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

[jiffylube1024]

On a legal or ethical basis? Actually, either one- nVidia does not even have a plurality of their market, let alone a majority. [a] They aren't capable of conducting themselves in a way that is legally anti competitive; and are the smallest player in the mainstream market by a decent amount(their biggest competitors are AMD and Intel, nV is the little guy here). How do you compete with larger companies? You offer your customers something the others don't. That is exactly what nV is doing. Stating they should be forced to allow their code to run on someone elses hardware- that would be anti competitive- the larger companies forcing the smaller play to conform.

Well... You aren't really 100% accurate on either front. Portraying NV as the "little guy" is kind of a joke. Sure they're #2 in overall market share to Intel as of Q4/2009 and Q1/2010:

http://hothardware.com/News/Despite-Yield-Problems-GPU-Sales-Surged-in-Q4-2009/
http://www.techeye.net/hardware/pc-graphic-sales-soar-in-first-quarter

However, most games are not really playable on Intel hardware (certainly not at high resolutions with features like AA, AF, and graphical features set to 'high' / 'max'). So, for a Biiiiig chunk of the PC market that AMD and Nvidia compete in, Nvidia is #1 and AMD is #2 while Intel gets a big, fat "N/A" because their cards don't even run the games properly.

So, while Nvidia may not be able to legally be "anticompetitive" in the PC gaming market as a whole, they certainly can in the high-end DX10/DX11 discrete-GPU accelerated market.
-------

Second of all, to address the "more features than the competition" argument - that would be true of Nvidia in the past, such as when they offered the 8800GTX with DX10 and more performance than anything ATI had for awhile, or even features like CUDA and better Tesselation, but things like PhysX restrictions and some of the dirty "The Way It's Meant to be Played" limitations imposed on other games (such as AA implementations) are hardly examples of just honestly outworking the other players in the market.

 

[jiffylube1024]

It's not anti-competitive. PhysX is like Glide was back in the day kinda. Slightly useful, but it wasn't really relevant to most PC gaming--but did help push 3d mainstream. Was it anti-competitive because only 3dfx had glide? No. Simply due to the market realities of the situation. PhysX is slightly useful in some games, not relevant to most, but it is helping the push for better physics along!

Except Glide was an API, while PhysX runs on top of an API, such as DirectX or OpenGL. PhysX is just another feature that runs alongside the API.

Also, was it anti-competitive that 3dfx had glide? No. Was it anticompetitive that 3dfx fought tooth and nail to keep Glide 3dfx exclusive in the beginning? Maybe yes, maybe no! 3dfx only released the Glide API later on, when Direct3D and OpenGL were starting to dominate the market.

 

[BenSkywalker]

AMD wanted to add their own AA code into the game, before and after release.

They offered advice, not actually wrote the code. That is a staggering difference in the real world no matter what He may say.

AMD should lock those effects from working on nV hardware?

Any code that AMD wrote they should absolutely 100% be able to lock down to their hardware. Implying anything else would be moronic on a profound level. My post history goes back to the days of Glide- I never even hinted that Glide should be able to run on any hardware- it would be utter idiocy to state that any competitor should be forced to pay to make up for shortcomings of the other. There is absolutely no question here(TruForm working on CounterStrike back in the day would be another example, ATi wrote the code- it only worked on their hardware and noone whined about it because we didn't have the deity level worship we have today).

While Nvidia's reversal of allowing PhysX to run alongside other graphics hardware after having bought the company may not be legally anticompetitive

Last I was aware nV stopped allowing the PPU to work with nVidia GPUs too(the faithful ignore this point as He that is divine has told them too). PPU owners I see as having a completely legit reason to bitch.

Well... You aren't really 100% accurate on either front.

Except I am. What is AMD's market cap? What is Intel's market cap? What is nVidia's market cap? nVidia is the little guy. Precisely because Intel and AMD have other, larger markets then GPUs the law is set to protect nV from the others partaking in anti competitive behaviour.

So, while Nvidia may not be able to legally be "anticompetitive" in the PC gaming market as a whole, they certainly can in the high-end DX10/DX11 discrete-GPU accelerated market.

