Soldato
- Joined
- 25 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 20,679
- Location
- The KOP
^^^
Now that's facts
Now that's facts
-
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
- Thread starter tommybhoy
- Start date
D.P, it is possible to see what's going on with a Code-Set by using diagnostic tools, from that you can use drivers to compensate, i take it this is what you are referring too?, to a limited extent it can be done, yet it may not even be possible at all in some cases.
As i have said already more often that not you need access to the Source Code to make it run efficiently, this is why Nvidia had to ask Square Enix to make the changes for them.
Nvidia didn't have access to that code. Square Enix did as they helped AMD develop TressFX.
If AMD want a GameWorks feature code adjustment they have to ask Nvidia.
As i have said already more often that not you need access to the Source Code to make it run efficiently, this is why Nvidia had to ask Square Enix to make the changes for them.
Nvidia didn't have access to that code. Square Enix did as they helped AMD develop TressFX.
If AMD want a GameWorks feature code adjustment they have to ask Nvidia.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
Don't believe AMD but believe you when you just make crap up. You're ignoring key points, first you're assuming the call stack is the same from the game for Nvidia and AMD, the very problem with black box code is it becomes incredibly easy for Nvidia to add code that calls for extra code or much slower versions of effects on any hardware they choose to do it on.
Lets also again point out what Nvidia said about gameworks code. It was absolutely only a black box option with zero option for Devs to view code when it was first available and for some time. There was no license option at all to view the source code. When AMD made a huge deal about it Nvidia made AN OPTION available to buy a license which included source code. They also said the existing option to buy it without the ability to view source code was still available, they categorically said the ability to see source code was a more expensive option. They then refused to disclose what the price of including source code was.
So their intention which was clear by making no source code available at launch (and until AMD complained very loudly and very publicly) was to never offer a source code including license. They then when pushed said this was an option but was more expensive. If a game dev focused entirely on profit like Ubisoft is offered gameworks for near free or a very low price for a game, lets say 50k, or they can buy the same thing but get to view source code but that license costs 2mil, then Nvidia can say they offer it but in reality no dev anywhere would chose to buy the more expensive option.
You conveniently fail to mention these things whey you insist devs can see the source code. You also fail to mention that without AMD having legal access to see the source code you have no idea how well they can optimise but most importantly AMD can't check that Nvidia and AMD are getting the same code to run.
Gameworks is BS, and based on how badly the majority of games implementing it run and the amount of bugs those games have(basically every physx title), I'm going to presume one of the major reasons for that is that the devs are using the black box, none source code, hard to optimise for version of gameworks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,624
- Location
- Cornwall
Just Thief as far as i know. ^^^^
That's a rather cynical view, Gogglay
That's not what the Open Source movement is about, besides, AMD cannot take credit for creations ensued from it as there is still an Open Source Licence credited to the developer of said items.
What I mean is that AMD and it's loyal following will point out at every turn how any piece of technology developed from this relates back to an AMD project.
Like when Vulkan is released, I'm sure they're be comments about how it's based on Mantle or thanks to AMD. The fact that it's still not released shows how much work was left to do, but it will forever be linked with AMD.
Yeah, but PhysX has been out since 2004? 2005?
That's 10 or 11 years, which works out to an average of 7 games a year, out of all the games released in a year. I think Mantle managed that sort of level of adoption before it was discontinued (in its current state).
You have a go at D.P. for making stuff up, then proceed to pull numbers out of thin air just to make your point look good.
We do not know how much the Gameworks License costs, so bandying numbers about, like 2million is just as crazy as me saying it only cost 5 bucks.
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
Oh look, an AMD thread dragged off-topic YET AGAIN. Do all Nvidia & AMD threads end up like this now? It's a sad state of affairs! Don's seem to do bugger all about it.
Have you RTM'ed any of it, That is what you need to do if you want to get the Dons to have a look.
Or post in here
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/forumdisplay.php?f=164
Soldato
- Joined
- 23 Dec 2013
- Posts
- 3,547
- Location
- North Wales
I do but rarely anything seems to happen.
70 is a bit of a conservative number, the CPU version of PhysX functionality has been used in way more than 70 games and is used in a lot of shareware/enthusiast productions due to being included in a number of game development SDKs as well as in quite a few games produced in places like Russia, Korea, etc. that are all but if not unheard of here.
