AMD freesync coming soon, no extra costs.... shocker

[humbug]

@ Humbug. I will happily debate that PhysX article but here isn't the place

There is nothing to debate, its very obvious from reading it it was NGOHQ.com
"the creators of a special system software that allowed users of the ATI Radeon graphics accelerators to use proprietary features of NVIDIA graphics accelerators such as GPU-accelerated version of the NVIDIA PhysX game physics API"

Asked AMD to backwards engineer Nvidia's PhysX for them, who declined through fear of legal reprisals from Nvidia.

Completely the opposite to your claim of it being evidence of Nvidia helping AMD use GPU PhysX.

http://www.techpowerup.com/64787/ra...ffered-to-help-us-expected-more-from-amd.html

 

[PhysicsMan94]

Can't we all just get along?

At least we can all say that we're members of the PC master race...

 

[Silent_Scone]

Does your current card use gddr 5? If so then its 2014.

They were rolling out when it was ready to be manufactured at the time it's hardly them giving it to the industry. Silly PR ivory tower bull statement. Sour grapes. Why didn't they mention their real triumphs like when they laid off thousands when they changed their chip manufacturing process and killed their cpu line. Pushing the industry forward with their yield failing tri cores


Point of fact, I don't see why it's always on the topic of who is the better firm. Yes Nvidia tend to close of their technologies but if AMD led the way in absolutely anything I'm sure they'd so the same. The tallest trees always take the most wind, and apparently it's a crime to patent a technology if you're a PC enthusiast. Because they say so. They don't want your products, they want progress and would rather use cheaper alternatives. Am I wrong.

I can honestly say hand on heart it doesn't bother me what I'm using as long as I deem it to better than what is available. If people are that bothered about the principle that you can emulate similar results on a Tosh notebook that they'd rather just wait then there isn't any point trying to sway them. The warped notion is very much implanted.

 

[Meaker]

They were rolling out when it was ready to be manufactured at the time it's hardly them giving it to the industry. Silly PR ivory tower bull statement. Sour grapes. Why didn't they mention their real triumphs like when they laid off thousands when they changed their chip manufacturing process and killed their cpu line. Pushing the industry forward with their yield failing tri cores


Point of fact, I don't see why it's always on the topic of who is the better firm. Yes Nvidia tend to close of their technologies but if AMD led the way in absolutely anything I'm sure they'd so the same. The tallest trees always take the most wind, and apparently it's a crime to patent a technology if you're a PC enthusiast. Because they say so. They don't want your products, they want progress and would rather use cheaper alternatives. Am I wrong.

I can honestly say hand on heart it doesn't bother me what I'm using as long as I deem it to better than what is available. If people are that bothered about the principle that you can emulate similar results on a Tosh notebook that they'd rather just wait then there isn't any point trying to sway them. The warped notion is very much implanted.

So your happy to pay more and be locked out of a combination of technology because one side has made something you want exclusive and the other side has made another tech you want exclusive?

 

[drunkenmaster]

What are you talking about MjFrosty? they were rolling out when it was ready to be manufactured? Seriously what on earth are you rabbiting on about?

AMD CO DEVELOPED GDDR5, and RELEASED IT to be made available to all. Bull statement, no they MADE GDDR5 from design up along with memory companies and they could full well of held on to it. They ALSO did gddr3 and 4, which they let Nvidia freely use.

Likewise, again Intel, Apple, ARM, all work on industry open standards, they have closed proprietary things as well but when it's right for the industry they are happy to support open standards. They frequently add and move forward and provide R&D and backing to foundations working on industry standards, Nvidia invariably do not and in general get in everyones way which hurts every gamer Nvidia and AMD, Intel to, to benefit their own pocket.

 

[Gregster]

There is nothing to debate, its very obvious from reading it it was NGOHQ.com
"the creators of a special system software that allowed users of the ATI Radeon graphics accelerators to use proprietary features of NVIDIA graphics accelerators such as GPU-accelerated version of the NVIDIA PhysX game physics API"

Asked AMD to backwards engineer Nvidia's PhysX for them, who declined through fear of legal reprisals from Nvidia.

