NVIDIA & Multi-display Gaming Editorial @ [H]

[phide]

Multi-monitor is supported with the driver correct?

Eyefinity-capable cards have some additional display engines on the back end to support it, so it's both driver-level and hardware-level.

Is there any game on the market that works with Eyefinity that is actually AWARE of Eyefinity?

Not that I'm aware of.

Aside from Crossfire sometimes not working in a new game til a driver update, how have AMD customers been harmed by not doing this coding for the devs?

They don't get shader optimizations tailored for AMD hardware. So, games end up running a bit more slowly than they might otherwise. Given that the days of vendor-specific optimization are basically over and done with, this isn't that big a deal, but AMD owners would stand to benefit from AMD sinking more resources into GITG, if only so good drivers are ready to go as soon as new games come out (or even before).

Take TWIMTBP away, and I would be willing to bet, that Batman would have ended up with nearly the same generic AA code as Nv copy and pasted for them, and then locked to their own hardware.

How do you figure that? TWIMTBP is NVIDIA's developer relations arm. NVIDIA isn't going to go around writing code for devlopers unless they get something substantial in return.

You have to understand that TWIMTBP is designed to be a symbiotic thing. Developers get optimized shaders and other graphics-related code from NVIDIA and NVIDIA gets their logo on the box and an intro movie. Neither hurt consumers unless things are taken too far and NVIDIA is given too much control over the final build, which is what happened with Eidos and Batman. NVIDIA fucked Eidos, but Eidos fucked consumers (AMD owners, anyway), and that's bad for consumers.

 

[Ritorix]

I'm surprised you'd want this as it does not benefit YOU in anyway unless you work for either nVidia or AMD

Well, the way you would benefit is the exact same reason they would do it in the first place. A lot of us have been riding that gravy train, but still want PC gaming to stay healthy.

Thats why its important to get out the early warning shot, as Kyle did. TWIMTBP-optimized games with "3DVISION" support are going to happen, its the next big thing and NVDA would be crazy not to put dev support behind it. The important thing is that when you play with non-NVDA hardware, it doesnt perform worse for no good reason. HUDs not lining up on eyefinity but working on nfinity, framerates miserably low on one vs the other, resolutions only available if a GF100+ is detected...those are the sorts of things that could happen if they dont get the message that such is unacceptable.

 

[RamonGTP]

Well, the way you would benefit is the exact same reason they would do it in the first place. A lot of us have been riding that gravy train, but still want PC gaming to stay healthy.

I don't call not having options a benefit personally. There would be more places to put yoru money in if PC gaming as a whole got better versus one successful company with a limited demographic.

 

[Ritorix]

AMD hasnt been doing bad either, but the point is that NVDA's decisions are based around moving that little line from the lower left to the upper right. If they set their mind to monetizing multi-monitor in sneaky ways, its going to take quite an effort to convince them otherwise. Early shots across the bow like Kyle's will help.

 

[LeninGHOLA]

I lol'd at Kyles last paragraph. I for one though will applaud Nvidia if they DID have some Nvidia powered games lock out Eyefinity. My style of competition is to screw over whoever stands in my way.I will step on anyone & everyone to get where I want to be. I wouldn't have the job I do if I didn't. It's pretty much no different than what most tech based companies do this day. Intel, Google, Apple, etc. So while it may be lame if they did do it, I wowuld still consider it fair game.

Screwing over customers and POTENTIAL customers hurts your bottom line. I personally don't do business with companies I feel no trust towards or that want to lock me into a proprietary standard. What you see in this thread is the rejection of those business practices on the consumer side.

 

[oldpablo]

You don't need to buy an active displayport adapter, check out http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-dongles.aspx. Many on this list are passive and still are supported by eyefinity.

This is an excellent link, thank you. Has anyone already done the legwork to find the cheapest functional one to save us the trouble?

 

[Nenu]

You don't need to buy an active displayport adapter, check out http://support.amd.com/us/eyefinity/Pages/eyefinity-dongles.aspx. Many on this list are passive and still are supported by eyefinity.

Thanks for that, these went under the radar somewhat!
Sadly not available in the UK but I'm sure that will change.

 

[Blackbird0147]

This is an excellent link, thank you. Has anyone already done the legwork to find the cheapest functional one to save us the trouble?

I did the legwork also. lol
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001CXXD2Q...e=asn&creative=380341&creativeASIN=B001CXXD2Q
Total cost is about $26 which is great compared to the $100 active adapters.

 

[Derangel]

While I love the site and the fact you push the articles you do that are the 'put up or shut up' that vendors need to hear, SLI / Crossfire market penetration is abysmal and is not as mainstream as some of you seem to think it is.

Even something like the Steam hardware (which I know is just a part of the PC market, but it is a large part of the gaming market) shows multi-gpu adoption at under 3%.

