Exclusive – Nvidia Talks GameWoks And DirectX 12 Plans For 2016

[Insanties_birth]

So buy it or don't, that's your choice. Companies exist for making money, if no one bought gsync I am sure nvidia would add a scaler in thier cards, but people did buy them and that's not nvidia's fault as the customers are happy with thier purchase and if there not happy then they choose Amd or no have no async.

Panasonic have viera link but why don't they make it open so samsung and lg can use it!

There's people who are happy with all sorts bud, should we start building our laws around what some of the criminals are happy with? Okay okay that is a bit of a wild analogy but let's get real, I've pointed out my position is that the companies are responsible for the products they make (as I'm sure plenty of us accept as common sense when it comes to the blame game of low quality or product issues) so the question is just whether you put any expectation in the companies to get it right or not. Some people believe in truly open market where companies can rip you off, charge whatever they can get away with and let standards drop as long as (as you so coherently put it) the consumers are buying the products. For me however I'd prefer the more informed consumer approach along with companies being held to account for bad standards or overcharging or whatever poor industry practice they create. We've seen what happens when companies can do what they have monopolies (see AT&T / comcast and then google comes in and leapfrogs them with fiber), I'm not against Nvidia in this regard but as much as you feel you have a right to comment on the situation then so does anyone else and my comment is just that, I feel the relationship they have is dubious and open to abuse so I promote supporting others but I've made it clear that anyone can support whatever they want too as I am not telling others what is right.

I'll reiterate again because your replies suggest you simply feel it's a case harping against nvidia and the mighty dollar / pound will let the cabbages fall where they will. That's cool, that's not my argument from the beginning though so you misunderstood me. I never said anything against gsynch (quality / product wise), I was discussing gameworks and said it was useful for the devs and refrained from commenting on quality (which I will now, it's better than freesynch but overpriced for the minimal difference) but I am replying to gregsters comment about Nvidia not always being the bad guy. In this case I've pointed out my position clearly, or rather clearly with gregster but not with you as I admit I made a big reply to gregster last night then it got lost and I had to retype it and I was not sure where we got sidetracked about gsynch when I was more referring to gameworks to be honest but gsynch was an example of where Nvidia is making a closed platform where it was not needed and hints the company could have ulterior motives for this relationship with the devs. So in the end was more interested in the gameworks argument (this being a thread about gameworks and all) so I've not really paid full attention and realised you've diverted it to a gysnch / freesynch argument which I never accused them of wrongdoing. I believe they should have just gone with freesynch but that wasn't to try and slate them but rather an example of how Nvidia are a company that likes to have control and in this case it is dubious for a company like that to have such a close relationship with the developers that pushes out the competition. As for the gsynch / freesynch I've pointed out people can buy what they want but it just wasn't needed in my opinion and freesynch would have sufficed without overcharging the consumers. You buy what you want, you waste your money on what you want because I was more commenting on the industry and not whether Nvidia chose to market a new product because as I've tried to make clear, I'm not here to try and pitch Nvidia as the bad guy in this argument but I simply disagree with there stance with gameworks which is a topic relevant to this thread.

 

[Ian Evey]

There's people who are happy with all sorts bud, should we start building our laws around what some of the criminals are happy with? Okay okay that is a bit of a wild analogy but let's get real, I've pointed out my position is that the companies are responsible for the products they make (as I'm sure plenty of us accept as common sense when it comes to the blame game of low quality or product issues) so the question is just whether you put any expectation in the companies to get it right or not. Some people believe in truly open market where companies can rip you off, charge whatever they can get away with and let standards drop as long as (as you so coherently put it) the consumers are buying the products. For me however I'd prefer the more informed consumer approach along with companies being held to account for bad standards or overcharging or whatever poor industry practice they create. We've seen what happens when companies can do what they have monopolies (see AT&T / comcast and then google comes in and leapfrogs them with fiber), I'm not against Nvidia in this regard but as much as you feel you have a right to comment on the situation then so does anyone else and my comment is just that, I feel the relationship they have is dubious and open to abuse so I promote supporting others but I've made it clear that anyone can support whatever they want too as I am not telling others what is right.

