Personally allow developers to decide what is best for their applications and for their customers!
-can't wait for the new first timer user reviews hit the net.when the next mantle games and fs monitors get released.Given how upset Mr. Huddy has made particular individuals, I think he's on the right track as far as his role with AMD.
And that's why everything runs so well and as intended by the developers no matter if the customers think otherwise as there is no such thing as buggy unoptimized, poor performance.
And that's why everything runs so well and as intended by the developers no matter if the customers think otherwise as there is no such thing as buggy unoptimized, poor performance.
Except of course the bribes...erm..."development resources" provided to do so.No one is forcing developers to use Mantle or GameWorks and if a developer sees value for their application and for their customers -- brings some innovation, improved gaming experiences and awareness for the pc.
Actually I think that is one of the things Huddy had right.No one is forcing developers to use Mantle or GameWorks and if a developer sees value for their application and for their customers -- brings some innovation, improved gaming experiences and awareness for the pc.
Actually I think that is one of the things Huddy had right.
Lots of the times the situation is the publisher makes those kind of deals to bring in revenue and the developer really has no say in the matter.
There's a tonne of difference, AMD's stuff comes with no restrictions, which is :awe:Yes and there is no difference between nVidia and AMD.
Or should we believe that AMD is not paying publisher to implement their features? :sneaky:
There's a tonne of difference, AMD's stuff comes with no restrictions, which is :awe:
Proprietary API's hurt no oneSo "with no restrictions" you mean with a proprietary API, no source code and developer access for other IHVs, performance hurting graphic features...? :hmm:
Proprietary API's hurt no one
By "performance hurting graphic features" do you mean something like tessellating flat surfaces and under sea areas
DLLs unaccompanied by source code and optimized for one architecture hurt someone"Gameworks hurt no one", too. :|
No, i mean something like Forward+, HDAO, TressFX without LoD...
Might as well be proprietary if all you get is dlls :|Like Huddy said: Disable the Gameworks feature. Solves your problem with a AMD card.
However, Gameworks use standard HLSL code because it runs over D3D. There is nothing "proprietary" in it.
Fat load of good that will be, I'm sure :|Yeah, the libaries are proprietary, but not the HLSL code.
It is a valid concern that on release only AMD cards are actually running that hlsl code, because nvidia in its drivers has a better algorithm which it replaces the game works one with at runtime. Yes its just DX calls and hlsl but given no pre knowledge of the code AMD could be running a much less efficient version than Nvidia does resulting in poor launch day performance and on something complex it could take a while to fix it from what is quite low level code. We don't know if this is what is actually happening or not, we couldn't ever know because its done at driver level, but I can see why AMD wouldn't like it and are complaining now before its done.Yeah, the libaries are proprietary, but not the HLSL code.
Disputing the content, funny you should mention that. Let's do that. Two points. First: It seems that Mr. Huddy's stories are already being disputed. Mr. Huddy told Ryan at PCPer that TressFX was made available to NV prior to release of Tomb Raider. This was not the case. When Tomb Raider was released, TressFX had zero information available to other IHVs.
Nvidia denied that this was the case and when pressed for the truth, AMD admitted that this was false. What Huddy told PCPer about TressFX was essentially, not the truth. TressFX was not made available until well after the release of Tomb Raider. From reading up on it, it seems that Nvidia was essentially caught by surprise when it was released, because they had no access to the game and TressFX was only available to the developer. Problem? Nvidia was not allowed access to any build of Tomb Raider, had zero information on TressFX, and were essentially forced to create a performance driver on their own. Also, unlike HBAO+ in Watch Dogs, the performance penalty for using it on NV hardware was severe and on AMD hardware, not so much. Quite the different story as compared to HBAO+ in Watch Dogs which performed similarly at launch between AMD and NV.
Sound familiar? Second point: Hilbert Hagedoorn, the owner of PC review site guru3d, seemed to indicate that Huddy is an untrustworthy person. He said the following:
I wouldn't read into that too much but it certainly sounds like this guy is untrustworthy to me. Which wouldn't be surprising, because really, when should you ever trust a marketing mouthpiece? (never). And he already mentioned some bad information that was not true to PCPer, in fact. Maybe it was unintentional, but nevertheless, since you wanted his information disputed, it seems that has happened. And his information was incorrect. Given what AMD did with TressFX at launch, and no information for TressFX was given to anyone until SOME TIME after launch, and it had a severe performance penalty on NV at launch......, it makes the situation about Huddy's gameworks whining seem odd to say the least.
Maybe AMD should just do what they really should have done a long time ago. Cut the marketing budget, fire some people, and apply that money towards software engineering personnel. This is the problem at AMD. Too much marketing, not enough of the stuff that is important: Just shut up and get stuff done which is what NV generally does (in my view) instead of whining. The problem is AMD throws their money at marketing instead of the stuff that matters such as software engineering. If AMD had proper resources for software development, their linux drivers would not be a disaster and they would not need to use their marketing mouthpieces to skew the truth when their software guys are stretched thin. I don't see AMD's software guys whining. They're the ones doing the real work, the important work, and they're the unsung heroes. But it seems to me the entire problem is THOSE guys, the important jobs, are not getting enough money or manpower.
It is a valid concern that on release only AMD cards are actually running that hlsl code, because nvidia in its drivers has a better algorithm which it replaces the game works one with at runtime. Yes its just DX calls and hlsl but given no pre knowledge of the code AMD could be running a much less efficient version than Nvidia does resulting in poor launch day performance and on something complex it could take a while to fix it from what is quite low level code. We don't know if this is what is actually happening or not, we couldn't ever know because its done at driver level, but I can see why AMD wouldn't like it and are complaining now before its done.
Did Nvidia cry omg too many compute, too much SSAA, too much Global Lightning for no visual gains at all?
Personally allow developers to decide what is best for their applications and for their customers!
No one is forcing developers to use Mantle or GameWorks and if a developer sees value for their application and for their customers -- brings some innovation, improved gaming experiences and awareness for the pc.
seems like the usual pointless discussion...amd are liars and lazy while nvidia is just doing gods work.
Could you guys try not to appear so biased?it get so boring, especially a certain posters crappy wall o' text.
lets break it down:
gameworks - great if you only plan on using nvidia products
mantle - great for industry
gsync - great if you only plan on using nvidia products
a-sync - great for industry
R.Huddy[intel employee] - interesting fellow
R.Huddy[amd employee] - liar, spin doctor, untrustworthy etc