Nvidia Responds To Witcher 3 GameWorks Controversy, PC Gamers On The Offensive

[durquavian]

This is going to sound ridiculous but the analogy works:




McDonald's does the same thing Nvidia is doing with GameWorks. McDonal'ds secret recipe for their Big Mac sauce is a company secret, a "black box" if you will.


My point is = all companies do this. At the end of the day Nvidia is in this game to make money

But you cant buy McDs at Burgerking. this analogy is bad.

 

[razor1]

You think they pay nVidia? It's the other way around. If it's not with actual cash then it's with "support". Nobody pays the IHV's to put their code in their games. At least not that I've ever heard of.

For access to the source code yes they do, if I was to put middleware to make development time shorter and save me money in the long run, into a program that I would later sell to others, hell I want that source code.

So as well as the Devs paying the IHV's they are going to optimize their drivers as well?

Why would Devs have to optimize the drivers, that makes no sense.....

If the programmers of the game know what they are doing they don't need the nV's help to optimize Gameworks for AMD cards, and they don't' even need to show the code to nV or AMD for them to optimize drivers for the game.

It goes against everything that has made the PC the universally accepted platform that it is today. Imagine having to worry if particular software is compatible with your hardware? Might as well buy a Mac.

The software still works on AMD GPU's just not as fast, and still in an acceptable range too. But you will see that AAA games will optimize Gamework for AMD products, its in their best interest.

 

[Final8ty]

My favorite response: "AMD should just be more competitive and not allow things like this to happen". Wow.
So if AMD started buying off publishers/developers and putting their own black boxes in games which potentially cripple Nvidia hardware, the ~75% Nvidia playerbase would suddenly be saying things like "Good job, AMD!" What a joke.

This kind of stuff shouldn't be happening at all in the software industry.

The fact of the matter is, we have people trying to justify massive performance losses for 25% of the PC gaming community and that makes me sad.
Just remember while you're sitting here talking up Nvidia's business practices I'm squeaking through Project Cars at 20fps.

AMD & DICE should make Battlefront Mantle-only just so some people can get some perspective.

You should remember the uproar when with tomb raider TressFX was not optimized for NV GPUs for the first 2 weeks and it only took 2 weeks because TressFX is open, all this BS from NV users about AMD should work with the developers more and add more of there own tech went straight out the window and again with mantle, oh no it will split the community, Nvidia has already split it, as long as its NV doing the splitting and they are gaining from it then its ok.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

You should remember the uproar when with tomb raider TressFX was not optimized for NV GPUs for the first 2 weeks and it only 2 weeks because TressFX is open, all this BS from NV users about AMD should working with the developers more and add more of there own tech went straight out the window and again with mantle, oh no it will split the community, Nvidia has already split it.

Crystal Dynamics / AMD gave Nvidia access to the game code. As well as TressFX.
AMD claims they handed TressFX to Nvidia in source code form.

NVIDIA didn’t receive final game code until this past weekend which substantially decreased stability, image quality and performance over a build we were previously provided

So, two things: AMD doesn't have access to GameWorks' game code, or the GameWorks features themselves. See the HairWorks bullshit happening here:
http://www.overclock3d.net/articles...nvidia_hairworks_unoptimizable_for_amd_gpus/1

The proof is in the pudding.

 

[Final8ty]

The software still works on AMD GPU's just not as fast, and still in an acceptable range too. But you will see that AAA games will optimize Gamework for AMD products, its in their best interest.

Stop talking horse.

This guy is a games developer, the developer can not optimize the gameworks source.

No. That's bullshit. It makes harder to implement the effects. When you don't able to change the source code, or even don't see it, than there is a huge chance for some compatibility issue with the engine. In this case the only option is to rewrite a portion of the engine, because the effect source is untouchable. This is much harder than just changing the effect source code. There is a chance that the effect wont work and you need to deactivate it.

Any black box and closed-source option is bad for the PC, and it will give an advantage to the consoles, where you can write everything for yourself. Knowing my code, and the ability to profile and change every portion of the application is a huge advantage.
It is possible on PC, but not with these black box and closed-source approaches.

read more
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2431755

 

[magoo]

Man, the comments in this thread are surprising.

If AMD decides to do what Nvidia does like people here are saying they should, eventually every game out there will either run well only on Nvidia hardware or AMD hardware. It's going to be great needing two completely different graphics cards just to play all the games out there!

That is no different than Sony or Microsoft having XBone or PS4 exclusive games.

