formation is faster than Civilization gameplay.

Spoiler

 

[GhostRyder]

Enjoying some AMD kool-aid I see. .

Just like that you lost immediate credibility in what you say by turning this into a fanboy discussion.

There is a hand full of games out that support it and AMD claim 70 more are interested but that doesn't mean they will release it in their game.

Plenty of game companies have already posted games that will be supporting mantle and engines that will support it. If the base engine has it programmed in, adding it for the game is not that difficult. Oh and here's a list btw...

As for Physx, AMD Could licensed it and added it but they refused to.

Paid fees per video card (Or something to that effect) for something that specifically requires hardware now provided by Nvidia onto ATI cards (At the time). The original idea of PhysX was ruined with Nvidias methodology by limiting it so hard and making it hard to implement which is why very few games ever come out support it (Less supporting it well).

As of now Mantle is Locked to AMD cards so Proprietary no matter how you try to spin that its not. Since info on Mantle is limited you can't say for sure that way mantle is writen it could work on nvidia cards, just cause directx12 is writen in a way dx11 cards and use the lower level part of it, that is likely cause MS wrote it in such a away to do that. The same can't be said for Mantle as there is no API documentation or SDK out to back such claims. AMD can claim it all they want if they want to but I won't go in to whole "AMD" making "claims" thing right now.

Actually that is something your not getting...There is no specific hardware that makes Mantle function on the GPU which is how it can be open sourced. If it required something very special on the video cards, we would be having a completely different discussion...I see no reason to further the discussion beyond this point as it will spam the thread so this is the last I will speak of this to you...

Mantle on this game seems to be very nicely working to begin with which shows how far it has matured. It still is not the end of all thing that will justify a video card (At least yet).

 

[the54thvoid]

Not quite or only in your imagination.

No really, in AMD threads you DO infer that people that buy Nvidia products are immoral for not supporting AMD. Really, you have, don't make me hit you with the 'Oh yes you did' stick by quoting some of your past posts.

Anyhow, this is about Mantle. It's still not relevant enough to make a difference, no matter how good it is at what it does. If AMD's own financials mention declining desktop sales, it's not going to be worthwhile for devs to implement mantle if they see more green cards than red.

Again the thread devolves into a bitter fight between ill informed people however facts are facts:

1) Mantle is very good when implemented well. It really is.
2) It's great if you have the hardware to use it.
3) It's still a gimmick until it's endorsed by Nvidia because fact is, Nvidia have a huge market presence and lots of cash to throw at devs (as shitty as that is as a tactic - it's still just a business, with shareholders and profits to make).

 

[SaltyFish]

Who needs Mantle anyway?

Uh... the XP holdouts who want to play Civilization: Beyond Earth?
(Mantle, like OpenGL, isn't tied to OS versions the way DirectX is)

 

[AsRock]

In performance testing, the AMD Radeon R9 290X GPU with Mantle rendered Sid Meier's Civilization: Beyond Earth at higher frame rates than any other single-GPU graphics card.[iii] Gamers looking to secure Mantle's blistering performance for their own empires can do so today with the purchase of an AMD Radeon R9 or R7 Series GPU starting at just $99 USD.

Whats the [iii] mean ?, any chance it's like when companys add the * ** or *** if only such thing is selected or some thing lol.

I read that shit as it's importent as it can add terrible sadness that you brought some thing but there is a catch to it lol.

 

[Serpent of Darkness]

It's worse than PhysX currently because only recent AMD GPU's support it and given the snafu with regards to pre-existing Mantle games that support older versions of GCN needing patches from the publisher to support Tonga, it seems support is not guaranteed as GCN evolves. Try getting Activision to release a patch more than a month (or often a week) after release. Meanwhile, PhysX is supported by multiple generations of product.

Say what you like, but PhysX is actually better atm than Mantle in terms of support.



Now go look up what Intel said. Intel tried to find out more info about Mantle and do you know what AMD told them? "Not giving you anything. Maybe later." I'm paraphrasing, but you can look it up.

AMD told Intel that Mantle is still in beta and they are not currently sending out info on it until it's finalized. Kinda shoots a hole in your whole, "nVidia's bad cuz they won't support it" theory, don't it?

Intel WANTED to investigate supporting it and AMD said no. By the time AMD actually got around to saying no, Intel had already decided DX12 was the better way to go. Which is the same as nVidia's take.