I'll reiterate again because your replies suggest you simply feel it's a case harping against nvidia and the mighty dollar / pound will let the cabbages fall where they will. That's cool, that's not my argument from the beginning though so you misunderstood me. I never said anything against gsynch (quality / product wise), I was discussing gameworks and said it was useful for the devs and refrained from commenting on quality (which I will now, it's better than freesynch but overpriced for the minimal difference) but I am replying to gregsters comment about Nvidia not always being the bad guy. In this case I've pointed out my position clearly, or rather clearly with gregster but not with you as I admit I made a big reply to gregster last night then it got lost and I had to retype it and I was not sure where we got sidetracked about gsynch when I was more referring to gameworks to be honest but gsynch was an example of where Nvidia is making a closed platform where it was not needed and hints the company could have ulterior motives for this relationship with the devs. So in the end was more interested in the gameworks argument (this being a thread about gameworks and all) so I've not really paid full attention and realised you've diverted it to a gysnch / freesynch argument which I never accused them of wrongdoing. I believe they should have just gone with freesynch but that wasn't to try and slate them but rather an example of how Nvidia are a company that likes to have control and in this case it is dubious for a company like that to have such a close relationship with the developers that pushes out the competition. As for the gsynch / freesynch I've pointed out people can buy what they want but it just wasn't needed in my opinion and freesynch would have sufficed without overcharging the consumers.

Nvidia might add the scaler to future cards and use async that way, let's see.

Gameworks in my opinion does make devs lazy, but as I said earlier nvidia offer something for devs and consumers and they bite or they don't. That's not nvidia's fault It's the devs.
Just like Amd offered true audio which could have been a great thing for them as business, but not many devs took it onboard, That's not Amd's fault either even though it was classed as open nvidia would not be able to use it without a new gpu re work or r&d in software at cost to them.


Just like they would need an addition to hardware to use freesync, Whether they do or not is anyone's guess.

My guess is nvidia won't use freesync as long as they are selling gsync so well.

 

[Gregster]

because it pertained to a later point that highlighted that you are often coming from a position of looking merely at vendors rather than the industry and from a neutral standpoint or even a standpoint ignoring any preference or interest in the gpu industry then it obviously a dubious relationship open to abuse. It is a conflict of interest for Nvidia to help AMD and so I was highlighting (whether candidly or not) that anyone who was impartial to the industry rather than having some interest or preference for Nvidia would recognise that it poses a dubious relationship.

still, if you ignore the good parts of a post because the bad parts aren't to your liking then there's no discussion to be had unless it falls in your favour it seems. I agree the comment came off a little barbed but we know you have a preference towards Nvidia and I've seen plenty of times where you personally like to take the gloves off and play dirty when it comes to other arguments so lets not play the victim to ignore the worthwhile parts. I felt you was posing the argument as Nvidia were being treat as the bad guys when in fact treating them as the good guys is a bigger danger as they are the ones in control and open to abuse. These boards have plenty of jibes and kicks at one another so I agree I shouldn't encourage it more but then if you were the bigger man you'd simply address the good points and highlight the rest isn't needed rather than ignore (and presumably mouthpiece again later) the same issues.

If it helps greg, most of the time when I comment with barbs and knives to you it's because I like you and I think you have the opportunity to slip away from what I feel is a bit of an overly clear preference to one side. I don't even mind if you end up being on the green team and choosing to forego AMD in the future (might mean I can't count on your reviews as much if you only have one sides card though of course) but I feel I've often seen your comments come in barbed against AMD before and then never a bad word to say about Nvidia. There's a difference between a preference and a bias and you toe the line in my mind, I apologise if you feel it's been a case of sniping you but I'll admit it's often been more aimed at trying to get you to shirk the bias. If it's made me come off wrong though I'll just have to find a gentler way of pointing it out in the future if I feel that is the case. And if you feel this entire post is quite barbed then please take it the kindest possible way, I often do speak in harsh terms and I really mean no offense in this entire post but I do feel I am a straight talker and it comes off offensive even when I read it myself (should it be interpreted wrong) but clearly I'm highlighting your a decent guy but when the gloves come off you know you have one sides back and I'd like to see that be less of the case but it's of course your choice.

