PC Gaming Discussion - AMD vs. Nvidia

[Carfax83]

It doesn't matter as either way they'd be using GCN. If you have GCN hardware in the consoles, and GCN hardware in the PC it's an easy decision on which hardware you develop games on either way.

You'd have to be pretty out there to consider developing a game on Nvidia PC hardware just to have to optimize it for your main selling platform all over again. Why do that? Well, basically you wouldn't.

I don't think you understand the development and optimization process. I don't have a good understanding either, but from the fact that Gaming Evolved titles and TWIMTBP titles aren't guaranteed to perform best on their sponsor's title, just goes to show that optimization isn't as narrow in scope as you believe it to be.

The only thing that it guarantees is that the game will perform better on release day, but that's it. Subsequent patches and driver updates can easily turn the tide.

 

[SiliconWars]

I don't think you understand the development and optimization process. I don't have a good understanding either, but from the fact that Gaming Evolved titles and TWIMTBP titles aren't guaranteed to perform best on their sponsor's title, just goes to show that optimization isn't as narrow in scope as you believe it to be.

I'm not talking about optimization, I'm talking about simple logic. Is there any compelling reason to develop on Nvidia hardware instead of AMD's? No, not really. If you then apply that logic to developing on console hardware that is run on AMD's GCN hardware, it becomes illogical to develop on Nvidia. There is just no reason to do that when you don't know how the game will end up on GCN. Literally no reason. Why risk it, why create more work for your main sales platform?

So if you develop on console first, you develop on the console. If you develop on the PC first, you still develop with the console very much in mind first. You don't go developing on Nvidia just because they currently hold a small advantage on the minority PC gaming platform.

The only thing that it guarantees is that the game will perform better on release day, but that's it. Subsequent patches and driver updates can easily turn the tide.

I never argued against that. In fact I'm sure Nvidia will be working hard to ensure most games are decent on release, but the point I made is AMD won't even need to try in most cases.

 

[Red Hawk]

My video cards: 7300GT SLI, 8800GT, GTX260+, GTX560Ti, and now an HD7950. I'm a sucker for cards which are overclockable and tweakable, and Nvidia just seems to be shying away from that now. I want all of the options unlocked, I don't want "GPU boost" choosing my clocks instead of Afterburner, I just want to pump some voltage into my card, bring it up ~30-40% in clocks, and watch sparks fly (hopefully not literally :awe

SLI'd 7300 GTs? D: That thing was like the GTX 650 of its time. I know, it was my family's first graphics card.

 

[Gikaseixas]

Poll should have both PC vendors option too because i don't use exclusively one brand or the other. I usually buy what i think is the best for at a given moment.

 

[Carfax83]

I'm not talking about optimization, I'm talking about simple logic. Is there any compelling reason to develop on Nvidia hardware instead of AMD's? No, not really.

Of course there's plenty of incentive to develop on NVidia hardware. NVidia has the larger market share for discrete graphics for instance.. Also NVidia has extended feature sets like PhysX, CUDA, 3D Vision that developers may wish to take advantage of.

Many of the next gen console games featured in last year's, and this year's E3 ran on NVidia hardware, not AMD (like Watch Dogs and TitanFall).

So if you develop on console first, you develop on the console. If you develop on the PC first, you still develop with the console very much in mind first. You don't go developing on Nvidia just because they currently hold a small advantage on the minority PC gaming platform.

There's a thing called multiple code paths. Just because the consoles will use GCN architecture, doesn't mean game developers will develop and optimize specifically for GCN alone. CPU optimization is similar.

Software may be optimized for SSEn, AVX, and AVX2 simultaneously. The code path will be determined by the user's hardware.

 

[BlockheadBrown]

Poll should have both PC vendors option too because i don't use exclusively one brand or the other. I usually buy what i think is the best for at a given moment.

I submitted the thread too quickly. I could have made it check boxes too. Next time around, I'll make sure to include that as well. Thanks for this!

 

[SiliconWars]

Of course there's plenty of incentive to develop on NVidia hardware. NVidia has the larger market share for discrete graphics for instance.. Also NVidia has extended feature sets like PhysX, CUDA, 3D Vision that developers may wish to take advantage of.

