AMD Mantle: A Graphics API Tested In Depth
Tags:
-
Gaming
-
Graphics Cards
- OpenGL
-
AMD
-
Graphics
- Directx
Last response: in Reviews comments
AMD's Mantle is available to users of certain Radeon cards, as are the first few titles with corresponding API support. We gathered up a number of CPUs and graphics boards, fired up Battlefield 4 and Thief, and set off on a benchmarking odyssey.
AMD Mantle: A Graphics API Tested In Depth : Read more
AMD Mantle: A Graphics API Tested In Depth : Read more
More about : amd mantle graphics api tested depth
Related resources
- Mantle API on radeon mobile graphics? HD 8670M (Sun-XT) 2GB + AMD Radeon HD 8650 IGP - Forum
- AMD Mantle API - Forum
- Does AMD's Mantle API support Laptop Mobile GPU's? - Forum
- Will AMD's Mantle API Increase The Performance Of Their Eight Core Processors (8350 Or 9590) Due To The Usage Of More Cores? - Forum
- AMD mantle API to boost BF4 - Forum
Mantle is not glide. 3DFX had 85% of the GPU share when they had glide so it was easier for developers to use the glide (AMD has 35% right now).
But Mantle did something really good for gamers. Till now Microsoft with no competition didn't gave too much attention in performance optimising the DirectX. They gave Microsoft a reason to improve DirectX (so they will bring DX12) in the way mantle works. This benefits all the gamers.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that Microsoft will give DirectX12 only with Windows9 (due to kernel limitations at their pockets).
If this will be true then Mantle might have more life than most users expected to (since it wil take time for windows 9 to rule the market share)...
But Mantle did something really good for gamers. Till now Microsoft with no competition didn't gave too much attention in performance optimising the DirectX. They gave Microsoft a reason to improve DirectX (so they will bring DX12) in the way mantle works. This benefits all the gamers.
Unfortunately I have a feeling that Microsoft will give DirectX12 only with Windows9 (due to kernel limitations at their pockets).
If this will be true then Mantle might have more life than most users expected to (since it wil take time for windows 9 to rule the market share)...
Score
10
ZolaIII
July 16, 2014 1:07:48 AM
Next Open GL specification is almost redy & will be announced next month in (ironically) Vancouver Canada. Naturally it will be available on all platforms (that want to integrate OGL) & it will be addressing lover overheads. As gaming market is getting more fragmented it's getting natural to develop for api that can run on all platforms.
Score
-3
tomfreak
July 16, 2014 2:18:38 AM
chaosmassive
July 16, 2014 2:51:29 AM
"AMD Mantle: AMD's PhysX "
please do a research what is Mantle before post
it seems you don't understand what are you writing about.
[Answer by Cleeve:]
I think the problem may be that you don't understand the context of the answer, which does not equate Mantle with PhysX on a technical level.
We equate Mantle with PhysX in the sense that it's a value-add that assists in a limited number of games. Its not a universal advantage.
please do a research what is Mantle before post
it seems you don't understand what are you writing about.
[Answer by Cleeve:]
I think the problem may be that you don't understand the context of the answer, which does not equate Mantle with PhysX on a technical level.
We equate Mantle with PhysX in the sense that it's a value-add that assists in a limited number of games. Its not a universal advantage.
Score
-3
abundantcores
July 16, 2014 3:50:42 AM
User testing around the Internet shows Intel are at least as fast in Mantle as AMD CPUs.
Its obvious there is something very wrong with your testing.
[Answer by Cleeve:]
Actually, nobody on the internet has really tested anything but Radeon R9 290s when it comes to Mantle. Instead of assuming it always works in every situation like everyone else, we actually tested it, not only with the 290, but with a wide range of CPUs and GPUs. We did this with feedback from AMD.
Mantle is not the perfect, slick API that people assume it is. AMD stresses that its considered a beta and is not yet a final product.
I believe that our test results are quite accurate. The problem is that the API, something the developer considers unfinished at this point, probably still needs work and has room to grow. And I'm sure it will get better over time.