The problem is brand bias and everyone seems to put everyone in one side or another. I don't care for that way of thinking and regardless of what you are using, I credit everyone with a bit of savvy at being able to just discuss techs like grown ups and not school kids. I will happily discuss the finer points as well as the murky points and praise or lambaste when it is deserved. I like AMD products and I like Nvidia products. I certainly won't let politics get in the way of my purchasing decisions as shouldn't anyone. It isn't like AMD or Nvidia do anything bad. We should all take a step back at times and come back and enjoy healthy debates without making silly comments

 

[Insanties_birth]

Nvidia might add the scaler to future cards and use async that way, let's see.

Gameworks in my opinion does make devs lazy, but as I said earlier nvidia offer something for devs and consumers and they bite or they don't. That's not nvidia's fault It's the devs.
Just like Amd offered true audio which could have been a great thing for them as business, but not many devs took it onboard, That's not Amd's fault either even though it was classed as open nvidia would not be able to use it without a new gpu re work or r&d in software at cost to them.


Just like they would need an addition to hardware to use freesync, Whether they do or not is anyone's guess.

My guess is nvidia won't use freesync as long as they are selling gsync so well.

We will see, no magic balls or anything but Nvidia being Nvidia I think the smart money is on them trying to retain control

I feel when AMD offer these services they are more often than not open source though which is why I fail to comment on AMD as there's no need. Developers will do what they want with it and it'll not harm anyone should it be used along with being open for scrutiny. Nvidia don't handle things that way and so it poses a danger to fair play, short of being clueless, not caring or having a preference for Nvidia then that is a concern. Again, my argument is about from a neutral standpoint does it make sense for any consumer to want the industry to be influenced by the big player and the answer is no. It's good tech but it'd be better as open source or better from another vendor so does it benefit Nvidia? Yes, does that mean it inherently benefits the consumer? No, as it's open to abuse (with AMD even stating outright that it did hamper them with The Witcher 3) and is not going to promote consumer choice. It's a really simple argument when you break it down and kick away the fluff, does it benefit Nvidia? Does it benefit consumer choice? It does one of those things so as a consumer you rightfully should be concerned but as I've made clear, I'm not hear to tell people what to do so you make your purchasing decisions but reality is reality and they've not taken the best approach in implementing this in a none open source way in my mind.

I agree but then gsynch has a reason to exist as well, freesynch would have been suitable and it could have been iterated on (as stated they'd have known it was coming a lot sooner anyway so had a chance to get the tech ready for it) and any iterations could have given he minor improvements needed (we've even seen freesynch hacks that improve the freesynch range). The only reason gsynch is there instead of Nvidia supporting freesynch is because it was able to get them more money. Consumers will lap it up and as I've said from the beginning it is there choice, I merely choose to be an industry conscious consumer who recognises there's little benefit to it and that Nvidia's way of doing it is not worth the extra price for me. Again, buy what you want and that's no worry for me but in the end people can waste money and still enjoy it. I'm just glad we all have options and AMD are keeping it open and clean for us at the moment and I'd rather see that be the future than what Nvidia has offered because the prices of the monitors we've seen come out from Nvidia are not realistic for everyone and when we know it shouldn't cost that much then not everyone likes to get ripped off every time they get a new monitor / gpu / products and just chime it down to companies being companies.

 

[Insanties_birth]

The problem is brand bias and everyone seems to put everyone in one side or another. I don't care for that way of thinking and regardless of what you are using, I credit everyone with a bit of savvy at being able to just discuss techs like grown ups and not school kids. I will happily discuss the finer points as well as the murky points and praise or lambaste when it is deserved. I like AMD products and I like Nvidia products. I certainly won't let politics get in the way of my purchasing decisions as shouldn't anyone. It isn't like AMD or Nvidia do anything bad. We should all take a step back at times and come back and enjoy healthy debates without making silly comments

Well that's cool and I hope it is the case as I think you're a good guy as I pointed out. At the moment I do feel there is still a bit of a preference that makes you bite your tongue at Nvidia but lash out at AMD more but we'll leave that for now as there's no point in derailing and it's never a real big issue as you're fairly open to both sides.

