why even post it.Knowing that it's MLID, you probably shouldn't believe any of the above words.
:shrug:why even post it.
Compilation alone is often not enough vs hand tuned assembly for certain code.6. Lack of games natively compiled for ARM.
It would be more productive for Qualcomm to engage with devs maintaining major game engines (such as UE5) to port the engine to WoA.Compilation alone is often not enough vs hand tuned assembly for certain code.
Especially when you are talking about games and responsiveness.
UE5 should already be part of the way from mobile gaming and Switch support, the rest is just WoA specific APIs.It would be more productive for Qualcomm to engage with devs maintaining major game engines (such as UE5) to port the engine to WoA.
Interesting point. Assuming Epic hasn't signed any exclusive deals with Nintendo and/or NV prohibiting such.UE5 should already be part of the way from mobile gaming and Switch support, the rest is just WoA specific APIs.
Unlikely, excepting the possibility of the Switch platform variant using NVN rather than Vulkan, but even then as WoA uses DX12 which UE5 Windows already is predicated on, so it doesn't matter.Interesting point. Assuming Epic hasn't signed any exclusive deals with Nintendo and/or NV prohibiting such.
Anytime NV gets involved, it's prudent to ask.exclusivity is just counter intuitive to the business model.
Hmm, I mean Qualcomm also had exclusivity with MS for WoA. This really soured WoA adoption with those pitiful ARM SoCs they put out. If UE5 partnership with NV means better games on WoA so be it. Nvidia is more likely to deliver than QC thanks to better software. Then after exclusivity all ARM vendors can benefit.Anytime NV gets involved, it's prudent to ask.
Too true, slimy errrr.... people.Anytime NV gets involved, it's prudent to ask.
I just remembered - based on the past I'm disinclined to think Epic would do that.If UE5 partnership with NV means better games on WoA so be it
PhysX is now open source anyway. They likely don't want to contribute/keep things in house/wanted tighter integration (better performance, features) etc. They've been using PhysX as physics engine since forever. It probably makes sense to replace it with something new free from legacy burden.I just remembered - based on the past I'm disinclined to think Epic would do that.
The only unqiue thing nVidia ish in UE5 right now is that fluid sim plugin (flex something?).
Everything else that was nVidia based was pretty much replaced with an in house equivalent, starting with Chaos physics.
To me this says they don't want or need nVidia to prop them up anymore - and they certainly don't want any of their supported platforms feeling left out because they don't use nVidia hardware.
We will also dive into Nvidia’s custom PC chips and their aggressive 3 chip Tegra strategy that likely takes significant share from Intel.
I wonder what's the lineup like.Latest Semianalysis article contains information about Nvidia's ARM SoC for PCs.
It's behind the paywall though.Intel on the Brink of Death | Culture Rot, Product Focus Flawed, Foundry Must Survive
Intel’s board is incompetent and its horrible decisions over the decades are going to push it towards death. The decision to fire Pat Gelsinger, put in charge a CFO + career sales and marketing lea…semianalysis.com
6 might be eventually fixed, chinese gacha games and newer ones works on Phones and PC and since Phones are on ARM, they can port the PC configs to an ARM environment.Right now, gaming on Windows-on-arm with Snapdragon laptpops sucks due to several reasons:
1. Qualcomm's GPU drivers are bad.
2. Qualcomm's GPU architecture is bad.
3. Qualcomm's iGPU is not big enough.
4. Lack of game anti-cheats ported to ARM.
5. Prism Emulation layer cannot emulate AVX/AVX2, which are used by many games.
6. Lack of games natively compiled for ARM.
7. Running games through the Prism emulation layer incurs a performance penalty.
Nvidia's ARM SoC will not suffer from 1,2 and 3.
4 is in the process of being fixed. Some anticheats such as BattleEye and Denuvo have already been ported to ARM.
5 will also be soon fixed, as Microsoft announced recently that Prism will get the ability to emulate AVX and AVX2.
But 6 and 7 are still going to be issues for Nvidia's ARM SoC with regards to gaming.
:shrug:
Nvidia isn't going to make 64GB affordable like Qualcomm.With >=64 GB of RAM you'd never have to worry about not having enough for textures.
That depends on how it’s done. And even then I recall people in this forum moaning about how Qualcomm would overprice RAM, on-package or not, and I explicitly told them there’s no way, now that they’re serious they won’t — you can’t get anywhere with absurd RAM pricing in a competitive market with other OEM’s and/or chip vendors. That the previous Snapdragons were a mess is irrelevant, it wasn’t a serious effort.Nvidia isn't going to make 64GB affordable like Qualcomm.
Not any time soon. I do see other companies doing it, and SteamOS being offered on them.
- Do you think we'll see an ARM-based Steam Deck with Nvidia hardware?
I have also speculated about this. I think it is inevitable. The info about Geforce Now on Steam Deck lines up because I expect it to be integral to Nvidia's gaming products. Perfect way to push adoption by bundling it with a free trial period.
- What are your thoughts on Nvidia potentially launching their own gaming-focused OS? They have the resources and could offer exclusive features, but would developers and users actually adopt it?
Not certain they will settle for being between them, as least not after an iteration or 2. Much more likely to take them on head to head as an alternative. First console, then PC. Where as Intel is suffering a massive brain drain, all of the talent wants to work for Nvidia. They have the capital; I can't see anything stopping them from succeeding.
- Could we see Nvidia try to enter the console market with a "gaming box" that sits between PC and console - something like a Steam Machine but with their complete vertical integration?
...
Yeah, and not only Intel but Microsoft as well (Exibit A, Exibit B).Not certain they will settle for being between them, as least not after an iteration or 2. Much more likely to take them on head to head as an alternative. First console, then PC. Where as Intel is suffering a massive brain drain, all of the talent wants to work for Nvidia. They have the capital; I can't see anything stopping them from succeeding.
Anyway, I don't see them just missing out on upselling someone a 5090 just because they were too cheap to add PCE lanes to an already big chip (and at least one of these 3 will be big). They might also offer a full PCIE-E dock-solution as Beelink does:
Beelink | Beelink Multi-Functional EX Docking Station
www.bee-link.com