But pretending it works 100% perfectly doesn't help anyone. That's not even something that AMD would try to say at this time as it has obvious issues. They are working on it. But there is a value to in-depth testing and to sharing the inconsistencies.
i7 with 4 cores and 8 threads right here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=26614...
Using your settings.
Min 62 FPS
Max 82 FPS
here is one with a 4770K @ 4.5Ghz
Avenged7Fold: 290X @ 1300/1604, 4770K @ 4.5Ghz - Mantle FPS: Min 71.8 / Avr 88.5. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2638026...
That ^^^ is actually on the highest possible settings.
I know a lot of people using i7's with mantle, in Thief and BF4, some with CF 290's, they all report FPS gains with Mantle over DX, especially when in CF. in BF4 averaging 170 FPS with 120 FPS minimums. over 50% higher than they do in DX.
I don't know where you have gone wrong. but everyone on our forum is utterly confused by your i7 results.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18611...
Its obvious there is something very wrong with your testing.
[Answer by Cleeve:]
Actually, nobody on the internet has really tested anything but Radeon R9 290s when it comes to Mantle. Instead of assuming it always works in every situation like everyone else, we actually tested it, not only with the 290, but with a wide range of CPUs and GPUs. We did this with feedback from AMD.
Mantle is not the perfect, slick API that people assume it is. AMD stresses that its considered a beta and is not yet a final product.
I believe that our test results are quite accurate. The problem is that the API, something the developer considers unfinished at this point, probably still needs work and has room to grow. And I'm sure it will get better over time.
But pretending it works 100% perfectly doesn't help anyone. That's not even something that AMD would try to say at this time as it has obvious issues. They are working on it. But there is a value to in-depth testing and to sharing the inconsistencies.
i7 with 4 cores and 8 threads right here http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?p=26614...
Using your settings.
Min 62 FPS
Max 82 FPS
here is one with a 4770K @ 4.5Ghz
Avenged7Fold: 290X @ 1300/1604, 4770K @ 4.5Ghz - Mantle FPS: Min 71.8 / Avr 88.5. http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=2638026...
That ^^^ is actually on the highest possible settings.
I know a lot of people using i7's with mantle, in Thief and BF4, some with CF 290's, they all report FPS gains with Mantle over DX, especially when in CF. in BF4 averaging 170 FPS with 120 FPS minimums. over 50% higher than they do in DX.
I don't know where you have gone wrong. but everyone on our forum is utterly confused by your i7 results.
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18611...
Score
-13
ta152h
July 16, 2014 4:47:27 AM
As a programmer of 30 years, that's arguably the worst description of an API I have heard.
An API is a set of commands, with required parameters, a software package presents to another application that wishes to use its services. It's essentially the language to use the services it provides.
Mantle isn't just an API. It's an abstraction layer that makes it unnecessary for the developer to write directly to the hardware, which is tedious, time-consuming and extremely difficult to do on a large product. The API is what Mantle accepts to tell it what to do, and what the programmer must learn to use it, but it is NOT all Mantle is. It's just how to talk to it.
A pure API would be something someone demented would write, because it would mean you could issue commands to do nothing. I'm guessing Apple is patenting this technology now.
[Answer by Cleeve]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree as I feel it's a useful high-level primer for folks who haven't been programming for 30 years, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
An API is a set of commands, with required parameters, a software package presents to another application that wishes to use its services. It's essentially the language to use the services it provides.
Mantle isn't just an API. It's an abstraction layer that makes it unnecessary for the developer to write directly to the hardware, which is tedious, time-consuming and extremely difficult to do on a large product. The API is what Mantle accepts to tell it what to do, and what the programmer must learn to use it, but it is NOT all Mantle is. It's just how to talk to it.
A pure API would be something someone demented would write, because it would mean you could issue commands to do nothing. I'm guessing Apple is patenting this technology now.
[Answer by Cleeve]
I'm sorry you feel that way. I don't agree as I feel it's a useful high-level primer for folks who haven't been programming for 30 years, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion.