As seen I've most certainly taken a step back, apologised and explained my post was more intended to be a comment marking the fact that I felt if we did take a step back and look at the situation from a neutral standpoint (from the perspective of an industry regulator for example) then it seems Nvidia are a bit close and in charge of how things are getting done at the moment. Ignore the rest then but do you still not care to comment on how that is a bit of a dubious relationship when it poses a conflict of interest? Preferential coding for one party that then relies on support for any issues being done by Nvidia themselves as well does seem a bit odd. AMD openly stated there was issues with it as well so does that not set any alarm bells ringing? It seems we have a situation where the performance difference AMD receive is larger and it already does big performance hits on Nvidia alone so whether that is intentional or not is anyones guess and I don't assume they are the bad guy but any solution for the consumers of AMD products comes from Nvidia and this seems like a less than ideal situation based on how we've seen it doesn't always get fixed fast (and certainly had AMD personally vouch against it).

 

[Ian Evey]

I shouldn't mention mantle but Amd tried to gain customers by hopefully locking consumers in to an api that ran a lot better than normal dx11 at the time and Amd got around this by claiming it was in beta.

And it worked for the short term. I thought it quite odd that Amd users praised something that they owned and only they could use and then to say it's not fair when nvidia do it. ( I know it's not exactly the same but they both help to benefit the relevant company ).

In hindsight if mantle was the goto api to use for all games now, then Amd would have many more customers.

Would it bother me, I would probably be a bit peeved owning an nvidia card but if I wanted it I would buy into it.

 

[Howling]

nVidia never even attempted to support Mantle though - we can't make any claims about locking consumers because we simply don't know how that would have played out. If Mantle became the go to API and nVidia supported it - who's to say nVidia wouldn't have gained more performance than AMD? It's not really a great example (said it in several threads now).

 

[Insanties_birth]

I shouldn't mention mantle but Amd tried to gain customers by hopefully locking consumers in to an api that ran a lot better than normal dx11 at the time and Amd got around this by claiming it was in beta.

And it worked for the short term. I thought it quite odd that Amd users praised something that they owned and only they could use and then to say it's not fair when nvidia do it. ( I know it's not exactly the same but they both help to benefit the relevant company ).

In hindsight if mantle was the goto api to use for all games now, then Amd would have many more customers.

Would it bother me, I would probably be a bit peeved owning an nvidia card but if I wanted it I would buy into it.

The difference is mantle was not only optional but it provided no harm to Nvidia, in which case it was no different to physx or gsynch in that it's a technology made by them to benefit there own customers that is possible for others to imitate. When they implement gameworks though it is not possible for AMD to reimplement the way the game is programmed, it is merely coded and structured in a way beneficial to Nvidia and sometimes causes huge performance drops on AMD cards which take a while to fix due to not being implemented well and possibly due to the conflict of interest. As stated, mantle would not hamper Nvidia cards or leave Nvidia at the whims of AMD to fix any issues because it was a unique offering. The real difference lies in the potential anti-competitive edge that goes hand in hand with both relying on your competitor to fix some issues your cards have but also that developers will be using coding specifically designed to benefit that vendor in the first place. So Nvidia have preferential performance and they also have the ability to respond as fast or slow as they want to helping AMD out. Something tells me the big performance hits from Nvidia (normally a quite competent and good software company) isn't necessarily a simple accident. Even if it was, we simply end up in a situation where AMD can't resolve there own issues and that is not only anti-competitive but a dangerous situation for the industry. Clearly Nvidia has large market share but that is probably the main reason they can push this sort of stuff so easily.

