Nvidia, stop being a **** please

[Howling]

Why lay the blame at Nvidia's feet?

I think the reason is largely the practice of utilising tech in a way that hurts performance on both colours - but a larger effect on red so green looks better by comparison. It's anti-consumer and anti-competition, it benefits no body past making green "look" better. That's the biggest issue I have with nVidia at least.

TLDR, they do things to hurt competition rather than improve performance.

 

[Toss3]

...

On the hardware side of screen capture and video encoding, AMD are miles ahead of NVIDIA though. NVENC is absolute cack. VCE v3.0 (the version supported by Tonga, Fiji & Carrizo) however is excellent, it compares very well to software encoded video.

...

I really have a hard time believing this - care to provide some proof?

 

[Toss3]

I think the reason is largely the practice of utilising tech in a way that hurts performance on both colours - but a larger effect on red so green looks better by comparison. It's anti-consumer and anti-competition, it benefits no body past making green "look" better. That's the biggest issue I have with nVidia at least.

TLDR, they do things to hurt competition rather than improve performance.

It obviously benefits Nvidia, so why should they give away something that gives them and edge for free? Blame the developers if you want to blame someone for implementing it in the first case. Nvidia are only doing what is best for nvidia and their customers definitely don't seem to mind.

 

[humbug]

Why lay the blame at Nvidia's feet? Is it really so wrong for a COMPANY to maximize their shareholders' wealth? And why not instead blame the developers for taking "bribes" to utilize nvidia's tech - something they know performs worse on AMD's hardware and bring little to no benefit even for nvidia's users (in the long run; if amd goes bankrupt the prices of nvidia's gpus will skyrocket and innovation stagnate). Oh, and why not blame microsoft for not implementing similar technologies in Direct X? Personally I wouldn't blame anyone, as its clear that the companies involved are all trying do what companies are supposed to do; maximize their shareholders' wealth (amd doing pretty poorly).

They are increasing Shareholders wealth at your expense.

 

[Howling]

It obviously benefits Nvidia, so why should they give away something that gives them and edge for free? Blame the developers if you want to blame someone for implementing it in the first case. Nvidia are only doing what is best for nvidia and their customers definitely don't seem to mind.

Ok just ignore what I said. You're totally right. nVidia are the best and there's no denying - they do nothing wrong.

 

[D.P.]

Sorry but how is this amd Freesync issue? The display manufacturer is too blame what range they choose not Freesync.. FYI my BenQ does 35-144

If AMD cared about customer experience then they would set forth requirements that must be adhered to, but AMD simply don't care and it means Freesync is just a crapshoot for the uninformed customer, that is AMD's fault and is exactly why time and time again Nvidia customers go back to Nvidia for consistent user experience.

 

[Howling]

If AMD cared about customer experience then they would set forth requirements that must be adhered to, but AMD simply don't care and it means Freesync is just a crapshoot for the uninformed customer, that is AMD's fault and is exactly why time and time again Nvidia customers go back to Nvidia for consistent user experience.

I see both sides of this one. nVidia's experience is similar to Apple's - it's tightly controlled, and thus restrictive and more expensive - but it works how it's supposed to.
AMD's approach is more "this is the tech, you guys are monitor manufacturers so you do what you do and we'll do what we do." AMD work on the GPU side while monitor manufacturers make monitors and are free to spec them however they see fit. It just adds another variable to take into account when choosing a monitor - like you look at response times, max frequency, resolutions and now you're adding FreeSync range, whereas G-sync is either Yes or No. It's simpler but I don't think that inherently means better - it just means simpler.
Again, I have to mention Apple here - it seems like nVidia are following Apple's lead, which I'm sure most of us techheads would say Apple stuff is overpriced ****e - but to average Joe who doesn't know anything, it's worth the price premium because it "just works." Pros and Cons in both markets.

 

[D.P.]

I would just like if everything on the pc was open for us all..
Nvidia need to stop with locking out amd all they doing is hurting users..
Let us use a amd GPU with Nvidia gpu for Physx. I would have bought nvidia gpu ages ago if this was the case.

This is the reason I support amd is because they aim to be more open about the pc platform.
In comparison nvidia is apple and amd is android am sure you understand what I behind there also.

Nvidia haven't locked AMD out. AMD can license PhysX from Nvidia and develop PhysX drivers. I understand why AMD might not want to but that isn't nvidia's fault.


AMD aren't really any more open, there arm is just forced that way due to the market. Typical progression form AMDis to attempt their own proprietary technology, fail to properly promote it and support development of technology, realize it is failing, release it as open Source when they know they can't monetize it, make a huge PR campaign about how good open source stuff is that all the fans can lap up.



Funnily enough I am huge fan of open source software, which is why my personal PC run linux, I develop my graphics with openGL, use VIM as my IDE, compile with GCC or LLVM, and in than past have always preferred Nvidia due to their far superior openGL and linux drivers.

