AMD Confirms RX 480 At $199 USD, Other APU & Polaris Announcements

[koyoot]

Almost every benchmark that incorporates Mantle-derived API shows that it constantly is slower than RX 480. If Metal is based on Mantle, and it is, it is better to use AMD hardware.

Not Polaris 10 though. It is not very interesting, from performance perspective. Locking Fiji at 150 is possible, and it still will give more performance than RX 480. The only drawback is lack of DP1.3 and DP1.4

 

[netkas]

Nvidia has a nice story of gimping old cards wtih gameworks (not using ILP giving kepler cards 33% of not used shaders), anyone buying nvidia should keep that in mind.

 

[Stacc]

Almost every benchmark that incorporates Mantle-derived API shows that it constantly is slower than RX 480. If Metal is based on Mantle, and it is, it is better to use AMD hardware.

Not Polaris 10 though. It is not very interesting, from performance perspective. Locking Fiji at 150 is possible, and it still will give more performance than RX 480. The only drawback is lack of DP1.3 and DP1.4

Ars shows that they are basically dead even in DX12 and if you consider you would have to downclock the RX 480 (or the Nano) to fit in any existing mac then the GTX 1060 looks fairly attractive.

 

[koyoot]

It doesn't.

 

[Asgorath]

Almost every benchmark that incorporates Mantle-derived API shows that it constantly is slower than RX 480. If Metal is based on Mantle, and it is, it is better to use AMD hardware.

This is simply not true.

Metal is a low-overhead API that is much more like OpenGL and D3D11, in the sense that you have to bind resources to use them. Their driver model removes most of the software overhead of OGL, because everything is pre-compiled into objects and the interface is very simple.

Mantle, Vulkan and D3D12 are low-level APIs, similar to a console API, where the application programmer has a lot more responsibility to get things right. Low-level APIs are by definition low overhead from the driver side of things, but they are significantly more difficult to program to and to get things right such that your application performs well on a variety of GPUs.

You should try writing a Metal application and a Vulkan application, and then come back and tell me that you think they're based on the same thing.

 

[koyoot]

This is simply not true.

Metal is a low-overhead API that is much more like OpenGL and D3D11, in the sense that you have to bind resources to use them. Their driver model removes most of the software overhead of OGL, because everything is pre-compiled into objects and the interface is very simple.

Mantle, Vulkan and D3D12 are low-level APIs, similar to a console API, where the application programmer has a lot more responsibility to get things right. Low-level APIs are by definition low overhead from the driver side of things, but they are significantly more difficult to program to and to get things right such that your application performs well on a variety of GPUs.

You should try writing a Metal application and a Vulkan application, and then come back and tell me that you think they're based on the same thing.

So why does AMD say that Metal is Based on Mantle, or has its roots in Mantle? Why is it so similar in combining Compute and Graphics in single queue to Vulkan and Mantle?

And lastly: why does feature set of Metal and its philosophy behind mechanics is so similar to Mantle?

Because it is based on Mantle, which even AMD will tell you, and already said n number of occasions.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

It doesn't.

The Nano with its falling price looks more and more like the perfect little efficiently powerful card for anyone who wants a good value upgrade to boost their pro apps.

 

[Asgorath]

So why does AMD say that Metal is Based on Mantle, or has its roots in Mantle? Why is it so similar in combining Compute and Graphics in single queue to Vulkan and Mantle?

And lastly: why does feature set of Metal and its philosophy behind mechanics is so similar to Mantle?

Because it is based on Mantle, which even AMD will tell you, and already said n number of occasions.

Just because people like you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. Pretty much the only thing that Metal has in common with Mantle is that both AMD and Apple said "gee, we should design a new API and get rid of all our CPU overhead". From there, the two solutions diverged dramatically: Apple did a pretty clean rewrite of OpenGL for modern GPUs, while AMD put a thin wrapper around their hardware at the time. They achieved their goal of reducing CPU overhead, but in AMD's case it was basically "here's what our GPU does, good luck" while Metal is actually a really easy API to program to (that also benefits from getting their bloated OpenGL framework out of the way).

 

[koyoot]

Just because people like you keep saying it, doesn't make it true. Pretty much the only thing that Metal has in common with Mantle is that both AMD and Apple said "gee, we should design a new API and get rid of all our CPU overhead". From there, the two solutions diverged dramatically: Apple did a pretty clean rewrite of OpenGL for modern GPUs, while AMD put a thin wrapper around their hardware at the time. They achieved their goal of reducing CPU overhead, but in AMD's case it was basically "here's what our GPU does, good luck" while Metal is actually a really easy API to program to (that also benefits from getting their bloated OpenGL framework out of the way).

Apple used Mantle to built Metal. When I say that it is based on Mantle, I do not mean it is 1:1 Mantle, but similar feature set, with the same principles: low-overhead, combining compute and graphics into single queue, etc. Ask AMD what they think about Metal, and they will say the same thing as I am, and as I have said for months.