Despite the talk AMD are a long way from producing something with that level of success let alone taking game development by storm and that isn't me hating, that is me wanting to see progress.
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
You have a go at D.P. for making stuff up, then proceed to pull numbers out of thin air just to make your point look good.
We do not know how much the Gameworks License costs, so bandying numbers about, like 2million is just as crazy as me saying it only cost 5 bucks.
Read what I said again, the price I gave as a possibility was within the context of an example.
Did Nvidia offer the source code at any time till it was complained about, no. Do Nvidia tell you how much it costs for access to source code, nope, do we have a few Nvidia guys running around claiming that devs have access to the source code as a direct result of this, while ignoring the increased financial cost of such a licence and the very probably situation that no dev can afford it, yup.
I can't give an example of the potential financial difference between two versions of the licence without giving an example of the costs, I no where claimed this was the actual cost nor could anyone reasonably imply I did. The examples were to suggest if one license is very cheap and the other extortionately expensive then no dev will take the expensive option.
Some important questions would be, if the source code license wasn't dramatically increased to the point where devs are priced out of it.... why not just state them whatever the numbers are. The only logical conclusion is that they priced it completely out of reach.
But again the point stands that D.P. repeatedly in dozens of threads claims as a fact that devs had access to the source code of gameworks on whatever given game he's talking about and acting as if gameworks comes with the source code as standard, one of which he implies with no knowledge of it being true and the other which is completely false.
I wouldn't say that is the only logical conclusion at all, much more likely that the cost is worked out on which part of gameworks the developer is using and whether they are just after source code or source code and technical help, onsite or not, or any of the other connotations that could be involved.
The point is Devs can have access to it. They just need the right license . How much it costs and if they do or do not have it is speculation on Both sides .
I think the point being made is you cant shoot down DP for speculating while doing exactly the same yourself
They could from the off Triss, it was always there and downloadable.
I never understand why people feel the need to lambaste every thing "the competition" does and see no wrong in their favoured brand. GPUOpen is a good thing if support gets taken up and GameWorks is a good thing and readily available for devs to use or modify under licence. Surely innovations that bring competition is only good for the end user?
Ignores CDP confirmed it isn't modifiable for AMD.
People also ignore Nvidia's licensing terms; even if Devs have access to the source code; they cannot change it to optimise it for AMD without Nvidia's permission.
That is op of open; and open source. Open source; you get access to the code; you can change it how you like; and then upload it back to the project. If you decide to fork the code and charge for it; you can but you have to go through a few hoops to do it.
Nvidia's code would be good; if they didn't use to cripple performance; they do honestly if you listen to devs that have used it; work it; we all see how well games worked so far with gameworks
ok I can neither confirm or deny trueaudio in MS or in Lich
doesn't seem to be a setting in there; but the audio is a hell of a lot better than most games in both of them.....so some of it might still be there.Tress FX is in Lichedom
I had to double check on that one it was bugged for me when I first played; now works fine.3 games with Tress FX with a fourth coming with Deus Ex
as new tomb raider uses the improved version as Deus Ex does 
I'm pretty sure we'll see at least a lot more of Tress FX; and true audio needs to be used as game audio used to be sooooo much better.....And I think that is the crux of the whole problem, we all know that this sort of work can be done in house, but it takes longer and costs more. So using a prebuilt routine to do certain aspects of the game, regardless of whether it came from gameworks or any of the other prebuilt libraries, or of course this new GPUopen, is generally cheaper and quicker than doing it in house. The more options the better games will be, its all good.
In most games the audio is little more than a dozen or so calls to functions to initialise the sound hardware, define a listener object and load sounds into a buffer and play them relative to the listener - literally little more complex than calling a function with a sound id and updating XYZ coordinates. (That is assuming they do anything more advanced at all than stereo panned audio).
Properly using stuff like TrueAudio would require building a simplified version of the world geometry with hints for different audio properties and surface materials, etc. amongst other things which would take quite a bit more development time.
For a comprehensive feature set and performance it needs both a hardware and software solution though to a degree it can be done in software - HRTF systems already exist purely in software, todays systems are capable of doing much of the DSP work required in real time on the CPU, etc.
A proper hardware implementation would be a much better solution though and actually "not that difficult" these days when the DSPs, DACs, bridge devices and audio processors, etc. are available off the shelf - I could probably just about design and develop one though my I2S programming experience is very very basic and would be a massive learning curve.
Last edited: