The AMD Mantle Thread

[3DVagabond]

Every company wants to sell you things for most profit possible.
If AMD would have market position and products of Intel then they would behave ("milk") like Intel.

Seriously stop treating corporations like flesh&blood individual persons. They are not.

Companies with framented ownership, especially publicly traded have law supported obligation to get as much profits as possible. That is job and responsibility of their managment and how current economic system is constructed.

Which is why, without competition, the free market can't exist.

 

[Imouto]

Companies with framented ownership, especially publicly traded have law supported obligation to get as much profits as possible. That is job and responsibility of their managment and how current economic system is constructed.

No, they don't. I don't get where some people on these forums got this but that's not the case at all. Company administration is set for company needs. If you need to blow all your current and near future profit for positioning, R&D or whatever you need it's perfectly fine to do so. That's why you don't sell all your assets and close up when you have a bad or flat year.

For example Nvidia is spending a lot of money in the Tegra division and that's cool. If the management team is supposed to have the obligation to get as much profit as possible that division should be shut down.

On topic and about the CPU side of things my guess is that Intel will keep the 10/15% performance increase between generations and make the high end the processor needed for gaming as GPU power increases way more per generation than CPU power.

Anyway Intel should be worried about their consumer CPU market stagnating even more if Mantle takes off. A Sandy Bridge CPU would last a decade.

 

[seitur]

No, they don't. I don't get where some people on these forums got this but that's not the case at all. Company administration is set for company needs. If you need to blow all your current and near future profit for positioning, R&D or whatever you need. That's why you don't sell all your assets and close up when you have a bad or flat year.

For example Nvidia is spending a lot of money in the Tegra division and that's cool. If the management team is supposed to have the obligation to get as much profit as possible that division should be shut down.

On topic and about the CPU side of things my guess is that Intel will keep the 10/15% performance increase between generations and make the high end the processor needed for gaming as GPU power increases way more per generation than CPU power.

Anyway Intel should be worried about their consumer CPU market stagnating even more if Mantle takes off. A Sandy Bridge CPU would last a decade.

You took it too one-dimensional. Of course there is need to maintain long-term profitability, and many times it means "burning" money on R&D or developing products and delivering them on markets at a loss for many years.

There is no conflict between this and what I said in other post.

I merely said that no corporation will sell product for lower price they can sell it because they are "good". Because this is sentiment I read alot of many forums in last years.
That some corporations are "good" because they sell stuff for lower prices (like AMD in many cases). They sell them cheaper than their competitors because they have to, not because they are good.

 

[Yo_Mama]

I have a question for everyone please, I'm planning to buy a new graphics card, will Nvidia cards support Mantle too? And if Nvidia does support it, will it still work better on AMD cards?

 

[frozentundra123456]

You took it too one-dimensional. Of course there is need to maintain long-term profitability, and many times it means "burning" money on R&D or developing products and delivering them on markets at a loss for many years.

There is no conflict between this and what I said in other post.

I merely said that no corporation will sell product for lower price they can sell it because they are "good". Because this is sentiment I read alot of many forums in last years.
That some corporations are "good" because they sell stuff for lower prices (like AMD in many cases). They sell them cheaper than their competitors because they have to, not because they are good.

I agree. The reasoning that Intel is some evil empire and amd is some benovelent entity barely surviving financially because they want to help the consumer is just ludicrous. Either amd is a very poorly run business that does not consistently turn a profit because they price their products too low, or they have to set the price low because that is what their performance merits. And btw, amd was certainly not above charging very high prices when they had the performance lead before core came out.

 

[selni]

I have a question for everyone please, I'm planning to buy a new graphics card, will Nvidia cards support Mantle too? And if Nvidia does support it, will it still work better on AMD cards?

There's nothing so far that indicates nvidia can or will support mantle. It might be possible, but don't plan on it.

 

[Imouto]

You took it too one-dimensional. Of course there is need to maintain long-term profitability, and many times it means "burning" money on R&D or developing products and delivering them on markets at a loss for many years.

There is no conflict between this and what I said in other post.

I merely said that no corporation will sell product for lower price they can sell it because they are "good". Because this is sentiment I read alot of many forums in last years.
That some corporations are "good" because they sell stuff for lower prices (like AMD in many cases). They sell them cheaper than their competitors because they have to, not because they are good.

I'm not saying that there are "good" companies. What I'm saying is that the "obligation" statement you made is a plain lie. It's perfectly fine to sell stuff at lower prices to keep your brand perception. There are a lot of brands selling their quality clothes cheap because they have such idiosyncrasy. Such an obligation would make the administration liable and likely to be fired for about everything they do.