It was mentioned by Richard Huddy, at I think Capsaicin Event, it was said on keynote in latest AMD presentation in Australia, that Metal has its origin in Mantle.

"Just because people like you are saying it, doesn't make it true." If you are resisting the evidence the problem lies in your perspective, not in evidence.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

And the concepts of Mantle came from the way console games were coded close to the metal with less driver overhead than a desktop computer. Also, developers were coding directly to the graphics processor back in the days when the first 3dfx Voodoo and Power VR came out. The first games were DOS games with a patch to enable acceleration. No OS drivers to hog resources.

 

[Stacc]

It was mentioned by Richard Huddy, at I think Capsaicin Event, it was said on keynote in latest AMD presentation in Australia, that Metal has its origin in Mantle.

In the video here Hudley starts talking around the 28 min mark. He mentions metal, but says that only vulkan is derived from Mantle.

 

[jeanlain]

So why does AMD say that Metal is Based on Mantle, or has its roots in Mantle?

They do? I don't think so. And Apple never said that Metal was based on Mantle. It would be surprising. At the same time Mantle was being designed for AMD GPUs, Apple was designing Metal for A7 GPUs. Metal was finalized before Mantle, AFAIK.

 

[SoyCapitanSoyCapitan]

They do? I don't think so. And Apple never said that Metal was based on Mantle. It would be surprising. At the same time Mantle was being designed for AMD GPUs, Apple was designing Metal for A7 GPUs. Metal was finalized before Mantle, AFAIK.

Apple hired a top guy from AMD at that time of development.

 

[Asgorath]

Apple used Mantle to built Metal. When I say that it is based on Mantle, I do not mean it is 1:1 Mantle, but similar feature set, with the same principles: low-overhead, combining compute and graphics into single queue, etc. Ask AMD what they think about Metal, and they will say the same thing as I am, and as I have said for months.

It was mentioned by Richard Huddy, at I think Capsaicin Event, it was said on keynote in latest AMD presentation in Australia, that Metal has its origin in Mantle.

"Just because people like you are saying it, doesn't make it true." If you are resisting the evidence the problem lies in your perspective, not in evidence.

Have you worked with D3D11, D3D12, Mantle, Vulkan or Metal? I have written code for all of them, so I'm speaking from personal experience here. D3D11 is a low-overhead, combined graphics and compute API. So, arguably, Metal is closer to D3D11 than Mantle/Vulkan/D3D12. Remember the Star Swarm benchmark that was supposed to show off how great Mantle was? Turns out NVIDIA's D3D11 driver beat not only AMD's D3D11 driver, but also their Mantle one as well.

As others have pointed out, AMD donated Mantle to Khronos and it became the foundation of Vulkan (though the final version changed significantly, in particular removing most of the GCN-specific stuff). I've never seen anyone from AMD or Apple claim that Metal came from Mantle.

 

[jeanlain]

Apple hired a top guy from AMD at that time of development.

And that guy wasn't working on Mantle, since he had left AMD...
Judging from that Capsaicin conference, it's clear that Metal is not based on Mantle, since they explicitly say that Vulkan is derived from it, but say nothing of the sort about Metal.

 

[koyoot]

To end this argument:

From 28 minute: "Battlefield 4, from the same developers, was first title 3+ years ago to use Mantle API. If you are looking at the problems that Mantle solved 3 years ago, and what DirectX12 solves today, its basically the same feature set. And going to why we are so strong about DX12 - its effectively Mantle. From a feature set perspective, the problems that Mantle was solving industry jumped onto it: Theres DX12, theres the Vulkan API driven by Khronos Group, there's also Apple: Apple has a Metal API that is in macOS, it is very similar, it all goes back to Mantle.

 

[frou]

To end this argument

You are dodging Asgorath's questions about whether you have actually written code for these things. If you're spending substantial time debating graphics APIs, that is a pertinent question.

 

[koyoot]

I didn't worked with D3D11 and 12. I am currently working with Metal and Vulkan.

 

[ManuelGomes]

I'm inclined to believe most of the initial ground work was made by AMD with Mantle, and the others just followed suit. Still, can't be sure though.
It was bound to happen anyhow, sooner or later someone else would come up with it too, more or less within the same line.
It is sound to discuss this but let's not get carried away, please.

 

[Stacc]

To end this argument:

From 28 minute: "Battlefield 4, from the same developers, was first title 3+ years ago to use Mantle API. If you are looking at the problems that Mantle solved 3 years ago, and what DirectX12 solves today, its basically the same feature set. And going to why we are so strong about DX12 - its effectively Mantle. From a feature set perspective, the problems that Mantle was solving industry jumped onto it: Theres DX12, theres the Vulkan API driven by Khronos Group, there's also Apple: Apple has a Metal API that is in macOS, it is very similar, it all goes back to Mantle.

You are confusing "inspired by" and "derived from." AMD is claiming here that they inspired these low level APIs by being first with mantle. They are not claiming they are all derived from and share code with mantle.

This is a slide from the capsaicin even:

Notice how there is only continuity from mantle to Vulkan and LiquidVR, Metal and Directx12 are independent.