Face it..........AMD is just not capable of support for their hardware the same way NVidia is.
Nvidia has more resources it seems or has a different priority than AMD, and it shows on the PC gaming front.

AMD should just get out.

 

[razor1]

Stop talking horse.

This guy is a games developer, the developer can not optimize the gameworks source.

read more
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2431755

Cross posting with cut and paste I like it,

again name calling doesn't get you very far....

yeah he probably doesn't know that he can have access to the code because its a seperate agreement apart from Gameworks.

Also some parts of Gameworks sources aren't available as of yet, they will be in the future as cuda is translated over to Open cl.

 

[Eradan]

That is no different than Sony or Microsoft having XBone or PS4 exclusive games.

Face it..........AMD is just not capable of support for their hardware the same way NVidia is.
Nvidia has more resources it seems or has a different priority than AMD, and it shows on the PC gaming front.

AMD should just get out.

Yeah, because paying $700 for a 960 would be awesome.

 

[Final8ty]

Cross posting with cut and paste I like it,

again name calling doesn't get you very far....

yeah he probably doesn't know that he can have access to the code because its a seperate agreement apart from Gameworks.

Also some parts of Gameworks sources aren't available as of yet, they will be in the future as cuda is translated over to Open cl.

He does know about it and the developer is still not allowed to optimize it for other vendors, that's the agreement.

And saying you are talking rubbish is not name calling.

 

[YeuEmMaiMai]

That is no different than Sony or Microsoft having XBone or PS4 exclusive games.

Face it..........AMD is just not capable of support for their hardware the same way NVidia is.
Nvidia has more resources it seems or has a different priority than AMD, and it shows on the PC gaming front.

AMD should just get out.

wow talk about a lack of intelligence and common sense....

 

[razor1]

He does know about it and the developer is still not allowed to optimize it for other vendors, that's the agreement.

And saying you are talking rubbish is not name calling.

No he doesn't, no of his posts state that he knows anything about the availability of the source code, he kept talking about closed source (which is another term for no source code availability) and black box, which is just the pre-compiled libs.

And yes the code is available through a separate agreement with Gameworks which started last year.

 

[w00t69]

For access to the source code yes they do, if I was to put middleware to make development time shorter and save me money in the long run, into a program that I would later sell to others, hell I want that source code.

Why would Devs have to optimize the drivers, that makes no sense.....

If the programmers of the game know what they are doing they don't need the nV's help to optimize Gameworks for AMD cards, and they don't' even need to show the code to nV or AMD for them to optimize drivers for the game.

The software still works on AMD GPU's just not as fast, and still in an acceptable range too. But you will see that AAA games will optimize Gamework for AMD products, its in their best interest.

No. They pay nvidia absolutely nothing for gameworks. Nvidia pays, on average, between 1 and 5 million dollars to the developer to stick gameworks into the game. And if you truly believe that without being able to access the gameworks source code you can optimize for different hardware you're pretty delusional.

Nvidia gave them access to the source code because of much to do about it, but then disallow the developer to work with AMD to optimize anything, which is insanity. "Don't help them or we'll pull your money."

 

[Final8ty]

No he doesn't, no of his posts state that he knows anything about the availability of the source code, he kept talking about closed source (which is another term for no source code availability) and black box, which is just the pre-compiled libs.

And yes the code is available through a separate agreement with Gameworks which started last year.

OMG The way you come to conclusions LMAO.

Just because permission can be given to look at the source it does not make stop it being closed source because you are not allowed to alter it for other vendors.

I will leave you to keep making things up.

 

[razor1]

No. They pay nvidia absolutely nothing for gameworks. Nvidia pays, on average, between 1 and 5 million dollars to the developer to stick gameworks into the game. And if you truly believe that without being able to access the gameworks source code you can optimize for different hardware you're pretty delusional.

Nvidia gave them access to the source code because of much to do about it, but then disallow the developer to work with AMD to optimize anything, which is insanity. "Don't help them or we'll pull your money."

That is wrong, nV doesn't give money to developers at all, unless is a co marketing agreement to bundle games with their cards, which AMD does too.

nV will not help in optimizing code for AMD that is true, but the developer has to do it on his own if they get access to the game works source code. They are not able to share it with AMD though, AMD has to use an executable and update drivers accordingly or if there are problems give that information back to the developer so they can fix it on their end.

nV cannot disallow a developer to work with AMD, they can tell them not to share source code with AMD (actually any other 3d party without their consent) which they do do that.