 

[D.P.]

I think the reason is largely the practice of utilising tech in a way that hurts performance on both colours - but a larger effect on red so green looks better by comparison. It's anti-consumer and anti-competition, it benefits no body past making green "look" better. That's the biggest issue I have with nVidia at least.

TLDR, they do things to hurt competition rather than improve performance.

If that was actually true then AMD would be mounting a large legal case, but considering bascially every time AMD have come out with some rubbish about nvidia purposely sabotaging performance of AMD GPUs it has been widely disproven there inst actually a shred of evidence to support this. Instead AMD resort to PR stunts and out right lying.

 

[D.P.]

They are increasing Shareholders wealth at your expense.

That is legally what companies must do. Any CEO who doesn't increase shareholders wealth from customers spending is breaking the law.

 

[humbug]

They are not breaking the law if they don't profiteer at consumers expense, don't be daft.... ^^^

If AMD cared about customer experience then they would set forth requirements that must be adhered to, but AMD simply don't care and it means Freesync is just a crapshoot for the uninformed customer, that is AMD's fault and is exactly why time and time again Nvidia customers go back to Nvidia for consistent user experience.

It may be a good idea for AMD to interfere with vendors product structuralisation like that, to force them all to run canned refresh ranges, certainly better for us, or perhaps not everyone, if they all had to adhere to strict guidelines none of them might be inclined to offer sub £150 Free-Sync Screens.

Yes Nvidia do set parameters, but you pay the equivalent of low cost Free-Sync screen on top of any screen for it.

Perhaps it might be better to let vendors decide their own product structuralisatio, that way everyone can have an Adaptive Sync Screen, even those of a very tight budget. eh?

 

[shankly1985]

Then why did nvidia stop allowing an AMD GPU from running along side nvidia? They was a time you could have amd main gpu and nvidia running Physx be it hacked drivers nvidia closed it down now it's not possible any more...

If Nvidia didn't care then why lock it down?

Everything nvidia do is all for themselves they don't care about the user they just want £££ don't get me wrong great from a business point of view but bloody shocking for an open platform like the pc platform.

 

[r7slayer]

I don't disagree with that video, i think it made some very valid points. However looking at things from nVidia's point of view. Nvidia own some great technologies which are slightly more superior to what AMD have to offer. These help Nvidia keep a edge and maintain and increase their market share. For this reason they are keeping their technologies closed and hiding their secret sauce.
Some technologies (Tessellation) may have been used in a way which gave Nividia more of an advantage and this can be seen as a bad thing . Why? Because it's abusing their power and causing negative effects on the opposition. Who suffer the most? The gamers.

Gamers are the ones at the end of the day loosing out because of they way nVidia are practising their way they do business, but it is this way which is making nVidia keep and gain market share which is why they do it. This is what i got from the video pretty much and from own experience.

 

[D.P.]

Then why did nvidia stop allowing an AMD GPU from running along side nvidia? They was a time you could have amd main gpu and nvidia running Physx be it hacked drivers nvidia closed it down now it's not possible any more...

If Nvidia didn't care then why lock it down?

Everything nvidia do is all for themselves they don't care about the user they just want £££ don't get me wrong great from a business point of view but bloody shocking for an open platform like the pc platform.

PhysX requires a license so if an AMD GPU is being used to render the graphics and you want PhysX effects then AMD would need to license PhysX from Nvidia.

I think Nvidia locked it down just so their license requirements were held consistent.. I don't at all agree with what Nvidia did here though. The thing is though it was never an officially supported solution by any parties involved.

 

[Diagro]

Re: Shadowplay ... it's just software. Not particularly sure why people aren't willing to use third party programs. Granted it'd be nice if AMD could provide something better than Raptr (which I'd never use), but hardly disastrous.

On the hardware side of screen capture and video encoding, AMD are miles ahead of NVIDIA though. NVENC is absolute cack. VCE v3.0 (the version supported by Tonga, Fiji & Carrizo) however is excellent, it compares very well to software encoded video.

They've done the hard bit already (and much better than NVIDIA) ... so you'd think that with their new focus on software, tools and APIs you may get your wish with Artic Islands.

better?

Whats wrong with it? Turn game on. It records. End game it shows you the recording, you then cut splice w/e and upload....

 

[Troezar]

Surprised so few get why the spirit of competition is so important. Is a dog eat dog world so appealing? You can still get very rich without resorting to anti competitive practices. Intel do it, Microsoft have done it, Apple do it, Samsung et al got fined for price fixing, OPEC do it albeit legally, many large corporations avoid paying taxes and the only people it hurts is us the consumer.

I suspect AMD are considering joining them because they can't beat them. Who could blame them? Still doesn't make any of those kind of practices right just selfish. Do you want to live in a world like that?

