AMD Catalyst 14.1 Beta 1.6 Posted

[NeoXF]

Mine because its real life and done by me who isn't exactly new to computers.
You will have to trust what im saying and time will tell when they fix these terrible drivers.
It took me 50 bsod for that single chance to view it.
The cpu frame time was thin and around 9ms the gpu was on 5 ms
screen res was on 2560x1600 full ultra @ 200 res scale.
I know what I saw ive no reason to lie about this because im not happy because I got these cards in preparation for mantle and the fact they don't work for me gets me mad.
I don't want to praise mantle because I feel ive been spat in the face but facts are facts.
Im only telling you what I have seen

Unlike tech like PhysX, Shadowplay or GeForce Experience wich all worked flawlessly even since their behind-thedoors alphas, right?
Seriously, I don't know where some people are going with this, AMD said Mantle official specifications won't be launched until Q3 2014 at it's earliest, untill then, untill they actualy have it defined to begin with, what do people expect? Does it work in D3D11? It does, Mantle is just some gravy (that will probably take a lot of time to taste just right and not ruing the other meals).
And the ones with IT'S NOT OPEN blah blah blah's are the worst. It's like FORD having a prototype of their EcoBoost engines and every other car buyer out there complaining that they don't share their early-stage technology, thus it will suck for the end-consumer, which possibly would blow up their (other brand) cars, for the time being.

 

[pr0n Inspector]

It's called collaboration, look it up. Calling a one-way dump on something as big as a 3D stack "open" is disingenuous at best and retarded at worst. Also, good analogue you got there, comparing Mantle to car engines which are owned and controlled by Ford and aren't expected to have any sort of interoperability. At least Ford is not cheeky enough to call it an open engine design.

 

[xorbe]

This chart from an [H] thread looks interesting if true.

 

[Slomo4shO]

your complaint is exactly what? You didn't get in on it?

Extreme exaggeration of the data. FPS/total frames was up 48.9%, the average batch count was up 13.7%, average Batches/MS were up 69.4%. Yes, mantle provides substantial performance gains. However, it does not double performance.

Also, I own a total of 6 R9 290s of which 4 have been unlocked to R9 290X... Clearly, I didn't get in on it...

 

[fullinfusion]

As much as I love playing with a new driver I think im going to skip this one till they mature a bit.

 

[cadaveca]

Extreme exaggeration of the data. FPS/total frames was up 48.9%, the average batch count was up 13.7%, average Batches/MS were up 69.4%. Yes, mantle provides substantial performance gains. However, it does not double performance.

Also, I own a total of 6 R9 290s of which 4 have been unlocked to R9 290X... Clearly, I didn't get in on it...

It depends on how you look at it, but I see what you mean, of course. I say "boost", you read "performance". But I didn't say "performance", did I?

It's impossible to double performance. TDP caps in BIOS prevent it.

 

[Slomo4shO]

It depends on how you look at it, but I see what you mean, of course. I say "boost", you read "performance". But I didn't say "performance", did I?

It's impossible to double performance. TDP caps in BIOS prevent it.

You really are trying hard to save face considering that you have now resorted to arguing semantics.

There is a dependency of context here. You posted a screenshot of benchmarks that displayed multiple performance metrics. You suggested you saw a "boost" of 100%. Even though you didn't specific which parameter you were referring to, the implication of your statement is that you were speaking of at least one of the multiple performance metrics. As such, a "boost" of 100% would imply 100% performance gains. The only argument you have is defining which metric or combination of metrics you were referring to. Alternatively, you can refute that any relation exists between the screenshot and the commentary within the same post...

 

[cadaveca]

You really are trying hard to save face considering that you have now resorted to arguing semantics.

There is a dependency of context here. You posted a screenshot of benchmarks that displayed multiple performance metrics. You suggested you saw a "boost" of 100%. Even though you didn't specific which parameter you were referring to, the implication of your statement is that you were speaking of at least one of the multiple performance metrics. As such, a "boost" of 100% would imply 100% performance gains. The only argument you have is defining which metric or combination of metrics you were referring to. Alternatively, you can refute that any relation exists between the screenshot and the commentary within the same post...

Or you could have read my post, look at the numbers, realize what I referred to, and left it at that. Pretty simple, really. I did post those numbers, after all.

 

[Scrizz]

I take that was directed at me, would you care to enlighten me?

No, it wasn't directed at you in particular.
If you read the posts before your's, you will see how my comment is relevant.