AMD Explains Why Mantle Doesn't Work on Xbox One

[btarunr]

Microsoft stated in its recent company blog that the Xbox One console won't support third-party 3D APIs such as OpenGL and AMD Mantle (specifically mentioning the two), and that the console will be built to take advantage of the latest DirectX 11.2 API. AMD jumped in with a quick statement on the matter, so developers don't take Microsoft the wrong way, stating that AMD Mantle was never intended to be a 3D API for consoles, but rather PCs. The API would be compatible with DirectX HLSL (shading language), to simplify porting games from DirectX over to Mantle. Says AMD;

What Mantle creates for the PC is a development environment that's _similar_ to the consoles, which already offer low-level APIs, close-to-metal programming, easier development and more (vs. the complicated PC environment). By creating a more console-like developer environment, Mantle: improves time to market; reduces development costs; and allows for considerably more efficient rendering, improving performance for gamers. The console connection is made because next-gen uses Radeon, so much of the programming they're doing for the consoles are already well-suited to a modern Radeon architecture on the desktop; that continuum is what allows Mantle to exist.

View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[dj-electric]

Because why WOULD Microsoft support an API that competes with DirectX? i would do the same.

 

[Phobia9651]

Because why WOULD Microsoft support an API that competes with DirectX? i would do the same.

Well for instance if the performance is behind the PS4 and they could close the gap by using Mantle you would have to be rather ignorant to not support it.

 

[Ja.KooLit]

Thats because microsoft is more "closer" to Nvidia

 

[sunweb]

Bad move for MS themselves. I agree, PS4 will have better optimisation than XBOne, how can they not realise it?

Thats because microsoft is more "closer" to Nvidia

How so?

 

[RejZoR]

Funny, at first we had Mentle like API's for all vendors, then they unified everything under DirectX and now we are moving back to proprietary API's again? Or is it now just because we only have 2 GPU vendors and before we had like 5...

 

[de.das.dude]

ahh so now i get it!
console ports will be better optimised now since microsoft is using amd hardware!. amd will use this to their advantage and came up with mantle to make porting easier and more optimised!

 

[Kaynar]

Funny, at first we had Mentle like API's for all vendors, then they unified everything under DirectX and now we are moving back to proprietary API's again? Or is it now just because we only have 2 GPU vendors and before we had like 5...

Haven't you noticed how DirectX progress has stagnated since DirectX9? Basically the only new thing you get with DirectX11 is better tessellation and better shadows (not even sure about the second one). OpenGL is so much smoother in games that support it and are not poorly optimised and we even heard stories of nVidia nerfing their OpenGL drivers for Linux so that MS Windows and DX11 can catch up...

DirectX is console-bound (DX -> MS -> Xbox). We saw some unified memory upgrades for low-level hardware (ie XbOne) and thats it for the next 5 or so years there wont be anything new unless other APIs make something new and DX needs to catch up

 

[TheMailMan78]

Aaaaand that's the death of Mantle. Damn that didn't even last a week!

 

[HopelesslyFaithful]

Bad move for MS themselves. I agree, PS4 will have better optimisation than XBOne, how can they not realise it?


How so?

not just that but PS4 also has a better GPU so it is a double wammy

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It sounds to me like Mantle will allow faster porting of games from Xbox One to Windows. What's not to like about that?

Xbox 360 didn't support OpenGL either.

 

[jigar2speed]

Aaaaand that's the death of Mantle. Damn that didn't even last a week!

Mantle is not supported by PS4 as well, everyone knew about this.

Mantle was meant for PC.

Every console has their own API so why would they use Mantle ? Mantle shines where Direct X and OpenGL couldn't as Mantle gives direct access to low level features of GPU in PC and why it should be a success is because both Console API features are available in Mantle.

 

[FrustratedGarrett]

Mantle is not supported by PS4 as well, everyone knew about this.

Mantle was meant for PC.

Every console has their own API so why would they use Mantle ? Mantle shines where Direct X and OpenGL couldn't as Mantle gives direct access to low level features of GPU in PC and why it should be a success is because both Console API features are available in Mantle.

You wanna bet that code compiled over a Mantle driver can run on a PS4 or Xbox one? Mantle even supports the DirectX high level shader language HLSL, which makes me assume that as an API Mantle is a bunch of C libraries and a thin compiler meant for use in what's known as target coding which is coding for a specific hardware target.

