AMD Brings More Console Features To PC Gaming With New "Shader Intrinsic Functions" For GPUOpen

[cageymaru]

AMD Brings More Console Features To PC Gaming With New "Shader Intrinsic Functions" For GPUOpen.
AMD Brings More Console Features To PC Gaming With New "Shader Intrinsic Functions" For GPUOpen

Darn good article and I barely scratched the surface of it in my preview. Please go read it in it's entirety! This also applies to Nvidia since it is published in GPUOPEN. Nvidia already has the capabilities according to the article. I think game engines could really benefit from this. That way it could be baked into the engine for many future titles to reap the benefits. Easier console ports benefit everyone equally.

As a result, Advanced Micro Devices is introducing many new features within their GPUOpen program to enable more low-level access to hardware in a console-like development environment. If you are unfamiliar with GPUOpen, I wrote on that here. AMD is introducing the support for what is called “Shader Intrinsic Functions” or built-in functions which allow the developer to directly access graphics hardware instructions. This access is granted to developers in situations where they would normally be abstracted by a higher level API, or not available at all. Advanced Micro Devices likens this to embedding optimized machine language code into higher-level code.

In addition to improving performance on Advanced Micro Devices GPUs, the addition of intrinsic functions into GPUOpen also improves the compatibility of this feature. Because the addition of intrinsic functions is expected to run as a part of GPUOpen and exist on the PC platform, it will be supported in all the major PC APIs including Microsoft DirectX 11, DirectX 12 and even Vulkan.

As far as we can tell, NVIDIA NVDA +2.26% also has support for intrinsic functions inside of their GPUs as well, but they seem to be more focused on CUDA code and not for game development.

 

[cageymaru]

 

[KazeoHin]

Is that... Good AMD marketing material?

Must be a cold day in Hell right now...

 

[Yakk]

AMD is doing a lot of great things with OpenGPU, there's a large and growing amount of information being built there, like TressFX 3.1 for example.

I'm really quite impressed.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

This was more or less announced a good while back when GDC happened in March they were saying that they would use them as AMD only extension in DX12 , seems it got moved to GPUopen.

 

[CSI_PC]

LOL so it sounds like they are going proprietary due to the low level nature and its alignment to AMD hardware, which when Nvidia does this is criticised
I can see the original arguments where AMD said Mantle could be used by Nvidia but then Mantle is designed around GCN structure, so sure Nvidia can use it if they change their whole architecture and development path-focus, different argument for another thread but history now.

TBH I have no issue with AMD doing this as NVIDIA really should had fought better for one of the consoles and not be in the situation this may cause them, but no-one should think this is open standards as only AMD use the GCN architecture and the low level access this will be focused for .
"the addition of intrinsic functions into GPUOpen also improves the compatibility of this feature" makes me laugh as they are suggesting this will make it cool with Nvidia hardware
But then it will still only be GameWorks that is evil and no good for all gamers

Cheers

 

[JustReason]

LOL so it sounds like they are going proprietary due to the low level nature and its alignment to AMD hardware, which when Nvidia does this is criticised
I can see the original arguments where AMD said Mantle could be used by Nvidia but then Mantle is designed around GCN structure, so sure Nvidia can use it if they change their whole architecture and development path-focus, different argument for another thread but history now.

TBH I have no issue with AMD doing this as NVIDIA really should had fought better for one of the consoles and not be in the situation this may cause them, but no-one should think this is open standards as only AMD use the GCN architecture and the low level access this will be focused for .
"the addition of intrinsic functions into GPUOpen also improves the compatibility of this feature" makes me laugh as they are suggesting this will make it cool with Nvidia hardware
But then it will still only be GameWorks that is evil and no good for all gamers

Cheers

Not quite. TressFX was used in Tombraider but being open it was changed and called Pure hair. Maybe you can point me to the game where Hairworks was used but altered and named by another name. Obviously the original code will work better on GCN but being open means that the code itself can be altered to run as the developer sees fit to allow better parity as Pure hair did.