CUDA is totally irrelevant to gaming. PhysX less so, but still basically irrelevant and in terms of the consoles, it might as well not exist at all.

I could easily have said "Also AMD has extended feature sets like MLAA, Stream, Eyefinity that developers may wish to take advantage of." Of course there is no need, as the actual hardware is all that the devs really want to take advantage of.

Many of the next gen console games featured in last year's, and this year's E3 ran on NVidia hardware, not AMD (like Watch Dogs and TitanFall).

That may well be true right now before any games are released, but it will be much less likely going forward. There are no good (gaming) reasons to develop on Nvidia hardware.

The exact same reason that you applied at the start (larger market share for discrete) applies far more so with the consoles.

Here are the numbers we're realistically looking at -

Midrange to high end PC gamers (the people with strong enough gaming PC's) - 20 million, 13 million Nvidia, 7 million AMD

Console gamers - 10 million AMD, by the end of the year.

Each year afterward the consoles will likely rise by ~15-30 million while the PC gamers "upgrade", ie the same 20 million PC gamers as in the previous year. The whole reason of "more people use Nvidia cards" will be gone in the next 6 months. By the end of this year more gamers will be using AMD hardware than ever before, and the numbers are just going to keep rising.

Carmack is almost crying because he knows it's an AMD hegemony and he's always been an Nvidia fanboy.

 

[PPB]

Of course there's plenty of incentive to develop on NVidia hardware. NVidia has the larger market share for discrete graphics for instance.. Also NVidia has extended feature sets like PhysX, CUDA, 3D Vision that developers may wish to take advantage of.

Many of the next gen console games featured in last year's, and this year's E3 ran on NVidia hardware, not AMD (like Watch Dogs and TitanFall).



There's a thing called multiple code paths. Just because the consoles will use GCN architecture, doesn't mean game developers will develop and optimize specifically for GCN alone. CPU optimization is similar.

Software may be optimized for SSEn, AVX, and AVX2 simultaneously. The code path will be determined by the user's hardware.

AS I understand it, you dont need to go that deep in the code for an end product to perform better on X hardware and not Y. Take Crysis for example, even tho they went overboard with the tesselation, that path they took made Fermi shine in contrast of 5xxx/6xxx series and their lackuster tesselation capabilities. Now change tesselation for compute capabilities, change crysis for any AAA game and any developer willing to push the console hardware to the max, and change Fermi discrete GPUs for GCN iGPs inside the consoles. Join the dots and there you have it.

Now the PC gaming marketshare thingy. If you sell 100.000 copies of a game in PC, where NV has more than 60% marketshare, but sell x5 that quantity in console copies of the game, all of them sharing the same GPU architecture, its a no brainer that even tho AMD isnt as strong in the PC marketshare point of view, they will still get free optimizations because the bunch of sales and money (dont forget that not only console games might sell more, they tend to sell for a bigger price too) they (game devs) will be missing if they dont optimize for the console's GPU.

 

[Carfax83]

CUDA is totally irrelevant to gaming. PhysX less so, but still basically irrelevant and in terms of the consoles, it might as well not exist at all.

Um....no.

PhysX uses CUDA, and PhysX will be available on the next generation consoles, so it's hardly irrelevant as you claim it to be.

Also, Unreal Engine 4 has PhysX integrated into the engine.

I could easily have said "Also AMD has extended feature sets like MLAA, Stream, Eyefinity that developers may wish to take advantage of." Of course there is no need, as the actual hardware is all that the devs really want to take advantage of.

Yes, but that doesn't negate what I said. The point was, that developers may wish to support certain exclusive features in their games, regardless of whether it's AMD or NVidia.

And quite a few games use 3D Vision and PhysX...

That may well be true right now before any games are released, but it will be much less likely going forward. There are no good (gaming) reasons to develop on Nvidia hardware.

The exact same reason that you applied at the start (larger market share for discrete) applies far more so with the consoles.

Here are the numbers we're realistically looking at -

Midrange to high end PC gamers (the people with strong enough gaming PC's) - 20 million, 13 million Nvidia, 7 million AMD

Console gamers - 10 million AMD, by the end of the year.

