Pushing all this to open source is the way to go IMO.GPUOpen is based on three principles:
The first is to provide code and documentation allowing PC developers to exert more control on the GPU. Current and upcoming GCN architectures (such as Polaris) include many features not exposed today in PC graphics APIs, and GPUOpen aims to empower developers with ways to leverage some of those features. In addition to generating quality or performance advantages such access will also enable easier porting from current-generation consoles (XBox One and PlayStation 4) to the PC platform.
The second is a commitment to open source software. The game and graphics development community is an active hub of enthusiastic individuals who believe in the value of sharing knowledge. Full and flexible access to the source of tools, libraries and effects is a key pillar of the GPUOpen philosophy. Only through open source access are developers able to modify, optimize, fix, port and learn from software. The goal? Encouraging innovation and the development of amazing graphics techniques and optimizations in PC games.
The third is a collaborative engagement with the developer community. GPUOpen software is hosted on public source code repositories such as GitHub as a way to enable sharing and collaboration. Engineers from different functions will also regularly write blog posts about various GPU-related topics, game technologies or industry news.
http://gpuopen.com/gaming-product/depthboundstest11-directx-11-sdk-sample/The depth bounds test functionality is accessed through the AMD GPU Services (AGS) library
And a lot of them arent even new. nVidia published most of them on their Github, too. Difference? This has been happened years ago...
https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-opengl-samples
https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-directx-samples
Good move. Hopefully this will put pressure on team Green to get rid of proprietary gameworks crap.
Samples on Github with source code.
And you can still download their old DX11 SDK which has source code, too:
https://developer.nvidia.com/dx11-samples
The majority of the current GameWorks samples are not available on Github, such as HBAO+, TXAA, Depth of Field, FaceWorks, WaveWorks, HairWorks, GI Works, Turbulence, and likely Soft Shadows ...
Fixed it for you.It's nVidias fault that they have more proprietary tech than AMD.
It's not nVidias fault that they have more tech than AMD.
Most of AMD's samples are available from nVidia, too.
Amd hasnt even published anything using CR or ROV unlike nVidia and Intel.
You mean, there is a wish list, which has to be fulfilled by AMD? Or would you have liked it more if they didn't start the GPUOpen initiative?It's not nVidias fault that they have more tech than AMD.
Most of AMD's samples are available from nVidia, too.
Amd hasnt even published anything using CR or ROV unlike nVidia and Intel.
Everything: https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/OpenGLSamplesNot true if we were to compare like for like accessibility ...
What Nvidia offers is meager in comparison to AMD ...
You get ambient occlusion, geometry optimization tools, soft shadows, TressFX, VR SDK, AMD Driver Extensions (AMD AGS), Forward+ rendering sample, GPU particles, MLAA, nBody simulation with asynchronous compute, and their own specialized tessellation samples including post-processing samples ...
Where exactly am I going to get an equivalent amount of content WITHOUT signing up for a Nvidia developer program ?
nVidia has published a ROV sample on Github to give developers something to play.BTW, Nvidia has done absolutely NO advertisement for ROVs. All credit goes to Intel for that as Nvidia doesn't have a whole lot of confidence in it's usage considering they heavily discourage it ...
Everything: https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/OpenGLSamples
http://developer.download.nvidia.co.../11/NVIDIA_SDK11_Direct3D_11.00.0328.2105.exe
You dont need a registration to get access to source code for nearly the same effects.
nVidia has published a ROV sample on Github to give developers something to play.
So, most of their "Open" techniques require their proprietary toolset like the DepthBoundsTest11:
http://gpuopen.com/gaming-product/depthboundstest11-directx-11-sdk-sample/
And a lot of them arent even new. nVidia published most of them on their Github, too. Difference? This has been happened years ago...
https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-opengl-samples
https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-directx-samples
Examples:
HBAO, Soft Shadows, GPU particles, FXAA 3.x, Tessellation samples (terrain, silhouette), spare textures...
I'm using AMD hardware now, but I am glad AMD is determined to remain an open source company.
Do you know why?
Because in the future, I may not use AMD.
- And there is the problem in a nutshell. You can consider NV gpus because you don't really lose anything by switching away from AMD.
An NV user stands to lose all kinds of product support switching to AMD, and so they don't and won't. That's how we find ourselves in this 75/25 market share split despite both companies delivering largely similar performance within largely similar parameters.
AMD users are afforded he luxury of thinking "I may not own an AMD card with my next purchase" while NV users think "I can't own anything besides an NV card with my next purchase".
It's about time AMD started competing in the real world. This open source crap doesn't win any hearts and minds outside of a limited number of hardcore tech libertarians.
If my next GPU is Nvidia gain, and they don't support FreeSync, welps bye-bye AMD. Because I'll be jumping on the G-Sync bandwagon.
If AMD is going to charge the same amount as NV, they better have an equal product.
Edit: Never mind. Off topic for this thread.At the moment they're charging less than NV for a better product and they're still losing. They need to up their marketing game and make sure they execute better. Botched launches and the lack of day one drivers is killing them.
If AMD is going to charge the same amount as NV, they better have an equal product