What AMD does vs WHat nVidia does...

[semitope]

Both fan boys/girls are annoying but these days the Cult of Radeonism is in my opinion on another level of blindness.

I hardly see AMD fanboys. How I judge someone to be a fanboy is if they support something illogically. Simply prefering and defending a brand is not fanboy territory.

Why I say some people are nvidia fanboys

1. defending nvidias anticompetitive practices and turning it around to use against AMD. What nvidia does screws US. Even if you don't like AMD, you should at least realize that

2. Thinking frequent driver updates are good and necessary. It could go either way. More frequent, less frequent. Really depends on the hardware but my undertstanding is simply that hardware typically is not supposed to get driver updates that often. SOMETHING is wrong if it needs to. I don't think nvidia needs to. My 970 got several driver updates that i barely cared for. Affected nothing for me.

3. Throwing around myths about drivers and developer support. One, most people are happy with AMD drivers and a lot also have issues on nvidia. two, you cant really talk about developer support. ALl cases we have heard of we know AMD was in touch with developers. As far as hardware... that is only necessary for pre-release stuff. No way in hell these massive companies need GPU makers to send them released hardware. eg. AMD sent DICE fury cards long ago, that I understand.

4. jumping unto minimally relevant arguments without thinking. eg. 3 display ports > hdmi 2 etc for gaming. simple. Why care so much about some niche 4k tv market when that can easily be covered with display port? AND You get freesync support on all of them (probably). Adaptive sync is far more important for PC gaming that what these people are crying about.

These are things for recent discussions. Other things apply other times. I am not an AMD fan. I bash them on CPUs all the time, but their GPUs are good tech. Nvidia cut so much from their GPUs and AMD is STILL matching and exceeding (with Fury). That aside, why i prefer AMD gpus is longevity, pricing (the recent 390, 390x pricing pissed me off though), technology (freesync, true audio etc.) and currently I don't trust nvidia

 

[RamonGTP]

Day 0 support is not far worse for AMD, you simply assume it is. .

You're assuming I'm assuming. Fact of the matter is that I have two systems one has NVidia the other ha AMD. Day 0 support is worse for AMD. You can deny it, it won't make it any less true. That's a fact you'll just have to either make friends with, or just continue to burry your head in the sand about. Either way, the reality will remain. You've essentially admitted Day 0 support is worse but you made excuses for it, just like AMD did in their video.

 

[Sprayingmango]

Nvidia actually makes superior products.

 

[LordEC911]

People that have a 4k TV cant even make a legitimate complaint about lack of HDMI 2.0 on Fury without having some of these nuts go off on you.

No, it just got crazy once it got noticed that it may not have HDMI2.0 support...
I saw <10 people mentioning it before June. Most of them were saying that they hoped AMD would have it but it wasn't a huge deal breaker if Fiji performed as well as GM200.

Then once it got noticed and people were looking for confirmation we have dozens upon of dozens of people coming out of the woodwork (hundreds of posts) saying how big of a deal it is and now they have to buy GTX980Ti before Fiji is even benchmarked.
Then we have the same half a dozen people, that already have a GTX980Ti and never seriously considered Fiji, going into every single AMD thread saying how they just bought a GTX980Ti because Fiji doesn't have HDMI2.0 support...

If that doesn't raise a red flag,,,

 

[RamonGTP]

If your display doesn't have DP but has HDMI 2.0 (which is the case for many 4K TV's) then there is no decision to be made. It's absolutely foolish that AMD is releasing a card widely marketed as a 4K beast WITHOUT hdmi 2.0 in mid 2015. The standard has been around for quite some time already. Don't blame consumers for not wanting a card without HDMI 2.0, blame AMD for making an absolutely stupid decision not to include it.

 

[LordEC911]

If your display doesn't have DP but has HDMI 2.0 (which is the case for many 4K TV's) then there is no decision to be made. It's absolutely foolish that AMD is releasing a card widely marketed as a 4K beast WITHOUT hdmi 2.0 in mid 2015. The standard has been around for quite some time already. Don't blame consumers for not wanting a card without HDMI 2.0, blame AMD for making an absolutely stupid decision not to include it.

