AMD V Nvidia by Richard Huddy

[Nemesis 1]

And what's wrong with NV throwing money at developers to sell hardware? AMD is doing the same thing too. If you want something done, you put out money. That's how it's always been.

So when intel starts throwing millions at game developers . Your story will stay the same . Book marked.

 

[apoppin]

I own the game, Is there patch or something. It just tells me to use CCC.

You must have the GotY edition of Batman: Arkham Asylum.

My site broke this news a couple of months ago, that NO ONE paid attention to the AMD reviewer's guide which pointed this out just after the GotY was released. The Dev in the special edition has implemented MSAA for Radeons in game.

So when intel starts throwing millions at game developers . Your story will stay the same

ATi has thrown millions at game developers. $5 million to the HL2 devs, if i remember correctly.
--They just ran out of money.


--just checking in. i'm back to benching a couple of new cards.
C-ya!

 

[cusideabelincoln]

just checking in. i'm back to benching a couple of new cards.
C-ya!

Hmmm, what new cards would those be???

 

[BFG10K]

Hmmm, what new cards would those be???

I think you and I both know the answer to that.

 

[Barfo]

You must have the GotY edition of Batman: Arkham Asylum.

My site broke this news a couple of months ago, that NO ONE paid attention to the AMD reviewer's guide which pointed this out just after the GotY was released. The Dev in the special edition has implemented MSAA for Radeons in game.

So those of us with the normal version are effed, great

--just checking in. i'm back to benching a couple of new cards.
C-ya!

I hate you

 

[Madcatatlas]

So those of us with the normal version are effed, great




I hate you

haha me too!

looking forward to checking your review out apoppin/BFG10K

 

[Skurge]

So those of us with the normal version are effed, great

Seriously, they couldn't put it in a patch.

 

[Seero]

“Batman used a deferred rendering engine. That creates a special situation for applying anti aliasing. There are well known ways of doing it and, as luck would have it, there is a vanilla implementation that works equally well on AMD and nVidia graphics hardware. Let me be clear, this method is well known, works well on AMD and nVidia cards and there is a minimum impact on performance for the customers who have bought the game”.

Anyone here know what that "well-known" method is? Can anyone link a technical site which defines this "well-known" method to apply AA on Dx9 code that uses deferred rendering engine? Games like Starcraft 2, which is released by blizzard, doesn't seems to know this "well-known" method. Well diablo 3 use this "well-known" method?

Also, can anyone explain what is the meaning of "minimum impact"? Does it mean there is an significant impact? or does it mean the impact is minimal?

 

[Attic]

Anyone here know what that "well-known" method is? Can anyone link a technical site which defines this "well-known" method to apply AA on Dx9 code that uses deferred rendering engine? Games like Starcraft 2, which is released by blizzard, doesn't seems to know this "well-known" method. Well diablo 3 use this "well-known" method?

Also, can anyone explain what is the meaning of "minimum impact"? Does it mean there is an significant impact? or does it mean the impact is minimal?

Bench the game with AA on vs off or find a bench?

Starcraft II doesn't use the unreal engine, Batman does. The well known method likely refers to the soutions for AA in the other Unreal Engine titles.

 

[SirPauly]

My site broke this news a couple of months ago, that NO ONE paid attention to the AMD reviewer's guide which pointed this out just after the GotY was released. The Dev in the special edition has implemented MSAA for Radeons in game.

Imho,

It was nice to see. What I never understood though is because of ATI's pro-active nature many could enjoy AA with Batman if this was important. Granted, in-game offers more performance, which is nice, but would of understood this much more if there was no way of forcing AA. What this boiled down to was reasons to cast shadows and judgments and PR did take advantage of this to create and fuel division, which was fair though to me. There was a lot of grey with nVidia's decision - some good and some bad, one may imagine.

ATi has thrown millions at game developers. $5 million to the HL2 devs, if i remember correctly.

Investing into developers for your customers is a fantastic thing. There is nothing wrong with this. Don't understand how some believe this is a bad thing. Still enjoy the fruits of this with my old 9700 Pro purchase based on a free Half-life 2 ( which was delayed and also gave me all the Half-lifes and expansions for free based on its delay.)

 

[3DVagabond]

ATi has thrown millions at game developers. $5 million to the HL2 devs, if i remember correctly.
--They just ran out of money.


C-ya!

And they implemented all kinds of ATI only features too?

 

[dust]

Imho,

Investing into developers for your customers is a fantastic thing. There is nothing wrong with this. Don't understand how some believe this is a bad thing. Still enjoy the fruits of this with my old 9700 Pro purchase based on a free Half-life 2 ( which was delayed and also gave me all the Half-lifes and expansions for free based on its delay.)

I guess there's nothing wrong with the petroleum companies to invest hundreds of millions into researching alternative fuels at various universities when the results are obviously lame. Makes you wonder if that money isn't actually buying this specific result.

 

[Blitzvogel]

This interview sure has been floating around in a number of forums I frequent lately. Beyond3D, Notebookreview, Gamespot........it's crazy, but it really does give us some insight.

 

[Idontcare]

I guess there's nothing wrong with the petroleum companies to invest hundreds of millions into researching alternative fuels at various universities when the results are obviously lame. Makes you wonder if that money isn't actually buying this specific result.

If you've ever been involved in university research then you know the primary product from the research is not the project's conclusion itself but rather the development of able-minded individuals who can subsequently join the professional workforce and carry out world-impacting R&D that occurs en masse in the commercial sector.

