At least now the experts can go over the source code and determine if there is some truth to the "intentionally tanks performance" claims.
And yet you have no idea if this is the actual code running in the game or not. Step in the right direction but still not resolved. Also they removed any history from the files, so no idea what they used to look like.
AMD's GPUOpen only open-sourced four effects; three of which (ShadowFX, AOFX, GeometryFX) aren't used in any games/software. Two of which (AOFX, ShadowFX) are GCN-centric technologies.
Developers can license the full Gameworks SDK source (even the new stuff) if they see fit. If developers want, they can have full control over all Gameworks effects. The only stipulation is that they can't release Nvidia's source code to AMD or Intel, and they can't change it in a way that's detrimental to Nvidia GPUs. Pretty reasonable in software licensing terms.
People want Nvidia to do is give away their proprietary software for free to anyone with no strings attached. While it's great that AMD did it with only four of their effects technologies, why does Nvidia have to release all of theirs?
AMD's GPUOpen only open-sourced four effects; three of which (ShadowFX, AOFX, GeometryFX) aren't used in any games/software. Two of which (AOFX, ShadowFX) are GCN-centric technologies.
Developers can license the full Gameworks SDK source (even the new stuff) if they see fit. If developers want, they can have full control over all Gameworks effects. The only stipulation is that they can't release Nvidia's source code to AMD or Intel, and they can't change it in a way that's detrimental to Nvidia GPUs. Pretty reasonable in software licensing terms.
People want Nvidia to do is give away their proprietary software for free to anyone with no strings attached. While it's great that AMD did it with only four of their effects technologies, why does Nvidia have to release all of theirs?
Classic Nvidia marketing. "Hey look at us! Whoa guys don't look too close."
amd better not have an excuse now!
I'd think that it would be pretty easy to tell if it's the code running in the game or not. Swap out the GW that's in the game for the version on GitHub and see how they both run.
When you say they removed any history from the files, does that mean that there are no notations in the code?
At least now the experts can go over the source code and determine if there is some truth to the "intentionally tanks performance" claims.
Why didn't amd contribute mantle to GPUOpen?
They promised to release the source for it...
They gave it to Khronos.
And Kronos is made up of the entire industry. AMD tech, benefits all.
Everyone praising AMD for free open source but you still have to pay for final product. I haven't noticed that AMD's sponsored games are cheaper than Nvidia's.
But in DX12 benefit only for AMD.
But in DX12 benefit only for AMD.
They gave it to Khronos, where their CEO is nvidia guy (Vice CEO).Why didn't amd contribute mantle to GPUOpen?
They promised to release the source for it...
Agree. Damn them for not controlling the selling price of PC games. Sometimes it's almost like the dev studios and publishers are completely separate companies selling a completely different product.
Damn them I say.
Then why did NVIDIA put the DX12 logos on their products, retail boxes etc. They even claim they support DX12 Async Compute. Why did they do those things falsely?
I'm detected your sarcasm and praising open source is pointless.
Supporting =/= get benefits. Also whole DX12 isn't only about Async. AMD just using dominating position with exclusive feature. Which isn't bad because exclusivity is bad only when Nvidia is using it.