All Frostbite 3 titles will be optimised exclusively for AMD

Martini1991 · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:13

humbug said:
You keep saying that but then fail to explain yourself.

Isn't his point his explanation

?

"AMD have previously said they're against vendor specific optimisation" isn't that its own explanation?

Not pro anyones side here, as I think this "news" is hot air, and won't change much for Nvidia/AMD.

Gregster · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:15

I can see Rroff's point. AMD have always claimed to be open about not locking the other side out and then Claim exclusivity with future EA games. Roy was big to jump on that and a few tweets earlier, he is petitioning for PhysX/Cuda to be open source as well.

That is purely double standards.

LtMatt · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:16

Martini1991 said:
Isn't his point his explanation ?

"AMD have previously said they're against vendor specific optimisation" isn't that its own explanation?

What they actually said has been quoted. Basically debilitating a game to hamper performance for one side only has been changed to 'previously said they're against vendor specific optimisation'.

Martini1991 · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:16

But AMD isn't locking anyone out?

Not that any of this matters, as the news is hot air, pretty meaningless, and has been been taken out of context/blown out of proportion.

Calin Banc · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:18

Gregster said:
I can see Rroff's point. AMD have always claimed to be open about not locking the other side out and then Claim exclusivity with future EA games. Roy was big to jump on that and a few tweets earlier, he is petitioning for PhysX/Cuda to be open source as well.

That is purely double standards.

How did AMD manage to "lock out" nVIDIA in those GE games? :rolleyes:

humbug · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:18

LtMatt said:
No they haven't what they've been very vocal about is summed up at pcper.

Source
http://www.pcper.com/news/Graphics-Cards/Rumor-AMD-Gets-Exclusive-Optimization-all-Frostbite-3-Games

When have AMD ever used any proprietary technologies to deliberately hamper performance on the on the other sides gpu's? Are you forgetting Batman: Arkham Asylum which locked AMD out of supporting anti aliasing. Assassin's Creed dropped DX 10.1 support because NVIDIA cards didn't support it. NVIDIA was disabling cores for PhysX CPU support to harm performance. Using extreme tessellation that adds nothing to image quality in crysis 2 other than the fact it hurt AMD cards performance more than Nvidia cards. I don't ever recall AMD doing anything like that other than improving their version of gaming evolved.

The good thing about gaming evolved is Nvidia users get to use it and any of the open standards features it employs without being locked out. Every Nvidia can use TressFX for example, or compute based AA or compute based lighting effects as seen in farcry 3 or dirt showdown.

The Tessellation thing in Crysis 2 back fired on them, while it did cripple HD 6000 series GPU's it performed far better on HD 7000 series GPU's than it did on the GTX 600, and reviewers for a while were still using that game in HD 7000 vs HD 6000 benchmarks.

LtMatt · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:19

Martini1991 said:
But AMD isn't locking anyone out?

Exactly.

How this is any different to what TWIMTBP do is beyond me. The problem is Nvidia lock half the gaming world out with their proprietary technologies. That's why TWIMTBP is dying off and gaming evolved is well, evolving at a rapid rate. Everyone gets to use OpenCL and Direct Compute as its open standard.

Martini1991 · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:20

LtMatt said:
What they actually said has been quoted. Basically debilitating a game to hamper performance for one side only has been changed to 'previously said they're against vendor specific optimisation'.

I don't actually know any game that's actually been hampered on AMD/Ati (Bar Crysis 2, but Crytek claim it's the only way they can add tessellation/water or whatever, and given Crysis 3 features rope killing FPS, it wouldn't surprise me about their inadequacies) I know about locked out features, AA on Batman Arkham, but not much more than that.

Gregster · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:22

Martini1991 said:
But AMD isn't locking anyone out?

Not that any of this matters, as the news is hot air, pretty meaningless, and has been been taken out of context/blown out of proportion.

In truth no. They were saying that Nvidia wouldn't have any contact with the game devs till it was released. Not quite locking out but a little dirty none the less.

Don't get me confused with being a fan boy, as Nvidia are no better and with PhysX/Cuda, I would like to see it open. Not sure what was what, as according to Nvidia in 2009 (iirc), they offered PhysX to anyone.

LtMatt · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:23

Martini1991 said:
I don't actually know any game that's actually been hampered on AMD/Ati (Bar Crysis 2, but Crytek claim it's the only way they can add tessellation/water or whatever, and given Crysis 3 features rope killing FPS, it wouldn't surprise me about their inadequacies) I know about locked out features, AA on Batman Arkham, but not much more than that.

http://www.techspot.com/community/t...tion-thats-a-good-looking-cement-slab.169967/

Martini1991 · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:25

They can't just "offer" PhysX though, back then it'd need to have been redeveloped with AMD/Ati/Intel.

If Nvidia aren't given access to future games in order to produce drivers/optimise, I'd fully agree it's a dirty move.

LtMatt · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:25

Gregster said:
In truth no. They were saying that Nvidia wouldn't have any contact with the game devs till it was released. Not quite locking out but a little dirty none the less.

