Makes sense if you have most of the market and so many are brand loyal to you. It will nudge a fair few into upgrading earlier again and again until they're just used to it. I am convinced that other companies like Apple definitely do this with their older phones so I wouldn't be surprised if nvidia do the same. It's a guaranteed money-spinner. What's the downside? A few people moan about it online and then buy your cards again anyway? Even larger incentive for them to do it now that they have no high-end competition.
-
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.
Do nvidia downgrade performance on older card
- Thread starter This never ends well
- Start date
Again its partly perception - AMD pulled some more life out of the 200 series later on partly due to taking a long time to fully mature driver support for them and Maxwell has some efficiency improvements that gave it some boosts once drivers matured a bit. Kepler was largely (and I admit there are some exceptions to that) giving its best performance from early on and personally I'm quite happy with that - I got great performance when I needed it and moved on when that generation of cards are no longer relevant for my needs any more.
Thing is with apple with older phones as they keep updating the OS it just seems to slow down the phone. Seen it happen many of times. People then just want to upgrade. My other half's phone became a paperweight because of updating her iphone lol. I gave her so much crap for it but one good thing about apple. They replaced it for a new one for her in store. I was kinda gob smacked at that.
It's pretty logical that these 'blunders' you speak of are related to their relatively puny budget.
Go compare AMD and NVIDIA's financials, it should be logical that NVIDIA can afford far more personnel, Q&A, etc which would obviously give them far more choice when it comes to strategic decisions and overall presentation.
To be honest, it's rather embarrassing for NVIDIA that AMD, upto Pascal launch at least, have been able to compete neck and neck with NVIDIA in performance, given their R&D investment difference.
Be aware I'm typing this as a desktop 1070 and laptop 980M owner, not some raving AMD fanboy
AMD had a bigger R&D budget than NVidia a couple of years ago and a few years further back, NVidia were struggling.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
There have (for both sides) been clear cases of performance decreases in some games with new drivers. Mostly the performance is back up with the next set. It happens. It will keep happening.
NVIDIA were looked at sideways after a new card release set of drivers decreased the previous gens performance in a few games. While they fixed the problem fairly quickly some people think they were trying to twist the launch reviews. I suspect this is attributing intent where it's not due - I suspect the most likely scenario is that for launch drivers focus for development and testing is on how the new card runs to such a degree that it's almost inevitable this will happen. For older gen card users you're generally not recommended to get the launch drivers for a new series anyway as there will be little added for you, wait till normal service resumes, so not too many people would be affected and even those who are would need to bench one of the relevant games to notice at all. (I think the case where NVIDIA acknowledged it was a few releases later to fix, can't remember timeframe)
Having not owned a card that suffered this at an appropriate time I've just gathered chat from various forums etc so who knows
and the reasoning is all my own (and I'm pretty sleep-deprived right now so trust me at your own peril )
NVIDIA were looked at sideways after a new card release set of drivers decreased the previous gens performance in a few games. While they fixed the problem fairly quickly some people think they were trying to twist the launch reviews. I suspect this is attributing intent where it's not due - I suspect the most likely scenario is that for launch drivers focus for development and testing is on how the new card runs to such a degree that it's almost inevitable this will happen. For older gen card users you're generally not recommended to get the launch drivers for a new series anyway as there will be little added for you, wait till normal service resumes, so not too many people would be affected and even those who are would need to bench one of the relevant games to notice at all. (I think the case where NVIDIA acknowledged it was a few releases later to fix, can't remember timeframe)
Having not owned a card that suffered this at an appropriate time I've just gathered chat from various forums etc so who knows
and the reasoning is all my own (and I'm pretty sleep-deprived right now so trust me at your own peril )
Last edited:
If it cant be proven why say it in the first place. If it cant be proven then it doesnt happen !
After a time nvidia stop optimising their drivers for older generations. Doesnt mean they go any slower due to the drivers. Just means they wont get any faster because of the drivers.
Also people mistake their older generation card for struggling in a new AAA game and blame the drivers gimping the card. They dont think about its just because their card cant handle new games as its, old generation ! Yeah it does compute!
Nvidia provide better Day 1 and early drivers than AMD do, typically. At least when we're talking about DX11.
AMD cars often have greater potential, but it takes them a lot longer to actually start making good use of that potential.
Meaning I dont think AMD better supports their cards over a longer time, Nvidia cards simply reach their potential quicker and have less room for growth.
People seem to have a very naive view of how driver improvements work, thinking that they are some magic system that just keep getting better and better at some linear rate the more you work on them. Which is not the case AT ALL.
AMD cars often have greater potential, but it takes them a lot longer to actually start making good use of that potential.
Meaning I dont think AMD better supports their cards over a longer time, Nvidia cards simply reach their potential quicker and have less room for growth.
People seem to have a very naive view of how driver improvements work, thinking that they are some magic system that just keep getting better and better at some linear rate the more you work on them. Which is not the case AT ALL.
