View Full Version : NV50 being optimized for UnrealEngine 3?
3dilettante
30-Oct-2003, 04:54
http://www.amdmb.com/article-display.php?ArticleID=267
"Here, the note mentioned that NVIDIA’s future NV50 GPU will have specific optimizations for the UnrealEngine 3. Without question, the two companies have a very close relationship which should translate into some excellent performance for gamers running NVIDIA graphics cards."
Am I reading this correctly: that the NV50 will have specific features only utilized when running that engine?
Am I just being paranoid in thinking that this level of hardware to software specialization may not be a good thing?
Now, instead of hardware cutting corners when it detects certain applications, we get hardware that hobbles itself if it doesn't detect certain software. The way it was stated, it seems to mean that instead of Unreal3 using Nvidia extensions, that Nvidia will have hardware designed around the particulars of a program.
I'm not sure I like this, it brings to mind a vision of a software market where there will be Nvidia applications and ATI applications, with neither side truly competing head to head. Worse, the success of hardware becomes tied to the success of a program, and it becomes in an IHV's interest to simply stop supporting the other half of the software market (or even trying to deliberately break such support to generate negative press for the competing software, and by extension harm the platform being formed by the competing hardware).
This reeks of a powerplay on the part of Epic as well, since the way this was worded hints that the hardware is not being optimized to a particular paradigm or method, but to an individual program.
Developers who want their games to not run like molasses on Nvidia hardware will have to license Epic's latest software just to get in the running. What if they don't want to license an engine just to get performance from one hardware vendor, and instead try to cater to a broader market that spans multiple IHVs? What happens should Nvidia see such multi-platform as a threat and decides to not support their software because it doesn't fall within the bounds of their deal with Epic?
I don't like how this seems at first glance. Hopefully there is something I missed in all this that provides a more positive light. I dislike the idea of a bifurcation of the software market into separate platforms based solely on video hardware.
Maybe I just need a new tin foil hat. :?
AlphaWolf
30-Oct-2003, 05:09
Well I can see how a developer could suggest certain things they would like to be available in the hardware that would make the gpu more friendly to the game.
If it's anything more than that though I would think it's a mistake designing hardware around a single title.
NVIDIA and Epic collaborate on next-generation hardware. NV50 will have UnrealEngine3 specific optimizations.
:shock: :? :x :evil:
:roll:
3dilettante
30-Oct-2003, 05:15
I believe taking suggestions from developers is a good thing, which would lead to things like the enhanced depth culling for shadow rendering like in DOOM3.
However, in the case of Ultrashadow, it was a hardware optimization for a particular method of rendering, not to to the DOOM3 engine itself.
Theoretically, any other engine could use the same optimized operations, but that is definitely not how epic worded its presentation.
Strikes me what that may be. Larger texture cache perhaps? :lol:
It's pretty obvious that the statement has been through a fluff filter, ie severly misrepresented or even outright false, factually. Compare that to "UltraShadow" that's touted as a Doom 3 specific optimization, while in fact it's not. It's useful for Doom 3, but it's used today in Demos not written by id software. Other game engines may use it, too.
I don't see much point in discussing this marketing stuff. Even more fillrate could be touted as an Unreal specific optimization. Also note that even though they state "NV50 will contain" it doesn't mean that NV25 does not ;)
Smoke and mirrors ...
*hands 3dilettante a tinfoil hat*
3dilettante
30-Oct-2003, 05:28
Strikes me what that may be. Larger texture cache perhaps? :lol:
It's pretty obvious that the statement has been through a fluff filter, ie severly misrepresented or even outright false, factually. Compare that to "UltraShadow" that's touted as a Doom 3 specific optimization, while in fact it's not. It's useful for Doom 3, but it's used today in Demos not written by id software. Other game engines may use it, too.
I don't see much point in discussing this marketing stuff. Even more fillrate could be touted as an Unreal specific optimization. Also note that even though they state "NV50 will contain" it doesn't mean that NV25 does not ;)
Smoke and mirrors ...
*hands 3dilettante a tinfoil hat*
Perhaps there is nothing more to Epic's statement than fluff, it's just that I don't believe Nvidia has a corner on the market of shockingly obtuse and blatantly arrogant behavior, and with Nvidia actually being there as well...
In addition, I feel it is kind of hard to state a general hardware improvement like increased fillrate can be called a specific optimization, since anything can benefit from that, and if Nvidia's engineers are so prescient as to have specific optimizations for Unreal3 in hardware that existed before Unreal 2, then why doesn't the GeforceFX have a flux capacitor?
We're dealing with a master of smoke and mirrors, and for some reason he seems to be letting others in on the game. :?
Am I reading this correctly: that the NV50 will have specific features only utilized when running that engine?