If AMD then got to the point where they was unfairly controlling the market I'm sure I'd have voiced against them too but in that particular situation it was never the case and no different to physx in that it is more akin to a unique offering to improve there own cards performance which they have the right to do. it would have never stopped Nvidia users sticking with microsoft if they wanted to though. Different argument and again we simply differ in perspective again. I'd have voiced against AMD having sole market control if it came to that and you'd have bought the card you bought because you're the kind of person who just buys whatever is available it seems. Fair play but I'm not against that so we're not at odds here but I have to disagree on it as a comparison since it's closer to a unique offering such as physx. I've never said a bad thing about physx either anyway this will be my last post in reply to this, we clearly simply differ on our interest of the industry over the specific card we buy at upgrade day that gives us the most performance. I try and take a more long sighted approach but if you don't then that is your choice (or even if you just prefer Nvidia anyway, also your choice).

 

[Ian Evey]

Doesn't really matter if nvidia supported it or not as that's the route Amd wanted to go down, By creating their own api they gained performance over nvidia and added a selling point for thier cards.

Nvidia added gameworks to help sell thier cards.

If Amd bring out a stonking card And beat nvidia in every dept them the masses would goto Amd regardless of some effects nvidia have.

 

[Ian Evey]

The difference is mantle was not only optional but it provided no harm to Nvidia, in which case it was no different to physx or gsynch in that it's a technology made by them to benefit there own customers that is possible for others to imitate. When they implement gameworks though it is not possible for AMD to reimplement the way the game is programmed, it is merely coded and structured in a way beneficial to Nvidia and sometimes causes huge performance drops on AMD cards which take a while to fix due to not being implemented well and possibly due to the conflict of interest. As stated, mantle would not hamper Nvidia cards or leave Nvidia at the whims of AMD to fix any issues because it was a unique offering. The real difference lies in the potential anti-competitive edge that goes hand in hand with both relying on your competitor to fix some issues your cards have but also that developers will be using coding specifically designed to benefit that vendor in the first place. So Nvidia have preferential performance and they also have the ability to respond as fast or slow as they want to helping AMD out. Something tells me the big performance hits from Nvidia (normally a quite competent and good software company) isn't necessarily a simple accident. Even if it was, we simply end up in a situation where AMD can't resolve there own issues and that is not only anti-competitive but a dangerous situation for the industry. Clearly Nvidia has large market share but that is probably the main reason they can push this sort of stuff so easily.

If AMD then got to the point where they was unfairly controlling the market I'm sure I'd have voiced against them too but in that particular situation it was never the case and no different to physx in that it is more akin to a unique offering to improve there own cards performance which they have the right to do. it would have never stopped Nvidia users sticking with microsoft if they wanted to though. Different argument and again we simply differ in perspective again. I'd have voiced against AMD having sole market control if it came to that and you'd have bought the card you bought because you're the kind of person who just buys whatever is available it seems. Fair play but I'm not against that so we're not at odds here but I have to disagree on it as a comparison since it's closer to a unique offering such as physx. I've never said a bad thing about physx either

Gameworks does not hamper Amd either? They can turn it off!

 

[LoadsaMoney]

Gamewoks, for the Chinese market

 

[Insanties_birth]

Gameworks does not hamper Amd either? They can turn it off!

and if it was designed better they wouldn't have to Also if it was open source / from another source that was vendor neutral they also wouldn't have to. Also AMD clearly got quite annoyed by it when the performance dips were occurring on the witcher 3 which was causing them to potentially lose customers so yes it does hamper AMD. Please stop being so short sighted, I've explained clearly this is a discussion about the industry and AMD themselves railed against it so they know more about it than you. If it didn't effect them they'd say nothing but having Nvidia tech inherently programmed into the game can harm them regardless and even when it doesn't it still leaves a coding that is designed to be more efficient on Nvidia than there own systems so it prevents devs from going elsewhere for these effects.

there's one of three scenarios it can harm AMD users

1) AMD users have to turn the feature off - does effect AMD users / AMD sales, would be preferential that they used a more vendor neutral software
2) It doesn't require to be turned off but it still hampers AMD more than Nivida in performance - does effect AMD users / AMD sales, would be preferential that they used a more vendor neutral software
3) It works but has an issue with the software that requires AMD get Nvidia to fix it - does effect AMD users / AMD sales, would be preferential that they used a more vendor neutral software due to issues with conflict of interest and locking out AMD fixing this themselves.