PC gaming isn't exactly mainstream either. Its a niche. A big niche, but still a niche. SLI/Crossfire are a niche within that niche and it does well enough that both camps continue to put money into them.

Something to think about before putting everything on Steam numbers: Each month its a random sampling of a select number of people. Not everyone who gets asked does it. There are a ton of Steam users who just use it to play Source or older Valve titles so they don't need anything we would consider gaming systems. Steam numbers are interesting to look and to study, but they sort of need to be taken as they are. Without any kind of further statistics or hard facts on exactly how many people Valve surveys each month combined with their average number of responses its really hard to make any kind of call on the community as a whole, it does provide an interesting statistic of Steam users however.

 

[jwalk6]

What Kyle is saying I believe, is that Nvidia has a tendency to, when given the opportunity, stick their fingers into games, and insist on their proprietary code being inserted, which might in this case, just 'coincidently' prevent Amd cards from running multi display set ups.

ie. Directly sabotage the competition's tech. A very low business tactic that should not go unnoticed or unpunished.

The market is currently set up so that better games sell better cards. If there were never a BioShock or Crysis there'd be nothing to drive the consumer to upgrade their graphics hardware. If the developers decide Nvidia is a PITA they'll eventually ignore them. We can't forget that ATI or Nvidia could vanish tomorrow and developers would still develop games for whatever platform remains. For a developer to code for a specific vendors feature set is a gift. DirectX is more important to PC gaming than any proprietary hack.

 

[Inglix_the_Mad]

You just gained a whole new level for me Mr.Bennett.

That last paragraph was to die for, I could read that over and over and still admire each and every word of it. Oh and on a side note, I will be a part of your mob and help light torches

I am still waiting for my 2 other Dell monitors to get here, so I can have my very own Eyefinity setup, I have dreams at night that they came...LOL
I have played on a eyefinity setup but only for a few minutes, after that I had to have my own setup, that and all the reviews here @ [H] .

Thanks

1) As much as it sucks - PhysX is technology that Nivida paid cold, hard cash for. I know it's a tough concept for many that like to game to understand, but did HardOCP chide ATI when ATI paid Valve US$6 million to optimize HL2 for them? You couldn't use those optimizations on Nvidia cards. Or is it the fact that it was given / offered then the green goblin taketh away? Contracts must be signed, and I doubt AMD was willing to sign Nvidia's "we won't f*ck with PhysX, or try to extend it with special commands that work only on our cards" contract.

2) Multi-Display is for the birds, I don't care if it's "Eyefinity" or "3D Vision Surround" (seriously Andrew Fear, wtf is up that name?) as long as there is a bezel, you can bite me. I'd rather spend US$1260 on an S-IPS 30" panel that does 2560x1600 than wast money stacking a bunch of 20"-24" panels on my desk when it comes to gaming. Now for work I do have a 2 - 22" & 1 - 24" monitors, but the thing is (and this is important) I don't have programs stretched between them on multiple. Nope, the programs run on individual monitors.

3) Monitors will continue to up the pixel count when it's demanded. Look, they're already working on 4k TV's, How about a nice 52" single (seamless!) display that is 4096×3072?

4) Unless the PC monitor industry moves forward, then future of gaming will be, TV screens. That's my dose of prognostication for you Kyle. I respect you, but I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that give a choice of an 5 panel "Eyefinity", 3 panel "Nvidia 3D Surround", or a 4k 52" TV the typical gamer will take the 4k TV. Heck I know friends that still prefer to play WoW / CoD / NFS / Eve Online / _fill_in_the_blank_ on their brand spanking new TV's / Projectors that are only 19x10 because they (the pictures) are bigger. No other reason.

 

[RocketTech]

Amen on the last paragraph of the article. I've got Tiki torches and fuel ready.

 

[Mr. K6]

Good read, Kyle, thanks. And I, too, will join that boycott should it go down that way (hell, I'm almost there after PhysX and Batman MSAA).

 

[realitycheck]

WOW, I'm shocked at what's being posted here.

If I'm not mistaken, Eidos didn't make the game without AA. Nvidia gave them some code, and obviously it works with Nvidia cards. I'm curious as to why most of you think Nvidia should spend time and money to make it work with the competition.

If anyone is to blame, it's Eidos. Now, I hear some of you say that Eidos and Nvidia are just trying to save face by claiming Eidos didn't make the game with AA, and Nvidia just gave them some AA code. Well, that may very well be a possibility, but until there is concrete evidence, it's complete nonsense to claim that you know that is what actually happened. You cannot go around claiming companies broke the rules without proof.

Also, they didn't break or stop your ATI cards. You act like it was a personal attack. Why would you expect Nvidia code to work wtih ATI products. They didn't sabotage ATi cards, AA just won't work with them. Do you expect to be able to buy an ATi card and intall Nvidia drivers to be able to use it? Of course not.