 

[CSI_PC]

Not quite. TressFX was used in Tombraider but being open it was changed and called Pure hair. Maybe you can point me to the game where Hairworks was used but altered and named by another name. Obviously the original code will work better on GCN but being open means that the code itself can be altered to run as the developer sees fit to allow better parity as Pure hair did.

You do realise Pure hair slowed down Nvidia cards when it was activated on RoTR while doing nothing for them visual quality wise?
Also RoTR is using aspects of GPUOpen.

And context regarding generalising as "open"; it is not truly "open source", the only aspect regarding open is that developers may understand/work with it better than Gameworks due to seeing more of the core code, however even Nvidia has started moving this way more recently.

Anyway again, it is wrong to assume it will/can be altered to work with a totally different architecture such as Nvidias....There are no examples of it happening yet including Mantle.
This concept/project workflow suite is all about improving AMD hardware and toolsets - as I mentioned nothing wrong with that, but I am critical when they try to make it sound like they are the good guys doing this.

BTW I do agree it is not as cumbersome as Hairworks (I personally feel GameWorks is bloated and needs much more work on efficiency) but that can be less/more intrusive depending the amount of work the developer puts into using it and level of detail (GTA V good example of balanced implementation, Witcher 3 good example how they screwed up with Geralt's hair, while it worked well visually/performance ratio on beasts).

Cheers

 

[Creig]

You do realise Pure hair slowed down Nvidia cards when it was activated on RoTR while doing nothing for them visual quality wise?

If I remember correctly, that slowdown lasted for only one week before it was patched.

 

[CSI_PC]

If I remember correctly, that slowdown lasted for only one week before it was patched.

Any chance of a link for this?
All the reviews that specifically looked at it found the 6-10% hit when using Pure Hair also applied to Nvidia.
Of course you could turn it off, but then you can also do that with GameWorks/HBAO+/etc
The point is that it is not designed to work with NVIDIA architecture and it is meant to be open source with the developers able to make it work according to AMD, this will only get worst as they push closer to low level integration locking GPUOpen concept/suite even more into AMD hardware; meaning as I said earlier it is just a tool to improve games on AMD hardware and should not really be presented by AMD as a great concept improving things for all gamers.

Where there is a greater issue is when either NVIDIA or AMD is more central to the God Rays/global/volumetric lighting implemented in the engine and cannot be changed; I think Fallout is an example with Nvidia while Quantum Break is one closer to AMD.
Thanks

 

[Pieter3dnow]

LOL so it sounds like they are going proprietary due to the low level nature and its alignment to AMD hardware, which when Nvidia does this is criticised
I can see the original arguments where AMD said Mantle could be used by Nvidia but then Mantle is designed around GCN structure, so sure Nvidia can use it if they change their whole architecture and development path-focus, different argument for another thread but history now.

TBH I have no issue with AMD doing this as NVIDIA really should had fought better for one of the consoles and not be in the situation this may cause them, but no-one should think this is open standards as only AMD use the GCN architecture and the low level access this will be focused for .
"the addition of intrinsic functions into GPUOpen also improves the compatibility of this feature" makes me laugh as they are suggesting this will make it cool with Nvidia hardware
But then it will still only be GameWorks that is evil and no good for all gamers

Cheers

Moving it to GPUopen is not making it proprietary.

 

[CSI_PC]

Moving it to GPUopen is not making it proprietary.

But it is STILL designed around AMD GCN architecture
Ask yourself why RoTR dvelopers could not make it work on NVIDIA hardware when they implemented Pure Hair.
Although I am sure some will say it was a conspiracy by NVIDIA to block it
However ironically AMD cards can run HairWorks, yeah agree can be crud unless one lowers the tessellation setting in Catalyst but at least it runs, and with that set potentially better than Nvidia cards lol.
Cheers

 

[Pieter3dnow]

But it is STILL designed around AMD GCN architecture
Ask yourself why RoTR dvelopers could not make it work on NVIDIA hardware when they implemented Pure Hair.
Although I am sure some will say it was a conspiracy by NVIDIA to block it
However ironically AMD cards can run HairWorks, yeah agree can be crud unless one lowers the tessellation setting in Catalyst but at least it runs, and with that set potentially better than Nvidia cards lol.
Cheers

It really does not matter what it is designed around you can optimize for it because it has the source for it. Which is a totally different story for GameWorks where there is only a black box.