Didn't products start being introduced 2H 2014 with HDMI2.0 support?

 

[semitope]

You're assuming I'm assuming. Fact of the matter is that I have two systems one has NVidia the other ha AMD. Day 0 support is worse for AMD. You can deny it, it won't make it any less true. That's a fact you'll just have to either make friends with, or just continue to burry your head in the sand about. Either way, the reality will remain. You've essentially admitted Day 0 support is worse but you made excuses for it, just like AMD did in their video.

how is it worse. Actual game performance or driver release. Did the games not work? what do you really mean by support? Something tangible?

Didn't products start being introduced 2H 2014 with HDMI2.0 support?

yeah its pretty recent. The vast majority won't have hdmi 2.0 TVs and some might think they do but only have TVs that will take hdmi 2.0 sources. The adapters will of course come as well.

If your display doesn't have DP but has HDMI 2.0 (which is the case for many 4K TV's) then there is no decision to be made. It's absolutely foolish that AMD is releasing a card widely marketed as a 4K beast WITHOUT hdmi 2.0 in mid 2015. The standard has been around for quite some time already. Don't blame consumers for not wanting a card without HDMI 2.0, blame AMD for making an absolutely stupid decision not to include it.

ultimately actual consumers will choose so who cares about you guys. If a consumer actually is playing PC games on a TV at the high end and has no monitor options and does not care about vsync and is willing to lose actual performance, then fine. AMD would have failed to convince that buyer.

 

[DPI]

You're assuming I'm assuming. Fact of the matter is that I have two systems one has NVidia the other ha AMD. Day 0 support is worse for AMD. You can deny it, it won't make it any less true. That's a fact you'll just have to either make friends with, or just continue to burry your head in the sand about. Either way, the reality will remain. You've essentially admitted Day 0 support is worse but you made excuses for it, just like AMD did in their video.

Quoted for truth.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Am I the only person who thinks games shouldn't need "day zero" support?!
Unless we're talking about multi-GPU profiles which are necessary.

It becomes even more ridiculous when you realize all of Nvidia's day-zero drivers are SLi & GE profiles.

 

[RamonGTP]

how is it worse. Actual game performance or driver release. Did the games not work? what do you really mean by support? Something tangible?



yeah its pretty recent. The vast majority won't have hdmi 2.0 TVs and some might think they do but only have TVs that will take hdmi 2.0 sources. The adapters will of course come as well.

A combination of game performance and lack of CF support. If you seriously have to ask then you really are burying your head in the sand. It hasn't exactly been a secret.


And that isn't so recent. You're telling me AMD didn't' have time to implement HDMI 2.0 despite it being around for a year now? How many more excuses are you going to make? Here's the problem with making excuses, you don't convince anyone who doesn't already feel that way. Meaning other fanboys. People who are going to make an unbiased purchase will look at features. HDMI 2.0 is a must have for many people. Adapters add to the cost of the card and may or may not function correctly.


And obviously you care about what "us guys" are saying considering your incessant need to blindly defend every bad move AMD makes.

 

[semitope]

A combination of game performance and lack of CF support. If you seriously have to ask then you really are burying your head in the sand. It hasn't exactly been a secret.

I'll assume most your issues are due to crossfire then. That I can grant and I know it hurts both nvidia and AMD users again. I see complaints for SLI and crossfire. Hopefully for you guys dx12 will improve it.

And that isn't so recent. You're telling me AMD didn't' have time to implement HDMI 2.0 despite it being around for a year now? How many more excuses are you going to make? Here's the problem with making excuses, you don't convince anyone who doesn't already feel that way. Meaning other fanboys. People who are going to make an unbiased purchase will look at features. HDMI 2.0 is a must have for many people. Adapters add to the cost of the card and may or may not function correctly.

My opinion is not so much time, as the fact that DP is simply a better choice for the VAST majority of their consumers. They could have dedicated more hardware to HDMI 2.0, but why should they? At worst the consumers that need it will be able to buy adapters this year. Since it's new tech, those adapters aren't out yet (they've been announced.).