Each year afterward the consoles will likely rise by ~15-30 million while the PC gamers "upgrade", ie the same 20 million PC gamers as in the previous year. The whole reason of "more people use Nvidia cards" will be gone in the next 6 months. By the end of this year more gamers will be using AMD hardware than ever before, and the numbers are just going to keep rising.

Carmack is almost crying because he knows it's an AMD hegemony and he's always been an Nvidia fanboy.

This is all theory and conjecture with no hard facts. You hope this will be the case, but the evidence doesn't support your claims.

 

[Silverforce11]

I don't care for brands, I buy the best bang for buck every generation. 8800GT > 4870 > 5850 > 7950.

 

[wilds]

Even if someone purchases an NVIDIA or AMD product; it helps the overall consumer out. I love competition and I firmly believe we need it for the consumer's sake.

I'm really looking forward to who will license NVIDIA's Kepler in the near future and if AMD will be successful in the Tablet/Ultra-portable market. GCN and Kepler have been very competitive and we are getting pretty good value right now.

Now that Intel is pushing hard into the graphics market; I hope AMD and NVIDIA keep pulling out the big guns and provide excellent 4K performance in the near future.

I like both companies.

 

[Carfax83]

AS I understand it, you dont need to go that deep in the code for an end product to perform better on X hardware and not Y. Take Crysis for example, even tho they went overboard with the tesselation, that path they took made Fermi shine in contrast of 5xxx/6xxx series and their lackuster tesselation capabilities. Now change tesselation for compute capabilities, change crysis for any AAA game and any developer willing to push the console hardware to the max, and change Fermi discrete GPUs for GCN iGPs inside the consoles. Join the dots and there you have it.

Not a good analogy. The 5000 and 6000 series were horrible at tessellation. Fermi had very good computation performance, and Kepler (depending on the variant) has anywhere from decent to excellent GPGPU performance.

Even if next gen games leverage direct compute to a greater extent, NVidia still won't get left behind.

Now the PC gaming marketshare thingy. If you sell 100.000 copies of a game in PC, where NV has more than 60% marketshare, but sell x5 that quantity in console copies of the game, all of them sharing the same GPU architecture, its a no brainer that even tho AMD isnt as strong in the PC marketshare point of view, they will still get free optimizations because the bunch of sales and money (dont forget that not only console games might sell more, they tend to sell for a bigger price too) they (game devs) will be missing if they dont optimize for the console's GPU.

I already explained above. Optimization doesn't work this way. Just because you optimize for one architecture, doesn't mean it's at the expense of optimizing for another.

Developers code different pathways for different hardware all the time, and they've been doing this for years and years..

Now it's possible that they could put a greater effort into optimizing for a certain architecture more than another, but doing so would certainly disgruntle consumers and cost them sales.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

Lastly, do you see yourself skipping PC gaming and just going full-on console?

Definitely not. Consoles don't have titles like Total War or Paradox titles or mods, so there will always be a role for PC.

 

[DiogoDX]

Carmack is almost crying because he knows it's an AMD hegemony and he's always been an Nvidia fanboy.

I really wanted to see Camark's face when somebody told him that he have to develope his next game in AMD hardware.:biggrin:


Note: Rage was developed in 100% Nvidia hardware.

 

[cmdrdredd]

I really wanted to see Camark's face when somebody told him that he have to develope his next game in AMD hardware.:biggrin:


Note: Rage was developed in 100% Nvidia hardware.

He doesn't...cause the API doesn't care. He's tied to OpenGL anyhow.

 

[Deders]

And only the Xbox One uses the same API as PC. So any PS4 optimizations wouldnt transfer to the PC port.

I believe the PS4 will be using the latest OpenGL which may provide better compatibility with PC's

PhysX uses CUDA, and PhysX will be available on the next generation consoles, so it's hardly irrelevant as you claim it to be.

Also, Unreal Engine 4 has PhysX integrated into the engine.

I presume this means CPU based PhysX or has Nvidia now allowed AMD cards to run it?

 

[Jaydip]

you had to ask??????? It's NV baby Honestly it looks like ATF always chooses the opposite trend lol.

 

[Red Hawk]

I presume this means CPU based PhysX or has Nvidia now allowed AMD cards to run it?