6Million to ~50,000- that is the edge ATi has in the DX11 discrete market.

(such as AA implementations) are hardly examples of just honestly outworking the other players in the market.

nVidia wrote the AA code used in Batman.
nVidia wrote the AA code used in Batman.
nVidia wrote the AA code used in Batman.

 

[Skurge]

Any code that AMD wrote they should absolutely 100% be able to lock down to their hardware. Implying anything else would be moronic on a profound level. My post history goes back to the days of Glide- I never even hinted that Glide should be able to run on any hardware- it would be utter idiocy to state that any competitor should be forced to pay to make up for shortcomings of the other. There is absolutely no question here(TruForm working on CounterStrike back in the day would be another example, ATi wrote the code- it only worked on their hardware and noone whined about it because we didn't have the deity level worship we have today).

Ok Fair enough. So do YOU think its a good thing for the PC gaming if nV lock out other vendors from using features they helped get into the engine even though they are supported on the hardware?

Do you think it would be good for consumers if AMD locked DX11 in BC2, AvP, Dirt2, COP, Battleforge to their own cards even though nV cards support the features?

 

[Lonyo]

Except I am. What is AMD's market cap? What is Intel's market cap? What is nVidia's market cap? nVidia is the little guy. Precisely because Intel and AMD have other, larger markets then GPUs the law is set to protect nV from the others partaking in anti competitive behaviour.

NV market cap: $7.94b
AMD market cap: $5.64b

6Million to ~50,000- that is the edge ATi has in the DX11 discrete market.

DX10/DX11 is what he said, not DX11.

And as for code not running, didn't someone say that the AA code from Batman:AA runs on ATI hardware, it just doesn't resolve?

 

[SlowSpyder]

Ok Fair enough. So do YOU think its a good thing for the PC gaming if nV lock out other vendors from using features they helped get into the engine even though they are supported on the hardware?

Do you think it would be good for consumers if AMD locked DX11 in BC2, AvP, Dirt2, COP, Battleforge to their own cards even though nV cards support the features?

I don't understand how anyone can defend Nvidia here or think that this direction is good for PC gaming. Could you imagine if AMD docked out 3d abiities for their Radeons once they detect an Intel chipset/CPU? If my MSI motherboard locked out some capabliity because I have a Sapphire video card? I guess I just don't get it...

 

[Skurge]

I don't understand how anyone can defend Nvidia here or think that this direction is good for PC gaming. Could you imagine if AMD docked out 3d abiities for their Radeons once they detect an Intel chipset/CPU? If my MSI motherboard locked out some capabliity because I have a Sapphire video card? I guess I just don't get it...

You aren't the only one.

BTW, is it just coincidence that you and Lonyo have the same avatar?

 

[evolucion8]

NV market cap: $7.94b
AMD market cap: $5.64b



DX10/DX11 is what he said, not DX11.

And as for code not running, didn't someone say that the AA code from Batman:AA runs on ATI hardware, it just doesn't resolve?

I was able to change my DeviceID with ATi Tray Tool and cheat Batman AA and It allowed me to use Batman's Built In Anti Aliasing and it worked like a champ. So the code just works fine. There was an issue early in the game development that there was an issue with Anti Aliasing writting useless alpha depth values with the ATi card.

 

[Voo]

Ok Fair enough. So do YOU think its a good thing for the PC gaming if nV lock out other vendors from using features they helped get into the engine even though they are supported on the hardware?

Do you think it would be good for consumers if AMD locked DX11 in BC2, AvP, Dirt2, COP, Battleforge to their own cards even though nV cards support the features?

It seems he does and if Nvidia shares his attitude we can all just hope that they go bankrupt before they can harm PC gaming too much, since the patient really isn't too healthy already.

I wouldn't have thought that anyone would like to see games that'll only work on Nvidia GPUs with Intel CPUs (oh one moment, Intel isn't too fond of Nvidia so they probably make sure that the game won't run with a NV GPU.. and why wouldn't AMD follow suit? Sounds great)..

