Nvidia, stop being a **** please

humbug · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:42

If i ever get an Adaptive Sync monitor it WILL BE FREE-SYNC even if i have an Nvidia GPU at the time.

G-Sync will never be compatible with anything other than Nvidia, so i would be completely tied to that vendor.
I hate being tied to a vendor, it leaves you vulnerable to being ###### by them.
IMO Nvidia will have to relent eventually, if Free-Sync end's up in Consoles and TV manufactures take it up Nvidia will be the ones who have to say to their customers "you can't have Adaptive Sync if you build your HTPC with an Nvidia GPU"

They will give in once Free-Sync spreads, and it will

Dave2150 · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:44

Fantastic video, just what's needed to spread the truth of the current situation to the masses

Dave2150 · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:46

setter said:
Having owned several Intel cpu's with igpu's. It will be a long long time before they have one that is of any particular benefit to gamers. Imho Intel should drop the igpu on unlocked k chips. All it does is add extra heat to what are already very hot chips.

Skylake runs very cool with it's IGPU enabled

Haswell was a hot cookie indeed.

Broadwell-K with it's eDRAM was a huge performance increase also, not long now before Intel's CPU's will match midrange cards from AMD/NVIDIA, which spells doom for both companies.

Graphics cards will be a thing of the past in the next 10 years imo, it will all be built into the CPU (aka APU with HBM).

Rroff · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:48

A lot of over simplifications and/or outright inaccuracies on the physics side of it but the tessellation bits were quite fair IMO though could have been a little more critical of ATI/AMD of not pushing the tech harder in the first place but to be fair it was in very much an experimental stage at the point where ATI became AMD and wouldn't have been a high priority with everything else going on within the company at the time.

Disagree about the open source comment as well as while in ideal its better for gamers the reality is the open source aspect is doing very little for gamers as very little built on top of it is significantly changing the shape of gaming while the propitiatory locked down or semi-closed technologies are... H3D any one?

and the freesync a lot better than g-sync comment is just plain wrong on every level (as things stand right now).

Can fault ShadowPlay - the lack of audio recording options isn't ideal for people who do extensive editing of their videos as you risk quickly dropping below acceptable quality once its been compressed a couple of times.

GoogalyMoogaly · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:48

So how long has the video creator worked for AMD do we think?

Also, didn't AMD have the option of using PhysX but refused to pay to use CUDA, which was a requirement or something?
They're happy to pay to use TrueAudio chips though, so can't be against licencing that sort of thing.

Then when AMD made Mantle, which only ran on AMD hardware, Nvidia are once again the bad guys?

No mention either ot Lichdom: Battlemage which I believe used TressFX but prevented Nvidia users from using it.

Already praising GPUOpen even though we've not actually gotten to use it in anything yet. Do we know if this performs equally on all vendors?

Also, while talking about being locked in, do you know that my AMD AM3+ motherboard doesn't support Intel CPUs? I'm locked into only using, you've guessed it, AMD CPUs...

Dave2150 · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:49

Gregster said:
I don't really see the point of this thread other than a starter for getting people suspended but I will bite. GPU users are a fickle bunch and all through my testing of AMD Vs Nvidia in side by side video's, I was called a liar, my system was wrong, I should have run BF4 with Mantle on the Fury X, I was purposefully crippling the image on Nvidia, I was cheating with AMD and it should run faster, I overclocked my Titan X and that isn't fair on the Fury X, I should re-do the tests now that the Fury X has voltages unlocked, I am an Nvidia fanboy, I am an AMD fanboy, I am a ****, so much smoother on the Fury X, so much smoother on the Titan X, GameWorks fault..... Just to name but a few.

Anyways, my point out the way and let the thread commence!

The point of the thread is simply to spread this video, so that more people are shown the truth of the current situation.

It's a great thing for all GPU users, the more people who know the truth, the more people will vote with their wallet and support AMD.

