[H]ardOCP: GeForce Partner Program Impacts Consumer Choice

[GoogalyMoogaly]

For those of us that struggle to watch his videos, can anyone summarise it?
I mean I'd bet he's going to criticise Nvidia, so not quite that summarised, but just a quick breakdown of highlights of what he says.

 

[pete910]

The source code for almost all gameswokrs effects can be downloaded.

Which you well know is not open, they do naff all to aid the nouveau driver teams either. well apart from holding back firmware so the team can do the relevant bits to add support for new cards. .

to be honest trying to say Nvidia is a big support of open source like intel/amd is laughable.

I admit they have released things in the past but come on D.P.

Edit:

Freesync is opens source, AMD keeps the source closed.

You've confused me on this one.

 

[KillBoY_UK]

Nowhere.
Look at even something new like the Ray Tracing. Nvidia supports it on Volta or better architecture only and closed code.
AMD releases exactly the same tech, for everyone in open source via the GPUOpen and works on Hawaii GPU or better!!!!!!!!

in software, no hardware support, aimed at Pro use only looking at "Radeon Rays".

You can still use normal Microsofts DXR on GPU's like Volta or otherwise but DXR doesn't know how to make use of the nvidia tensor core to accelerate it. Which is where DTX comes in

 

[subbytna]

For those of us that struggle to watch his videos, can anyone summarise it?
I mean I'd bet he's going to criticise Nvidia, so not quite that summarised, but just a quick breakdown of highlights of what he says.

I think most people are criticising Nvidia and their GPP farce, as does he in the start of the video. He then analysis the 8 core and uses Nvidias own slides, to talk about graphics performance and a correlation with cores. Speaks about new Ryzen cpus for a while. All in all, another good video full of analysis. One of the better tech tubers around.

 

[D.P.]

Which you well know is not open, they do naff all to aid the nouveau driver teams either. well apart from holding back firmware so the team can do the relevant bits to add support for new cards. .

I know the gamesworks code is not Open Sourced licence, but to all intents and purposes it is the same thing unless you are some long haired hippy. From a developers perspective, any developer can download the code, modify and uses it as they wish, but they do have to pay a license fee for use within a commercial product, and can't distribute modified code as their own. AMD's GPUopen is in reality much the same for a developer with the difference being that they don;t pay for a license fee but then don;t get any support form AMD either. With gamesworks the license fees covers support. There is a very good reason why a developer is more likely to pay for a Gamesworks license and get supported code than use GPUOpen.

to be honest trying to say Nvidia is a big support of open source like intel/amd is laughable.

I admit they have released things in the past but come on D.P.

Edit:


You've confused me on this one.

Some typos. Freesync is NOT open source, is is closed source propriety. It also isn;t free, it just doesn't have a license fee. Freesync is AMD"s closed proprietary solution leverage Adaptive Sync. Adaptive sync itself is also not open source, but an industry standard (much like CUDA is for example).



All of this begs the question why people playing closed source computer games that use closed source libraries and closed source graphics APIs, developed with closed source software, compiled with closed source compilers, running on a closed source operating system, with an AMD GPU using closed source windows drivers and closed source firmware, on a platform where all the hardware is closed source really care that there exists open source drivers for an Operating system they don't use?

I use linux and open source software all the time. I don;t touch Microsoft or DX with a barge pole. As a developer, I like to use open source libraries when they are suitable, but will happily use closed source if it does what i want. And in 90% of cases closed source libraries and software are just massively superior. I don't give a dman that a company that invested millions into software doesn't share that with others, just like I don;t care that Sony doesn't share details on how they make TVs, Ford doesn't share details of their car design, and I have no way of knowing all the details of closed source Ryzen CPU for example.

 

[D1craig]

so the AIBs are being as foolish as the people who are saying "its AMDs fault". surely they should contact each other and say lets call Nvidia out and all say no to this?

 

[pete910]

ut they do have to pay a license fee for use within a commercial product, and can't distribute modified code as their own

So not open then?

Freesync is NOT open source, is is closed source propriety

Irrelevant as AMD have a open implementation within the AMDGPU driver, Not sure if any is shared at all with the closed driver though.

All of this begs the question why people playing closed source computer games that use closed source libraries and closed source graphics APIs, developed with closed source software, compiled with closed source compilers, running on a closed source operating system, with an AMD GPU using closed source windows drivers and closed source firmware, on a platform where all the hardware is closed source really care that there exists open source drivers for an Operating system they don't use?

Agreed it is odd but I think most confuse "open standard" with "open source" tbh.

 

[D.P.]

So not open then?

No, but the difference is irreverent for any consumer.

