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

[Grooveriding]

Games that push the hardware and video card companies that create pc games better then consoles, I'm all for. Really now guys , what games does a overclocked 5850 or gtx460 not play with high detail at normal resolutions 1650x1050 or 1080p?
I know there is a few but very few out of the hundreds of games released.
Come on Crysis 2. I need a good reason to upgrade.

There are many games a 5850 and GTX 460 cannot handle on maximum settings, particularly with AA at 1680x1050

Starcraft 2 with AA
BFBC2
Stalker games
Metro 2033
Crysis & Warhead
AvP with AA

Once you go up to 1920x1080 it only increases.

For the minority that cares about physx, even a GTX 480 is not enough to play Mafia 2 with maximum settings at 1680x1050. So nvidia needs to work hard to catch up to AMD and then some, to deliver enough horsepower.

Video cards in a gaming context are for rendering frames. The faster they do that, the better. I've yet to see any site review a card and not rate it on how fast it renders frames in the context of how much it costs.

With what is on the market, today, if you game at 1920x1200 or below, in my experience you need nothing more than 5870 Crossfire or GTX 480 SLI to run anything completely maxed and even throw in some super-sampling.

Looking forward to seeing the 6970 flagship GPU, and seeing if it makes it possible to have maximum settings with a single-gpu at 1920x1200 and downwards.

Hopefully for the mid-range gamer the 6870 next month will bring games like Crysis and Metro 2033 to the mainstream crowd on max settings as well.

 

[badb0y]

I am pretty sure there were leaked nVidia drivers a few months ago that worked with Radeon cards which raises 2 questions:

1. Either nVidia internally tests and supports Radeon cards or

2. They put limitations via the driver to prevent a card to do PhysX when the primary card is ATi.

Look PhysX is nVidia's feature , no question about that but there is no reason for them to block it if the person has an nVidia card and wishes to use it as the secondary card. We payed the money we should get what was promised to us no?

Thoughts?

 

[Seero]

So you think that the TWIMTBP program names video cards?
I'm lost with this post, help me.

They are trying to derail the thread as hard as they can.

 

[Seero]

I am pretty sure there were leaked nVidia drivers a few months ago that worked with Radeon cards which raises 2 questions:

1. Either nVidia internally tests and supports Radeon cards or

2. They put limitations via the driver to prevent a card to do PhysX when the primary card is ATi.

Look PhysX is nVidia's feature , no question about that but there is no reason for them to block it if the person has an nVidia card and wishes to use it as the secondary card. We payed the money we should get what was promised to us no?

Thoughts?

1. waste of resources IMO.

2. I don't see the need or supporting facts.

I paid for XP, and DirectX 10 dosn't run, DirectX 11 doesn't run, and even IE 9 doesn't run. I didn't see you complain about it.

 

[Dribble]

Look PhysX is nVidia's feature , no question about that but there is no reason for them to block it if the person has an nVidia card and wishes to use it as the secondary card. We payed the money we should get what was promised to us no?

Thoughts?

They obviously don't want to have to properly support ati primary + nvidia physx secondary. If there are bugs due to the ati card being in the system nvidia don't want to have to support that - I can understand you not wanting to have to test your competitors cards for them.

However that's not the same as blocking it completely - it if works (and it seems too) then I think nvidia should allow it. I suppose they might argue they do - they could probably have completely blocked the hacked drivers if they wished - but they obviously leave it fairly easy to hack so people who really want ati primary + nvidia secondary can.

 

[happy medium]

With what is on the market, today, if you game at 1920x1200 or below, in my experience you need nothing more than 5870 Crossfire or GTX 480 SLI to run anything completely maxed and even throw in some super-sampling.

Are you kidding me?
The average gamer does not play with 8x aa 16af with Super sampling and all that crap.

They set the settings to high and play and most dont have a 24 inch monitor either.

So for a handfull of games you might like, your going to buy a 400$+ video card to run it with AA ?

Hopefully for the mid-range gamer the 6870 next month will bring games like Crysis and Metro 2033 to the mainstream crowd on max settings as well.

