Misrepresenting what someone says is lame. He said it's the last thing that hasn't happened yet and if it does it would be valid from a business standpoint.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MisterLilBig
They just don't seem to invest the millions of $$$ that NV does for developers to use it.
You want GPU exclusive titles? This only makes sense for fanboys. I don't know what your reasoning on that is but that is the only way it makes sense. For someone who has absolutely no intention of EVER switching GPUs.
Or maybe you are just a uber capitalist who would advocate car exclusive roads where only a certain car/tire combination can move efficiently. "if they can do it and it makes them more money, let them"
What happens when nvidia starts to suck? Or you think they can't? because they have in the past.
I wouldn't particularly care for nvidia exclusive titles based on current examples. Some shadows etc isn't anything. Their biggest thing remains physx and that is very passable. Some people are delusional and think AMD is holding nvidia back. Like gameworks is this oh so awesome thing that would make PC gaming so wonderful if AMD wasn't around. AMD brought us freesync, mantle/dx12. It's not a fair assessment to claim they hold anything back. Nvidia is not pushing anything forward but their profits.
I don't think we are entitled to anything, but it would be nice if nvidias actions only affected nvidia customers at most. The whole deal of their older cards performing worse is the problem of a person who chooses to buy nvidia knowing how they operate.
GPu exclusive titles, CPU exclusive titles, Chipset exclusive titles, Games that can only be installed on a brand of SSD, Mono audio if you don't have a certain sound card. yay
People don't realize that this api overhead test is like cinebench,it uses all cores so amds seem to be faster,actual games will still rely heavily on single thread.
OK, sure, developers use it, that doesn't make it ok for Nvidia to enable that by offering an anticompetitive SDK to begin with. AMD and Intel have their own SDKs, sure, but as far as I know that don't use the licensing agreement to restrict other IHVs from optimizing for it like Nvidia does.
Maybe I did misinterpret that meaning he was in favor of it, but sounds like it to me. Not having GPU exclusives is not a surprise, it would be if we did. we do not need it as that second sentence seems to suggest
I said they don't invest. Not that they should or anything else.
It's not how many cores are used but how the work is distributed between them. DX11 is poor at distributing the load evenly. One core still ends up being responsible for too much work and becomes the bottleneck. We'll all be so much better off once DX12 is here.When will people stop pushing this idea that games will always be single threaded? The most popular game engines can thread to 4 and more threads. Doesn't anyone actually read and watch game development information?
(IMHO, Every company has demonstrated how more cores and threads is better, it seems that certain clueless fanboys still push for single threaded. If you want single threaded go play JavaScript games.)
I would blame you and the person who paid you to do it.Developers signed that licensing agreement.
(If I hurt you, with anything, will you blame what I used or will you blame me for using it to hurt you?)
Did you... ever?When will people stop pushing this idea that games will always be single threaded? The most popular game engines can thread to 4 and more threads. Doesn't anyone actually read and watch game development information?
This stands only for the graphics portion of games,cpu part will still heavily depend on single thread, no matter how many threads a game has.It's not how many cores are used but how the work is distributed between them. DX11 is poor at distributing the load evenly. One core still ends up being responsible for too much work and becomes the bottleneck. We'll all be so much better off once DX12 is here.
You are simply wrong. AMD does invest millions as well. I used Mantle as simply one example.
It's not how many cores are used but how the work is distributed between them.
I would blame you and the person who paid you to do it.
Did you... ever?
Look at the latest games,they are all heavily multithreaded yet still the faster cpus win over the more cored (and slower) ones in almost every scenario.
This stands only for the graphics portion of games,cpu part will still heavily depend on single thread, no matter how many threads a game has.
This sounds like someone who does not believe in personal responsibility at all.
Since you brought them up
http://www.redgamingtech.com/ps4-arc...akdown-part-2/
The main game loop covers a whole core and can't be broken up (into more threads)any more,so the speed a cpu is able to run this thread is dictating the maximum speed at which the game might run.
The faster your cores the better your chances to be able to run this thread faster,even if you have to run other threads on the same core.
Wow! Another person for my ignore list since you like to lower yourself to slanderous personal attacks when someone disagrees with you.
And still the picture they showed had considerably more activity going on on one core then the others.Older than my video. From video: "We do not have a main thread anymore."(At around 14:30mins)
By the logic used, if a person who does not know how to swim jumps in a pool and drowns, the pool would be blamed for being there.
NV can offer whatever they want, if a developer chooses to go with them that's on them, the game developer.
That's based on a fundamental misunderstanding of the relative power of nvidia, the developers and customers as well as who pays the cost and how.
It's like building pools designed so that one brand of ladder falls off and then acting like it's the ladder manufacturer's fault.
NV can offer whatever they want, but when they use their disproportionate financial power to get people to take it, yes they do get some blame.
The dev can always decline. That's the thing, they don't have to take any offer from nvidia. If they do why is it nvidia's fault? That's like blaming the bar for your getting drunk when they offer you free drinks.
The dev can always decline. That's the thing, they don't have to take any offer from nvidia. If they do why is it nvidia's fault? That's like blaming the bar for your getting drunk when they offer you free drinks.
If Nvidia's intent is malicious then it's Nvidia's fault. Never before Matrox, AMD, Intel, etc went to devs and paid them to lock others out of drivers optimization
Nvidias approach should be the one they had with PhysX, where it just add eye candy and didn't interfered with other IHVs performance.
Folks should feel pretty good about things current-day. How many people would be P$&%^*-off if they upgraded their GPU from a GTX 670 to say a AMD 290 and their Batman bundled with the 670 no longer worked...?