Can you justify why AMD should forego freesync support on multiple monitors in favor of HDMI 2.0 4K TV niches? If they had done that there would be a much larger outcry and a more significant reduction in capability. How could a premium product justify such a thing?

[And obviously you care about what "us guys" are saying considering your incessant need to blindly defend every bad move AMD makes.

I post because all I see are people being less than fair in their judgements. Answer my question above. Should AMD have gone with fewer DP ports knowing they could add an adapter for HDMI 2? Ditch multimonitor freesync plans?

 

[Nenu]

I hardly see AMD fanboys. How I judge someone to be a fanboy is if they support something illogically. Simply prefering and defending a brand is not fanboy territory.

You have defined yourself to a tee.

Why I say some people are nvidia fanboys

1. defending nvidias anticompetitive practices and turning it around to use against AMD. What nvidia does screws US. Even if you don't like AMD, you should at least realize that

You might have a point if AMD bothered to try and release drivers in a timely fashion instead of laying the blame elsewhere.
Because of their lack of attention to their customers its hard to establish where things really go wrong for AMD users.

2. Thinking frequent driver updates are good and necessary. It could go either way. More frequent, less frequent. Really depends on the hardware but my undertstanding is simply that hardware typically is not supposed to get driver updates that often. SOMETHING is wrong if it needs to. I don't think nvidia needs to. My 970 got several driver updates that i barely cared for. Affected nothing for me.

You like demonstrating how little you know.
Read this thread, post #70
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1855350&page=4
This is why AMD needs to be involved and working with game devs early on, not bodging it a Month later.

3. Throwing around myths about drivers and developer support. One, most people are happy with AMD drivers and a lot also have issues on nvidia. two, you cant really talk about developer support. ALl cases we have heard of we know AMD was in touch with developers. As far as hardware... that is only necessary for pre-release stuff. No way in hell these massive companies need GPU makers to send them released hardware. eg. AMD sent DICE fury cards long ago, that I understand.

Drivers are less capable from AMD, see 2)
Thats not considering the basic features that AMD dont seem to be able to fix.

4. jumping unto minimally relevant arguments without thinking. eg. 3 display ports > hdmi 2 etc for gaming. simple. Why care so much about some niche 4k tv market when that can easily be covered with display port? AND You get freesync support on all of them (probably). Adaptive sync is far more important for PC gaming that what these people are crying about.

Yep, thats your problem, you dont think.
Those that need HDMI 2.0 have to use NVidia.
If you want to know what 4K on TV is about, try educating yourself.
Prove that Async is more important.

These are things for recent discussions. Other things apply other times. I am not an AMD fan. I bash them on CPUs all the time, but their GPUs are good tech. Nvidia cut so much from their GPUs and AMD is STILL matching and exceeding (with Fury). That aside, why i prefer AMD gpus is longevity, pricing (the recent 390, 390x pricing pissed me off though), technology (freesync, true audio etc.) and currently I don't trust nvidia

You are an AMD fanboy through and through.
You dont know basic facts yet try and argue against.
You ignore salient points and make rubbish up.
I dont trust you lol.

 

[semitope]

Am I the only person who thinks games shouldn't need "day zero" support?!
Unless we're talking about multi-GPU profiles which are necessary.

It becomes even more ridiculous when you realize all of Nvidia's day-zero drivers are SLi & GE profiles.

They should not. It would be like sony constantly patching the PS4 to support certain games. Things should not be that way if its all working as it should. Its just nvidia fanboys that don't realize this. For SLI and Crossfire they shouldnt either, but that is a tougher situation. I don't ever plan to go multiGPU but I still would hope DX12 makes that situation better.

Yes, the nvidia drivers are light weight most of the time. Sometimes they add profiles, sometimes they disable or say not recommended. it's meh.

 

[ManofGod]

Interesting thread. However, I see zero reason to upgrade my R9 290 since I am not playing a 4k resolutions. Besides, if the Nano cards work as predicted, 2 of those would be better anyways. The only thing I do not like at the moment is that the Windows 10 preview drivers do not support VSR. Oh well, it is my job to learn new things and I enjoy doing so.

