Radeon with spoofed Vendor ID benchmarked in Batman AA w/ MSAA

[Madcatatlas]

And this is why given two cards with similar performance and price, I will always pick the ATI card. NVIDIA's products are great, but I despise their marketing strategy with their strong arm tactics and focus group, and that to me is the tipping point

And you are not the only one thinking this. Just curious, do you often play the paladin class in RPGs?

 

[Madcatatlas]

nitromullet, this is the topic i was talking about. Wheres your input?

 

[thefreeaccount]

If AMD has a similarly aggressive marketing and support program, I'd imagine open standards would have been embraced (insofar as GPU-enhanced compute/physics effects and universal AA support not slanted to one vendor or another) and significantly utilized already and these conversations would not exist.

That doesn't make sense. Why spend the money if it's not going to give you an advantage? We'd just end up with a set of AMD-supported games that run like crap on nividia, and another set of Nvidia-supported games that run like crap on AMD. Either way, the consumer looses.

 

[Pantalaimon]

And you are not the only one thinking this. Just curious, do you often play the paladin class in RPGs?

Good guess

 

[3DVagabond]

Where are the local nVidia proponents in this thread? I guess they don't see anything to sell over here, or I'm sure they'd be in here telling us just how ZOMG awesome nVidia is.

 

[nitromullet]

nitromullet, this is the topic i was talking about. Wheres your input?

This issue is an even deader horse than Fermi being hot. That being said, I don't at all agree with the tactics used by NV and Rocksteady in Batman AA, but I do like the game with AA and PhysX. While we're at digging up old news, I don't agree with NV's move to drop PhysX support for an add on GeForce when the main card is ATI either.

 

[Ben90]

There was actually a huge huge huge thread on this when this was actually news. Before reading it I was disgusted at Nvidia's tactics, but after the thread was over and I took in all the points, I actually think all of this hate is pointed in the wrong direction.

The facts were Edios didn't implement their own AA methods and they asked ATi and Nvidia for help. Ati for whatever reason (lack of software programmers/lack of money/didn't care, ect.) did not help Edios implement AA. Nvidia did. In return only Nvidia cards would be able to run AA through the engine.

While I do agree that this hurts consumers overall, I don't think Nvidia is the devil company because of it. Imagine if Nvidia programmed an entire game that ran only on their cards. While it sucks for us consumers, we are not entitled to everything.

I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but everything on this forum gets debated as if it were either black or white. Most of the time things are just grey.

 

[3DVagabond]

I think the reason for the source of the thread was the app. (radeon pro) allows a work around. It just still has some shaking their heads about it though.

 

[Ben90]

Didn't the very first patch change this though?

 

[cusideabelincoln]

I don't want to sound like a fanboy, but everything on this forum gets debated as if it were either black or white. Most of the time things are just grey.

That's because there are fanboys, shills, viral marketers, and just plain people who think their opinion is right and everyone else is wrong.

 

[nitromullet]

In somewhat related news, I lol'ed at the RadeonPro screen shots...

This is total clone of the stock NVIDIA control panel:

..and this looks exactly like nHancer:

Granted, they are both pretty standard (and well made) interfaces, but the irony if making CCC better by making it look like NV tools is not lost on me. If this thing works as well as nHancer, it's good news for ATI users though. I have pretty much replaced the NV control panel with nHancer at this point. I'll probably run RadeonPro with my next ATI card.

 

[golem]

I think the reason for the source of the thread was the app. (radeon pro) allows a work around. It just still has some shaking their heads about it though.

The only reason that this work around works though is because Nvidia created the code to allow in game MSAA. Of course they then vendor locked it to their cards (which was within their rights in my opinion) and then lied about it (bad move).

ATI was given multiple chances to provide similiar code (Rocksteady's legal wouldn't let them alter Nvidia's code), but ATI declined and just acted the victim.

In the end, the only reason either Nvidia or ATI (via hack) can use in game MSAA is because Nvidia spent the time and resources to create code to allow it (Of course, they do make the stupid move and lie that the code belongs to Rocksteady and they can't change it to work on ATI).


What did ATI do? They made a big stink about the vendor lock but didn't take the effort to come up with their own code so ATI users could have in game MSAA w/o the hack.

Here's a link to the story that was originally posted by Gaiahunter

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx?pageid=2

 

[evolucion8]

The only reason that this work around works though is because Nvidia created the code to allow in game MSAA. Of course they then vendor locked it to their cards (which was within their rights in my opinion) and then lied about it (bad move).