Completely the opposite to your claim of it being evidence of Nvidia helping AMD use GPU PhysX.

http://www.techpowerup.com/64787/ra...ffered-to-help-us-expected-more-from-amd.html

Ok, you feel there is nothing to debate and I am in agreement, as you totally ignored my answer which shows nVidia were backing NGOHQ.com to support ATI and take on Intel. I like how people take anything AMD say as gospel but anything else is wrong. At least give consideration that nVidia wanted to take on Intel.

 

[drunkenmaster]

It was rancid from the baiting OP (which he happily claims he did) and it was never going to be a good thread after getting all angry like he did but at least most have tried to remain civil in spite of the OP flaming nVidia user's.

No it wasn't, I didn't and you can't claim as such just because you want to.

I in the g-sync thread got absolutely attacked by everyone for describing roughly speaking what g-sync does, why AMD will support a similar feature, and pretty much predicted everything that has happened completely to this stage. I got nothing but hate and grief and bull crap and lies and hate from the Nvidia lot.

I said this thread was a "haha, I told you so" at THOSE people and NOT at Nvidia as, when as completely normal the Nvidia guys came in here and couldn't keep their mouths shut, it was all "you hate Nvidia", troll, why do you hate Nvidia.

I merely pointed out that this was gloating about being right to THOSE people who said I was definitely wrong, and not at Nvidia. I said precisely nothing about baiting, or trolling or anything else. YOu have claimed that 2 or 3 times in this thread once again absolutely purposefully misinterpreting my words first then later deciding to add your own words to it.

For instance my claim that Nvidia couldn't remotely patent the idea of dynamic refresh(not least because the idea wasn't new), andy kept trying to bait me with "hey I've linked this patent I don't understand that has the words refresh and Nvidia in it, therefore you're wrong". he posted this repeatedly, when I explained said patents to him(which very clearly aren't what he thought) he decided to not read it and claim I was talking about another patent.

This is standard for around 10 or so Nvidia guys around here, talk crap about something they don't understand, post a link with some words that are also in their argument, when it's explained to them that the link in question doesn't mean remotely what they think it does, they turn tail and claim they never said whatever it was.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Ok, you feel there is nothing to debate and I am in agreement, as you totally ignored my answer which shows nVidia were backing NGOHQ.com to support ATI and take on Intel. I like how people take anything AMD say as gospel but anything else is wrong. At least give consideration that nVidia wanted to take on Intel.

It DOESN'T show that, it shows a website with no quotes from anyone at Nvidia, no link to any quote from Nvidia, no name of an Nvidia person quoted. It is one website(because we've NEVER seen a pro Nvidia make crap up right) that CLAIMED they thought AMD would help them reverse engineer a technology that would see them sued, and they CLAIMED that Nvidia offered to help them.....

Nvidia wanted to take on Intel......... and?

Nvidia love their PR, they love love love their proprietary tech, but we're to believe that Nvidia wanted some random website to get help from AMD to reverse engineer their tech? The idea simply doesn't remotely sound like Nvidia, there was no business reason to do this. They wanted to get AMD to reverse engineer their own tech, rather than GIVE AMD the tech..... yeah, that is a great way to make money and licence a product, by not giving someone the code and having them steal it, that sounds truly and absolutely believable.

You also seem to miss most of the intricacies of such a deal. If AMD paid to licence Physx, and AMD put it in all their games, and 2 years later Nvidia changed physx, or wouldn't renew the licence(such as Intel not renewing Nvidia's chipset licence) then AMD suddenly has loads of games with physx in that won't work, that screws them completely.

No company in their right mind would licence that kind of tech from another company and become completely reliant on them for support of that, because once you become dependant on that support it can go away and screw you.

I don't think any company would licence physx as it was from any company that wasn't at least some what independent and Nvidia would be almost absolutely rock bottom of the list of companies you might licence it from.

There is no case where they licence it and it's a done deal, a million different ways for Nvidia to screw them at a later date on it. I fully don't expect Nvidia to take on or ask for support from Mantle, I DO expect them to get support for Mantle IF AMD(as with SO many other things) pass off Mantle to an independent foundation at some point in the future. You and no one seems to expect Nvidia to take on Mantle while it's controlled by AMD, almost every "nvidia" guy on this forum has said as much, but you think it's a great idea for AMD to put themselves in the same position with Physx? It was NEVER going to happen whatever PR guff Nvidia came out with, NEVER, it would be insane.

 

[Gregster]

No it wasn't, I didn't and you can't claim as such just because you want to.