Edit: I prefer AMD over Nvidia, call me a fanboy if you want but, I spent my own money I what I wanted. It is going to be a long time to come before a new Video Card is even needed since I can now use Ultra Fast Boot.

 

[semitope]

You have defined yourself to a tee.


You might have a point if AMD bothered to try and release drivers in a timely fashion instead of laying the blame elsewhere.
Because of their lack of attention to their customers its hard to establish where things really go wrong for AMD users.

Drivers should come only when things are broken. And they will only come in a timely fashion if possible. AMD released a driver for witcher 3 before nvidia did. Why are you not bashing nvidia for failing their kepler users?

GTA did not require a driver, it worked. PCars is a special case and even that got a driver in good time.

If you are talking about crossfire support. meh.

You like demonstrating how little you know.
Read this thread, post #70
http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1855350&page=4
This is why AMD needs to be involved and working with game devs early on, not bodging it a Month later.

That's just a quote of what I already linked to before.

Drivers are less capable from AMD, see 2)
Thats not considering the basic features that AMD dont seem to be able to fix.

less capable? Like being able to reduce tess factor when nvidia gamers have to just suffer?

Yep, thats your problem, you dont think.
Those that need HDMI 2.0 have to use NVidia.
If you want to know what 4K on TV is about, try educating yourself.
Prove that Async is more important.

Why should i have to prove it's more important? It should be pretty dang obvious it is. 4k TVs using HDMI 2 are more important that variable refresh rates? When most gamers are going to be getting monitors for their PC gaming over TVs. Additionally, I did point out that adapters will be available. In light of that it was far more intelligent for AMD to go DP and not lose the ability to do freesync.

I know for a fact you people would be bashing them if they lacked having enough DP ports just to accommodate HDMI 2 and DVI.

You are an AMD fanboy through and through.
You dont know basic facts yet try and argue against.
You ignore salient points and make rubbish up.
I dont trust you lol.

etc. At least I give reasons for what I think. All you want to do is bash AMD with as many baseless claims as possible. The 4GB one I am on the fence about, but the HDMI 2.0 foolishness is for ratards who probably don't even have HDMI 2.0 TVs to begin with.

 

[Nenu]

Drivers should come only when things are broken. And they will only come in a timely fashion if possible. AMD released a driver for witcher 3 before nvidia did. Why are you not bashing nvidia for failing their kepler users?

GTA did not require a driver, it worked. PCars is a special case and even that got a driver in good time.

If you are talking about crossfire support. meh.

You stated that you quoted the post I did yet you have no idea what it is about.
Games can have serious problems on release when the GPU driver devs are not involved with the game devs.
Thats why NVidia put so much effort into supporting game devs and is why they give a better experience.
Kepler is nothing to do with me.

That's just a quote of what I already linked to before.

Unfortunate that its over your head.

less capable? Like being able to reduce tess factor when nvidia gamers have to just suffer?

Like not being able to run a game properly or with performance problems for way too long.

Why should i have to prove it's more important? It should be pretty dang obvious it is.

Because you stated it as fact without any proof.
If its so dang obvious, you'll have no problem proving it.
Unless you want to be known for making baseless claims?

4k TVs using HDMI 2 are more important that variable refresh rates? When most gamers are going to be getting monitors for their PC gaming over TVs. Additionally, I did point out that adapters will be available. In light of that it was far more intelligent for AMD to go DP and not lose the ability to do freesync.

Check out the Samsung 4K TV thread.
Ask them what is more important.
I am not using Gsync because I am more than happy with 60fps.
I can understand the need for Async on AMD products if they arent getting the performance driver updates

I know for a fact you people would be bashing them if they lacked having enough DP ports just to accommodate HDMI 2 and DVI.