Like I said, at this point, until (if ever) there is proof to the contrary, Eidos is to blame. They didn't make AA in the game.

I'm more shocked at the general attitude towards the entire things. Why do most of you think your entitled to things for free? It's irrelevant if AA is part of DX10. If Eidos didn't write the code, then that's all there is to it. It's not like a company says, "well, this game is going to be DX10 so we don't have to write any code in regards to DX10, it's magically already there!!11".

Again, it's possible Nvidia had a hand in this and played dirty, but until there is concrete proof, it's irresponsible to blame them.

And I still don't get why most of you think you're entitled to things for free.

According to you guys Ford should spend 10's of millions of dollars to ensure people can take the parts off of their cars and put them on a Chevy, or a Toyota and have them work properly and up to Federal standards.

How about all of the different chargers for cameras, cell phones, and other usb devices. You guys would suggest each company spend time to ensure their plug could be used to work with competitors devices.

Again, my post is running under the theory that we have no actual proof Nvidia and Eidos played dirty from the start. If they did, then obviously I'm pissed.

Nvidia or ATi for that matter is under no obligation to ensure any of their products work with their competitors.

Also, if Nvidia ignores that nut bag Charlie, especially when he straight up lies about certain things, I doubt they care much about The editor/owner of a forum who, if was made to provide free services at cost to him, to competitors, would surely be angry about it.


Again, one more time, because I know how irrational humans can be, this is all running under the facts as we have them now, and that is that Eidos didn't make AA for the game, Nvidia gave them code that worked with Nvidia products, and Ati didn't.

Obviously we can speculate as to if it was as simple as this or not, but I won't debate "what ifs".

And really, I'm more shocked at the whole, "gimme gimme gimme, I deserve, me, me, me" socialism type attitude here..

\flame suit on

 

[realitycheck]

1) As much as it sucks - PhysX is technology that Nivida paid cold, hard cash for. I know it's a tough concept for many that like to game to understand, but did HardOCP chide ATI when ATI paid Valve US$6 million to optimize HL2 for them? You couldn't use those optimizations on Nvidia cards. Or is it the fact that it was given / offered then the green goblin taketh away? Contracts must be signed, and I doubt AMD was willing to sign Nvidia's "we won't f*ck with PhysX, or try to extend it with special commands that work only on our cards" contract.

2) Multi-Display is for the birds, I don't care if it's "Eyefinity" or "3D Vision Surround" (seriously Andrew Fear, wtf is up that name?) as long as there is a bezel, you can bite me. I'd rather spend US$1260 on an S-IPS 30" panel that does 2560x1600 than wast money stacking a bunch of 20"-24" panels on my desk when it comes to gaming. Now for work I do have a 2 - 22" & 1 - 24" monitors, but the thing is (and this is important) I don't have programs stretched between them on multiple. Nope, the programs run on individual monitors.

3) Monitors will continue to up the pixel count when it's demanded. Look, they're already working on 4k TV's, How about a nice 52" single (seamless!) display that is 4096×3072?

4) Unless the PC monitor industry moves forward, then future of gaming will be, TV screens. That's my dose of prognostication for you Kyle. I respect you, but I'll wager dollars to doughnuts that give a choice of an 5 panel "Eyefinity", 3 panel "Nvidia 3D Surround", or a 4k 52" TV the typical gamer will take the 4k TV. Heck I know friends that still prefer to play WoW / CoD / NFS / Eve Online / _fill_in_the_blank_ on their brand spanking new TV's / Projectors that are only 19x10 because they (the pictures) are bigger. No other reason.

Bolded part: I think most of the posters here don't really understand or just don't care because they are what, 16 to 20 years olds, who....and please understand I'm not taking shots at you guys, don't understand business. Contracts are contracts and you don't use your money to help competitors.


I disagree about one big tv vs eyefinity though. Unless that TV can achieve the resolutions eyefinity can, then hell yes I would take it because there would be no bezels.

But until a 55 inch tv can do...what is it, 5760 X 1200, eyefinity is better IMO.

 

[heatlesssun]

And really, I'm more shocked at the whole, "gimme gimme gimme, I deserve, me, me, me" socialism type attitude here..

\flame suit on

How ever this plays out, I don't think that anyone can blame nVidia or AMD for helping vendors support their products, we WANT companies to do this. They are under no obligation to support each others products and as long as NEITHER interfere with the normal operation of the others technology, there's nothing much else to say about this.

Overall and historically its not been a problem in the GPU and CPU space. We just all want it to stay that way.

 

[realitycheck]

How ever this plays out, I don't think that anyone can blame nVidia or AMD for helping vendors support their products, we WANT companies to do this. They are under no obligation to support each others products and as long as NEITHER interfere with the normal operation of the others technology, there's nothing much else to say about this.