Am I just being paranoid in thinking that this level of hardware to software specialization may not be a good thing?
I think you're being a bit paranoid :-)
If the upcoming Unreal 3 engine can use these features, so can other engines, just like the Ultrashadow thing.
And who's to say that Ati's R500 won't have these optmizations either ? After all, it's going into the next X-Box and i would think that Epic would be interested in making their upcoming engine running as good as possible on that machine.
Okay, I see :D
What's specific, anyway? Usually it just means that a given title is the first to make heavy use of a feature, not that it's the only one.
Just like Doom 3 would be the first production renderer that really uses the stencil buffer, thus any stencil optimization is automatically a Doom 3 specific optimization as long as no other games w a similar performance profile ship. Alright with that?
In case of NV50 and Unreal 3, I must admit that fill was stupid and I hereby apologize ;)
Maybe it's float cube maps? That would be nice. Would qualify as an exclusive, too, by the above definition because obviously no major title uses them now (not supported on current NV hardware).
What's really disturbing here is that they talk about NV50 at all after just having released NV38. I didn't really notice that on first look, thought it was about NV40. Resembles a kid making a lot of noise to garner attention :D
Also resembles the good ole Intel strategy of building up myths about distant future products, just in case the imminent new product doesn't satisfy expectations. That's worrying because, if true, would infer that NV40 will be an okay product but not more.
Wait, why is this an inheriently bad thing?
Other than the fact that the company doing it is... <gulp> nVidia, what's so wrong with it fundimentally? With the ever increasing investment in a game that developers must expend to keep up with the fast advancement and progress made in usable computational power and storage, we'll only see the number of propietary technology used diminish even more. So, if a large percentage of games played by consumers utilize engine U - why not optimize for it?
IBM's Fast Path technology that's slated to be used in Power5/Power5+ and Power6 does the exact same thing for common applications.
Hell, it's a great idea when you think objectivly about the percentage of time that these ICs will be spent running common applications.
THe_KELRaTH
30-Oct-2003, 09:13
HL2 has specific optimizations for the FX but as we know why it means nothing, and as mentioned by Bjorn it's far more likely that Epic would add feature enhancements as opposed to just optimizations to the R500 for Xbox 2 which might then be seen on the PC version.
It's all just the usual NV PR....
UltraShadow is largely a Doom 3 optimization.
I'd expect this to be something similar and I can't see anything bad about it if the same info is available to ATi (ie if ATi has the chance to do a similar optimization).
Devs playing favourites sucks so I surely hope these optimizations doesn't stem from info only available to nVidia through their TWIMTBP.
Epic in the past as done things like this. We all remember the Glide path of UT/Unreal. And how much better Unreal looked at first in Glide :) Ahh watching the Nali Castle flyby the first tim in Glide..oh my!
So I can only hope that the gaming comunity can move away from IHV spefic features.
OpenGL guy
30-Oct-2003, 19:19
Epic in the past as done things like this. We all remember the Glide path of UT/Unreal. And how much better Unreal looked at first in Glide :) Ahh watching the Nali Castle flyby the first tim in Glide..oh my!
So I can only hope that the gaming comunity can move away from IHV spefic features.
There was a MeTaL path as well for S3 cards.
skoprowski
30-Oct-2003, 20:16
[quote="jb"]Epic in the past as done things like this. We all remember the Glide path of UT/Unreal. And how much better Unreal looked at first in Glide :) Ahh watching the Nali Castle flyby the first tim in Glide..oh my!
They had no choice but to use Glide as the main API- Direct X was just in it's infancy when Unreal was finally released. I remember when Unreal was supposed to be one of the first games to use MMX extensions.
You guys sure have a short memory :)
http://www.beyond3d.com/interviews/ps_precision/
Long-term (looking out 12+ months), everything's got to be 32-bit IEEE floating point. With the third generation Unreal technology, we expect to require 32-bit IEEE everywhere, and any hardware that doesn't support that will either suffer major quality loss or won't work at all.
We can live with this in the 2003-2004 timeframe, but after that, if you don't do full 32-bit IEEE floating point everywhere, your hardware is toast.
Obvious implication: No more mixed precision in the NV50. Not that this should be a surprise to anyone considering its ILDP nature and the obvious sharing it does between VS, PS and PPP.
There got to be more, but little we can guess based on public info I fear...
Uttar
3dilettante
30-Oct-2003, 22:16
Not having mixed precisions doesn't seem to be an example of hardware being optimized for a single engine.
I can't think of anything that could really be called an engine-specific hardware optimization that couldn't be used for pretty much anything else, unless the hardware purposely checks for the name of the software.
