AMD, NVIDIA, and Developers Weigh In On GameWorks Controversy

Dputiger writes: "Since NVIDIA debuted its GameWorks libraries there's been allegations that they unfairly disadvantaged AMD users or prevented developers from optimizing code. We've taken these questions to developers themselves and asked them to weigh in on how games get optimized, why NVIDIA built this program, and whether its an attempt to harm AMD customers. 'The first thing to understand about [developer/GPU manufacturer] relations is that the process of game optimization is nuanced and complex. The reason AMD and NVIDIA are taking different positions on this topic isn't because one of them is lying, it’s because AMD genuinely tends to focus more on helping developers optimize their own engines, while NVIDIA puts more effort into performing tasks in-driver. This is a difference of degree — AMD absolutely can perform its own driver-side optimization and NVIDIA's Tony Tamasi acknowledged on the phone that there are some bugs that can only be fixed by looking at the source. ... Some of this difference in approach is cultural but much of it is driven by necessity. In 2012 (the last year before AMD's graphics revenue was rolled into the console business), AMD made about $1.4 billion off the Radeon division. For the same period, NVIDIA made more than $4.2 billion. Some of that was Tegra-related and it's a testament to AMD's hardware engineering that it competes effectively with Nvidia with a much smaller revenue share, but it also means that Team Green has far more money to spend on optimizing every aspect of the driver stack.'"

Comments

Avoi9ding to answer

[citizenr]

Nvidia PAYS for removal of features that work better on AMD

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/h...

Nvidia pays for insertion of USELESS features that work faster on their hardware

http://techreport.com/review/2...

Nvidia cripples their own middleware to disadwantage competitors

http://arstechnica.com/gaming/...

Intel did the same, but FTC put a stop to it
http://www.osnews.com/story/22...

so how exactly is that not Nvidias doing??

Nvidia is evil and plays dirty. They dont want your games to be good, they want them to be fast on Nvidia, any means necessary. They use "means to be played" program to lure developers in, pay them off and hijack their games to further nvidias goal.

For example how come Watch Dogs, a console title build from the grounds up with AMD GPU/CPU optimizations to run good on both current gen consoles, is crippled on PC when played on AMD hardware? How does this shit happen?

This is something FTC should weight in just like in Intels case.

Re:Likely a faulty chair to keyborad interface.

[drinkypoo]

Sounds to me like you are using a 1990's card too, AFAIK "catalyst" is no longer supported and it's certainly not bundled with recent cards.

Not only is CCC still a thing, a bug-ridden piece of shit thing which can cause systems to crater and which amounts to 150MB for a preferences GUI, but ATI abandons cards much, much more quickly than does nVidia. Indeed, when I bought my last ATI-graphics product new in the store (so old it's a R690M-based subnotebook) it was all of the following things:

• Never getting another/newer official graphics driver for any OS
• Unsupported by fglrx as being "too old" and unsupported by the OSS ati driver as being "too new"

That right, it was not just obsoleted but abandoned while it was still being sold.

The nvidia driver is enormous because one download supports cards practically back to the time of Methuselah. It hasn't really been that long since they finally abandoned support for literally their oldest cards. AMD abandons them while they're still on store shelves. I don't care if it's because they're spread too thin, or just because they're assholes, or because the heavens conspire against them. It just doesn't make sense to use their graphics cards. You seem to have noticed this, as you have an nVidia card.