Nvidia, stop being a **** please

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Open source can be nice, but I think a big deal is being made about it.
I use lots of software on my PC that isn't open source. In fact I can't name one game that I play that's open source. So I can't see why the tech that goes into them should be.
Do any of the people here complaining about non-open source stuff own any closed source software? Why is that ok but not Nvidia's stuff?

Did AMD make Mantle open-source? Is that on GitHub somewhere? Wonder why they had to 'give' Mantle to the Khronos group is it was open and available for anyone to use/change on GitHub.

Or do AMD just copy other people's idea and make open source versions of them, then when they come up with something new it seems to be less open?

 

[ukxenon]

Don't care if it is red.or green I go for best bang for buck

 

[llamadal]

Nvidia do everything better, some don't accept that but who cares, enjoy what you have.

 

[ALXAndy]

lmao some of the pure, unadulterated drivel in this thread.

I'd actually forgotten how it felt to be at middle school so cheers guys, very nostalgic.

 

[Rroff]

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.

Honestly as someone who owns and/or uses both technologies on a regular basis I think you are talking a load of sour grapes about g-sync - freesync in actual use (as things are right now) is slightly inferior of the 2 - with a framerate cap i.e. 125fps/144Hz g-sync is no more laggy than freesync at worst and sometimes better i.e. lower framerate situations where you really notice g-sync being more responsive.

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.

Depends how its utilised - some graphical effects are simply beyond the resources of smaller game studios to produce for themselves but if they can just plug those effects in with a minimum number of function calls and significantly enhance the look of their game that is a great win for everyone... where these libraries are used to implement standard features especially with the intention of sabotaging the performance of anyone else that is very wrong.

Something a lot of people don't seem to have noticed as well is that nVidia do provide significant amount of resources for game development i.e. https://developer.nvidia.com/gpugems/GPUGems/gpugems_pref01.html much of it containing everything needed (including some amount of example code) to point developers in the right direction to code these features for themselves rather than rely on the compiled gameworks libraries if they'd prefer.

 

[Howling]

Do any of the people here complaining about non-open source stuff own any closed source software? Why is that ok but not Nvidia's stuff?

Ok, take Windows for example. Closed source, we all (mostly) use it. Why is that not an issue? Obvious answer - it works with our hardware and doesn't favour "microsoft" hardware (not that they make any). It works for.. I'd say 100% but there's bound to be some of the more specialised gear that won't work in windows - but you get the idea.

TressFX - open-source (ish), doesn't care what hardware you're running - it'll work within the hardware's limits. Infact iirc nVidia performed better than AMD in Tomb Raider with it?

Mantle - granted, not open-source but it keeps being brought up so I'll mention it. Stated that GCN was not required for mantle to work and "would run just as well on nVidia hardware" - though I don't think this was ever tested because nVidia chose not to support it. So as far as these sorts of arguments go I think mantle should be avoided as a case subject on either side.

Havok Physics - licensed, hardware agnostic. Performs relatively equally on both hardware choices. Arguably superior to PhysX.
Bullet Physics - open, hardware agnostic. As above tbh. Added just to give an open source alt to Havok.

Any gimpswork library - closed source, cares very much what hardware you're running. Intentional favouritism of hardware.


See the difference between nVidia software solutions and literally everybody else out there regardless of open or closed? I think people are using open source as a positive in the wrong manner -- Open Source is good for the industry but that's not to say closed source is a bad thing either, but nVidia's is closed which somehow makes closed bad, which is the wrong approach. It's just nVidia's software that's the problem, being made open would solve it but that's not the inherent problem with it.

 

[D.P.]

Nvida's gamesworks libraries are not closed source, they simply aren't open source.There is a big difference. You want to see the gamesworks source code you just email Nvidia, state why you need to see it and get your company layers to sign off the NDA.
But that is irrelevant because the entire point of games works is that you don't want to look at the source, you want a solution that works out of the box with the minimum hassle. if you are having difficulties then you call Nvidia for support . If gamesworks is missing a feature you want you ask Nvidia to add it and then nvidia can share that feature with all new developers because it is Nvidia's technology. https://developer.nvidia.com/content/nvidia-hairworks-witcher-3 With an open source approach you have 2 different scenarios based on the source license:

1) All changes and modifications must be shared, therefore the developer simply wont invest much resources in making change this model basically rules out using the open source solution in the first place because it simply wont be compatible with the developer's interests.
2) The Developer doesn't have to share code changes. The consumers loose out as developers continuously re-develop the wheel, while with nvidia's approach Nvidia gets to share the improvements. And really, this misses the whole point of using a black box library like gamesworks - the developers don't want to invest significant resources in programming, they want something to work within the minimum investment possible. Monkeying around with someone else's source code is not nearly as important as simply asking Nvidia to fix a bug or make a change. And If you do want to get your hands dirty with source code then just download the source code from Nvidia's develop website.



