NV: Everything under control. 512-Fermi may appear someday. Yields aren't under 20%

[Creig]

My memory must not be that great. I thought there was a story just a couple of months ago where EIDOS admitted they put the ID check in there. I dont have the time or effort to search for it. So Ill take this as proof that is not the case.

But this really sounds like a case of he said she said. The only thing I can take from that is AMD simply didnt step upto the plate. The legal dept interjecting themselves is SOP. They dont want EIDOS sued over changing code. I retract my statement the developer put the ID check in there. So we are back to the problem of AMD not offering up enough support and doing the wait and see approach.

If this is truely how it went down I honestly dont have a problem with it. AMD didnt do anything for their customers, Nvidia did, thus Nvidia customers get a value add. It isnt like Nvidia changed the game engine and prevented something that is native to the platform from working on AMD hardware. Maybe AMD should get off their ass and write a routine for this engine and be done with it, and stop playing the victim.

So you're saying that you approve of companies that lock out features so that they don't work on their competitors products? One thing PCs have going for them is interoperability. You didn't have to worry if you had an AMD video card, Nvidia video card, Matrox video card, etc. As long as the card supported the games features, it would display them. But now Nvidia is trying to destroy that for some short term gain. Yes, it sounds SO much better to have to check the game box to see which features will be shown on which brand of video card instead of just buying the game, installing it and playing it.

So apparently you would be okay with AMD shutting out all Nvidia products from the DX11 content they've been assisting developers with? After all, that's what Nvidia did and you seem fine with it. Nvidia didn't write the UE3 game engine, they just helped with the AA coding. AMD isn't writing the DX11 game engines, they're just helping with the coding.

All this is doing is fracturing an already struggling PC gaming industry. Nvidia needs to grow up and learn to play nice with others.

 

[railven]

I dont know how the code is actually written. But regardless if they tried to make it their own, they provided it did they not? If it was so generic what stopped ATI from doing the same? According to the article EIDOS approached both hardware vendors seeking their help. ATI didnt provide anything, Nvidia did. And to this day has ATI bothered to provide code to fix this situation or instead are they relying on EIDOS to remove the ID lock which Nvidia apparently has granted months ago?

It all boils down to the developers here. The ones most likely paid by nVidia and thus have the final say.

I doubt ATI can release a patch for a game they didn't make, they could hotfix it but changing vendor IDs might be illegal (iPod vs Palm was it?) and I'm sure ATI doesn't want that.

Rocksteady said they'd fix it, they haven't. But, in the end Rocksteady got paid by nVidia (incentives/assistances/money), so the reasons, to me, are obvious why they won't change it.

The cliche - "you don't bite the hand that feeds you" comes to mind.

 

[Genx87]

So you're saying that you approve of companies that lock out features so that they don't work on their competitors products? One thing PCs have going for them is interoperability. You didn't have to worry if you had an AMD video card, Nvidia video card, Matrox video card, etc. As long as the card supported the games features, it would display them. But now Nvidia is trying to destroy that for some short term gain. Yes, it sounds SO much better to have to check the game box to see which features will be shown on which brand of video card instead of just buying the game, installing it and playing it.

So apparently you would be okay with AMD shutting out all Nvidia products from the DX11 content they've been assisting developers with? After all, that's what Nvidia did and you seem fine with it. Nvidia didn't write the UE3 game engine, they just helped with the AA coding. AMD isn't writing the DX11 game engines, they're just helping with the coding.

All this is doing is fracturing an already struggling PC gaming industry. Nvidia needs to grow up and learn to play nice with others.

If Nvidia didnt write this code would ATI users be able to have in game AA? If so then Nvidia is in the wrong, if not them it is an enhancement provided for Nvidia customers by Nvidia. From what I can tell AA for a DX10 path was not a game engine feature available. So how can Nvidia lock ATI users out of a non-existent game feature?

 

[Creig]

If Nvidia didnt write this code would ATI users be able to have in game AA? If so then Nvidia is in the wrong, if not them it is an enhancement provided for Nvidia customers by Nvidia. From what I can tell AA for a DX10 path was not a game engine feature available. So how can Nvidia lock ATI users out of a non-existent game feature?

Has AMD provided coding/assistance to gaming companies that has directly benefited Nvidia users as well? Look at DX10.1. You know, like Battleforge, H.A.W.K, Stalker - Clear Sky, etc. I'm pretty certain that Nvidia didn't put forth any effort to those titles since they didn't have any DX10.1 capable hardware at the time. And yet Nvidia users have free access to the DX10.1 content.

As one might expect AMD engineers are available to lend a hand with coding and optimization, too. In what may have been a back-handed reference to the competition, Huddy claimed AMD is focused on making games better for anyone who plays them, regardless of whether they're running a Radeon.

Huddy pointed to S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky as one example of the company's efforts to improve everyone's gaming experience. At first, the game's deferred rendering engine didn't get along with multisampled antialiasing, he said. AMD developed a fix that required DirectX 10.1-compatible graphics cards, which only it offered at the time. Rather than restricting its MSAA fix to DirectX 10.1, AMD came up with another workaround for DirectX 10, which then-current GeForces did support. Both approaches were submitted to Clear Sky developer GSC Game World.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18620

Don't you think that's a better approach for us, the gamers, than what Nvidia did with Batman:AA?