Why, by then most of us have allready played it 10 times over on med settings with my $100 card.
I'm not nocking you guys with the 30 inch monitors and crossfire/sli setups ,and need 60fps minimum but you are in the very very small minority. 1 %?

 

[Grooveriding]

Are you kidding me?
The average gamer does not play with 8x aa 16af with Super sampling and all that crap.

They set the settings to high and play and most dont have a 24 inch monitor either.

So for a handfull of games you might like, your going to buy a 400$+ video card to run it with AA ?

A mid-range gamer will not buy a $400 card. But he will buy a $200-250 card and he'll buy the fastest one he can, not one that is slower just because that's all 'he needs'.

Someone with a budget in mind is going to buy the fastest card at their price point.

So going forward the faster cards are the better. So that mid-range buyer can start to turn on AA in demanding games, turn up AA and super-sampling in older games and run the most visually impressive new games on their highest settings.

If that wasn't the case we'd all be fine with an 8800GT because it's all 'we need'

It's why enthusiasts look forward to new hardware coming out, more performance and the ripple effect of getting new levels of performance for the same price as the old tech hardware was selling for. Every gamer needs more performance, it's what allows game developers to push the boundaries in visuals and immersion. They can't make advances in graphics if there is no hardware to run it.

 

[Outrage]

I paid for a direct x 11 card and I want all the direct x 11 features, not some half ass tessalation/physx/direct x 9 + crap. Innovation! Not just Nvidia but both companies. AMD needs to get on the ball and help, and stop giving excuses why there not.

Take a look at amd's gaming evolved program
http://sites.amd.com/us/game/games/Pages/games.aspx

and do some reading about amd's philosophy
http://sites.amd.com/us/game/community/Pages/aboutgamingevolved.aspx

then jump over to nvidias nzone and see the difference. Amd talks about PC gaming. Nvidia talks about how great it is gaming with a nvidia gpu.

 

[happy medium]

A mid-range gamer will not buy a $400 card. But he will buy a $200-250 card and he'll buy the fastest one he can, not one that is slower just because that's all 'he needs'.

I don't know what a mid range gamer is but I play all the latest games (mostly fps and racing) and still yes still am satisfied with the performance of my card besides a few chosen intensive games, but for those games I just play with the details a bit and it usually looks just as good and plays faster. Tweak guides for the win.

Someone with a budget in mind is going to buy the fastest card at their price point

I've given advice for hundreds of people here and the big questions are, "at what res do you game at", "whats your cpu like", and "what games do you play".

If someone says 1080p res., core i7, and LFD2, BC2, Crysis,NFS Shift, Far cry 2 type games, I wont tell them to buy a gtx480 or 5870, would you?

The normal person on this forums does not say "I have 450$ to spend @ 1080p", thats rare and we automatically assume they have money to burn and say get the gtx 480 Zotac AMP. ,even if we know its overkill for 99% of the people. We might say why not get a 5850 and overclock it. I think you get the point. I have NEVER (i think) recommended dual 5870's or gtx480's.

If that wasn't the case we'd all be fine with an 8800GT because it's all 'we need'

Truth is a 8800gt lasted me the longest and probrobly many others.

It's why enthusiasts look forward to new hardware coming out, more performance and the ripple effect of getting new levels of performance for the same price as the old tech hardware was selling for.

Truth is real enthusiast are real hard to find if they have gtx480 in sli and 1200$ 30 inch minitors. You don't need to have a 4000$ system to be a enthusiast.

 

[happy medium]

Take a look at amd's gaming evolved program
http://sites.amd.com/us/game/games/Pages/games.aspx

and do some reading about amd's philosophy
http://sites.amd.com/us/game/community/Pages/aboutgamingevolved.aspx

then jump over to nvidias nzone and see the difference. Amd talks about PC gaming. Nvidia talks about how great it is gaming with a nvidia gpu.

Hey, that great.
Like I said I have 37 games on my drive, not one has thier logo on it?