I in the g-sync thread got absolutely attacked by everyone for describing roughly speaking what g-sync does, why AMD will support a similar feature, and pretty much predicted everything that has happened completely to this stage. I got nothing but hate and grief and bull crap and lies and hate from the Nvidia lot.

I said this thread was a "haha, I told you so" at THOSE people and NOT at Nvidia as, when as completely normal the Nvidia guys came in here and couldn't keep their mouths shut, it was all "you hate Nvidia", troll, why do you hate Nvidia.

I merely pointed out that this was gloating about being right to THOSE people who said I was definitely wrong, and not at Nvidia. I said precisely nothing about baiting, or trolling or anything else. YOu have claimed that 2 or 3 times in this thread once again absolutely purposefully misinterpreting my words first then later deciding to add your own words to it.

Dramatise much? You don't help yourself by attacking nVidia and users at every opportunity.I want to see freesync become a reality, the same as I want to see open standards but freesync clearly won't be free (unless AMD cover the cost of the module in each monitor) and it requires DP1.3 which isn't finalised yet, so no guarantees there.

 

[Gregster]

It DOESN'T show that, it shows a website with no quotes from anyone at Nvidia, no link to any quote from Nvidia, no name of an Nvidia person quoted. It is one website(because we've NEVER seen a pro Nvidia make crap up right) that CLAIMED they thought AMD would help them reverse engineer a technology that would see them sued, and they CLAIMED that Nvidia offered to help them.....

Nvidia wanted to take on Intel......... and?

So my point stands that anything good said about AMD is gospel and anything good about nVidia needs to be backed by official statements. I linked a PhysX statement from 2008 where a guy from nVidia openly said they offered PhysX to AMD but nobody phoned or got in contact and that was soon discarded, as it potentially put nVidia as not quite the bad guys for once.

I don't understand the level of denial shown sometimes.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Dramatise much? You don't help yourself by attacking nVidia and users at every opportunity.I want to see freesync become a reality, the same as I want to see open standards but freesync clearly won't be free (unless AMD cover the cost of the module in each monitor) and it requires DP1.3 which isn't finalised yet, so no guarantees there.

As for dramatise much, you accused me of rancid baiting, which is frankly pretty bad to start with, then you actually claimed I admitted this..... you didn't say it in a jokey way, you simply said this as fact.

As for attacking Nvidia at every opportunity, no, MjFrosty in particular has accused me of it loads of times, but then in his next post he will say I'm pro g-sync, when in the previous post he's claiming something entirely opposite.

I dislike certain things Nvidia does, that's it, it's not attacking Nvidia to point out things they are doing. As for attacking Nvidia users.. I think it's incredibly clear which "team" is in here attacking how, in fact, it could not be clearer.

As for the screens, there doesn't need to be a extra module, every screen HAS a module/controller of some sort, they constantly update these over the years to support more features, there is unlikely to be an additional cost. You don't have to have a finalised standard to produce a chip that adhere's to the currently proposed standard, or a standard that isn't even proposed yet, it happens not frequently but certainly does happen.

The standard is due to be finalised in the next 60-90 days as is, there isn't a huge amount of reason they can't be in the process of producing chips already. Likewise there is no particular reason you can't release a desktop screen with an existing eDP controller that already supports the feature.

 

[Gregster]

Ok. I look forward to freesync coming very soon

 

[humbug]

They were rolling out when it was ready to be manufactured at the time it's hardly them giving it to the industry. Silly PR ivory tower bull statement. Sour grapes. Why didn't they mention their real triumphs like when they laid off thousands when they changed their chip manufacturing process and killed their cpu line. Pushing the industry forward with their yield failing tri cores


Point of fact, I don't see why it's always on the topic of who is the better firm. Yes Nvidia tend to close of their technologies but if AMD led the way in absolutely anything I'm sure they'd so the same. The tallest trees always take the most wind, and apparently it's a crime to patent a technology if you're a PC enthusiast. Because they say so. They don't want your products, they want progress and would rather use cheaper alternatives. Am I wrong.

I can honestly say hand on heart it doesn't bother me what I'm using as long as I deem it to better than what is available. If people are that bothered about the principle that you can emulate similar results on a Tosh notebook that they'd rather just wait then there isn't any point trying to sway them. The warped notion is very much implanted.