And rightly so.
The idea is to appeal to many user groups, especially those at the peak of display tech that gamers will use.
Nvidia have had products out for a long time with support.
AMD doesnt and the new boards wont either. They goofed badly.

etc. At least I give reasons for what I think. All you want to do is bash AMD with as many baseless claims as possible. The 4GB one I am on the fence about, but the HDMI 2.0 foolishness is for retards who probably don't even have HDMI 2.0 TVs to begin with.

You made rubbish up and still are.
I demonstrated you do in numeroust posts and again in this post.
No need to get abusive when you have been exposed.

 

[MangoSeed]

What? Is that a joke?

That made me chuckle too. Gaming evolved is nowhere near what nVidia is pushing with TWIMTBP/Gameworks.

They should not. It would be like sony constantly patching the PS4 to support certain games. Things should not be that way if its all working as it should..

Can't compare the PS4 to a Windows PC. One is a closed system where every user has identical hardware and software and settings. Very easy to code and optimize for in that situation. The other is a clusterfuck with multiple hardware vendors, multiple generations of hardware, multiple OS versions, user configurable quality settings etc. Driver development must be a nightmare.

DX12 is actually a scary prospect. Even with DirectX managing a lot of the pipeline we still see lots of bugs and issues. Now we're removing the training wheels and giving devs more rope to hang themselves with. Hopefully the likes of iD, Epic and DICE do it right.

 

[semitope]

That made me chuckle too. Gaming evolved is nowhere near what nVidia is pushing with TWIMTBP/Gameworks.

my point with that was in terms of relations with devs. Not pushing closed source tech. If I were to compare with gameworks I would simply say AMD has open source tech that performs better (try using hairworks on a console)

Can't compare the PS4 to a Windows PC. One is a closed system where every user has identical hardware and software and settings. Very easy to code and optimize for in that situation. The other is a clusterfuck with multiple hardware vendors, multiple generations of hardware, multiple OS versions, user configurable quality settings etc. Driver development must be a nightmare.

Common standards was my point. Those standards do not change just like the specs of a console are the same. If you are making a dx11 game properly the hardware vendor that built their hardware for dx11 should not need to hack the game to run better.

DX12 is actually a scary prospect. Even with DirectX managing a lot of the pipeline we still see lots of bugs and issues. Now we're removing the training wheels and giving devs more rope to hang themselves with. Hopefully the likes of iD, Epic and DICE do it right.

They have had the experience developing for consoles

 

[semitope]

And rightly so.
The idea is to appeal to many user groups, especially those at the peak of display tech that gamers will use.
Nvidia have had products out for a long time with support.
AMD doesnt and the new boards wont either. They goofed badly.

and that is not 4K TVs with HDMI 2.0. End of story. The adapters will come and this nitpicking will end.

 

[Nenu]

and that is not 4K TVs with HDMI 2.0. End of story. The adapters will come and this nitpicking will end.

Maybe, maybe not.
They have been promised for a long time and are still not available.
They may push the price of AMD 4K TV gaming beyond reasonable and we dont know what issues it will come with.

Nice to see you have dropped 2 of our discussions now.
Be sure not to make anything up.

 

[razor1]

Common standards was my point. Those standards do not change just like the specs of a console are the same. If you are making a dx11 game properly the hardware vendor that built their hardware for dx11 should not need to hack the game to run better.

They have had the experience developing for consoles

Your general lack of knowledge and inability to actually learn anything is disturbing.

The issue with Dx11 development for different IHV's is because different IHV's have different design elements in their hardware, which will require different drivers, what you seem to have gleamed into from that forum post (the one from the guy that worked on the driver team) is that Dx12 will solve that issue. Unfortunately this isn't what that post was stating. It is talking about all IHV's will have less issues on creating drivers for DX12 because the programmers of the drivers have better checks and balances due to the API. Fundamentally what you are stating is just utterly wrong. Dx12 actually gives the developers more flexibility at the API level for developers. But by doing so it creates some more work for the developers. Flexibility of the API to the end developer (not the driver developer) always comes at the cost.

With Dx9 there were many issues with Dx10 less, DX11 even less, when it came to driver development, that is what the article is stating.

 

[semitope]

Your general lack of knowledge and inability to actually learn anything is disturbing.