Overall and historically its not been a problem in the GPU and CPU space. We just all want it to stay that way.

Oh, believe me, I hope it doesn't turn into something where if you have either an ATi or a Nvidia card, you can't play or enjoy features if one of the companies blocks them.

I just think we need to hold the Devs responsible so they don't get any bright ideas and start accepting big checks to lock out the other company, I'm certainly not in favor of this, although it seems greed is the new buzzword in the cooperate world today.

 

[Finkus]

Bolded part: I think most of the posters here don't really understand or just don't care because they are what, 16 to 20 years olds, who....and please understand I'm not taking shots at you guys, don't understand business. Contracts are contracts and you don't use your money to help competitors.

This is absolutely correct. They can use their money however they like... but then so do the consumers. An ATI consumer today is a potential NVIDIA consumer tomorrow. When the time comes to make the next informed purchase, any previous interaction with that company, good or bad, is going to be on the weighing scales, along with the other pros and cons of that next purchase.

Kyle is right that if Nvidia use some method to lock out multimonitor for ATI cards by paying a developer cash then they will lose many customers here.

 

[Mohonri]

WOW, I'm shocked at what's being posted here.

If I'm not mistaken, Eidos didn't make the game without AA. Nvidia gave them some code, and obviously it works with Nvidia cards. I'm curious as to why most of you think Nvidia should spend time and money to make it work with the competition.

I agree with you in principle. If this were a situation where allowing AA on ATi would have incurred extra development cost, then they're actions would certainly be justifiable. However, the code runs just fine with ATi hardware, with no modifications (other than the removal of the vendor detection). In other words, the code worked fine on both nVidia and ATi hardware, and then nVidia expended extra effort to exclude ATi.

 

[RamonGTP]

If I'm not mistaken, Eidos didn't make the game without AA. Nvidia gave them some code, and obviously it works with Nvidia cards. I'm curious as to why most of you think Nvidia should spend time and money to make it work with the competition.

You act like AA is an nVidia standard. It isn't, it's a filter thats been arond for a long long long time. ATI users aren't asking for anything they haven't always had. nVidia took an age old filter that can work on ANY card and gimped the code to only work on their hardware. It's not like we're asking Physx to work on ATI cards.

 

[realitycheck]

This is absolutely correct. They can use their money however they like... but then so do the consumers. An ATI consumer today is a potential NVIDIA consumer tomorrow. When the time comes to make the next informed purchase, any previous interaction with that company, good or bad, is going to be on the weighing scales, along with the other pros and cons of that next purchase.

Kyle is right that if Nvidia use some method to lock out multimonitor for ATI cards by paying a developer cash then they will lose many customers here.

I agree. Just so everyone knows I'm not playing favorites, I have a 4850 sitting in my rig right now, and I'm gunning for a 5870 (I think when prices comes down it'll be the perfect price/performance mix).

And, IMO, Nvidia does do bullshit things like the rebranding of products. And people SHOULD not give Nvidia a single cent of their hard earned money if Nvidia purposely cripples ATi cards.

Healthy competition and bullshit, underhanded, tactics are two different things.

I'm in no way defending Nvidia I just wanted to point out we don't know, for sure, if there was a back door deal between them and Eidos, and the other thing I was taken back by was the general attitude.

Now that I think about, I'm sure most people here do realize companies shouldn't be made to spend money to help competitors, and most posts where made in anger at the current situation. I know that I've talked mad shit before when I was angry, and later came to amend what I had said.

 

[realitycheck]

I agree with you in principle. If this were a situation where allowing AA on ATi would have incurred extra development cost, then they're actions would certainly be justifiable. However, the code runs just fine with ATi hardware, with no modifications (other than the removal of the vendor detection). In other words, the code worked fine on both nVidia and ATi hardware, and then nVidia expended extra effort to exclude ATi.

Hmmm. well then it sounds like Nvidia tossed in some extra bullshit code.

Maybe I should reconsider my position. I just find it hard to believe they would do this knowing full well the hard core communities like Hardforum and a few others would almost immediatly see what they did and call them on it.

I'll bet they knew we (as in Hardforum and others) would bust them out, but they figured that the masses would act like they always do and be ignorant. I'll bet they figured the very small amount of people that figured out their bullshit move wouldn't impact the majority (as usual).


OK, so maybe it is time to pick up the pitch forks!

 

[Mr. K6]

Some of you are mixing up facts (or maybe I am, let's see). As I understand it, NVIDIA used an OPEN STANDARD to LOCK OUT ATI ON PURPOSE. That's an anti-competitive practice and is bullshit. If NVIDIA developed it's own AA method/mode that ran fantastically on it's own cards, it has every right to make it a proprietary technology and offer support for it only with their cards. However, they essentially blocked out ATI by hardware locking an open standard.