If anyone is to be blamed for Mantle being unsupported by other vendors, it's AMD, not anyone else.

In some PC Games, PhysX isn't working properly. An excuse that came from those developers were stating that NVidia hasn't constructed the codes to use PhysX for their MMO game in the manner in which it is needed, and that's why the PhysX support they had for their game, doesn't work. So the box says PhysX supported, but PhysX doesn't work...

In other news, World of Warcraft: Warlords of Draenor, another game that seems to do well on NVidia Graphic Cards, isn't using PhysX for the purpose of boosting up Frame Rate Performance because of the amount of Particle Effects that are generated in raids, on older, outdated computers. Instead, they have gotten rid of MSAA, and replaced it with either FXAA or CSAA. In addition, they have added features were if you're character's camera view isn't watching other characters animate their particle effects, they would be faded out so it doesn't take a large toll on the CPU side. This is my point. You speak so highly of PhysX and how it's better than AMD Mantle. In most games, AMD Mantle work, and in the games that support PhysX, they either work, don't work, or just provide less than 1% performance gains. The list of games that support AMD Mantle is about to outpace, or has outpaced the amount of PC and MMO games that support PhysX. If World of Warcraft felt the same way as you, devoted, blindly delusional about this idea that NVidia is bleeding edge tech, do you think PhysX would have been implemented in World of Warcraft for the sole purpose of improving performance with the increase amount of Particle effects. No. Sadly, Blizzard-Activation haven't implemented it into WoW due to not wanting to use it, seeing cheaper and more efficient way to solve the issue, or feeling that forcing their customers to purchase NVidia Graphic Cards over AMD would diminish their hemorrhaging community. Simple and short, having PhysX wouldn't be in the game's best interest. It's probably not in a lot of game's best interest.

Just waiting for payday, which is this friday... then Maxwell baby here I come!



AMD will be just fine, sure they don't exactly rack in the cash, but they have loyal fans with Ruby posters over their beds and everything.

1. Really no point in buying a GTX 970 when in a few months, GTX Titan-Maxwell will be out. If you want to go for the best, saving some funds on the side would do you good.
2. Isn't GTX 970 and 980 still dropping frames on single and SLI like mad still unless you take G-Sync Monitor Route? Dropping frames on a single card, isn't that worst than dropping frames on SLI/CrossfireX setups. Well, I feel it is.

Personally, I am waiting for that 3rd party benches of 22nm R9-390x with Stacked VRam and GTX Titan-Maxwell before I make another investment. One of my bigger investments that I would love to make is purchasing a $4,000.00 88key Korg Khronos X Workstation Syth just for song production alone... At the moment, I can only dream, or wait till Xmas .

Was I, for example, meant to continue with my 5850 crossfire disappointment because it's better to stay loyal than have a better solution?

AMD 5000 Series was pretty bad back in the days. I can agree with you on this.

Not quite or only in your imagination.

In my imagination, with a pinch of being down to Earth and rational, I think secretly, all NVidia consumers want NVidia to monopolize the Gaming Graphic Card market because they want the Government to determine how NVidia should price their products, and competition isn't really necessary in our ever changing pursuit of entertainment and pretty colors. The arguments of AMD 7990 woe and driver fails are arguments in the past that are getting weaker and weaker by the day.

 

[Naito]

I don't like DX, and I wish either Mantle or openGL take off.

Why do you dislike DX? Do you have experience coding with it? Or is it just a hate for MS extending to anything they make? Are you just following popular opinion that it is 'cool' to hate MS? DX11 is over 5 years old. The industry has changed and DX11 has seen slight updates.

DX will always be a joke and barely improve. It's a fat ass software layer from the king's of bloat. DX needs banned.

Tying in with what I said above, DX has shaped the industry more than any other graphics API. It is the standard that moves games and hardware forward. Yes, DX11 is older and 'bloated', but before Mantle, you probably never considered DX bloated. DX12 looks to fix most the concerns. Probably just an AMD sh*t pedlar. Yes Mantel is newer, and yes, it is following the trend in the industry for lower-level APIs, but have you ever thought that Mantle was born from MS and AMDs close collaboration with each other regarding the Xbox? Consoles always program closer to the hardware, especially later in their generation, so AMD probably learnt a thing or two. This is exactly what DX12 is doing. And I'd be surprised if OpenGL doesn't adopt similar changes. Getting sick of all this Mantle vs DX11 sh*t. DX11 is over 5 years old (perhaps even older at the core), Mantle is not. Mantle was born from DX.

