**thread name change* Nvidia and AMD moral and immoral business practices

[SirPauly]

How nVidia keeps gaming PC alive?

By trying to improve upon gaming experience potential when compared to the console. Pretty easy question for me. Back when I gamed on my 1900 CrossFire Platform, was really starting to get resolution limited; and DirectX and rendering were starting to hit some walls. So new ways of trying to improve fidelity and reason to upgrade cards would be needed besides resolution and performance to me.

This is one of the reasons why I was excited about the prospect of GPU Physics through HavokFX. So, all the extremer negatives about choice with 3d vision or GPU PhysX are simply features to try to offer more gaming experience value -- reasons to upgrade -- make PC games more relevant for nVidia customers.

AMD can do the same if they choose and see value with them but have decided to wait some time for standards to take hold. However, they were very bullish on bringing EyeFinity to the gamer and thought it was wonderful. Another feature to help improve gaming experiences.

So, instead of attacking, simply appreciate the features that IHV's offer to their consumers. There is no right or wrong but choice.

The key to each individual is what do they expect? For me, I really like pro-active, tools and features that improve immersion.

Let's take DirectX 10 and 11 with transparency -- nVidia implemented it - spent the resources, have the ability to enhance multi or super and can enable x2, x4 x8 sampled and not locked to the color sample rate. Instead of waiting for someone to add it to their games, nVidia offers end-users the ability to improve immersion for their titles. Another way of improving the PC experience.

DirectX is important but is not the only reason for IHV's to improve upon gaming experiences for their customers to me. Features like 3d stereo, improved physics, flexible tools, multi-monitor can help as well.

 

[Idontcare]

For quite a while he never mentioned that he worked for Nvidia, I think the only reason he did was because he was eventually discovered. Pretty shadey in my opinion.

Steve, honest question, do you think that there isn't a single AMD/ATI employee who is amongst your ranks here in the forum? Actively posting in VC&G and all the while never mentioning the fact that they work for AMD/ATI?

Personally I find it hard to believe that we don't have a single AMD/ATI employee posting here on VC&G. And yet not a single forum member here in VC&G has mentioned it in their posts or put it in their sig...

Do you think that is "pretty shadey" of them as well? (the AMD/ATI employees who won't admit it)

speaking of Rollo and looking at your sig has prompted me to ask why does Wreckage just disappear for several weeks at a time? I always wondered if he gets temporally banned but it never says so by his name.

Not speaking in regards to any specific forum member, but the way the forum system works an individual's status is not changed if they are "vacationed" for a finite period of time.

The only time a poster will have their status changed to reflect "banned" is if they are permanently banned as in forever and ever.

Whether wreckage is "on vacation" or may be literally taking a vacation (as in no computer access or no desire to waste vacation time visiting the forums while he is at Disneyland with the family) is a whole other question and is most definitely not related to the thread topic so we should avoid talking about it here in Happy's thread.

 

[nyker96]

I think the consoles are keeping the pc gaming alive, having so many dx9 titles on consoles means many will be ported to pc as well.

 

[SirPauly]

I kinda think of the gaming market as multi-platform and the PC is part of it. And good to see IHV's help developers improve upon the gaming experience value of these titles for the PC platform.

 

[blastingcap]

Havok or PhysX.
And why should I reply to that? It really IS that simple. If nVidia can acquire Ageia, then so could AMD. And if Intel can acquire Havok, then so could AMD.
Basically AMD let two opportunities slip.

The rest is mostly FUD, really. You just throw some unrelated topics around, trying to establish how 'evil' nVidia is, and now it's Intel with payola this-and-that...
But you haven't really given any decent arguments why AMD *couldn't* have acquired any physics middleware while both their competitors did. It's 'more complex'? Is it now? How so?

The rest is FUD? Are you coming out from under a rock or have you not heard the Intel news? Do you really think Intel wants to throw $1.25B in settlements around for no reason? You aren't even using the term FUD right. None of the companies mentioned would have been able to outbid Intel and you damned well know it.

As for PhysX, many think NV overpaid for it. Maybe ATI was foolish for not having engaged in a price war with NV and overpaid even MORE for it, I don't know. Assuming they COULD even outbid NV, the larger company. It's easy to play Monday Morning quarterback.