Score
0
elbert
July 16, 2014 4:54:57 AM
On page 4 its clear mantle doesn't work well with Intel's Hyper-Threading but what about Intel's 6 core CPU's? Does mantle give an Intel 6 core a bigger advantage in games that dx? I wouldn't throw mantle under the bus just due to its unoptimized for Hyper-Threading. Please add an Intel's 6 core to these tests.
Score
-4
SteelCity1981
July 16, 2014 5:55:37 AM
K-beam
July 16, 2014 6:55:57 AM
cypeq
July 16, 2014 7:07:09 AM
How I see line graph with 15 positions.
![]()
(Image viewable on Forum here
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2221312/amd-mantle...

(Image viewable on Forum here
http://www.tomshardware.com/forum/id-2221312/amd-mantle...
Score
6
serendipiti
July 16, 2014 7:10:39 AM
Nice analysis.
Probably there wasn't a DirectX 12 on the works because of maturity (what else add to DirectX that it pays for?) and Mantle showed the way.
I don't like the comparation to PhysX (because of what has finally become) and the fact that Mantle won´t bring new features to games.
It is Mantle here to stay, probably, sadly, not. Its success as an universal graphics API is complicated:
if it was on time for PS4, XBox One (M$...) and Linux / Valve Steam OS and above all: Mobile devices (ARM...), if it could get NVidia involved also, perhaps Mantle would gain enough momentum to become an accepted universal standard.
The other battle field is on the developer front: get major 3D Engines to support a Mantle code path (and what are the costs related to maintaining that code path from a developer standpoint).
ta512, as deep as a naming convention discussion can go, what AMD is doing is an API which implements a Hardware Abstraction Layer for the graphics cards of any hardware vendor (AMD, NVidia, Intel). What have tested here is the AMD own implementation of that API made to run on AMD hardware.
What is open source is the API, not the AMD own implementation.
This Is like discussing if ARM it is a processor or an instruction set... and what / where the difference is.
In a case scenario where you have BattleField 4 running on an i7 with an NVidia card with a Mantle enabled driver (let's suppose Nvidia gets on the Mantle train) the only thing AMD would have done would be decide how the game will talk to the graphics card, but neither the game, the driver, the graphics card, none of these would be AMD's work,,,
Cheers
Probably there wasn't a DirectX 12 on the works because of maturity (what else add to DirectX that it pays for?) and Mantle showed the way.
I don't like the comparation to PhysX (because of what has finally become) and the fact that Mantle won´t bring new features to games.
It is Mantle here to stay, probably, sadly, not. Its success as an universal graphics API is complicated:
if it was on time for PS4, XBox One (M$...) and Linux / Valve Steam OS and above all: Mobile devices (ARM...), if it could get NVidia involved also, perhaps Mantle would gain enough momentum to become an accepted universal standard.
The other battle field is on the developer front: get major 3D Engines to support a Mantle code path (and what are the costs related to maintaining that code path from a developer standpoint).
ta512, as deep as a naming convention discussion can go, what AMD is doing is an API which implements a Hardware Abstraction Layer for the graphics cards of any hardware vendor (AMD, NVidia, Intel). What have tested here is the AMD own implementation of that API made to run on AMD hardware.
What is open source is the API, not the AMD own implementation.
This Is like discussing if ARM it is a processor or an instruction set... and what / where the difference is.
In a case scenario where you have BattleField 4 running on an i7 with an NVidia card with a Mantle enabled driver (let's suppose Nvidia gets on the Mantle train) the only thing AMD would have done would be decide how the game will talk to the graphics card, but neither the game, the driver, the graphics card, none of these would be AMD's work,,,
Cheers
Score
1
guskline
July 16, 2014 7:19:08 AM
Alethinos
July 16, 2014 7:21:12 AM
Is it just me, or is that last Frame Time Variance graph on the 8th page labeled wrong? I wouldn't think frame time variance would be displayed in frames per second, and if it was, the majority of the items on the chart would (hopefully) not be between 0-10 if "higher is better".