The issue with Dx11 development for different IHV's is because different IHV's have different design elements in their hardware, which will require different drivers, what you seem to have gleamed into from that forum post (the one from the guy that worked on the driver team) is that Dx12 will solve that issue. Unfortunately this isn't what that post was stating. It is talking about all IHV's will have less issues on creating drivers for DX12 because the programmers of the drivers have better checks and balances due to the API. Fundamentally what you are stating is just utterly wrong. Dx12 actually gives the developers more flexibility at the API level for developers. But by doing so it creates some more work for the developers. Flexibility of the API to the end developer (not the driver developer) always comes at the cost.

With Dx9 there were many issues with Dx10 less, DX11 even less, when it came to driver development, that is what the article is stating.

All you are doing is misinterpreting then seemingly saying I think GPUs don't need drivers at all. Yes the hardware is different and yes they need drivers. The API is the same, the functions are the same. A properly written game will always work on a GPU that supports the api and has the driver for it. The post clearly stated the reason for the drivers being down to peculiarities in the games and the nature of the API. The hardware itself does not need constant driver updates and should not if all else was fine.

Can't assume devs will do right with dx12 but naturally better coded games and a better used API would mean less need for AMD and nvidia to hack patch games

 

[MangoSeed]

my point with that was in terms of relations with devs. Not pushing closed source tech. If I were to compare with gameworks I would simply say AMD has open source tech that performs better (try using hairworks on a console)

What leads you to think AMD has better devrel?

Common standards was my point. Those standards do not change just like the specs of a console are the same. If you are making a dx11 game properly the hardware vendor that built their hardware for dx11 should not need to hack the game to run better.

They're not hacking the game necessarily. DX11 is just the API but it's the drivers and hardware that do the heavy lifting. It's very possible that a game can submit a sequence of operations that are unique in some way or are just poorly optimized.

Is it possible to code a 'dumb' driver that just blindly does what the game asks it to do? Sure but good luck getting the most out of your hardware that way. Developers aren't going to optimize their pipeline for every combination of OS and hardware in existence. That's the driver's job.

They have had the experience developing for consoles

See my prior post as to why developing on consoles is a bit more straightforward than PC.

 

[Nenu]

You should really shut your mouth. All you are doing is misinterpreting then seemingly saying I think GPUs don't need drivers at all. Yes the hardware is different and yes they need drivers. The API is the same, the functions are the same. A properly written game will always work on a GPU that supports the api and has the driver for it. The post clearly stated the reason for the drivers being down to peculiarities in the games and the nature of the API. The hardware itself does not need constant driver updates and should not if all else was fine.

You still dont get it despite being told directly and you even linked to the salient article yourself without comprehending anything it seems!
His assessment of you is bang on.
Games need driver updates.
You might have noticed this when a game is released, there is a driver released for it.
Sorry, I shouldnt push you too hard, its a lot to take in when you know so much, your head must be overflowing!

 

[razor1]

You should really shut your mouth. All you are doing is misinterpreting then seemingly saying I think GPUs don't need drivers at all. Yes the hardware is different and yes they need drivers. The API is the same, the functions are the same. A properly written game will always work on a GPU that supports the api and has the driver for it. The post clearly stated the reason for the drivers being down to peculiarities in the games and the nature of the API. The hardware itself does not need constant driver updates and should not if all else was fine.

Can't assume devs will do right with dx12 but naturally better coded games and a better used API would mean less need for AMD and nvidia to hack patch games

DX12 fixes a lot of things that made it necessary for AMD and Nvidia to patch games through drivers. have a read:

what is the meaning of this then? That is utter BS, patches will still be required because game developers are not constricted based what the driver teams are constricted by.

excerpt of the post on gamedev I quoted the two entire paragraphs so nothing can be taken out of context.

