• 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.

Possible Radeon 390X / 390 and 380X Spec / Benchmark (do not hotlink images!!!!!!)

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would really like to see AMD comes out of the gate with excellent performance in whatever new Gameworks title come up next. They are perfectly capable of doing so, they have decent engineers/technicians that could go to the developers and work to get these things sorted before a game is released. they manage it after a game is released so I see no reason why they cannot do it before hand.

Of course that would completely debunk any talk of them not being able to due to game works and this in my opinion is why it wont happen. why do the work before hand and gain nothing, when you can do the work afterwards and gain PR standing against your opponent for the same outlay.


This entire post is just my thoughts, with no proof needed or given.
 
Technically it's 6 days to go in the UK since the AMD show will be 1.am on Wednesday.

E3 starts on Monday with the Microsoft conference at 5.30pm BST followed by Sony at 2.am BST Tuesday morning. Some stuff to look forward to before the actual AMD announcement.
 
Why bring out a new graphics card when summer is coming? Do they want to destroy my social life?

As said somewhere else, I also think they are totally revamping CCC. Hence the slacking in drivers atm. I know it's not an excuse but still.
 
I would really like to see AMD comes out of the gate with excellent performance in whatever new Gameworks title come up next. They are perfectly capable of doing so, they have decent engineers/technicians that could go to the developers and work to get these things sorted before a game is released. they manage it after a game is released so I see no reason why they cannot do it before hand.

Of course that would completely debunk any talk of them not being able to due to game works and this in my opinion is why it wont happen. why do the work before hand and gain nothing, when you can do the work afterwards and gain PR standing against your opponent for the same outlay.


This entire post is just my thoughts, with no proof needed or given.

I'm not sure AMD intentionally don't support developers during game development as a PR stunt. AMD have a decades long history of giving very poor developer support. They end up fixing things after a game is released when the benchmarks show how behind AMD is and they realize they are getting negative publicity. their PR department then kicks in to overdrive to blame Nvidia when they on;y have themselves to blame.

it is the sam story time and time and time again. And it is things like that which explains why their market share is spiraling downwards.
 
Only a few days till launch and everyone will settle down. :)

As for GameWorks, Mtom - AMD don't need the source code to get performance up on their hardware and historically this has never been needed. If you look at how well GameWorks runs on AMD after it has been out a spell, you can see it runs "as it should" for the hardware. So why do AMD need the source code? Why are they not working with devs from the games early development to get enhancements? As for TressFX, that ran like dog poo for NVidia users for around 2 days till NVidia got it right and the only other game that uses TressFX is Lichdom and NVidia users are blocked from running it, so can't really comment on that. Seems strange that a company would block an open source feature for two thirds of the market don't you think?
There is absolutely no reason to have the source code. AMD knows exactly what DX calls are being made by the game so can optimize just as well as if they had the source code.

they can also go to the developers and ask to look at their source code or get debug builds before the game is released. But they don't. And that is the problem with AMD.

And if AMD hate gameworks so much then they should approach developers and get TressFX added to games. But AMD dont. And that is the problem with AMD.
 
How can you even compare optimising between open source TressFX and closed blackbox gameworks. In tressfx you know which parameters you are aiming for, so basic optimisation can already be done in simulator. AMD has no idea what parameters they are aiming for, which means they can't use simulators. They basicly have to try one driver version at a time to see if they're getting better performance or not. That is very slow progress. And worst is that if you find that optimal solution, is that you can't know it's optimal solution, and you can still be wasting resources in finding one that works better, even if it doesn't exist.

So in theory, you can optimise 100% blindly, but in real world finding optimal settings are as close than winning in lottery. I think it's good effort from AMD if they can hit even 80% optimised code when adjusting blindly.

Note , all of this doesn't mean that AMD performance even at 100% would be able to match nvidia's. As there is tesselation performance difference in there aswell. But it's all about getting everything out of your architecture.


Utter rubbish. AMD know the DX calls being made, know their driver and hardware architecture, and can otpimise their drivers for the DX calls being issued. If AMD can't do that without having soruce code then they don't deserve to exist in this market.
 
There is absolutely no reason to have the source code. AMD knows exactly what DX calls are being made by the game so can optimize just as well as if they had the source code.

they can also go to the developers and ask to look at their source code or get debug builds before the game is released. But they don't. And that is the problem with AMD.