Hate to see a situation where hardware functions at full capability only if you rename all of your executables Unreal3.
edit: There is another avenue available to Epic and Nvidia that still conforms to the idea of software specific hardware. If internal data types and software calls are optimized for in NV50, it can be possible for code calls for NV50 to be considered integral parts of the UnrealEngine 3. In that case, any such calls made in other software developed by those who did not license epic's engine would be violating software copyrights.
Suddenly, epic gets a defacto game standard due to one of the primary hardware designers supporting it, and Nvidia gets a huge boost by garnering an entire subsection of the game market.
Then again, the argument for epic's statement being pure BS is very strong, it's just not as fun to speculate on.
It's worth mentionning that just because he said the NV50 was getting some Unreal 3 optimisations, it doesn't mean they're actually that specific, or that ATi aren't putting similar optimisations into their next-next generation hardware. I doubt it'll be that much more specific than something like Ultrashadow.
Wait, why is this an inheriently bad thing?
Other than the fact that the company doing it is... <gulp> nVidia...
That's all it seems to take on some forums, which is a really sad state of affairs.
Reverend
31-Oct-2003, 02:44
UnrealEngine3 is a year+ away so we maybe "worrying" prematurely about thhis thread's subject matter. Although the engine will not work on anything less than DX9 hardware, a lot can happen in one year.
3dilettante
31-Oct-2003, 04:53
UnrealEngine3 is a year+ away so we maybe "worrying" prematurely about thhis thread's subject matter.
My question is with the hardware and software being so far in the future. How could Epic possibly claim optimizations to software they haven't even gotten running on hardware that doesn't even exist yet?
That wouldn't work unless they have come to an agreement of some sort that would provide some form of a guarantee that things will turn out that way.
It seems kind of unwise to tie either an engine and an architecture so closely, since a delay to either will be a detriment to the momentum of the other.
In addition, if the collaboration is kept closed, any optimizations and feature calls may not become public until after Epic's engine is released, leaving the rest of the software world to figure out how to use these features while Epic has a head start.
It would be no good for Epic to devote a lot of effort into this collaboration and to have Nvidia touting these same optimizations to the competition, but to not do so would hurt the acceptance of these features.
There are a lot of uncertainties, and I fear that the first impulse on the part of the corporations will be to minimize uncertainties by keeping the system closed. It would be a decent power play, but not too great in the long run.
My question is with the hardware and software being so far in the future. How could Epic possibly claim optimizations to software they haven't even gotten running on hardware that doesn't even exist yet?
Carmack showed a version of the Doom 3 engine on the 2/21/01 John Carmack showed off the Doom 3 engine for the first time at the MacWorld expo.
And i'm guessing that he had the basic engine up and running quite some time before that. I would also think he at that time already had some pretty good ideas about what future hardware had to improve for the Doom3 engine.
Randell
31-Oct-2003, 10:14
Epic in the past as done things like this. We all remember the Glide path of UT/Unreal. And how much better Unreal looked at first in Glide :) Ahh watching the Nali Castle flyby the first tim in Glide..oh my!
So I can only hope that the gaming comunity can move away from IHV spefic features.
There was a MeTaL path as well for S3 cards.
aye and it looked so much better in MeTal than Glide :)
andypski
31-Oct-2003, 10:53
Epic in the past as done things like this. We all remember the Glide path of UT/Unreal. And how much better Unreal looked at first in Glide :) Ahh watching the Nali Castle flyby the first tim in Glide..oh my!
So I can only hope that the gaming comunity can move away from IHV spefic features.
There was a MeTaL path as well for S3 cards.
aye and it looked so much better in MeTal than Glide :)
That's because we had such superior hardware to work with. :)
Randell
31-Oct-2003, 11:39
pity a faster core with a 128bit bus didn't come out. My S4 was as fast as my V3 at 800x600 in most games but tailed off at 1024x768.
Of course the V3 didnt lock up online in UT so I guessed I would have stuck with it anyway.
parhelia
31-Oct-2003, 19:44
It is true :
http://www.tt-hardware.com/img/vga02/nvfs_ut043.jpg
It is true
That's awesome. It's just as great of a path for nVidia to travel down as it was for IBM when they unveiled Fast Path for Power5/5+/6.
Trawler
31-Oct-2003, 23:44
A bit off topic, but why do the Battlefield 1942 slides have ATI's "Get in the Game" slogan on them???
http://www.tt-hardware.com/img/vga02/nvfs_vietnam2.jpg
:?
The "optimizations" might be "what Epic wants", but certainly not "available to UnrealEngine3 only".
http://www.pjpowell.clara.net/Images/voo/TWINMTBP_NVIDIA_sig.png
3dilettante
01-Nov-2003, 04:15
The "optimizations" might be "what Epic wants", but certainly not "available to UnrealEngine3 only".