Anyway, your original statement which I have linked to below totally made it sound like NV was being nice and ATI rejected their PhysX for no reason and wanted NV to do all the work for them while they got a free ride. WTF? It is YOU spreading misinformation, sir. Seriously, read what you wrote. You should be ashamed of yourself for distorting the truth like that.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=30525316&postcount=138

They actually wanted to support AMD with implementing their own back-end for PhysX.
Problem is, AMD refused.
Apparently the only thing AMD wants is for nVidia to do ALL the work for them, and make an OpenCL implementation.
AMD doesn't want to do anything, they just want a free ride.

 

[Scali]

The rest is FUD? Are you coming out from under a rock or have you not heard the Intel news? Do you really think Intel wants to throw $1.25B in settlements around for no reason? You aren't even using the term FUD right. None of the companies mentioned would have been able to outbid Intel and you damned well know it.

If AMD could not have outbid its competitors, then it should have been smarter, and bought up Havok or PhysX before either Intel or nVidia got that idea.
Apparently nVidia managed to acquire a physics API despite Intel's presence. So it's not impossible. FUD.

Anyway, your original statement which I have linked to below totally made it sound like NV was being nice and ATI rejected their PhysX for no reason and wanted NV to do all the work for them while they got a free ride. WTF? It is YOU spreading misinformation, sir. Seriously, read what you wrote. You should be ashamed of yourself for distorting the truth like that.

It's not misinformation, it's the truth:
http://www.bit-tech.net/custompc/news/602205/nvidia-offers-physx-support-to-amd--ati.html

Nvidia’s director of product PR for EMEA and India, Luciano Alibrandi, told Custom PC that ‘We are committed to an open PhysX platform that encourages innovation and participation,’ and added that Nvidia would be ‘open to talking with any GPU vendor about support for their architecture.’

 

[blastingcap]

You aren't even using the term FUD right, Mr. monday morning quarterback. Unless you think there is such a thing as spreading retrospective FUD? These events have long since passed and furthermore they have nothing to do with marketing, unless you think I am a marketer, and I am definitely NOT. Nor do I work for any of these companies.

I asked you a direct q if you'd be dumb enough to take up NV's "offer" and even you admitted that ATI would then be at NV's mercy when it came to physics. I.e., no deal.

Yet you're being argumentative now and seemingly backtracking. Whatever, it's clear you know everything (with the benefit of hindsight, anyway).

Contrast this to your statement which you never retracted, instead retreating to monday morning quarterbacking. We both know that just isn't true and you YOURSELF said ATI would be at their biggest rival NV's mercy if they took up that offer (Intel didn't need both Havok and PhysX, btw):

AMD has three choices basically:
1) Support PhysX and be at the mercy of nVidia.
2) Support Havok and be at the mercy of Intel.
3) Support Bullet and be at the mercy of Sony.

Those are your own words.

I will let you and others duke it out when it comes to second-guessing PhysX (note that I said you might even be right about ATI missing the boat twice, but it's hard to say what was going on in ATI's mind at the time and what their financial constraints were, etc.).

The statements I made about NV's history of shadiness stands, whether it's bumpgate, undisclosed viral marketing (FYI don't work for any of the companies mentioned in this thread), NV's apparent attempt at price-fixing to keep GPU prices artificially high, etc. I don't think that kind of stuff helps keep PC gaming alive in a responsible manner, especially jacking up GPU prices or outright killing them via bad bumps.

If AMD could not have outbid its competitors, then it should have been smarter, and bought up Havok or PhysX before either Intel or nVidia got that idea.
Apparently nVidia managed to acquire a physics API despite Intel's presence. So it's not impossible. FUD.

It's not misinformation, it's the truth:
http://www.bit-tech.net/custompc/news/602205/nvidia-offers-physx-support-to-amd--ati.html

Re: "Mr. monday morning quarterback" and "retreating to monday morning quarterbacking"

The technical merits of your post aside, these types of phrases are entirely derogatory and disrespectful and are not the sort of terminology we'd expect to find in any professional setting including a technical sub-forum such as AT's VC&G.

Expressing your negative opinion of a fellow forum member is not acceptable in this technical sub-forum. If you have a negative opinion of a fellow colleague in this forum you need to learn to keep that opinion to yourself.

Sarcastically positive opinions obviously fall into the same category as negative opinions since the intent is the same (disrespect of your fellow forum member).

Expressing a genuinely positive opinion of your fellow forum members is of course acceptable and encouraged. No different than in any other professional setting or technical sub-forum here at the Anandtech Forums.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[SirPauly]

In my opinion, I really think AMD likes the idea of PhysX and their prospective tools -- what's not to like? I think where the problem lies is the GPU PhysX is based on Cuda at this time. If AMD licenses Cuda and starts spending resources, and nVidia goes in different directions would leave AMD exposed based on there may not be enough input from AMD on the future of Cuda, etc.. AMD would hand a near monopoly to nVidia with Cuda -- and nVidia contolling everything.