Don't get me confused with being a fan boy, as Nvidia are no better and with PhysX/Cuda, I would like to see it open. Not sure what was what, as according to Nvidia in 2009 (iirc), they offered PhysX to anyone.

I think what happened Greg is they wanted too much money for it and everyone said no thanks. Until it becomes more open i can't see it being very mainstream. I understand that Nvidia probably don't want to share it, but in the end it will probably hasten its demise when there is an alternative that can be used by everyone without such a performance hit.

Calin Banc · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:25

Martini1991 said:
I don't actually know any game that's actually been hampered on AMD/Ati (Bar Crysis 2, but Crytek claim it's the only way they can add tessellation/water or whatever, and given Crysis 3 features rope killing FPS, it wouldn't surprise me about their inadequacies) I know about locked out features, AA on Batman Arkham, but not much more than that.

They've had some features in Just Cause 2 as well, probably in other games. And of course, hardware PhysiX.

Martini1991 · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:25

LtMatt said:
http://www.techspot.com/community/t...tion-thats-a-good-looking-cement-slab.169967/

Yeah, I remember it. I blamed/blame Nvidia for it, but given the new rope killing performance, I also believe they've got inadequacies.

Calin Banc said:
They've had some features in Just Cause 2 as well, probably in other games. And of course, hardware PhysiX.

Ignoring hardware PhysX for now, Just Cause 2 ran flawless for me on a 5870, I even ran Eyefinity 5760x1080 and it was perfectly fine?

humbug · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:25

Martini1991 said:
Isn't his point his explanation ?

"AMD have previously said they're against vendor specific optimisation" isn't that its own explanation?

Not pro anyones side here, as I think this "news" is hot air, and won't change much for Nvidia/AMD.

He fails to give an example of where that has happened, he's just making blanket statements which bare no resemblance to reality.

Gregster said:
I can see Rroff's point. AMD have always claimed to be open about not locking the other side out and then Claim exclusivity with future EA games. Roy was big to jump on that and a few tweets earlier, he is petitioning for PhysX/Cuda to be open source as well.

That is purely double standards.

They are not and do not claim exclusivity with EA, they have a development partnership with EA in that AMD are involved with EA in the development stage of the game, Nvidia are not locked out of that.

"It makes sense that game developers would focus on AMD hardware with AMD hardware being the backbone of the next console generation. At this time, though, our relationship with DICE and EA is exclusively focused on Battlefield 4 and its performance optimizations for AMD CPUs, GPUs and APUs," AMD representatives said. "Additionally, the AMD Gaming Evolved program undertakes no efforts to prevent our competition from optimizing for games before their release.”

Rroff · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:27

LtMatt said:
When have AMD ever used any proprietary technologies to deliberately hamper performance on the on the other sides gpu's? Are you forgetting Batman: Arkham Asylum which locked AMD out of supporting anti aliasing. Assassin's Creed dropped DX 10.1 support because NVIDIA cards didn't support it. NVIDIA was disabling cores for PhysX CPU support to harm performance. Using extreme tessellation that adds nothing to image quality in crysis 2 other than the fact it hurt AMD cards performance more than Nvidia cards. I don't ever recall AMD doing anything like that other than improving their version of gaming evolved.

Again how is any of this relevant to what I'm saying? I am not comparing what AMD are doing now to what nVidia have done.

If I was talking about that I'd say what AMD is doing is relatively benign and its good to see them actually working with developers. But thats completely aside from the point I'm making.

flopper · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:31

It would be fun if Nvidias cards did 30fps though and amd 120fps in games coming.
still can use Nvidia but the better experience lies with amd, simple.

Gregster · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:33

LtMatt said:
I think what happened Greg is they wanted too much money for it and everyone said no thanks. Until it becomes more open i can't see it being very mainstream. I understand that Nvidia probably don't want to share it, but in the end it will probably hasten its demise when there is an alternative that can be used by everyone without such a performance hit.

I have no idea what went on in discussions and you could be right or AMD thought it was a non starter and didn't bother...Who knows (except AMD/Nvidia boardroom members).

That looks to me like he is saying it will not be optimized for Nvidia cards... But a little further down, he is calling for "A petition for open standards". Hence why I say double standards.

Confused Stu · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:37

Martini1991 said:
Ignoring hardware PhysX for now, Just Cause 2 ran flawless for me on a 5870, I even ran Eyefinity 5760x1080 and it was perfectly fine?

There are a couple of additional water features in JC2 available only to Nvidia cards. I couldn't run them on a hybrid PhysX setup as it appears they're hardcoded into the game. From looking on YouTube, I'm quite happy I'm not missing out on JC2 (LOVE that game!):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A29uSkIo04s

LtMatt · 19 Jun 2013 at 14:40

Gregster said:
I have no idea what went on in discussions and you could be right or AMD thought it was a non starter and didn't bother...Who knows (except AMD/Nvidia boardroom members).

That looks to me like he is saying it will not be optimized for Nvidia cards... But a little further down, he is calling for "A petition for open standards". Hence why I say double standards.

We both just know that means its a gaming evolved title though and all it means is AMD will have more time to work with the game. Its the same as when Nvidia bring out games with TWIMTBP. No one is going to get locked out despite how Rroff is trying to make it look.