No Mantle on Xbox One

[OCGuy]

It doesn't matter if MS doesn't want to support Mantle. The closer their approach is to the metal easier for developers to port to Mantle. If MS wants any performance out of the Xbone they must make a Mantle-like API for it which AMD can take advantage of with Mantle whether MS likes it or not. And same goes for Sony with the PS4.

I don't really know how can you spin and spin this when Xbone API, PS4 API and Mantle will look almost identical for developers and easy to port from one to another.

Please read about Mantle.....

MS doesn't need Mantle for their consoles...consoles already have low overhead.



Holy smokes...

 

[Imouto]

@0___________0 Do I know you? Not even a quote and you go all over me for something you claim that you didn't even say. Passive-aggressive much? Anything to reflect on?

 

[GaiaHunter]

No, you said they own all machine code.

If they don't own the API then they can't take it from the XB1 and use it on the PC. It's protected software, MS owns it. Mantle was built from the ground up on PC, it's not a port of the API on the XB1. I think we're done here by now.

Machine code is different from API code.

I think you don't know what machine code and assembly code are.
I can only interpret your post as you saying that you though I said all the xbone (machine) software (code) belongs to AMD.

Not knowing what machine code, assembly code and how a low level API works, is why you believe the low level API MS developed for the Xbone is something out of thin air instead of something that has to follow precise guidelines to work with the hardware.

 

[GaiaHunter]

Please read about Mantle.....

MS doesn't need Mantle for their consoles...consoles already have low overhead.



Holy smokes...

That is why AMD wants to leverage that and bring it to the PC via mantle.

I don't see how you and others thought Mantle was targeted to be in the consoles as well or that AMD strategy depended on MS or Sony deciding they were going to use Mantle.

 

[bononos]

It doesn't matter if MS doesn't want to support Mantle. The closer their approach is to the metal easier for developers to port to Mantle. If MS wants any performance out of the Xbone they must make a Mantle-like API for it which AMD can take advantage of with Mantle whether MS likes it or not. And same goes for Sony with the PS4.

I don't really know how can you spin and spin this when Xbone API, PS4 API and Mantle will look almost identical for developers and easy to port from one to another.

Is that a reasonable assumption to make?

 

[GaiaHunter]

Is that a reasonable assumption to make?

At a low level, close to metal?

Yes.

An API uses source code, that then is transformed by a compiler into machine code, that the hardware understands. Or you can use an interpreter (no joking, interpreter is a program to translate source code into machine code on the fly).

The GPUs like the ones inside XBone and PS4 or in our PCs, they don't understand DX, OpenGL, Mantle, etc.

They understand their machine code.


And by the way, regarding copyrights of APIs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Api#APIs_and_copyrights

In 2010, Oracle sued Google for having distributed a new implementation of Java embedded in the Android operating system.[10] Google had not acquired any permission to reproduce the Java API, although a similar permission had been given to the OpenJDK project. Judge William Alsup ruled in the Oracle v. Google case that APIs cannot be copyrighted in the U.S.


Maybe the summary of the ruling will help some that don't understand APIs.

http://www.wired.com/wiredenterpris...-Alsup-Ruling-on-Copyrightability-of-APIs.pdf

SUMMARY OF RULING
So long as the specific code used to implement a method is different, anyone is free
under the Copyright Act to write his or her own code to carry out exactly the same function
or specification of any methods used in the Java API. It does not matter that the declaration or
method header lines are identical. Under the rules of Java, they must be identical to declare a
method specifying the same functionality — even when the implementation is different.
When there is only one way to express an idea or function, then everyone is free to do so and
no one can monopolize that expression. And, while the Android method and class names could
have been different from the names of their counterparts in Java and still have worked, copyright
protection never extends to names or short phrases as a matter of law.
It is true that the very same functionality could have been offered in Android
without duplicating the exact command structure used in Java. This could have been doneby re-arranging the various methods under different groupings among the various classes and
packages (even if the same names had been used). In this sense, there were many ways to group
the methods yet still duplicate the same range of functionality.
But the names are more than just names — they are symbols in a command structure
wherein the commands take the form
java.package.Class.method()
Each command calls into action a pre-assigned function. The overall name tree, of course, has
creative elements but it is also a precise command structure — a utilitarian and functional set
of symbols, each to carry out a pre-assigned function. This command structure is a system or
method of operation under Section 102(b) of the Copyright Act and, therefore, cannot be
copyrighted. Duplication of the command structure is necessary for interoperability.

 

[0___________0]

@0___________0 Do I know you? Not even a quote and you go all over me for something you claim that you didn't even say. Passive-aggressive much? Anything to reflect on?

Just talking to yourself then? It's mostly just me in this thread.

Machine code is different from API code.

I think you don't know what machine code and assembly code are.
I can only interpret your post as you saying that you though I said all the xbone (machine) software (code) belongs to AMD.

Not knowing what machine code, assembly code and how a low level API works, is why you believe the low level API MS developed for the Xbone is something out of thin air instead of something that has to follow precise guidelines to work with the hardware.

You claim AMD purposed MS' graphics API for themselves, brought it over from the XB1 and gave it a new name. Mantle was not ported from a console. Stop with machine code, it isn't relevant. Just following the same "guidelines" doesn't produce the same API, so that doesn't matter. Mantle shares no development connection with the XB1.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

They don't need to copy the API directly. Mantle is compatible with DirectX HLSL which is how the work done for the consoles will still apply to Mantle.

 

[Makaveli]

The fact that some people thought Microsoft would let someone attempt to take marketshare away from DirectX, using their own gaming platform, is fairly laughable.

haha This.

And most of them have no clue what they are talking about they just read about rumors on forums and run with it as fact.

There should have been no shock when MS said their console will not use mantle.

 

[Stuka87]

It should be noted MS is not providing a low level API. Everything has to be through DirectX 11.x. So while there is no Mantle, there is also no low level API of any sort.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

It should be noted MS is not providing a low level API. Everything has to be through DirectX 11.x. So while there is no Mantle, there is also no low level API of any sort.

DirectX 11.x on the Xbone is different than DX11 on the PC. It's the name of their low level API.

 

[Paul98]

It should be noted MS is not providing a low level API. Everything has to be through DirectX 11.x. So while there is no Mantle, there is also no low level API of any sort.

Of course they will, DX 11.x will have low level API as part of it.