8 ms·

Do you have any evidence for your claim that Vulkan is best? Metal and D3D 12 are also low-level APIs designed for performance. I've seen no evidence that Vulka

by om2 10y ago

Do you have any evidence for your claim that Vulkan is best? Metal and D3D 12 are also low-level APIs designed for performance. I've seen no evidence that Vulkan is better on platforms where there are drivers for two different APIs.

Zandikar 10y ago
I think we've all gone a bit off the rails here. Although you and those you've been discussing this with can't agree on which API is better, there's plenty of evidence that Vulcan, Metal and Dx are all quite good. Why then would we introduce yet another "standard" from scratch, as opposed to working to implement one of the existing ones better across platforms (if the desire is truly to build a universal gfx api)?
- om2 10y ago
  Making a new standard is inevitable. That's not really a choice. Even if the web platform directly replicated one of the existing APIs, you still have to explain how it binds to JavaScript, as well as memory and GPU resource management details. So bringing a modern graphics API to the web will inevitably create a new standard. The question then is whether to try to clone one of the native-level APIs, or make something that works on each of the top 3. We think working on all of them is better than tying ourselves to just one.
  - shmerl 10y ago
    > The question then is whether to try to clone one of the native-level APIs, or make something that works on each of the top 3. We think working on all of them is better than tying ourselves to just one. Besides this approach being supportive of lock-in (of underlying closed APIs like Metal and DX), which is more than questionable, more importantly, what shading language should this Web API use for example?
    - ioquatix 10y ago
      When you look at the amount of effort that's gone into SPIR-V you'll only have one conclusion to this question.
      - shmerl 10y ago
        Indeed, the question was rhetorical, and more of a poke at using Metal shaders in the initial proposal, instead of going right away with open languages and representations.
    - simonh 10y ago
      Tying the implementation to a single underlying API is just another kind of lock-in. You can be locked in to an open standard just as much as a proprietary one. Suppose this had been proposed 5 years ago and been tied deeply into OpenGL? In the world of today, that would pretty much make it a dead end. It's just not the job of a standard like this to pick and choose winners at a different level of abstraction.
      - om2 10y ago
        We did actually build a standard tied deeply OpenGL, it's called WebGL. And indeed, we foresee the need to move beyond it (though WebGL is still plenty good and not a dead end yet.) Worth noting also that Khronos is considering a slightly higher-level API than Vulkan as their next iteration. So that's another reason it would be a shame to bind too tightly to Vulkan. I also find it puzzling how designing to support multiple back ends is "lock-in" but binding tightly to only one underlying API is "open".
        ioquatix 10y ago
        Platform "lock-in" and "openness" are not mutually exclusive. Lock-in refers to how that platform affects your options for deployment. Openness refers to how that platform is being developed. A platform can be designed in an open way, but if it only works in one environment (e.g. browser) you might consider that to be "locked in". As in, you are "locked" into using a browser for deploying your application. Vulkan is open, in the sense that it is an open standard. It's managed in a way that allows a wide variety of people/companies to contribute to it's design and implementation. Vulkan as an API is an abstract model for how a GPU