It's not really about PhysX but Cuda to me.

 

[Lonbjerg]

I think the consoles are keeping the pc gaming alive, having so many dx9 titles on consoles means many will be ported to pc as well.

That is wrong, console "DX9" games are what is holding PC gaming back....because games can't be made to fully flex the muscles of the PC(I should actually say Microsoft PC platform back, because Linux/OSX can't run those games due to DX being proprietary to the Windows platform) due to the fact that console wouldn't be able to run them.

That and the piracy gone wild on the Windows platform...

 

[Lonbjerg]

In my opinion, I really think AMD likes the idea of PhysX and their prospective tools -- what's not to like? I think where the problem lies is the GPU PhysX is based on Cuda at this time. If AMD licenses Cuda and starts spending resources, and nVidia goes in different directions would leave AMD exposed based on there may not be enough input from AMD on the future of Cuda, etc.. AMD would hand a near monopoly to nVidia with Cuda -- and nVidia contolling everything.

It's not really about PhysX but Cuda to me.

I also doubt AMD could pull a X86 stunt on CUDA like the did on Intel back in the i386 days
But then again X86 shows that AMD could, if they would, embrace a proprietary standard from their competition

 

[Grooveriding]

I have to admit, Rollo gave me a somewhat negative impression of Nvidia. I remember reading these forums and wondering why this guy always seemed to find some sort of half truth to push an Nvidia part, even when their part was clearly not the best option for someone's needs. For quite a while he never mentioned that he worked for Nvidia, I think the only reason he did was because he was eventually discovered. Pretty shadey in my opinion.

I don't believe that what they did helped PC gaming at all...

I think in Rollo's case it went beyond just shadey to being outright malicious. He was hired by nvidia specifically in the capacity of a viral marketer, or rather the company he was working for was hired for that aim and him by extension.

The fact he was banned from multiple forums, this one included, speaks to that.

Look at his thread history http://forums.anandtech.com/search.php?searchid=487837

There is a consistent pattern there over years. This is why similar behavior from other forum members gets people's hackles up.

 

[Scali]

I asked you a direct q if you'd be dumb enough to take up NV's "offer" and even you admitted that ATI would then be at NV's mercy when it came to physics. I.e., no deal.

Let me refresh your memory:
AMD actually *did* strike a deal with Havok.
That would be my statement 2):

2) Support Havok and be at the mercy of Intel.

AMD also *did* strike a deal with Bullet.
That would be my statement 3:

3) Support Bullet and be at the mercy of Sony.

So why are you only talking about my statement 1)?

I'm not backtracking by the way. I don't think you put 2+2 together:
In my opinion it is better to be at the mercy of nVidia and supporting GPU physics, than it is to not support GPU physics at all.
Now go over my posts again, with that knowledge, and you'll see I'm being perfectly consistent, and not backtracking at all.

And oh, there's no need for all these personal attacks just because you don't disagree with me (and apparently cannot express your disagreement in consistent arguments).

 

[Madcatatlas]

I think he has a point Scali and your trying to wriggle your way out of something you wrote and apparantly ment deep inside.

Now, i applaud people with technical insight, as i do not have much myself when it comes to GPUs, but you ARE trowing around some pretty heavy accusations and making Nvidia look like angels while AMD gets the boot.

Now, i can understand that you dont like AMD. But spreading FUD on what the prospects were at different times in the past, is hardly something someone like you should do. I mean your opinion is actually valued for the technical insight.


Meh, i dont care that much tbh. You can have your opinions, just as i can have mine.


This post contains nothing in regards to technical content, is entirely personal in nature, and is a personal attack to boot.

If you have nothing technical to add to the ongoing discussion then "butt out" of the discussion and be a lurker like the rest of us.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[Scali]

I think he has a point Scali and your trying to wriggle your way out of something you wrote and apparantly ment deep inside.

Wiggling out of what?
I was not even aware that anything I said could even be *interpreted* as 'wiggling', let alone that I would actively be doing this.
So, care to back up this accusation? And what point exactly would he have? He's just throwing accusations around. I don't really see a coherent point as such.

Now, i applaud people with technical insight, as i do not have much myself when it comes to GPUs, but you ARE trowing around some pretty heavy accusations and making Nvidia look like angels while AMD gets the boot.