 

[blastingcap]

Every company wants to sell you things for most profit possible.
If AMD would have market position and products of Intel then they would behave ("milk") like Intel.

Seriously stop treating corporations like flesh&blood individual persons. They are not.

Companies with framented ownership, especially publicly traded have law supported obligation to get as much profits as possible. That is job and responsibility of their managment and how current economic system is constructed.

Sorry if you think I'm bashing Intel or something. I'm not. In fact, I used to own Intel stock precisely because they are so good at milking customers. AMD would do the same if they were in command, just look at their pricing while Intel was on NetBurst.

The point of all this and the reason why I was talking about it at all in a Mantle thread is that I think Intel is probably ambivalent about Mantle for reasons I already stated enough times that I don't care to state them again.

Y'all can stop the thread derail now and get back to Mantle!

 

[krumme]

I have a question for everyone please, I'm planning to buy a new graphics card, will Nvidia cards support Mantle too? And if Nvidia does support it, will it still work better on AMD cards?

Mantle is made for cgn gfx because there is cgn gfx in the next gen consoles. The support for mantle is because of the consoles.

If you want mantle a cgn gfx is the way to go. Its very simple. Building support for a new api takes years. Mantle started 4 years ago and it will take a year before the tools is finalized.

Mantle efficincy is only going to work consistently good with cgn, at least for the next 3 years. And until nv wins the new gen consoles. Realistically the rules is set for the at least next 5 years.

 

[Silverforce11]

All these companies live with a simple motto: They aren't in the business of enabling their competitors.

Thats why there's no AMD GPU PhysX and why there won't be NV GPU Mantle capable hardware.

Intel does NOT care because whatever helps AMD's crap CPU perform better (less overhead or better multi-threading) will benefit them as well. ie. If Mantle helps a slow CPU to be better, it will help a fast CPU to be faster.

 

[Erenhardt]

Intel does NOT care because whatever helps AMD's crap CPU perform better (less overhead or better multi-threading) will benefit them as well. ie. If Mantle helps a slow CPU to be better, it will help a fast CPU to be faster.

Which kind of connects to haswell's good enough performance, but better power management.
What if mantle enables slower CPUs to be "enough" for PC gaming? Like 8 core jaguar?

 

[bystander36]

You sure have a positive view of profit-seeking behemoths like Intel. I don't think this is a case of Intel not wanting to waste cores for the sake of consumers. IMHO, they just don't want to waste PROFIT. Intel does not want to use more silicon than is absolutely necessary. They'll do just enough to beat out their only real rival in gaming CPUs and that's it. Intel is not a nice company and its history bears that out. Intel is very good at making money, though, and cutting unnecessary expenses.

Anyway, back to thread topic, I think Intel is ambivalent about supporting Mantle for reasons above. They do not have a lot of market share with gaming PCs unless you count mobile power-sippers, so maybe it doesn't really matter what Intel thinks about Mantle--they'll just be along for the ride whichever way the tide turns.

This seems more like you are trying to make AMD look like a hero and Intel a villain.

Why is it evil to NOT create a product that is a complete waist of resources?
Why is it heroic if you do?

Intel has focused their energies on creating a product consumers need. Rather than giving them useless cores, they gave you faster cores.

AMD isn't giving you more cores. They are creating more cores in an attempt to separate themselves from Intel in the only way they can. They failed to keep up in performance, so they are attempting to present users with something they think they need. If they could compete with Intel in straight performance, they probably wouldn't be selling 8 core chips.

The other possible reason AMD would push for more cores is simply to try and get the dev's to use more cores. Of course this is also not some saintly gesture. They just want their CPU's to compete in the only way they know how to get them to compete.

Intel is just giving us what we want and not things we don't want or need.

 

[bystander36]

I'm not saying that there are "good" companies. What I'm saying is that the "obligation" statement you made is a plain lie. It's perfectly fine to sell stuff at lower prices to keep your brand perception. There are a lot of brands selling their quality clothes cheap because they have such idiosyncrasy. Such an obligation would make the administration liable and likely to be fired for about everything they do.

This is one of the problems with today's company. They really do feel obligated to their stock holders first and foremost. They believe they must do what ever is in their power to make money for those who own their company. This was not always the case, from what I understand, this mentality changed somewhere in the 70's or 80's.

Before, companies had a responsibility to their employees as well as their stockholders. Now they really don't care about their employees, or at least they aren't supposed to consider their needs in their choices.

 

[OCGuy]

All these companies live with a simple motto: They aren't in the business of enabling their competitors.