"We believe in open standards and execution" said Huddy, maintaining "locking-in is not something we've ever done, no code is locked to our hardware."

 

[evolucion8]

GenX87, please, most people here posted stuff that proved you wrong and yet you are still defending nVidia's anti competitive practices. Can't you see that such actions affects negatively the PC gaming ecosystem overall? ATi created 3dc, Gather4 and Truform aka Tessellation and you never saw them shovering them up in our throats, sooner or later, good technologies created by any vendor will be incorporated in next revision of DirectX, not locked by a single vendor like nVidia is doing currently. Your fanboyism is sickening.

 

[Genx87]

Has AMD provided coding/assistance to gaming companies that has directly benefited Nvidia users as well? Look at DX10.1. You know, like Battleforge, H.A.W.K, Stalker - Clear Sky, etc. I'm pretty certain that Nvidia didn't put forth any effort to those titles since they didn't have any DX10.1 capable hardware at the time. And yet Nvidia users have free access to the DX10.1 content.

http://techreport.com/articles.x/18620

Don't you think that's a better approach for us, the gamers, than what Nvidia did with Batman:AA?

Ideally I agree having the code available to all vendors is the best. However I dont think it is the end of the world if one of the vendors were to add enchancements to a game that only work on their cards.

 

[Genx87]

GenX87, please, most people here posted stuff that proved you wrong and yet you are still defending nVidia's anti competitive practices. Can't you see that such actions affects negatively the PC gaming ecosystem overall? ATi created 3dc, Gather4 and Truform aka Tessellation and you never saw them shovering them up in our throats, sooner or later, good technologies created by any vendor will be incorporated in next revision of DirectX, not locked by a single vendor like nVidia is doing currently. Your fanboyism is sickening.

What are you talking about? I already admitted my recollection of who put the vendor ID check in was wrong. Now we are discussing whether vendors putting in game enancements that go above and beyond what is provided for within the game engine is a good or bad thing if they lock out the other vendor.

 

[Creig]

Ideally I agree having the code available to all vendors is the best. However I dont think it is the end of the world if one of the vendors were to add enchancements to a game that only work on their cards.

I'm not saying it's the end of the world. All I'm saying that I approve of AMD's philosophy that it is better to allow everybody access to game improvements rather than nVidia's attitude that says because they helped implement a feature, they then have the right to lock out anybody else from using it.

Wouldn't you agree that AMD's viewpoint is better for us than nVidia's? If so, then you should be criticizing nVidia for their actions instead of trying to defend them.

 

[Genx87]

I'm not saying it's the end of the world. All I'm saying that I approve of AMD's philosophy that it is better to allow everybody access to game improvements rather than nVidia's attitude that says because they helped implement a feature, they then have the right to lock out anybody else from using it.

Wouldn't you agree that AMD's viewpoint is better for us than nVidia's? If so, then you should be criticizing nVidia for their actions instead of trying to defend them.

I already agreed with you ideally that is better. But at the same time I dont have a problem if one of the vendors goes above and beyond what is within the game engine and provides a value add for their customers.

 

[Creig]

I already agreed with you ideally that is better. But at the same time I dont have a problem if one of the vendors goes above and beyond what is within the game engine and provides a value add for their customers.

So you wouldn't see anything wrong with AMD locking out nVidia users from DX11 content that they've been assisting developers with?

To make AMD's case, Robison pointed to the quick adoption of DirectX 11, which is now supported by a number of big-name titles, including DiRT 2, Aliens vs. Predator, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Metro: 2033, BattleForge and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat. That's an impressive list, especially considering that the first DirectX 11-compliant Radeon launched just six months ago. Convincing developers to take advantage of the latest major DirectX release might seem like an easy sell, but AMD surely deserves some credit for getting so many titles to support the standard so quickly.

I would most certainly have a problem with that even though I don't currently game with an nVidia card. My next card might be nVidia and I don't want to have to worry about which games I own will have graphics missing just because I decided to change card vendors.

 

[Genx87]

So you wouldn't see anything wrong with AMD locking out nVidia users from DX11 content that they've been assisting developers with?

If it was for a feature not provided for within the game engine correct.

 

[Creig]

If it was for a feature not provided for within the game engine correct.

But if AMD hadn't assisted the developer, some of those features might not have been included in the first place. So therefore, according to you, AMD should have the right to deny nVidia users the ability to see those graphical improvements.

 

[badb0y]

If it was for a feature not provided for within the game engine correct.

FYI, nVidia didn't make the engine, they added a functionality that both GPU vendors can use and than slapped a vendor ID check.

If you think this is okay, you can't even begin to imagine the massive shitstorm that would culminate if both ATi and nVidia make this a common practice....

 

[Genx87]

But if AMD hadn't assisted the developer, some of those features might not have been included in the first place. So therefore, according to you, AMD should have the right to deny nVidia users the ability to see those graphical improvements.