 

[razor1]

OMG The way you come to conclusions LMAO.

Just because permission can be given to look at the source it does not stop it being closed source.

no the definition of closed source, is when there is no source, its precompiled machine language or partial compiled

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_open_source_and_closed_source

Under the closed-source model source code is not released to the public. Closed-source software is maintained by a team who produces their product in a compiled-executable state

The primary business model for closed-source software involves the use of constraints on what can be done with the software and the restriction of access to the original source code. This can result in a form of imposed artificial scarcity on a product that is otherwise very easy to copy and redistribute. The end result is that an end-user is not actually purchasing software, but purchasing the right to use the software. To this end, the source code to closed-source software is considered a trade secret by its manufacturers.

now the developer under nV's consent can change the code as needed when the agreement to get the gameworks source code is done first, but that code must be returned to nV.

now with that in mind, close sourced is proprietary software.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software

By withholding source code, the software producer prevents the user from understanding how the software works and from changing how it works.[21] This practice is denounced by some critics, who argue that users should be able to study and change the software they use, for example, to remove secret or malicious features, or look for security vulnerabilities. Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation, says that proprietary software commonly contains "malicious features, such as spying on the users, restricting the users, back doors, and imposed upgrades."[22] Some proprietary software vendors say that retaining the source code makes their software more secure, because the widely available code for open-source software makes it easier to identify security vulnerabilities

again no source code availability.

 

[jwcalla]

It goes against everything that has made the PC the universally accepted platform that it is today. Imagine having to worry if particular software is compatible with your hardware? Might as well buy a Mac.

Welcome to the wonderful world of "those of us excluded from DirectX".

There is a great irony hearing the PC gaming community -- especially the devs, they're the best -- complaining about how closed-source, black-box, proprietary solutions are going to be the end of PC gaming.

All those years and not a damn peep of criticism about DX being exactly that. I just can't take these people seriously.

 

[Final8ty]

Restriction of access to the original source code is not the only form of closed source, its the most basic form.
Not being able to alter it for other vendors means it closed period no matter your semantics.

 

[razor1]

Restriction of access to the original source code is not the only form of closed source, its the most basic form.
Not being able to alter it for other vendors means it closed period no matter your semantics.

no

Vendors typically distribute proprietary software in compiled form, usually the machine language understood by the computer's central processing unit. They typically retain the source code, or human-readable version of the software, written in a higher level programming language.[19] This scheme is often referred to as closed source

This is what closed source is, its a type of proprietary software, Proprietary software doesn't need to be closed source though.

Think of it this way, Cry Engine 3 license from steam is closed source once you accept the EULA you still don't have access to the engine code, Unreal engine 4 license is proprietary software once you accept the EULA you can change the engine code as you want, but its still proprietary as you can't sell it as your own.

 

[Final8ty]

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-responds-witcher-3-gameworks-controversy/

 

[razor1]

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-responds-witcher-3-gameworks-controversy/

and this is what I have stated

As a result of the backlash, Nvidia changed its policy to allow game developers access to the source code as of mid April of last year.

http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editor...eWorks-Program-Devil-Details/NVIDIAs-Response

NVIDIA was very blunt in stating that AMD’s claim that GameWorks was a “black box” is incorrect by telling me that developers can absolutely get a license for the libraries that includes source code. With that, they are free to make any change to improve performance or stability on NVIDIA or other hardware platforms. NVIDIA offers this option for exactly these reasons, though not all licensors choose to get the “with source code” option. The other difference between the binary-only and source code options of GameWorks is cost, though NVIDIA declined to say by how much.

all these features that are in game works are also available as stand alone source code examples that aren't even part of the game works program

NVIDIA also pointed me towards pages on its development website showing where all of the source code for DX11 (as well as DX10 and DX9) was located. It definitely was moved, but was still available for people that wanted to access the code-only style of examples. Cem also claimed that his team continues to work on further examples and implementation offerings that don’t require GameWorks licensing

 

[The Mac]

GAME DEVELOPERS, NOT GPU MANUFACTURERS

they arent allowed to show AMD, or change the code.

 

[Final8ty]

@ The Mac, just ignore him

 

[razor1]

GAME DEVELOPERS, NOT GPU MANUFACTURERS

they arent allowed to show AMD, or change the code.