Unless AMD get off their arse and get Mantle out there, it's gonna be nothing more than a pipe dream.

 

[renz496]

Plenty of game companies have already posted games that will be supporting mantle and engines that will support it. If the base engine has it programmed in, adding it for the game is not that difficult. Oh and here's a list btw...

and you really believe that? what happen to this:

http://wccftech.com/amd-never-settl...admap-leaked-battlefield-4-watch-dogs-gird-2/

and looking at the list Lichdom Battlemage was in pending list to get Mantle support. and this is developer respond when asked about Manttle support for the game:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/261760/discussions/0/45350791077030986/

Paid fees per video card (Or something to that effect) for something that specifically requires hardware now provided by Nvidia onto ATI cards (At the time). The original idea of PhysX was ruined with Nvidias methodology by limiting it so hard and making it hard to implement which is why very few games ever come out support it (Less supporting it well).

Bullet Physics was supposed to be PhysX alternative in gpu physics and it suppose to work with any video card. why developer didn't use it? it is not a matter about hard to implement or limited hardware support (like PhysX it only works with nvidia card). it is simply developer have no interest to implement gpu physics if not pushed by gpu maker.

Actually that is something your not getting...There is no specific hardware that makes Mantle function on the GPU which is how it can be open sourced. If it required something very special on the video cards, we would be having a completely different discussion...I see no reason to further the discussion beyond this point as it will spam the thread so this is the last I will speak of this to you...

is there prove that mantle can work outside GCN? even Richard Huddy mention in one of his interview that the very benefit of Mantle is the API is build specifically for GCN and not for generic hardware like Direct X is. AMD also keep claiming that mantle is open source but from the way i see it what AMD do is the opposite. if Mantle is open source then where is the open body that maintain the API like what Khronos Group did with OpenGL? why AMD needs to finish Mantle spec first before going public with the spec? isn't it better if AMD allow other hardware vendor to join Mantle development right now so by the time they officially release the spec pretty much everyone have their driver ready (just like when Khronos Group officially announce their OpenGL 4.5 spec nvidia already have their driver ready for it).

 

[Fluffmeister]

1. Really no point in buying a GTX 970 when in a few months, GTX Titan-Maxwell will be out. If you want to go for the best, saving some funds on the side would do you good.
2. Isn't GTX 970 and 980 still dropping frames on single and SLI like mad still unless you take G-Sync Monitor Route? Dropping frames on a single card, isn't that worst than dropping frames on SLI/CrossfireX setups. Well, I feel it is.

Personally, I am waiting for that 3rd party benches of 22nm R9-390x with Stacked VRam and GTX Titan-Maxwell before I make another investment. One of my bigger investments that I would love to make is purchasing a $4,000.00 88key Korg Khronos X Workstation Syth just for song production alone... At the moment, I can only dream, or wait till Xmas .

Hahaha! I'm talking about spending up to £300 at most on a fast efficient graphics card for my gaming needs. All for the very same reasons I'm more than happy I went for my lovely GTX 670 over all that 7970/680 nonsense, let alone a GTX Titan or the next AMD water heater x90X cards.

Let's hope AMD can deliver with Mantle, their window of opportunity is shrinking fast, a bit like their revenue and sadly staffing levels.

 

[eidairaman1]

I really like how everyone always downplays what AMD does-haters gonna hate.

Atleast they are doing some innovation that can advance the gaming/computing community compared to ms sitting on their laurels and tying dx to os releases compared to what DX 9 was in the past.

Reason NV doesnt want to use mantle or any other tech is because they cant be paid for royalties(Forcing physx on nv only hardware or pushing gsync, sli). I feel the only reason dx 12 is being launched with W10, is because AMD Launched Mantle and they are worried theyll lose money in their console ( which is powered by AMD anyway, meaning mantle can be utilized on consoles).

 

[Naito]

I really like how everyone always downplays what AMD does-haters gonna hate.

This is a discussion of Mantle, less so AMD. Such a comment hints at something or someone playing against your [possibly unfounded] beliefs and you have gone personal by bringing AMD, as a whole, into the discussion.