Coding to metal is coding in assembler so it's very much talking directly to the target hardware. In Mantle's case I believe you can code using both the C libraries and low level optimized subroutines in assembler. In both cases memory and thread management is done manually through the code rather than having some kernel mode process doing it for you.

Mantle is a game changer because using hardware specific algorithms for both computation and memory management can lead to massive increase in performance. It also kills a lot of the overhead for having to pass code through multi-level compilation and system-software shaping before it can run on hardware.

 

[HisDivineOrder]

You wanna bet that code compiled over a Mantle driver can run on a PS4 or Xbox one? Mantle even supports the DirectX high level shader language HLSL, which makes me assume that as an API Mantle is a bunch of C libraries and a thin compiler meant for use in what's known as target coding which is coding for a specific hardware target.

Coding to metal is coding in assembler so it's very much talking directly to the target hardware. In Mantle's case I believe you can code using both the C libraries and low level optimized subroutines in assembler. In both cases memory and thread management is done manually through the code rather than having some kernel mode process doing it for you.

Mantle is a game changer because using hardware specific algorithms for both computation and memory management can lead to massive increase in performance. It also kills a lot of the overhead for having to pass code through multi-level compilation and system-software shaping before it can run on hardware.

Yet Mantle supports such a small subset of users that no developer is going to skip DirectX/OpenGL to do it. Thus, Mantle does not save costs, it increases them. Mantle would SAVE costs IF a developer used ONLY Mantle, assuming that the API was close enough to the low level API's of Xbone and/or PS4 to warrant an ease of use boost. That said, very few publishers are going to go only-Mantle, which means that the costs of that DirectX/OpenGL version are still going to be present.

So anything they throw in for Mantle will be added cost. Since Mantle is not a direct port of a low level API from either console, there will be a not small amount of work to make your code go from one low level API to another (Mantle).

Now consider this from a publisher's perspective. They can target PC's (DirectX/OpenGL) and be done. Or they can spend extra money to throw in a Mantle version, too. They can't skip the DirectX/OpenGL version or they'll miss every earlier-than-7xxx series and most APU AMD has ever sold, every Intel, and nVidia GPU user. How large a market is that, do you think? Now PC gaming is already a small market, so cutting out a large % of users in one of the above scenarios, you get... a tiny sliver of the market that would benefit from Mantle.

So if you are a publisher and faced with those hard numbers, would you really go out and spend money to make an additional version that merely offers superior performance for those select users at extra cost to you for nothing? No, you would not. Not unless you are paid ($8 million) to do so.

If you are a publisher, you are about MAKING MONEY. PC gaming is already a low profit venture for a lot of them, but they do it mostly because it's cheap to do. Adding MORE cost to something that's meant to be cheap is a great way to make it not cheap.

That's why Mantle is doomed. That's why Mantle is dead. The fact is AMD implied Mantle code would just bounce around easy-peasy between platforms, but now the reality is it doesn't. There is a lot of work to make that Mantle code from DX11/OpenGL code. I think a developer is going to take one look at that and go, "I will make my PC version using DirectX derived from my Xbone version," or "I will take my PS4 version and make a SteamOS version based on that."

That's my take. Why? Because it's the cheapest road. Mantle will be another AMD "innovation" forgotten by history. Like AMD integration into Havoc, Stream GPU acceleration of physics in general or Truform. They like to talk, but they don't like to actually get things implemented much.

In this case, I think it's really for the best. We don't need Glide 2.0.

 

[sweet]

Yet Mantle supports such a small subset of users that no developer is going to skip DirectX/OpenGL to do it. Thus, Mantle does not save costs, it increases them. Mantle would SAVE costs IF a developer used ONLY Mantle, assuming that the API was close enough to the low level API's of Xbone and/or PS4 to warrant an ease of use boost. That said, very few publishers are going to go only-Mantle, which means that the costs of that DirectX/OpenGL version are still going to be present.

So anything they throw in for Mantle will be added cost. Since Mantle is not a direct port of a low level API from either console, there will be a not small amount of work to make your code go from one low level API to another (Mantle).

Now consider this from a publisher's perspective. They can target PC's (DirectX/OpenGL) and be done. Or they can spend extra money to throw in a Mantle version, too. They can't skip the DirectX/OpenGL version or they'll miss every earlier-than-7xxx series and most APU AMD has ever sold, every Intel, and nVidia GPU user. How large a market is that, do you think? Now PC gaming is already a small market, so cutting out a large % of users in one of the above scenarios, you get... a tiny sliver of the market that would benefit from Mantle.