Don't get me wrong If AMD has a program that helps get us out of this console crap,I'm right behind them also.

The real question is why all the hate for a program that helps our games be better then consoles?
Pc gamers unite!

 

[Kenmitch]

Hey, that great.
Like I said I have 37 games on my drive, not one has thier logo on it?

Don't get me wrong If AMD has a program that helps get us out of this console crap,I'm right behind them also.

The real question is why all the hate for a program that helps our games be better then consoles? Pc gamers unite!

You just have to have an open mind sometimes. I decided to just do a simple google search on twimtbp for the hell of it and see. Good stuff bad stuff it's all there. Did learn a thing or two I guess. But the caption that caught my eye first was the following.

Nvidia: Without TWIMTBP, PC gaming would be dead :thumbsdown:

So I guess in a way all of us should be thankfull to nvidia for single handedly keeping PC gaming alive. :thumbsup:

 

[RussianSensation]

There are many games a 5850 and GTX 460 cannot handle on maximum settings, particularly with AA at 1680x1050

Starcraft 2 with AA - "Meanwhile, the GeForce cards can offer performance that is on the edge of playable up until 1920x1080."

And that is BY FAR the most intensive test done all over the web for SC2 by any website. So add another 20 fps+ to those #s for everyone else playing SC2.

BFBC2 - again, easily playable for both 5850 and GTX460.

Stalker games - Only Call of Pripyat is stressful for any modern graphics cards. At 1680x1050 both 5850 and GTX460 can run it with 0 issues. Clear Sky and SofChernobyl are easily playable on a GTX460.

Metro 2033 - No single-GPU videocard today can max this game out.....
Crysis & Warhead - No single-GPU videocard today can max these games out.....
AvP with AA - No single-GPU videocard today can max this game out.....

AA in Metro for example worsens textures. I played crysis at 1920x1080 on a Radeon 4890 and found 0xAA/2xAA was good enough for me, depending on the scene. Sure I'd like 4AA, but I am not about to pay $600 for 2 graphics cards for that.

So you are looking at 4-5 games where 5850/GTX460 need more firepower (add Arma 2 and perhaps GTAIV as the 4th and 5th). And 98% of all other PC games you can play maxed (i.e., the in-game control panel visual settings for shaders, shadows, textures, draw distance, etc.) out if you back off the AA (and many don't consider "maxing" out as being able to run super-sampling "BFG-Style" () ).

Bottom line is, there are not enough demanding games. And I have said this many times before, today the main differentiating factor between a $200 and $500 graphics card is level of AA. If you don't care about AA, you can basically max out every single game on the GTX460 besides Arma2. For example when Doom 3 came out, you couldn't even access some of the texture quality settings due to lack of VRAM, or when HDR hit the scene, 6800 series would choke or when Far Cry 1 came out it brought most cards to their knees from visuals alone (forget about AA). These types of visual advancements in PC games we haven't seen since Crysis 1 (2007), about the time Xbox360 and PS3 came onto the scene in full force. After that, it's just cross-platform games galore: BioShock, Dirt series, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty series, HAWX, etc.

 

[happy medium]

You just have to have an open mind sometimes. I decided to just do a simple google search on twimtbp for the hell of it and see. Good stuff bad stuff it's all there. Did learn a thing or two I guess. But the caption that caught my eye first was the following.

Nvidia: Without TWIMTBP, PC gaming would be dead :thumbsdown:

So I guess in a way all of us should be thankfull to nvidia for single handedly keeping PC gaming alive. :thumbsup:

You are wearing a flame retardent suit right?

I wouldn't say Nvidia is the single reason for PC gaming being alive.
I would say they are trying to keep it alive for the sake of profit.
What company doesen't?
Whatever the reason, whats good for PC gaming is good for us, whether it be AMD or Nvidia or Microsoft.

 

[happy medium]

Starcraft 2 with AA - "Meanwhile, the GeForce cards can offer performance that is on the edge of playable up until 1920x1080."

And that is BY FAR the most intensive test done all over the web for SC2 by any website. So add another 20 fps+ to those #s for everyone else playing SC2.