 

[KazeoHin]

source code = stop yer bitchin

 

[Ocellaris]

It really does not matter what it is designed around you can optimize for it because it has the source for it. Which is a totally different story for GameWorks where there is only a black box.

If Nvidia is expected to refactor the source code to get it working on their cards, they are better off just sticking with GameWorks. AMD throwing source code out there doesn't mean other companies should use it. It is a PR move by AMD more than anything else.

 

[CSI_PC]

If Nvidia is expected to refactor the source code to get it working on their cards, they are better off just sticking with GameWorks. AMD throwing source code out there doesn't mean other companies should use it. It is a PR move by AMD more than anything else.

What is worst AMD is expecting the developers to do that, and we already have an example of a developer who did a nice job with Pure Hair/OpenGPU and it does not work on Nvidia hardware while also still affecting its performance if enabled, at least HairWorks seems to run on AMD products (but requires changing Tessellation option in Catalyst to not tank).

And what everyone responding to me is totally ignoring, GPUOpen will tie into a low level integration to GPU hardware, meaning it will be nigh on impossible (well at least not tanking/crashing like Volumetric lighting does on Quantum Break for Nvidia hardware) for any developer to get it working on different architectures without taking the time to totally pull apart the code and start from scratch, so pointless.
Again to those who disagree if you think it is true open source and can be modified to work on all HW architectures and GPUOpen is "open" for easy development and so better for gamers consider this quote:

Shader Intrinsic Functions
As a result, Advanced Micro Devices is introducing many new features within their GPUOpen program to enable more low-level access to hardware in a console-like development environment. If you are unfamiliar with GPUOpen, I wrote on that here.
AMD is introducing the support for what is called “Shader Intrinsic Functions” or built-in functions which allow the developer to directly access graphics hardware instructions.
This access is granted to developers in situations where they would normally be abstracted by a higher level API, or not available at all.
Advanced Micro Devices likens this to embedding optimized machine language code into higher-level code.

That is great if your on AMD hardware, but any gamer who is not, well....
They are creating the equivalent to GameWorks that is specifically focused on AMD hardware.
The only point for it to be open is so that developers can use it efficiently on AMD hardware, it will have zero benefit to gamers using NVIDIA.

Problem is there will be those who will always think AMD is doing this type of practice as a means of kindness to developers and all gamers.

If anyone disagrees, please tell me which developer/game is likely to have GPUOpen functions/technology (such as Pure Hair) working on NVIDIA hardware or at least not impact if enabled?
RoTR is currently an example showing this is specific solely to AMD in terms of benefits; good example look at the snowy scenery as it looks really great on AMD.

Again just in case readers think I am beng critical of AMD for doing this, I have no issue with them competing with their own tools/suite against GameWorks, but it should not be considered "open" enough that it will benefit anyone but AMD gamers and hardware.
Its focus and integration is too close to AMD architecture, great but not truly open as no developers will get it working on anything else.
Cheers

 

[KazeoHin]

What is worst AMD is expecting the developers to do that, and we already have an example of a developer who did a nice job with Pure Hair/OpenGPU and it does not work on Nvidia hardware while also still affecting its performance if enabled, at least HairWorks seems to run on AMD products (but requires changing Tessellation option in Catalyst to not tank).

And what everyone responding to me is totally ignoring, GPUOpen will tie into a low level integration to GPU hardware, meaning it will be nigh on impossible (well at least not tanking/crashing like Volumetric lighting does on Quantum Break for Nvidia hardware) for any developer to get it working on different architectures without taking the time to totally pull apart the code and start from scratch, so pointless.
Again to those who disagree if you think it is true open source and can be modified to work on all HW architectures and GPUOpen is "open" for easy development and so better for gamers consider this quote:


That is great if your on AMD hardware, but any gamer who is not, well....
They are creating the equivalent to GameWorks that is specifically focused on AMD hardware.
The only point for it to be open is so that developers can use it efficiently on AMD hardware, it will have zero benefit to gamers using NVIDIA.

Problem is there will be those who will always think AMD is doing this type of practice as a means of kindness to developers and all gamers.

If anyone disagrees, please tell me which developer/game is likely to have GPUOpen functions/technology (such as Pure Hair) working on NVIDIA hardware or at least not impact if enabled?
RoTR is currently an example showing this is specific solely to AMD in terms of benefits.

Again just in case readers think I am beng critical of AMD for doing this, I have no issue with them competing with their own tools/suite against GameWorks, but it should not be considered "open" enough that it will benefit anyone but AMD gamers and hardware.
Its focus and integration is too close to AMD architecture, great but not truly open as no developers will get it working on anything else.
Cheers

Dude: You are factually and objectively wrong. Source code = stop yer bitch'n. Source code available means any developer can leverage the code libraries and optimise them for ANY hardware. Of course its going to come with AMD GCN optimizations out of the box.

If the developer chooses NOT to leverage the available source code to optimise the libraries on Nvidia hardware, it's the fault of the developer. Regardless of how time consuming it may be, its a choice the developer can make. The same cannot be said of Game Works. Your point is invalid.

 

[CSI_PC]

Dude: You are factually and objectively wrong. Source code = stop yer bitch'n. Source code available means any developer can leverage the code libraries and optimise them for ANY hardware. Of course its going to come with AMD GCN optimizations out of the box.

If the developer chooses NOT to leverage the available source code to optimise the libraries on Nvidia hardware, it's the fault of the developer. Regardless of how time consuming it may be, its a choice the developer can make. The same cannot be said of Game Works. Your point is invalid.

I am talking about the narrative and context AMD is also using it in.
NOT a semantic argument around the word "source code" that somehow this has all just come down to.
In fact I keep saying it is only open really to optimise on AMD hardware, so yeah your choosing the wrong argument and focus-context.
It comes back to Ocellaris says just above, and needed in response to GameWorks to convince developers to integrate more of their own suite of software technologies.

The developer chose NOT to leverage the code because it is FOR AMD architecture and would be a nightmare to change to work effectively on Nvidia architecture
You do not find it ironic that HairWorks can work on AMD products but 1st OpenGPU use of Pure Hair does little for Nvidia cards (tried searching for patches that changes this situation and so improving visual quality to AMD level but could not find any)
I think some see it being rather simple to do rendering-particle-lighting coding changes to work effectively for multiple architectures.
Must be easy, because obviously Quantum Break has been fixed for Nvidia hardware... oh wait
And that was post processing volumetric lighting it seems causing most of the massive performance hits and works wonderfully for AMD.

And I am sure you know NVIDIA has started opening up more of their GameWorks code to developers, but again that is to benefit Nvidia rather than AMD to get developers working better in integrating it more efficiently (yeah allegedly ) into games.
We are going round in circles so I guess we agree to disagree and I am leaving it at that.
Cheers

 

[barcaman196835]

Moving it to GPUopen is not making it proprietary.

This is a little bit different.
I didn't have much time to analyze these extensions, but there are only four functions that are standardized in SPIR-V: readFirstInvocationARB, readInvocationARB, gl_SubGroupInvocationARB, and ballotARB. All others are proprietary to AMDs SPIR-V extensions: SPV_AMD_shader_explicit_vertex_parameter and SPV_AMD_shader_trinary_minmax. In theory a SPIR-V shader that only uses readFirstInvocationARB, readInvocationARB, gl_SubGroupInvocationARB, ballotARB, and compiled with glslang, and also validated with the newest glslangValidator, might run on nVidia and Intel. There is no guarantee, because there might be some (fixable) compiler issues, but the chance is extremely high. Luckily Vulkan and SPIR-V has a really IHV friendly extension specification, which is allow any IHV to support any extension, if the hardware has the capability to do the job. There is a chance that nVidia might be able to support writeInvocationAMD and mbcntAMD, but some other SPIR-V builtins and instructions are too advanced to support them with relatively old GPU µarch designs. The Fermi derivatives, like Kepler, Maxwell and Pascal, are not designed for these features.

On D3D11 and D3D12, this is purely an AMD thing. But the fun fact is that Microsoft support most of these functions on Xbox One with the mono access. Too bad they didn't give us them in D3D12. I always wonder why.

 

[barcaman196835]

Guys, the problem is that a lot of devs are crying for these features for years. AMD just serve the needs, if Microsoft and Khronos didn't do it. In my opinion it is shame when an IHV solves the biggest programming problems before the API providers.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

If Nvidia is expected to refactor the source code to get it working on their cards, they are better off just sticking with GameWorks. AMD throwing source code out there doesn't mean other companies should use it. It is a PR move by AMD more than anything else.

What you are saying here is admitting that Nvidia never does anything driver or developer wise to just cripple performance on competitors cards. The source code prevents this ever from happening, has Nvidia driver team suddenly became the most lazy people in the universe and incompetent overnight ? Or is it just that they see no value in doing work that does not cripple AMD performance in the process ....

 

[CSI_PC]

What you are saying here is admitting that Nvidia never does anything driver or developer wise to just cripple performance on competitors cards. The source code prevents this ever from happening, has Nvidia driver team suddenly became the most lazy people in the universe and incompetent overnight ? Or is it just that they see no value in doing work that does not cripple AMD performance in the process ....

How did that stop OpenGPU with Pure Hair in RoTR also dropping NVIDIA cards by 6%-10% but actually does a lot more visual quality on AMD hardware and next to nothing visually on Nvidia?
It didn't, so your point also applies to OpenGPU as well.
Example scroll down to the Pure Hair on AMD and Nvidia shows Lara in the snow and with a slider to compare how Pure Hair works on both not just hair but also snow: Rise of the Tomb Raider PC: Update mit neuer Benchmarkszene, frischen Grafiktreibern und CPU-Skalierung
So why should Nvidia cards suffer a 6% to 10% performance drop matching AMD performance drop?
Note that is with the following: Update with new benchmark scene, fresh graphics drivers and CPU scaling

This fits in with your case about NVIDIA closed Gameworks drops performance on the competition, however worth noting HairWorks can actually be used on AMD hardware (but critically requires Tessellation setting reduced to be effective, maybe more effective than Nvidia HW).
Cheers

 

[razor1]

Everyone these are vender specific instructions! This is exactly what nV does with some of their game works and samples, for optimization of code paths to their hardware lol, I like the two sided look at by people though

This is a little bit different.
I didn't have much time to analyze these extensions, but there are only four functions that are standardized in SPIR-V: readFirstInvocationARB, readInvocationARB, gl_SubGroupInvocationARB, and ballotARB. All others are proprietary to AMDs SPIR-V extensions: SPV_AMD_shader_explicit_vertex_parameter and SPV_AMD_shader_trinary_minmax. In theory a SPIR-V shader that only uses readFirstInvocationARB, readInvocationARB, gl_SubGroupInvocationARB, ballotARB, and compiled with glslang, and also validated with the newest glslangValidator, might run on nVidia and Intel. There is no guarantee, because there might be some (fixable) compiler issues, but the chance is extremely high. Luckily Vulkan and SPIR-V has a really IHV friendly extension specification, which is allow any IHV to support any extension, if the hardware has the capability to do the job. There is a chance that nVidia might be able to support writeInvocationAMD and mbcntAMD, but some other SPIR-V builtins and instructions are too advanced to support them with relatively old GPU µarch designs. The Fermi derivatives, like Kepler, Maxwell and Pascal, are not designed for these features.

On D3D11 and D3D12, this is purely an AMD thing. But the fun fact is that Microsoft support most of these functions on Xbox One with the mono access. Too bad they didn't give us them in D3D12. I always wonder why.

This is exactly what it is!

Yep AMD feeds a line of marketing crap about gameworks but when AMD does something similar in the lines of optimizing their code paths so only their cards can use said features and people eat it up! WTF?