Concerning PhysX, it's also unfortunate because they took a great physics engine that had great (or at least evolving to be great) multi-core CPU support and crippled it so it would only run well using their graphics cards. Again, anticompetitive. If they actually took the time to use the horsepower of graphics cards to do really cool physics instead of just adding gimmicky effects to sell one more graphics card to another noob, they'd have my wholehearted support. Bullshit like they pull is what stagnates and segregates a market, and I refuse to support it.

 

[realitycheck]

You act like AA is an nVidia standard. It isn't, it's a filter thats been arond for a long long long time. ATI users aren't asking for anything they haven't always had. nVidia took an age old filter that can work on ANY card and gimped the code to only work on their hardware. It's not like we're asking Physx to work on ATI cards.

No, I think you misunderstood. I know AA pretty much a general standard that both companies' hardware can use.

My point was (and the situation could certainly be different) Eidos chose not to code AA so it would work for their game, Batman. Knowing this, Nvidia busted out some AA code, gave it to Eidos, and as I'm sure most would assume, it wasn't coded to be recognized by ATi cards. If this is how it happened, then there is nothing wrong with this. ATi just dropped the ball.

BUT, it appears that a strong case could be made that the code can be used on both cards, and they slipped some sort of watchdog in there that just doesn't allow it to run on ATi cards.

That is certainly going out of their way to piss people off.

 

[Tamlin_WSGF]

My point was (and the situation could certainly be different) Eidos chose not to code AA so it would work for their game, Batman. Knowing this, Nvidia busted out some AA code, gave it to Eidos, and as I'm sure most would assume, it wasn't coded to be recognized by ATi cards. If this is how it happened, then there is nothing wrong with this. ATi just dropped the ball.

DirectX code is supposed to work on all cards that supports directx. Thats the purpose of it. ATI cards recognize directx code, so Eidos could safely assume that it would work. In fact, it was running on ATI cards giving them a performance penalty. Here's what Huddy had to say about this code:

What got AMD seriously aggravated was the fact that the first step of this code is done on all AMD hardware: "'Amusingly', it turns out that the first step is done for all hardware (even ours) whether AA is enabled or not! So it turns out that NVidia's code for adding support for AA is running on our hardware all the time - even though we're not being allowed to run the resolve code!
So… They've not just tied a very ordinary implementation of AA to their h/w, but they've done it in a way which ends up slowing our hardware down (because we're forced to write useless depth values to alpha most of the time...)!"

The vendor-id block didn't come in the beginning of the code, so it was running on ATI hardware already, but without purpose.

 

[phide]

As I understand it, NVIDIA used an OPEN STANDARD to LOCK OUT ATI ON PURPOSE. That's an anti-competitive practice and is bullshit.

But NVIDIA didn't ship any code. Assumably, Eidos owns whatever NVIDIA wrote for Batman. I'd guess that absolves NVIDIA from being subject to antitrust suits.

They didn't lock out AMD, either. AMD could have attempted to work with Eidos but either didn't or Eidos locked AMD out. Again, the focus is directed toward Eidos.

 

[realitycheck]

Some of you are mixing up facts (or maybe I am, let's see). As I understand it, NVIDIA used an OPEN STANDARD to LOCK OUT ATI ON PURPOSE. That's an anti-competitive practice and is bullshit. If NVIDIA developed it's own AA method/mode that ran fantastically on it's own cards, it has every right to make it a proprietary technology and offer support for it only with their cards. However, they essentially blocked out ATI by hardware locking an open standard.

Concerning PhysX, it's also unfortunate because they took a great physics engine that had great (or at least evolving to be great) multi-core CPU support and crippled it so it would only run well using their graphics cards. Again, anticompetitive. If they actually took the time to use the horsepower of graphics cards to do really cool physics instead of just adding gimmicky effects to sell one more graphics card to another noob, they'd have my wholehearted support. Bullshit like they pull is what stagnates and segregates a market, and I refuse to support it.

I think the problem is what info we are using to form our individual opinions.

As I understand it, Eidos didn't code AA for batman. OR, they didn't code the open AA standard to be recognized by the rest of the game code, so it could be used.

Nvidia made code that would work with the game code, recognize Nvidia hardware, and give users AA.

If this is how it went down, They did not, in any way, shape, or form, lock out ATi hardware. They simply didn't make code they made able to be recognized by ATi hardware, which, like I said, most people would understand.

If ATi made some AA code, gave it to Eidos, this would have been a non issue. So if anyone is to blame it's Eidos.


Now, as I read more and more, it looks like Nvidia did what I said above, but also added a piece of code that made it so ATi cards couldn't see use it. I thought that was underhanded, but the more and more I think about it, it isn't.

Technically, Nvidia didn't block AA for ATi hardware. They blocked ATi hardware from using the code that worked with the game code to render AA for Nvidia hardware.