Maybe I misunderstand what the chart is trying to show.
[Answer by Cleeve:]
Doh! You're quite right, I'll get that fixed.
Maybe I misunderstand what the chart is trying to show.
[Answer by Cleeve:]
Doh! You're quite right, I'll get that fixed.
Score
3
ddpruitt
July 16, 2014 7:25:22 AM
I think Tom's doesn't really understand the difference between the OS API and a regular API. The entire first page muddies the discussion. Mantle isn't an API it's the low level driver behind the API, and that can be made as lean or as bloated as possible with no changes to the API itself. As an example Android uses the Java API but it's a completely different implementation than what you would see on an EA game.
I'm also concerned that Battlefield was used as a benchmark. Although I understand that the available benches are limited by those that support Mantle Battlefield is notoriously difficult to get consistent results with, I would consider the differences well within experimental error and therefore unreliable.
I'm also concerned that Battlefield was used as a benchmark. Although I understand that the available benches are limited by those that support Mantle Battlefield is notoriously difficult to get consistent results with, I would consider the differences well within experimental error and therefore unreliable.
Score
1
Quote:
Alright, I think I have a handle on the basics of Mantle. What now?For the sake of professional image, please remember that Alright is Alwrong. All right?
[/nazi]
To the meat of the article, it does look like Mantle will help some of AMD's weaker CPUs some of the time, but if that isn't what you have, Mantle does not make a large enough difference to influence buying decisions (sort of like PhysX; in only a few cases does it really matter). If your system is one of those cases, it is a pretty substantial difference, but for many people it won't be.
Score
3
ddpruitt said:
I think Tom's doesn't really understand the difference between the OS API and a regular API. The entire first page muddies the discussion. Mantle isn't an API it's the low level driver behind the APII'm not sure I read you here. There's a Mantle API and a Mantle driver, these are separate entities.
I've been at briefings and talked to developers, and it's been made very clear that Mantle is a graphics API, which requires a Mantle-compatible driver to work with specific hardware.
ddpruitt said:
I'm also concerned that Battlefield was used as a benchmark. Although I understand that the available benches are limited by those that support Mantle Battlefield is notoriously difficult to get consistent results with, I would consider the differences well within experimental error and therefore unreliable.I'll have to disagree on this one. We have a BF4 test run that has been extremely reliable and repeatable for us, usually with less than 1.5 FPS difference in three runs.
When there's an issue found in data, it's easy to assume its the test. Sometimes it's what you're testing, though. We can't ignore issues out of convenience.
Score
1
ddpruitt said:
I think Tom's doesn't really understand the difference between the OS API and a regular API. The entire first page muddies the discussion.An API is an API: a set of conventions between two otherwise unrelated pieces of software. It makes very little difference if that API is between the kernel and drivers, drivers to API back-ends, API back-end to front-end, front-end to end-user or any other possible shortcuts in-between.
The only differences between a kernel APIs and user-land APIs are restrictions on how they can be used and those differences are part of the conventions you agree to by choosing to use a given API.
Score
2
Yuka said:
You guys need to test MP... I know its hard and blah blah, but you can just add error margin to results and just describe the differences if you guys notice any.You guys are testing a grippy car in just a drag race. That's unfair. You need to add cornering as well.
Cheers!
I hear you. But in this case it's not about difficulty, it's about adding unnecessary variables.
The point of benchmarking is to target specific data. For this Mantle article, that data is the graphics API in BF4, not SP vs. Multiplayer performance in BF4.
In this particular case, testing MP wouldn't make sense. it would just muddle the data with a less-consistent test case.
Score
2
mapesdhs
July 16, 2014 8:03:04 AM
A small note on early OpenGL: SGI solved the issues of scalability
and host processing bottlenecks by developing IRIS Performer, a
higher-level API which was incredibly effective at allowing their
high-end systems to scale to multiple graphics pipes, while
exploiting tens or even hundreds of CPUs. Initially limited to 16
gfx pipes in parallel, I was told this limit was arbitrary and
there had been an intent to remove it with InfiniteReality5,
allowing scalability to 256 gfx pipes, but alas with the company's
demise that never happened.
