Caporegime
- Joined
- 9 Nov 2009
- Posts
- 25,747
- Location
- Planet Earth
Whats quite funny is AMD was one of the first to implement tessellation in Windows games - anybody remember Truform??
-
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.
Nvidia, stop being a **** please
- Thread starter tommybhoy
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,617
- Location
- Cornwall
Woo hoo! I've never won anything before!
I've always wanted the internet.
I'd like to take a moment to thank my parents, my close friends and obviously humbug, without who I wouldn't have had a post to reply to.
Although if I'm honest I'll probably get bored with it soon so keep an eye on the MM (once I see how much shipping will be).
Didn't he mention something about that in the video in the OP?
Right
Nvidia are bringing back something that was all the rage a decade ago but somehow evaporated. Kudos to Nvidia for that.
All of what one sees in GW and A LOT more besides exists already or the tools for it are out there.
The problem is all of it is fragmented and disjointed, a lot of it also requires a lot of work to turn into something useful.
Nvidia are doing the right thing, it's a great idea to bring it all together and join it all up, but in my opinion there is one issue with it that stops it short of becoming the success it's potential has.
AMD's approach imo is the right way but from past ventures they look like they don't have anything like the drive and persuasive power to make it work either.
Sometimes I just wished rather naively that on feature tech AMD and Nvidia would work together and poll talents.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,617
- Location
- Cornwall
Right
Nvidia are bringing back something that was all the rage a decade ago but somehow evaporated. Kudos to Nvidia for that.
All of what one sees in GW and A LOT more besides exists already or the tools for it are out there.
The problem is all of it is fragmented and disjointed, a lot of it also requires a lot of work to turn into something useful.
Nvidia are doing the right thing, it's a great idea to bring it all together and join it all up, but in my opinion there is one issue with it that stops it short of becoming the success it's potential has.
AMD's approach imo is the right way but from past ventures they look like they don't have anything like the drive and persuasive power to make it work either.
Sometimes I just wished rather naively that on feature tech AMD and Nvidia would work together and poll talents.
AMD do seem to find ways of handing the work on to someone else so that it becomes their problem to see it through to realisation.
Their 3D solution, they didn't really have one, they just let someone else do it (TriDef).
Freesync, they came up with the adaptive sync idea/standard and then let VESA and the monitor manufacturers take it from there.
Mantle, they got something working, with DICE's help I believe (wouldn't wanna do too much work). But then when it looked like getting it up to a standard you'd want to release and maintain might be a bit too much work, they give it to Khronos Group and let them finish it up, which based on the amount of time since the pre-aplha stuff we saw and the delayed release of Vulkan seems like it was quite a bit.
GPUOpen, well they've made something, but it open for other to contribute too. So no doubt if any faults are found or improvements identified AMD will let someone else do that.
Come up with a decent stock cooler for their reference cards, na, just leave 3rd parties to come up with the decent coolers. Except the Fury X cooler, although a lot of that was CoolerMaster, and possibly overkill.
Would be nice if everyone could just work together for our sakes. Not sure that every company would gain from that as much as AMD would though.
As for Nvidia being a little more shadier than AMD and their being 'nicer' ways of doing business. If I allow that to be a reason to not use their products I should probably get rid of this Microsoft operating system and Google web browser that I'm using.
Don't even wanna go through the other hardware vendors I use (Corsair, Asus, MSI, Intel, Samsung, BenQ, IIyama, Razer, etc.) to see if they're a nice enough company for me to buy from. Kudos to anyone that complains about Nvidia's practices and doesn't own anything from a company with less than pleasant practices.
No business is 'nice'. They all have a major objective - rake in as much $$$ as possible, I'm sure those of you that work in a competitive field have the same objectives in your day to day work. I do the same, we capture exclusive IP's and contracts, market them, know the opposition doesn't get a look in and watch their market share diminish. We do what we have to do to look after number 1. We could share the products we invest in, but don't for the primary reason that it expands our customer base and in turn profits.
If they have to tread on some toes and rattle a few cages to get said $$$ that is what they'll do.