Since some people have cracked this, it proves that it is true. Nvidia isn't blocking AA, they are blocking the code that allows Eidos game code to talk with Nvidia hardware so it can use the AA, which is an open standard. I can see why they wouldn't want a competitor to be able to gain from that.


Keep in mind I think they would have given themselves a major boost in the eyes of all of us if they said, "hey, Eidos sucks and didn't code their game to use AA, but we made some code so that the game can see our hardware and work with the game code....and what the hell, it'll work with ATi cards too". If they did that, everyone would be like, "holy shit, that's awesome".

But instead, they choose to do the exact opposite, which was smart from a company/greed standpoint, but made them look like douche bags to us.

 

[teenk]

I think the problem is what info we are using to form our individual opinions.

As I understand it, Eidos didn't code AA for batman. OR, they didn't code the open AA standard to be recognized by the rest of the game code, so it could be used.

Nvidia made code that would work with the game code, recognize Nvidia hardware, and give users AA.

If this is how it went down, They did not, in any way, shape, or form, lock out ATi hardware. They simply didn't make code they made able to be recognized by ATi hardware, which, like I said, most people would understand.

If ATi made some AA code, gave it to Eidos, this would have been a non issue. So if anyone is to blame it's Eidos.


Now, as I read more and more, it looks like Nvidia did what I said above, but also added a piece of code that made it so ATi cards couldn't see use it. I thought that was underhanded, but the more and more I think about it, it isn't.

Technically, Nvidia didn't block AA for ATi hardware. They blocked ATi hardware from using the code that worked with the game code to render AA for Nvidia hardware.

Since some people have cracked this, it proves that it is true. Nvidia isn't blocking AA, they are blocking the code that allows Eidos game code to talk with Nvidia hardware so it can use the AA, which is an open standard. I can see why they wouldn't want a competitor to be able to gain from that.


Keep in mind I think they would have given themselves a major boost in the eyes of all of us if they said, "hey, Eidos sucks and didn't code their game to use AA, but we made some code so that the game can see our hardware and work with the game code....and what the hell, it'll work with ATi cards too". If they did that, everyone would be like, "holy shit, that's awesome".

But instead, they choose to do the exact opposite, which was smart from a company/greed standpoint, but made them look like douche bags to us.

re: bolded sentence

That's the problem, nVidia did not block the code from running on ATI hardware. It still ran perfectly fine. The problem was nVidia blocked the output from the AA code using the vendor lock. It's like flooring the gas pedal on your car while having all 4 tires propped up with jacks, it just wastes power for no tangible return.

 

[Mr. K6]

If the situation as you described above is what happened, I'd say "hey, that's business and development, NVIDIA did their homework and AMD didn't." Where I head differently is the following:

Technically, Nvidia didn't block AA for ATi hardware. They blocked ATi hardware from using the code that worked with the game code to render AA for Nvidia hardware.

As I understood it, AMD, for whatever reason, was late to the party with its development. Because NVIDIA had locked out AMD from using this open standard to produce MSAA, AMD couldn't make it's cards work with said pathway. It's like if there's only one bridge to an area, but the guy that gets their first doesn't let anyone cross, despite the bridge being built by the town for everyone. Hence why there still isn't an AMD fix for MSAA in Batman: AA. If this is the case, it's bullshit. In either case, Rocksteady (or whoever developed the game) is lazy.

But instead, they choose to do the exact opposite, which was smart from a company/greed standpoint, but made them look like douche bags to us.

Well that's another case, but I agree. For example, if you look at AMD working on STALKER: CS, it developed AA paths for DX10.1 and then converted them backward to also be used in DX10, and allowed the code to be run on all types of hardware. This is how it should be done. When you see something like what NVIDIA did, after we've had great precedences set, yes, they do look like douche bags.

 

[realitycheck]

DirectX code is supposed to work on all cards that supports directx. Thats the purpose of it. ATI cards recognize directx code, so Eidos could safely assume that it would work. In fact, it was running on ATI cards giving them a performance penalty. Here's what Huddy had to say about this code:


The vendor-id block didn't come in the beginning of the code, so it was running on ATI hardware already, but without purpose.

hmmm, OK, well seeing these quotes makes me think that Nvidia churned out quick code to get AA to work, and just made it so it interfaces with the game code with Nvidia hardware. If ATi hardware is there, the game code just doesn't know what to do with the ATi hardware.

Don't get me wrong, at the least it looks like Nvidia did some quick, sloppy code. BUT, it's still on Eidos, IMO.

When I read this:

What got AMD seriously aggravated was the fact that the first step of this code is done on all AMD hardware: "'Amusingly', it turns out that the first step is done for all hardware (even ours) whether AA is enabled or not! So it turns out that NVidia's code for adding support for AA is running on our hardware all the time - even though we're not being allowed to run the resolve code!
So… They've not just tied a very ordinary implementation of AA to their h/w, but they've done it in a way which ends up slowing our hardware down (because we're forced to write useless depth values to alpha most of the time...)!"