I stated the code can't be shared with AMD. There is no need to the developer can change the code for the AMD path as needed. Dev's with the proper license which grants them access to the source can change the code, if they couldn't there is no reason to release the code in the first place that defeats the purpose of buying 3d party middleware. This is common to all 3d party proprietary middleware, If I was to license a 3d engine that has no relationship with any of the IHV's I would not be able to share that code with them. I can change the code as I wish and send them the executable though for testing and feedback.

 

[5150Joker]

GAME DEVELOPERS, NOT GPU MANUFACTURERS

they arent allowed to show AMD, or change the code.

So what? Next time don't buy an AMD card if you want gameworks effects enabled without any penalty. Otherwise cry all you want, this is business and nvidia has no obligation to you or amd.

 

[razor1]

@ The Mac, just ignore him

Easiest way of saying you were wrong.

 

[formthelines]

i just bought an Nvidia card, after reading this i am really glad i did...

 

[PRIME1]

So what? Next time don't buy an AMD card if you want gameworks effects enabled without any penalty. Otherwise cry all you want, this is business and nvidia has no obligation to you or amd.

Just like if you want to play DX games you will use Windows instead of Linux. Anyone who games on Windows can not complain about Gameworks at all. AMD tried something similar with Mantle and everyone was ok with it even though it threatened to fragment game development.

If you want the best PC gaming platform it's Intel+NVIDIA+Windows. If you want to support AMD go buy a console.

 

[filip]

Just like if you want to play DX games you will use Windows instead of Linux. Anyone who games on Windows can not complain about Gameworks at all. AMD tried something similar with Mantle and everyone was ok with it even though it threatened to fragment game development.

If you want the best PC gaming platform it's Intel+NVIDIA+Windows. If you want to support AMD go buy a console.

No, the best experience on the PC is AMD+AMD+AMD all day, every day. Everyone else is just a fanboy of Intel, Windows and Nvidia.

 

[5150Joker]

Just like if you want to play DX games you will use Windows instead of Linux. Anyone who games on Windows can not complain about Gameworks at all. AMD tried something similar with Mantle and everyone was ok with it even though it threatened to fragment game development.

If you want the best PC gaming platform it's Intel+NVIDIA+Windows. If you want to support AMD go buy a console.

Yeah the hypocrisy of it all is just too amusing. Some of the very same people crying about GameWorks were hyping up Mantle to be the next Jesus of PC gaming. When AMD chose to close it off and not offer it to NVIDIA or others, they made excuses for AMD. Then finally like any other AMD initiative, it died before it got a chance to infect PC gaming. I said this on another forum and I'll repeat it here, AMD is a company that takes the easiest and least risky path. Mantle was given to them on a silver platter by DICE and they ran with it because it benefited them and their 20% market share customers + it hid their DX 11 driver deficiencies. NVIDIA created G-Sync and AMD used an open eDP standard to copy them and are failing with FreeSync's notorious blurring. Let's not forget AMD's version of PhysX and 3D which were swept under the rug.

Yet NVIDIA keeps supporting 3D, PhysX, G-Sync despite the small overall userbase. So why should anyone get behind AMD or feel sorry for those that choose to save a few $ and buy their hardware? They knew what they were getting into. It was never a mystery that Witcher 3 would be a GW supporting title. If they wanted hairworks, they should have gone with NVIDIA. If they want TressFX, write to AMD and complain that you spent good money on their hardware so why aren't they stepping up and adding it to Witcher 3?

I'll end this post with something I saw another user post on AT that was quite funny:

 

[Cr4ckm0nk3y]

The issue with Gameworks and AMD only affects 24-28% of the discrete GPU market. AMD is behind so of course they will have an up hill battle. NV owes AMD nothing and I would expect more and more devs to move to GW's due to the larger market share.

AMD, like usual, promised their own open tech, Freeworks, which is still Huddy vaporware.

 

[erek]

Yeah the hypocrisy of it all is just too amusing. Some of the very same people crying about GameWorks were hyping up Mantle to be the next Jesus of PC gaming. When AMD chose to close it off and not offer it to NVIDIA or others, they made excuses for AMD. Then finally like any other AMD initiative, it died before it got a chance to infect PC gaming. I said this on another forum and I'll repeat it here, AMD is a company that takes the easiest and least risky path. Mantle was given to them on a silver platter by DICE and they ran with it because it benefited them and their 20% market share customers + it hid their DX 11 driver deficiencies. NVIDIA created G-Sync and AMD used an open eDP standard to copy them and are failing with FreeSync's notorious blurring. Let's not forget AMD's version of PhysX and 3D which were swept under the rug.