Not that only Intel and Amd/Ati in the market is such a great perspective, but that's probably less harmful than such an attitude (though who knows what the others are up to, it's not as if those were angels..)

 

[Keysplayr]

Look guys, this conversation would most likely be entirely different had AMD been the one to implement AA in Batman and did an ID check. You'd be defending it til doomsday, much like your condemning Nvidia for doing it and will continue to do so.
Batman had no in game AA. Nvidia added it. Now NV card users have the option in game.
And also, something I don't quite understand. How long has it been since Batman AA came out and this whole AA debacle went underway? Tell me, have you seen, in all this time, AMD following through to offer their own AA code in this game for their loyal customers? Haven't you wondered about that? Did you not once ask yourselves "Why?" hasn't AMD ALSO offered this feature for you?

I think you know what questions you should be asking. Why haven't you pummeled AMD with emails asking them for in game AA in Batman? Did you not want it for yourselves?

There is a TON of "I don't get it(s)" whenever we have this conversation.

 

[Skurge]

Look guys, this conversation would most likely be entirely different had AMD been the one to implement AA in Batman and did an ID check. You'd be defending it til doomsday, much like your condemning Nvidia for doing it and will continue to do so.
Batman had no in game AA. Nvidia added it. Now NV card users have the option in game.
And also, something I don't quite understand. How long has it been since Batman AA came out and this whole AA debacle went underway? Tell me, have you seen, in all this time, AMD following through to offer their own AA code in this game for their loyal customers? Haven't you wondered about that? Did you not once ask yourselves "Why?" hasn't AMD ALSO offered this feature for you?

I think you know what questions you should be asking. Why haven't you pummeled AMD with emails asking them for in game AA in Batman? Did you not want it for yourselves?

There is a TON of "I don't get it(s)" whenever we have this conversation.

You know full well AMD weren't allowed to change the code in the game due to "legal issues"

As for unanswered questions I still havnt gotten an answer bou what if you though it would be ok if AMD did the same with DX11 code in the various games mentioned. I d really like to know what you think about that.

 

[SlowSpyder]

You aren't the only one.

BTW, is it just coincidence that you and Lonyo have the same avatar?

Coincidence. I live by Lake Michigan and fish there from time to time, so I choose the trout back when I signed up.

Keys, back when developers were building DX11 games, whose hardware do you think they were using? Actual DX11 parts like Radeon 5xxx parts or a fake PCB with some wood screws holding on a cooler? How about DX10.1 code?

Nvidia is really tarnishing their reputation in my opinion. Between the Batman AA fiasco and them absolutley screwing over those users who had an Nvidia GPU/Aegia PPU for Physx and a Radeon I don't believe they're making gamers very happy. I do hope that they look at these situations and do not repeat these types of actions in the future.

 

[Skurge]

Coincidence. I live by Lake Michigan and fish there from time to time, so I choose the trout back when I signed up.

Ok, I get confused sometimes though, cause you guys always appear in the same threads, but I usually agree with what you both say, so its all good.

 

[Outrage]

Did you not once ask yourselves "Why?" hasn't AMD ALSO offered this feature for you?

I think you know what questions you should be asking. Why haven't you pummeled AMD with emails asking them for in game AA in Batman? Did you not want it for yourselves?

There is a TON of "I don't get it(s)" whenever we have this conversation.

I did't buy the game, I bought some DX 11 games instead. AMD put there Devrel to work for all the gamers, not just the one buying there cards.

Have you sent AMD a mail thanking them for being able to play DX 11 games on your Nvidia cards?

 

[Keysplayr]

You know full well AMD weren't allowed to change the code in the game due to "legal issues"

As for unanswered questions I still havnt gotten an answer bou what if you though it would be ok if AMD did the same with DX11 code in the various games mentioned. I d really like to know what you think about that.

And I'm sure you know full well that is not what I meant. AMD's OWN code. Not altering Nvidia's. I'm sure they know how to do it, but alas, they have not. And probably will not.
Unless they are badgered into doing it, which strangely, I see none of.