ATI was given multiple chances to provide similiar code (Rocksteady's legal wouldn't let them alter Nvidia's code), but ATI declined and just acted the victim.

In the end, the only reason either Nvidia or ATI (via hack) can use in game MSAA is because Nvidia spent the time and resources to create code to allow it (Of course, they do make the stupid move and lie that the code belongs to Rocksteady and they can't change it to work on ATI).


What did ATI do? They made a big stink about the vendor lock but didn't take the effort to come up with their own code so ATI users could have in game MSAA w/o the hack.

Here's a link to the story that was originally posted by Gaiahunter

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx?pageid=2

The only thing is that I see that the money investment plus such the fact that Rocksteady was playing dirty with nVidia didn't put enough pressure for AMD to add such code, specially when Anti Aliasing always worked from day one, forcing it from the CCC worked!!!

I tried it myself in the very same day that the game was launched, is just that nVidia's implementation was much easier in performance impact because it used selective anti aliasing algorithms for certain edges and not the whole scene like AMD's CCC approach. And considering that the game isn't taxing for even an HD 4670, why bother?

 

[golem]

The only thing is that I see that the money investment plus such the fact that Rocksteady was playing dirty with nVidia didn't put enough pressure for AMD to add such code, specially when Anti Aliasing always worked from day one, forcing it from the CCC worked!!!

I tried it myself in the very same day that the game was launched, is just that nVidia's implementation was much easier in performance impact because it used selective anti aliasing algorithms for certain edges and not the whole scene like AMD's CCC approach. And considering that the game isn't taxing for even an HD 4670, why bother?

Interesting attitude... "why bother", apparently that's the same attitude ATI took towards generating code in the first place. But they did take the effort of having their CEO bitch it and you took the effort to try it out and test it against the CCC approach.... I guess it's easier to send off an email complaining about a competitor than to actually write code.

 

[evolucion8]

Interesting attitude... "why bother", apparently that's the same attitude ATI took towards generating code in the first place. But they did take the effort of having their CEO bitch it and you took the effort to try it out and test it against the CCC approach.... I guess it's easier to send off an email complaining about a competitor than to actually write code.

I compared both approach for my own benefit and used the best suited for me. I do not care if the CEO bitched or not and there's nothing that I can do to change a company POV. But for me, you seems to me that you are the kind of troll that opens an account and just use it to post some FUD and then never returns, out of the nowhere, suddenly?!, Really!?. Please If you can't apport something positive or informative in this thread, GTFO of it.

 

[Pantalaimon]

apparently that's the same attitude ATI took towards generating code in the first place.

Actually they wanted to add their code in, but due to the vendor lockout, they couldn't anymore without circumventing the lockout, which according to Eidos legal team was not allowed.

 

[BladeVenom]

If only AMD had the balls to sue NVIDIA for unfair businesses practices... o wait they did with Intel.

Intel is a monopoly, and what they were doing was clearly illegal.

 

[bryanW1995]

did i read that right? they are coding games to specifically run faster on nvidia hardware even though those features work fine on ATI hardware? Nvidia has hit a new low with this one if thats true.

old news, this was discussed to death when batman came out. yes, the dev and/or nvidia artificially hinders AA performance on amd cards. every site that wasn't in nvidia's pocket bitched about it when benchmarking.

 

[lavaheadache]

just tried this out and it works aewsome.

 

[golem]

Actually they wanted to add their code in, but due to the vendor lockout, they couldn't anymore without circumventing the lockout, which according to Eidos legal team was not allowed.

Please read this link

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/news....aspx?pageid=2

According to them, Eidos asked ATI for sample code so that they could incorporate that code to enable MSAA for ATI cards. ATI's response was basically, look at Nvidia's code, ours would be similiar.

Nvidia's code had vendor lockout, but there was nothing preventing ATI from supplying their code also, I guess they just said "why bother".

 

[golem]

I compared both approach for my own benefit and used the best suited for me. I do not care if the CEO bitched or not and there's nothing that I can do to change a company POV. But for me, you seems to me that you are the kind of troll that opens an account and just use it to post some FUD and then never returns, out of the nowhere, suddenly?!, Really!?. Please If you can't apport something positive or informative in this thread, GTFO of it.

You know what? You replied to my post which was pretty much totally on topic and came up with the brilliant response of "why bother" when asked the question of why ATI didn't come up with their own code. Then you tell me to stop trolling because I'm not positive about ATI or didn't post anything informative? I at least posted that link detailing the back story behind all this. You posted basically nothing...

And another thing, a lot and I mean a lot of threads that you enter end up with you telling someone to stop trolling or throwing around words like viral marketer or perma ban... you might want to look in the mirror once in a while to see who the troll is.