BFBC2 - again, easily playable for both 5850 and GTX460.

Stalker games - Only Call of Pripyat is stressful for any modern graphics cards. At 1680x1050 both 5850 and GTX460 can run it with 0 issues. Clear Sky and SofChernobyl are a joke for GTX460.

Metro 2033 - No single-GPU videocard today can max this game out.....

Crysis & Warhead - No single-GPU videocard today can max these games out.....

AvP with AA - No single-GPU videocard today can max this game out.....

AA in Metro for example worsens textures. I played crysis at 1920x1080 on Radeon 4890 and found 2xAA was good enough for me. Sure I'd like 4AA, but I am not about to pay $600 for 2 graphics cards for that.

Bottom line is, there are not enough demanding games. And I have said this many times before, today the main differentiating factor between a $200 and $500 graphics card is level of AA. If you don't care about AA, you can basically max out every single game on the GTX460 besides Arma2. For example when Doom 3 came out, you couldn't even access some of the texture quality settings due to lack of VRAM, or when HDR hit the scene, 6800 series would choke or when Far Cry 1 came out it brought most cards to their knees from visuals alone (forget about AA). These types of visual advancements in PC games we haven't seen since Crysis 1 (2007), about the time Xbox360 and PS3 came onto the scene in full force. After that, it's just cross-platform games galore: BioShock, Dirt series, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty series, HAWX, etc.

I totally agree, and thank you for that on topic post.

Edit: Any program that can give us a higher quality of game is good for all of us.
I dont understand the bashing?

 

[Keysplayr]

Fair enough. But the only point that I would contend is that we're not so much talking about holding back, or maybe more accurately AMD not helping to push forward, Physx... no so much PC gaming. By not licensing Physx AMD is not helping to push Physx forward, but I don't know that we can say that Physx is necessarily good for PC gaming.

It sure isn't bad, and most certainly better than nothing. Isn't going to end anytime soon and is only going to get better as the adoption rate continues and hardware progresses.

 

[RussianSensation]

A sufficient condition - Something that's sufficient and is enough to get the job done. However, without more info, we can't assume that it's a requirement (necessary condition). The easiest way to prove that a necessary condition is not required is to remove it. If you remove NV from PC gaming, PC gaming will still remain. Therefore, NV cannot possibly be keeping PC gaming alive. In addition, PC gaming existed before there was NV.

Furthermore, NV's influence may be required to speed up the visual progress in PC games by allowing developers to more effectively take advantage of the latest hardware technologies such as tessellation and physX. However, this influence may not be sufficient enough to keep PC gaming alive due to other factors against it. There are other optional conditions which may exert greater influence on the sustainability of PC gaming, such as consoles having a wider selection of quality titles across a variety of genres (not just Strategy, FPS and Massively-online multiplayer games), greater number of A-level exclusives, greater number of games that the mainstream gamer is interested in, greater market for used games, the desire to use a living room TV to play games vs. a 20-23 inch monitor, a more streamlined experience of playing online games with your friends, etc. Even if NV's influence could indirectly produce the best looking games on the PC ("killer graphics"), it still may not be enough to overcome "console advantages" or the steep price of owning a PC for families who are only looking to spend $199-299 on consoles.

What we can agree on is that when hardware companies work together with game developers, the result is a better looking / more optimized game. We have seen Capcom successfully work with Intel to produce one of the few games, Resident Evil 5, which truly takes advantage of multi-cores.

It's good to see NV spending $ on actually trying to make games better, as opposed to doing nothing.

 

[happy medium]

With what is on the market, today, if you game at 1920x1200 or below, in my experience you need nothing more than 5870 Crossfire or GTX 480 SLI to run anything completely maxed and even throw in some super-sampling.

Here is 2 guys who disagree with you.

Originally Posted by happy medium
Yea he's right, those of you with 1200$ 30 inch monitors don't buy a $200 gtx460.
ANyone? Ah nevermind.

Elfear posted:
I've got a 5850 running mine. It's not that far of a stretch.