Nvidia are using AMD open Tech right now, you want to talk about leadership look at DX10.1, DX11>, OpenCL, the HSA Foundation, HuMA, 64Bit computing, varius other Compute extensions, Gesture Computing, face recognition, GDDR3, GDDR5, Mantle, Stacked RAM.....

Some of what you use in your CPU, your OS and your GPU come from AMD's mostly Open standard; and the the case of 64Bit few Licenced technologies that are either AMD developed or AMD leading development.

Ok, you feel there is nothing to debate and I am in agreement, as you totally ignored my answer which shows nVidia were backing NGOHQ.com to support ATI and take on Intel. I like how people take anything AMD say as gospel but anything else is wrong. At least give consideration that nVidia wanted to take on Intel.

It does not say that at all, show me where it says that, are you just making this up now?

 

[Gregster]

However, an intrepid team of software developers over at*NGOHQ.com*have been busy porting Nvidia's CUDA based PhysX API to work on AMD Radeon graphics cards, and have now received official support from Nvidia - who is no doubt delighted to see it's API working on a competitor's hardware (as well as seriously threatening Intel's Havok physics system.)

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/09/nvidia-helping-to-bring-physx-to-ati-cards/1

I assume official support from nVidia is still not good enough.

 

[Sem]

LOL you guys need to read the comments section in this article

fanboy flame wars at its finest lol

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/33603-nvidia-not-impressed-by-amd-free-sync-demo

 

[drunkenmaster]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/09/nvidia-helping-to-bring-physx-to-ati-cards/1

I assume official support from nVidia is still not good enough.

Just to point out, as with the article that comes from the same site, where does it say official, it links to the same guys SAYING Nvidia said they'd help......

just think back what you're saying, Nvidia want to help port not Physx, but CUDA to AMD hardware... really? It's fanboy/trolling at it's best. With no one from AMD nor Nvidia commenting, just a guy saying Nvidia is trying to help port it's API to AMD, which would, errm, help AMD compete against them in the professional market for instance, Nvidia's highest margin market.

This is the thing the idea is utterly daft, and Nvidia has a history of basically lying to everyone particularly if it can look like the good guy.

Be honest, you think Nvidia wanted CUDA ported to AMD hardware, because that is how they were going to port Physx, by trying to port CUDA< and frankly the idea is just stupid.

As for Nvidia offering AMD Physx... well I'm offering you a free pizza, the only clause is at some time in the future I can charge you whatever I want for that pizza....... but it's free now.

Offered and sincerely offered with intention of going through with it, aren't the same. There is no reason to believe Nvidia was pulling anything other than a PR stunt, they flat out would never want CUDA on AMD cards, there is no question of this. If you never planned to seriously offer your tech, but you could look good by telling everyone you did, it's a bit of a no brainer.

Secondly, why is it you/most of the Nvidia guys think it's insane for Nvidia to jump on board Mantle while AMD controls it, but you think it's completely logical for AMD to jump on board Physx while Nvidia controls it?

The difference is hypocrisy, I in no way expect Nvidia to support Mantle while AMD run it, if AMD give work on it and pass it off for an industry standard, I think Nvidia should and shouldn't have any issue supporting it.

AMD has a history of developing and working on things like this then making them open, Nvidia has no history of this AT ALL, and considering Nvidia went out of their way to disable physx on Nvidia hardware if the main card was an AMD card I think it's patently clear to anyone even slightly level headed how much BS Nvidia pushed out over their intention to share Physx... they wouldn't even share it with people who bought Nvidia cards if it didn't meet their conditions.

 

[drunkenmaster]

LOL you guys need to read the comments section in this article

fanboy flame wars at its finest lol

http://www.fudzilla.com/home/item/33603-nvidia-not-impressed-by-amd-free-sync-demo

Thankfully adblock(or ghostery, forget which) blocks comments sections on most sites, before it did, Fudzilla was a place that could make your brain melt if you read the comments section

 

[tommybhoy]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/07/09/nvidia-helping-to-bring-physx-to-ati-cards/1

I assume official support from nVidia is still not good enough.

If you bothered to read the source provided in those links(@ngohq) by yourself, you will find out that:

1.

Thanks to Palit, we finally got some HD 4800 hardware to play with.

Regeneration- the guy 'claiming' he had Nvidia backing, did receive AMD hardware.

2.