They also had a CPU division.
- Joined
- 2 Aug 2014
- Posts
- 2,029
- Location
- Watford
Sorry i must have been thinking wrong it was the 1070 not the 1080
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
If it cant be proven why say it in the first place. If it cant be proven then it doesnt happen !
After a time nvidia stop optimising their drivers for older generations. Doesnt mean they go any slower due to the drivers. Just means they wont get any faster because of the drivers.
Also people mistake their older generation card for struggling in a new AAA game and blame the drivers gimping the card. They dont think about its just because their card cant handle new games as its, old generation ! Yeah it does compute!
No i can't prove that Nvidia gimp drivers. I can prove that Kepler lost ground pretty fast to Maxwell and Gcn. It's sort of happening with Maxwell gm104 as well and i look forward to seeing what happens with Maxwell v Pascal.
The reason i can't prove things is i am not inside either company but there is evidence to support gimping but i can't just say 100% that's what it is.
Last edited:
Serious question did kepler lose performance or did Maxwell and GCN gain?
If it didnt lose performance (fps) from where it used to be in games ( not new gamer games) then it wasnt gimped it just wasnt worked on as current gen.
Gimping to me is decreasing performance from what it had . Or are people saying gimped to mean not improved upon aswell?
Gregster, Gregster. Go google the financials, for the last 6-7 years NVIDIA's R&D has dwarfed AMD's.
My point stands, it's amazing that the Fury X, 290X, 7970 etc were competitive with NVIDIA at all, considering the R&D budget difference. If you can't acknowledge this, I suggest replacing your green tinted reading glasses
Gimped+Nvidia can be a whole load of topics.
Disabling oc'ing on every Maxwell mgpu-yes those expensive overclockable-as advertised ones, does that count as gimping?
That was another arrogant move imo-the laptop driver oc block.
Nv backed down and re-enabled oc'ing only to ship new stock with a locked down vbios that disabled oc'ing completely.
Nv backed down again, removed the vbios restriction only to reintroduce the driver oc block at a later date and blamed it on 'driver regression'.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia...ing-for-GTX-900M-graphics-cards.142987.0.html
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 28 May 2007
- Posts
- 10,222
Nah gimping to me is taking a really fast card and handy capping it on purpose. It's to obvious to make old games run slower. If you were going to do it then what happened is almost perfect. Surely you would push your new tech in new games where the excuse is new games benefit from new tech. The gtx780 ti was such a fast card and then it wasnt
. I don't know if I can believe all of a sudden it's crap lol.Gimped+Nvidia can be a whole load of topics.
Disabling oc'ing on every Maxwell mgpu-yes those expensive overclockable-as advertised ones, does that count as gimping?
That was another arrogant move imo-the laptop driver oc block.
Nv backed down and re-enabled oc'ing only to ship new stock with a locked down vbios that disabled oc'ing completely.
Nv backed down again, removed the vbios restriction only to reintroduce the driver oc block at a later date and blamed it on 'driver regression'.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Nvidia...ing-for-GTX-900M-graphics-cards.142987.0.html
I do agree that removal of being able to OC was indeed gimping!
Gregster, Gregster. Go google the financials, for the last 6-7 years NVIDIA's R&D has dwarfed AMD's.
My point stands, it's amazing that the Fury X, 290X, 7970 etc were competitive with NVIDIA at all, considering the R&D budget difference. If you can't acknowledge this, I suggest replacing your green tinted reading glasses
Ok, I am getting older and time is going faster so did what you suggested and...
So 3 years ago, AMD had a bigger R&D budget than NVidia. That isn't 6 or 7 years ago like you said and go back a few years and you can see NVidia in financial struggle.
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/nvidia-shares-off-on-accounting-worry
So you are completely wrong and before anyone comes at me with "Yer but but but AMD have a CPU as well", NVidia also have a SoC which requires that R&D.
Ohhh, nice try on putting me in the fanboy section but I have facts and you have nothing. Jog on pal
If it cant be proven why say it in the first place. If it cant be proven then it doesnt happen !
After a time nvidia stop optimising their drivers for older generations. Doesnt mean they go any slower due to the drivers. Just means they wont get any faster because of the drivers.
Also people mistake their older generation card for struggling in a new AAA game and blame the drivers gimping the card. They dont think about its just because their card cant handle new games as its, old generation ! Yeah it does compute!
Totally agree. The problem is though people see amd cards at the same time doing better and gaining performance so assume nvidia is gimping.
Do a car apology. It's like somebody buying the faster car from nvidia, next year they release a newer faster model and again the year after. At the same time amd had released a slower card but every year when they release a slightly faster rebadged refreshed car, the reprogram the chips on the older cars to give them a gain in performance.
Evergreen 2009 architecture was nothing like GCN yet my 5970,s were still going strong through the AMD 6 series and in may 2013, a year and a half into GCN and i only upgraded then because the Vram was failing on one of my cards.