_____________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by Elfear
I've got a 5850 running mine. It's not that far of a stretch.

Mrk6 posted:
Ditto. My 5850 does fine at 2560x1600.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30530112&posted=1#post30530112
Post 152 and 153

 

[MrK6]

Here is 2 guys who disagree with you.

Originally Posted by happy medium
Yea he's right, those of you with 1200$ 30 inch monitors don't buy a $200 gtx460.
ANyone? Ah nevermind.

Elfear posted:
I've got a 5850 running mine. It's not that far of a stretch.

_____________________________________________________________________

Originally Posted by Elfear
I've got a 5850 running mine. It's not that far of a stretch.

Mrk6 posted:
Ditto. My 5850 does fine at 2560x1600.

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?p=30530112&posted=1#post30530112
Post 152 and 153

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misuse my comments and take them out of context to fit your own arguments. I had stated my 5850 does fine at 2560x1600, but I cannot max out all games nor run the highest image quality settings in some. Grooveriding is correct that you need dual flagship cards to really push settings and image quality even below 2560x1600, but I am not a fan of multi-GPU nor does not having the highest image quality settings matter to me.

 

[blastingcap]

Scali the reason for the inconsistency is this:

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.

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.

I could be wrong, but the way I interpreted that is this: you are accusing AMD of not wanting to do anything, just getting a free ride, and refusing NV's offer re: PhysX, yet you then acknowledge that by accepting such an offer AMD would be at the mercy of NV. So why then, would AMD ever accept such an offer from NV? If they accept any such type of offer they might as well side with Intel since Intel's lead on AMD is larger than NV's lead on ATI--i.e., AMD/ATI has a better chance of dethroning NV than dethroning Intel. Under the circumstances I think it's pretty clear why AMD rejected NV, yet your first post obfuscated this and made it sound like ATI was being unreasonable, ungrateful, and lazy in refusing NV's offer.

You then went on about how AMD passed up opportunities, but that is a) second-guessing AMD with the benefit of hindsight, even if you're right (and to some extent I think you ARE right) and b) irrelevant to the issue I had with your original statement which made it sound to me like you were saying ATI was being unreasonable, ungrateful, and lazy in refusing NV's offer.

 

[happy medium]

I'd appreciate it if you didn't misuse my comments and take them out of context to fit your own arguments. I had stated my 5850 does fine at 2560x1600, but I cannot max out all games nor run the highest image quality settings in some. Grooveriding is correct that you need dual flagship cards to really push settings and image quality even below 2560x1600, but I am not a fan of multi-GPU nor does not having the highest image quality settings matter to me.

Its not that big of a deal, but thanks.
And I agree, you do need a dual flagship card to push the settings and image quality @ 2500x1600, a very minority resolution, but my point was that with 95% games @ 1080p you don't. A overclocked gtx460 or 5850 will be fine.


Thats a little off topic anyway, sorry.

 

[Seero]

I could be wrong, but the way I interpreted that is this: you are accusing AMD of not wanting to do anything, just getting a free ride, and refusing NV's offer re: PhysX, yet you then acknowledge that by accepting such an offer AMD would be at the mercy of NV. So why then, would AMD ever accept such an offer from NV? If they accept any such type of offer they might as well side with Intel since Intel's lead on AMD is larger than NV's lead on ATI--i.e., AMD/ATI has a better chance of dethroning NV than dethroning Intel. Under the circumstances I think it's pretty clear why AMD rejected NV, yet your first post obfuscated this and made it sound like ATI was being unreasonable, ungrateful, and lazy in refusing NV's offer.

You then went on about how AMD passed up opportunities, but that is a) second-guessing AMD with the benefit of hindsight, even if you're right (and to some extent I think you ARE right) and b) irrelevant to the issue I had with your original statement which made it sound to me like you were saying ATI was being unreasonable, ungrateful, and lazy in refusing NV's offer.

Fact:
-Nvidia owns PhysX.
-AMD can buy license from Nvidia to run PhysX on their video cards.
-AMD have not brought the license from Nvidia to run PhysX on their video cards.

