Did AMD push Mantle to move DX12 to this direction as there was always a means to the true end?
Mantle was very much a tech demo affair. It showed how a modern API can vastly improve performance in and of itself. Remember that we're talking about percentages that are higher or significantly higher than what mere driver updates can achieve. It's basically the same thing that happened with tessellation. ATi had the hardware for tessellation in their GPUs starting with Radeon 8500 back in 2001, it was called TruForm back then. Only that TruForm never got accepted for DirectX (or OpenGL, for that matter). Fast forward to DirectX 11, and here we go: tessellation official for DirectX.
I don't know if you remember how things worked back in the day. ATi was never really able to get developers to use their proprietary tech, not in any meaningful way anyway. AMD have been far more successful in getting the tech they develop adopted by developers and especially Microsoft. Not really surprising considering that ATi/AMD GPUs are powering the last two console generations from Microsoft (Xbox 360 and Xbone). At any rate, AMD get their technologies (well, the big stuff anyway) implemented in DirectX, which means mass adoption by developers, and Microsoft get to spend less developing new tech to put into newer versions of DirectX. It's a win-win for everyone, really: AMD, Microsoft, the users... hell, even nVidia, since they get full access to everything.
I don't care about the APUs like A10-7850 but if DX12 can push all 8 cores of a FX processor to 90-100%, that will hugely increase performance across all benchmarks.
Believe it or not, DX12 will be most important for people using CPUs like that A10-7850 and the like. The gap between lower end CPUs and the high end will be a whole helluva lot smaller with DX12, which means that entry level and especially lower mainstream CPUs will be far more appealing to the gaming crowd. Think back to the times when you could overclock your cheap CPU to the point where you'd get similar performance to high end models. It wasn't that long ago.
The tittle is wrong. It was always (multicore) CPU performance the goal of a low level API.
Mantle was meant to push Microsoft to move faster on DX12. Mantle and DX12 from the beginning was going to minimize the distance between Intel and AMD CPUs in games that where poorly written. GPU performance with Mantle was always a secondary bonus, as long as Nvidia was sticking with DX11. Now that Nvidia is benefiting from DX12, it is a question mark if AMD will gain more from GCN compared to the performance gains of Maxwell with DX12. Anandtech's DX12 benchmarks show that GCN 1.1 is not as good as Maxwell in 900 series under DX12.
Mantle is AMD's insurance policy: they don't have to wait for a new DirectX to have an API that allows developers to use whatever technology they want to push. Furthermore, they'll have an extra advantage over nVidia next time Nintendo and Sony will need a new GPU/APU for their consoles: not having to rely on their competitor's own API or OpenGL is a pretty big selling point. As for how good AMD's current architecture is in DX12 versus nVidia's Maxwell, that doesn't really matter. AMD is going to launch a new generation of GPUs and it's very likely that said GPUs will use an improved version of the current GCN architecture. That's what matters to them. Comparing current GCN used for Radeon HD 7000 series cards with nVidia's (mostly) brand new Maxwell isn't entirely relevant.
Okay, so who cares about dx 12, when there's still gonna be majority of dx 9-11 out there, and amd cpu's as we know is lackluster in that field.
What DX9-11 game are you playing, that requires more than an 8-core FX or a Phenom II X6 for smooth gameplay? I'm asking because I don't play every game that's out there and maybe I'm missing something. Me, I'm using a Phenom II X6 1055T and I really can't find a single game I can't max out. I had a Core i7 2600K before. I sold it and bought the Phenom II X6 with about 40% of the money I got for the Core i7 and I really can't see the difference in any of the games that I play.
yeah, this looks weird for microsoft.. this could initiate a fat law suit. anyway.. doyou know if star swarm is just multiple instacing and cloning of the same objects doing same things or is it pure realtime interaction and simulation? because the former looks always quite bad when you look at it.
and
I feel like fooled by microsoft and intel with their DX11 and below, so WTH is going on from past time really happened?
So there is or already fishy thing between microft and intel before mantle came out? and micro push out the DX12 to avoid DX ashamed by mantle?
Umm, what? No offense, but do you even know what you're talking about? What does Intel have to do with anything? And why sue Microsoft? You're really missing the big picture here. Low-level APIs are the "secret weapon" the consoles have. Basically, having low-level APIs and fixed hardware specs allows developers to create games with graphics that would normally require a lot more processing power to pull off on the PC.
Windows operating systems have always been bloated, one way or another. The same is true for DirectX. Lately, though, Microsoft has been trying to sort things out in order to create a more efficient software ecosystem. That's right, not just the operating system(s), but everything Microsoft, including DirectX. They need to be able to offer software that is viable for mobile devices (as in, phones and tablets), not just PCs, or they won't stand a chance against Android. Furthermore, they want to offer the users devices that can communicate and work with each others across the board. That means they need a unified software ecosystem, which in turn means making an operating system that can work on all these devices, even if there will be device-specific versions that are optimized to some degree (ranging from UIs customised for phones/consoles/PCs to power consumption algorithms and so on).
In order to create such a Jack-of-all-trades operating system, they need it to have the best features in one package: low-level APIs from consoles, draconian power consumption profiles from phones, very light processing power requirements from both phones and consoles, excellent backwards compatibility through virtualization from PCs, the excellent diversity of software you can only get from a PC, and so on. Creating such an operating system takes a lot of money and effort, not to mention time. They've already screwed up on the UI front with Windows 8 (yeah, apparently it wasn't a no-brainer for them that desktops and phones can never use the same UI). Hopefully, they've learned their lesson and Windows 10 will turn out fine.
DX12 is a major step forward in the right direction, not some conspiracy between Microsoft and Intel to keep AMD CPUs down in the gutter. Nobody would have given all this conspiracy theory a second thought if AMD would have had the money they needed to stay on track with CPU development. But reality is like a kick in the teeth, and AMD CPUs are sadly not nearly as powerful as they'd need to be in order to give Intel a run for their money. Intel stands to lose more ground because they offer the highest performing CPUs, but I think we can all agree on the fact that they didn't get here (having the best performance) by conspiring with Microsoft. Besides, gamers are by far not the only ones that are buying Intel CPUs. Actually, DX12 will be detrimental to AMD as well: fewer people will feel the need to upgrade their CPUs to prepare for upcoming games.