Thats why there's no AMD GPU PhysX and why there won't be NV GPU Mantle capable hardware.

Intel does NOT care because whatever helps AMD's crap CPU perform better (less overhead or better multi-threading) will benefit them as well. ie. If Mantle helps a slow CPU to be better, it will help a fast CPU to be faster.

So the slide from last week was a lie? That would be two slides in a week from AMD that weren't true.....!

The reason Mantle will not take off beyond its initial honeymoon is because at first it will not support Intel, or NV. Who is going to spend all of that time for a DX alternative when less than 35% of the total GPU market, and less than 27% of the CPU market use AMD hardware? And an even smaller percentage use GCN?

 

[Skurge]

So the slide from last week was a lie? That would be two slides in a week from AMD that weren't true.....!

The reason Mantle will not take off beyond its initial honeymoon is because at first it will not support Intel, or NV. Who is going to spend all of that time for a DX alternative when less than 35% of the discreet market, and less than 27% of the CPU market use AMD hardware? And an even smaller percentage use GCN?

AMD is paying them remember. They paid off EA/Dice, Oxide, whateverthatcompanymakingthiefis and Chris Roberts. So what's to stop them paying Crytek and Square Enix?

 

[Minkoff]

This seems more like you are trying to make AMD look like a hero and Intel a villain.

Why is it evil to NOT create a product that is a complete waist of resources?
Why is it heroic if you do?

Intel has focused their energies on creating a product consumers need. Rather than giving them useless cores, they gave you faster cores.

AMD isn't giving you more cores. They are creating more cores in an attempt to separate themselves from Intel in the only way they can. They failed to keep up in performance, so they are attempting to present users with something they think they need. If they could compete with Intel in straight performance, they probably wouldn't be selling 8 core chips.

The other possible reason AMD would push for more cores is simply to try and get the dev's to use more cores. Of course this is also not some saintly gesture. They just want their CPU's to compete in the only way they know how to get them to compete.

Intel is just giving us what we want and not things we don't want or need.

Sorry to go off-topic...
...but Intel was fined with 1 billion for using unfair monopolistic power. And this is just one example. No one knows the real impact and true loss for AMD and it's quite hard to calculate. Most importantly, it's really hard to calculate the future impact that this had on AMD, their R&D costs along with their software support and innovation. Like 64bit.

Quote :"Intel is just giving us what we want and not things we don't want or need"
Really? I'm pretty sure Intel doesn't care what you or we want as individuals. Nor as a group for that matter.
I want fast and cheap CPU's. Do I get them? No! Intel gives you what they have advantage in and what they have planned(researched) for years in advance.
For quite sometime now we all listen how we need greater parallelism...what do you expect AMD to do? It's unfortunate that this didn't happen erally but you can also speculate on that (Intel again)
Will not go further, even though I really want to. One last off-topic bit...I really wish that there is a way for everybody to see what the future will be without AMD (or whatever company there is) in the CPU and GPU market.
It's not the hardware that holds AMD back. Not at all. It's the friggi' software.
Mantle and all of the HSA push may be the solution.

 

[moonbogg]

Mantle sounds good, but i'm hoping it motivates Microsoft to make a better DX so everyone can benefit. I have to admit, it doesn't sound very fun if only a few can benefit from this. Then again, i'll just make sure i'm one of those few, and two R2 290's should take care of that quite well.

 

[bystander36]

Sorry to go off-topic...
...but Intel was fined with 1 billion for using unfair monopolistic power. And this is just one example. No one knows the real impact and true loss for AMD and it's quite hard to calculate. Most importantly, it's really hard to calculate the future impact that this had on AMD, their R&D costs along with their software support and innovation. Like 64bit.

Quote :"Intel is just giving us what we want and not things we don't want or need"
Really? I'm pretty sure Intel doesn't care what you or we want as individuals. Nor as a group for that matter.
I want fast and cheap CPU's. Do I get them? No! Intel gives you what they have advantage in and what they have planned(researched) for years in advance.
For quite sometime now we all listen how we need greater parallelism...what do you expect AMD to do? It's unfortunate that this didn't happen erally but you can also speculate on that (Intel again)
Will not go further, even though I really want to. One last off-topic bit...I really wish that there is a way for everybody to see what the future will be without AMD (or whatever company there is) in the CPU and GPU market.
It's not the hardware that holds AMD back. Not at all. It's the friggi' software.
Mantle and all of the HSA push may be the solution.

Intel's lawsuit has nothing to do with this topic.