And if AMD hate gameworks so much then they should approach developers and get TressFX added to games. But AMD dont. And that is the problem with AMD.

Like any libraries, the Nvidia libraries will be called from the game code like any externel dll is when you program in C for example.

Unless you have access to what's inside the library code you will not be able to figure out exactly what it is doing. All AMD will see in the game code is a call to the Hairworks dll or whatever.
 
Like any libraries, the Nvidia libraries will be called from the game code like any externel dll is when you program in C for example.

Unless you have access to what's inside the library code you will not be able to figure out exactly what it is doing. All AMD will see in the game code is a call to the Hairworks dll or whatever.

No, AMD will see the calls the game executable makes to DX, and that is all you need to optimize the code.

if AMD are too incompetent to optimize their DX drivers based on DX calls then they shouldn't be in this market.

What happens within the Gameswork source code is absolutely irreverent, not least once it is complied it could look completely different.
 
Last edited:
I have heard this mentioned a few times on the internet, it's false.

Vulkan has been in development since early 2014 (It was originally called OpenGL Next before the name change to OpenGL Vulkan then just Vulkan). It has been developed with "Valve, Apple, AMD, Intel, Nvidia, and others" so no it isn't just going to be Mantle.

It's not false. Have a read through of Valve's presentation of Vulkan at GDC, hosted here on the Khronus site:

"Mantle pioneered & led the way" page 8

"Based on Mantle" page 10

Yet people would buy an AMD card with all the rubbish AMD are putting out right now? In recent times nvidia definitely have the moral high ground. AMD are Overworking their PR mudslinging department to try to excuse their failings, a classic sign of a company in trouble.

Nvidia has two methods of providing features that run to the benefit of their cards. CUDA based enhancements that can only run on Nvidia hardware as this runs on their own platform and API such as GPU PhysX and features that run through DirectX but using their libraries. The first is a legitimate competitive practice - Nvidia has spent R&D creating these features and they have every right to have these run on only on their hardware. The second however is very different. There is no need for a developer to use the latter as they do not add any functionality that requires additional code to be implemented, they are simply features available in DX11. AC Unity is a prime example; the Gameworks features are part of the DX11 spec but use Nvidia's libraries (putting Nvidia at the front of a feature name does not make it something they invented, they are all part of the DX11 spec). In these instances these libraries essentially act as middleware tailored for Nvidia cards. This is damaging to competition as it provides an artificial advantage for Nvidia hardware as it is attempting to close off access to what has always been intended to be open for the benefit of fair competition. Making situations like this comes under anti-competitive practice. Microsoft was beaten in court for doing less (bundling IE in Windows).

You might not understand the idea of what DirectX is supposed to provide and may be too young to remember the era before DirectX became dominant, however this is what it was designed to avoid.
 
It's not false. Have a read through of Valve's presentation of Vulkan at GDC, hosted here on the Khronus site:

"Mantle pioneered & led the way" page 8

"Based on Mantle" page 10



Nvidia has two methods of providing features that run to the benefit of their cards. CUDA based enhancements that can only run on Nvidia hardware as this runs on their own platform and API such as GPU PhysX and features that run through DirectX but using their libraries. The first is a legitimate competitive practice - Nvidia has spent R&D creating these features and they have every right to have these run on only on their hardware. The second however is very different. There is no need for a developer to use the latter as they do not add any functionality that requires additional code to be implemented, they are simply features available in DX11. AC Unity is a prime example; the Gameworks features are part of the DX11 spec but use Nvidia's libraries (putting Nvidia at the front of a feature name does not make it something they invented, they are all part of the DX11 spec). In these instances these libraries essentially act as middleware tailored for Nvidia cards. This is damaging to competition as it provides an artificial advantage for Nvidia hardware as it is attempting to close off access to what has always been intended to be open for the benefit of fair competition. Making situations like this comes under anti-competitive practice. Microsoft was beaten in court for doing less (bundling IE in Windows).

You might not understand the idea of what DirectX is supposed to provide and may be too young to remember the era before DirectX became dominant, however this is what it was designed to avoid.

I think you are in for an interesting time in this thread.:D
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom