• Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
    Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.

Future games to be more optimized for AMD?

dave343

dave343

[H]ard|Gawd
2FA
Joined
Oct 17, 2000
Messages
1,875
Anyone else think more and more games will be optimized for AMD since all 3 consoles will be powered by their GPU's? I can't see any develper going forward wanting to optimzie their game for Nvidia architecture when consoles are the biggest money maker and will all be powered by AMD gpu's. ...?
 
more devs are already driving development towards AMD hardware, they have a lot more presence over the last while, and its beginning to show, the consoles is only going to help this, even Nvidia is planning on doing something fancy to enable support on the consoles even though its an AMD product(this will be a first for them in a long time)

And consoles are a big $ maker, true, but most games sell at least as much if not more on PC then they do on consoles, this has been shown time and time again(though there are exceptions) this generation might be different by all means, as it will be more then likely easier for us all to get the performance out of the games/apps like we should.
 
I believe AMD has a bright future considering that many games today are port to pc from console. The new consoles will all have amd chips
 
I don't see why it would help.
Most games were built on the pc and ported to the xbox and then the ps3. The xbox had a hybrid AMD gpu and they still ran like crap.
Besides that.. with Nvidia still owning the market share of pc gaming.. nobody would be foolish enough to alienate them.
 
The problem with games running on AMD hardware has more to do with drivers than it does being ported from a console. Currently NVIDIA has 2/3 of the video card market so I don't see why a PC developer would be motivated to switch.

It should make porting easier from PC to console and vice versa I assume. Which is a good thing.

Notice how no one is saying that people will be running away from Intel now that AMD is in a console.
 
Not alienate them, but spend less time making sure they get a few more fps for their hardware. I mean people naturally take the path of least resistance. If they know they have to port to AMD hardware for the 720 and the PS4 it's natural for them to spend more time optimizing for those architectures and getting to really know them. I hope developers spend just as much time with both camps to get things running properly. But I wonder if they truly will or just say it's good enough.
 
PRIME1 said:
The problem with games running on AMD hardware has more to do with drivers than it does being ported from a console. Currently NVIDIA has 2/3 of the video card market so I don't see why a PC developer would be motivated to switch.

It should make porting easier from PC to console and vice versa I assume. Which is a good thing.

Notice how no one is saying that people will be running away from Intel now that AMD is in a console.
Click to expand...

Do us all a favor and leave...and btw NVidia does not have 2/3 of the video card market..... Intel BY FAR has the largest share...
 
Here is my prediction. Because AMD will be in both consoles GPU wise, most developers will use some pretty standard development methods. Nvidia excels at making sure these things run fast and flawless on their hardware. So I suspect their drivers will be coded to maximize these standards.
The question I have .. can AMD do the same for their pc hardware.
 
I only see games being more optimized for AMD APUs, but without significant change for discrete GPU graphics optimization on the PC.

In particular, partial-offloading of CPU compute operations to the GPU in ways which excel to the unique strength of APUs, but are too inefficient to be used with discrete GPUs because of the major performance hit caused by the latency of shifting data between GPU<->CPU memory. Essentially it will likely force AMD's agenda of how they want to see APUs used (but so far have failed), and this may slowly migrate from next-gen consoles into the PC space.
 
PRIME1 said:
The problem with games running on AMD hardware has more to do with drivers than it does being ported from a console. Currently NVIDIA has 2/3 of the video card market so I don't see why a PC developer would be motivated to switch.

It should make porting easier from PC to console and vice versa I assume. Which is a good thing.

Notice how no one is saying that people will be running away from Intel now that AMD is in a console.
Click to expand...

Here you go:

AMD sucks, nvidia is the best. Nv has 100 percent of the market share, and AMD, deservingly, has 0 they're essentially not even a company anymore. The nvidia tnt chip is still as fast or faster than anything AMD could ever even dream of making. Every game, console or pc, was strictly coded to run on your nvidia based machine.

Ok, we got that out of the way.

Anymore, 95% of the games that are on pc, and console, are console ports, and that wasn't the case years ago, but it's true at this time. So yeah, it makes total sense that AMD cards would be optimized for their strengths.