I see, WAAAAAHHHHHHHHH. Again, not trying to flame. It looks like Nvidia made the AA work, but said, why should we give ATi a free chunk of code, time, resources, et cetera. I can't neccessarliy blame them for that. ATi did not write any code. So if the developer didn't do it (Eidos) then people who use ATi cards don't get AA. It's irrelevant if the code is there. It was made by a competitor, and it is technically running the AA, it's just that Nvidia code doesn't recognize the ATi hardware. In fact, the fact that it IS running on ATi hardware pretty much proves my theory. It's a standard, no proprietary, so in order for Nvidia to make it work it had to work on both cards, and it does. Now, the problem comes in where the game code tries to figure out what kind of hardware ATi has. It can't because Nvidia wrote the go between code, and said, why should we give ATi free AA? Right? Tell me if I'm missing something, I'm sure I could be.

Now, we could debate all day long if Nvidia did it on puprose, and like I've been saying, it wouldn't be a debate because I agree they propbably did.

But, the only way I could see this being completely underhanded and anti-competitive is if Eidos and Nvidia were in on a secret deal. THEN, then, everyone should totally be pissed. We just don't have the concrete evidence to back this up.

 

[realitycheck]

re: bolded sentence

That's the problem, nVidia did not block the code from running on ATI hardware. It still ran perfectly fine. The problem was nVidia blocked the output from the AA code using the vendor lock. It's like flooring the gas pedal on your car while having all 4 tires propped up with jacks, it just wastes power for no tangible return.

See, we need to find out if Eidos and Nvidia had a back door deal. Then, this would be easy...you'd be right.

But, we can't rule out that there isn't a "lock", it could be that Nvidia just didn't translate the code for AA to be recognized -ATi hardware wise- by the game code.

 

[RamonGTP]

But NVIDIA didn't ship any code. Assumably, Eidos owns whatever NVIDIA wrote for Batman. I'd guess that absolves NVIDIA from being subject to antitrust suits.

They didn't lock out AMD, either. AMD could have attempted to work with Eidos but either didn't or Eidos locked AMD out. Again, the focus is directed toward Eidos.

How is all this assumable I'm curious? Who stands to benefit from crippling AMD cards, Eidos or nVidia?

I know you're an intelligent guy so lets stop pretending nVidia had nothing to do with this.

 

[heatlesssun]

How is all this assumable I'm curious?

I know you're an intelligent guy so lets stop pretending nVidia had nothing to do with this.

Does anyone know WHY Edios didn't have AA for AMD hardware or not? Edios wrote the game so we need to ask them.

If nVidia paid them that's one thing, but code that Edios wasn't forced to use is another matter.

 

[kac77]

Does anyone know WHY Edios didn't have AA for AMD hardware or not? Edios wrote the game so we need to ask them.

If nVidia paid them that's one thing, but code that Edios wasn't forced to use is another matter.

I haven't been apart of game development in a long time. All I can say is that in order to lock out AA you literally have to go out of your way in order to do so. It's not something that's unintentional. You can, using a Direct X Tool, force AA in any game as it's Direct X that's running the show most of the time. Since apparently a simple change of Vendor ID was all that was needed, that means extra code was written to explicitly lock out a video card.

Typically developers use exclusion calls for video cards that do not fully support Direct X features as often the lesser known video cards achieve the Direct X compliance through software which often means extremely low performance or visual anomalies. This was very common with things like S3 Savage and Power VR cards. However, it's been years since developers have had to do this since the only thing they care about is Nvidia and ATI cards and both of them for the most part are in full compliance.

Merely exposing AA modes to your game engine is almost the same as dictating what resolutions the game will run at. Considering Batman does not bypass Direct X in order to provide AA there really wasn't a reason at all not to include the ATI cards, even if the game produced visual anomalies or lower performance.

 

[phide]

How is all this assumable I'm curious? Who stands to benefit from crippling AMD cards, Eidos or nVidia?

You find it unreasonable to assume that Eidos owns the code for their own products? NVIDIA may retain certain rights to it, depending upon the specific agreement, but I'd find it unreasonable to assume that Eidos has absolutely no say regarding the code they ship in their own products. A reasonable developer/publisher is not simply going to implement technology they've been provided with by a third party while being bound to some agreement that they must use that code, I don't think. A reasonable developer also seeks ways to work with other hardware manufacturers to implement operable code (AMD), which Rocksteady did not seem to have any interest in doing.

As for your second question, I'd suggest that Eidos/Rocksteady doesn't care how AMD users are affected by what code NVIDIA provides to them. I doubt the lack of AA on AMD cards has had a major impact on their bottom line. They get the advantage of not having to spend resources on something that's provided for them free of charge, so they're happy.

