• 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.

AMD announces GPUOpen - Open Sourced Gaming Development

As long as everything works equally well across both vendors (and Intel) I see this as a good thing. If it's basically just another GameWorks then it could just fragment things further. We all know how much people dislike GameWork effects that work better on Nvidia or only on Nvidia. We don't need to have all these arguments in reverse.

Also I think the key thing is that they need to be things that developers couldn't do on their own. I believe this was another complaint with GameWorks, that it was just a lazy way for developers to do what they could do themselves and maybe better by making it specific to their engine rather than a generic effect for any engine. I think it was humbug that points out that Devs don't need PhysX or HairWorks/TressFX, we don't need more stuff like that.
 
Seems like AMD are trying to get things sorted, improving and listening while Nvidia are kind of skating by and relying on as many fanboys and gimped designs as they can.

I am no Nvida hater but I think they aren't really doing much compared to AMD. There is the odd nice thing in gameworks (like hbao+ which looks nice) and they have a good overall package but it's not light years ahead and despite all the fanboys showing there hurt at all the good AMD news I think they should grow up really. Nothing more can be done by AMD than this, they're going pretty damn fast for a company so far behind and I hope they don't let themselves down and give the zealots who want to see a Nvidia only industry an excuse to cry foul and make excuses when Nvidia do crap like the 970.
 
AMD said it will give developers unprecedented access to the guts of its GPUs next year, when it pushes out GPUOpen, an antithesis to Nvidia’s controversial GameWorks program.

“As a continuation of the strategy we started with Mantle, we are giving even more control of the GPU to developers,” AMD said in a statement. The goal, the company continued, is to make developing for the PC as easy as developing for the console. “AMD GPUOpen for gaming is giving developers the ability to harness the investments they’ve made on console development, including feature-rich, close-to-the-metal programming, and bring that to life on PC game development. Game developers will now have direct access to GPU hardware, access to a large collection of open source effects, tools, libraries and SDKs.”
Why this matters: AMD is betting that an open-source approach will attract developers who want more freedom than Nvidia's closely controlled GameWorks middleware allows.This isn't the first time AMD has tried to get a leg up on Nvidia, though, and it's tough to battle such a juggernaut.

Direct access to the GPU
AMD contrasts GPUOpen’s approach to what it calls the “blackbox” of Nvidia’s GameWorks middleware. With GameWorks, Nvidia develops visual effects for developers as a completed package they can easily plug in.

In the past, AMD officials have gone so far as to suggest—but never prove—that developers who used Nvidia’s GameWorks effects were contractually bound not to optimize for AMD and Intel graphics chips. Nvidia officials have denied the allegation, saying GameWorks eases the burden on developers—and challenging AMD and Intel to make comparable solutions.
Nvidia has a big head start
One problem AMD could have with GPUOpen is the two-year head start Nvidia has.

Jon Peddie, principal analyst with the Jon Peddie Report, said Nvidia’s advantage is mostly a short-term one.

“But remember, AMD hasn’t just entered the market, they’ve been assisting game developers for decades,” Peddie said. “The difference is Nvidia has formalized, organized, and market’ized GameWorks from a collection of sub routines, algorithms, middleware, and tools into a consolidated toolset.”

The advantage AMD will have is its unprecedented openess, he said.

”AMD has similar bits and pieces, and in addition to packaging them up, is going one step further and opening up...the inner workings of the register set of the GPU,” Peddie said. ”That enables developers do to neat tricks, or get a performance boost.

That’s a stark contrast to the way game development is traditionally done, Peddie continued. "In the past AMD and Nvidia would not reveal their interloop path secrets because they contained secret mechanisms, and the documentation and support would be horrendous. Now AMD is going to make it possible for certain qualified (by AMD) programmers to do it themselves. So the whole scope of GPUOpen is much bigger than just a library of calls and functions."
amd_gpuopen_3_100633287_large.png


http://www.pcworld.com/article/3014...l?hootPostID=df803feb3e734e8be3d6679a3d5ba6a3
 
"That’s a stark contrast to the way game development is traditionally done, Peddie continued. "In the past AMD and Nvidia would not reveal their interloop path secrets because they contained secret mechanisms, and the documentation and support would be horrendous. Now AMD is going to make it possible for certain qualified (by AMD) programmers to do it themselves. So the whole scope of GPUOpen is much bigger than just a library of calls and functions."

So it could be open but amd decides who its open to ? Shades of mantle 'open for everyone' but was always in beta so not available to everyone kinda situation.
 
Last edited:
^

It's announced that it's going up on github, anyone can get it, that was JP talking, not AMD.





Rebbelion, Firaxis and Eidos devs talking about GPUOpen:

 
tommybhoy said:
^

It's announced that it's going up on github, anyone can get it, that was JP talking, not AMD.





Rebbelion, Firaxis and Eidos devs talking about GPUOpen:

Click to expand...

I was just about to post this, but you beat me to it. :p

Games Developers on GPUOpen.
 
tommybhoy said:
:p

In regards to JPR comment that Shankly posted, can you clarify if anyone can download GPUOpen when it launches matt?
Click to expand...

I don't know off hand, I'll get back to you and update my post.

EDIT

Yes, fully open source via Github. Anyone can access and contribute. :)
 
Last edited:
I was thinking it was about time for some more AMD slides. They do like those slides...
I wonder if AMD have a slide department.
 
Last edited:
This is huge for the industry, if not AMD. Developers hate stuff like GameWorks and pretty much anything that isn't open, or they can't modify or examine and which creates walled gardens. With this, the developers can push back against the accountants / management accepting cheques from NVIDIA (and / or others).

I'm really glad they're going the polar opposite route to NVIDIA.

This could be a huge filip for small indie devs, especially ones making their own engines or trying to add unique or unsupported features to existing engines.
 
pmc25 said:
This could be a huge filip for small indie devs, especially ones making their own engines or trying to add unique or unsupported features to existing engines.
Click to expand...

I think this is where we'll see it being used. I can't see AAA games using it (except for AMD sponsored) for while until it's more established.

I only tend to by a few AAA games a year though and the rest are indie so i'd be happy if this was the case :D
 
elmuzzy66. said:
"That’s a stark contrast to the way game development is traditionally done, Peddie continued. "In the past AMD and Nvidia would not reveal their interloop path secrets because they contained secret mechanisms, and the documentation and support would be horrendous. Now AMD is going to make it possible for certain qualified (by AMD) programmers to do it themselves. So the whole scope of GPUOpen is much bigger than just a library of calls and functions."

So it could be open but amd decides who its open to ? Shades of mantle 'open for everyone' but was always in beta so not available to everyone kinda situation.
Click to expand...

And essentially the same as Gamesworks, where developers can ask for the source code. You can also download the physx code from nvidia's website.
 
Couldn't be further than GW's.

GW's code is black box and can only be viewed under license.

GPUO-if it transpires as claimed appears to be not only modifiable but more importantly open to optimisation, GW's isn't.
 
hard to say how this will turn out, having open source libraries like this is cool, but for it to pick the intrest of developpers and enthusiasts, they need to push it hard, not just by throwing in the SDK, but actualy developing some appealing effects, showcasing them, integrating them into games, for the ball to get rolling and attract ppl to play with the sdk
 
tommybhoy said:
Couldn't be further than GW's.

GW's code is black box and can only be viewed under license.

GPUO-if it transpires as claimed appears to be not only modifiable but more importantly open to optimisation, GW's isn't.
Click to expand...

I thought licensed parties could request features adding to the GW libraries?

I shall have to have a read up :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom