AC4 Nvidia pop at AMD...

opethdisciple · 16 May 2014 at 11:47

Love how even in the most innocuous of places, Nvidia love to take pops at AMD.

Was just reading this:

And had a little giggle when I read this part:

"Texture Quality: Adjusts the clarity and quality of textures game wide. With 2GB of Video RAM, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag should remain playable at 2560x1440 with every setting maxed out, and with 4x MSAA enabled. As Metro: Last Light and Assassin’s Creed IV show, with the right coding an engine doesn’t have to consume massive amounts of VRAM to power a top-quality title."

Thats basically saying there is no need to buy a GPU with 3Gb of ram.

AWPC · 16 May 2014 at 11:51

Nvidia should fix the AC4 after last patch :rolleyes:

PhysX causing massive slowdowns on Nvidia highend hardware unless you have 2 or 3 x GTX780Ti or Titan(s) before talking any further about AC4 :rolleyes:

pgi947 · 16 May 2014 at 11:52

Is it still getting physx slow downs? Christ its been like that since the first physx patch.

Marine-RX179 · 16 May 2014 at 11:56

opethdisciple said:
Love how even in the most innocuous of places, Nvidia love to take pops at AMD.

Was just reading this:

And had a little giggle when I read this part:

"Texture Quality: Adjusts the clarity and quality of textures game wide. With 2GB of Video RAM, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag should remain playable at 2560x1440 with every setting maxed out, and with 4x MSAA enabled. As Metro: Last Light and Assassin’s Creed IV show, with the right coding an engine doesn’t have to consume massive amounts of VRAM to power a top-quality title."

Thats basically saying there is no need to buy a GPU with 3Gb of ram.

And how often does "right coding" occurs for games in general? That's right...not even once in a blue moon

Why do you think we have to get powerful beasty Intel i5/i7 CPU? It's due to the inefficiency of API combine with sloppy coding, so need powerful CPU to compensate for it. What Nvidia is saying is like us saying "with an efficient API and the right coding, people don't need CPU as powerful as i5 and i7, even Core2 and Phenom II CPUs can push and hold 60fps"

Unless Nvidia is declaring they will be closely working with developers to work on the issue and reducing the need of using excessive amount of memory, what they saying means very little TBH.

mmj_uk · 16 May 2014 at 12:00

It's not really a pop at AMD just fact, scene groups have been coding amazing 5 minute long 3D textured demos inside 64KB files, whilst lots of AAA developers just include massive uncompressed textures that do nothing but gobble up VRAM for no apparent benefit other than people thinking that bigger is better.

Kaapstad · 16 May 2014 at 12:02

opethdisciple said:
Love how even in the most innocuous of places, Nvidia love to take pops at AMD.

Was just reading this:

And had a little giggle when I read this part:

"Texture Quality: Adjusts the clarity and quality of textures game wide. With 2GB of Video RAM, Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag should remain playable at 2560x1440 with every setting maxed out, and with 4x MSAA enabled. As Metro: Last Light and Assassin’s Creed IV show, with the right coding an engine doesn’t have to consume massive amounts of VRAM to power a top-quality title."

Thats basically saying there is no need to buy a GPU with 3Gb of ram.

So NVidia are saying there is no need to buy a GTX 780, 780ti, Titan or Titan Black. I don't think that is what they were saying.

opethdisciple · 16 May 2014 at 12:05

Kaapstad said:
So NVidia are saying there is no need to buy a GTX 780, 780ti, Titan or Titan Black. I don't think that is what they were saying.

OK granted maybe I misread it. I took it to mean "we dont have more than 2Gb of vram on our cards, becuase you dont need it" Pop at AMD for having more up to 4gb on their cards....

LtMatt · 16 May 2014 at 12:08

opethdisciple said:
OK granted maybe I misread it. I took it to mean "we dont have more than 2Gb of vram on our cards, becuase you dont need it" Pop at AMD for having more up to 4gb on their cards....