Yet NVIDIA keeps supporting 3D, PhysX, G-Sync despite the small overall userbase. So why should anyone get behind AMD or feel sorry for those that choose to save a few $ and buy their hardware? They knew what they were getting into. It was never a mystery that Witcher 3 would be a GW supporting title. If they wanted hairworks, they should have gone with NVIDIA. If they want TressFX, write to AMD and complain that you spent good money on their hardware so why aren't they stepping up and adding it to Witcher 3?

I'll end this post with something I saw another user post on AT that was quite funny:

I am tempted and likely investigate this myself since being a Unity user :


https://developer.nvidia.com/content/gameworks-unity


I want to see what all the hype is about with GameWorks personally

 

[filip]

Yeah the hypocrisy of it all is just too amusing. Some of the very same people crying about GameWorks were hyping up Mantle to be the next Jesus of PC gaming. When AMD chose to close it off and not offer it to NVIDIA or others, they made excuses for AMD. Then finally like any other AMD initiative, it died before it got a chance to infect PC gaming. I said this on another forum and I'll repeat it here, AMD is a company that takes the easiest and least risky path. Mantle was given to them on a silver platter by DICE and they ran with it because it benefited them and their 20% market share customers + it hid their DX 11 driver deficiencies. NVIDIA created G-Sync and AMD used an open eDP standard to copy them and are failing with FreeSync's notorious blurring. Let's not forget AMD's version of PhysX and 3D which were swept under the rug.

Yet NVIDIA keeps supporting 3D, PhysX, G-Sync despite the small overall userbase. So why should anyone get behind AMD or feel sorry for those that choose to save a few $ and buy their hardware? They knew what they were getting into. It was never a mystery that Witcher 3 would be a GW supporting title. If they wanted hairworks, they should have gone with NVIDIA. If they want TressFX, write to AMD and complain that you spent good money on their hardware so why aren't they stepping up and adding it to Witcher 3?

I'll end this post with something I saw another user post on AT that was quite funny:

You are missing to point, this is not about AMD, this is about competition. Look at that new fancy Titan X $1000 and no DP, it's nice to see that. I can't wait for 5-10% increases per year at that price. Don't worry though the new drivers will make that 5-10% into a 15-25% difference, you have to upgrade to marginally better hardware or you will have unoptimized drivers.

This is very unlikely you say... take a look at history via Intel, we love all the innovation in the CPU field that we have now, 5-10% improvement every iteration is just too much to handle. As far as the drivers look at how a GTX 960 is doing better than a GTX 780 and Titan in some games. Looks like I will have to upgrade that $1000 card to a $200 card, lol.

 

[5150Joker]

You are missing to point, this is not about AMD, this is about competition. Look at that new fancy Titan X $1000 and no DP, it's nice to see that. I can't wait for 5-10% increases per year at that price. Don't worry though the new drivers will make that 5-10% into a 15-25% difference, you have to upgrade to marginally better hardware or you will have unoptimized drivers.

This is very unlikely you say... take a look at history via Intel, we love all the innovation in the CPU field that we have now, 5-10% improvement every iteration is just too much to handle. As far as the drivers look at how a GTX 960 is doing better than a GTX 780 and Titan in some games. Looks like I will have to upgrade that $1000 card to a $200 card, lol.

Why does Titan X need DP? The originals only had it because that's what Kepler focused on at the time. I'm happy DP isn't wasting space in the Titan X. Your 5-10% performance increase per year fear mongering isn't supported by facts. NVIDIA dominates the notebook discrete graphics market and have been steadily increasing performance by a very large % with each new generation of GPU released. They will continue doing that once AMD vanishes from the desktop PC market--well in reality it already has since it only control 20% of the market and continues to decline.

As for the Intel comparison, it's disingenuous since Intel has continued to push ahead with other innovations besides IPC gains with each new generation. Secondly, if Intel chooses to slow down desktop PC performance development and focus on other areas, they can afford it because they make billions per quarter, NVIDIA does not. NVIDIA will always be forced to create compelling upgrades to maintain growth and profit.

 

[PRIME1]

You are missing to point, this is not about AMD, this is about competition.

AMD has not released a chip worth talking about in nearly 2 years and has not released a WHQL driver since last year. AMD is not competition anymore because they gave up, not because of Gameworks.

 

[filip]

AMD has not released a chip worth talking about in nearly 2 years and has not released a WHQL driver since last year. AMD is not competition anymore because they gave up, not because of Gameworks.

