• 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.
AntiBS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why are you bringing logic to this? Logic has no place here, this is the GPU forum!
 
AntiBS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Great post and welcome aboard :-)
 
AntiBS said:
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.
Click to expand...
What a load of angry uninformed tosh. Easy to guess which vacationing member this is.

DX11 may give developers the ability to do something, but it still takes time, effort and skill to create each and every effect. In the case of Game Works, Nvdia have done the work for them, saving debs a lot of time and effort, and in many cases enabling the effects that would be beyond most teams to reproduce.

It's not anti competitive for a few reasons, firstly you completely misunderstand what Game Works is, and secondly Nvidia are forcing nobody to make use of it.
 
Last edited:
layte said:
What a load of angry uninformed tosh.

DX11 may give developers the ability to do something, but it still takes time, effort and skill to create each and every effect. In the case of Game Works, Nvdia have done the work for them, saving debs a lot of time and effort, and in many cases enabling the effects that would be beyond most teams to reproduce.

It's not anti competitive for a few reasons, firstly you comely misunderstand what Game Works is, and secondly Nvidia are forcing nobody to make use of it.
Click to expand...

My post doesn't contain any expletives which is an indication of a frustrated interaction on your part, not mine. Please have a read of what an anti-competitive practice actually is.

Of course it takes time to implement features but there is no need for these to be Gameworks features, that is the whole point. If you think that loopholes are legitimate exploits because they are not explicitly covered in law then you misunderstand what's going on and you misunderstand what DirectX was designed to do.
 
humbug said:
AntiBS meet layte ^^^^, anything other than Nvidia positive is like a red rag for a bull to him.
Click to expand...

Not at all. I just like the facts, and cannot stand uninformed rubbish being spouted as the truth. Something that seems to upset a particular group of people.

Edit: to the post above, you really don't get it do you. Nvidia have written their own code and are perfectly valid in packaging it up and putting it out there for use with their own branding. Just because it creates DX11 compatible code is no rhyme or reason. This is how the whole middleware industry operates.
 
Last edited:
layte said:
DX11 may give developers the ability to do something, but it still takes time, effort and skill to create each and every effect. In the case of Game Works, Nvdia have done the work for them, saving debs a lot of time and effort, and in many cases enabling the effects that would be beyond most teams to reproduce.
Click to expand...

I really wished they wouldn't, its making them lazy and unimaginative.

Not what you want to hear but FC4 Animal fur was pathetic, just utter junk... Wither 3 HairWorks looks like straw.

A skilled Dev left to his own devises can do better, a lot better.
 
AntiBS said:
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.
Click to expand...

Which libraries are those exactly? I think we have a mystery guest :p

You must be referring to GeometryWorks Advanced Tessellation. I'm not even sure that made it into the game. It was meant to be added in a patch which never appeared.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
I really wished they wouldn't, its making them lazy and unimaginative.

Not what you want to hear but FC4 Animal fur was pathetic, just utter junk... Wither 3 HairWorks looks like straw.

A skilled Dev left to his own devises can do better, a lot better.
Click to expand...

No they couldn't, you know that. It exactly why TressFx also exists. Also you trash talking Nvidia is the least surprising thing ever, at least Geralts hair doesn't fly at through his face and neck like a certain other characters does.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom