Flyinfinni
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 1,300
Interesting... I'm looking forward to seeing how this plays out.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Zarathustra[H];1036317636 said:Now if we are going to play the game of unfair marketing practises, why don't we look at AMD's "leaked" promotional slides from the 6850 and 6870 launch where they attempted to make their boards look 3 times faster than the GTX460, by not using a zero axis on their bar charts, thus exhaggerating the appearance of a difference.
That is pretty shitty too...
Nvidia, as a graphics card company, doesn't have long to live.
nothing like benching the final product imho...
The fact that AMD approached the developers with a solution and they choose not to use it is suspicious. I would like to hear a response from Ubisoft about this issue.
Zarathustra[H];1036317636 said:-Dirt 2 seems particularly forgiving of AMD's weak tesselation units in the 5xxx series, which is likely why we see AMD pushing that title all the time.
-Civilization 5 on the other hand seems to tax the tesselation units hard, and as such really favors Fermi GPU's.
Wasn't it Ubisoft who released a DX10.1 patch for assassins creed, then recalled it when it shows AMD video cards beating Nvidia in benchmarks?
My reply to this is short, and consists solely of game titles:
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Borderlands
Need for Speed
City of Heroes
Doom 3
Each of these commercially released games were deliberatly code sabotaged by Nvidia during the development stages. Nvidia has a long history of code sabotage and paying developers / publishers to use artificially altered applications to improve perceptive performance of their products while minimizing the performance of a competitor.
Now, I'm not going to say that AMD/ATi has not done the same thing. As far as I am personally aware, directly aware, indirectly aware, or remotely aware, AMD/ATi has never actually been proven to have paid a developer / publisher to sabotage commercially released game code. As far as I am personally aware, directly aware, indirectly aware, or remotely aware, AMD/ATi has never actually been proven to have paid a developer / publisher to sabotage independently released game code.
I am directly aware of AMD/ATi working with developers to implement vendor neutral solutions. Case in point: City of Heroes: Going Rogue. AMD helped Paragon Studios implement an OpenGL specification rendering engine that gives identical image quality as long as the driver supports ratified OpenGL specification calls. Yes, the changes to the CoH rendering engine did knock out graphics chips and drivers that did not make ratified OpenGL API calls (cough: INTEL :cough), but for the most part, Nvidia and AMD/ATi cards given the same image quality with roughly the same performance among similar performing cards. I find AMD's statement about providing a neutral code solution to Ubisoft to believable.
Just because somethings in spec doesn't mean it's efficient. It's trivial to make bog slow design decisions on opengl and direct-x, or anything else for that matter. AMD and nVidia cards are not identical, and have certain differing architectural quirks that software developers have had to work around since gpus practically came to existence... provided the amount specialization is reasonable. Such is part of their jobs. The fact that AMD was able to demonstrate improvements does nothing but support that resolving this issue would be trivial, and thus reasonable, which would leave the ball in ubisofts court.
The rest of your post is just conjecture, but you sure seem eager to give nVidia preemptive back-patting.
Is that the chicken or the egg? Is it not being implemented because it's not needed or because only 1/2 the cards out there can run it?I don't think the 5xxx series particularly has weak Tessellators, It just doesn't have the same granularity as Fermi does, but name a game that needs that ability, there aren't none.
It is really unfortunate that I bothered to read your entire post before getting to this show stopper.
Is that the chicken or the egg? Is it not being implemented because it's not needed or because only 1/2 the cards out there can run it?
Water is not wet, wet is a property of another object, whose surface is adulterated by water molecules... Just as oxygen cannot be oxygenated.
I haven't seen the results you mention bare that out in my Civ5 testing.
My reply to this is short, and consists solely of game titles:
Batman: Arkham Asylum
Borderlands
Need for Speed
City of Heroes
Doom 3
Each of these commercially released games were deliberatly code sabotaged by Nvidia during the development stages. Nvidia has a long history of code sabotage and paying developers / publishers to use artificially altered applications to improve perceptive performance of their products while minimizing the performance of a competitor.
.
They intentionally disabled PhysX when it was paired with an AMD GPU even though it worked perfectly fine.
As usual, most people here don't even listen to all sides of the story, to pass judgement. AMD said NVIDIA is cheating, so it must be true...How about wait for what Ubisoft has to say ?
How about contacting Ubisoft for a response Kyle and then publish everything ?