Anyway, I was wondering to what extent any of the effort that went
into IRIS Peformer made its way into later OpenGL development after
SGI went belly-up? Because of Performer, there are things a max-
spec Onyx3900 can do which are still impossible on any other
platform even today, because of the combined host/gfx scalability
it supports while at the same time enabling enormous I/O for big
data such as GIS, defense imaging, etc., at the same time as
enabling complex interfacing for industrial control mechanisms, VR
devices, motion tracking & suchlike, all on the same system.
Cleeve, do you know if the Performer API tech ended up going
elsewhere? SGI did sell a lot of its IP in later days to rake in
much needed cash, but I don't remember a reference to Performer
being sold off. Maybe all that experience with exploiting OpenGL in
a scalable manner just faded away.
Ian.
PS. Old ref: http://www.sgidepot.co.uk/performer.html
Score
1
Quote:
"AMD Mantle: AMD's PhysX "please do a research what is Mantle before post
it seems you don't understand what are you writing about.
I copied this to my clipboard before even scrolling down to the comments because I knew there'd be at least one person:
Quote:
we're looking at it as a value-added feature like PhysX. We don't mean this in a technical sense, obviously, but in the sense that it provides an advantage to one graphics card manufacturer in a handful of games.Score
1
Very very good review!
I've never really thought about APIs since openGL and DirectX were the only ones until Mantle poped up.
This makes me seriously consider getting a amd based card since I've always been an NVidia fan.
It's going to be a war however, since even though mantle does show improvements to amd cards, we've got NVidia making drivers that use DirectX 11 a lot more efficiently and thus make their cards get more performance, I just wonder what will happen when directX 12 rolls in.
I've never really thought about APIs since openGL and DirectX were the only ones until Mantle poped up.
This makes me seriously consider getting a amd based card since I've always been an NVidia fan.
It's going to be a war however, since even though mantle does show improvements to amd cards, we've got NVidia making drivers that use DirectX 11 a lot more efficiently and thus make their cards get more performance, I just wonder what will happen when directX 12 rolls in.
Score
2
mapesdhs said:
Cleeve, do you know if the Performer API tech ended up going elsewhere?
Hey Ian,
Honestly I don't have any specific info on that. Looks like its pretty old tech, so if it worked Its probably safe to assume succeeding graphics devs used techniques learned there, but only an API/Driver developer might know exactly at this point.
Having said that, OpenGL still gets iterated and the target du jour is "close to the metal" efficiency, so it's a safe bet that we can expect this direction from all the APIs.
Score
2
vaughn2k
July 16, 2014 8:27:01 AM
cleeve said:
I hear you. But in this case it's not about difficulty, it's about adding unnecessary variables. The point of benchmarking is to target specific data. For this Mantle article, that data is the graphics API in BF4, not SP vs. Multiplayer performance in BF4.
In this particular case, testing MP wouldn't make sense. it would just muddle the data with a less-consistent test case.
That's why I said you could just describe what you saw. Personal perception is not as bad as you think, as long as you have some data to back it up.
Adding additional variables to testing, if I get what you're trying to say, is the pure nature of MP testing. Lab conditions is good when testing for lab results, but MP is as real conditions as it gets (meaning hectic, but good). The more data you get from that, the less variability you'll get. Meaning, more testing time, yes, but better and throughout results to share.
Like I said, you're testing a car in a drag strip, when the conception/idea of the car was track days (BRZ reviews much? haha). You know the added effort for testing MANTLE is when CPUs are pushed. You even said that was the idea behind MANTLE, to lower the CPU footprint
Anyway, it's a good article. Sorry for not mentioning that. The data you got from Thief really shows MANTLE is headed in the right direction so far.
Thanks for the efforts.
Cheers!
Score
2
Yuka said:
Anyway, it's a good article. Sorry for not mentioning that. The data you got from Thief really shows MANTLE is headed in the right direction so far.
