5 ms·

If Apple supported Vulkan it would pretty quickly be at parity with Linux for gaming. Proton/Wine/DXVK would actually make a new Macbook Pro a viable option for

by kcb 5y ago

If Apple supported Vulkan it would pretty quickly be at parity with Linux for gaming. Proton/Wine/DXVK would actually make a new Macbook Pro a viable option for gaming.

giantrobot 5y ago
Metal is not just about gaming. The entire graphics stack on all their platforms is drawn with Metal. Had they decided to switch from Metal to Vulkan when it was released they would have had to rewrite not just the low level Metal drawing but port everything (CoreAnimation etc) to it obviating all the work they'd been putting in for Metal. With Metal they've got an API whose design goes exactly where they want it to go and is developed hand in hand with their GPUs and NPUs. Since it's the base of the graphics stack every person hour spend improving Metal improves non-game apps as well as games. It's the same calculus as Microsoft investing in DirectX.
- kcb 5y ago
  I'm not suggesting they drop Metal to support Vulkan.
  - dmitriid 5y ago
    So you're suggesting they support two different graphics stacks? Why? Or, rather, what for?
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - smoldesu 5y ago
      Because there's no reason not to, quite literally every other GPU vendor has supported Vulkan alongside DirectX. Metal has clear and obvious shortcomings, so Apple continuing to expect developers to "just use it" won't ever get them the support that they desperately need, especially now that they're on Apple Silicon. Porting things to ARM is hard, but doable. Creating a second version of your software just to run on Apple devices, that needs to be bug-fixed and maintained separately is a suicide mission. So yes, I am suggesting that they support two different graphics stacks. Apple has the most liquid cash out of any company in the world right now, they've got the resources to do it, especially as opposed to the developers who'd need to maintain two different versions of their software to compensate.
      - dmitriid 5y ago
        > Because there's no reason not to There are multiple reasons that have already been discussed in this thread > quite literally every other GPU vendor has supported Vulkan alongside DirectX. 1. Apple is not a GPU vendor. 2. There are many systems that don't support Vulkan and potentially never will These have also been discussed here, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29312314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29312314 > Metal has clear and obvious shortcomings So does Vulkan > so Apple continuing to expect developers to "just use it" won't ever get them the support that they desperately need And in the same breath you go ahead an say this: > Apple has the most liquid cash out of any company in the world right now Something tells me, Apple really doesn't "desperately need" developer support via Vulkan. Let's see, Metal is supported by MacOS, iOS, Apple TV. This is probably more devices than Vulkan supports. > Creating a second version of your software just to run on Apple devices, that needs to be bug-fixed and maintained separately is a suicide mission. You need to do that regardless of Vulkan. Vulkan is not some magical thing that will make your code run on every system in existence. As the linked comment correctly says, Vulkan is virtually non-existent outside of PCs. --- Edit: It's very much Direct X vs OpenGL discussion all over again. Microsoft stuck to Direct X and eventually provided the API all developers target. OpenGL is basically relegated to the annals of history with very bad memories, as a bad designed-by-committee API that was two steps behind and several steps sideways. See this amazing post down the memory lane: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-game-developers-prefer-windows/88055#88055 https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6054... Vulkan will suffer the same fate: designed by committee, consoles and smartphones don't care about it, main API on Windows is Direct X, main API on Apple systems is Metal.
        kcb 5y ago
        /Shrug I would buy a new MacBook Pro if it supported Vulkan. I am not a game developer. I just want DXVK and Wine to run well for light gaming on my multithousand dollar laptop with high end gpu. Your argument is pretty much Apple shouldn't implement Vulkan because they haven't done it yet. https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/graphics https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/graphics

by kcb 5y ago

If Apple supported Vulkan it would pretty quickly be at parity with Linux for gaming. Proton/Wine/DXVK would actually make a new Macbook Pro a viable option for gaming.

giantrobot 5y ago

Metal is not just about gaming. The entire graphics stack on all their platforms is drawn with Metal. Had they decided to switch from Metal to Vulkan when it was released they would have had to rewrite not just the low level Metal drawing but port everything (CoreAnimation etc) to it obviating all the work they'd been putting in for Metal. With Metal they've got an API whose design goes exactly where they want it to go and is developed hand in hand with their GPUs and NPUs. Since it's the base of the graphics stack every person hour spend improving Metal improves non-game apps as well as games. It's the same calculus as Microsoft investing in DirectX.

kcb 5y ago
I'm not suggesting they drop Metal to support Vulkan.
- dmitriid 5y ago
  So you're suggesting they support two different graphics stacks? Why? Or, rather, what for?
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - smoldesu 5y ago
    Because there's no reason not to, quite literally every other GPU vendor has supported Vulkan alongside DirectX. Metal has clear and obvious shortcomings, so Apple continuing to expect developers to "just use it" won't ever get them the support that they desperately need, especially now that they're on Apple Silicon. Porting things to ARM is hard, but doable. Creating a second version of your software just to run on Apple devices, that needs to be bug-fixed and maintained separately is a suicide mission. So yes, I am suggesting that they support two different graphics stacks. Apple has the most liquid cash out of any company in the world right now, they've got the resources to do it, especially as opposed to the developers who'd need to maintain two different versions of their software to compensate.
    - dmitriid 5y ago
      > Because there's no reason not to There are multiple reasons that have already been discussed in this thread > quite literally every other GPU vendor has supported Vulkan alongside DirectX. 1. Apple is not a GPU vendor. 2. There are many systems that don't support Vulkan and potentially never will These have also been discussed here, for example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29312314 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29312314 > Metal has clear and obvious shortcomings So does Vulkan > so Apple continuing to expect developers to "just use it" won't ever get them the support that they desperately need And in the same breath you go ahead an say this: > Apple has the most liquid cash out of any company in the world right now Something tells me, Apple really doesn't "desperately need" developer support via Vulkan. Let's see, Metal is supported by MacOS, iOS, Apple TV. This is probably more devices than Vulkan supports. > Creating a second version of your software just to run on Apple devices, that needs to be bug-fixed and maintained separately is a suicide mission. You need to do that regardless of Vulkan. Vulkan is not some magical thing that will make your code run on every system in existence. As the linked comment correctly says, Vulkan is virtually non-existent outside of PCs. --- Edit: It's very much Direct X vs OpenGL discussion all over again. Microsoft stuck to Direct X and eventually provided the API all developers target. OpenGL is basically relegated to the annals of history with very bad memories, as a bad designed-by-committee API that was two steps behind and several steps sideways. See this amazing post down the memory lane: https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/60544/why-do-game-developers-prefer-windows/88055#88055 https://softwareengineering.stackexchange.com/questions/6054... Vulkan will suffer the same fate: designed by committee, consoles and smartphones don't care about it, main API on Windows is Direct X, main API on Apple systems is Metal.
      - kcb 5y ago
        /Shrug I would buy a new MacBook Pro if it supported Vulkan. I am not a game developer. I just want DXVK and Wine to run well for light gaming on my multithousand dollar laptop with high end gpu. Your argument is pretty much Apple shouldn't implement Vulkan because they haven't done it yet. https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/graphics https://developer.android.com/ndk/guides/graphics