3 scenarios it effects AMD users. Based on previous experience it more than often comes down to one of these issues with gameworks as well. In all these scenarios AMD are hampered in either performance, ability to rectify the issue, the ability to even use the feature (which you yourself pointed out) but somehow that wouldn't qualify as hampering AMD? They can turn it off but how does losing sales and missing features which were meant to be able to work on both sides somehow class as not hampering AMD? What a poor argument. I can sell you a broken car that works great as a backup car, as long as you don't want to actually turn it on then it'll work great how much you want to pay for an awesome backup car that you can't turn on? Exactly, either this is hampering AMD and they can use the software that is meant to be vendor neutral or it's not performing as intended and should have been sourced from an actually reliable source.

 

[Howling]

Doesn't really matter if nvidia supported it or not that's the way Amd wanted it, By creating their own api they gained performance over nvidia and added a selling point for thier cards.

Nvidia added gameworks to help sell thier cards.

If Amd bring out a stonking card And beat nvidia in every dept them the masses would goto Amd regardless of some effects nvidia have.

Can I have that in English? Preferably with some coherent logical thought process that humans can follow.

 

[Gregster]

Can I have that in English? Preferably with some coherent logical thought process than humans can follow.

Than humans can follow?

And I can understand what Ian is saying very easily.

 

[Howling]

Yup, pick up on a typo. gg.
I can't understand what he's saying.

His second sentence makes sense. And his third makes sense, but history has shown the statement to be wrong. It's the first sentence I don't understand.

 

[Ian Evey]

Your arguing your own argument that was Amd having mantle did not hamper nvidia! From your own agumemts it's clear it did harm nvidia sales, Which is what both companies exsist for.

I'm sorry but it seems like you want to use gameworks or gsync without using an nvidia card!

That would be like nvidia users wanting to use Amd things without using an Amd card.

Amd need to be a lot more attractive this time round.

Nvidia's practices are shown by the amount of market share they have, Right or wrong in anyone's own opinion on what they do they still sell shed loads of cards with the way they do business.

I would not spite myself by buying Amd when I really wanted nvidia or vice versa because of personal opinions on either of them.

Which ever suits me I will buy, If I needed a gfx card when the 970 came out with the ram gate issue I certainly would not have bought one or the overpriced 980 imo and would probably have got a 390 or fury non x or a 980ti <-- reluctantly.

But I can assure you I would not stay with nvidia because of gameworks, or gsync, There are options for us to choose from.

 

[Ian Evey]

Yup, pick up on a typo. gg.
I can't understand what he's saying.

His second sentence makes sense. And his third makes sense, but history has shown the statement to be wrong. It's the first sentence I don't understand.

Sorry you don't understand I'm using my I-phone, That's right, my I-phone

Edited the post for you.

 

[Insanties_birth]

Than humans can follow?

And I can understand what Ian is saying very easily.

So you're chiming in but not going to weigh in on whether it's a conflict of interest, whether it's overstepping the mark and under delivering on vendor neutral software or even if it's appropriate for that kind of relationship that inherently benefits one side?

I feel your giving Ian a little nod of approval while cheekily avoiding showing your colours

While I understand what Ian is saying it is still lacking logical coherence as Howling said. I already clearly pointed out the difference between mantle and gameworks is that gameworks has a negative impact on the other sides performance and ability to fix the issues. This was not addressed properly and still remains an issue as evidenced by AMD commenting against it in the link I posted you earlier.
The next point was that this was just a benefit to AMD still but I pointed out that this is normal and Nvidia does this with Physx too but we're not against this since it's not really an issue if they choose to benefit there own customers and that can be encouraged but having a situation which is anti-competitive is wrong. I then pointed out if they have to turn it off then it's not a good service too and this has yet to be addressed. Come on greg, don't back the fools shouting the loudest with the least sense.