No need to apologize for mentioning a concern.
And I apologize if you feel my response was anything of an explanation of why we didn't go that route. I wasn't blasting you man, I'm just trying to explaining why I made that decision.
The problem with multiplayer is that it's almost impossible to recreate identical scenarios. People move, change, shoot differently every time. Those are the variables we can't control, and they'll affect the outcome of the test. In single player, it's 100% repeatable.
Kind regards,
- Cleeve
Score
1
From page 4:
"Finally, with the High preset enabled, and a Radeon R9 290X/GeForce GTX 780 Ti installed, the results start getting strange. Nvidia's high-end gaming card averages about 80 FPS on a Core i7-4770K, and is matched by the Radeon R9 290X using Mantle and an FX-8350. Then, we swap the R9 290X into our Core i7-4770K-based system and observe dismal results with Mantle turned on."
Strange indeed: Dismal results with DirectX R9 290X + Core i7-4770K too!
"Finally, with the High preset enabled, and a Radeon R9 290X/GeForce GTX 780 Ti installed, the results start getting strange. Nvidia's high-end gaming card averages about 80 FPS on a Core i7-4770K, and is matched by the Radeon R9 290X using Mantle and an FX-8350. Then, we swap the R9 290X into our Core i7-4770K-based system and observe dismal results with Mantle turned on."
Strange indeed: Dismal results with DirectX R9 290X + Core i7-4770K too!
Score
1
cleeve said:
The point of benchmarking is to target specific data. For this Mantle article, that data is the graphics API in BF4, not SP vs. Multiplayer performance in BF4.
In this particular case, testing MP wouldn't make sense. it would just muddle the data with a less-consistent test case.
I disagree here, in BF4 it would seem mostly single player isn't all that CPU heavy anyway, as shown by the terrible scaling with CPU power. However in multiplayer it suddenly becomes a huge issue when you have piles of players. This means that mantle, which is designed to alleviate slow CPU issues, should have a much greater impact on multiplayer games so the test should reflect the situations where it has a greater chance of a benefit.
It would be best if you could do a small article on it with at least two machines that are popular like an 8350 and a 4670/90k and just play some rounds with and without mantle in each scenario, at the very least to see if it scales better, worse, or the same. Preferably just using the same machines in the same games and follow each other around while playing. It's not perfect, but if you average out a few rounds it should be good enough to get some nice data.
Score
1
TechnoD
July 16, 2014 9:33:52 AM
Another well-written article.
Since it looks like Don put a lot of effort into this article and is responding to reader's comments, I found a couple minor errors:
Page 9: " Even though the gap is much closer, DirectX (<-Should be Mantle) doesn't offer an advantage in anything less than a Radeon R9 290.
Page 4: "Again, Thief appears to be an ideal proof point for Mantle. Under DirectX, the Core i7-4770K-based platform averages 57.7 FPS (Should be 56.7 FPS), while the FX-8350 registers 46.5 (Should be 46.0).
Again, I understand that everyone makes mistakes. Just thought that Don would appreciate the feedback. Thanks Don for another great read!
[Response by Cleeve]
Thanks for the proofread man, issues fixed!
Since it looks like Don put a lot of effort into this article and is responding to reader's comments, I found a couple minor errors:
Page 9: " Even though the gap is much closer, DirectX (<-Should be Mantle) doesn't offer an advantage in anything less than a Radeon R9 290.
Page 4: "Again, Thief appears to be an ideal proof point for Mantle. Under DirectX, the Core i7-4770K-based platform averages 57.7 FPS (Should be 56.7 FPS), while the FX-8350 registers 46.5 (Should be 46.0).
Again, I understand that everyone makes mistakes. Just thought that Don would appreciate the feedback. Thanks Don for another great read!
[Response by Cleeve]
Thanks for the proofread man, issues fixed!
Score
3
utengineer
July 16, 2014 11:00:17 AM
Is there a significant difference between the development and performance of the game in Campaign(single player) versus Multiplayer? I see a lot of synthetic benchmarks that appear to be using the graphics/textures of the single player game and not the multiplayer. I pose this question because it seems like the Single Player version of the game uses better graphic textures than what the Multiplayer offers (e.g. BF4).
