[shmerl]

What is the current stance of Nvidia and Intel on implementing Mantle support? And what are the chances of mobile GPU makers doing the same? Is it easier to make a better OpenGL 5, or to adopt Mantle across all GPU manufacturers?

[corysama]

Even if it is technically quite feasible, I would be seriously surprised if Nvidia and Intel implement Mantle if only for political reasons. However, they definitely will implement DX12 --which as far as I can tell is pretty much the same thing as Mantle except explicitly multi-vendor. If Mantle was a tap on OGL's door, DX12 is a full-on wake-up call.

Back when I worked in Windows/console games, my market demanded D3D (+ sony/nintendo's wacky custom APIs). Now I work in mobile and my customers demand GLES. GL advocates used to cry "GL has the better tech! D3D only wins because of politics! Boo!" It will be quite a turn if they switch tunes to "D3D has better tech, but GL still wins because of politics! Yay!"

DX12 API Preview vid http://channel9.msdn.com/Events/Build/2014/3-564

DX12 API Preview slides http://view.officeapps.live.com/op/view.aspx?src=http%3a%2f%...

[shmerl]

DX12 is not the way forward because it remeains MS only and there is no indication that MS is interested in opening it up. The way forward is either creating a new open API which all manufacturers would support (Mantle, or whatever), or seriously improving OpenGL if it's possible.

[Tmmrn]

> It will be quite a turn if they switch tunes to "D3D has better tech, but GL still wins because of politics! Yay!"

What are you actually comparing? Yet to be released DirectX12 v.s. OpenGL 4.4? Or v.s. what will actually "compete" against it, once it is actually released and used, OpenGL 4.5 or 5.0? Are you just assuming future versions will be worse than Direct3D? "used to cry"? That sounds all very fair and objective.

[zanny]

Mantle is not an open spec at all. Certainly AMD has showed to Intel and Nvidia, but I see no reason for them to consider it unless we get standards publications of it.

And even then, this attitude AMD has had for the last two years since announcing it certainly dooms it to a death of irrelevance. If they were serious about it being an open API, they would have opened up proposals for modifications and considerations from other vendors before having it deployed in games.

They could still do a heel face turn of course, but I would never expect it. OpenGL5 is more likely the answer, but that requires Khronos to accept that even the Core Profile shift in 3.2 was not enough, they need to rewrite the entire shader language and standardize a modern pipeline without all this redundant backwards oldschool bullcrap that makes the implementations so slow due to state nonsense.

[shmerl]

> Mantle is not an open spec at all.

That kind of defeats the purpose then. If AMD wanted any kind of chances for adoption they had to open it from the start.

> But that requires Khronos to accept that even the Core Profile shift in 3.2 was not enough, they need to rewrite the entire shader language and standardize a modern pipeline without all this redundant backwards oldschool bullcrap that makes the implementations so slow due to state nonsense.

How exactly is Khronos managed? Is there someone with decisive power, or it's simply by consensus of all participants? For example can Valve or any other interested party come tomorrow with a serious overhaul of OpenGL and expect that such changes will be accepted?

[zanny]

It is design by committee, and a huge swathe of companies are no said committee. Valve could develop an extension branch (ARB prefix means approved language features, and vendor specific would be NV, INTEL, WIN, SGI, etc. So Valve could write their own plethora of extensions as VALVE_something, yeah, and pressure the review board into accepting them into the official implementation.

[shmerl]

It sounds like rewriting the API with changing some underlying concepts is a deeper task than simply adding new extensions. (For example changing the threading model used in OpenGL).