If the optimizations are specific enough and not made public, then Epic might try to say these extensions are part of their copyrighted code. Especially if these optimizations are not released prior to the release of the UnrealEngine 3.
At the very least, the statement in that slide was a pretty poor choice of words, and could very well translate either into a waste of silicon or a reduction in the previously more universal applicability of features.
Doomtrooper
01-Nov-2003, 04:23
Talk with your wallet, what is Epic doing for me and why should I buy their title...especially with prior experience with their partnership BS.
bloodbob
01-Nov-2003, 04:28
Announcement Epic and Nvidia have teamed together to produce state of the art graphics in Epic's up coming title unreal 3. The new power of the Nvidia's Hexadecima shader engine which has twice the precision of Doom 3's 8 bit rendering engine giving the user full s10e5 float point quality with unprecedented speed.
Talk with your wallet, what is Epic doing for me and why should I buy their title...especially with prior experience with their partnership BS.
Geez DT it's really tough though!, I've spent more time playing Epics games then I have playing games from any other game house. I considered boycotting EA back when they jumped into bed with nVidia but they have so many damn titles that I really enjoy. I simply have to relax my morals when it comes to nVidia and try not to think about what their doing. I've been considering buying a 5900 anyways since their so cheap now....
Talk with your wallet, what is Epic doing for me and why should I buy their title...especially with prior experience with their partnership BS.
Geez DT it's really tough though!, I've spent more time playing Epics games then I have playing games from any other game house. I considered boycotting EA back when they jumped into bed with nVidia but they have so many damn titles that I really enjoy. I simply have to relax my morals when it comes to nVidia and try not to think about what their doing. I've been considering buying a 5900 anyways since their so cheap now....
Eh, I'm semi-boycotting EA ;)
Actually, if I *really* want something they develop, I'll buy it. But I need to really, really want to have it - and that means I probably buy 75% less games from them as I would if I didn't have that stand.
The reason?
The idiots cancelled Ultima Online 2 :cry:
RIP.
Uttar
EDIT: I think the only game I bought from them in a while is Sim City 4, and considering I didn't have much fun with it, and I don't see anything that's worth buying from them in the next fifty billion years... ;) Might as well soon make that a full boycot :D
Damn, I loved UO2... It's probably the I expected the most EVER. That attention to detail they had... Just stunning!
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
01-Nov-2003, 10:29
Nvidia may be willing to listen to Epic and provide support for some generic tech that Epic want, but that doesn't mean that ATI won't be developing the same kind of advanced tech that can provide the same functionality using different methods.
Looking at how much better Unreal engines run on ATI hardware (in terms of IQ, speed, and how much longer it was available before Nvdia's inferior offering arrived), I'd not be surprised to see Epic engines performing just as well or better on ATI hardware.
It's a bit sad for Nvidia to be wheeling out their pet developers to endorse the architechure *after* the upcoming architechture, and makes me think that Nvdia have already admitted defeat with NV40 vs R420.
It's a bit sad for Nvidia to be wheeling out their pet developers to endorse the architechure *after* the upcoming architechture, and makes me think that Nvdia have already admitted defeat with NV40 vs R420.
Well, I doubt they are admitting defeat. Perhaps they don't expect to crush ATI once and for all with the NV40 though *grins* - my personal expectation still is that we'll see a mixed bag between these two products.
However, I'd say the reason for this is that NV50 has been NVIDIA's pet project for a while. Just look at how much they insist on "how huge cluster is gonna be used for NV50 processing in a year or so" and stuff - they NEVER did that for the NV10, NV20, NV30 or even NV40.
And of course, the reason behind that is the good ole ILDP nature of the NV50. Mmmmmm, ILDP...
Uttar
parhelia
01-Nov-2003, 12:48
What's ILDP???
What's ILDP???
http://www.engr.wisc.edu/cgi/bin/forward/http://www.ece.wisc.edu/~jes/papers/hipc.00.pdf
Uttar
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
01-Nov-2003, 14:05
It's a bit sad for Nvidia to be wheeling out their pet developers to endorse the architechure *after* the upcoming architechture, and makes me think that Nvdia have already admitted defeat with NV40 vs R420.
Well, I doubt they are admitting defeat. Perhaps they don't expect to crush ATI once and for all with the NV40 though *grins* - my personal expectation still is that we'll see a mixed bag between these two products.
However, I'd say the reason for this is that NV50 has been NVIDIA's pet project for a while. Just look at how much they insist on "how huge cluster is gonna be used for NV50 processing in a year or so" and stuff - they NEVER did that for the NV10, NV20, NV30 or even NV40.