CPU based most likely. The PS3 and 360 supported it in CPU IIRC. Nvidia will have to be dragged kicking and screaming before it opens up hardware accelerated PhysX to AMD hardware.

 

[Carfax83]

I presume this means CPU based PhysX or has Nvidia now allowed AMD cards to run it?

Most likely it will be a highly optimized version of PhysX that runs on the CPU, but no one can say for sure.

CPU based most likely. The PS3 and 360 supported it in CPU IIRC. Nvidia will have to be dragged kicking and screaming before it opens up hardware accelerated PhysX to AMD hardware.

You mean AMD will have to be dragged kicking and screaming before it adopts PhysX.

NVidia have offered PhysX to AMD in the past, but AMD is against adopting proprietary standards. AMD wants to use OpenCL for hardware accelerated physics, but does not want to allocate serious resources to bring it up to par with PhysX.

As of right now, PhysX is the most advanced physics API for games period.

 

[nafees127]

Nvidia gpus are great in games because most of the big games are usually under nvidia support. so you will get much better performance in those games in other word "NVIDIA OPTIMIZED" games. so 5 to 10% fps you're getting better than the AMD.

where AMD lacking this, even with AMd support games are still not giving full performance to AMd gpus, AMD optimized games are no matter for AMD gpu, it is providing such a great power of performance in it GPU.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

Um....no.

PhysX uses CUDA, and PhysX will be available on the next generation consoles, so it's hardly irrelevant as you claim it to be.

Also, Unreal Engine 4 has PhysX integrated into the engine.

There is PhysX and there is PhysX. The PhysX everyone sees as tons of useless garbage flying around their that can only run on Nvidia hardware will not be on Next Gen Consoles. The PhysX used for CPU based collision detection and light CPU based physics will be.

 

[piesquared]

Even if someone purchases an NVIDIA or AMD product; it helps the overall consumer out. I love competition and I firmly believe we need it for the consumer's sake.

I'm really looking forward to who will license NVIDIA's Kepler in the near future and if AMD will be successful in the Tablet/Ultra-portable market. GCN and Kepler have been very competitive and we are getting pretty good value right now.

Now that Intel is pushing hard into the graphics market; I hope AMD and NVIDIA keep pulling out the big guns and provide excellent 4K performance in the near future.

I like both companies.

intel might license nv tech and Apple will be building their own GPU (HSA compliant?) but it probably won't mean much for the former two (is Apple the remaining founding member in the HSA foundation?). intel already has the majority graphics share due to side saddling those anemic GPU's for so many years, so really the only place for them to go is down.
AMD has consoles locked up, their brand name recognition is going way up. Gaming Evolved will be displayed on millions of TV's and computer screens. XBoxOne and PS4 are [JC]'very similar and very good'[/JC] so the value of the brand goes up too, as do sales.

 

[Red Hawk]

You mean AMD will have to be dragged kicking and screaming before it adopts PhysX.

NVidia have offered PhysX to AMD in the past, but AMD is against adopting proprietary standards. AMD wants to use OpenCL for hardware accelerated physics, but does not want to allocate serious resources to bring it up to par with PhysX.

As of right now, PhysX is the most advanced physics API for games period.

What sort of nonsense is this? AMD is not averse to "Proprietary standards" simply for the fact that they're proprietary; DirectX is technically proprietary, Microsoft just makes the development tools widely available. When has Nvidia offered PhysX to AMD in the past, exactly?

 

[3DVagabond]

It doesn't matter as either way they'd be using GCN. If you have GCN hardware in the consoles, and GCN hardware in the PC it's an easy decision on which hardware you develop games on either way.

You'd have to be pretty out there to consider developing a game on Nvidia PC hardware just to have to optimize it for your main selling platform all over again. Why do that? Well, basically you wouldn't.

They will optimize for whoever is paying the bills. What will matter is who backs "the right" titles, and what they bring to them. PhysX, or Tressfx, etc... If nVidia can get a PhysX title out every couple of months it doesn't matter what the game engine is optimized for. The game will run better on nVidia.

 

[3DVagabond]

you had to ask??????? It's NV baby Honestly it looks like ATF always chooses the opposite trend lol.

That's because people are far better informed here than the general consumer is.