AMD is a bigger company, yes.
Anything else that was said is debatable because both sides are innovative.
-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Why has Nvidia not replied or given any statement about Mantle?
Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
AMD is a bigger company, yes.
Anything else that was said is debatable because both sides are innovative.
Fact:AMD bought ATI, had a market cap of nearly 10 billion. They have managed to completely destroy the value of ATI from its acquisition and subsequent mis-management.
SiliconWars
Platinum Member
Your financial opinion changes nothing. AMD is the bigger company and ATI/AMD is the more innovative company. Anything Nvidia got to first was based on 3dfx's IP after the buyout. After that ran out they've been lagging behind AMD.
ATI/AMD - Always first to the new node, normally first to the new DirectX, mostly first with the real knockout features like Eyefinity and soon Mantle. Nvidia has some decent software based innovations but on the hardware side they barely do anything new. What was their first and last true innovation? SLI in 2004? The company history has more aquisitions than innovations - http://www.nvidia.com/page/corporate_timeline.html
Actually you're right to call me out; my wording was pretty awful since unified shader implies the same instruction set compatibility across hardware which isn't something that either side can "invent" on their own by definition...
I was trying to refer to the shader architecture itself and the first iteration of the programmable shader core dates as far back as the geforce 2 along with all the basic building blocks of what you now find in modern gpus from all 3 (more if you count mobile tech) hardware brands within 3 or 4 generations of their early products.
Nonetheless, my point stands. Both team red and team green have made substantial contributions to gpu tech and those who read the early timeline in depth would probably give the lead to nvidia for solving a lot of the initial problems and really just trailblazing the tech everybody takes for granted today. Saying that amd is always leading and nvidia following just sounds like trying to rewrite history for the sake of partisan politics.
SolMiester
Diamond Member
So, are AMD fans saying that all future game developers are only going to code for the Mantle API instead of DX?....Wouldn't that negate at least half the gaming populous?
bystander36
Diamond Member
First off, AMD is only bigger if you include their CPU side. If you compare their GPU departments, I'm pretty certain Nvidia is bigger. We are talking about GPU's here, so this is why people are disagreeing.
Nvidia has also done a number of new things since then such as, CUDA, PhysX, 3D Vision, and 3D Vision Surround. Perhaps some others I'm forgetting.
wand3r3r
Diamond Member
Where did you pull that out of?
Warning issued for inflammatory language.
-- stahlhart
Last edited by a moderator:
SolMiester
Diamond Member
What a load of BS!....NV brought out mGPU, AMD followed, though to date, its not as good. NV have also bought out several filtering settings, phyX & CUDA...Frame pacing, GPU Boost.
smackababy
Lifer
I think most are of the impression Mantle can just be enabled in the engine and somehow magically use it on cards where it is available. Traditional game devs who license engines will just write it once and it will run with and without Mantle (despite anyone really knowing the depth of the Mantle API).
It isnt an opinion, it is a fact AMD bought ATI and had a combined market cap near 10 billion. Today that market cap sits at ~2.8 billion. They have completely evaporated the value of ATI within 7 years of purchase.
Your history on who has and hasnt brought useable technology to the marketplace is shoddy at best. If you think SLI in 04 is the only thing Nvidia has brought to the market place in the last decade. You have to be trolling or clueless.
smackababy
Lifer
As far as the response goes: Nvidia responded before Mantle was announced. They claimed the console optimizations and direct to metal coding did not offer any significant performance improvements to be worth exploring on the PC.
This was before Mantle was announced and a lot of people simply thought it was Nvidia downplaying the next gen consoles, but after AMD's Mantle slide, it is clear they weren't just talking Xbox One and PS4.
This was before Mantle was announced and a lot of people simply thought it was Nvidia downplaying the next gen consoles, but after AMD's Mantle slide, it is clear they weren't just talking Xbox One and PS4.
SiliconWars
Platinum Member
The problem I have with this is that Nvidia aquired it's way to many of it's innovations after buying out 3dfx. Also the crap about them "inventing the GPU" is utter nonsense.