And I completely object to windows being closed source is not an issue. It is huge damn issue if you want to make platform agnostic software and is why i don't touch windows.
As a develop I always look at open source and open platform solutions, e.g. linux and OpenGL, but I will happily use a closed source alternative if it is better (Intel math library). Out of all the countless dozens upon dozens of open source libraries i have used I have maybe looked at the source code of just 1, t access to the source code is the last thing I care about, I just want something that works and is well documented & supported, which tends to be closed source solutions funnily enough.

 

[Rroff]

Any gimpswork library - closed source, cares very much what hardware you're running. Intentional favouritism of hardware.

Would be great to see the actual time spent inside the gameworks functions and/or processing features added by them for nVidia and AMD GPUs in an otherwise even playing field.

 

[Randall8686]

Im amazed at how some people are really so far up the arse of one brand over another, I currently own both a 980 and a 390. Both are great cards in their own right, the 980 is better no doubt its drivers are less hassle and generally the whole experience with software and setup is nicer on the 980 but i paid a premium for it.

I will always buy what gives me best bang for my buck but with QUALITY and EASE of use coming very high. I will pay a premium for somthing that just works out the box. Having had a complete ball ache with the 390 and drivers personally i will vote team green still. However should AMD pull a cat out the hat that challenges Nvidia i would consider going team red again.

We would be totally screwed if either company "won" and sunk the other company as AMD are with out doubt trailing behind Nvidia hence everything is "better value" and open source. However do you really think if they managed to sink Nvidia and completely destroyed them they would still be better value with such open source options.... NO not a chance and any one that thinks they would does not think on a business level as they are a business there to make money not be "nice" however its what they are having to do to stay in the game.

We need both companies to succeed and develop technologies so that ultimately there is competition and more importantly choice for us. If either company owned the market they would have no reason to develop and try and stay ahead of the curve. Neither are perfect and i would not choose one for its name over the other.

If nvidia develop soothing why should they share it ? or why should AMD share it? its that companies intellectual property same as the whole apple Vs samsung you dont see them sharing ideas.

Pay your money, take your choice and enjoy your purchase. Personally i think the video is created by some one so far up inside amd's that they cant see any daylight. if you dont like Nvidia down buy it. however there seems to be enough people that do like it that they continue to keep doing rather well.

 

[meldarthx]

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?

Did you just saying Intel; Microsoft; Apple and Opec don't resort to anti competitive practices??
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA - seriously Intel was not only caught paying off OEMS not to use AMD during K8 and K9 times; if AMD hadn't settled; EU would have most likely fined them more than they fined Microsoft for bundling IE with windows; creating anti competition for other browsers *that's just the tip iceburg with them* Apple will sue anyone and everyone who they think breaks what they *so called invented; a hint they haven't invented anything; they are great though on taking an idea and polishing it to a point*

Opec has been guilty of price fixing oil prices for years; reason why they've kept production as high as they have right now *with major hurt to their bottom lines as they aren't used to running with oil prices this low anymore* is to try to kill US shale production as its a major threat to their strangle hold on oil.

AMD's made some seriously bad business decisions in the last few years; but trying to harm consumers or the competition isn't exactly high on their list....

 

[thebennyboy]

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

I can say that VCE works well, use it regularly to record. Never really uses more than about 3 - 4% of the GPU when i record at 1080p 30FPS.

Can't comment on NVENC though.

 

[andybird123]

Mantle - nVidia chose not to support it.

Wait... say what now?

 

[tommybhoy]

Distinguished Engineer Tom Petersen and Senior Director of Engineering Rev Lebaradian who shared their thoughts about it, and confirmed that Nvidia is not part of it, will not support it

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/nvidi...will-not-support-it-no-real-benefit-using-it/

 

[andybird123]

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/nvidi...will-not-support-it-no-real-benefit-using-it/

I dont think that link proves what you think it does

For NVIDIA to have turned down mantle it would have had to have been offered. Now you could argue "its NVIDIA they would never admit to being offered" but Intel also said they asked and were turned down, and we obviously know the public sdk was never released.