The first lesson is: Nearly every game ships broken. We're talking major AAA titles from vendors who are everyday names in the industry. In some cases, we're talking about blatant violations of API rules - one D3D9 game never even called BeginFrame/EndFrame. Some are mistakes or oversights - one shipped bad shaders that heavily impacted performance on NV drivers. These things were day to day occurrences that went into a bug tracker. Then somebody would go in, find out what the game screwed up, and patch the driver to deal with it. There are lots of optional patches already in the driver that are simply toggled on or off as per-game settings, and then hacks that are more specific to games - up to and including total replacement of the shipping shaders with custom versions by the driver team. Ever wondered why nearly every major game release is accompanied by a matching driver release from AMD and/or NVIDIA? There you go.

Why are games broken? Because the APIs are complex, and validation varies from decent (D3D 11) to poor (D3D 9) to catastrophic (OpenGL). There are lots of ways to hit slow paths without knowing anything has gone awry, and often the driver writers already know what mistakes you're going to make and are dynamically patching in workarounds for the common cases.

See the highlight in RED, he is saying DX11 already solves many of those issues from previous DX API's, and DX12 will help more when it comes to drivers

The shader core of both nV and AMD cards are different, one is SMM which can do schedule two instructions that are independent from each other, the other is VLIW with scalar, VLIW SIMD (programmers can think of it as scalar for all intensive purposes, because the driver organizes and packs the code). Devs have to hand optimize for each IHV if they want optimal performance for each of IHV's, there is no way around that.

another one of your nonsensical statements

why would that scare me? We have apis and standards for a reason. Only in graphics do we see hardware companies putting out drivers so often. That should change somewhat with dx12. No need to be hacking games with drivers to get them to run right.

This is what I was talking about before, DX12 will not stop driver updates, programmers still have to work with IHV's because they don't have access to driver level code, that is IHV's responsibility. And developers when programming might not no the optimal way things work for the IHV's, its trial and error based on profiling of the program. In many instances it might be a combination of shaders with the program as well not just a single shader.

And yes if I wanted to I can keep going if you like.

Interesting enough, guess what is also in that post lol

The Mantle spec is effectively written by Johan Andersson at DICE

 

[semitope]

What leads you to think AMD has better devrel?

not sure I said it was better. Not bad is what I claim. Or better yet, not "non-existent" like some would like to claim.

They're not hacking the game necessarily. DX11 is just the API but it's the drivers and hardware that do the heavy lifting. It's very possible that a game can submit a sequence of operations that are unique in some way or are just poorly optimized.

unique in some way or poorly optimized wouldn't be down to variation in hardware. I think you are downplaying the crucially important function of the API. A game coded to standard won't need driver updates, this is why so many games just work. Some need driver patches, but the majority do not need it because the API standardizes everything. The driver sits between the game and the hardware, but it does not need to constantly be updated unless the hardware changes or the API changes (Or they need to add some optimizations to get more from API functions). If games are still broken, then sure.

 

[Nenu]

Gets popcorn

 

[RamonGTP]

I'll assume most your issues are due to crossfire then. That I can grant and I know it hurts both nvidia and AMD users again. I see complaints for SLI and crossfire. Hopefully for you guys dx12 will improve it.

It's time you stop assuming, every time you've done that you've gotten it wrong. And I don't doubt you don't run into AMD fan boys, considering you're one of the biggest ones I've seen in recent memory, it would be difficult for you to recognize one.

 

[MangoSeed]

unique in some way or poorly optimized wouldn't be down to variation in hardware. I think you are downplaying the crucially important function of the API. A game coded to standard won't need driver updates, this is why so many games just work. Some need driver patches, but the majority do not need it because the API standardizes everything. The driver sits between the game and the hardware, but it does not need to constantly be updated unless the hardware changes or the API changes (Or they need to add some optimizations to get more from API functions). If games are still broken, then sure.

I think you're speaking to an ideal scenario that does not exist. In the real world games are broken and game specific driver patches are very much needed. This was clearly spelled out in the gamedev.net thread that you posted.

It seems you're saying that drivers won't need to be released so frequently if game developers wrote perfect code. Maybe so but that's obviously a fairytale.

 

[umeng2002]

My only complaint with AMD is their drivers. They have the, "Oh you expected us to support the GPU you bought from us?" mentality.