That's just in your mind.
I'm just pointing out the facts: nVidia is open to other GPU vendors supporting PhysX. And AMD is apparently not taking nVidia up on that offer.

Now, i can understand that you dont like AMD. But spreading FUD on what the prospects were at different times in the past, is hardly something someone like you should do. I mean your opinion is actually valued for the technical insight.

Firstly, me not liking AMD is just in your mind (I had a Radeon HD5770 in my primary PC up to a few weeks ago, how is that not liking AMD?). It's a company, I generally don't get emotionally attached to companies, so 'liking' or 'disliking' a company is not something that even exists in my world.
I may like or dislike a company's products or actions, but that is not the same as liking or disliking a company. In this case I like how nVidia is trying to make GPU-accelerated physics a success. Not because it's nVidia, but because accelerated physics are cool. If you bother to google back, you'll find me supporting Ageia as well, when they introduced their accelerated physics solution. It's the technology I support, not the company. So I don't really care whether it's Ageia, nVidia, Intel or AMD.

Secondly, what FUD are you even referring to? I am just stating facts (I provided a like to nVidia's public statement about their stance on PhysX support for competing GPUs, what more should I do?). I'm not the FUD-spreading kind, never was, never will be.

 

[SlowSpyder]

Steve, honest question, do you think that there isn't a single AMD/ATI employee who is amongst your ranks here in the forum? Actively posting in VC&G and all the while never mentioning the fact that they work for AMD/ATI?

Personally I find it hard to believe that we don't have a single AMD/ATI employee posting here on VC&G. And yet not a single forum member here in VC&G has mentioned it in their posts or put it in their sig...

Do you think that is "pretty shadey" of them as well? (the AMD/ATI employees who won't admit it)

I know we have JFAMD in the CPU section, he is open about his affiliation and I think most would agree that his posts add to the forum.

As far as undercover people posting pro-AMD, well, I wouldn't be shocked if there indeed were such posters, but have any ever been found?

Maybe I should clarify a bit. The problem I had with Rollo's posts were that he didn't just make a suggestion of an Nvidia product when someone made a 'What card shoudl I buy' post. That wouldn't have bothered me too much. But he would push Nvidia so hard to that person and throw half truths out there to try and sway someone to buy the part when it clearly wouldn't be the best option. It'd be one thing for an AMD/Nvidia affiliated person to provide a link to a suitable option. But it's another to start a 100+ post flame war bickering with those who explain why that option isn't the better one and are just trying to help the person asking the question.

The search here is limited to only 500 posts, I wish I could find some of his better work, especially some of his GeForce FX era posts. I think there is a good reason why he is banned from so many technical forums.

*edit - I should add, I wouldn't have a problem buying an Nvidia part if they had what I wanted when I was looking. Saving money and/or making a smart purchase is far more important to me than not buying Nvidia because of Rollo's posts from years ago.

I don't know if he was a unique viral marketer poster, or if he just happened to get caught. But it had more to do with his style of posting while representing Nvidia for many of us, I think.

 

[Madcatatlas]

Blastingcap already highlighted the FUD part. I dont need to requote every line, do I?

It doesnt feel like adding that much to the discussion.

Adding to what looks like you trying to wiggle your way out of your own words, IS worthwhile, since your opinions seem to come out very clearly as being biased.

If your not biased, good for you, im saying you come across as very biased. (And im sure i do aswell if you want to play it like that, but im not bothered with being confronted about it)

Also, i dont demand any answers from you in my post. All im sharing is my opinion of your opinion. And it looks like its ontopic too.


Personal attack, has nothing to do with the OP or the thread topic as well as having nothing to do with the technical points of the targeted forum member's post.

Unacceptable.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[Keysplayr]

Blastingcap already highlighted the FUD part. I dont need to requote every line, do I?

It doesnt feel like adding that much to the discussion.

Adding to what looks like you trying to wiggle your way out of your own words, IS worthwhile, since your opinions seem to come out very clearly as being biased.

If your not biased, good for you, im saying you come across as very biased. (And im sure i do aswell if you want to play it like that, but im not bothered with being confronted about it)

Also, i dont demand any answers from you in my post. All im sharing is my opinion of your opinion. And it looks like its ontopic too.

I think we've had quite enough of your character assassination attempt of Scali. Now that we are past this requirement of yours, how about now actually addressing his points with COUNTER points. Because that's what I'm looking at. Not at your attempt to tear his character down.
Now, if you please, counter his points with your points if you have any to offer.
-Thanks.