And I'm not so certain adding AA to a specific game and letting it run on specific cards is the same as blocking Microsofts DX11 specification. Not sure how you think that is similar, but I'm sure you have it all worked out? Somehow? As far as I know, there is absolutely nobody stopping AMD/ATI from adding their own code to support in game AA in Batman, or any other title that Nvidia may add in game AA to that didn't exist before.

 

[YBS1]

Look guys, this conversation would most likely be entirely different had AMD been the one to implement AA in Batman and did an ID check. You'd be defending it til doomsday, much like your condemning Nvidia for doing it and will continue to do so.

No Keys, no it wouldn't. The tactics nV has been using as of late could lead to the fragmentation of the market for the pc as a gaming platform. This is good for no one, it doesn't matter which vendor is doing it, it's not good long term for nVidia fanboys, ATI fanboys, or BitBoys Oy fanboys. The pc is a platform that depends upon interoperability, nVidia seems to want to break this (to at least some degree) whenever it benefits them. I know you can see this, though I also know you'd never admit it in a public forum either.

 

[Keysplayr]

No Keys, no it wouldn't. The tactics nV has been using as of late could lead to the fragmentation of the market for the pc as a gaming platform. This is good for no one, it doesn't matter which vendor is doing it, it's not good long term for nVidia fanboys, ATI fanboys, or BitBoys Oy fanboys. The pc is a platform that depends upon interoperability, nVidia seems to want to break this (to at least some degree) whenever it benefits them. I know you can see this, though I also know you'd never admit it in a public forum either.

Yes, it absolutely would, and I'll be content to agree to disagree here even if you're not.
You and I both know better.

 

[ugaboga232]

And I'm sure you know full well that is not what I meant. AMD's OWN code. Not altering Nvidia's. I'm sure they know how to do it, but alas, they have not. And probably will not.
Unless they are badgered into doing it, which strangely, I see none of.

And I'm not so certain adding AA to a specific game and letting it run on specific cards is the same as blocking Microsofts DX11 specification. Not sure how you think that is similar, but I'm sure you have it all worked out? Somehow? As far as I know, there is absolutely nobody stopping AMD/ATI from adding their own code to support in game AA in Batman, or any other title that Nvidia may add in game AA to that didn't exist before.

There is something stopping them from adding it. It's Nvidia and Eidos. AMD can't add it. That's what we've been saying.

 

[BenSkywalker]

Ok Fair enough. So do YOU think its a good thing for the PC gaming if nV lock out other vendors from using features they helped get into the engine even though they are supported on the hardware?

If they helped get it into the engine then I think there is a problem. If they wrote the code themselves then they are helping PC gaming if it runs on their hardware exclusively or not. Batman did not support AA until nV added it(much like PhysX). What is better for PC gaming, to get straight console ports with nothing added, or have extra features available to gamers? You want to kill PC gaming the fastest way possible, keep pushing for straight console ports and it will happen.

Do you think it would be good for consumers if AMD locked DX11 in BC2, AvP, Dirt2, COP, Battleforge to their own cards even though nV cards support the features?

AMD didn't write any of that code, they offered standard developer relations. Any code that AMD wrote themselves to improve a console port would absolutely be an improvement over a straight port even if the code only ran on their parts. This isn't complicated unless you are a devout believer in Orton.

NV market cap: $7.94b
AMD market cap: $5.64b

Wow, haven't been following AMD, didn't realize they had imploded that badly(well, nV's market cap has roughly doubled in the last year too). Looks like it only implied to Intel then.

DX10/DX11 is what he said, not DX11.

I understand that, was pointing out mainly because it entirely depends on where you want to draw the line how far below a dominant position nV is at.

It seems he does and if Nvidia shares his attitude we can all just hope that they go bankrupt before they can harm PC gaming too much, since the patient really isn't too healthy already.

nV is driving PC gaming at the moment as far as hardware companies are concerned. TWIMTBP dollars/funding are helping PC ports remain viable, further dollars from the same fund are allowing PC gamers to get some benefit out of our vastly superior GPUs. Do we really want the 'ATi way' to win and we get RE5 type visuals and performance in every game? If 300fps having nigh identical visuals to the 360 is the way you think PC gaming is at its' best, I couldn't disagree with you more.