Nvidia have been quit underhand, but nothing illegal, and the AMD 'open' approach shines them in a good light, when lets face it, they can slap an 'open' sticker on everything Nvidia have already done as they know they're only competition won't adapt to it, for better or worse.
Personally I don't think Nvidia should open anything up to the competition, but they should at least give owners of the competition a viable option - add-in cards for GW processing, like the physx card. Nvidia would get sales from it, AMD couldn't moan and regardless of brand preference you'd get the best experience. In such scenario bad performance could be laid firmly at the feet of nvidia rather then this pathetic tit-for-tat war that has grown over the last year or so.
If they have to tread on some toes and rattle a few cages to get said $$$ that is what they'll do.
Nvidia have been quit underhand, but nothing illegal, and the AMD 'open' approach shines them in a good light, when lets face it, they can slap an 'open' sticker on everything Nvidia have already done as they know they're only competition won't adapt to it, for better or worse.
Personally I don't think Nvidia should open anything up to the competition, but they should at least give owners of the competition a viable option - add-in cards for GW processing, like the physx card. Nvidia would get sales from it, AMD couldn't moan and regardless of brand preference you'd get the best experience. In such scenario bad performance could be laid firmly at the feet of nvidia rather then this pathetic tit-for-tat war that has grown over the last year or so.
I don't think bringing back a cheap PhysX card would be better for nVidia, if anything it would allow more people to stay or go AMD whilst using the gameworks effects, what they want is everyone using their cards outright.
I consider Free Sync and Mantle a success.
Somethings can only be done a certain way, only VESA setting the standard for Free Sync could work as a true open standard, only the Khronos Group could make mantle a true open standard.
OpenGPU is different but also needs direction, bullet and havoc are an integral part of it, in this case I think AMD should take leadership and work at it.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,617
- Location
- Cornwall
I didn't say they weren't a success, I said that AMD happily handed off the hard work, or at least a portion of the work.
I'm not actually sure I consider Mantle a success though. Cancelling Mantle in the form it was in and handing it over to a consortium seems like admitting defeat. It certainly doesn't sound like the plan AMD were talking about when they launched Mantle. Did something good come of it, yes, is it what AMD led us to believe they were aiming for, definitely not.
AMD didn't NEED to make adaptive sync a VESA standard, I'm sure they could've marked it in their own way like Nvidia did the GSync module. But that might have meant more involvement and work on their part.
And a £200 premium? And a lesser choice of monitors? I think AMD chose the better option tbh.
Mantle isn't much good as an open standard locked to AMD, nor is Free Sync.
AMD in control of those two is not open standard, they simply created the technology and then handed them to the relevant open standard controllers, as intended.
AMD in control of those two is not open standard, they simply created the technology and then handed them to the relevant open standard controllers, as intended.
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,617
- Location
- Cornwall
I think this was the problem so many saw with Mantle when AMD said they weren't going to hand it over and were gonna keep control. It seemed like madness to expect Nvidia to support it when it was controlled by their biggest rival. A lot of people at the time said it shouldn't be handed over to a 3rd party, but that wasn't AMD's initial stance. So by AMD's initial aims I think Mantle has failed to do what they set out to do with it. I think what has happened is better though.
I don't see why Freesync needed to be an open standard. They wouldn't have to charge any more for it than it is currently. I see no reason why manufacturers wouldn't be interested in it anyway if they were interested in 3DVision, GSync and Freesync as it is now. It'd still be a selling point for their monitors. Making it an open standard is a nice way for AMD to get out of having to do all the work.
Is it good that it's an open standard, I guess it's not bad. Could it have worked if it was just the same with no additional cost but as a technology controlled by AMD, I don't see why not. Not sure how we'd be affected by that either.
Absolutely agree here. Freesnyc monitors already outnumber g-sync monitors 2:1 here on OCUK despite the fact G-sync was out around a year earlier. The (debatable) argument that G-sync is superior and as such demands a premium does not wash IMHO when that premium is £150+
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,617
- Location
- Cornwall
Could still have happened with AMD controlling it, less likely admittedly for the same reasons as Mantle. Still not really AMD's concern, if they're not making money off of it what does it matter?