We think that it is great that people continue to use our products in creative ways," Julia Clark, AMD PR manager, told Nordic Hardware.

AMD's carefully worded response to Regenerations claim of 'helping' to make PhysX work on AMD.

3. Update on development.

Regen:

Some news from the front:

Supported:
Radeon HD 3x00 Series
Radeon HD 2x00 Series

Unsupported:
Radeon HD 4x00 Series
CrossFire and CrossFireX (Runs in Single GPU mode)

Unknown:
Radeon HD 3870 X2
Radeon HD 3850 X2
Radeon X1000 Series and below

4. Then the thread goes silent in regards to development.

I assume official support from nVidia is still not good enough.

BOOM

Regeneration-

We have received the following letter:

Quote:
Unauthorized Distribution Of NVIDIA Drivers on NGOHQ.com

*************************************************

To Whom it May Concern:

We understand that you are distributing or facilitating the unauthorized distribution of NVIDIA’s drivers for its GPU and/or MCP products. We are writing to remind you that these drivers constitute intellectual property (“IP”), including copyrights, of NVIDIA. As the exclusive owner of this IP, under Section 106 of the Copyright Act, NVIDIA alone has the right to authorize distribution. Since you are not authorized, we ask that you immediately stop all activities that distribute, allow or facilitate distribution of NVIDIA’s drivers on your web site. Unauthorized distribution is a serious violation of NVIDIA’s intellectual property rights and if it continues, we will take the necessary steps to prevent further unauthorized distribution.

NVIDIA drivers that are distributed through authorized channels have been tested on the supported platforms that are included in the driver INF file, and are supported by NVIDIA and its OEM partners. Modifying drivers to add products that were not intended to be supported in the driver may cause more problems for customers due to limited testing and known problems on some products.

Please confirm that all unauthorized distribution has ceased within two weeks of the date of this letter by sending an email to [email protected]

Sincerely,

Bryan "BDR" Del Rizzo
Senior PR Manager
MCP Business Group
2701 San Tomas Expressway
Santa Clara, CA 95050

http://www.ngohq.com/news/11383-nvidia-threatens-ngohq-over-forceware-distribution.html

That was nice of Nvidia helping to get PhysX to work on AMD.

I spoke with Roy Taylor, Nvidia’s VP of Content Business Development, and he says his phone hasn’t even rung to discuss the issue. “If Richard Huddy wants to call me up, that’s a call I’d love to take,” he said.

A clear indication that Nvidia and AMD did not even contact each other in regards to PhysX implementation on AMD.

http://www.extremetech.com/computing/82264-why-wont-ati-support-cuda-and-physx


I have more sauce if you need it from the likes of Tom Peterson and others?


Open your eyes man.

 

[Final8y]

@tommybhoy

Good refresh of past events, its amazing how such concluding details can be forgotten over time and years later for others to put forth claims which would have people believe different as if they were not so for lack of memory.

 

[drunkenmaster]

@tommybhoy

Good refresh of past events, its amazing how such concluding details can be forgotten over time and years later for others to put forth claims which would have people believe different as if they were not so for lack of memory.

Forgotten, awwww.... sweet,

I believe someone, I think it may have been Greg said something about lets see, not understanding the level of denial shown sometimes?

It's funny how in particular the "Nvidia offered AMD physx" argument gets brought up every couple of months without fail to bash AMD over the head with, when it's such a blatantly stupid situation. A couple Nvidia people just say they offered it(and they might, "here AMD, we'll licence Physx to you for 20 billion dollars..." with pinky connected to edge of mouth in Dr Evil style), and it's obviously true, and obviously AMD's fault.

Nvidia's entire history of locking in everything like Physx, the fact that they went out to buy Ageia in the first place, the very idea they would help someone port Cuda to AMD architecture.... it's all completely ridiculous, but some people push it around like fact. AMD wouldn't have offered Nvidia Physx in this situation of the roles were reversed, and they are a nicer company. If the roles were reversed they would have opened it up and asked Nvidia to join some group to push it forward.

AMD trusted Intel more with Havok than Nvidia with Physx, that is how bad Nvidia are ffs... Again because Intel has a long history of working with standards to help the industry, sure they have a long history of horrendous dodgy behaviour to, but they are fairly honest about where and how they'll cheat you

Perhaps we need a sticky in the graphics forum, debunked Nvidia arguments to make these threads shorter