Well in that case gameworks only throws fuel on the fire. I can't wait for $1500+ cards from Nvidia and from the looks of it you can't wait either.

 

[Armenius]

You are missing to point, this is not about AMD, this is about competition. Look at that new fancy Titan X $1000 and no DP, it's nice to see that. I can't wait for 5-10% increases per year at that price. Don't worry though the new drivers will make that 5-10% into a 15-25% difference, you have to upgrade to marginally better hardware or you will have unoptimized drivers.

This is very unlikely you say... take a look at history via Intel, we love all the innovation in the CPU field that we have now, 5-10% improvement every iteration is just too much to handle. As far as the drivers look at how a GTX 960 is doing better than a GTX 780 and Titan in some games. Looks like I will have to upgrade that $1000 card to a $200 card, lol.

If AMD wants to compete, why don't they invest in and develop their own competing libraries to Gameworks? Why doesn't AMD be proactive with the developer community to ensure that their user base is getting the most out of their hardware by promoting AMD features? What, exactly, is AMD's business plan for the gaming market?

AMD has not released a chip worth talking about in nearly 2 years and has not released a WHQL driver since last year. AMD is not competition anymore because they gave up, not because of Gameworks.

I really hate to agree with PRIME1, but he is right. AMD completely misread the lite coin mining boom and they are still paying for it to this day.

 

[filip]

Why does Titan X need DP? The originals only had it because that's what Kepler focused on at the time. I'm happy DP isn't wasting space in the Titan X. Your 5-10% performance increase per year fear mongering isn't supported by facts. NVIDIA dominates the notebook discrete graphics market and have been steadily increasing performance by a very large % with each new generation of GPU released.

As for the Intel comparison, it's disingenuous since Intel has continued to push ahead with other innovations besides IPC gains with each new generation. Secondly, if Intel chooses to slow down desktop PC performance development and focus on other areas, they can afford it because they make billions per quarter, NVIDIA does not. NVIDIA will always be forced to create compelling upgrades to maintain growth and profit.

The Titans's selling point was as far as I was hearing DP. What is it's selling point now 12gb gddr5? The facts are from history for 5-10% increases, just look at Intel.
While Nvidia dominates the mobile graphics there is still some competition, apparently not enough though as Nvidia want's to block over clocking on mobile gpus.

Yeah what other areas are we talking about: mobile computing? I can't wait for the new fablet to come out
Why will Nvidia be compelled to give us better upgrades when they can do what I have pointed out. A nice 5-10% upgrade and then unoptimized drivers for the previous generation. That 5-10% will go through the roof and old cards will be obsolete... don't trust me though, it's already happening (just look at project cars benchmarks).

 

[filip]

If AMD wants to compete, why don't they invest in and develop their own competing libraries to Gameworks? Why doesn't AMD be proactive with the developer community to ensure that their user base is getting the most out of their hardware by promoting AMD features? What, exactly, is AMD's business plan for the gaming market?
I really hate to agree with PRIME1, but he is right. AMD completely misread the lite coin mining boom and they are still paying for it to this day.

AMD's plan? I have no idea what it is but it better be good, for all our sakes.

Yeah PRIME is right AMD did drop the ball, I do believe though that 2016-17 will make or brake AMD. Have to wait for DX12, arctic islands, and Carrizo as well as future iterations of APU's. If AMD can't pick it up then they are out of the game.

 

[Armenius]

The Titans's selling point was as far as I was hearing DP. What is it's selling point now 12gb gddr5? The facts are from history for 5-10% increases, just look at Intel.
While Nvidia dominates the mobile graphics there is still some competition, apparently not enough though as Nvidia want's to block over clocking on mobile gpus.

Yeah what other areas are we talking about: mobile computing? I can't wait for the new fablet to come out
Why will Nvidia be compelled to give us better upgrades when they can do what I have pointed out. A nice 5-10% upgrade and then unoptimized drivers for the previous generation. That 5-10% will go through the roof and old cards will be obsolete... don't trust me though, it's already happening (just look at project cars benchmarks).

The 980 was a 30% increase in performance over the 780 at launch, and at a price that was $100 cheaper.

 

[filip]

The 980 was a 30% increase in performance over the 780 at launch, and at a price that was $100 cheaper.

The 780 was not the top card though. The 780TI was, and at launch the 980 sc was about 10% better than the 780Ti Link. Looks like the 5-10% upgrades are already here unless you want to fork over $1000 for premium Titan X performance.