The premiums can be a bit silly but FreeSync still doesn't support games that use windowed mode and/or borderless fullscreen, far more limited range of refresh rates on many monitors (though that is somewhat the OEMs to blame) and currently worse handling of lower framerate situations (though AMD have roadmapped improving that) - then there is latency - properly configured (V-Sync off, 120-135fps cap) G-Sync matches or significantly beats FreeSync when it matters (yeah I know what Linus' video says, etc. but there is a reason people don't do 144/144, etc. like he did and the high fps results aren't surprising as FreeSync drops out entirely - on a monitor that applied FreeSync at 200+ fps you'd see the same latency as G-Sync). To call FreeSync superior on any technical level is ignorance at best.
AMD's FreeSync goal was to make a Free G-Sync alternative without proprietary hardware, ALL graphics vendors can adopt it under Vesa's control, NOT AMD's control.
What work?
The panel fine tuning for superior output?
The high end FreeSync panels output on par with G-Sync panels, I know Iv'e used both.
You can argue that ranges are superior, that's why the premium on top of the module premium is in place.
FreeSync imo is the best tech AMD have ever produced(*Would have been Mantle but see below) and they delivered their promise, that you fundamentally don't need a module and it's free, they handed it over to vesa, where all the vendors are probably going to adopt it-if AMD as a company can ever learn to all round 'deliver' better, then Nvidia will adopt it eventually.
(Although if AMD can deliver HDMI 2 FreeSync quickly, Nvidia will have no choice to jump on board imo)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is NOT a pop shot at G-Sync, G-Sync was first to market and wouldn't have been so without the module.
Nvidia and G-Sync should be given credit they fully deserve, as without G-Sync, there would never have been FreeSync!
*Mantle, after initial teething problems-it was quite simply amazing, it was exciting, huge difference in output-LtMatts 'different gravy' said it all.
Initial AMD proprietary beta form, they said it planned to launch Mantle 1.0 and any vendor could use it, they also said that they would hand it over to Khronos as they got stick for claims for an AMD advantage and Nvidia said they weren't interested.
Instead, they nearly went bust and low funds probably dictated to can it and hand it over to Khronos.
Would have loved to have had Mantle DX12 shootouts on an even playing field.
No
Just made me smile. Personally I don't care. Next Couple of years will be interesting for GPUs and monitors IMO. And regardless people will still argue and moan one way or another.
I've been gaming for many years. I can't remember the last time I played a game that didn't have a fulscreen option. At this point I'd say your clutching at straws, desperate to try to make Freesync look bad.
Freesync is the future, an open standard that doesn't incur extra royalties and far more expensive monitors etc.
Associate
- Joined
- 31 Oct 2012
- Posts
- 2,243
- Location
- Edinburgh
Making it a standard is of course the right way to do it, that's how you get devices to actually work together. Even Apple occasionally remember that. Non-standard interconnects on existing interfaces has been done many times and died many times - but still gets tried. Proprietary extensions are always a weak option - AMD adding adaptive sync to HDMI this way is a poor choice in my eyes.
As for it being less work as a standard - the work still needs done, why do you assume making it a standard will mean others do it? I work on open source projects and the name means only others can contribute, not that they will. Indeed others contributing is a major source of work in itself, managing them, keeping the project focused, reviewing changes, communicating with contributors etc. If AMD were the only one interested then they'll have had to convince a group including their rivals of the ideas worth which would be significantly harder than just adding support to their own hardware/software and approaching a monitor manufacturer of choice.
Adaptive sync is the superior solution exactly because it is a standard and allows monitor manufacturers to implement it or not. Requiring a specific piece of hardware in a monitor at significant expense that also removes the ability to take any other form of input is not a particularly impressive option, and the claims to superiority are because NVIDIA have limited what monitors carry the GSYNC branding.
Last edited:
The premiums are not just "a bit silly", they are outrageous and so many here proclaimed that G-sync premiums would drop in time has turned out to be wrong. Paying £150+ more for a similar monitor does not negate the very minor advantages g-sync may (or may not) have.