I did't buy the game, I bought some DX 11 games instead.

Buying inferior games to support your hardware company of choice will do more to damage PC gaming then anything we have discussed.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Wow, this thread really seems to have devolved into a number of confounding arguments that don't really have a whole lot to do with each other but are being addressed in tandem as if they do:

Is Nvidia's Proprietary stuff, and its handling thereof, LEGAL? Yeah, it is, no question.

Is Nvidia being, like, totally uncool? Yeah, from the ATI consumer's stand point. From an Nvidia consumer/Shareholder stand point its a little more complicated. I'm instinctively compelled to say "No, nvidia is being good to its customers and stockholders" though I have to wonder how limiting the userbase of their proprietary tech ultimately helps that proprietary tech spread and influence the ecosystem. Its been 4 years now since CUDA came on the scene and while Nvidia might be worlds ahead of ATI relatively speaking, CUDA has largely amounted to a whole lot of nothing absolutely speaking (in the grand scheme of things).

It'd be nice to see Nvidia level the playing field and beat ATI with performance and power. Everyone would get access to everything and we could all go back to discussing which product is better than the other, not which feature set or corporate culture is better than the other.

 

[Keysplayr]

There is something stopping them from adding it. It's Nvidia and Eidos. AMD can't add it. That's what we've been saying.

So you're saying, that AMD wants to add in game AA to support their hardware, but Nvidia and Eidos are stopping them. Is that what you're saying? In what way? Because Nvidia won't allow their code to be altered? If so, that is no excuse. AMD can and should produce their own code and work with Eidos to incorporate it with a patch.

 

[YBS1]

Yes, it absolutely would, and I'll be content to agree to disagree here even if you're not.
You and I both know better.

I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly would not be cheering ATI for such antics. Because while it may benefit me while using an ATI card now, it may not if I should be using an nVidia card two months from now (not likely, but only because my distaste for nVidia's tactics, as I indicated in a post above if not for that I'd possibly be running SLI'ed 480's at this very moment). Like I said, their behavior is not in the best interest of pc gaming and gamers, period.

 

[Keysplayr]

I can't speak for anyone else but I certainly would not be cheering ATI for such antics. Because while it may benefit me while using an ATI card now, it may not if I should be using an nVidia card two months from now (not likely, but only because my distaste for nVidia's tactics, as I indicated in a post above if not for that I'd possibly be running SLI'ed 480's at this very moment). Like I said, their behavior is not in the best interest of pc gaming and gamers, period.

Although it definitely "is" in the best interests of their customers, or potential customers.
I would think so anyway. And as for the best interests of PC gaming and gamers, Well, as a PC gamer, wouldn't you buy the cards that gave you the most? Or is it that it's not in the best interest of those gamers who would just refuse to buy Nvidia products? I don't really know.

 

[blanketyblank]

Let's not forget what you all are referring to as a value add is also a value detract for ATI owners since the code is still running on ATI hardware but is cut off from displaying the results. Most likely the reason no one really cares enough to badger EIDOS is because the problem is taken care of by a simple hack from the community which NV has turned a blind eye to. I'm sure if NV tried prosecuting thos who made the hack they'd be in for some really bad publicity.
However it's so far just one game so I think it's a moot point. It seems in the future NV will be pushing much of the same tech as ATI (tesselation and 3d (though through a proprietary standard)) so we'll see how things develop.

 

[YBS1]

Although it definitely "is" in the best interests of their customers, or potential customers.
I would think so anyway. And as for the best interests of PC gaming and gamers, Well, as a PC gamer, wouldn't you buy the cards that gave you the most? Or is it that it's not in the best interest of those gamers who would just refuse to buy Nvidia products? I don't really know.

Yes, you are correct. It is in the best interests of their customers in the short term. As a pc gamer it may also be in my best interest to buy xxx card for short term gain, not if it ultimately may limit my choices as a consumer or harm/fragment the platform in the long term however. Which is what I feel maneuvers such as this may do.

Of course, nVidia blocking me from using an nVidia card that I purchased as one of their customers from running physX....not really in my best interests, no?