Score
1
TheAshigaru
July 16, 2014 12:35:19 PM
utengineer said:
Is there a significant difference between the development and performance of the game in Campaign(single player) versus Multiplayer? I see a lot of synthetic benchmarks that appear to be using the graphics/textures of the single player game and not the multiplayer. I pose this question because it seems like the Single Player version of the game uses better graphic textures than what the Multiplayer offers (e.g. BF4).There was a link to a Polish website (I think it was polish) that showed CPU and GPU benchmarks for multiplayer. Most peopel didn't think it was all that reliable, but it did show that CPU scaling was much more pronounced in multiplayer. I didn't think they (EA) used a different texture set or models for multiplayer or anything though... not sure on that one.
The problem is that every single game is different so you can't reliably benchmark multiplayer rounds. In the olden days you could generally record a session of muliplayer on your own dedicated server and then play it back so you could get repeatable results, but since EA seems to hate PC gamers you can't do cool stuff with games anymore.
Score
3
Traciatim said:
The problem is that every single game is different so you can't reliably benchmark multiplayer rounds. In the olden days you could generally record a session of muliplayer on your own dedicated server and then play it back so you could get repeatable results, but since EA seems to hate PC gamers you can't do cool stuff with games anymore.If EA was smart enough, they'd develop something to "replicate" MP matches and give that information to reviewers so they can replicate MP runs against that data.
There's no need to make the game be host-able like in the old days if they don't want to (although we all want that back, haha), but it would be nice to have such a tool for these problems when reviewing.
Cheers!
Score
1
ohim
July 16, 2014 12:58:18 PM
www.youtube.com/watch?v=rWSluVC6-v4 - This is how FX 8350 + R9-290 OC handles BF4 in Mantle vs DX 11.1 in multiplayer. Judge by yourselves. Including Air - land - water warfare in both runs in the same server with same settings. Mantle for me is a blessing.
Score
0
Gillerer
July 16, 2014 1:49:12 PM
Gillerer said:
You should have put the minimun and average values in different graphs, and have DirectX and Mantle in the red and black bars instead. That way it'd be much easier to visually compare the differences in different setups.You can differentiate between Mantle and DirectX in the FPS charts. the mantle results are solid colors, while the DirectX results are gradients.
Score
1
photonboy said:
Did you mean less than "2" GB of memory for the BF4 issue? You said BF4 does poorly with cards of less than 4GB which is over 99% of the people running BF4 with Mantle.I meant what I said: less than 4GB. Check the results.
2 GB cards don't appear to show an advantage in BF4 when using Mantle.
Score
0
west7
July 16, 2014 5:57:39 PM
So with the memory bug test with the 270X, all the results are pretty much the same, regardless of CPU. Doesn't this indicate an overall GPU bottleneck? If the GPU is the bottleneck and the nature of the performance gains from Mantle, it's not surprising that all the results were pretty much identical.
So it's not that Mantle didn't give a performance boost, it's that the GPU was bottlenecking before the CPU load was a limiting factor, or am I missing something?
So it's not that Mantle didn't give a performance boost, it's that the GPU was bottlenecking before the CPU load was a limiting factor, or am I missing something?
Score
1
Score
1
The_Icon
July 16, 2014 9:36:23 PM
rmpumper
July 16, 2014 9:58:42 PM
Martell1977 said:
So with the memory bug test with the 270X, all the results are pretty much the same, regardless of CPU. Doesn't this indicate an overall GPU bottleneckThats a good point. But if mantle were working properly we should expect to see *something* in the direction we'd hope, but you're right, it just might not be the best scenario for it.
As more games come out we might revisit this issue. Like I mentioned, AMD and Dice have already made some improvements since we last tested, so hopefully it won't take too long before we'll see some obvious mantle advantages in anything other than the 290 series when it comes to BF4.
Score
0
!