Nvidia, stop being a **** please

D.P. · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:16

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.

The developer of a CUDA driver by AMD wasn't a license requirement but a functional requirement because PhysX is built on top of CUDA. For AMD to support PhySX they would also have to support CUDA, and nvidia doesn't really mind who supports CUDA because it is license-free and public domain standard, owned by Nvidia.

AMD simply wanted their own alternative solution to work, the same as freesync and tressFX.

humbug · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:17

D.P. said:
The developer of a CUDA driver by AMD wasn't a license requirement but a functional requirement because PhysX is built on top of CUDA. For AMD to support PhySX they would also have to support CUDA, and nvidia doesn't really mind who supports CUDA because it is license-free and apublic domain standard.

Exactly.

humbug said:
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 15:18

I guess amd was going to support cuda as much as Nvidia was going to support mantle.

moogle · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:28

arc@css said:
Does anyone think it's possible that some time in the future we will have monitors which can alternate between FreeSync and G-Sync?

Don't see electronically why not, but NVIDIA will have some stipulations on creating a 'G-Sync' monitor which rule that out.

I'm not buying into any, I haven't experienced what they bring (G-Sync or Freesync) in person, so I have no idea what I'm missing out on and I don't care.

I do have a GeForce card though, but if AMD were significantly cheaper and better I would try them again. I'm no fanboy, but each time when I tried ATi over NVIDIA I had issues or problems that put me off the brand.

GoogalyMoogaly · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:28

elmuzzy66. said:
I guess amd was going to support cuda as much as Nvidia was going to support mantle.

Indeed, but I believe Nvidia was the bad guy there as well.

D.P. · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:35

Gogole have been working on their own CUDA compiler, supposedly works better than Nvidia's LOL
http://llvm.org/devmtg/2015-10/slides/Wu-OptimizingLLVMforGPGPU.pdf

AMD has supported LLVM in the past so perhaps they should help support such a project

elmuzzy66. · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:36

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Indeed, but I believe Nvidia was the bad guy there as well.

Don't get me wrong, some of the NV practices are down right shocking. But everyone seems to forget that maybe amd have had a hand in the state things are in?

D.P. · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:37

GoogalyMoogaly said:
Indeed, but I believe Nvidia was the bad guy there as well.

AMD never made Mantle available, it was closed beta and then mantle was discontinued so nvidia had no chance to support. However, I agree Nvidia would never have supported Manlte because DX12 was just around the corners and nvida had been contributing to DX12 before Mantle was even publicly announced.

Rroff · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:41

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

I also know pretty much what went down - ingame physics is something I've had a lot of interest in long before it was in the mainstream consciousness. (As you know as well or better than most here it can really transform a game when properly implemented).

D.P. said:
The developer of a CUDA driver by AMD wasn't a license requirement but a functional requirement because PhysX is built on top of CUDA. For AMD to support PhySX they would also have to support CUDA, and nvidia doesn't really mind who supports CUDA because it is license-free and public domain standard, owned by Nvidia.

AMD simply wanted their own alternative solution to work, the same as freesync and tressFX.

Indeed (not unaware its a functional requirement) but it was also something nVidia was emphatic about - anyone (wasn't directed at AMD directly but not like there are many other parties who'd be interested) supporting hardware PhysX would also have to properly support CUDA i.e. no sticking together a translation layer with the bare minimum functionality for PhysX to work.

GoogalyMoogaly · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:43

elmuzzy66. said:
Don't get me wrong, some of the NV practices are down right shocking. But everyone seems to forget that maybe amd have had a hand in the state things are in?

Yeah, everyone seems to make out like AMD are perfect and the rest of the world conspired against them to put us in the position we're in now. Maybe there's more AMD could have done, but it's easier to just play the victim. Bit of 20/20 hindsight here and there...

Gregster · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:44

D.P. said:
AMD never made Mantle available, it was closed beta and then mantle was discontinued so nvidia had no chance to support. However, I agree Nvidia would never have supported Manlte because DX12 was just around the corners and nvida had been contributing to DX12 before Mantle was even publicly announced.