And of course, the reason behind that is the good ole ILDP nature of the NV50. Mmmmmm, ILDP...
Uttar
So why did Nvidia break the consistent "we don't comment on unreleased product" stance? This is just spoiler stuff, hoping to distract from poor NV3x products and much better ATI XT products. They've been chucking out all these pointless press releases over the last couple of months, and this is all just more marketing BS.
Now they are already talking up the NV50 which won't be here for another 12-18 months minimum. This is more of the empty "we'll fix it all in the next driver/chip/benchmark" promises we've come to expect.
So why did Nvidia break the consistent "we don't comment on unreleased product" stance? This is just spoiler stuff, hoping to distract from poor NV3x products and much better ATI XT products. They've been chucking out all these pointless press releases over the last couple of months, and this is all just more marketing BS.
Now they are already talking up the NV50 which won't be here for another 12-18 months minimum. This is more of the empty "we'll fix it all in the next driver/chip/benchmark" promises we've come to expect.
Firstly, it was Epic who made the comment/slide, not nVidia (even if nVidia knew about the inclusion of the NV50 comment). Also, this really isn't as much of a change from their old stance - it's often said that "future hardware will be X or Y". Those blanket statements have just been more specific this time. The only thing that has changed is that they've put a part number on it.
digitalwanderer
01-Nov-2003, 14:17
Talk with your wallet, what is Epic doing for me and why should I buy their title...especially with prior experience with their partnership BS.
Ok, but by boycotting Epic you mean we just gotta stop buying their games...right? We can still keep playing 'em? ;)
cthellis42
01-Nov-2003, 16:18
Talk with your wallet, what is Epic doing for me and why should I buy their title...especially with prior experience with their partnership BS.
Ok, but by boycotting Epic you mean we just gotta stop buying their games...right? We can still keep playing 'em? ;)
<laughs> Zing!
Makes me think that Nvdia have already admitted defeat with NV40 vs R420.
What a joke. Seriously.
Keeping with the comparison with IBM's Fast Path, did IBM admit defeat of Power4 by talking about the Power5's FastPath? What about Intel admitting defeat of the Prescott by already talking in a similar light about Tejas? All companies do this, especially if it's something as fundimantal as actual logic optimizations and routines in hardware, like FastPath.
The anti-nVidia bias has so permeated this forum it's scary.
PatrickL
01-Nov-2003, 21:30
Yes it starts to look almost as bad as Pro Sony fanatism on console forum :twisted:
Talk with your wallet, what is Epic doing for me and why should I buy their title...especially with prior experience with their partnership BS.
Ok, but by boycotting Epic you mean we just gotta stop buying their games...right? We can still keep playing 'em? ;)
Awww, screw it!
My ISP download limit is 10GB, and I use a good 5GB minimum per month...
So unless I want to pay like $5 for "commodity expenses"... Nah :D
Uttar
Dave Baumann
01-Nov-2003, 21:47
Can we stop jumping to conclusions please. This was an NVIDIA conference, so of course the speakers are going to say nice things about NVIDIA. However, just because Epic says that NV50 has optimisations for UnrealEngine3 doesn't mean that nothing else will have the same. Presumably they are still working with ATI and telling them about the things they are looking for and they must also be working with MS and making suggestions of whats needed.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
01-Nov-2003, 21:57
The anti-nVidia bias has so permeated this forum it's scary.
It's probably part of the backlash against Nvidia's behaviour. Have you see the ridiculous press releases and comments coming out from them over the last 18 months? The whole "lying and cheating" thing tends to predispose people against them. :roll:
Obviously I don't think that has Nvidia has literally given up, but when a company starts talking about how great it's products are going to be a couple of years from now, it's nearly always to divert attention away from the pasting they are getting from their competitors in the present. Pointing this out doesn't make it an "anti-Nvidia bias", (as you so often like to label anything mentioned against Nvidia's current dishonest practices).
Doomtrooper
03-Nov-2003, 17:29
Can we stop jumping to conclusions please. This was an NVIDIA conference, so of course the speakers are going to say nice things about NVIDIA. However, just because Epic says that NV50 has optimisations for UnrealEngine3 doesn't mean that nothing else will have the same. Presumably they are still working with ATI and telling them about the things they are looking for and they must also be working with MS and making suggestions of whats needed.
Well I disagree Dave, Nvidia has done a good job of segregating the PC gaming segment by 'buying out' developers to 'optimize' for inferior hardware. We have had countless examples of this in the last 6 months, game Demos released to only run on Nvidia hardware (Gunmetal), Games released that only run on Nvidia hardware period...(Bridge it) and...
http://www.konamijpn.com/products/mgs2pc/english/patch.html
Image of back of Box...
http://www.digitalphotos.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/pugmgs2.jpg
If developers want to continue to 'take sides' vs. looking out for their customer base..they won't get money from this consumer.