So if you are a publisher and faced with those hard numbers, would you really go out and spend money to make an additional version that merely offers superior performance for those select users at extra cost to you for nothing? No, you would not. Not unless you are paid ($8 million) to do so.

If you are a publisher, you are about MAKING MONEY. PC gaming is already a low profit venture for a lot of them, but they do it mostly because it's cheap to do. Adding MORE cost to something that's meant to be cheap is a great way to make it not cheap.

That's why Mantle is doomed. That's why Mantle is dead. The fact is AMD implied Mantle code would just bounce around easy-peasy between platforms, but now the reality is it doesn't. There is a lot of work to make that Mantle code from DX11/OpenGL code. I think a developer is going to take one look at that and go, "I will make my PC version using DirectX derived from my Xbone version," or "I will take my PS4 version and make a SteamOS version based on that."

That's my take. Why? Because it's the cheapest road. Mantle will be another AMD "innovation" forgotten by history. Like AMD integration into Havoc, Stream GPU acceleration of physics in general or Truform. They like to talk, but they don't like to actually get things implemented much.

In this case, I think it's really for the best. We don't need Glide 2.0.

You are right about the money part, but you misunderstand the role of Mantle. Your statement that Mantle will cost the development time and money is completely wrong.

Mantle is just like the shorter path from console to PC. We all know that console has its own API specifically for its hardware, so it doesn't need Mantle. But all the consoles nowadays use AMD's hardware. So AMD can use Mantle to simulate a console with a system having a GCN card. The code for console can be reused, that will save a huge bunch of time and money porting multi-platform tittles to PC.

For example, when studios make a game for X360, PS3 and PC, they will have to run 3 separated projects. PS3 is completely different from X360 and PC. Even though X360 and PC shares some DirectX API, you can't simply use the X360 code on PC, because the hardwares are not the same. In many case, the studios dont't have that much time and money for those workload. And the result we have? Unoptimized garbage like GTA4, Skyrim, Assasin Creed 3,... on PC. Those games also have a lot of bugs on PS3. Such a waste on those great tittles.

Imagine the case when developing a game for XBone, PS4 and PC. If the studios don't use Mantle, the story above will happen again. But if they use? The code for XBone can be recycled on PS4, PC and vice versa, because of Mantle and the similarity of the graphic cores. It actually save time and money, mates.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Yet Mantle supports such a small subset of users that no developer is going to skip DirectX/OpenGL to do it. Thus, Mantle does not save costs, it increases them. Mantle would SAVE costs IF a developer used ONLY Mantle, assuming that the API was close enough to the low level API's of Xbone and/or PS4 to warrant an ease of use boost. That said, very few publishers are going to go only-Mantle, which means that the costs of that DirectX/OpenGL version are still going to be present.

So anything they throw in for Mantle will be added cost. Since Mantle is not a direct port of a low level API from either console, there will be a not small amount of work to make your code go from one low level API to another (Mantle).

Now consider this from a publisher's perspective. They can target PC's (DirectX/OpenGL) and be done. Or they can spend extra money to throw in a Mantle version, too. They can't skip the DirectX/OpenGL version or they'll miss every earlier-than-7xxx series and most APU AMD has ever sold, every Intel, and nVidia GPU user. How large a market is that, do you think? Now PC gaming is already a small market, so cutting out a large % of users in one of the above scenarios, you get... a tiny sliver of the market that would benefit from Mantle.

So if you are a publisher and faced with those hard numbers, would you really go out and spend money to make an additional version that merely offers superior performance for those select users at extra cost to you for nothing? No, you would not. Not unless you are paid ($8 million) to do so.

If you are a publisher, you are about MAKING MONEY. PC gaming is already a low profit venture for a lot of them, but they do it mostly because it's cheap to do. Adding MORE cost to something that's meant to be cheap is a great way to make it not cheap.

That's why Mantle is doomed. That's why Mantle is dead. The fact is AMD implied Mantle code would just bounce around easy-peasy between platforms, but now the reality is it doesn't. There is a lot of work to make that Mantle code from DX11/OpenGL code. I think a developer is going to take one look at that and go, "I will make my PC version using DirectX derived from my Xbone version," or "I will take my PS4 version and make a SteamOS version based on that."