 

[Scali]

Blastingcap already highlighted the FUD part. I dont need to requote every line, do I?

No, but you DO need to explain what makes it FUD, because I don't see it.

Adding to what looks like you trying to wiggle your way out of your own words, IS worthwhile, since your opinions seem to come out very clearly as being biased.

Again, explain WHAT I would be trying to be wiggle out of?

That's what I hate about all these PhysX-discussions... There's all this this misinformation, unbased claims and accusations thrown around...
Give me some concrete arguments and then we can have a fruitful discussion.
But so far there's two people accusing me of ... I don't even know what. They just seem to feel the need to attack me because they disagree with what I say (even if that is just quoting an official nVidia statement, not even my own words, opinions or anything).

 

[Madcatatlas]

this can be deleted

 

[Madcatatlas]

I think we've had quite enough of your character assassination attempt of Scali. Now that we are past this requirement of yours, how about now actually addressing his points with COUNTER points. Because that's what I'm looking at. Not at your attempt to tear his character down.
Now, if you please, counter his points with your points if you have any to offer.
-Thanks.

I dont care what you`ve had enough of Keys, but it sure sounds like you`ve had enough of something. Why your attacking me like this, i just cant understand.

Id like to not get personal attacks from you in a topic discussion something entirely else. Make a topic or PM me if you want to take cheap shots at me.

If you please, let people discuss without adding your personal attacks to someone with a difference of opinion.


This is ridiculous. Keysplayr is spot-on.

Enough with the overt personal attacks of the likes you have lobbed against Scali above.

And enough with feigning you are the recipient of a personal attack when someone does nothing more than point out that your post contains no technical value and little debate value.

Debate Scali over the technical merits of his position OR move on.

That is simply how this forum is going to be. Don't like it? Finds yourself another VC&G forum that caters to your particular tastes.

Anandtech Video and Graphics Forum: "We aren't going to lower our standards to meet yours."

Moderator Idontcare

 

[Scali]

I dont care what you`ve had enough of Keys, but it sure sounds like you`ve had enough of something. Why your attacking me like this, i just cant understand.

I think he was posting as a moderator, pointing out that you should partake in the discussion in a mature and respectful way, rather than continuing at the level that you have degraded to up to here.

 

[Madcatatlas]

No, but you DO need to explain what makes it FUD, because I don't see it.



Again, explain WHAT I would be trying to be wiggle out of?

That's what I hate about all these PhysX-discussions... There's all this this misinformation, unbased claims and accusations thrown around...
Give me some concrete arguments and then we can have a fruitful discussion.
But so far there's two people accusing me of ... I don't even know what. They just seem to feel the need to attack me because they disagree with what I say (even if that is just quoting an official nVidia statement, not even my own words, opinions or anything).

Yes, here we go again with this "im the victim" talk. No comment really. If you cant answer the original claim that your spreading FUD, but instead choose to focus on my addition to the claims, you`ve lost integrity.


As far as I can tell your post is all about Scali and nothing about the thread-title.

This is a personal attack post and is unacceptable in a technical forum such as VC&G.

No one requires you to post in this thread, your membership in the forum is not revoked perchance you elect to not make a public spectacle of yourself over some disagreement with Scali.

Discuss the content, not the poster. And the discussion itself needs to be on-topic.

Moderator Idontcare

 

[Keysplayr]

I think he was posting as a moderator, pointing out that you should partake in the discussion in a mature and respectful way, rather than continuing at the level that you have degraded to up to here.

Nope. As a member. I don't moderate video anymore. As a member, I have a right to post as such and request an end to the character assassination and get to the point. Which I did.

 

[Madcatatlas]

I think he was posting as a moderator, pointing out that you should partake in the discussion in a mature and respectful way, rather than continuing at the level that you have degraded to up to here.

He is not a VGA forum moderator and he did not post as a moderator and should in all honesty calm down and stop flinging personal attacks around. Im friends with him for PM reasons for starters. Why he does this is beyond me...

 

[Scali]

Yes, here we go again with this "im the victim" talk. No comment really. If you cant answer the original claim that your spreading FUD, but instead choose to focus on my addition to the claims, you`ve lost integrity.

I have repeatedly stated that I don't understand the claim that I am spreading FUD, and asked for an explanation.
I cannot answer the claim until I understand what I am supposed to be answering.
And you need to stop your character assassinations.