Opinion:
-By buying the license, AMD will be at mercy of Nvidia.

My opinion:
the idea of Dx10, where video card companies must follow the rules laid by a company that does not make good video cards. Why no one here stop buying things from MS and go for apple/linux and use OpenGL/CL to support open source? Are both AMD and Nvidia at the mercy of MS? But I thought people are quite happy about the performance of Dx11. OMG tessellation! OMG!
"Dude, without tessellation, every game will look like Tekken."

"Look I can switch it on and off, when it is off, the stairs look so flat, are you blind?"

"SC2 is coded in Dx9, and nothing look flat."

"But you see, I can switch it on and off."

"Okay, Dx11 gave you a switch in game so you can play with it, happy?"

"It isn't only about tessellation stupid, Dx11 have DirectCompute with greatly utilize the use of GPU, fool."

"Yes, I see it, I see DirectCompute, but I am still looking for the part with the GPU."

No one complain about Dx11 as it is the greatest thing win7 brings. What about the "At mercy" part? What about the "Hype" part?

Another opinion of mine:
AMD should bring some new blood into gaming. If not, at least do whatever your competitor does. I thought Eyefinity was something cool because the name was cool, but then I realized it is another name for multi-display, that is low. Come on AMD, you are seriously letting your fans down. They are complaining about Nvidia's proprietary stuffs, isn't it about time for you to do something for your supporters? What exactly are you doing with those cash from Intel? What exactly are you doing with all those profit from Cypress? So Nvidia started the "red sea" with 460 and you chicken out? You could have sold your cards 10% cheaper than the cheapest Fermi can offer and still make money this quarter, yet other than the hope of 6xxx, your fans have nothing. In fact, you even took the name ATI away. Really?

Again, this is just my opinion.

 

[blastingcap]

AMD's business judgment is not what I disagreed with so much as I disagreed with Scali's characterization of it. He wrote:

"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."

This makes AMD sound like some combination of unreasonable/lazy/stupid/ungrateful to NV, but even according to Scali's "menu" of options (be at mercy of NV, Intel, or Sony), it seems that AMD was not necessarily unreasonable/lazy/stupid/ungrateful to reject NV's overtures. Why pick NV on that "menu" when Sony or even Intel wouldn't be as bad? You could argue that being at the mercy of NV is the "least bad" choice in Scali's "menu," but I think many people would disagree.

That's the core of the issue I had with Scali's original statement, which in my eyes made AMD sound like some combination of unreasonable/lazy/stupid/ungrateful to NV as if it were an uncontested fact. Was going with Bullet really the worst option in Scali's menu? I think many people would say "no." And if that's the case, I think maybe Scali should have toned down his original statement. If he said that AMD dug itself its own hole or something, there's some merit to that statement, but the way he stated things was disingenuous imho.

Also, buying a license of NV does put AMD at the mercy of NV (insofar as physics was concerned) as agreed upon by Scali and me. What you think is irrelevant in the Scali-Blastingcap world because in our world, AMD would be at the mercy of NV if the former licensed PhysX from the latter. And outside of the Scali-Blastingcap world, I think many others would agree that it's a fact that AMD would be at NV's mercy in physics if AMD were to license PhysX from NV.

The DX11 analogy fails because of MS's insanely dominant position in OSes--there's no real way you can avoid dealing with MS in gaming graphics for long, so you may as well work with them rather than antagonize them. Plus they are not direct competitors to AMD the same way Intel and NV are.

Similarly, AMD cooperates with Intel because it has to. Intel and AMD don't really like each other that much, but they agreed to settle their differences and cross-license x86 technology from each other because AMD needs an x86 license and Intel needs AMD-64 instruction set + a credible competitor in the x86 processor market (so as to keep a lid on anti-trust charges).

By contrast, there IS a way for AMD to avoid having to license NV's PhysX. So far AMD's avoidance of licensing PhysX doesn't seem to have hurt it that much in the gaming card market.

