-
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 & nVidia at it again over Batman
- Thread starter BubbySoup
- Start date
It's clear it was the latter...why else would nVidia be pointing fingers? They have been known to be doing such things in the past, haven't they?
Why do you think there are frequent driver updates to support new games?
ATI can't fix the main issue that they are complaining about - but the developer put forward some things that ATI could also do to make the game run (even) better on their cards.
No, it's nothing like that at all. It comes down to the developer not doing their job properly. Instead of supporting the feature themselves they accept outside "help" from a graphics manufacturer, who in turn insist that the feature only be enabled for their cards. What next? Outsourcing texture development as well, so that only nVidia cards can run in ultra-ultra-high mode? The game looks great but I refuse to buy it, mainly because of the DRM but also because of this nonsense.
At the end of the day nVidia is paying off developers to get an unfair advantage. They are destroying the interoperability that comes from design standards like DirectX. And the problem stems largely from Epic's shoddy engine design, which dropped a standard industry wide feature like anti-aliasing in favour of deferred lighting. For people to attack ATi for wanting a developer to fairly support their card is ludicrous and shows a complete lack of understand of the situation.
I have no problem with nVidia's hardware design or drivers but their recent behaviour is absolutely unacceptable and strikes of desperation. I wish they'd just design the cards and leave game development to the game developers.
That the engine dropped MSAA in favor of deferred shading wasn't really eidos's decision - they picked an off the shelf engine that was closest to their needs and built a game around it...
Sure we could argue that Eidos should have implemented a generic or even vendor specific MSAA path... but thats not the point of contention here...
The point of contention is - nvidia implemented a custom, vendor specific, MSAA path that apparently gives decent gains on nvidia hardware and co-incidentally appears to work fine on ATI hardware tho no one has done intensive Q&A to ensure that... it locks out other vendors and as nVidia own the IP on it they haven't given Eidos the rights to edit or use that code as a base for their own efforts... which is industry standard practise - the code may even be supplied as precompiled libraries.
Now ATI come along having done no work and appear to have no interest in putting any leg work in and demand that the same routine should be enabled on their cards...
Sure we could argue that Eidos should have implemented a generic or even vendor specific MSAA path... but thats not the point of contention here...
The point of contention is - nvidia implemented a custom, vendor specific, MSAA path that apparently gives decent gains on nvidia hardware and co-incidentally appears to work fine on ATI hardware tho no one has done intensive Q&A to ensure that... it locks out other vendors and as nVidia own the IP on it they haven't given Eidos the rights to edit or use that code as a base for their own efforts... which is industry standard practise - the code may even be supplied as precompiled libraries.
Now ATI come along having done no work and appear to have no interest in putting any leg work in and demand that the same routine should be enabled on their cards...
That's incorrect. AMD have repeatedly stated they have been hindered from TWIMTBP titles in various ways. Unless of course you want to call them out & out liars, in which case none of us can back anything up we say with any kind of proof.
Rroff isn't in the business of backing up his claims, so prepare for disappointment if you think he is.
Everyone knows ATi/AMD are pushed out of things when "TWIMTBP" programme, yet Rroff always claims that it's the opposite but declines requests for evidence to back up these claims.
And he likes them tight.
DONT FORGET THE PHYSX....
lol im still a NV and probably will still get NV over ati but all depends when i get my build justh ad to do this joke.
I haven't seen any proof that they have been hindered... neither have I seen any evidence that they would actually be welcomed with open arms despite the wording of Eidos' statements... but as I quoted previously the wording of ATI's statement makes it quite clear they have little interest in actually putting work in.
Yea I would love to see this special code examined.
Maybe I haven't read into this enough, but surely if this was developed uniquely by nVidia for nVidia cards, then they wouldn't be so quick to palm off the ownership of the code to Eidos when things start getting a bit edgy.
Whether I've not looked closely enough or not, this whole thing stinks of nvidia screwing ATI!
I hope Fermi crashes and burns
Maybe I haven't read into this enough, but surely if this was developed uniquely by nVidia for nVidia cards, then they wouldn't be so quick to palm off the ownership of the code to Eidos when things start getting a bit edgy.