I have to give AMD props for taking on nV head on like this, instead of playing the BS game of holier then thou.

These are companies they are going scrape, bite, scratch at each other any which way they can. Playing dirty is part of competition.

 

[Deleted member 93354]

LOL so it sounds like they are going proprietary due to the low level nature and its alignment to AMD hardware, which when Nvidia does this is criticised
I can see the original arguments where AMD said Mantle could be used by Nvidia but then Mantle is designed around GCN structure, so sure Nvidia can use it if they change their whole architecture and development path-focus, different argument for another thread but history now.

TBH I have no issue with AMD doing this as NVIDIA really should had fought better for one of the consoles and not be in the situation this may cause them, but no-one should think this is open standards as only AMD use the GCN architecture and the low level access this will be focused for .
"the addition of intrinsic functions into GPUOpen also improves the compatibility of this feature" makes me laugh as they are suggesting this will make it cool with Nvidia hardware
But then it will still only be GameWorks that is evil and no good for all gamers

Cheers

Yes but a lot of gameworks optimizations are focused around nvidia hardware and are CLOSED. Much like how nvidia CLOSED off PhysX. Meanwhile Mantle has evolved to be an open adopted standard in OpenGL (Vulkan) and DX12 to work with any hardware vendor.

 

[schizo]

Very smart move by AMD, leveraging their console dominance to attack gameworks on PC. Much like freesync, I think they'll ultimately be successful with this, because it's good for AMD, developers, and consumers.

 

[CSI_PC]

Very smart move by AMD, leveraging their console dominance to attack gameworks on PC. Much like freesync, I think they'll ultimately be successful with this, because it's good for AMD, developers, and consumers.

I do not think any of us disagree with that, and in some ways serves Nvidia right for being too complacent in thinking consoles did not provide soft benefits moving forward; they were thinking historically when doing PS3 really did not provide them any benefits, this time round it is different.
Cheers

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Everyone these are vender specific instructions! This is exactly what nV does with some of their game works and samples, for optimization of code paths to their hardware lol, I like the two sided look at by people though
This is exactly what it is!

Yep AMD feeds a line of marketing crap about gameworks but when AMD does something similar in the lines of optimizing their code paths so only their cards can use said features and people eat it up! WTF?
I have to give AMD props for taking on nV head on like this, instead of playing the BS game of holier then thou.
These are companies they are going scrape, bite, scratch at each other any which way they can. Playing dirty is part of competition.

No source for GameWorks that makes your comparison moot ....

 

[razor1]

you can get the source if you want it, there is no one stopping that, just have to put some money down.

I would rather spend money on something that has been used tested and working for a long time, also previously integrated (tested and proven to work) than something that is more ideological in fashion.

Save me time and money when I'm counting my pennies in the long run.

 

[cageymaru]

Does someone have an article explaining why GPUOpen's open source code is bad for the industry?

 

[CSI_PC]

Does someone have an article explaining why GPUOpen's open source code is bad for the industry?

Will the GPUOpen software (such as Pure Hair or the low level API integration for AMD architecture) solutions find their way beyond focused and implemented for AMD hardware?
If not, then well you have answered that yourself
Cheers

 

[cageymaru]

Will the GPUOpen software (such as Pure Hair or the low level API integration for AMD architecture) solutions find their way beyond focused and implemented for AMD hardware?
If not, then well you have answered that yourself
Cheers

Isn't Pure Hair in the Nvidia sponsored game called, "Tomb Raider" that came out in 2016? Is that not proof that Nvidia's hardware can run GPUOpen features? I mean it is a game that Nvidia sponsored and came packed with their cards.

 

[CSI_PC]

Isn't Pure Hair in the Nvidia sponsored game called, "Tomb Raider" that came out in 2016? Is that not proof that Nvidia's hardware can run GPUOpen features?

Well by your logic if NVIDIA sponsored the game and have so much control over design, why did they not block AMD technology being put into it or make sure it did not also drop their performance while doing nothing?
AMD I think has sponsored games that have Nvidia technology.