Taking a pop at AMD for having more vram and cheaper priced cards? Nah, can't see it. I think you're reading far too much in to it Opeth. I feel disappointed reading the thread as i do like a bit of 'shots fired' to keep things interesting.

Rusty0611 · 16 May 2014 at 12:30

The sentiment of the comment is true but there's no reasons why texture can't improve dramatically for PC gamers now that the new consoles have arrived with tonnes of memory Whether they will or not is another matter

humbug · 16 May 2014 at 13:34

Nividia why do you charge more money for cards with less vRam than AMD equivalents.

"Because 2GB is enough"

In one form or another that has always been Nvidia's reasoning, its an excuse to maximise margins, even if AC4 is more vRam efficient on Nvidia cards than AMD its not the only game available is it?

Freddie1980 · 16 May 2014 at 13:35

opethdisciple said:
OK granted maybe I misread it. I took it to mean "we dont have more than 2Gb of vram on our cards, becuase you dont need it" Pop at AMD for having more up to 4gb on their cards....

Nvidia don't have more then 2gb of Vram on their cards so they keep it price competitive against the competition it's a as simple as that What's the point for example of having a 4Gb mid range card that has to priced another £50 higher when it will offer zero benefit for the audience it's aimed at?

humbug · 16 May 2014 at 13:41

Freddie1980 said:
Nvidia don't have more then 2gb of Vram on their cards so they keep it price competitive against the competition it's a as simple as that What's the point for example of having a 4Gb mid range card that has to priced another £50 higher when it will offer zero benefit for the audience it's aimed at?

But Nvidia are not competitive, certainly not from a price to performance ratio.

Marine-RX179 · 16 May 2014 at 13:42

Freddie1980 said:
Nvidia don't have more then 2gb of Vram on their cards so they keep it price competitive against the competition it's a as simple as that What's the point for example of having a 4Gb mid range card that has to priced another £50 higher when it will offer zero benefit for the audience it's aimed at?

Problem is vram ain't the only thing being cut, but the bus-size and memory bandwidth as well. As for keeping price "competitive", they ain't exactly at a lower price than its rival because of use less vram.

Ayahuasca · 16 May 2014 at 13:43

humbug said:
But Nvidia are not competitive, certainly not from a price to performance ratio.

Well they are because a larger percentage still buy their cards. You can't just measure competitiveness on price.

llamadal · 16 May 2014 at 13:49

lets just skip 50 pages of amd/nvidia bs and delete this thread and move on.

humbug · 16 May 2014 at 13:52

Ayahuasca said:
Well they are because a larger percentage still buy their cards. You can't just measure competitiveness on price.

People Buy MACs costing twice as much for half the machine, they do it because they think PC's are crap, or they don't understand them or because they think Steve Jobs was a God.

Its the Same with Nvidia, that does not make them competitive, its simply clever marketing.

Something AMD are less than rubbish at.

Ayahuasca · 16 May 2014 at 13:53

It's not just marketing though is it, AMD throw you all these games, offer mantle and what not yet still people choose the more expensive nvidia card due to bad experiences or whatever with AMD or just as a personal preference.

humbug · 16 May 2014 at 13:57

Ayahuasca said:
It's not just marketing though is it, AMD throw you all these games, offer mantle and what not yet still people choose the more expensive nvidia card due to bad experiences or whatever with AMD or just as a personal preference.

Yes, its personal preference, Just as its a personal opinion in what makes a GPU competitive. For me its how much GPU i actually get for my money, Not what one Vendor says about themselves, or the other. That i ignore.

Boomstick777 · 16 May 2014 at 14:04

humbug said:
But Nvidia are not competitive, certainly not from a price to performance ratio.

Nvidia have faster cards priced higher. That's exactly how they compete mate. Maybe you misunderstand how business works bumhug?

People are willing to pay more for extra speed, lower temps, quality built products etc..

Ian Evey · 16 May 2014 at 14:12

humbug said:
But Nvidia are not competitive, certainly not from a price to performance ratio.

In your biased opinion of course.

Always the same few looking to stir it up a bit.

Edit, Hey Boomstick, Nice motherboard