 

[koyoot]

Vulkan and LiquidVR are directly the same as Mantle. Read again what AMD guys says about DirectX12. It has the same feature set as Mantle, and therefore - Vulkan. He specifically says: its effectively Mantle. From feature set perspective and solving problems.

Mantle was flexible enough so it could be customised by any IEM to their needs. That is the key point for any OpenSource initiative(and is with HLSL from Microsoft).

Metal and DX12 are not inspired by Mantle. They are different from Mantle - that is no question, they are configured for specific needs of MS and Apple. But both came from Mantle.

And this is my last post on this topic, if even evidence from people who worked on the API and know it better than anyone else does not make point, then whole discussion is pointless.

 

[tuxon86]

Vulkan and LiquidVR are directly the same as Mantle. Read again what AMD guys says about DirectX12. It has the same feature set as Mantle, and therefore - Vulkan. He specifically says: its effectively Mantle. From feature set perspective and solving problems.

Mantle was flexible enough so it could be customised by any IEM to their needs. That is the key point for any OpenSource initiative(and is with HLSL from Microsoft).

Metal and DX12 are not inspired by Mantle. They are different from Mantle - that is no question, they are configured for specific needs of MS and Apple. But both came from Mantle.

And this is my last post on this topic, if even evidence from people who worked on the API and know it better than anyone else does not make point, then whole discussion is pointless.

Having the same feature set doesn't mean it is based on. The Pascal language as the same feature set than C yet both are quite different. We already went over this many time with you and you're still struggling to understand that something can do the same task as some other thing without having one line of shared code between them.

As for your last line, I believe the problem is that you aren't understanding what those people who work on the Api are saying even when other post comment from the same people saying the contrary to what you believe.

 

[koyoot]

Having the same feature set doesn't mean it is based on. The Pascal language as the same feature set than C yet both are quite different. We already went over this many time with you and you're still struggling to understand that something can do the same task as some other thing without having one line of shared code between them.

As for your last line, I believe the problem is that you aren't understanding what those people who work on the Api are saying even when other post comment from the same people saying the contrary to what you believe.

On the contrary to what you think, I know exactly what they mean.

I have been telling about Metal being based on Mantle since Apple announced Metal for iOS. Nobody believed me. Even if those who designed Mantle touted that that is the case.

And key thing to understand this is: flexibility of Mantle. And it does not have to share the lines of code for the API to be based on Mantle. Vulkan and LiquidVR does share code with Mantle. DX12 and Metal doesn't. Even if they do share the philosophy of the design behind it.

The API does not have to share the same code as the source to be based on it.

 

[tuxon86]

On the contrary to what you think, I know exactly what they mean.

I have been telling about Metal being based on Mantle since Apple announced Metal for iOS. Nobody believed me. Even if those who designed Mantle touted that that is the case.

And key thing to understand this is: flexibility of Mantle. And it does not have to share the lines of code for the API to be based on Mantle. Vulkan and LiquidVR does share code with Mantle. DX12 and Metal doesn't. Even if they do share the philosophy of the design behind it.

The API does not have to share the same code as the source to be based on it.

It must be lonely when you're the only one who supposedly know the truth... Even after others have posted links that discredit your belief.

 

[Asgorath]

On the contrary to what you think, I know exactly what they mean.

I have been telling about Metal being based on Mantle since Apple announced Metal for iOS. Nobody believed me. Even if those who designed Mantle touted that that is the case.

And key thing to understand this is: flexibility of Mantle. And it does not have to share the lines of code for the API to be based on Mantle. Vulkan and LiquidVR does share code with Mantle. DX12 and Metal doesn't. Even if they do share the philosophy of the design behind it.

The API does not have to share the same code as the source to be based on it.

Your slide shows Mantle being shipped 6 months before Metal. Do you seriously believe that:

1) AMD shared details with Apple in the years leading up to their release?
2) Apple built Metal from the ground up in less than 6 months?

Apple was working on Metal for years before they announced it in WWDC in 2014. Are there similarities between all the new APIs? Sure, they all have command queues and command buffers, but OpenCL had command queues and Apple was the major force behind that API, so I think it's more likely that the folks at Apple said "yeah we like this command queue idea, let's use that for our new combined API" than some guy from AMD calling them up and telling them all about their new top-secret project. Mantle is basically a thin wrapper over GCN, which a cynical person could view as AMD admitting that their D3D driver team was terrible and couldn't compete with NVIDIA so they basically gave the GCN hardware specs to app developers and said "good luck".

In my experience, the "low overhead" nature of Metal makes it by far the easiest of the next-gen APIs to work with. Yes, it shares the common aspects of all next-gen APIs such as command buffers with encoding on multiple CPU threads or precompiled state objects, but that's about the extent of the similarities. So, if you want to claim that because Metal has command queues it's based on Mantle, I'd argue that it draws more from OpenCL and D3D11 than the low-level APIs like Mantle, Vulkan and D3D12.