NVIDIA stands to benefit from it, of course, which is why TWIMTBP was formed in the first place.

I know you're an intelligent guy so lets stop pretending nVidia had nothing to do with this.

NVIDIA had as much to do with this as Eidos. I'm just in awe of how this issue has become almost centrally about how evil NVIDIA is while Eidos and Rocksteady have gotten a complete pass, as if they have no responsibility in this whatsoever.

 

[RamonGTP]

I never said I find it unreasonable that they own code, but we're talking about a specific type of code, one related directly to nVidia. I find it more reasonable that they simply have a license to use it, much the same way we don't own our operating systems, simply have a license to use. So yes, I do find it unreasonable to simply assume they own code that isn't theirs.

I'm not suggesting Eidos had no say in the matter, i'm sure they could have objected and elected not to. What I am saying is that it was nVidia's doing and Eidos simply turned a blind eye and let it happen. This is assuming they knew what the code did in the first place, which we have no way of knowing whether or not they did. I think it's entirely feasible that they weren't made aware of this "side effect"

 

[Impulse]

All this conjecture isn't gonna get ya anywhere tho, at the end of the day we'll never know what the actual deal entails and who has the right to do (or not do) anything w/the AA code implemented... That's the worst part about programs like TWIMTBP, the consumer's just not aware of all the background wheelin, dealing, and jockeying that goes on between OEMs, code developers, and other hardware manufacturers. It's exactly the same kind of shenanigans that have Intel in hot water right now (relatively speaking, on a smaller scale).

I think Kyle just wanted multi-monitor support to stay out of that realm and be something much more standard, like many other aspects of the games we enjoy... There's absolutely nothing wrong w/that.

Unfortunately I think it's highly unlikely that we'll see a standard implementation of the same multi-screen handling across all games and cards. Invariably some games are gonna end up w/bezel, FoV, or aspect ratio management that works better on one manufacturer's set of cards. It's just bound to happen, and that's fine... As long as they don't take it two steps further and start screwing each other w/exclusive deals that prevent each other from addressing the issues eventually thru drivers/updates.

 

[Impulse]

\Given that developers won't need to do anything special for Eyefinity and NVIDIA Surround support, NVIDIA wouldn't need to supply TWIMTBP developers with any code to support NVIDIA Surround that might end up crippling Eyefinity (unless there's some "enhanced" features NVIDIA's going to tout). If the game can render out to the desired resolution for Eyefinity, Eyefinity is going to work.

Clearly, but I used UI elements example exactly because it's so simple... If the game by default shoots those UI indicators to the periphery corners and NV happens to help the developer code it so that the game properly places them on the center screen, then they're liable to urge (or force) the developer to put in a hardware lock so it only does this w/NV hardware... It's pretty much the exact same thing that happened w/the Batman/AA scenario after all. It's not that the developer couldn't/wouldn't implement something, NV just did it for them (in exchange for something, not necessarily exclusivity but nonetheless).

There's no reason why bezel management should be implemented on the developer side (the opposite of UI management actually), but we don't really know how it's all gonna pan out. Either of those scenarios could end up the same as the Batman/AA scenario, I'm not sure why you think they couldn't? I wasn't saying it's gonna happen, but it's a possibility. If people raise some concern about it beforehand (as Kyle has done), then we're better off, the extra awareness on the part of the consumer (and NV/ATI) certainly can't hurt.

 

[RamonGTP]

Given that developers won't need to do anything special for Eyefinity and NVIDIA Surround support, NVIDIA wouldn't need to supply TWIMTBP developers with any code to support NVIDIA Surround that might end up crippling Eyefinity (unless there's some "enhanced" features NVIDIA's going to tout). If the game can render out to the desired resolution for Eyefinity, Eyefinity is going to work.

One could say the same thing about the implementation of Anti-Aliasing

 

[PrincessFrosty]

For god’s sake NVIDIA, if you pull this bullshit where NVIDIA Surround "games" will not work on Eyefinity configurations, we are going to beat NVIDIA down repeatedly and publicly for harming the PC gaming industry. Keep those crappy proprietary PhysX policies, but if you start messing with OUR multi-display gaming and not letting it remain "open platform," I will personally lead the mob with the burning torches to the castle gates. And we will be fully prepared to use the torches. I will personally lead a boycott of NVIDIA products if I see NVIDIA harm multi-display gaming in the marketplace through an IP grab. Multi-display gaming belongs to gamers, not NVIDIA.

I can't express how glad I am someone is making a stand for this but also has the forethought to make it before Nvidia have already done something gay, quite sick of their bullshit with the PhysX

Actually that reminds me I still need to write up my findings with batman AA showing the majorety of the physx effects running perfectly fine on a quad CPU DESPITE CPU usage being pretty bad (40%)