People like to say that it's "innocent until proven guilty", but that's a load of BS, considering that most people already had the trial, convicted one side and are readying the axe to cut some heads off...
Zarathustra[H];1036318080 said:THis is the only comprehensive Civ 5 review I have seen to date with benchmarks across different hardware
I linked the 1920x1200 page as I believe that is a pretty common res around here. The differences become more pronounced as you go down in resolutions. Even the GTS450 beats the 5830...
Now, is Nvidia grasping at Straws? I have my own opinions about this, and my own opinion is that Nvidia, as a graphics card company, doesn't have long to live.
Is that the chicken or the egg? Is it not being implemented because it's not needed or because only 1/2 the cards out there can run it?
They used "benchmarks". My testing I have done is real-world game playing. Stay tuned later this week for some Civ5 results.
Some of you guys clearly arn't reading the mini-article that Kyle wrote and are just commenting based on the one-liner at the beginning of this thread.
Kyle, thanks for looking out for us gamers. This crap really needs to stop and Ubisoft just dipped even lower in my view. They were already 10 floors below ground level after that crap DRM they were doing.
Also shame on nVidia. I used to be a hardcore nVidia fan as they were the video cards I upgraded with every year once 3DFX died. I switched over to ATI once their TWIMTBP crap started.
As usual, most people here don't even listen to all sides of the story, to pass judgement. AMD said NVIDIA is cheating, so it must be true...How about wait for what Ubisoft has to say ?
How about contacting Ubisoft for a response Kyle and then publish everything ?
People like to say that it's "innocent until proven guilty", but that's a load of BS, considering that most people already had the trial, convicted one side and are readying the axe to cut some heads off...
As usual, most people here don't even listen to all sides of the story, to pass judgement. AMD said NVIDIA is cheating, so it must be true...How about wait for what Ubisoft has to say ?
This really makes me wonder about F@H!
ATI's newest cards are getting HALF the PPD of nVidia's last generation cards.
A 5770 gets 4k PPD and a GTX core 216 gets 8k PPD...And the ATI card has 4 times more stream processors.
So is this going on with F@H too Kyle?
Some of you act like Nvidia is injecting malicious code to damage performance on AMD cards and bullying the developers into allowing this. This is not what happens. Nvidia offers up help to make sure that games run good for their customer, it is up to the developers to analyze and implement the code. Developers and publishers are responsible for the game, no NVIDIA. Also it is very likely the some of the changes benefit AMD as well, since this is all written for Direct X. Certain TWIMTBP games are notably faster on AMD cards as well, disproving the conspiracy theory people. Meanwhile some people are still happy when AMD seemingly spends no money or effort working with devs make sure games run efficiently on their hardware.
Ati cards should work with this demo if it's coded within the DX11 spec (which we can be pretty sure it is or Ati would have complained about that). This isn't like physx - it's not an nvidia only feature, it's just using the DX "open standard", one of those things ati is so found of telling us it supports. If it doesn't work it's either because:
a) Ati drivers suck.
b) Ati hardware is slow (at tessellation).
What with Richard Huddy's rant about *too much* tessellation and now this it seems that tessellation - the thing their marketing team couldn't stop talking about a year ago has now become the pariah.
I suppose all this really confirms is the 6 series can't still can't tessellate as well as the nvidia 4 series, not that I really care that much - I haven't seen one game yet that really looks noticeably better with tessellation on outside of a screen shot. Until I do it's not going to overly influence my graphics card purchases.
I'm sure Kyle's article's sole intention was to call out all participating parties involved in this fiasco. Sometimes this is the only way. Otherwise you'd get a lot of "no comments" when asking a party directly.
Lay everything out in the open and let them have at it.
I'm genuinely curious what exactly HAWX2 does that performs so slowly on AMD hardware aside from simply going overboard on tessellation. Hopefully someone does some before/after analysis once AMD gets its driver in shape for it.
The biggest thing out of that review is we are still seeing gains even at 4Ghz on an i7. Bring on the Sandy Bridge!Zarathustra[H];1036318080 said:THis is the only comprehensive Civ 5 review I have seen to date with benchmarks across different hardware
I linked the 1920x1200 page as I believe that is a pretty common res around here. The differences become more pronounced as you go down in resolutions. Even the GTS450 beats the 5830...
See: PhysX for some irony.