OK so if AMD had 70% market share hypothetically, tried to shove FreeSync as a vendor locked standard, tried to push DX12 aside in favour of Mantle, tried to charge us $100+ per each monitor for FreeSync if GSync was an open standard, locked out specific IQ features out of Nvidia cards in Gaming Evolved games, this would be perfectly fine to you? :hmm:
The fact that NV is leveraging its market share and as a result purposely refuses to accept an open industry standard (FreeSync), while at the same time supporting its own standard (GSync), shows all their care about is profits, not the end user experience of the entire PC market.
Imagine if tessellation, Havoc physics, HBAO, TressFX were AMD locked features and AMD purposely locked out gamers with NV cards from using them. Would that be fair? If AMD did this, I would stop buying their products immediately. Any company that tries to lock me in or shove proprietary garbage down my throat that makes them $ as a result will get $0 out of me, period. Win me over with showing respect, showing that you care about the PC gaming community, that you care to not hurt other gamers. :thumbsup:
If NV allowed Physx, G-Sync and PCSS+ to run on AMD cards, allowed direct access to GW code, and if NV cards were conclusively better at performing those tasks, I would have no problems with such a strategy. Instead, NV artificially limits features and gimps performance on AMD products. That's not fair business practices or showing that you really care about the entire PC gaming community. If NV was so confident in its features, they would make them open standard as they would run faster/better on NV hardware and entice gamers to shift to NV GPUs in the first place. NV isn't confident enough in their own features which is why they vendor lock everything they can think of. Because NV is in a stronger financial position than AMD, they can afford to throw more marketing money at vendor locked features.
Nvidia's practices are anti-competitive and hurt consumers. I have no idea how you could post that...
Doesn't hurt nvidia customers one bit so you can't lump consumers all into the same group.
It does, but you are just too blind to aknowledge it. Those over tesselated concrete fences and walls in Crysis2 had an impact in performance to everyone with zero impact on better IQ, it is just that NV had a lesser impact in peformance because of sporting better geometry perf than AMD at that time. To make AMD/ATI cards look worse than they were, NV also threw their userbase under the bus and everyone lost performance (altough on different levels, depending of your gpu brand) in that game because of that.
Also, Sub pixel tesselation is not a feature of DX11, tesselation is. Sub pixel tesselation is a result of abusing the tesselation technique, resulting in triangles that are smaller than a pixel rendered in your screen, and thus adding zero IQ benefit in the game being played. Detecting sub pixel tesselation is also a featured AMD sported as a result of NV's underhand practices in this regard.
Quit being so emotional about all of this. NV is a business and they are running it well compared to AMD. That's a simple fact. NV isn't hurting anyone. Competition is great and we're getting lots of nice things as gamers at the moment. Emotional reactions regarding "fairness" are laughable and neither AMD (your favored company) nor NV could care less about you. All either one wants is your money and if you think AMD is better than NV when it comes to profit motive you aren't living in the real world.
Quit being so emotional about all of this. NV is a business and they are running it well compared to AMD. That's a simple fact. NV isn't hurting anyone. Competition is great and we're getting lots of nice things as gamers at the moment. Emotional reactions regarding "fairness" are laughable and neither AMD (your favored company) nor NV could care less about you. All either one wants is your money and if you think AMD is better than NV when it comes to profit motive you aren't living in the real world.
Nvidia, because they tend to have better drivers.
Yes it would not matter to me. You snooze you lose, sorry.
OK so if AMD had 70% market share hypothetically, tried to shove FreeSync as a vendor locked standard, tried to push DX12 aside in favour of Mantle, tried to charge us $100+ per each monitor for FreeSync if GSync was an open standard, locked out specific IQ features out of Nvidia cards in Gaming Evolved games, this would be perfectly fine to you? :hmm:
The fact that NV is leveraging its market share and as a result purposely refuses to accept an open industry standard (FreeSync), while at the same time supporting its own standard (GSync), shows all their care about is profits, not the end user experience of the entire PC market.
Imagine if tessellation, Havoc physics, HBAO, TressFX were AMD locked features and AMD purposely locked out gamers with NV cards from using them. Would that be fair? If AMD did this, I would stop buying their products immediately. Any company that tries to lock me in or shove proprietary garbage down my throat that makes them $ as a result will get $0 out of me, period. Win me over with showing respect, showing that you care about the PC gaming community, that you care to not hurt other gamers. :thumbsup:
If NV allowed Physx, G-Sync and PCSS+ to run on AMD cards, allowed direct access to GW code, and if NV cards were conclusively better at performing those tasks, I would have no problems with such a strategy. Instead, NV artificially limits features and gimps performance on AMD products. That's not fair business practices or showing that you really care about the entire PC gaming community. If NV was so confident in its features, they would make them open standard as they would run faster/better on NV hardware and entice gamers to shift to NV GPUs in the first place. NV isn't confident enough in their own features which is why they vendor lock everything they can think of. Because NV is in a stronger financial position than AMD, they can afford to throw more marketing money at vendor locked features.
What? Crysis 2 how old is that game now? You really care Bout that?
Seriously get over yourself
Of course it harms the consumers being locked into a brand which just keeps raising prices and milking just about every release over the past few years.
Spinning the discussion into meaning that he has a favorite brand doesn't help either, the only consistency RS (and some others) has is being loyal to the consumer, not to a brand. Can you say the same?
I agree that AMD wouldn't be a saint if they had 70% of the market, however if they did and NV was in the other shoes with better values then many of us would be speaking the same position (best value) with the companies reversed. I don't think it's healthy for consumers unless there is enough competition to keep both of them vying for our purchases instead of milking uninformed consumers.
nVIDIA has always thought about how to differentiate their product to their competitors even in the early years (whether or not it sucked, thats a whole new different question). Not just performance but feature wise. Always looking for newer ways to make their video cards do other things, speed up things, functionality etc.
They are also gunning for "open industry standards" and free things which also paints them as cheap and lazy.