Exactly.
-
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
Exactly.
Note the admittance in using 'fixes'.
PCars and GTAV got boosts too iirc, at the end of the day they fixed it.
They would never have been caught or admitted it if it wasn't for AMD having the tesselation slider in the drivers. AMD cards ran faster than kepler with the tesselation set to low which proved that the game was using excessive tesselation probably to probably overburden AMD and older Nvidia cards. I think even without Hairworks, the equivalent AMD cards were running better.
Initially Nvidia claimed that Kepler was old tech but thanks to the competition's performance advantage, Kepler users could see that there was something wrong with the kepler drivers.
Last edited:
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
LOL what Greg? did you even read the article? Financial troubles in 2002!! haha their shares took a bit of a drop but they made massive profits. 134% increase in net income, that's what you call financial trouble??? You are really reaching there.
As for R&D, AMD invested heavily in Bulldozer, that's where they put most of their R&D, not GPU's. And we all know how much of a failure bulldozer was. It's failure is mostly responsible for AMD's current financial situation.
As for your last statement. He didn't try to put you in the fanboy section, he didn't have to, you managed that all by yourself, pal
The dev confirmed what we all knew(unless you have that rare sepia green skin condition
) that there was no way for them to optimise GW's AT ALL for AMD so it's not as if it was fine tuned to run superior on AMD hardware.As AMD's market share had plummeted, it's more aimed at their own customers so imo it was one of those 'convenient' money grabbing moments with a wee 'nudge' that would have made some upgrade.
My business money grabs for ~3 months on a seasonal line every single year, and let me tell you they run at you with cash, some of them can fair moan the face off you while they hand over their cash right enough(sound familiar?
), but I know 95% will pay up.But that keeps the business open, without it I'd be out of business, but it's a fine line to walk-but 30 years later I'm still pulling it off.
LOL what Greg? did you even read the article? Financial troubles in 2002!! haha their shares took a bit of a drop but they made massive profits. 134% increase in net income, that's what you call financial trouble??? You are really reaching there.
As for R&D, AMD invested heavily in Bulldozer, that's where they put most of their R&D, not GPU's. And we all know how much of a failure bulldozer was. It's failure is mostly responsible for AMD's current financial situation.
As for your last statement. He didn't try to put you in the fanboy section, he didn't have to, you managed that all by yourself, pal
Oh look, someone else wants to disagree and try and look clever whilst doing so but you know what? I don't really care. I supplied a graph that shows AMD having a bigger R&D budget than NVIDIA 3 years ago. That is what I said and got told I was wrong on, so I proved it. They might well of ploughed a lot into faildozer but it still stands as a bigger R&D budget than Nvidia, so before you stick your neck in, read what is what in future!. There is many articles about Nvidia having financial difficulty as well to prove my point but go ahead and read what you like. I have no time to waste on those who just want to bring fanboy talk into a reasoned discussion. Like Dave, you can also jog on!
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,791
- Location
- Cornwall
Surely the easy way to test if Nvidia are gimping performance is to test a card with the drivers on the CD that came with the card and on current drivers and see if the performance has gotten worse?
If it has, then there appears to be gimping (either intentional or unintentional). Otherwise it seems not, there might be a lack of optimisations, but that's not gimping. It may just be that Nvidia drivers are closer to optimal at release and so have less room for improvement.
If it has, then there appears to be gimping (either intentional or unintentional). Otherwise it seems not, there might be a lack of optimisations, but that's not gimping. It may just be that Nvidia drivers are closer to optimal at release and so have less room for improvement.
LOL what Greg? did you even read the article? Financial troubles in 2002!! haha their shares took a bit of a drop but they made massive profits. 134% increase in net income, that's what you call financial trouble??? You are really reaching there.
As for R&D, AMD invested heavily in Bulldozer, that's where they put most of their R&D, not GPU's. And we all know how much of a failure bulldozer was. It's failure is mostly responsible for AMD's current financial situation.
