• 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.

All Frostbite 3 titles will be optimised exclusively for AMD

It was false anyways, so it is all irrelevant :)

What people seem to misunderstand is advertising being associated with better gaming on a specific brand. AMD advertised on Crysis 3, yet it runs better on Nvidia hardware. Nvidia advertised on The Witcher 2 and it runs better on AMD hardware.
 
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).

stupidroy.jpg


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.

He's quoting the IGN title post, its the IGN article that was jointly corrected by EA and AMD.

This one I don't know what exactly the original article said, I didn't get to see it before it was taken down and replaced with what is there now, but clearly EA / AMD were not happy with it and asked them to correct it.

In other words what IGN said was wrong and they got a slap for it.
 
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

But that's not locking them out as it's not code they can natively run.
 
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.

There was no money aspect to it, AMD turned it down due to 2 aspects:

- nVidia wanted 3rd parties to include CUDA support as a condition for having access to PhysX, AMD felt this would conflict with their own Stream/APP compute API.

- AMD felt that once they implemented it, it would give nVidia too much control to later make changes to the standard that resulted in poor performance on non-nVidia hardware*.


While I dislike what nVidia have done with PhysX I don't want to see hardware physics get sidetracked as it can bring a lot to gaming if/when there is a universally adopted standard. Also I don't see PhysX going anywhere anytime soon - AMD have been claiming it will dissapear for years and its still here i.e. http://www.itproportal.com/2010/03/08/amd-game-devs-only-use-physx-for-the-cash/


* This is despite nVidia offering a legally binding contract as assurance this wouldn't happen and that implementing it would involve having access to all the relevant source code so they could see any such changes.
 
Last edited:
It was false anyways, so it is all irrelevant :)

What people seem to misunderstand is advertising being associated with better gaming on a specific brand. AMD advertised on Crysis 3, yet it runs better on Nvidia hardware. Nvidia advertised on The Witcher 2 and it runs better on AMD hardware.

I'm pretty sure the Witcher 2 on a 680 was killing a 7970 at first, perhaps not now though, but that's because a 7970 has become a lot faster.
 
He's quoting the IGN title post, its the IGN article that was jointly corrected by EA and AMD.

This one I don't know what exactly the original article said, I didn't get to see it before it was taken down and replaced with what is there now, but clearly EA / AMD were not happy with it and asked them to correct it.

In other words what IGN said was wrong and they got a slap for it.

AMD weren't happy with it, but Roy has no problem echoing it?
Right.
 
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

The only locking out that occurs is PhysX/CUDA, regardless who said what or how, bottom line-AMD gpu's are not gpu PhysX enabled=Locked out.

If the physic element of the engine only ran on AMD, then we would have something to discuss.

Optimised isn't locking out specific game features for the other teams users.

Optimised for AMD- is that specifically talking about AMD's GPU's, APU's, CPU's, or all of them???

AMD AND Dice have both said there will be no 'lockout'.

How is it any different from any other GE/TWIMTBP???



@Rroff, AMD don't carry forward plans?

Their step up in pushing HSA and APU's got them nowhere...

0e48bef5782f962bebfe020f2fc0031a.jpg


They might not carry them all through right enough, but I think that one was a biggie.;)
 
There was no money aspect to it, AMD turned it down due to 2 aspects:

- nVidia wanted 3rd parties to include CUDA support as a condition for having access to PhysX, AMD felt this would conflict with their own Stream/APP compute API.

- AMD felt that once they implemented it, it would give nVidia too much control to later make changes to the standard that resulted in poor performance on non-nVidia hardware*.

That was Nvidia's spin, AMD's was different.
 
AMD weren't happy with it, but Roy has no problem echoing it?
Right.

Roy is not AMD, he's an AMD employee, if he committed any crime it was quoting it without knowing its significance.
AMD's policy has always been not to lock others out of anything, long before Roy joined the team.
Someone spotted it and what was wrong with it, be it someone at AMD or EA or both, both EA and AMD jointly responded to it and that article is now gone, replaced with a joint correction statement.
 
There was no money aspect to it, AMD turned it down due to 2 aspects:

- nVidia wanted 3rd parties to include CUDA support as a condition for having access to PhysX, AMD felt this would conflict with their own Stream/APP compute API.

- AMD felt that once they implemented it, it would give nVidia too much control to later make changes to the standard that resulted in poor performance on non-nVidia hardware*.


While I dislike what nVidia have done with PhysX I don't want to see hardware physics get sidetracked as it can bring a lot to gaming if/when there is a universally adopted standard. Also I don't see PhysX going anywhere anytime soon - AMD have been claiming it will dissapear for years and its still here i.e. http://www.itproportal.com/2010/03/08/amd-game-devs-only-use-physx-for-the-cash/


* This is despite nVidia offering a legally binding contract as assurance this wouldn't happen and that implementing it would involve having access to all the relevant source code so they could see any such changes.

This stuff comes up every 3-6 months, and you add a new detail to the story of how AMD turned down Physx and Nvidia were totally for AMD using it, all based off one Nvidia guy saying they did years ago.

Likewise your "AMD have been claiming it will disappear for years" then linking to an article that DOES NOT SAY THAT, and using it as an example.

It's getting rather like Pottsey who would make up some crap, then 6 months later link back to his own BS posts as proof when he restates the BS again.
 
The point is no one is being locked out, so you have no point. ;)

:confused:
What's that got to do with anything? If anything it's showing your ignorance because it's Roy related news.

My point was never about locking out, I never even said anything about it, other that AMD aren't locking anyone out.
Simply that Roy's quoted and "pimped out" a hyperbolic and false article.
 
:confused:
What's that got to do with anything? If anything it's showing your ignorance because it's Roy related news.

My point was never about locking out, I never even said anything about it, other that AMD aren't locking anyone out.
Simply that Roy's quoted and "pimped out" a hyperbolic and false article.

He linked to the IGN article, the headline was later corrected by IGN. That's the point of a PR twitter account.

I understand now why they call you Mankini. :p
 
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.

Why? Why do you want nVidia users to suffer? What motive do you have that means that you want people who don't buy the brand of GPU you buy to obtain poor performance in future games?

I like nVidia and I tend to buy their GPUs - this does not mean that I want AMD graphics card users to have poor performance. If everyone has good performance and they are happy with it - then that's all for the better as far as I am concerned.
 
Back
Top Bottom