It is time for people to start speaking up.
Truly countless examples...
Reverend
03-Nov-2003, 17:55
Xmas, didn't expect sarcasm from you. Nice one though.
Doomtrooper
03-Nov-2003, 17:55
There shouldn't be any examples, unless you like that type of business practice and forced to buy hardware to play a PC title you may like.
Go ahead with the naive attitude though :!:
Doomtrooper
03-Nov-2003, 17:57
Xmas, didn't expect sarcasm from you. Nice one though.
Ea Sports, Stalker...I'm not going to list them all. Nobody is laughing either :roll:
Reverend
03-Nov-2003, 17:58
Doomtrooper, there is no forcing. Folks really are smart -- I think sites like this one provide enough information to those that read it that ATI hardware is on top.
Kids don't have money to buy video cards. Their parents do. And 90% of parents usually read reviews.
Oh, and folks that like to play games (obsessed gamers so to speak) will buy the games they like regardless of the hardware they have in their machine. NVIDIA won't win.
Doomtrooper
03-Nov-2003, 18:04
They have done a fine job so far, and it is their Marketing that did it..as their hardware sure wasn't up to the task.
These marketing deals is what I'm referring too, with 'exclusive visuals'..blah blah. If a consumer pays the same for the product, and their hardware is capable there should be no exclusive effects.
The developers have become salesmen.
John Reynolds
03-Nov-2003, 18:23
They have done a fine job so far, and it is their Marketing that did it..as their hardware sure wasn't up to the task.
These marketing deals is what I'm referring too, with 'exclusive visuals'..blah blah. If a consumer pays the same for the product, and their hardware is capable there should be no exclusive effects.
The developers have become salesmen.
You're overreacting. Look at Tron 2, a TWIMTBP game and yet it runs and looks better on ATI hardware. Yes, looks better is my subjective opinion based on how strongly this particular game really shows aliasing, and the fact that Nvidia's 3-year-old ordered grid options just aren't comparable.
Doomtrooper
03-Nov-2003, 18:38
John, does Tron 2 play better on the R3.XX from developer support or from the hardware simply being better .
John Reynolds
03-Nov-2003, 19:11
John, does Tron 2 play better on the R3.XX from developer support or from the hardware simply being better .
Because of better hardware, in spite of the fact that it was developed using Nvidia hardware. Which, if you think about it, contradicts your apparent concerns; regardless of marketing deals, the majority of games will run better on superior hardware. For future games, my only real concern is how well developers are educated and able to code their own shaders, rather than having to rely on IHV software engineers to do it for them. . .who might thereby attempt to put the screws to their competition.
They have done a fine job so far, and it is their Marketing that did it..as their hardware sure wasn't up to the task.
That depends on which games you want to play.
There have always been developers acting like salesmen.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
03-Nov-2003, 19:20
They have done a fine job so far, and it is their Marketing that did it..as their hardware sure wasn't up to the task.
These marketing deals is what I'm referring too, with 'exclusive visuals'..blah blah. If a consumer pays the same for the product, and their hardware is capable there should be no exclusive effects.
The developers have become salesmen.
Is this all marketing BS? Even the likes of Epic (who are vey closely linked to TWIMTBP and Nvidia) have said on their forums that TWIMTBP is about marketing and publishing. As far as they are concerned, it doesn't have an impact on the actual programming. It's just as likely that Epic will support anything that's advantageous to their games, whether it's in a ATI card or a Nvidia card.
Heck, for UT2K3 Epic even had someone putting effort into writing code for Voodoo cards, so those potential customers could still play the game. Developers want to write the best game they can so that everyone will want to buy/play it regardless of their hardware. I doubt any developer is going to hurt their sales by not supporting as wide an audience as possible, and I doubt they would sign up for any marketing campaign that insists on such a restrictive deal.
I doubt any developer is going to hurt their sales by not supporting as wide an audience as possible, and I doubt they would sign up for any marketing campaign that insists on such a restrictive deal.
That depends how well the IHV involved compensates you...
Doomtrooper
03-Nov-2003, 20:24
Because of better hardware, in spite of the fact that it was developed using Nvidia hardware. Which, if you think about it, contradicts your apparent concerns; regardless of marketing deals, the majority of games will run better on superior hardware. For future games, my only real concern is how well developers are educated and able to code their own shaders, rather than having to rely on IHV software engineers to do it for them. . .who might thereby attempt to put the screws to their competition.
