hasnt ATi/AMD really benefited from microsoft more?

[Anarchist420]

i am thinking nvidia is good for have been trying to break away from microsoft since the GeForceFX (inclusive). and of course, games won't be using the same fx over and over again with SteamOS, gameworks, and OpenGL... all DX9-11 games looked similar to each other due to all the bloom, DoF, and poor in-game AA (non-TX) quality and the plastic look to them. programmers will be more creative and more happily challenged (hard stuff will be hard again and easy stuff will be easy again). we will probably have less career-exclusive programmers who think they know everything when they really dont. EA will have to get better as they are currently with closed source (DX). they are the faux elite. games may get a little more expensive as will nvidia's hardware, but you wont have to buy as many games anymore because more wont be finished and released.

anyone else agree that nvidia has had plans to break away from microsoft since 2002 or 2003 and to see microsoft reduced?

but with R300 ATi followed microsoft's spec to a tee with little added other than properly rotated grid AA. and the fact that ms hasnt cracked down in regards to implementation (although the MS ref rast looked worse than nv40 and even the Geforce 4Ti 4x00s back in the day but ATi/AMD used to more closely match the MS ref rast if i am not mistaken) seems like that has helped AMD (e.g., AMD's broken tess and more in-game AA).

i dont want to see AMD's employees suffer at all or anything, but i think the EU anti-trust regs have kept AMD as an institution alive for longer than the market would allow while the u.s.g's IP system has kept intel and microsoft larger than their natural size.

let me know how much you agree or disagree.

 

[brandonb]

I believe you have no idea what you are talking about.

But please carry on. That was quite entertaining.

Warning issued for thread crapping.
-- stahlhart

 

[realibrad]

Nvidia will do what it can to make money. AMD will do what it can to make money. Microsoft will do what it can to make money. If Nvidia could make more money by working with microsoft, they would. If AMD could make more money by working Microsoft it would. If Nvidia could make more money working with AMD it would.

Companies are not institutions. Companies are created by people who want to make money. They make products that they think people want, in exchange for money. Consumers buy the products because they believe the product is worth more than another product or even keeping the money. Neither side is selfless.

As for the other stuff you talked about, yeah. I'm not totally sure about the point of the post I guess.

 

[KingFatty]

OP, can you clarify what you mean by "breaking away"?

As an example, what is the scenario of NVidia or AMD breaking away from Microsoft? Is that like my foot trying to break away from my body, thereby killing itself out of desperation to get away from me?

 

[Stuka87]

I have to disagree with DX9 and DX11 games looking similar. There are huge differences between the two.

With that said, I really have no idea what your point is? AMD has in no way said they are going to stop supporting DirectX.

 

[Anarchist420]

Nvidia will do what it can to make money. AMD will do what it can to make money. Microsoft will do what it can to make money. If Nvidia could make more money by working with microsoft, they would. If AMD could make more money by working Microsoft it would. If Nvidia could make more money working with AMD it would.

you are right. but nvidia may have thought they could make a better product if microsoft windows wasnt on almost every desktop.

Companies are created by people who want to make money.

they dont always want to make money.

OP, can you clarify what you mean by "breaking away"? As an example, what is the scenario of NVidia or AMD breaking away from Microsoft? Is that like my foot trying to break away from my body, thereby killing itself out of desperation to get away from me?

i meant not attempting to be DX compliant with the latest version in the hopes that they could join forces with a maker of operating systems not made by microsoft.

I believe you have no idea what you are talking about. But please carry on. That was quite entertaining.

i am sorry about your warning.

 

[Anarchist420]

I have to disagree with DX9 and DX11 games looking similar. There are huge differences between the two.

sorry about that. i meant DX 9 and DX 11 games dont look as good as opengl games probably would have... example HL2 only used the newest shader version, havok physics, and had neat looking water while new tech was created for doom 3 and it used per pixel lighting, better shadows, and a better bump mapping tech than had been used before.

doom 3 had excellent graphics techwise especially given that it implemented new features so well and half or so fragment shader precision.

 

[3DVagabond]

you are right. but nvidia may have thought they could make a better product if microsoft windows wasnt on almost every desktop.

How would not having one operating system make a better product? They are going to have to support Windows, at least for the foreseeable future anyway.

they dont always want to make money.

In the instances of the companies involved in the topic they most assuredly are in it to make money. They don't have to go about it the same way, of course. AMD has pushed for open standards far more than M$, Intel, or nVidia. While I'm sure that they believe that's the best way for the industry to go, I'm also just as sure that it's the way they see to make the most money for themselves in the long run.

i meant not attempting to be DX compliant with the latest version in the hopes that they could join forces with a maker of operating systems not made by microsoft.