works. Everyone codes to that spec, and they can work on a wide variety of systems. So you are not locked in to a limited set of systems. In fact, if you wanted to make your own Vulkan implementation you could, and there is a lot of documentation, conformance tests, etc to help with that. Supporting multiple backends naturally requires an abstract API on top to handle the inconsistencies in the underlying systems. A new API naturally means that existing code would need to be refactored to work with it. If that API only serves the purpose of executing within a specific context, you might consider that to be "lock-in" for that platform.
  - bobajeff 10y ago
    This brings another question. Would it be better given the likely use cases for WebGPU to be designed as a WebAssembly only API?
    - om2 10y ago
      WebAssembly doesn't currently have a way to expose APIs to it directly. It only has an interface to call JavaScript. Maybe that will change, but blocking on a major new WebAssembly feature did not seem wise.
      - bobajeff 10y ago
        Oh. I didn't know that.
  - staticautomatic 10y ago
    Why is making a new standard inevitable?
ioquatix 10y ago
Well, I guess you know all this but you've asked me to elaborate. So, in terms of compatibility you have: DX12: Windows only. Metal: macOS/iOS only. Vulkan: cross-platform and cross-vendor. Windows 7/8/10, Android, Linux, MoltenVK supports iOS/macOS with a wrapper. That's a big win for Vulkan IMHO. Valve also agrees with this assertion. In terms of performance, I don't think Metal is even a contender, given how bad macOS hardware is compared to Wintel. w.r.t. Vulkan vs DX, from what I've seen it's pretty close, with Vulkan usually coming out ahead by a few performance points but of course it depends a lot on the implementation when it's at that level. Vulkan has been shown to be systematically better than OpenGL.
- MrScruff 10y ago
  It makes no sense to judge the quality of an API by the power of the available hardware it might be running on. The discussion is not about what platform will run VR the best. In addition, Apple will be rightly considering iOS when evaluating options for web technologies, not the increasingly small section of the planet running Nvidia and AMD hardware on Windows.
  - ioquatix 10y ago
    > It makes no sense to judge the quality of an API by the power of the available hardware it might be running on. I didn't make any such judgement or even mention VR a single time! But, looking at the points you've raised, I can say with confidence that Vulkan has been designed, taking into considering these issues. Vulkan has been carefully engineered from the ground up not to alienate tile-based renderer hardware. So, it's just as suitable for mobile GPUs as desktop GPUs. https://www.imgtec.com/blog/tiling-positive-or-how-vulkan-maps-to-powervr-gpus/ https://www.imgtec.com/blog/tiling-positive-or-how-vulkan-ma... As such, it's already supported by many mobile GPU hardware vendors. > In addition, Apple will be rightly considering iOS when evaluating options for web technologies, not the increasingly small section of the planet running Nvidia and AMD hardware on Windows. The GPU in the iPhone 7 uses a custom version of the PowerVR GT7600 GPU. While this is purely speculation, PowerVR does support Vulkan in their other offerings, so it's not that much of a stretch to assume that the hardware is at least capable of it. NVidia, AMD and Intel power all of Apple's desktop graphics, in addition, they collectively power almost all of Windows and Linux setups too (excepting other mobile and SFF computers)
pg_is_a_butt 10y ago
maybe you should crawl back up inside the infinite loop, and stop interacting with the rest of the world, just like the rest of the apptards you claim to work with. you're all idiots.