Also, I'm not sure how or why people take video card branding so personally. Hell, if the company cared half as much as some people did, we'd be 100 dollar cards across the board that are as fast the current kings. I wonder if nV released a product that was covered in dried diarrhea, if prime1 would be willing to pay extra for the special release.
 
dave343 said:
Anyone else think more and more games will be optimized for AMD since all 3 consoles will be powered by their GPU's? I can't see any develper going forward wanting to optimzie their game for Nvidia architecture when consoles are the biggest money maker and will all be powered by AMD gpu's. ...?
Click to expand...

Not really sure what's going to happen until it does. Remember that games originally written for the Xbox 360 and ported over to PC still ran better on Nvidia hardware (for the most part), despite ATI's graphics chip being in the machine.
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
Do us all a favor and leave...and btw NVidia does not have 2/3 of the video card market..... Intel BY FAR has the largest share...
Click to expand...

I think he meant aftermarket video share, which Nvidia has a larger presence in, though AMD is making gains.

Nvidia will be fine, but they'll have to work harder to avoid situations where "we just got the code from the developers the last day and haven't had time to optimize it".
 
dragonstongue said:
And consoles are a big $ maker, true, but most games sell at least as much if not more on PC then they do on consoles, this has been shown time and time again(though there are exceptions)
Click to expand...

This is not even remotely close to being true. PC versions are lucky to get 20% of the sales of the console versions, which is why for a long time most companies would either not bother with a PC version or just do a half-assed port.
 
Hadnt thought of it in quite this way, but I think the OP makes a great point. The economics of a game dev are brutal (economics in general today are brutal)

If targeting AMD gets them 100% of consoles and a chunk of the PC its a no brainer. Quite a coup AMD pulled off with this win which is why NVidia is showing some sour grapes in public.

That said, NVidia has so much brute performance in their lineup, and IMO, has so much more maturity in driver development and just overall process and packaging, I don't think it will make a huge difference. It's not like the two sets of silicon are dramatically different in their core architecture. Like was the case with the PowerVR on Dreamcast back in the day where it was an entirely different approach to the 3D pipeline.
 
AceCR42 said:
This is not even remotely close to being true. PC versions are lucky to get 20% of the sales of the console versions, which is why for a long time most companies would either not bother with a PC version or just do a half-assed port.
Click to expand...

It's more like 30% of some very popular, cross platform FPS's (ex, about the same as X360 or PS3). That's ignoring the massive MMO market, F2P games, and all of the other genres that are under-represented on consoles. PC gaming is doing fine compared to consoles.

As for the OP's question: Maybe! Only time will tell, so ask again in a year or so. I think games will become more multithreaded. Developers of AAA games will have to utilize all eight threads to get acceptable performance out of the Jaguar CPU in the PS4 and (rumored) Xbox 720, and that should trickle down to PC ports. It wouldn't make sense for devs to create multithreaded code for consoles and then ignore the trend to CPUs with more cores.
 
Fooshnik said:
I think he meant aftermarket video share, which Nvidia has a larger presence in, though AMD is making gains.

Nvidia will be fine, but they'll have to work harder to avoid situations where "we just got the code from the developers the last day and haven't had time to optimize it".
Click to expand...

Does not matter what I think he meant, it only matters what he wrote.
 
lol. no. AMD would sabotage it with their piss poor drivers anyways.
 
^speaking of piss poor drivers; why did NVidia suck the nut with tomb raider?
 
AMD's drivers are fine, just stupid nVidia fanboys grasping at straws again.
 
well, I can say using my 4870-6870-7870 there have been times where a lot of things did not work as I expected, bsods, general stability issues, performance not where I believe it should be, but overall, I agree, AMD over the years at least for my single card performance and enjoyment, has been great, at least they don't intentionally screw the competition like some other card makers do, and that why I continue to use them, games look great, performance is awesome, and they try their best given the resources they have to constantly make it all better.