Fact:
-Nvidia owns PhysX.
-AMD can buy license from Nvidia to run PhysX on their video cards.
-AMD have not brought the license from Nvidia to run PhysX on their video cards.

Opinion:
-By buying the license, AMD will be at mercy of Nvidia.

My opinion:
the idea of Dx10, where video card companies must follow the rules laid by a company that does not make good video cards. Why no one here stop buying things from MS and go for apple/linux and use OpenGL/CL to support open source? Are both AMD and Nvidia at the mercy of MS? But I thought people are quite happy about the performance of Dx11. OMG tessellation! OMG!
"Dude, without tessellation, every game will look like Tekken."

"Look I can switch it on and off, when it is off, the stairs look so flat, are you blind?"

"SC2 is coded in Dx9, and nothing look flat."

"But you see, I can switch it on and off."

"Okay, Dx11 gave you a switch in game so you can play with it, happy?"

"It isn't only about tessellation stupid, Dx11 have DirectCompute with greatly utilize the use of GPU, fool."

"Yes, I see it, I see DirectCompute, but I am still looking for the part with the GPU."

No one complain about Dx11 as it is the greatest thing win7 brings. What about the "At mercy" part? What about the "Hype" part?

 

[Grooveriding]

Starcraft 2 with AA - "Meanwhile, the GeForce cards can offer performance that is on the edge of playable up until 1920x1080."

And that is BY FAR the most intensive test done all over the web for SC2 by any website. So add another 20 fps+ to those #s for everyone else playing SC2.

BFBC2 - again, easily playable for both 5850 and GTX460.

Stalker games - Only Call of Pripyat is stressful for any modern graphics cards. At 1680x1050 both 5850 and GTX460 can run it with 0 issues. Clear Sky and SofChernobyl are easily playable on a GTX460.

Metro 2033 - No single-GPU videocard today can max this game out.....
Crysis & Warhead - No single-GPU videocard today can max these games out.....
AvP with AA - No single-GPU videocard today can max this game out.....

AA in Metro for example worsens textures. I played crysis at 1920x1080 on a Radeon 4890 and found 0xAA/2xAA was good enough for me, depending on the scene. Sure I'd like 4AA, but I am not about to pay $600 for 2 graphics cards for that.

So you are looking at 4-5 games where 5850/GTX460 need more firepower (add Arma 2 and perhaps GTAIV as the 4th and 5th). And 98% of all other PC games you can play maxed (i.e., the in-game control panel visual settings for shaders, shadows, textures, draw distance, etc.) out if you back off the AA (and many don't consider "maxing" out as being able to run super-sampling "BFG-Style" () ).

Bottom line is, there are not enough demanding games. And I have said this many times before, today the main differentiating factor between a $200 and $500 graphics card is level of AA. If you don't care about AA, you can basically max out every single game on the GTX460 besides Arma2. For example when Doom 3 came out, you couldn't even access some of the texture quality settings due to lack of VRAM, or when HDR hit the scene, 6800 series would choke or when Far Cry 1 came out it brought most cards to their knees from visuals alone (forget about AA). These types of visual advancements in PC games we haven't seen since Crysis 1 (2007), about the time Xbox360 and PS3 came onto the scene in full force. After that, it's just cross-platform games galore: BioShock, Dirt series, Assassin's Creed, Call of Duty series, HAWX, etc.

A lot of what you said is being taken out of context of numbers. Look at those actual benches. In SC2 a 460 gets an average of 27fps at 1680x1050 with 4xAA. That is not playable.

I'm not saying you can't play many games at low resolutions on mid-range hardware like a GTX 460 or 5850, but you can't run games at their highest settings, or make use of AA in a lot games. Which is limiting to visual quality.

I've ran a single 5870 on my 1920x1200 screen, and it was not enough and certainly did not allow me to just crank everything up in any game.

I'm with you on there not being enough demanding games. But that is how it is, consoles have a huge market compared to PC gaming and dictate the landscape, nothing any company does will make it more profitable to create a PC game vs a console game. So 90% of PC titles will be stuck in limbo until next gen consoles arrive. Whenever Xbox 360 2 or PS4 come to market, you'll see huge leaps in graphics again.