That's my take. Why? Because it's the cheapest road. Mantle will be another AMD "innovation" forgotten by history. Like AMD integration into Havoc, Stream GPU acceleration of physics in general or Truform. They like to talk, but they don't like to actually get things implemented much.

In this case, I think it's really for the best. We don't need Glide 2.0.

you have an opinion,, thats fine but just know its a deluded one "Yet Mantle supports such a small subset of users"

even if your counting just pc thats still a lot of users and its not going to be just them soon but whatever ,its pointless bickering about an api that wont hit major use for some time yet.

and well done microsoft, all this talk of mantel open gl and other Os's has finally shook them into action the lame tards , ffs btw i hate M$ at the minute, where the hell is paint in win8 hiding i realise theres an app for that but what happened to accessories.

 

[HumanSmoke]

Funny, at first we had Mentle like API's for all vendors, then they unified everything under DirectX and now we are moving back to proprietary API's again?

Having to account for all the vendors (read: different architectures) is precisely why DX is so much a programming kludge. Backwards compatibility for earlier hardware as well as what is presently available is never going to result in a streamlined API.

Or is it now just because we only have 2 GPU vendors and before we had like 5...

Which 2 GPU vendors do we now have? AMD, Nvidia, Intel, or PowerVR ?
...and what 5 GPU vendors did we used to have? ATI, Intel, Nvidia, 3dfx, Matrox, S3, Trident, Rendition, Tseng, 3DLabs, SiS, VideoLogic, Silicon Motion, Alliance Semi., NEC, Number Nine...?

you have an opinion,, thats fine but just know its a deluded one "Yet Mantle supports such a small subset of users"
even if your counting just pc thats still a lot of users and its not going to be just them soon but whatever

Depends on whether you think the AMD Revolution™ is soon upon us. At last count, Intel IGP is still the preferred option- not to mention Nvidia and AMD's own VLIW5 and VLIW4 architectures if the Steam HW survey is anything to go by

its pointless bickering about an api that wont hit major use for some time yet.

Um, I'm thinking it's an expression of opinion...sort of like this...

and well done microsoft, all this talk of mantel open gl and other Os's has finally shook them into action the lame tards , ffs btw i hate M$ at the minute, where the hell is paint in win8 hiding i realise theres an app for that but what happened to accessories.

 

[AsRock]

Thats because microsoft is more "closer" to Nvidia

Bad move for MS themselves. I agree, PS4 will have better optimisation than XBOne, how can they not realise it?


How so?

nVidia blocking ATI and nVidia in one system..

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Having to account for all the vendors (read: different architectures) is precisely why DX is so much a programming kludge. Backwards compatibility for earlier hardware as well as what is presently available is never going to result in a streamlined API.

Which 2 GPU vendors do we now have? AMD, Nvidia, Intel, or PowerVR ?
...and what 5 GPU vendors did we used to have? ATI, Intel, Nvidia, 3dfx, Matrox, S3, Trident, Rendition, Tseng, 3DLabs, SiS, VideoLogic, Silicon Motion, Alliance Semi., NEC, Number Nine...?

Depends on whether you think the AMD Revolution™ is soon upon us. At last count, Intel IGP is still the preferred option- not to mention Nvidia and AMD's own VLIW5 and VLIW4 architectures if the Steam HW survey is anything to go by

Um, I'm thinking it's an expression of opinion...sort of like this...

have !you! tried to paste something into paint on 8

first Os i have ever used thats convinced me im an idiot.

 

[HumanSmoke]

have !you! tried to paste something into paint on 8

No problems here.

first Os i have ever used thats convinced me im an idiot.

You only had an inkling before ?
/jk

Anyhow you're not alone:
"I came illiterate, now I'm leaving virtually retarded." - Jay Leno referring to computers from the rehearsal for the Windows 95 launch

 

[petedread]

I don't have any trouble pasting in W8 paint. I normally just press the paste tab but I just tried right clicking and selecting paste a moment ago and it worked just fine.

So is it the conclusion of this thread that mantle is highly unlikely to take off?
And what's the deal with BF4, does it use mantle?