Atleast they are doing some innovation that can advance the gaming/computing community compared to ms sitting on their laurels....

Innovation? Hardly. As mentioned earlier, what is found in Mantle was probably learnt from their joint venture with MS and consoles, this is further compounded with the fact that DX and Mantle have such close similarities. If it wasn't for MS (and to a lesser extent OpenGL), we'd have a clusterf**k of APIs, most probably brand/publisher specific (proprietary) leading to poor performance on systems that don't reach the requirements for each API. DX standardised the industry (another reason why it is 'bloated', as it HAS to support a large variety of platforms) and eventually was even the main catalyst for change in the hardware. MS has always worked closed with hardware vendors to help bring DX to where it needs to be. Proprietary APIs haven't worked in the past, so why would they work now? DX will always, at least for the foreseeable future, be paired with Windows (by far the largest OS by market share, gaming or otherwise) and DX12 will bring features that the industry wants now. For Linux and other platforms, OpenGL is already well established and will soon (most likely) adopt similar changes, allowing for lower-level coding. There is no need for Mantle. Besides, who says MS hadn't been going in this direction with DX12 development for years, possibly early in Xbox One development? I mean, it already runs a lower-level superset of DX11 with some of the features speculated to appear in DX12. It just so happens AMD got it out the gate quicker.

...and tying dx to os releases compared to what DX 9 was in the past

DX was still rapidly evolving in that stage; it had a lot to catch up on, so MS released DX across multiple versions of Windows. I seem to remember DX9(c) only went back as fair as Windows 98 - there was only 3 years difference between XP and 98. By the time Vista, and thus DX10, came out XP had been out for just over 5 years. Such a large gap had never happened in Windows history. A lot of change occurred during that time, so you can't expect everything to be back-ported. What about DX11? MS back-ported that to Vista. So there is nothing, apart from the lack of any real information, that says DX12 wont be back-ported to Windows 8 or even Windows 7. But you can't forget that by the time DX12 shows up, most likely with Windows 10 release next year, Windows 7 will be almost 6 years old.

I feel the only reason dx 12 is being launched with W10

As opposed to DX11 being 5 or more years old.


I'm all for a proper debate here, and will happily be proven wrong and/or accept counter arguments, but please try to be rational and not bring in fanboy statements like 'haters gonna hate'.

 

[SIGSEGV]

Personally, I am waiting for that 3rd party benches of 20nm R9-390x with Stacked VRam and GTX Titan-Maxwell before I make another investment.

fixed

yeah. me too. i will wait until full "powered" maxwell comes out and AMD's 20nm GPU released.

 

[RejZoR]

Well of course, if you own a GCN card it's great, if it's released in the games you want to play. It's just as meaningless though as Physx unfortunately for people that dont own relevant software and much like Physx, it's not really enough to convince people to 'jump ship' en masse.

Still such a shame that AMD and Nvidia can't just sit the f*ck down and open up their proprietary stuff. It's like Formula One versus Formula Three. A great driver in a shit car in F1 will not win the race but in F3 a great driver will win (same cars). Likewise, that great game you've been looking forward to for 2 years does or does not get those features compatible with your hardware.

Who's optimising the next Witcher the Wild Hunt game?

You are wrong on this point. PhysX actually slows you down if you use it on CPU and if you have it disbaled, NVIDIA intentionally forces devs to remove physics effects we used to see on friggin single core CPU's 10 years ago (like broken glass falling on the ground and staying there for a while, bullet holes, bullet impact particles etc). Where if you have a card that doesn't support Mantle, you are on the same level as Radeon card running on D3D instead of Mantle. It's a huge difference, because with Mantle, you don't get screwed, you just don't get any special benefits. Where with PhysX, you basically get screwed.

Thats why i still treat Mantle as something good because it improves AMD users experience but doesnt affect NVIDIA users at all. They are at what they used to be all the time before (D3D). Where PhysX, well, lets just say i don't share the enthusiasm around it seeing how they screwed so many games to make PhysX look better than it really is or the fact that CPU's can do all the effects except maybe fluid calculation which is probably the most taxing, but then again anaone who ever played Hydrophobia game knows you can make jaw dropping water without any harwdare physics acceleration...