Nelly · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:52

I would love it if AMD released something the equivalent of what Nvidia did with the 8800GTX, I think it was around 60% faster than AMD's then current 1950XTX. Only then would we see Nvidia's market share plummet.

I agree with everything in the video, but when Nvidia hold the market share for over 10 years, it puts them in a position where they can do as they please without any consequences to themselves. Basically they hold all the aces at the moment.

humbug · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:52

Dave2150 said:
Skylake runs very cool with it's IGPU enabled Haswell was a hot cookie indeed.

Broadwell-K with it's eDRAM was a huge performance increase also, not long now before Intel's CPU's will match midrange cards from AMD/NVIDIA, which spells doom for both companies.

Graphics cards will be a thing of the past in the next 10 years imo, it will all be built into the CPU (aka APU with HBM).

Intel are on 14nm. and those Iris-Pro iGPU Chips are still massive, its brute force over evolution.

I think AMD's 14/16nm APU's with HBM2 will put Iris-Pro back in its box.

The only ones who will suffer from the Intel - AMD iGPU battles are Nvidia since they don't and can't make x86 APU's, as they evolve low / lower mid range discrete GPU's become less necessary to OEM builders.

Rroff · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:55

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Also, didn't AMD have the option of using PhysX but refused to pay to use CUDA, which was a requirement or something?

Didn't have to pay to use CUDA but it was a requirement if they wanted PhysX they'd also have to support CUDA - which would have competed with AMD's own compute platforms (not that anyone ever remembers let alone uses AMD's compute systems) so not surprising they wouldn't accept those terms but does change the facts a little. Even with the switch to Open CL though you can see why they wouldn't want to prop up a competitors technology like that - though I think it would have actually bit nVidia in the rear in the long term as AMD's cards would have been quite attractive for certain areas of compute and playing silly games subsequently to try and sabotage their performance or pull support would have shown nVidia in a very poor light within the industry.

russell664 · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:56

In

I have had both AMD and Nvidia, and other than the increase in FPS the experience has been the same. It plays games, that was my goal of having a GPU, and that is what both brands do.

Boomstick777 · 23 Dec 2015 at 14:57

This kind of thing doesn't bother me tbh. Nvidia offer unique proprietary features that make their own products more attractive, so what?

Now the GTX 970 spec scandal thing that was different, that was a dirty move imho, or an epic blunder handled awfully. That CEO non apology... Yuk..

This other stuff is just good business sense from Nvidia, make their own products more attractive than competition. If AMD can compete with open source alternatives and feel better about it at the same time then good for them.

Hardware is always going to have more pull than software, AMD need better than Nvidia hardware to really pull some market share.

humbug · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:00

Rroff said:
Didn't have to pay to use CUDA but it was a requirement if they wanted PhysX they'd also have to support CUDA - which would have competed with AMD's own compute platforms (not that anyone ever remembers let alone uses AMD's compute systems) so not surprising they wouldn't accept those terms but does change the facts a little. Even with the switch to Open CL though you can see why they wouldn't want to prop up a competitors technology like that - though I think it would have actually bit nVidia in the rear in the long term as AMD's cards would have been quite attractive for certain areas of compute and playing games subsequently to try and sabotage their performance or pull support would have shown nVidia in a very poor light within the industry.

AMD have CUDA translation development tools, the idea that Nvidia offered AMD CUDA and AMD refused it doesn't sit well in context at all.

Rroff · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:02

humbug said:
AMD have CUDA translation development tools, the idea that Nvidia offered AMD CUDA and AMD refused it doesn't sit well in context at all.

That is very different to native CUDA support - its a tool for helping developers migrate their systems to something that works on AMD's systems.