As for your last statement. He didn't try to put you in the fanboy section, he didn't have to, you managed that all by yourself, pal
+1, the fact he has to go back 14 years shows he is grasping for straws.
The majority know that for several generations (Pascal, Maxwell, Kepler, Fermi) NVIDIA has had a way higher R&D budget, which coincidentally corresponds to their massive market share gains.
We all know which side of the fence Gregster is on, though the fact that he got triggered by me pointing out NVIDIA have had much higher R&D than AMD just shows how fanatic he is.
NVIDIA's card are faster. Their software is better. Their resale value is higher. You don't need to be afraid, I'm not trying to bash NVIDIA in any shape or form. I'm simply highlighting that AMD have done very well considering the massive R&D divide.
It's not that they're downgraded, so much as a noticeable part of their performance comes from Nvidia's aggressive driver optimizations. But they only do that for their current generation. Picture it as a child riding a bike and the proud parents are running alongside pushing them along. When the next child comes along, they transfer all their affections to the new card, I mean child, and the first is left peddling alone. So with time, they appear to get worse.
Combine that with the fact that AMD does sort of the opposite - seldom has their drivers ready when they release the card but steadily get their act together in the following months or year, and you end up with an AMD card appearing to improve whilst the Nvidia one drops in relative performance. The relative part is important - the hardware never changes. But if you're interested in comparative assessments, Nvidia "degrades" with time.
Combine that with the fact that AMD does sort of the opposite - seldom has their drivers ready when they release the card but steadily get their act together in the following months or year, and you end up with an AMD card appearing to improve whilst the Nvidia one drops in relative performance. The relative part is important - the hardware never changes. But if you're interested in comparative assessments, Nvidia "degrades" with time.
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,243
- Location
- Scotland
What's weird to me, is that if the graph for Nvidia's R&D budget is right then when Jen Hsun said that they spent "billions" on it, that is their entire R&D budget for the last 7-8 quarters.
Seems a bit odd to me that they would have spent the entire budget on one thing for so long.
Source:
http://time.com/4322055/nvidia-gtx-1080/
This is assuming that the billions quoted was the minimum it could be too, which is $2billion.
Seems a bit odd to me that they would have spent the entire budget on one thing for so long.
Source:
http://time.com/4322055/nvidia-gtx-1080/
This is assuming that the billions quoted was the minimum it could be too, which is $2billion.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 3,035
http://www.babeltechreviews.com/nvidia-forgotten-kepler-gtx-780-ti-vs-290x-revisited/view-all/
Some stats in here which might shed some light.
Some stats in here which might shed some light.
Could it be billions of Taiwanese dollars. Wouldn't put it past nvidia to put it that way
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 15,641
Do you have anything to support that AMD improve performance over it's lifetime? fps benchmarks from driver release to say 20% improvement per driver release
Soldato
- Joined
- 26 Oct 2013
- Posts
- 4,243
- Location
- Scotland
It would be a weird way to do it but maybe you're right.
A pretty chart to look at:
The 290X has seen some large gains since launch. Whether you want to attribute that to bad drivers back then or great drivers now will no doubt depend on your personal bias.
Soldato
- Joined
- 6 Sep 2016
- Posts
- 15,641
yeah either Nvidia have
a) They have 98% driver optimisation at launch and cannot eek out extra perforamance
b) Or they can't be bothered to improve drivers
And for ATI
a) They have poor drivers at release which they improve upon
b) They are bothered to improve drivers.
Not a fanboy of either but depending on point of view.
a) They have 98% driver optimisation at launch and cannot eek out extra perforamance
b) Or they can't be bothered to improve drivers
And for ATI
a) They have poor drivers at release which they improve upon
b) They are bothered to improve drivers.
Not a fanboy of either but depending on point of view.
That'll be that personal bias then. Of course, old games from before Kepler was dropped like it's hot are only one point of comparison, and comparing the 780 Ti and 290X in more recent games generally tells a very different story.