 

[john_]

PhysX is a good reason for every Nvidia fanboy to feel proud for his graphics card and at the same time laugh in the face of a Radeon user who pays the same money to buy the same game and see something inferior thanks to Nvidia's business practices. Because as it was mentioned you need absolutely PhysX and Nvidia hardware to do visual effects that where possible 10 years ago with a single core 1GHz cpu and a 64MB graphics card.

On the other hand Mantle has no effects on Nvidia hardware except if we compare a DX11 version and a Mantle version and find that the DX11 version looks worst. But most die hard Nvidia fanboys swear that DX versions look better, so this isn't the case.

 

[Naito]

You are wrong on this point. PhysX actually slows you down if you use it on CPU...

Well, there is a reason GPGPU software is becoming much more common, it's because they can work on many data elements in parallel and at once. This just so happens to be why they're so good at rendering 3D scenes in real time and better at running physics. They are used in medical modelling for this reason. Obviously a CPU is going to be slower in this area.

...and if you have it disbaled, NVIDIA intentionally forces devs to remove physics effects we used to see on friggin single core CPU's 10 years ago...

That's a very outrageous claim, do you have any evidence to back it up? Yes, NVIDIA does often collaborate with game developers, but they often work with them to implement PhysX effects.

...(like broken glass falling on the ground and staying there for a while, bullet holes, bullet impact particles etc).

Those are usually just pre-scripted animations added to the games 3D objects, especially in older games. Physics takes this further by removing the script and having the object react differently depending on a range of metrics at the time. For example a bullet striking a wood board in an older game would have triggered a script in which a bullet whole texture/sprite appears and wood particle explosion animation occurs. This would be the same every time it occurred. PhysX and other physics middleware would allow varying bullet whole size and shapes depending on angle and speed of impact, as well as real-time calculation of particles (speed and directions of travel, size of particle, etc). Sure, a CPU would/should be able to cope with this level of physics, but more advanced things will slow down too much in real-time situations. Most PhysX is used to implement fluid physics (water, smoke, fog) and clothe, hair and fur effects. These things, in an ideal world, should all be run off a GPU.

On the other hand Mantle has no effects on Nvidia hardware except if we compare a DX11 version and a Mantle version and find that the DX11 version looks worst. But most die hard Nvidia fanboys swear that DX versions look better, so this isn't the case.

In my opinion, they look no different. Many Mantle vs DX11 benchmarks I have seen, final image quality is almost identical (except early BF4 issues in which Mantle was glitched).

It's a huge difference, because with Mantle, you don't get screwed, you just don't get any special benefits

PhysX only give special treatment to Nvidia users. In an ideal world, AMD users shouldn't be at any performance disadvantage, but just won't get 'any special benefits' (as you put it). How is this any different from Mantle? Not that it matters once DX/OpenGL catch-up. A lazy or sell-out developer (akin to the devs people claim Nvidia bribes), could become lazy coding DX API, and give special treatment to Mantle, leaving it unsatisfactory for anyone using another vendor (Intel/Nvidia). It could go both ways if Mantle remains proprietary (like it currently is).

Before you jump at me for 'being an Nvidia fanboy', just note that I do not personally care about anything PhysX may bring to the table. I don't actively seek games that have it as a feature, in fact, I probably have a few games that have it, but am completely unaware. I do however think it being proprietary, does however hurt every gamer, regardless of hardware vendor.

I have yet to see an AMD supporter provide a genuine, rational counter-argument (this thread or other); they either blame Nvidia for crap prices (which is most likely AMDs fault), whinge about PhysX (fair enough), or just call out people as 'fanboys'. Maybe they really don't have a leg to stand on.

 

[GhostRyder]

and you really believe that? what happen to this:

http://wccftech.com/amd-never-settl...admap-leaked-battlefield-4-watch-dogs-gird-2/

That is a leaked document (if it was even that) which is different from developers saying or adding support for games. If an engine supports it, it's going to have it in game unless the developer specifically blocks it for said game.

and looking at the list Lichdom Battlemage was in pending list to get Mantle support. and this is developer respond when asked about Manttle support for the game:

http://steamcommunity.com/app/261760/discussions/0/45350791077030986/

Some are confirmed by developers, some are assumed based on Engines being used. Your own link shows why it ended up not supporting mantle and that's because they chose to use CryEngine 3.4 (modified 3) instead of the brand new CryEngine 4 which is the one supporting Mantle (Or said to support mantle). The list separated out things out for a reason.

