Linux user share remains above macOS in the latest Steam Survey

Quoting: poiuzMantle is omitted since it's the starting point for all APIs.

That's exactly the point. Obviously AMD wanted to have one common API, not multiple NIHs. So why did MS and Apple have to rush making theirs? They could work with AMD and then Khronos on the common one.

Quoting: ShmerlThat's exactly the point. Obviously AMD wanted to have one common API, not multiple NIHs. So why did MS and Apple have to rush making theirs? They could work with AMD and then Khronos on the common one.

If that was the case, they wouldn't have provided Microsoft with everyrhing on Mantle, but they did.

Quoting: poiuz

Quoting: ShmerlThat's exactly the point. Obviously AMD wanted to have one common API, not multiple NIHs. So why did MS and Apple have to rush making theirs? They could work with AMD and then Khronos on the common one.

If that was the case, they wouldn't have provided Microsoft with everyrhing on Mantle, but they did.

They provided everyone with everything. Their whole API was opened for anyone who wanted. The goal was to encourage collaboration, which indeed happened when enough people got together to make Vulkan from it. But not MS and Apple. They just exploited it to make their own NIHs becasue they could. It tells you everything there is to tell about their approach.

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.UltraWhat I did find however was on the Wiki on Metal that Apple announced in 2017 that 148k apps used Metal which is only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store, so it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it.

I'm not sure this is a useful percentage. Most apps don't need any 3D API in the first place, right?

Which kinda is on point no?

One of us has a big misunderstanding here. :D Let's find out who.

You said "only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store" have been using Metal. My point is that this might(!) be 100% of the apps needing a low-level 3D API in the first place. So we can't conclude "it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it".

Quoting: ShmerlThey provided everyone with everything. Their whole API was opened for anyone who wanted. The goal was to encourage collaboration, which indeed happened when enough people got together to make Vulkan from it. But not MS and Apple. They just exploited it to make their own NIHs becasue they could. It tells you everything there is to tell about their approach.

AMD disagrees with you, in Feb 2015:
https://gamingbolt.com/the-big-interview-amds-robert-hallock-on-mantle-directx-12-ps4xbox-one-free-sync-and-more

QuoteRashid Sayed: Switching back to Mantle once again, Intel had approached for access to API. Is there any progress on that front?


Robert Hallock: Other IHVs will receive access when we exit beta and make the API public for download. Any IHV will be able to create a Mantle solution for themselves, and it is on them to decide whether or not they want to catch up to AMD in the area of low-overhead, high-throughput and incredibly efficient graphics workloads. At this time, though, Mantle is still being privately developed by AMD and nearly 100 ISVs.

Mantle FAQ

QuoteWhat are the similarities between Mantle and DirectX® 12?

​DirectX® 12 is Microsoft’s own creation, though its development has been steered by input from many different technology partners including AMD. We have welcomed the same input on Mantle by sharing the full specification with Microsoft since the early days of our API. As the industry moves to embrace the principles of “closer-to-the-metal” API design, it is evident that our pioneering work with this concept has been highly influential.​

But here, too: That's enough for me.

Quoting: poiuzAMD disagrees with you, in Feb 2015:
https://gamingbolt.com/the-big-interview-amds-robert-hallock-on-mantle-directx-12-ps4xbox-one-free-sync-and-more

I don't see any disagreement. AMD wanted their API to be used by MS - so what. They wanted it to be used by everyone else too.

And they are MS partner for consoles. Obviously if MS started pushing their NIH AMD won't be trying to stop them. It was MS idea, not AMD's.


Last edited by Shmerl on 8 September 2023 at 3:23 pm UTC

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.Ultra

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: F.UltraWhat I did find however was on the Wiki on Metal that Apple announced in 2017 that 148k apps used Metal which is only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store, so it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it.

I'm not sure this is a useful percentage. Most apps don't need any 3D API in the first place, right?

Which kinda is on point no?

One of us has a big misunderstanding here. :D Let's find out who.

You said "only 9% of the number of apps they have in their app store" have been using Metal. My point is that this might(!) be 100% of the apps needing a low-level 3D API in the first place. So we can't conclude "it wasn't like people where rushing out to implement it".

That "most apps don't need any 3D API in the first place" is exactly my point. It means that they went through all this trouble fragmenting the graphics API scene only to cater to 9% of apps (and most likely only a subset of those apps really benefits meaning that the real number is lower).