Whether I've not looked closely enough or not, this whole thing stinks of nvidia screwing ATI!
I hope Fermi crashes and burns
Batman AA belongs to and is the property of Eidos
Proportions of the code that are used by Eidos in the engine are used under license from nVidia - the license terms do not permit Eidos to change, reuse or use as a base for their own code.
Within the code provided by nVidia are checks that the code is running on the paths that it has been Q&A checked for.
nVidia claim that they have no problem with ATI working with Eidos to implement their own alternative routines... whether in fact they would have that opportunity is something we can only speculate about... however...
ATI says to Eidos... we are happy for you to enable that proprietary nVidia code to work on our cards... Eidos replies that due to the license terms they can't make those changes...
Look at the wording carefully... its not ATI saying here we are going to help you create an AA path that works great on our cards... no...
ATI are quite happy for Eidos to enable some code that has not been extensively tested or designed for their cards... and are showing no interest in putting any effort in themselves...
Proportions of the code that are used by Eidos in the engine are used under license from nVidia - the license terms do not permit Eidos to change, reuse or use as a base for their own code.
Within the code provided by nVidia are checks that the code is running on the paths that it has been Q&A checked for.
nVidia claim that they have no problem with ATI working with Eidos to implement their own alternative routines... whether in fact they would have that opportunity is something we can only speculate about... however...
ATI says to Eidos... we are happy for you to enable that proprietary nVidia code to work on our cards... Eidos replies that due to the license terms they can't make those changes...
Look at the wording carefully... its not ATI saying here we are going to help you create an AA path that works great on our cards... no...
ATI are quite happy for Eidos to enable some code that has not been extensively tested or designed for their cards... and are showing no interest in putting any effort in themselves...
Ian McNaughton (AMD) arguing with Igor Stanek (nVidia) regarding Batman's AA
Believe who you want.
Thats not a fact it has no more credibility than anything else I've said... but if they really had provided them with a decent AA solution I'd have expected more song and dance about it than that as they'd have something solid to really bang on nvidias door with...
Why do some people not understand that it is up to the developer to do their own work developing their own game. If they cant implement simple things like anti aliasing themselves, then they shouldnt be allowed to make games. I'm willing to bet it is pretty simple by programming standards probably takes time to set up and sort out, but it would be next to identical for both cards.
That is the point of Windows and DirectX, we would not have these cards at all if it wasnt for universal standards. The protocols and methods for utilising the hardware go through DirectX it doesnt matter how complicated or different the hardware handles it, it has to do it in a way in which is accesible by DirectX or even OpenGL.
The only one who is culpable of anything is the developer for stupidity/corruptness/ineptitude. Nvidia was perhaps just looking after its own backend however. Ati has no obligation, no duty, no requirement to do the developers own work for them just because another hardware manufacture did.
That is the point of Windows and DirectX, we would not have these cards at all if it wasnt for universal standards. The protocols and methods for utilising the hardware go through DirectX it doesnt matter how complicated or different the hardware handles it, it has to do it in a way in which is accesible by DirectX or even OpenGL.
The only one who is culpable of anything is the developer for stupidity/corruptness/ineptitude. Nvidia was perhaps just looking after its own backend however. Ati has no obligation, no duty, no requirement to do the developers own work for them just because another hardware manufacture did.
Last edited:
I'd like to see him elaborate on this AA solution... again kinda odd wording... makes me suspicious hes just going off what other people at ATI have said and believes himself that they did have a solution when infact this "solution" was just... "we are happy to allow nvidias proprietary untested code to run on our GPUs".
I find it a bit odd they (Eidos) didn't implement a generic AA path - tho this would be similiar to just forcing it globally in the drivers...
Its not _that_ hard to implement a custom multisampling path - in ETQW they had it up and running in under a day - tho testing on it continued for a few months... although opptomising it for a range of video cards can consume a lot more time.
Doesn't sound like NVidia are stopping them to me?
Just that neither AMD or Eidos are prepared to put any effort in to enabling AA on ATI cards, AMD are hoping to recycle NVidia's code and Eidos are telling them they can't and telling AMD to do it themselves as NVidia have done.