 

[razor1]

ever since the 9700 series I have never had any serious issues with AMD/ATi drivers outside of crossfire, it took them some time to get them at par with nV's SLi, and this is because SLi was first to market and was planned earlier, I have always thought they were just as good as nV drivers. As of late they have been behind with providing updates, and this might be specific to the launch of their new cards, have to wait and see.

Everyone has their issues with different cards, but end of the day, both camps are pretty close.

0 day drivers on the other hand I have to give it to nV they really push to make sure compatibility is good, and I think AMD is behind on this because they don't have as much funding because of monetary constraints to their dev program, this can't be blamed on nV directly, AMD dug many graves for themselves with poor launch times, and inability to compete one way or the other. When ATi was around, they competed better then AMD is doing now this might be do to the fact that AMD has tied their GPU's and CPU's together, from our perspective they aren't but from a market perspective, this might be happening. Performance wise both camps are fairly equal in almost every generation after the FX from nV and the r600 from ATi. Its just a few important bullet points AMD has been missing, and reviewers have been pointing those bullet points because that's pretty much the difference has been.

 

[durquavian]

My only complaint with AMD is their drivers. They have the, "Oh you expected us to support the GPU you bought from us?" mentality.

You may want to elaborate. I haven't seen any proof of this outside of very old architectures.

 

[misterbobby]

My only complaint with AMD is their drivers. They have the, "Oh you expected us to support the GPU you bought from us?" mentality.

AMD has some crappy drivers and you can end up with more cpu overhead if using an AMD gpu especially with their slow cpus. The results in Dead Rising 3 are just bizarre to say the least.


look how a 290x is much more cpu limited and just shits itself when using lower end cpus


upload gifs


the 780 Ti though is much more playable with the weaker cpus and flies with the i3 and above


image ru

 

[PRIME1]

Nvidia actually makes superior products.

Occam's razor

 

[filip]

Nvidia makes the worst products ever.

 

[semitope]

AMD has some crappy drivers and you can end up with more cpu overhead if using an AMD gpu especially with their slow cpus. The results in Dead Rising 3 are just bizarre to say the least.


look how a 290x is much more cpu limited and just shits itself when using lower end cpus


upload gifs


the 780 Ti though is much more playable with the weaker cpus and flies with the i3 and above


image ru

One game. Most aren't that dramatic from the site. This is also being addressed. Mantle games already showed improvement in this arena (shown on same site). DX12 should be better. I do feel sorry for those using these cards with i3s and below.

http://gamegpu.ru/

Cool site.

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Too bad this info has come to light only recently, as Win10 pretty much solves it. Maybe AMD put special effort into their win10 drivers or its just the os itself.

I think if this news had made a bigger splash a few years ago, amd would have been in bigger trouble.

Digitalfoundry did a few articles about it so far this year. Yes... More than one.

 

[jamesgalb]

As someone said before... nVidias need for special drivers for every major game release is a sign of weakness in the gpu architecture imo...

The weakness shows when the 'next gen' cards get released and you don't have "day one drivers" for your generation... So at the time when your card is a generation behind, it is also without 'day one drivers' for new games (if at all).

AMD cards are better at running things without specialty drivers, and thus their cards hold performance over generations MUCH better...

 

[TaintedSquirrel]

Its far more likely that Nvidia's day one drivers actually do nothing.

 

[Unknown-One]

As someone said before... nVidias need for special drivers for every major game release is a sign of weakness in the gpu architecture imo...

Aren't those generally just for SLI profiles? AMD does something similar for crossfire.

Just the nature of the beast when it comes to multi-GPU, which is why I avoid all multi-GPU solutions from either company.

The weakness shows when the 'next gen' cards get released and you don't have "day one drivers" for your generation... So at the time when your card is a generation behind, it is also without 'day one drivers' for new games (if at all).

Nvidia's game-ready drivers support multiple generations of cards, per the release notes. You aren't SOL just because your card is one or two generations old.

AMD cards are better at running things without specialty drivers, and thus their cards hold performance over generations MUCH better...

That's just conjecture without benchmarks to back-up your claim. I've seen no evidence of this.