Yes, Intel gives us what they have an advantage of and planned for. Why do you think they planned for these CPU's? Because they believe this is what we want and need for today's games and desktop usage and it has been true, has it not? Price is also not the issue. They get the price they want because they have the best CPU's.

How can you say AMD's hardware is not holding them back when in fact their hardware is slow? They have tried to combat it with more cores, but we all know that more cores is very difficult to take advantage of with the tasks CPU's are asked to do.

Sure, a change in software can change things for them, but we all know that what the CPU does for games is not naturally suited for more cores. You know what will happen once games use more cores? Intel's will sell CPU's with more cores.

This is not an evil thing. This is just logic.

 

[Minkoff]

AMD is paying them remember. They paid off EA/Dice, Oxide, whateverthatcompanymakingthiefis and Chris Roberts. So what's to stop them paying Crytek and Square Enix?

This has been chewed on before. No one knows what the payment was for. Or if there was a payment to start with and so is the small market share...

So the slide from last week was a lie? That would be two slides in a week from AMD that weren't true.....!

The reason Mantle will not take off beyond its initial honeymoon is because at first it will not support Intel, or NV. Who is going to spend all of that time for a DX alternative when less than 35% of the discreet market, and less than 27% of the CPU market use AMD hardware? And an even smaller percentage use GCN?

You see companies jumping on Mantle board. Or are they all fools? Do all those guys that keep pushing the "small market theory" think their are the smartest and no one at AMD or EA/DICE or Oxide and Nixxie has never thought of it?
Sure, all of them are seeing the inevitable disaster that Mantle is, but they are somewhat masochists...

 

[Skurge]

This has been chewed on before. No one knows what the payment was for. Or if there was a payment to start with and so is the small market share...


You see companies jumping on Mantle board. Or are they all fools? Do all those guys that keep pushing the "small market theory" think their are the smartest and no one at AMD or EA/DICE or Oxide and Nixxie has never thought of it?
Sure, all of them are seeing the inevitable disaster that Mantle is, but they are somewhat masochists...

I was being sarcastic. No one here really knows if or how much AMD paid anyone for anything.

 

[Minkoff]

I was being sarcastic. No one here really knows if or how much AMD paid anyone for anything.

Apologies, it seems that I have misunderstood the post and context.

 

[AnandThenMan]

All these companies live with a simple motto: They aren't in the business of enabling their competitors.

Thats why there's no AMD GPU PhysX and why there won't be NV GPU Mantle capable hardware.

Intel does NOT care because whatever helps AMD's crap CPU perform better (less overhead or better multi-threading) will benefit them as well. ie. If Mantle helps a slow CPU to be better, it will help a fast CPU to be faster.

I'm not so sure about this. Mantle looks like it will go a long way to removing the CPU bottleneck on lower end processors. This will help AMD more than Intel. What Mantle very well could do is minimize the need for the higher end Intel processors (AMD doesn't appear to care for the high end CPU market anymore).

Short version, Mantle will probably help AMD's APU products shine, and make the diminishing returns slope much steeper for high end CPUs.

 

[Minkoff]

I'm not so sure about this. Mantle looks like it will go a long way to removing the CPU bottleneck on lower end processors. This will help AMD more than Intel. What Mantle very well could do is minimize the need for the higher end Intel processors (AMD doesn't appear to care for the high end CPU market anymore).

Short version, Mantle will probably help AMD's APU products shine, and make the diminishing returns slope much steeper for high end CPUs.

Exactly!
Now will it be possible for let's say 955BE to feed r9 290? This will provide an easy upgrade path to some gamers.

 

[OCGuy]

I was being sarcastic. No one here really knows if or how much AMD paid anyone for anything.

Huh? You keep acting as if AMD paying DICE is a bad thing. Yes, we know for a fact they did. NV does the same thing.

DICE is a Mantle Co-developer, BF4 is optimized for AMD cards even without Mantle, and they did a product tie-in with the 290x launch BF4 edition.

I encourage NV and AMD to work with developers as long as the reason is pushing the boundaries for graphics. The more $$ flying around the better.

 

[bystander36]

Huh? You keep acting as if AMD paying DICE is a bad thing. Yes, we know for a fact they did. NV does the same thing.

DICE is a Mantle Co-developer, BF4 is optimized for AMD cards even without Mantle, and they did a product tie-in with the 290x launch BF4 edition.

I encourage NV and AMD to work with developers as long as the reason is pushing the boundaries for graphics. The more $$ flying around the better.

The practice of paying a dev to use your features isn't wrong, but it does make you question how good it really is, if you have to pay them to use it.