 

[FrustratedGarrett]

Yet Mantle supports such a small subset of users that no developer is going to skip DirectX/OpenGL to do it. Thus, Mantle does not save costs, it increases them. Mantle would SAVE costs IF a developer used ONLY Mantle, assuming that the API was close enough to the low level API's of Xbone and/or PS4 to warrant an ease of use boost. That said, very few publishers are going to go only-Mantle, which means that the costs of that DirectX/OpenGL version are still going to be present.

So anything they throw in for Mantle will be added cost. Since Mantle is not a direct port of a low level API from either console, there will be a not small amount of work to make your code go from one low level API to another (Mantle).

Now consider this from a publisher's perspective. They can target PC's (DirectX/OpenGL) and be done. Or they can spend extra money to throw in a Mantle version, too. They can't skip the DirectX/OpenGL version or they'll miss every earlier-than-7xxx series and most APU AMD has ever sold, every Intel, and nVidia GPU user. How large a market is that, do you think? Now PC gaming is already a small market, so cutting out a large % of users in one of the above scenarios, you get... a tiny sliver of the market that would benefit from Mantle.

So if you are a publisher and faced with those hard numbers, would you really go out and spend money to make an additional version that merely offers superior performance for those select users at extra cost to you for nothing? No, you would not. Not unless you are paid ($8 million) to do so.

If you are a publisher, you are about MAKING MONEY. PC gaming is already a low profit venture for a lot of them, but they do it mostly because it's cheap to do. Adding MORE cost to something that's meant to be cheap is a great way to make it not cheap.

That's why Mantle is doomed. That's why Mantle is dead. The fact is AMD implied Mantle code would just bounce around easy-peasy between platforms, but now the reality is it doesn't. There is a lot of work to make that Mantle code from DX11/OpenGL code. I think a developer is going to take one look at that and go, "I will make my PC version using DirectX derived from my Xbone version," or "I will take my PS4 version and make a SteamOS version based on that."

That's my take. Why? Because it's the cheapest road. Mantle will be another AMD "innovation" forgotten by history. Like AMD integration into Havoc, Stream GPU acceleration of physics in general or Truform. They like to talk, but they don't like to actually get things implemented much.

In this case, I think it's really for the best. We don't need Glide 2.0.

I don't think you got any of the points I've made in my previous comment. Let me elaborate:

On top of a Mantle driver you can run metal-level code (directly from a console game with very little modification), mid-level C code and high level shaders that run on top of the DirectX subsystem. Even when using HLSL you'll get better performance through Mantle than DirectX.

The bottom line is Mantle means easier ports to AMD systems and better performance on AMD systems. Furthermore, Mantle potentially means having the ability to route physics to the GPU part of an APU. This means a massive increase in computation throughput and better physics than the crap used in most games today.

 

[Serpent of Darkness]

Re:

Yet Mantle supports such a small subset of users that no developer is going to skip DirectX/OpenGL to do it. Thus, Mantle does not save costs, it increases them. Mantle would SAVE costs IF a developer used ONLY Mantle, assuming that the API was close enough to the low level API's of Xbone and/or PS4 to warrant an ease of use boost. That said, very few publishers are going to go only-Mantle, which means that the costs of that DirectX/OpenGL version are still going to be present.

So anything they throw in for Mantle will be added cost. Since Mantle is not a direct port of a low level API from either console, there will be a not small amount of work to make your code go from one low level API to another (Mantle).

Now consider this from a publisher's perspective. They can target PC's (DirectX/OpenGL) and be done. Or they can spend extra money to throw in a Mantle version, too. They can't skip the DirectX/OpenGL version or they'll miss every earlier-than-7xxx series and most APU AMD has ever sold, every Intel, and nVidia GPU user. How large a market is that, do you think? Now PC gaming is already a small market, so cutting out a large % of users in one of the above scenarios, you get... a tiny sliver of the market that would benefit from Mantle.

So if you are a publisher and faced with those hard numbers, would you really go out and spend money to make an additional version that merely offers superior performance for those select users at extra cost to you for nothing? No, you would not. Not unless you are paid ($8 million) to do so.

If you are a publisher, you are about MAKING MONEY. PC gaming is already a low profit venture for a lot of them, but they do it mostly because it's cheap to do. Adding MORE cost to something that's meant to be cheap is a great way to make it not cheap.