 

[Pantalaimon]

According to them, Eidos asked ATI for sample code so that they could incorporate that code to enable MSAA for ATI cards. ATI's response was basically, look at Nvidia's code, ours would be similiar.

So now you think it's a good idea that both vendors should start financing the game developers and write custom codes (which in this case would be the same since the implementation is standard) which locks the other vendor's card out from using a common feature like AA? Did ATI lock NVIDIA's cards out when they helped developers with the DX11 games when NVIDIA didn't even have a card out?

 

[golem]

So now you think it's a good idea that both vendors should start financing the game developers and write custom codes (which in this case would be the same since the implementation is standard) which locks the other vendor's card out from using a common feature like AA? Did ATI lock NVIDIA's cards out when they helped developers with the DX11 games when NVIDIA didn't even have a card out?

Before Nvidia came up with this code. No games using this engine could do MSAA under directx 9, so it's a common feature in general, but not in this situaiton. So if the option is one group of users can use MSAA or no users can use MSAA, I choose option 1 all the time. Especially since the other group of users could have also used MSAA if their vendor had bothered to come up with their own code instead of just bitching about vendor lock.

Unlike this code that enabled MSAA for this engine under directx9, directx 11 is a standard, not a work around. If the game is marketed as a directx 11 game (and not a directx 11 game if you have an ATI card), it better run under Nvidia too. If it is marketed at directx 11 only if you have ATI, then it sucks to be a Nvidia user if you want to play this game under directx11 but at least you go in knowing what's up. I'm pretty sure Batman was advertised as having AA only if you had an Nvidia card.

Also, in regards to ATI helping with directx11 games when Nvidia didn't have directx11 cards out... what better form of lock is there? You get the buzz/good press of helping a developer implement advanced features, at the same time highlighting the fact that your competitor doesn't have those features. It's actually genius.

This code ended up running equally well under ATI and Nvidia cards, but what if it didn't? Nvidia wasn't going to test this code against a wide range of ATI cards, what if it didn't run well or caused problems for some ATI cards? Then ATI fanboys would be complaining about Nvidia writing code harmful to ATI cards and playing dirty by having it incorporated to a game?

Let's face it, for a lot of the newer games, they're just ports from consoles. The developer will not spend the resources to add enhancements for PC versions that weren't there for the console. Heck, Star Craft 2, the biggest PC only game in years didn't have in game AA. If Nvidia or ATI don't write custom code for certain features, those features just won't be there. Whether you or I think custom code is a good idea or not, it's a reality if you want features above what's available on the console version.

 

[Creig]

Also, in regards to ATI helping with directx11 games when Nvidia didn't have directx11 cards out... what better form of lock is there? You get the buzz/good press of helping a developer implement advanced features, at the same time highlighting the fact that your competitor doesn't have those features. It's actually genius.

Yes, but then why didn't AMD insist that the devs include a vendor ID lockout for any non-ATi card in return for their assistance? After all, that's exactly what Nvidia did with Batman:AA. Nvidia was bound to release a DX11 card of their own, eventually. Why not force Nvidia cards to use the DX10/9 path and keep the DX11 features exclusive to their own hardware? Because AMD is not Nvidia and has (as far as I know) refused to stoop to that level of tactics.

Personally, I wish AMD were more like Nvidia in pushing/supporting new features and I wish Nvidia were more like AMD as far as their business ethics are concerned.

 

[evolucion8]

Yes, but then why didn't AMD insist that the devs include a vendor ID lockout for any non-ATi card in return for their assistance? After all, that's exactly what Nvidia did with Batman:AA. Nvidia was bound to release a DX11 card of their own, eventually. Why not force Nvidia cards to use the DX10/9 path and keep the DX11 features exclusive to their own hardware? Because AMD is not Nvidia and has (as far as I know) refused to stoop to that level of tactics.

Personally, I wish AMD were more like Nvidia in pushing/supporting new features and I wish Nvidia were more like AMD as far as their business ethics are concerned.

I second that, I don't know how's possible that fanboys like golem, actually applauds such tactics which will only split the gaming market taking away even standard stuff like anti aliasing. How in in hell GPU will have to involve in developers to add features that are a standard in the DX API, Batman AA isn't part of the spec but if GPU vendors has to make their job right, how are we gonna end? Talk about lazyness...

A developer want to reach everybody so they can maximize its profits, not locking its game or features to a single vendor, specially AMD which has a strong presence in the DX11 market with their cards. Hopefully, RockSteady will be more steady this time in the next game they release.