Your arguing your own argument that was Amd having mantle did not hamper nvidia! From your own agumemts it's clear it did harm nvidia sales, Which is what both companies exsist for.

I'm sorry but it seems like you want to use gameworks or gsync without using an nvidia card!

That would be like nvidia users wanting to use Amd things without using an Amd card.

Amd need to be a lot more attractive this time round.

Nvidia's practices are shown by the amount of market share they have, Right or wrong in anyone's own opinion on what they do they still sell shed loads of cards with the way they do business.

I would not spite myself by buying Amd when I really wanted nvidia or vice versa because of personal opinions on either of them.

Which ever suits me I will buy, If I needed a gfx card when the 970 came out with the ram gate issue I certainly would not have bought one or the overpriced 980 imo and would probably have got a 390 or fury non x or a 980ti <-- reluctantly.

But I can assure you I would not stay with nvidia because of gameworks, or gsync, There are options for us to choose from.

I'll address you quickly cos you're misunderstanding more than you are understanding so taking too much time.

All parties serve there own interests and making your own performance is normal, they make there own cards to compete with each other in the beginning after all. The fault lies in having Nvidia have a clear advantage that is IMPOSSIBLE for AMD to compete against because it's hardwired into the game code and how the game works. That is anti-competitive and leads to an arms race of AMD and Nvdia sponsoring games and hampering service for the other side. We don't need this and as discussed before your example of mantle is very poor because it doesn't hamper Nvidia, it is a product AMD make themselves but doesn't damage Nvidia's performance, gameworks does potentially damage AMD's performance and does make it harder for them to fix issues because it's influenced by the other side. If you don't understand that then come back later when you do.

this argument isn't about gsynch or freesynch, you're lacking coherence or common sense here. No one said anything about those two products in any negative way or to argue against them.

If you choose to view it as spiting yourself that's your view, I already told you to buy what you want.

Still the real argument is gameworks. It has benefit to Nvidia in a way that is negative to AMD. I prefer open source stuff and fair play, if you don't then that's fine but just be honest and upfront that you don't care about that stuff. It's simple, the software is often broken for AMD users and I view it as anti-competitive if we choose a neutral perspective that favours neither side. You've not provided a real example of AMD hampering Nvidia in the same regard (same regard meaning Nvidia can not fix there own issues and have the games specifically programmed to work better on AMD).

 

[TheRealDeal]

Mantle is totally different and in no way affected the Nvidia users experience in DX. Amd drivers gain AMD cards performance and are locked to AMD cards. Mantle improved AMD performance and in no way decreased or affected the Nvidia experience. There's been plenty of arguments to suggest that Gamework's negatively affects AMD and some would even say Nvidia.

There's also the fact that mantle is now in Vulcan which supports both Vendors and many more. It can also be said that Mantle has helped forward PC gaming. I am not sure the same can be said for Gameworks.

 

[Ian Evey]

So you're chiming in but not going to weigh in on whether it's a conflict of interest, whether it's overstepping the mark and under delivering on vendor neutral software or even if it's

I feel your giving Ian a little nod of approval while cheekily avoiding showing your colours

While I understand what Ian is saying it is still lacking logical coherence as Howling said. I already clearly pointed out the difference between mantle and gameworks is that gameworks has a negative impact on the other sides performance and ability to fix the issues. This was not addressed properly and still remains an issue as evidenced by AMD commenting against it in the link I posted you earlier.
The next point was that this was just a benefit to AMD still but I pointed out that this is normal and Nvidia does this with Physx too but we're not against this since it's not really an issue if they choose to benefit there own customers and that can be encouraged but having a situation which is anti-competitive is wrong. I then pointed out if they have to turn it off then it's not a good service too and this has yet to be addressed. Come on greg, don't back the fools shouting the loudest with the least sense.

Nvidia make a library for any devs to use and the devs want to use it, you can only blame the devs, No one is holding a gun to thier head.

My advice to you is don't buy any game with gameworks in it as you will be only saying to devs that this is acceptable.

Hmm like I did with Ubisoft!