That's why Mantle is doomed. That's why Mantle is dead. The fact is AMD implied Mantle code would just bounce around easy-peasy between platforms, but now the reality is it doesn't. There is a lot of work to make that Mantle code from DX11/OpenGL code. I think a developer is going to take one look at that and go, "I will make my PC version using DirectX derived from my Xbone version," or "I will take my PS4 version and make a SteamOS version based on that."

That's my take. Why? Because it's the cheapest road. Mantle will be another AMD "innovation" forgotten by history. Like AMD integration into Havoc, Stream GPU acceleration of physics in general or Truform. They like to talk, but they don't like to actually get things implemented much.

In this case, I think it's really for the best. We don't need Glide 2.0.

At the beginning of your post, you're making it sound like AMD Mantle is another Major API like D3D and OpenGL. This is exaggerated. It is not. If you look at it like a pie chart, and you say BF3 is 50% of the pie chart. It uses the DX11.0 API, AMD Mantle is like a 25% portion of that chart that's unknown (the other half of the pie chart). It's made to supplement the major APIs. It isn't AMD new API that they might be pushed out in a year or two. AMD has always wanted to push away from D3D because Microsoft owns it, and the pace at which it evolves or changes, is extremely slow. Only now, after AMD Mantle recently came into the spotlight, or out of it's closet, did Microsoft start getting off it's butt. Started pushing DX11.1 and DX11.2 for the up coming consoles and PC Titles. Short and simple, AMD lit a fire under Microsoft foot, and now Microsoft is moving because now, there's some competition...

AMD Mantle, if I am not mistaken, is off of OpenGL API. Just like Directcompute is off of D3D in the new TombRaider that heavily favors AMD Graphic Cards. So in essence, yes, XBone isn't going to use it because it won't have the OpenGL API on it. It will be strictly D3D. PS4 may actually utilize Mantle. In addition to this, AMD Mantle can be used on NVidia Graphic Cards. Why. NVidia Graphic Cards can use OpenGL. So as a result, it can use AMD Mantle. I don't believe AMD Mantle will be abused like NVidia PhysX. NVidia Cards won't be optimized as much as the AMD Graphic Cards. We all know that OpenGL has better performance on AMD Cards.

Now to talk about cost. You're right and you're wrong. You're right in a sense that it will cost more money to produce games. Producing game with a newer Major API, is going to cost big $$$. On the other hand, you're wrong because the low-level API, the SDK needed to develop it, will be free... Any PC Game Designer who uses either AMD or NVidia Workstation Cards, can incorporate AMD Mantle into their PC Games. It just becomes a question of if they have the people who understand the codes, or how difficult will it be to work the bugs out. Performance will be the main determining factor. If best case scenario, BF4 actually gets a boost from the 5 to 9x Draw Calls, producing say 50 to 100 more FPS on an AMD Video Card with AMD Mantle--this is looking at it from a best case scenario, it would cause the Consumer Bases to purchase AMD Graphic Cards, and use AMD Mantle more than not using it. Major factor in video games is FPS at certain levels... If you get really good FPS performance off of top-notch PC Games from low-priced graphic cards that utilize AMD Mantle, the consumers will buy it... Buy it more than Premium cards that don't really push a big performance difference from it's lower priced variants.

I doubt AMD Mantle is doomed from the start. I see two plausible outcomes. One, it will cause Microsoft to push out more, improved D3D version in the near future. Second, with the coming of half-Maxwell (2014 Maxwell--not a full Maxwell like GTX Titan isn't a full Titan in Cuda Core count with SLI through the PCIe bus), NVidia will most likely push it's own low-level API, similar to AMD Mantle. It might serve the same functions as AMD Mantle, but it will be optimized for NVidia, and under the NVidia Name Brand.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I don't have any trouble pasting in W8 paint. I normally just press the paste tab but I just tried right clicking and selecting paste a moment ago and it worked just fine.

So is it the conclusion of this thread that mantle is highly unlikely to take off?
And what's the deal with BF4, does it use mantle?

not at all ,is steam os going t0o be big ps4 or xbone, way too early to know who wins or not

in win 7 paints where it is the menu, in win8 with no start added< paint isnt anywhere useful to you drop a shortcut, not impossible but a bit shit, still win 8 lovin it and the oc issues i had before are not here with 1 gpu etc

no ones even seen it for themselves yet and im amused at the death toll's peeps funny

 

[petedread]

Arr yes I totally get it now, it is in a totally crap place until you create a short cut.

Well I really hope Mantle works out good for us and AMD.