But yeah why not, lets go with revisionist history and claim the only reason mantle failed was because NVIDIA turned it down

 

[Orangey]

Mantle didn't fail, it was a runaway success.

Seems people forget when MS posted the brief for DX12 it was a verbatim c&p of the Mantle one. "working on it for 5 years" LOL!

 

[Gregster]

Anyways, regardless of what is what with what and who and what they did or didn't do to who ever and they didn't want it or was offered it and they have this that they can't use and they don't want to use it either and they want it open for all but like some things closed but they still don't want it even when it is closed but they all agreed "Merry Christmas everyone"

 

[rtho782]

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?

The nVidia premium on the 1440p144 GSync/Freesync screens is currently £30, or 7.5%. This is on the OcUK website, the Dell vs the BenQ. It's hardly much.

I've not included the RoG as I can't remember which model has a 95hz cap on the Freesync range despite being advertised as 144hz, and it's not on the product page.

Then you have things like the AOC £99 monitor. Freesync under £100!!! I wonder what the FS range is... wait, I have no clue, even the AOC site doesn't tell me: http://www.aocgaming.com/en/products/g2260vwq6

This sort of stuff changes perceptions of freesync. One of my friends just bought a cheap 1440p60 monitor, that happens to have Freesync. He can't use this as he has an nVidia card, but it was a cheap 1440p monitor anyway.

When his friends realise he's bought a freesync monitor, they ask him how it is. He tells them he doesn't use it and doesn't care about it. The more this happens, the more the feeling that FS is "meh" spreads.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Ok, take Windows for example. Closed source, we all (mostly) use it. Why is that not an issue? Obvious answer - it works with our hardware and doesn't favour "microsoft" hardware (not that they make any). It works for.. I'd say 100% but there's bound to be some of the more specialised gear that won't work in windows - but you get the idea.

TressFX - open-source (ish), doesn't care what hardware you're running - it'll work within the hardware's limits. Infact iirc nVidia performed better than AMD in Tomb Raider with it?

Mantle - granted, not open-source but it keeps being brought up so I'll mention it. Stated that GCN was not required for mantle to work and "would run just as well on nVidia hardware" - though I don't think this was ever tested because nVidia chose not to support it. So as far as these sorts of arguments go I think mantle should be avoided as a case subject on either side.

Havok Physics - licensed, hardware agnostic. Performs relatively equally on both hardware choices. Arguably superior to PhysX.
Bullet Physics - open, hardware agnostic. As above tbh. Added just to give an open source alt to Havok.

Any gimpswork library - closed source, cares very much what hardware you're running. Intentional favouritism of hardware.


See the difference between nVidia software solutions and literally everybody else out there regardless of open or closed? I think people are using open source as a positive in the wrong manner -- Open Source is good for the industry but that's not to say closed source is a bad thing either, but nVidia's is closed which somehow makes closed bad, which is the wrong approach. It's just nVidia's software that's the problem, being made open would solve it but that's not the inherent problem with it.

So is Mantle (or LiquidVR as I believe it has become) open source? Is that also on GitHub or is AMD trying to harm VR and it consumers by making the technology closed source?

It also seems like you (or someone) has confused "open source" with "vendor neutral". I can see why people would want vendor neutral (although I don't see why AMD or Nvidia should be expected to provide that), I'm not so sure why people are on such a high horse about Nvidia software being open source when they're happy to use other closed source software. And people that complain about ethics of a company and quite possibly then use Google products...

 

[tommybhoy]

I dont think that link proves what you think it does

For NVIDIA to have turned down mantle it would have had to have been offered. Now you could argue

More like you think we are all gullible to the point of accepting a semantics spin.

Nvidia didn't mean anything other than 'not interested', there is no argument.

 

[rtho782]

More like you think we are all gullible to the point of accepting a semantics spin.

Nvidia didn't mean anything other than 'not interested', there is no argument.

We've seen how problematic it was for Mantle games when the R9 285 came out and was a slightly different GCN revision.

How well do you think Mantle would have done on Kepler (at the time) or Maxwell (shortly after)?

Mantle was, understandably, and obviously, designed with GCN in mind. It also only really brought any benefits in situations where you were using an awful CPU.

I did not care about loss of Mantle when I switched to nVidia.