Well that scenario didn't work for Gunmetal, where the developer intenionally disabled support fot ATI cards, as Thomas proved with his 3Danalyze....or Bridge It that doesn't ran AT ALL on ATI hardware or recently Bungie detecting ATI cards and forcing PS 1.4<---what reason would that be for.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
03-Nov-2003, 22:08
I doubt any developer is going to hurt their sales by not supporting as wide an audience as possible, and I doubt they would sign up for any marketing campaign that insists on such a restrictive deal.
That depends how well the IHV involved compensates you...
It would have to be a hell of a lot to live with the reputation of your software being buggy or crippled on either the ATI or Nvidia hardware. You could be sure it would be the developer who gets the blame for shabby coding for whoever wasn't putting some extra money in their pockets.
Look at the grief and rep Bioware, Gearbox and Valve have at the moment because of issues with either the Nvidia or ATI hardware, even if (in Valve's case) it really isn't their fault.
I kind of agree with DT on this:
If you have two IHV cards X and Y. And Lets say new game ABC comes out with this awesome new feature DFG that both cards X and Y supports. If the devleoper limited their game ABC to only allow Card X to run this DFG feature only because Card X IHV paid them money then you get into very murky waters. If my card supports feature (meaning no hardware/driver limation) for DFG I better well be able to get DFG in that game. If not, then I would think twice about getting game ABC. Now if my card did not support feature DFG, then no big deal. Optimizing for one IHV is ok so long as perfromance on the other IHV is not adversly affected.
digitalwanderer
04-Nov-2003, 14:51
Optimizing for one IHV is ok so long as perfromance on the other IHV is not adversly affected.
I agree with that, but I'm afraid that they're going to use the term "optimized" to me crippled on the competitors card rather than improved on the IHV backing the game. :(
RM. Andersson
05-Nov-2003, 05:52
It will be bad enough if it´s only a few effects that only work with one IHV.
Perhaps you can enable somewhat better looking lightning effects if you own a Nvidia card.
That would be enough to make ATI owners angry. At least if they know that it would be possible for ATI cards to support the extra bonus effects if the game developer really wanted to and was prepared to do some extra work.
If the game developer has a special contract with Nvidia and get lots of money from them they will not do that extra work.
And they will tell ATI owners: - The game runs fine with ATI harware. You only get a little bit lower quality on a few effects.
I think something like that would be serious enough to make me upset.
If my hardware can support all features and effects in a game it must all be possible to enable. And if that means they must waste more time they should do it.
I will pay the same price for the game regardless if I own a Nvidia or ATI card. Thus I feel that I have the right to get the same quality, effects and features regardless what card I own.
That´s reasonable from the consumers perspective. The consumer should not have to investigate and find out what other companies the game developer has agreements and contracts with every time he wants to buy a new game. The consumer should get what he pays for and not less.
So I hope that there will be no effects that only work with one gfx-card companies products in future games. It´s not an honest way to do bussiness IMO.
Heck, for UT2K3 Epic even had someone putting effort into writing code for Voodoo cards
Thus I feel that I have the right to get the same quality, effects and features regardless what card I own.
even if (in Valve's case) it really isn't their fault.
Hell yes!
I want to be able to play HL2 on my Voodoo with full effects!
And they will tell ATI owners: - The game runs fine with ATI harware. You only get a little bit lower quality on a few effects.
I think something like that would be serious enough to make me upset.If so, you simple don't buy that game. And, maybe, you could write a polite mail to the devs, saying that you liked the game very much, but choose to not to buy it for this and that reasons.
Bye!
So much speculation about nothing.
This "I got an effect that you don't have"/"I have an exclusive on that game" is so old and boring.
Voodoo had a game the savage had not. PowerVr had volumetric shadows but not the others. Matrox could do EMBM but not the other cards (well they could later but that's not the point). Nvidia had shadow maps or depth clamping and ATI had not. And so on..
My little cousin had the special he-man with a superman cape and I had not.
Try explain that to those console fan guys. (hey my box is at least bigger than your cube)
There would be no point in selling hardware if they were all look alike and there would be no joy wandering on a board if there was nothing to rant about (like I do).
There is nothing "evil" to what I can read.. Nazis were evil (one goodwin point!) but not an Nv slides claiming anything about a product that is due.. whenever. Or an ATI slide claiming that your most wanted game will run well only on ATI part.. It's just marketing. Aimed at people who seems to care and overreact.. like you.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
05-Nov-2003, 13:12
Hell yes!
Nice misquoting out of context from different sources. What's your point?
So much speculation about nothing.
There would be no point in selling hardware if they were all look alike and there would be no joy wandering on a board if there was nothing to rant about (like I do).
Developers have for the last few years been trying to move away from having to code to lots of different hardware, all with lots of different results. They have for the most part been successful in settling on DirectX or OpenGL, leaving more time and money for developing gameplay and content, rather than a dozen different dedicated paths.