So yeh, I think it is going to get better as we go :)

fyi, Nvidia didn't screw it with tomb raider, that was AMD getting back at them with a feature optimized for their cards, not Nvidia, it sux when the shoe fits.
 
and now that they have the development presence to intentionally screw their competition, will you still continue to support them. isn't that a silly reason to support or not support any company? this is kind of the prevailing sentiment on this forum: that i buy amd because nvidia is the bad guy. i mean really, isn't it just customary corporate brinksmanship? its not as if nvidia or amd were behaving like apple and trying to enslave a quarter of the chinese population.

if anything, i think amd's strong presence in the two major consoles will mean that the apu platform will be a more viable option for pc gamers, as well as narrow the performance gap between low-end and mid-range builds.
 
^AMD has not screwed anyone, are you just pulling crap out of your rear end?
 
2 of the consoles will just use Open-GL , so that part is covered but the problem with PC games is incompatibility between hardware , consoles do not have this problem and there is where most of the performance improvements are going to be.

If you can recall someone from ATI said in some interview if they weren't bound to windows that direct code for the GPU on their end would end up 10 times faster then what is possible on windows.

This still is a bottleneck but maybe we will see less games on the pc which have a hard time running on AMD hardware.

I'm not to sure about the APU revolution for gaming but stuff like Richland and Kaveri will certainly improve upon what were used to but not in the extreme that we wouldn't need any videocard anymore.

Richland seems quite interesting. Kaveri will need (according to rumour) a new mainboard with some onboard videoram.

The best thing to come from is that code would be more optimized for multiple threads more then anything else :) . depending of course on how Sony and MS implement it if through hardware were still going to be suffering from the singlethread dilemma.
 
Last edited:
hey, lots support Nvidia, and that's pretty much what they do, and have for years, intentionally hobble their competition, but yes, this bodes very well for all of us, gamers and devs alike.

and I do not think single thread mean much for consoles anyways :p
 
I'm hoping this will force the developer's to require a standardized process from both of them; so we aren't stuck with ports running well on company A, while PC exclusives only run well on company B. Having great driver compatibility from both would be amazing.

Not much changed the last time though so I'm not sure we should expect earth shattering stuff this time. The 360 had all the good games for years, and the impact was negligible. I'm not expecting much difference this time around either, especially if the performance of the new consoles relies on the same tricks as before. Shorter draw distances, smaller zones, lesser resolution, lack of sparkles, etc.
 
hmm yeuemmaimai seems to have become quite aggravated recently and is attacking everybody, i think a mod needs to remind him to behave.
 
Y'know everybody keeps talking about the drivers thing with nvidia and amd.but from 09-now from 4890 to 5870 to 7870xt(Tahiti) i've not had any trouble with amd's drivers.and never had an issue with nvidia the year before with my 7800gtx-9600gt sli. sorry if i cant hop on the hatewagon:eek:
 
YeuEmMaiMai said:
Do us all a favor and leave...and btw NVidia does not have 2/3 of the video card market..... Intel BY FAR has the largest share...
Click to expand...

WOW !!! where can i buy one of those Intel "video cards" cause we are talking about actual cards you insert into a motherboard slot. I have never seen one made by intel
 
I think a part of the point being missed here is that the prior generations were powered by ATI and that still didn't mean there PC counterparts were optimized for ATI cards. I think nVidia isn't going to loose its edge just because the 3 new consoles all use AMD tech, after all when was the last time AMD cards were ahead of the curve or nVidia market a high end graphics card with a reasonable price because AMD actually had a competitor out in the wild? AMD's APU could potentially be a threat to nVidia, but that is already being clobbered by Intels graphics on CPU tech, nVidia has all its Tegras and the world goes round once again waiting for AMD to actually compete again.
 
brian770 said:
WOW !!! where can i buy one of those Intel "video cards" cause we are talking about actual cards you insert into a motherboard slot. I have never seen one made by intel
Click to expand...

You know what was problematic remembered because I owned one ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel740

It is not a joke ;) , soon after Intel bailed again. If people at Intel had some sort of "vision" they should have pushed Micron to keep developing Rendition Verite.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rendition_Verite
 
There are certain cases where AMD stands to benefit in PCs by having their hardware in consoles:

- In the case of APUs, the shared memory aspect could provide certain features that would otherwise be lacking. If we're going to see an advanced form of physics on next-gen consoles, it's highly likely that it's going to run a whole lot smoother on AMD APUs with shared memory (essentially anything after Trinity). That's something that both Intel and nVidia will lack entirely, and even if they do have that feature available, it'll likely be bandwidth/memory limited via the CPU.

