The truth has nothing to do with it. He's got a big mouth, anyone with a shred of class or professional work ethic would not comment, but only comment on their own product. He fits in perfectly for AMD however.
-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
AMD Pure Hair comes at a very low performance hit - Great stuff
- Thread starter Gregster
- Start date
The truth has nothing to do with it. He's got a big mouth, anyone with a shred of class or professional work ethic would not comment, but only comment on their own product. He fits in perfectly for AMD however.
It boggles the mind, doesn't it? At the very least the word "AMD" should have been put before "Purehair". Outside of a tiny group of PC enthusiasts, no-one knows that this game has any AMD tech in it.
It's particularly frustrating because the technology is so good compared to competing solutions.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,226
He is right though there is no way it would happen with Gameworks atm. GpuOpen is in direct competition with Gameworks so why not mention it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,680
- Location
- The KOP
+1
It shows that all pc users benefits from open standards. Pure hair runs great on both amd and nvidia.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,792
- Location
- Cornwall
So that suggests that Crystal Dynamics made the changes? Which I guess is why it's called PureHair and not TressFX any more? Or is it now called PureHair in GPUOpen?
Has this been added into TressFX so everyone else can use it rather than just Crystal Dynamics? Otherwise it's sort of another GameWorks but owned by Crystal Dynamics rather than Nvidia.
If TressFX was so good, why did Crystal Dynamics need to improve it?
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,080
- Location
- In a house
They should have made it cripple Nvidia, or not allow them to use it tbh.
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,226
In what way would it be like another Gamework's?
Crystal Dynamics now have optimised code for there game engine for future use that clearly works well on both Vendors. It does look like they even get to call it what they want as they improved upon AMD's base code to suit there needs. This does not mean the basic Amd code is crap. As i am not a coder i am guessing but with different game engines i would hazard a guess there will be different improvements that can be made to the basic code to optimise it further.
Essentially it's what AMD wants. The whole point of GPUOpen is to allow devs to build upon whatever source code is available. AMD didn't have any problems allowing the devs to modify and even rename TressFX based code.
If Devs adopt TressFX instead of the gpu hog Hairworks then it's a win for them and all gamers benefit.
this is pretty much the reason why having source code is better than a library. you know how the code is going to interact with your engine and can optimise it.
What he said is nothing out of the ordinary. It's general marketing speak and he has every right to boast about GPUOpen.
Nvidia put random logos in game when they add a feature so whats the problem with a twitter post?
Last edited:
Clearly AMD don't have the luxury of dirty tricks like that, since it requires a dominant market position (see Intel), which they don't have.
If they invented something that ran poorly (or not at all) on nV system, no developer would use it, because it would mean losing 80% of sales
Whereas nV can cripple AMD performance and still have good dev uptake, AMD could not do the same.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
Don't forget the bread.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 12 Sep 2013
- Posts
- 9,221
- Location
- Knowhere
And that there is the big difference although it would be an idea to insist on having some sort of gpuopen works tag in the promotional stuff of any games using from it.
Guru3d has added cpu scaling for their performance review. Results are quite interesting on AMD side atleast, 1 core being fastester than 2,4 and 8 cores.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_page..._graphics_performance_benchmark_review,9.html
Caporegime
- Joined
- 8 Jul 2003
- Posts
- 30,080
- Location
- In a house
Clearly AMD don't have the luxury of dirty tricks like that, since it requires a dominant market position (see Intel), which they don't have.
If they invented something that ran poorly (or not at all) on nV system, no developer would use it, because it would mean losing 80% of sales
Whereas nV can cripple AMD performance and still have good dev uptake, AMD could not do the same.
Yeah thats true unfortunately
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,918
- Location
- Planet Earth
Yep,and Nvidia is quite vocal in any sort of tech it contributes to games including the bits which work across vendors - remember the God Rays in FO4 which Nvidia and Bethesda worked on. AFAIK,it wasn't a Gameworks effect but something Nvidia contributed towards in the game.
Agreed - at least indicate AMD has been involved in this way. In fact when it comes to some of these physics effects,the dev behind W3 actually has their own engine which they used for consoles,IIRC,instead of the Nvidia Gameworks effects on PC.
If you look at almost the entire lack of noise from AMD about this,it makes it look like Purehair was totally developed by Crystal Dynamics.
I seriously do not understand AMD marketing at times. So make a big noise about Gameworks,TressFX and GPUOpen and then when a company uses TressFX and GPUOpen,most of the PR is absolutely silent about it.
Plus Nvidia trolls them by not even mentioning it was based on AMD tech.
Last edited:
They really should have gone on a full PR rampage to get the point across than Pure Hair is Crystal Dymanics' implementation of TressFX through their OpenGPU initiative.
It's a missed opportunity, to say the least.
This goes to prove that Open Standards are better than closed boxes for the advancement of technology to the masses. Oh and as for TressFX.....everything can be improved upon and should be...isn't it called progress.
And PureHair works well with only a 2-4fps cost to performance......surely Nvidia users cannot argue with that.
Agreed, AMD must learn to blow their own trumpet a bit louder and more often though.
And PureHair works well with only a 2-4fps cost to performance......surely Nvidia users cannot argue with that.
Agreed, AMD must learn to blow their own trumpet a bit louder and more often though.
Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,918
- Location
- Planet Earth
Agreed and it makes me wonder the heck AMD PR is doing as its their bloody job. Nvidia just seems to understand how to market their stuff 1000x better than AMD,and at times they seem to help Nvidia by proxy.
Everytime Nvidia does anything or contributes anything they will at least put a PR piece on their website or try to direct some attention towards it.
Sure AMD they gearing up for Polaris and so on,but its these details they keep missing which won't help them,and its the not the first time they have own goals.
I was seriously hoping RTG would do better in this regard.