If you actually went to that site I linked earlier regarding the slider comparison specifically between AMD and NVIDIA we would not be having this conversation
It showed it does nothing on NVIDIA while looking really nice on AMD.
Post #22.
Why link the video that is not in the same context or comparison test.....
It is the one that looks like this, but need to go to site to use slider:
And as I said has the title: Pure Hair on AMD and Nvidia - gives it away that is the comparison but is in German

Cheers

 

[cageymaru]

Warframe developers are using GPUOpen tech called AMD Mesh Optimizer to make their game run better. It made a helluva difference for me and the entire community really loved that patch. Warframe is an Nvidia sponsored game. It was packaged again with Nvidia GPUs. It even has PhysX in it. Here is one of the heads of development talking about how much of a game changer it was for his title.

[DE_Steve] Optimization coming in 18.5-AMD's mesh optimizer reduces overdraw • /r/Warframe

 

[CSI_PC]

Warframe developers are using GPUOpen tech called AMD Mesh Optimizer to make their game run better. It made a helluva difference for me and the entire community really loved that patch. Warframe is an Nvidia sponsored game. It was packaged again with Nvidia GPUs. It even has PhysX in it. Here is one of the heads of development talking about how much of a game changer it was for his title.

[DE_Steve] Optimization coming in 18.5-AMD's mesh optimizer reduces overdraw • /r/Warframe

Well that shows how open Nvidia is that they do not block other manufacturers technology that does not work for them
I think one can sponsor a game even if it is not fully tied to them, no law against that.
Nvidia is more actively involved-engaged with developers than AMD at a game specific level, and that is well known due to budget constraints for AMD.
Cheers

 

[Yakk]

Thread is worth a chuckle.

OpenGPU is open and the code is available on github. TADA!

 

[cageymaru]

I'm telling you that I find it hard to believe that Nvidia would sign off on sponsorship of a game that paints them in a negative manner to the competition. That would make Nvidia dare I say; stupid? I have yet to read an article from an Nvidia employee and thought the person was of low intelligence. They might spin to win the truth, but definitely not dumb.

 

[cageymaru]

Well that shows how open Nvidia is that they do not block other manufacturers technology that does not work for them
I think one can sponsor a game even if it is not fully tied to them.
Cheers

The AMD Mesh Optimizer raised everyone's frame rate s tremendous amount. Everyone. Doesn't matter if you have Intel, AMD, or Nvidia. Do you bother to read or just spouting off an agenda?

 

[CSI_PC]

The AMD Mesh Optimizer raised everyone's frame rate s tremendous amount. Everyone. Doesn't matter if you have Intel, AMD, or Nvidia. Do you bother to read or just spouting off an agenda?

I have never seen a review showing it (Warframe), would be great to read them from the usual publications showing benchmark performance analysis.
So no it is not spouting because I have never seen a bunch of actual published benchmarks for that game.
Got any links?
Cheers

 

[CSI_PC]

I'm telling you that I find it hard to believe that Nvidia would sign off on sponsorship of a game that paints them in a negative manner to the competition. That would make Nvidia dare I say; stupid? I have yet to read an article from an Nvidia employee and thought the person was of low intelligence. They might spin to win the truth, but definitely not dumb.

Eh?
It does not show Nvidia in a negative manner as they have some of their technology implemented while AMD has some of theirs.....
From an FPS-Framing perspective Nvidia performance is excellent and better than AMD, the Pure Hair drops both AMD and NVIDIA by the same % but does nothing for visuals on Nvidia hardware (post #22)

The perfect example of co-existing technologies is GTA V.
Cheers

 

[cageymaru]

Eh?
It does not show Nvidia in a negative manner as they have some of their technology implemented while AMD has some of theirs.....
From an FPS-Framing perspective Nvidia performance is excellent and better than AMD, the Pure Hair drops both AMD and NVIDIA by the same % but does nothing for visuals on Nvidia hardware (post #22)

The perfect example of co-existing is GTA V.
Cheers

Dude you're just strange. I have NOTHING else to say. Bye!