by om2 10y ago

Zandikar 10y ago

I think we've all gone a bit off the rails here. Although you and those you've been discussing this with can't agree on which API is better, there's plenty of evidence that Vulcan, Metal and Dx are all quite good. Why then would we introduce yet another "standard" from scratch, as opposed to working to implement one of the existing ones better across platforms (if the desire is truly to build a universal gfx api)?

om2 10y ago
Making a new standard is inevitable. That's not really a choice. Even if the web platform directly replicated one of the existing APIs, you still have to explain how it binds to JavaScript, as well as memory and GPU resource management details. So bringing a modern graphics API to the web will inevitably create a new standard. The question then is whether to try to clone one of the native-level APIs, or make something that works on each of the top 3. We think working on all of them is better than tying ourselves to just one.
- shmerl 10y ago
  > The question then is whether to try to clone one of the native-level APIs, or make something that works on each of the top 3. We think working on all of them is better than tying ourselves to just one. Besides this approach being supportive of lock-in (of underlying closed APIs like Metal and DX), which is more than questionable, more importantly, what shading language should this Web API use for example?
  - ioquatix 10y ago
    When you look at the amount of effort that's gone into SPIR-V you'll only have one conclusion to this question.
    - shmerl 10y ago
      Indeed, the question was rhetorical, and more of a poke at using Metal shaders in the initial proposal, instead of going right away with open languages and representations.
  - simonh 10y ago
    Tying the implementation to a single underlying API is just another kind of lock-in. You can be locked in to an open standard just as much as a proprietary one. Suppose this had been proposed 5 years ago and been tied deeply into OpenGL? In the world of today, that would pretty much make it a dead end. It's just not the job of a standard like this to pick and choose winners at a different level of abstraction.
    - om2 10y ago
      We did actually build a standard tied deeply OpenGL, it's called WebGL. And indeed, we foresee the need to move beyond it (though WebGL is still plenty good and not a dead end yet.) Worth noting also that Khronos is considering a slightly higher-level API than Vulkan as their next iteration. So that's another reason it would be a shame to bind too tightly to Vulkan. I also find it puzzling how designing to support multiple back ends is "lock-in" but binding tightly to only one underlying API is "open".
      - ioquatix 10y ago
        Platform "lock-in" and "openness" are not mutually exclusive. Lock-in refers to how that platform affects your options for deployment. Openness refers to how that platform is being developed. A platform can be designed in an open way, but if it only works in one environment (e.g. browser) you might consider that to be "locked in". As in, you are "locked" into using a browser for deploying your application. Vulkan is open, in the sense that it is an open standard. It's managed in a way that allows a wide variety of people/companies to contribute to it's design and implementation. Vulkan as an API is an abstract model for how a GPU works. Everyone codes to that spec, and they can work on a wide variety of systems. So you are not locked in to a limited set of systems. In fact, if you wanted to make your own Vulkan implementation you could, and there is a lot of documentation, conformance tests, etc to help with that. Supporting multiple backends naturally requires an abstract API on top to handle the inconsistencies in the underlying systems. A new API naturally means that existing code would need to be refactored to work with it. If that API only serves the purpose of executing within a specific context, you might consider that to be "lock-in" for that platform.
- bobajeff 10y ago
  This brings another question. Would it be better given the likely use cases for WebGPU to be designed as a WebAssembly only API?
  - om2 10y ago
    WebAssembly doesn't currently have a way to expose APIs to it directly. It only has an interface to call JavaScript. Maybe that will change, but blocking on a major new WebAssembly feature did not seem wise.
    - bobajeff 10y ago
      Oh. I didn't know that.
- staticautomatic 10y ago
  Why is making a new standard inevitable?

ioquatix 10y ago

Well, I guess you know all this but you've asked me to elaborate. So, in terms of compatibility you have: DX12: Windows only. Metal: macOS/iOS only. Vulkan: cross-platform and cross-vendor. Windows 7/8/10, Android, Linux, MoltenVK supports iOS/macOS with a wrapper. That's a big win for Vulkan IMHO. Valve also agrees with this assertion. In terms of performance, I don't think Metal is even a contender, given how bad macOS hardware is compared to Wintel. w.r.t. Vulkan vs DX, from what I've seen it's pretty close, with Vulkan usually coming out ahead by a few performance points but of course it depends a lot on the implementation when it's at that level. Vulkan has been shown to be systematically better than OpenGL.

MrScruff 10y ago
It makes no sense to judge the quality of an API by the power of the available hardware it might be running on. The discussion is not about what platform will run VR the best. In addition, Apple will be rightly considering iOS when evaluating options for web technologies, not the increasingly small section of the planet running Nvidia and AMD hardware on Windows.
- ioquatix 10y ago
  > It makes no sense to judge the quality of an API by the power of the available hardware it might be running on. I didn't make any such judgement or even mention VR a single time! But, looking at the points you've raised, I can say with confidence that Vulkan has been designed, taking into considering these issues. Vulkan has been carefully engineered from the ground up not to alienate tile-based renderer hardware. So, it's just as suitable for mobile GPUs as desktop GPUs. https://www.imgtec.com/blog/tiling-positive-or-how-vulkan-maps-to-powervr-gpus/ https://www.imgtec.com/blog/tiling-positive-or-how-vulkan-ma... As such, it's already supported by many mobile GPU hardware vendors. > In addition, Apple will be rightly considering iOS when evaluating options for web technologies, not the increasingly small section of the planet running Nvidia and AMD hardware on Windows. The GPU in the iPhone 7 uses a custom version of the PowerVR GT7600 GPU. While this is purely speculation, PowerVR does support Vulkan in their other offerings, so it's not that much of a stretch to assume that the hardware is at least capable of it. NVidia, AMD and Intel power all of Apple's desktop graphics, in addition, they collectively power almost all of Windows and Linux setups too (excepting other mobile and SFF computers)

pg_is_a_butt 10y ago

maybe you should crawl back up inside the infinite loop, and stop interacting with the rest of the world, just like the rest of the apptards you claim to work with. you're all idiots.