Gregster · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:03

Well I just downvoted the video, as the guy has no idea what he is talking about and I only watched the bit about Freesync and G-Sync. Terrible.

meldarthx · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:05

Rroff said:
Didn't have to pay to use CUDA but it was a requirement if they wanted PhysX they'd also have to support CUDA - which would have competed with AMD's own compute platforms (not that anyone ever remembers let alone uses AMD's compute systems) so not surprising they wouldn't accept those terms but does change the facts a little. Even with the switch to Open CL though you can see why they wouldn't want to prop up a competitors technology like that - though I think it would have actually bit nVidia in the rear in the long term as AMD's cards would have been quite attractive for certain areas of compute and playing silly games subsequently to try and sabotage their performance or pull support would have shown nVidia in a very poor light within the industry.

yep stream

still can use it; but easier to use opencl

which is way the world is going; something about a company called Apple with a little more sway than Nvidia

humbug · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:06

Of course you did Greg. but your in the minority and by a long long way ^^^^^

Rroff said:
That is very different to native CUDA support - its a tool for helping developers migrate their systems to something that works on AMD's systems.

Yes, i still think if Nvidia had offered AMD CUDA they would have taken it, its what they asked for.

You're a lot more intelligent than this, think about it, AMD know you cannot have one without the other.

elmuzzy66. · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:07

Well its better than the fixer videos.

With all the accusations in the videos I would have expected some whistle blower to have come out by now.

Ayahuasca · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:11

The video may well have a massive ratio of likes to dislikes but at the end of the day that doesn't really matter, it's the votes with your wallet that counts.

I do find it strange though how there seems to be such hatred towards nVidia all over internet forums and youtube yet they're still way ahead.

People just like the drama?

D.P. · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:13

Stopped the video after 1 minute because it was already full of BS and leis.

Anyone can license PhysX from Nvidia, and Nvidia had suggested at the time the licensing fee would be a few cents per a GPU. AMD would have to create a CUDA driver, but no licensing is required for CUDA at all, it is a published standard. In both cases nvidia own the standard and can change the standard anyway Nvidia wants but nothing prevents AMD making a CUDA driver and then paying for PhysX license.

Nvidia spent a lot of money buying PhysX and supporting it on GPUs. There is no reason they should give that technology away for free to competitors. The last I heard is AMD hadn't even approached Nvidia for a licensing quote.

AlamoX · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:15

Boomstick777 said:
This kind of thing doesn't bother me tbh. Nvidia offer unique proprietary features that make their own products more attractive, so what?

Now the GTX 970 spec scandal thing that was different, that was a dirty move imho, or an epic blunder handled awfully. That CEO non apology... Yuk..

This other stuff is just good business sense from Nvidia, make their own products more attractive than competition. If AMD can compete with open source alternatives and feel better about it at the same time then good for them.

Hardware is always going to have more pull than software, AMD need better than Nvidia hardware to really pull some market share.

what's really different here from what intel did to AMD back then for the Athlon CPUs ? the fact that it is illegal ?
something not being illegal, doesnt mean it's not harmfull or unethical, and what's legal today can be illegal tomorrow, thats the funny part about a society making their own laws.
today it's ok because it's legal, and if tomorrow it becomes illegal, then it's not ok because it's illegal, since when ppl sold their brains and morals to law makers to tell them right from wrong ?
and dont forget that big companies like intel, choose the law makers and which laws they push.

Edit : to clarify more my opinion on this.
to me the core issue here is as follow, companies act as a moral entity, and laws are being passed to keep that limit between moral and abuse in check to protect the market and keep the competition fair, since we are only humans, laws keep evolving to keep up with new abuses and loopholes, and still we can't really account for every single one.
so our job is to say WHEN any new practice, is or is not morally adequat, despite the fact of it being illegal or not yet, so rather than saying well it's not illegal you should say" well it's imoral, and competitively unfair " as a focus of your comment then you can add that it's not illegal as a remark, and abusing loopholes doesn't make you smart, it ust makes you morally bankrupt, well thats the way i see things, and thats why the issue here is clear for me.
hope some of you share the same opinion because i think it's the healthier one.