There do continue to be titles here and there that are pushing boundaries and need more horsepower than what we have now. PC gamers continue to need faster cards in their rigs.

It's an odd argument to try and make that we do not need faster video cards. Whether or not there are a host of demanding games on the market, if you are set to buy a video card and want to spend $200 or $300 or $400 the more performance available to you at your price point, the better, no ?

As far as the thread, it's pretty funny to see a six paragraph opinion piece posted by fuad on a website that is to NV what semiaccurate is to AMD be taken as a quality, factual assessment. The article doesn't do anything to make a case for his claim that nvidia keeps pc gaming alive. It's just his opinion and reeks of a lobby piece.

 

[blastingcap]

AMD should bring some new blood into gaming. If not, at least do whatever your competitor does. I thought Eyefinity was something cool because the name was cool, but then I realized it is another name for multi-display, that is low. Come on AMD, you are seriously letting your fans down. They are complaining about Nvidia's proprietary stuffs, isn't it about time for you to do something for your supporters? What exactly are you doing with those cash from Intel? What exactly are you doing with all those profit from Cypress? So Nvidia started the "red sea" with 460 and you chicken out? You could have sold your cards 10% cheaper than the cheapest Fermi can offer and still make money this quarter, yet other than the hope of 6xxx, your fans have nothing. In fact, you even took the name ATI away. Really?

Again, this is just my opinion.

You added this edit after I responded to the rest of your post, so I want to say that I agree with the above to a large extent (definitely NOT if you are implying that AMD should make proprietary technology like NV does, though). AMD did introduce Eyefinity. It also pushed for tessellation first, but thanks to NV's influence, it wasn't included in DX10 but instead got pushed back to DX11. (AMD GPUs had tessellation since way back; in fact the console GPU (forgot what it was called, it's in xboxes) have tessellation hardware in them.

Nevertheless, AMD has been slow to adopt 3D (EDIT: actually I just saw this article about HD3D so it would seem that 6xxx-series will have 3D...: http://www.guruht.com/2010/09/amd-radeon-hd-6800-new-features-hd3d.html), and it doesn't seem in too huge of a rush to bring Bullet to the masses (but given PhysX's lukewarm reception in the marketplace, where it doesn't really affect gameplay in most games, I can see why Bullet may have fallen in AMD's list of priorities).

Let me be clear here about my opinion: NV does a lot for PC gaming but it takes away from it as well.

On one hand it pushes physics, 3D, got multi-GPU first and does it better, and helps game developers with hardware/support more than AMD does, hence all the TWIMTBP titles (let's ignore the self-interest aspect of this; the fact that they give support does help some game devs).

But NV has also done stuff that is arguably against the interests of PC gaming, such as attempting to dodge responsibility for bumpgate, viral marketing that is shady in the eyes of some, and what looks like an attempt to price-fix with ATI, which if it succeeded, artificially raised video card prices (higher video card prices is something very much AGAINST PC gaming, agreed?). Turning off PhysX when AMD cards are detected is dubious as well.

So overall, has NV done more to help or hurt PC gaming than AMD? The answer is yes and no. I.e., none of the above. NV and AMD need to coexist in order to help keep price/perf competitive, else we have a monopoly situation. What's clear though is that a unified front for PC gaming would help enormously. DirectX was supposed to solve that, but if proprietary stuff like PhysX keeps cropping up, that will undermine the universality of DirectX and thus re-fragment the PC gaming market. The PC gaming market is already smaller than the combined console market, so the last thing it needs is fragmenting.

Note that I've heard rumors that NV is in danger of getting shut out of all next-gen consoles in which case AMD may end up supplying the GPUs for the PS4, Xbox720 (so to speak), and the successor to Wii. If that happens, I would expect NV to REALLY REALLY push PC gaming.

 

[OCGuy]

RussianSensation

I have to force DX9 on my 5850 @ 1080P - Medium-High settings, no HBAO.