 

[Gregster]

I don't disagree with that video, i think it made some very valid points. However looking at things from nVidia's point of view. Nvidia own some great technologies which are slightly more superior to what AMD have to offer. These help Nvidia keep a edge and maintain and increase their market share. For this reason they are keeping their technologies closed and hiding their secret sauce.
Some technologies (Tessellation) may have been used in a way which gave Nividia more of an advantage and this can be seen as a bad thing . Why? Because it's abusing their power and causing negative effects on the opposition. Who suffer the most? The gamers.

Gamers are the ones at the end of the day loosing out because of they way nVidia are practising their way they do business, but it is this way which is making nVidia keep and gain market share which is why they do it. This is what i got from the video pretty much and from own experience.

AMD improved their Tessellation with the Fury /Fury X and when watching my comparison video, AMD did extremely well with maximum Tess Vs the Titan X. The trouble is people keep talking historically without knowing the current and if they see how well AMD coped with HairWorks in TW3 on their newer cards with better tess , they wouldn't be so quick to point fingers plus better optimisations have pulled AMD even closer to Nvidia now, so again, the original video hasn't really "investigated" much at all and just comes across as a whiney fanboy rant.

AMD tend to come up with something and then let others do the work and this in turn ends up getting unused (TressFX/True Audio) and this is what really annoys me with AMD. Push, push, push and get the techs in games, send out engineers to help, ala what they did with Mantle and don't let these things they worked on go to waste. They had a good selling point with Mantle but on a similar note, DX12 Vs Mantle was a bit pointless, so I can see why they dropped it and seriously, if anybody says "Vulcan" and doesn't run Linus, shhhh it!

 

[Trevonn]

I will never understand how people can think IHVs having such a heavy hand in games development is a good thing. Games effects should be developed without AMD or NVIDIA control. That is the only way to ensure it will run well on all hardware. GPUOpen seems to be doing this by involving a bunch of developers and hosting the code on Github (Enabling anyone to submit code etc), so we'll see how that goes.

This forum is basically a bunch of overly enthusiastic AMD fans and mind-numbingly ignorant NVIDIA fans going back and forth in every thread over the same tired arguments. As a lurker it's pretty off-putting.

 

[rtho782]

That does not make it objectively better. The standard and the technology are inferior and objectively and empirically worse. It provides no benefits, slightly higher latency, vendor lock-in, higher price and the monitors are only guaranteed to work at all (not just the adaptive synch) on Kepler & Maxwell. An open standard by its very definition is open and would not work if AMD (or anyone else) decided to enforce strictures about how widely it was implemented. As long as the frequency ranges are published, then there's no problem - and there is no problem as they have been. The 'Freesync' monitors do not have any special hardware .. they simply operate in the ranges that the controllers allow. As it's a VESA standard, almost all future controllers will likely support the entire range.

You may have a point. But at the peak of 3D's popularity perhaps 0.001% of PC gamers were even interested in it, let alone used it. The only time I even see 3D mentioned now (or in the last year / 18 months) is when someone is trying to discredit AMD. 3D generally is pretty much dead, not just on PC ... AMD were clearly right not to pump much money into it. They have a huge advantage over NVIDIA in VR and have invested heavily in it ... that will be far bigger and more lucrative than 3D will ever be.

My RoG Swift worked fine on my 7970/7990 trifire setup before I bought my 980s. It also runs fine connected to my Intel laptop.

If open is the only way forward, why are you not bashing AMD for FS-HDMI, which is not open at all?

I quite like 3Dvision myself I can see I probably will like VR more - we'll see where the chips fall for that.

I'm not even disagreeing with the whole video - just those two points. PhysX is mostly junk, over tessellation is stupid.

The only other point I disagreed with was him saying "why don't AMD just default cap tessellation". That would be a stupid plan for AMD as they'd then be accused of compromising image quality to cheat benchmarks etc.

 

[D.P.]

I will never understand how people can think IHVs having such a heavy hand in games development is a good thing. Games effects should be developed without AMD or NVIDIA control.

What that actually means in reality is developers simply don't add the fancy effects or push graphics and we don't get to see things like hairworks at all.
I don't see that as any better. GPUs are incredibly complex and it is not realistic to expect developers to know low level architectural details that would maximize performance for various graphical effects.

That is the only way to ensure it will run well on all hardware.

No it wont. Plenty of games that never had any Nvidia or AMD support that worked better on on a particular platform. What tends to happen is the developers concentrate development and optimization on the platforms with the biggest market share, or the developer uses a particular GPU for main development and that GPU architecture ends up the most performant. At the end of the day the different IHV's hardware is different with different strengths and weaknesses. If a developer makes heavy use of Tessellation then the game may not run as well on pre-Fiji AMD cards.

GPUOpen seems to be doing this by involving a bunch of developers and hosting the code on Github (Enabling anyone to submit code etc), so we'll see how that goes.

It wont go very far outside the hobbyist community. A games developer wont be sharing code they made with any one else.