Before they "invented the GPU", ATI had done the following -
http://www.amd.com/us/aboutamd/corporate-information/Pages/timeline.aspx
1989 - ATI assists in establishment of VESA standard for graphics industry.
1995 - ATI is first graphics company to ship Mac-compatible graphics boards.
1996 - ATI enters the notebook market with the industry's first notebook 3D graphics accelerator.
1997 - ATI is first graphics company to provide hardware support for DVD acceleration and display.
1997 - ATI is first graphics company to release products supporting Accelerated Graphics Port, the new industry standard.
1998 - ATI is first company to introduce a complete set-top box design.
After 1999 the firsts were even more technological, especially on the hardware side.
2002 - ATI launches ATI Radeon 9700 Pro: world's first DirectX 9 graphics processor.
2003 - ATI introduces ATI Radeon 9600 XT: world's first high volume 0.13um low-k chips.
2004 - ATI introduces first 110nm GPUs (ATI Radeon X800 XL).
2005 - ATI GPU is featured in Microsoft Xbox 360, revolutionizing high-definition gaming.
All that before AMD even aquired them, at which point AMD has helped them to even more firsts. Nvidia simply has nothing like the history ATI has. They sure talk a big game about "inventing the GPU" but it's pretty clear to me who is moving the industry forward a lot more. This is why AMD was first to Mantle and why Nvidia will follow months later. If you know your computer history this would not be a surprise.
96Firebird
Diamond Member
If you don't get paid to post this stuff, you should.
beginner99
Diamond Member
lol, sure yeah...
Why is there no response from NV? Because what can they say without proper info? If they say it's crap they will look like fools if it isn't and saying it's good is obviously out of the question so the best thing is to say nothing at all, don't give additional attention to it, just ignore it.
SiliconWars
Platinum Member
PhysX - aquired from Ageia
3d Vision - followed AMD months later, surround was simply an improvement.
SiliconWars
Platinum Member
Why don't you list all of Nvidia's amazing firsts and innovations (ones that they didn't aquire from Ageia and 3dfx)?
SolMiester
Diamond Member
Didnt Vista come out with DX10, in which AMD wasnt even present for 6mths?
Bubbleawsome
Diamond Member
The way I see it, they don't have to. We get r9 290x fighting gk180/Titan ultra, the 7970 rehash fighting the 780 or Titan, and so on. Think of this. The 680 was the 670ti, the Titan the 680. AMDs top of the line 7970 should have matched the Titan, but Titan was released later, so we will call it a rehash. The 780 is also newer silicone, but not "new gen" as it's gk110. But we have the Hawaii 290x than is "new gen". So where do we stand?
I think it is
Titan ultra/gk180
Titan=290x
780
770/680=7970
It should have been
New gen 290x=gk180?
Titan=7970
670ti/680=7950
With mantle it may turn into what it should be.
DISCLAIMER: All the above is personal ramblings from a phone, read with caution.
I think it is
Titan ultra/gk180
Titan=290x
780
770/680=7970
It should have been
New gen 290x=gk180?
Titan=7970
670ti/680=7950
With mantle it may turn into what it should be.
DISCLAIMER: All the above is personal ramblings from a phone, read with caution.
SiliconWars
Platinum Member
I got the DX10 part wrong in the list, as was noted later in the thread.
What does it matter if the technology is acquired? How do you think AMD arrived where they are today without acquiring ATI?
SiliconWars
Platinum Member
Don't shift the goalposts, we're talking about what Nvidia did first. I don't care if it was ATI or AMD who was first as both back my point anyway - I want to know what Nvidia was first at that they didn't buy. In innovation terms these companies are like night and day.
SolMiester
Diamond Member
ATI wasnt even in the game back in 199pharking 8....Its also worth noting that in the day, it was NT3.51 & 4, with ATI [redacted] drivers, thats where their bad rep came from.
And you are spouting on about...what 1st DX9 and a new node 110nm..LMAO...NV was there 5 minutes later!...
Warning issued for profanity.
-- stahlhart
Last edited by a moderator:
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
