Define correct tessellation.
AMD has demonstrated to Ubisoft tessellation performance improvements that benefit all GPUs, but the developer has chosen not to implement them in the preview benchmark. For that reason, we are working on a driver-based solution in time for the final release of the game that improves performance without sacrificing image quality. In the meantime we recommend you hold off using the benchmark as it will not provide a useful measure of performance relative to other DirectX® 11 games using tessellation.
No, we must wait for AMD to catch up!
Or else its no fair... :'(
Why does not AMD natively support PhysX? What is wrong with using the driver that runs instead of newer drivers on the nvidia card?We also need for AMD to catch up on using a Nvidia card for PhysX when running AMD as the main card? Like AMD modifying the Nvidia drivers that prevent this?
Nuff said, no wasted triangles. No sub-pixel triangles. It was addressed in the article that started this thread.
AMD's take on it:
http://blogs.amd.com/play/2010/11/29/tessellation-for-all/
also
Also for anyone who knows how tessellation is implemented it's much harder and time consuming to overtessellate an object than to do it right. That's the reason why the DX11 patch was postponed, they needed time to tessellate the cr.p out of it.
Nuff said, no wasted triangles. No sub-pixel triangles. It was addressed in the article that started this thread.
AMD's take on it:
http://blogs.amd.com/play/2010/11/29/tessellation-for-all/
also
Also for anyone who knows how tessellation is implemented it's much harder and time consuming to overtessellate an object than to do it right. That's the reason why the DX11 patch was postponed, they needed time to tessellate the cr.p out of it.
We also need for AMD to catch up on using a Nvidia card for PhysX when running AMD as the main card? Like AMD modifying the Nvidia drivers that prevent this?
Not sure what this has to do with the thread, but like Seero said, why doesn't AMD support the cards using their drivers only? The hardware is there, simply enable it to use PhysX? Why have the need to download an Nvidia driver, like that won't complicate anything in the stability of the system...
I defined it in my own words, you can read. NO WASTED TRIANGLES.
Take a look on the wireframe of the flat surfaces in the article, borders and such.
Why does not AMD natively support PhysX? What is wrong with using the driver that runs instead of newer drivers on the nvidia card?
Name me one thing that you can carry from using AMD card to using Nvidia card. There are none, the driver can't be recycled, the hardware can not be recycled.Imho,
I gauged this as not only does one have to support PhysX -- not a bad thing for AMD -- but one also has to spend resources on having Cuda for AMD products as well. This would be like a monopoly of GPU processing abilities controlled by nVidia. So, AMD may believe that the best way to place their resources is to stand behind OpenCL, which makes sense.
I don't think AMD has any problem with PhysX and if it was ported to OpenCL, they would welcome it -- as would I -- because the more systems with PhysX - the more it may be adopted by developers.
Based your words on what exactly? What AMD's PR told you? So next year when they bump that up to 64 with their new arch you will change your mind right? You are a marketing managers wet dream.
Name me one thing that you can carry from using AMD card to using Nvidia card. There are none, the driver can't be recycled, the hardware can not be recycled.
I don't think Nvidia is trying to stop people from recycling their old Nvidia card, they are trying to prevent those who buy low-end Nvidia card as a PPU in their AMD setup. Yes, the solution killed everyone who actually recycle their old card. Do you have a better solution? I don't think buying Ageia just so that Nvidia video card can be used as a PPU was the intention. We, as customers, don't like it one bit, but that is because Nvidia just prevented us from cutting corners. Who is being unethical? customer or vendor?
AMD have good engineers to make PhysX work for them. In fact, they hired the person who invented PhysX. I am willing to take a small bet on AMD is going to introduce PhysY or something along that line with a different name, and then Dx12 will have a revolutionary technique called PhysZ, or another name, which does something no one has ever done before.
This is a subjective issue, which means different things between people. My bottom line is, I don't see AMD does it better.
PhysXInfo: Can you please explain to us what factors have led to such decision?
Nvidia: Today NVIDIA’s GPU and PhysX drivers are interconnected to optimize performance. In the future we expect this interdependence to deepen. This alone makes it difficult to support a third party GPU.
In order to make sure our customers have a great experience, we QA every release of our PhysX or Graphics drivers by testing approximately 14 NVIDIA GPUs for graphics processing with 8 GPUs for PhysX processing on 6 common platforms with 6 OS’s using 6 combinations of CPU and memory. This is over 24000 possible configurations. While we don’t test every possible combination, it should be clear that the work and cost to NVIDIA is substantial. AMD does not support PhysX for their customers. Adding AMD GPUs would significantly increase the necessary work and cost for NVIDIA. We prefer to invest in inventing new technologies that give our customers great new experiences.
Today NVIDIA’s GPU and PhysX drivers are interconnected to optimize performance. In the future we expect this interdependence to deepen. This alone makes it difficult to support a third party GPU.
AMD is doing software Physx. The HW one is not open source but Nvidia proprietary, no you can't write drivers for their hardware.
You seem to not be able to read. LOOK at the wireframe. How many triangles does one need to make a FLAT surface?
Also are you claiming that techreport and all the others who noticed that are being paid by AMD?
Lock this topic already, its full of puppets.
You need to reread -- I was disagreeing with nVidia.
I agree.... I believe nVidia could offer official support but ...
I was not pointing fingers at you Sirpauly. If anything, ive noticed you often try to present more sides of a story.
This thread has run its course in my opinion. and its starting to irritate how its always on top in the forum page and 2 or 3 pages longer for each day.
I also agree. I thought that is what a technical forums are for, to find out what happens behind the scene without tainted glasses and PR speeches.I would like to see more data and investigations and hopefully others may chime in. If the thread can stay on topic and concentrate on AMD, CryTech and nVidia instead of each other would be welcomed. I find these these kinds of debates fascinating actually and fun when the community tries to solve the mysteries of the IHV's, hehe!
Tessellating the Ocean doesn't stress the Graphic Cards that much, and generally, i haven't been convinced yet that Tessellation alone is responsible for the big performance hit in the Ultra mode.