Spot on!

AMD are not squeaky clean either (which the guy fails to mention) and things like lighting in Dirt 3 I think it was were only available to AMD users, Googaly already mentioned Lichdom and TressFX not being available to Nvidia users. Mantle you have mentioned but they turned away Intel, so clearly Nvidia had no hope even if they wanted to. AMD also have their own AA samples which Nvidia users can't use but as per usual, it is one sided and gets lapped up.

arc@css · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:52

oweneades said:
Honestly this is the only thing holding me back from getting a nice new monitor. So tempted by the boxing day deal on the Dell G-sync monitor but what if I want to switch to AMD in the future?!

Exactly. I like to use both AMD and Nvida products. I've had my monitor for over six and a half years, and could really do with more room when using desktop.

tommybhoy · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:53

Wait and I'll link up 70 plus titles with Nvidia exclusive iq...

AlamoX · 23 Dec 2015 at 15:56

Gregster said:
Spot on!

AMD are not squeaky clean either (which the guy fails to mention) and things like lighting in Dirt 3 I think it was were only available to AMD users, Googaly already mentioned Lichdom and TressFX not being available to Nvidia users. Mantle you have mentioned but they turned away Intel, so clearly Nvidia had no hope even if they wanted to. AMD also have their own AA samples which Nvidia users can't use but as per usual, it is one sided and gets lapped up.

i dont recall any effect not available for nvidia users in any games(dirt3 or lichdom), alll their ips are open sources.
the only one i know is true audio, which is a hardware thing, not available even for the majority of AMD userswithout 1.2 GCN.

about mantle, nvidia had the exact same game with DX as the one AMD users have with Mantle, if a game is coded in DX and OpenGL, would you blame AMD for nvidia not being able to run OpenGL ?

LoadsaMoney · 23 Dec 2015 at 16:00

Stanners said:
Unfortunately I can not see this as much as I would like it to happen. I think Nvidia would block it.

Wouldn't work anyway, as no AMD user would buy the monitor, as they'd have to pay Nvidias premium for the G-Sync module in it as well, that they couldn't use.

Kaapstad · 23 Dec 2015 at 16:01

Now what has gone wrong here with the Gimpworks settings lol.

TWIMTBP

Gregster · 23 Dec 2015 at 16:02

tommybhoy said:
Wait and I'll link up 70 plus titles with Nvidia exclusive iq...

To try and make AMD look better and Nvidia worse or just for the sake of it? Two wrongs never make a right in my book but each to their own.

AlamoX - I am stating facts.

Howling · 23 Dec 2015 at 16:03

LoadsaMoney said:
Wouldn't work anyway, as no AMD user would buy the monitor, as they'd have to pay Nvidias premium for the G-Sync module, that they couldn't use.

I have the Acer XR34, if the X34 had both Free and G-sync I'd have paid the premium for the G-sync module that I'd not CURRENTLY be using, just to open up my future GPU choices. I think a fair number of people would do the same - it wouldn't hurt G-Sync sales to include FreeSync support, it would only help them as it adds a new market for them.

D.P. · 23 Dec 2015 at 16:08

LoadsaMoney said:
Wouldn't work anyway, as no AMD user would buy the monitor, as they'd have to pay Nvidias premium for the G-Sync module in it as well, that they couldn't use.

Nvidia's premium is tuppence really, gsync monitors are simply more expensive because that is what the market dictates. If the market was happy to pay gsync monitor prices for freesync monitors then that is what price they would be sold at.

rtho782 · 23 Dec 2015 at 16:34

GSync vs Freesync is a poor argument, GSync is objectively better, simply because nVidia don't let crap like 48-75hz monitors, or "1440p 144hz" monitors with a 90hz Freesync cap, make it to release.

HD3D vs 3Dvision is a farcical argument. AMD just went LOL DO WHAT YOU WANT, left it to iZ3d and Tridef to implement, one of which went bankrupt, and the other supports like no games. AMD don't HAVE a 3D solution, they just let others make one.