Any idea who this may be? It would have to be a company that has the ability to supplant Windows on the PC in the near future for it to be a sound business plan to cut off DX.



I believe that it's more than likely they don't see certain features as immediately profitable, so they ignore them. AMD tends to want to be able to market themselves as being ahead of the curve tech wise. They typically are first to adopt the latest DX and first to manufacture on a new node. This can be a bit of a double edged sword though as they don't wait for all the kinks to be sorted and sometimes suffer stability issues (immature drivers?) or limit their designs (smaller chips with more redundancy to deal with early fab processes?) with these first to market efforts.

 

[kurosenpai]

im sorry when you say company doesnt always want to make money, i havd to disagree. people build company because they want to create business. rule no 1 in business, profit.

 

[Red Hawk]

I don't think they've benefited more. With the FX series Nvidia tried doing its own thing IIRC, but they quickly backed down from it and haven't done such a thing since. If anything, Nvidia is getting more out of DirectX 11 nowadays and AMD is trying to "break away" from dependence on Microsoft with Mantle.

Also, how did you get "EA will have to get better" out of all this? What does graphics technology have to do with game design standards and business practices?

 

[NTMBK]

What the hell does antitrust laws or IP have to do with this?

 

[BFG10K]

they dont always want to make money.

Such a situation is classified as a charity, not as a company/business.

 

[Anarchist420]

Such a situation is classified as a charity, not as a company/business.

sorry.

you are right, but i meant companies that dont have a charity or philanthropy division. Whole Foods, for example, claims to give a min of 5% in non-taxes back to the area they are in. maybe it just goes to wealthy people or maybe i dont know what i am talking about. not your fault though

What the hell does antitrust laws or IP have to do with this?

without attempts at intellectual monopolization, fewer institutions would have layers and layers of management, lawyers, and lobbyists. market-based division of thought would encourage more production by employees currently receiving above market comp and wiser spending and investment by employees now receiving below market comp. if IP was repealed there would be more signals. anti-trust laws may have allowed AMD to not make the very best or helped them raise prices above market levels or allowed them to pay their management more or other things my miniscule prefrontals cant precisely identify. the legislated regs in europe may have allowed or even encouraged microsoft and other parties like retailers or customers to not come up with their own solutions to all the defective xbox360s made.

 

[Rezist]

I was under the impression that the FX series was designed because nVidia felt the market would stick with DX8. ATi went with a more DX9 design. Both of which don't matter now because the designs have moved on.

 

[loccothan]

We have to wait and see about a year or so, then we will know the Mantle , DX11.2 and 11.3 situation. Next-Gen will be hudge for AMD and co-work with MS is crucial i think

 

[Red Hawk]

We have to wait and see about a year or so, then we will know the Mantle , DX11.2 and 11.3 situation. Next-Gen will be hudge for AMD and co-work with MS is crucial i think

Has a DirectX 11.3 been announced? In any case, Direct X 11.2 is probably going to be what developers stick with, because that is the feature set that the new current gen gaming consoles are compatible with, much like the PS3 and 360 were compatible with up to DirectX 9.0c. Microsoft may release a a DirectX 12 somewhere down the line, and a handful of cutting edge studios will implement it, but most won't.

 

[nenforcer]

Nvidia will do what it can to make money. AMD will do what it can to make money. Microsoft will do what it can to make money. If Nvidia could make more money by working with microsoft, they would. If AMD could make more money by working Microsoft it would. If Nvidia could make more money working with AMD it would.

nVidia / Microsoft had a bit of a falling out after the design / manufacture of the original XBOX in 2001.

Microsoft signed a contract with nVidia, who designed the chipset & GPU, and had to pay nVidia a fixed price for the entire life of the XBOX. So even after manufacturing improvements and node shrinkage there was no cost reduction for Microsoft who was paying around $35 to nVidia for every XBOX sold, believe. (Even after the price of the console was reduced).

That is one reason they were so quick to abandon the original XBOX and were first to market the XBOX 360 a year ahead of the PS3 launch.

Both of Microsoft's consoles have had ATI / AMD GPU's since then and Microsoft has owned all of the IP and therefore put more money in its pockets as the costs shrunk.

 

[Cerb]

you are right. but nvidia may have thought they could make a better product if microsoft windows wasnt on almost every desktop.