Irrelevant as AMD have a open implementation within the AMDGPU driver, Not sure if any is shared at all with the closed driver though.

No, AMD don;'t because Freesync require closed source and propitiatory implantation within the GPU and firmware, and if you are using windows, code within the closed source windows driver. AdaptiveSync itself is not open source, even if someone made an open source driver to support AdaptiveSync.

Agreed it is odd but I think most confuse "open standard" with "open source" tbh.

There is no real definition of "open standard". Different countries, includes and companies use it to mean different things. It can certainly be closed source, propriety and require usage fees.

 

[chrcoluk]

I used to love hardocp, I still like the site, but one if its editors (kyle) was adamant only retailers were price gouging on GPUs and that all board partners wholesalers etc. were been like angels, I said gibbo said otherwise and in the real world that wouldnt happen "everyone" on the supply chain would milk the cow so to speak, I asked him for proof as he was so confident, got nothing tangible so that left a sour taste in my mouth.

 

[pete910]

No, but the difference is irreverent for any consumer.

No, you was implying that's its open and It's clearly not, consumer or not does not matter.

No, AMD don;'t because Freesync require closed source and propitiatory implantation within the GPU and firmware, and if you are using windows, code within the closed source windows driver. AdaptiveSync itself is not open source, even if someone made an open source driver to support AdaptiveSync.

I never said that they where open, you stating that their freesync driver is closed. I was pointing out that AMD do have a open source freesync driver as well as the prop one within the kernel.

Just to clarify I was meaning in Linux not windows as I don't do windows either but thought you new/realised that.

There is no real definition of "open standard". Different countries, includes and companies use it to mean different things. It can certainly be closed source, propriety and require usage fees.

"open standard" as in open for anyone to use in this case, like Adaptive sync.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

so the AIBs are being as foolish as the people who are saying "its AMDs fault". surely they should contact each other and say lets call Nvidia out and all say no to this?

Nvidia have enough exclusive partners that if MSI, ASUS and gigabyte said "no" it wouldn't make a difference to their sales. Also the founder edition was Nvidia way of telling AIBs that they don't need them.

 

[henson0115]

Nvidia have enough exclusive partners that if MSI, ASUS and gigabyte said "no" it wouldn't make a difference to their sales. Also the founder edition was Nvidia way of telling AIBs that they don't need them.

in your opinion right? no way nvidia are going to make the same profit if you took away the aib's, there is a whole structure that aibs have in place that has a cost to it, which nvidia would have to take up. completely different ball game selling 1 card your self compared to your entire range. if its so easy why arn't they doing it now? money thats why.

 

[Gregster]

in your opinion right? no way nvidia are going to make the same profit if you took away the aib's, there is a whole structure that aibs have in place that has a cost to it, which nvidia would have to take up. completely different ball game selling 1 card your self compared to your entire range. if its so easy why arn't they doing it now? money thats why.

How much profit does NVidia make if they sell a GPU? How much profit does an AIB make if they sell a GPU? How much do NVidia sell the chips to the AIBs?

 

[pete910]

How much profit does NVidia make if they sell a GPU?

Only Smarties have the answer

 

[Gregster]

Only Smarties have the answer

Haha

I bet their margins are very high though and I wouldn't mind a slice of that cake.

 

[Howling]

Only Smarties have the answer

Offtopic: Bruh I can't even remember the last time I had smarties.. Infact I can't remember seeing them in shops now you mention it.

On topic: Dunno if it's been mentioned yet, but it looks like there's a few AIBs that have already re-jigged their line up to fit in with nVidia's program. Disappointing that AIBs have caved, but it was inevitable given the market

 

[Silent_Scone]

For those of us that struggle to watch his videos, can anyone summarise it?
I mean I'd bet he's going to criticise Nvidia, so not quite that summarised, but just a quick breakdown of highlights of what he says.

Don't have sound at the moment so tried using subtitles. Thinks it's Russian.

 

[henson0115]

Haha

I bet their margins are very high though and I wouldn't mind a slice of that cake.

missed the point, what about paying extra employees to ship, maintain, sell, deal with rma. phone support etc etc. bigger picture stuff, not just selling a card.
yes they would make a lot of profit, but there is also an associated cost with all of this which is more than likely the reason why they do not sell all of there own gpus direct.
focus on what you are good at and all that..
edit: to make this clearer aibs have this structure in place already. nvidia does not. not to mention the marketing side of things which aibs have spent years on.

 

[Wrinkly]

For those of us that struggle to watch his videos, can anyone summarise it?
I mean I'd bet he's going to criticise Nvidia, so not quite that summarised, but just a quick breakdown of highlights of what he says.

I would, but how would you understand without the pictures?

 

[LoadsaMoney]