is there prove that mantle can work outside GCN? even Richard Huddy mention in one of his interview that the very benefit of Mantle is the API is build specifically for GCN and not for generic hardware like Direct X is. AMD also keep claiming that mantle is open source but from the way i see it what AMD do is the opposite. if Mantle is open source then where is the open body that maintain the API like what Khronos Group did with OpenGL? why AMD needs to finish Mantle spec first before going public with the spec? isn't it better if AMD allow other hardware vendor to join Mantle development right now so by the time they officially release the spec pretty much everyone have their driver ready (just like when Khronos Group officially announce their OpenGL 4.5 spec nvidia already have their driver ready for it).

Its driver is currently designed to work with GCN architecture cards because that is what the original design is for. That does not make it only possible on GCN cards, it just makes it currently only support by AMD on GCN cards. The driver specifically works with GCN cards so that the API and cards communicate better which is part of the reason that the cards get significant performance boosts including the fact it works better with multi-core CPU's hence why CPU bottleneck gets less of a thing while mantle is enabled. Other than that like I told the other person I do not wish to continue this discussion here because its not exactly what the thread is about so I will stop with you here...

That's a very outrageous claim, do you have any evidence to back it up? Yes, NVIDIA does often collaborate with game developers, but they often work with them to implement PhysX effects.

PhysX only give special treatment to Nvidia users. In an ideal world, AMD users shouldn't be at any performance disadvantage, but just won't get 'any special benefits' (as you put it). How is this any different from Mantle? Not that it matters once DX/OpenGL catch-up. A lazy or sell-out developer (akin to the devs people claim Nvidia bribes), could become lazy coding DX API, and give special treatment to Mantle, leaving it unsatisfactory for anyone using another vendor (Intel/Nvidia). It could go both ways if Mantle remains proprietary (like it currently is).

Before you jump at me for 'being an Nvidia fanboy', just note that I do not personally care about anything PhysX may bring to the table. I don't actively seek games that have it as a feature, in fact, I probably have a few games that have it, but am completely unaware. I do however think it being proprietary, does however hurt every gamer, regardless of hardware vendor.

I have yet to see an AMD supporter provide a genuine, rational counter-argument (this thread or other); they either blame Nvidia for crap prices (which is most likely AMDs fault), whinge about PhysX (fair enough), or just call out people as 'fanboys'. Maybe they really don't have a leg to stand on.

A couple of examples are BorderLands 2 and Batman Arkham Series as what PhysX can do and what happens to games with it. Without a PhysX enabled GPU you lose significant amount of effects in the game (There is even a video showing this made by Nvidia showcasing the difference, though I believe it was partially exaggerated because some things show up without the Nvidia GPU that are missing in the video) and this can cause significant differences in the game play experience. On top of that defaulting PhysX in general to the CPU is very slow and can drop FPS down by very noticeable numbers just to get part of the extra effects in the game which is understandable because its using Cuda GPGPU to accelerate the effects but this makes the experience differ from player to player. Nvidia also locking out using one of their cards as a PhysX device with other video cards (without mods of course) and taking away the original Aegia idea for cards (The separate devices) is enough to hint at the acquisition of PhysX's true purpose. If this was more about helping developers out wouldn't you think they would allow some extra sales of their cards and allow everyone to get the same experience so long as they use (Even a low end) an Nvidia GPU to render the effects. The business standpoint aside, it would be more beneficial to developers making a cool looking game for everyone to have an opportunity to experience everything in the game at least from the way I am looking at it.

PhysX also does give performance disadvantages to AMD users if trying to run any of the PhysX effects your allowed on the CPU (Even using an Nvidia GPU and defaulting it shows huge loss of performance). Even with high end hardware you can lose numbers to the point it makes the experience horrible (Hence why tests keep it off on both sides in most forums) even on a high end Nvidia card (Like this Metro: Last Light post). As shows here Mantle only makes the game perform better on the hardware with an AMD GPU but does not give you anything extra or keep you from experiencing certain aspects of the game (Unless you count the FPS improvements as a deterrent form the experience). I can see the benefits from any of these technologies but I also can see the drawbacks from both sides which do render both a niche product at the moment at least. Though I do think we should refrain from continuing on about the PhysX vs Mantle debate at least on this thread.