- There's a whole lot more to development then simply coding. Game devs spend countless hours, sometimes years even, getting to know the quirks of a given architecture. It's for this reason that even today, years after its initial release, developers are able to gain more out of the same console. Considering AMD will be using the GCN architecture for years to come, it's likely that the desktop parts will see a resultant bump in performance.

- AMD has already said they'll be offering chips closely resembling the PS4's APU to the average consumer.

I think nVidia is going to have work harder and spend a lot of money to get on an even keel with AMD with respect to gaming benchmarks over the next few years. Over the last decade, they've been very close with respect to performance, so I really don't see how nVidia is going to be able to gain an architectural edge to make up for AMD's natural advantage. In fact, I think nVidia is going to slowly back out of the consumer discrete GPU market altogether. There's just too much external pressure from both AMD and Intel, both of which have been gaining market share. Discrete GPUs sales have been decreasing for a couple of years now - a trend that's only going to worsen. From a business perspective, I can definitely see nVidia focusing more on ARM SoCs and GPGPU for HPC than gaming.
 
well the market metrics consider graphics as a whole both DGP and IGP(this is either apu style or motherboard style) part of the pie, and Intel by an large holds the vast majority of this market, with nearly every motherboard and/or cpu sold for many generations having Intel graphics. Us users care about usable graphics for gaming and the like, so it boils down on average to GeForce and Radeon.

For the vast majority of years, Nvidia has held more of that market then AMD has, mostly through sheer numbers(again taking into account DGP and at one point IGP before AMD/ATI truly offered their own mainboard solutions) and/or if based on $ figures, through higher average selling price.

Good point on the powered by, hence I am happy when titles today say powered by AMD, mostly it means they work better and are not artificially gimped because a certain product is "detected" being in use. I like the idea that all 3 consoles will be AMD based with some differences, one being low powered, one being graphically powerfull with very fast memory(lots of) and the third being more heavily cpu biased with fast load times, it will be interesting.

What does this mean for all of us? Maybe it simply means devs will learn how to get crafty with multi-threading, and those of us who use radeons will benefit from HSA/GCN as a whole, simply, not to the hurting of another company but to the benefit as a whole system is concerned.

PS4 chips will be toned right down for average consumer, as they will be unlikely to be using GDDR5(which is a massive benefit) and will be losing a lot of the "tuning" Sony and AMD will be doing for the PS4, again, customizing routines and getting the most out of the engine, kind of like stock car racing :)

Nvidia will not be backing out of the consumer discrete card market anytime soon, it helps the costs of developing new products, gives them a place to sell off bad bins etc, it would be quite stupid for them not to continue to sell watered down parts for the prices they do, its a good market for them(though I hate them as a whole)
 
dragonstongue said:
Nvidia will not be backing out of the consumer discrete card market anytime soon, it helps the costs of developing new products, gives them a place to sell off bad bins etc, it would be quite stupid for them not to continue to sell watered down parts for the prices they do, its a good market for them(though I hate them as a whole)
Click to expand...

We've seen a divergence already, with the consumer cards being gimped with respect to GPGPU performance and it's not just driver related. The Titan/K20 die isn't the same as the other consumer dies, meaning nVidia is actually producing two different GPUs off two different dies and binning them separately (for the first time, if i'm not mistaken). The difference in performance between the two is staggering as well, and let's not forget the features. There are a lot of features on an HPC focused product that are a waste of die space on a consumer product, and vice versa. It's much like what we saw with x86 CPUs as they encroached on server territory. At first, the x86 CPUs in servers were just consumer chips on a different socket (and often times the same socket), but that changed and then server chips had much more cache, were set using different masks and even MCM. In fact, if you've bought an AMD CPU within the past few years, you've bought a server CPU. If you've bought Intel's 1366/2011 platforms, you too have bought a server CPU. The underlying core architecture is the same, but everything around it isn't. nVidia has already started to follow the same trend

They won't leave the consumer discrete GPU market anytime soon, but I just don't see a longterm future for them; nor AMD, if I'm honest. It's just not a big pie anymore, and that pie is getting smaller every year at an accelerating pace.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top