Well that would be above and beyond the game engine correct?

 

[Creig]

Well that would be above and beyond the game engine correct?

Why does it have to be a feature "above and beyond the game engine"? If AMD devotes money and programmers to assist game developers with DX11 features within the game engine, shouldn't they have the right to say who is allowed to view those enhancements?

A graphical feature is a graphical feature. It doesn't matter if it's in the game engine or tacked on later. Money and time was expended to assist in its development. If AMD hadn't put forth the effort, those DX10.1 and DX11 enhancements might never have made it to the games at all. The same as the MSAA in Batman:AA. Except that AMD isn't blocking anyone from accessing them.

 

[badb0y]

Arguing with Gen87 is like arguing with a mule.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh33bGAxl58

 

[Keysplayr]

Agree to disagree for chrissakes

 

[NIGELG]

Arguing with Gen87 is like arguing with a mule.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh33bGAxl58

That's hilarious......but this topic has been beaten to death already.

 

[thilanliyan]

Arguing with Gen87 is like arguing with a mule.

See: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nh33bGAxl58

Lol, don't remember seeing that clip before.

 

[ronnn]

lots of fermi at ncix so assume the shortage is over. So is this thread.

 

[A_Dying_Wren]

I already agreed with you ideally that is better. But at the same time I dont have a problem if one of the vendors goes above and beyond what is within the game engine and provides a value add for their customers.

I fully understand where you're coming from with your argument of the fruits of Nvidia's labors should be going to only Nvidia customers. But, assuming you don't work for Nvidia, own Nvidia shares or whatever, why on earth as a consumer (and possibly a gamer) would you want Nvidia to carry out such anti-competitive practices? Why would you seek to defend such practices whatever the moral basis is?

 

[Keysplayr]

lots of fermi at ncix so assume the shortage is over. So is this thread.

Newegg seems to be completely full of all GTX470 and GTX480 models now as well. ZipZoomfly has next to nothing, probably gouged too much. Tiger direct is near full.
Mwave is also jammed with them.

 

[Lonyo]

lots of fermi at ncix so assume the shortage is over. So is this thread.

Oh.
Well in that case they might as well have just launched in the US and there wouldn't have been a shortage at all, since the rest of the world doesn't seem to matter.
As long as the US seems to have reasonable stock, that's shortage over. Especially since NV isn't a global company or anything.

 

[Keysplayr]

I fully understand where you're coming from with your argument of the fruits of Nvidia's labors should be going to only Nvidia customers. But, assuming you don't work for Nvidia, own Nvidia shares or whatever, why on earth as a consumer (and possibly a gamer) would you want Nvidia to carry out such anti-competitive practices? Why would you seek to defend such practices whatever the moral basis is?

Why would you take this as an anti-competitive practice? I should think it the most competitive. Nvidia want's to give more reasons to buy their hardware, and their hardware only. And one way of causing that to happen, is to offer things their competition doesn't. And that would include relations with devs to offer AA in Batman, or any other UE3 title if they want to. Or PhysX only on NV cards and CPU's. Very competitive. This is terrific news for those already owning Nvidia products as well as planning to buy them, and actually encourages them to buy them. Not so great news for those that do not, and would not.
Many ways to look at this situation. Glass half empty, glass half full.
But you know what? What's done is done, and has been done for a while now, and no amount of arguing about it is going to change anyones mind one way or the other. People believe what they wish to believe. People owning Nvidia's competitions cards would most likely think NV is evil for doing all this. And people owning NV cards most likely don't, but do feel sympathy for the other.
I know my opinions are totally different than a lot of you here, but, that's why it's called an opinion. Mine has been formed over many years, like most of you, using these hardwares. And we arrive at different places for various reasons. I believe that none of us are totally right, or totally wrong. But all of us are someplace in between.

 

[BenSkywalker]

But, assuming you don't work for Nvidia, own Nvidia shares or whatever, why on earth as a consumer (and possibly a gamer) would you want Nvidia to carry out such anti-competitive practices?

Perhaps because it isn't anything remotely approaching being in the league of being anti competitive? They are trying to offer their customers something above and beyond the competition. That is competitive. To be anti competitive would be to try and stop ATi from doing the same thing. ATi isn't trying to be competitive on that front, they have made no effort whatsoever. Simply because ATi has made the choice not to compete, doesn't mean that nVidia is anti competitive. ATi was absolutely free to write their own code and submit it to get it working, they chose not to do so. ATi decided their customers demands weren't worth the effort it would require to get it done. That is a choice they made.

And people owning NV cards most likely don't, but do feel sympathy for the other.

I certainly don't feel anything resembling sympathy- never approaching it. Ask the 360 owners if they feel sympathy because the PS3 doesn't have Halo, they'd laugh at you. They look at it as a reason to champion their console of choice(same could be said swapping in UC2, Zelda etc, etc).

For those that own PPUs, I do feel sympathy for them(no matter what GPU they run). It sucks when a product you purchased doesn't have support anymore.