I actually am going to pick this game up, I did enjoy the previous civilization game and I would think the same care went into this game so Ill bite. Do like the bonus performance ill getas it might be nice in 4K (If it works right).

 

[renz496]

That is a leaked document (if it was even that) which is different from developers saying or adding support for games. If an engine supports it, it's going to have it in game unless the developer specifically blocks it for said game.

Leaked? more like made up list just like those never settle slide leak. take sims 4 for example. it was listed under 'confirmed' mantle support. but the game already out and i never heard about sims 4 will use mantle. if sims 4 really did use mantle AMD will not keep quiet about it nor did sims 4 developer.

 

[arbiter]

A couple of examples are BorderLands 2 and Batman Arkham Series as what PhysX can do and what happens to games with it. Without a PhysX enabled GPU you lose significant amount of effects in the game (There is even a video showing this made by Nvidia showcasing the difference, though I believe it was partially exaggerated because some things show up without the Nvidia GPU that are missing in the video) and this can cause significant differences in the game play experience. On top of that defaulting PhysX in general to the CPU is very slow and can drop FPS down by very noticeable numbers just to get part of the extra effects in the game which is understandable because its using Cuda GPGPU to accelerate the effects but this makes the experience differ from player to player. Nvidia also locking out using one of their cards as a PhysX device with other video cards (without mods of course) and taking away the original Aegia idea for cards (The separate devices) is enough to hint at the acquisition of PhysX's true purpose. If this was more about helping developers out wouldn't you think they would allow some extra sales of their cards and allow everyone to get the same experience so long as they use (Even a low end) an Nvidia GPU to render the effects. The business standpoint aside, it would be more beneficial to developers making a cool looking game for everyone to have an opportunity to experience everything in the game at least from the way I am looking at it.

Its like any other game graphic option, game runs like crap you turn options down til the game has acceptable frame rates. Not Nvidia's job to support AMD cards in the matter. Physx can work on AMD cards just AMD refuses too, look at consoles they have PhysX in them cause Sony and MS wanted it.

 

[eidairaman1]

Its like any other game graphic option, game runs like crap you turn options down til the game has acceptable frame rates. Not Nvidia's job to support AMD cards in the matter. Physx can work on AMD cards just AMD refuses too, look at consoles they have PhysX in them cause Sony and MS wanted it.

NV made the drivers not compatible.

 

[GhostRyder]

Its like any other game graphic option, game runs like crap you turn options down til the game has acceptable frame rates. Not Nvidia's job to support AMD cards in the matter. Physx can work on AMD cards just AMD refuses too, look at consoles they have PhysX in them cause Sony and MS wanted it.

Consoles do not have the same PhysX PC's have, they have CPU dependent PhysX which is NOT GPU accelerated. They are also specifically programmed by the developer (When used) for the CPU dependency on consoles as the link I provided explains. It also is just like the PhysX on PC when not using an Nvidia GPU to render it which removes many of the improved particles or effects on the console variants. It is not because MS or Sony wanted it, has nothing to do with them and actually has to do with the game developer using the SDK on the console because they programmed the game already with the kit. It is not simply AMD does not want it, they do not want to pay extreme royalties to have something supported by a small fraction of the games released a year.

Same note Consoles will not run Mantle, that was already made clear unless something serious changes.

 

[Fluffmeister]

Out of interest, how much are those "extreme" PhysX royalties?

 

[the54thvoid]

Oh my goodness.

So many Ill informed people with exceptionally poor reasoning. When I mentioned Physx it was clearly not as a feature comparison to Mantle. The only relevance Physx has in this discussion is that its proprietary, nothing more.
That's my only point against Mantle, all other arguments are irrelevant.
This is the only meaningful statement - Mantle is an excellent development but without MS and Nvidia backing it, it is doomed to obscurity. Any proprietary tech, or tech not in the competitions interest to develop is a 'gimmick' whether it be 'meh' Physx or the rather excellent Mantle.

It's ridiculous people are referring to each other as fanboys. Or that anyone espousing a reasoned argument is labeled as one. And this whole 'haters gonna hate' mentality is the recourse of a lost argument.
Stop dissing Mantle, it works.
Unfortunately, not for many at all. And that's how it stays.