That's likely true, if you don't have programs that need to use hardware and software that's available. Working in Windows, or OS X, or Android, or Linux, is all compromises, for nV and AMD, as a means to give users something they will pay for. Users don't want to be stuck with one hardware maker, so said hardware maker can't go tailoring everything just for themselves, at least not in the long run.

they dont always want to make money.

Yes, they do. That's what businesses have to do to get by, unless they can get sufficient government assistance.

i meant not attempting to be DX compliant with the latest version in the hopes that they could join forces with a maker of operating systems not made by microsoft.

Yeah, but back to the money thing. Why would they do that? The programs are all on Windows, already, and being developed for Windows. So, Windows is what they need to support. I hope for SteamOS' success and all, but nV nor AMD have any real choice in such matters.

sorry about that. i meant DX 9 and DX 11 games dont look as good as opengl games probably would have...

Sure they do. The same feature sets are there, and have been for years. OpenGL is better in some areas, worse in some others, and always behind, at any given time. I don't think blaming devs going console is far fetched (say it in your head like, "going retard"), but D3D v. OpenGL had nothing to do with it. It took until they finally started breaking away from the limited consoles, and actually focusing on the PC platform again, to start making engines and games that look better than older ones.

OpenGL, for example, was used for Rage, with its horrible texture pop-in, and pre-baked lighting (it was everything "next gen" should not have been). Meanwhile, DX11 was used for Battlefield 3, which finally showed an engine that could offer some outdoor parity that awesome lighting of Doom 3 (which was pretty much confined to tunnel shooter setups). Similarly average game, but very good looking, on the PC. It's now getting better at a steady pace, all-around.

P.S. DEATH TO BLOOM!!! DEATH to DoF!!! And grrr at bad HDR tricks. Nothing like having to hunt for mods or hacks just to turn that crap off, when the devs don't offer the option--and I pity the poor console players stuck with that crap everywhere in every scene. Well, I don't pity the console players, actually, but if I were to pity anyone, it would be them, because of that .

 

[Anarchist420]

I was under the impression that the FX series was designed because nVidia felt the market would stick with DX8. ATi went with a more DX9 design. Both of which don't matter now because the designs have moved on.

thank you for your reply perhaps the fact that windows continued to be the dominant operating system had something to do with why it hasnt mattered since. nvidia could've done a much better job with the Geforce FX (actually all their processors before G80 left a lot to be desired during their life cycles) and they probably did keep too many old DX8 features i guess because of the xbox. they could have replaced them with substitutes while adding better new features (8 full speed full precision fixed and float pixel shaders would've meant lower clock speeds but it would've been worth it).

Yeah, but back to the money thing. Why would they do that? The programs are all on Windows, already, and being developed for Windows. So, Windows is what they need to support. I hope for SteamOS' success and all, but nV nor AMD have any real choice in such matters.

thank you for such polite replies. perhaps they would do that because of SteamOS and the fact that maybe SteamOS can use something to wrap DX/Windows games into OpenGL.

Sure they do. The same feature sets are there, and have been for years. OpenGL is better in some areas, worse in some others, and always behind, at any given time. I don't think blaming devs going console is far fetched (say it in your head like, "going retard"), but D3D v. OpenGL had nothing to do with it. It took until they finally started breaking away from the limited consoles, and actually focusing on the PC platform again, to start making engines and games that look better than older ones. OpenGL, for example, was used for Rage, with its horrible texture pop-in, and pre-baked lighting (it was everything "next gen" should not have been). Meanwhile, DX11 was used for Battlefield 3, which finally showed an engine that could offer some outdoor parity that awesome lighting of Doom 3 (which was pretty much confined to tunnel shooter setups). Similarly average game, but very good looking, on the PC. It's now getting better at a steady pace, all-around.

forgive me if i say it again i thought openGL could whatever the IHVs put in the GPUs and drivers while DX9.0c games had to be limited to partial precision z-buffers (while OpenGL games could've if the IHV had added support) and couldnt use logic blending like OpenGL could. is that wrong? just wondering.

P.S. DEATH TO BLOOM!!! DEATH to DoF!!! And grrr at bad HDR tricks. Nothing like having to hunt for mods or hacks just to turn that crap off, when the devs don't offer the option--and I pity the poor console players stuck with that crap everywhere in every scene. Well, I don't pity the console players, actually, but if I were to pity anyone, it would be them, because of that .

i dont pity them a whole lot either because they dont worry about graphics like pc gamers are more likely to. in fact, i am happy for console-only gamers because they arent as likely as pc-only gamers to be as bothered by aliasing or rendering artifacts such as banding.