I've been on both sides of that fence, benefactor and beneficiary. If you get something ground-breaking out of the effort then that is just gravy and about the only people who don't realize that are the wide-eyed students themselves who tend to come pre-convinced that their dissertation efforts are going to result in curing cancer or ending war or solving the energy crisis (guilty as charged on this one).

I only say this to make the point that I wouldn't begrudge one penny of university spending from big oil or big pharma or DoD. Those same dollars spent internally would net them far more tangible value and yet they still elect to share some of that wealth to fund a few starving graduate students.

The results might be lame but the students will grow up to do stuff tomorrow and next year that might not be so lame after all.

 

[dust]

If you've ever been involved in university research then you know the primary product from the research is not the project's conclusion itself but rather the development of able-minded individuals who can subsequently join the professional workforce and carry out world-impacting R&D that occurs en masse in the commercial sector.

I've been on both sides of that fence, benefactor and beneficiary. If you get something ground-breaking out of the effort then that is just gravy and about the only people who don't realize that are the wide-eyed students themselves who tend to come pre-convinced that their dissertation efforts are going to result in curing cancer or ending war or solving the energy crisis (guilty as charged on this one).

I only say this to make the point that I wouldn't begrudge one penny of university spending from big oil or big pharma or DoD. Those same dollars spent internally would net them far more tangible value and yet they still elect to share some of that wealth to fund a few starving graduate students.

The results might be lame but the students will grow up to do stuff tomorrow and next year that might not be so lame after all.

The results I speak aren't lame per se, there have been results with the hydrogen already, the point was the research will never finish, at least not for a very long time. No one denies the dedication of various scientists, it's just the funding committee behind them that's questionable IMO. Same as the politicians who always seem to support the hand that feeds them .

Sorry for going off topic

 

[thilanliyan]

I only say this to make the point that I wouldn't begrudge one penny of university spending from big oil or big pharma or DoD. Those same dollars spent internally would net them far more tangible value and yet they still elect to share some of that wealth to fund a few starving graduate students.

The results might be lame but the students will grow up to do stuff tomorrow and next year that might not be so lame after all.

Totally agree.

 

[3DVagabond]

I only say this to make the point that I wouldn't begrudge one penny of university spending from big oil or big pharma or DoD.

OMG! You actually equate the DoD to big oil and big pharmaceuticals?

 

[Rezident]

I want physics in Crysis 2 like I did in Crysis 1, and I want them to cost me nothing in performance like they did in Crysis 1, not cut my framerate in half.

If NV sticks to making the game deliver better framerates and perform better, that's great, if they try and influence it into being bloated up with features that kill performance to sell more cards, that's terrible.

Which segways into the opinion given in this interview. Are they contributing to Crysis 2 to make the game better for gamers, or to make themselves more money to the detriment of gamers.

+1

 

[PingviN]

Interesting.

The most interesting thing in there I didn't know was nvidia paid Crytek $2 million to have the rights to Crysis 2 and put their logo in there etc.

That could be good or bad. Bad if they manage to pollute Crysis 2 with gpu physx, good if they just stick to making it render faster on their hardware. The last thing what is expected to be the next gpu killing game needs is a bloated feature like gpu physx driving its performance into the ground.

Hopefully they don't get their physx in there. Crytek did really well with their own physics implementation in the first Crysis, hope they stick to that with the second.

Crytek already has a great physics engine implemented in CryEngine. I seriously doubt they would throw that away and replace with PhysX. Nvidia probably paid to be able to slap their logo wherever they could. I hope Crytek have integrety enough not to tarnish their excellent engine with PhysX or other Nvidia IP features.

 

[Dribble]

Unfortunately with nVidia dropping 2 mil on Crysis 2 it is a given that Physx is going to be demanding and likely achieved in this game. This is bad for the reasons stated above.

To me this is mostly likely to mean you'll get a free copy of crysis 2 if you buy a high end nvidia gpu and it'll be very well debugged/optimised for nvidia cards.

Same as happened when ati paid for HL2 - what they paid for was a large number of copies of that game which they could give out free to 9700 purchasers.

 

[Lonyo]

And they implemented all kinds of ATI only features too?

Well, ATI had the only GPUs that could run DX9 at decent speed, but they spend a lot of time making it work at some level on NV GPUs (since they were terrible for it).

http://www.anandtech.com/show/1144/3

 

[Idontcare]

OMG! You actually equate the DoD to big oil and big pharmaceuticals?

Was the context lost in translation?

 

[Martimus]

Was the context lost in translation?

I think he believes that Oil and Pharmaceutical companies give grants for research to universities in order to have the appearance of trying to advance things that they don't want advanced. The DoD doesn't appear to have any reason to do the same.

I believe both of you are partially correct. It is both good PR for the companies involved, and also helps develop better engineers and researchers for the company (without needing to have them directly employed, so that if they do not prove to be worth hiring the company doesn't have any additional burden tied to the researcher.)

I won't go any further into my thoughts on this, but feel free to PM me about specifics.

 

[SirPauly]

I guess there's nothing wrong with the petroleum companies to invest hundreds of millions into researching alternative fuels at various universities when the results are obviously lame. Makes you wonder if that money isn't actually buying this specific result.

If you desire to play the "makes you wonder" game there is not much I can say. The key for me is the investments in developer relations for both IHV's are very important for PC gaming as a whole.

 

[Scali]

Crysis 2 will be crippled by being a console game as well, so it will be nothing near the benchmarking game of Crysis 1. It might be like MW2...

No, Crysis has an extremely scalable engine. The PC version will be much like the current versions of Crysis, and the console versions will have lower quality.