Now we have a situation where Nvidia are paying developers in order to code to their card only, in some cases deliberately crippling code so it doesn't run on a competitor's card. Do you want to buy software that has been coded to *deliberatly* look worse on your hardware?
It's a slippery slope that quickly moves towards games being hardware exclusive, where you can't play some games at all unless you have the correct graphics card. This would be a ludicrious situation that nobody but Nvidia want, that would harm the consumer, and that in the end can only hurt the whole PC gaming market.
CorwinB
05-Nov-2003, 13:40
So much speculation about nothing.
Voodoo had a game the savage had not. PowerVr had volumetric shadows but not the others. Matrox could do EMBM but not the other cards (well they could later but that's not the point). Nvidia had shadow maps or depth clamping and ATI had not. And so on..
3dfx had a specific API (Glide) which, while it helped a lot at the beginning of consumer 3D graphics, ultimately proved disruptive and was at least part of the downfall of 3dfx. As BZB pointed out, developers wanted to move to an unified path.
For PVR (not sure) and Matrox (100% positive), the "special effects" were all part of the DirectX specification. That only a G400 could activate EMBM was not a marketing ploy, but came from Matrox being the only IHV (at that time) to implement EMBM in silicon. Try reinstalling Drakan, Dungeon Keeper 2, Expendable, Battlezone 2 or whatever EMBM game with your GFFX or R3xx, and you can run it with EMBM activated...
That comes from the fact that not all manufacturers are required to implement every effect of a DirectX version in silicon to have compliant hardware. So some effects are indeed going to look like they are exclusive, but they aren't... It's just that at one time, there is only one company with shipping products enabling function X or Y. If an IHV can get a developer to implement such a function, then more power to him (for example, IIRC, Stalkers will use some of the GFFX extra capabilities, which is cool).
But asking a developer to cripple the competition's hardware so that an effect that this hardware supports and that is exposed in the driver does not work is deceiptive and should be sanctioned by consumers and exposed by the press.
There would be no point in selling hardware if they were all look alike
Ah, but then you missed the point about different boards of the same generation not always implementing the same functions while being compliant to an API. Even within the bounds of an API, there is still lots to do for differenciation between IHVs (speed, rendering quality, functions...).
There is nothing "evil" to what I can read.. Nazis were evil (one goodwin point!) but not an Nv slides claiming anything about a product that is due.. whenever. Or an ATI slide claiming that your most wanted game will run well only on ATI part.. It's just marketing. Aimed at people who seems to care and overreact.. like you.
I don't see what Nazis have to do with this, and this kind of parlor tricks is not unlike the Good Doctor's and his Al-Quaeda/Nvidia blurbs. How is that for "overreacting" ? And sure, consumer fraud is not "evil" like "Nazi evil". But then again, I suppose that's the case for quite a few crimes. Would you describe the CEOs of Enron or Vivendi as "evil" ?
The original topic was "NV50 will have UnrealEngine 3 specific optimizations". Not the other way round. Since UE3 is going to use DirectX, there is (almost) no way of having features that could be used by UE3 only, and there's no way of having features that could be exposed by NV50 only.
Doomtrooper
05-Nov-2003, 16:42
Not all DirectX functions are covered by every IHV, like Truform..STALKER is a classic example...DirectX yet they claim a R300 based card can't render the shaders propely :?
...
I don't like how this seems at first glance. Hopefully there is something I missed in all this that provides a more positive light. I dislike the idea of a bifurcation of the software market into separate platforms based solely on video hardware.
Maybe I just need a new tin foil hat. :?
The only actual bifurcation which exists here is between "marketing" and "reality." This is exactly the same kind of nonsense that we all heard so much about when nVidia put out press releases implying that its bundling deal with EA equated to "special software support for nVidia hardware as opposed to anybody else's." That never happened, and as such it wasn't surprising to have never seen corresponding EA press releases expressing the sentiments espoused by the nVidia press releases on the subject of "special support" in EA titles for nVidia hardware. All the talk about this came from nVidia--not from EA. Indeed, nVidia press releases never got around to even explaining which features it was, exactly, that particular EA games would support on "nVidia hardware" that weren't equally supported on competing IHV hardware.
What's going to be supported by IHVs and game developers alike is...drumroll...the API. That's what the API's exist for--to give developers and IHVs a target. Certainly, as we've seen for most of the last year, some IHVs will get closer to the target than others in as far as hardware support for API features is involved, and in so far as the performance and efficacy of that API feature support is concerned. But that isn't the same thing at all.
In short, I wouldn't waste any time worrying about it...:)
Not all DirectX functions are covered by every IHV, like Truform..STALKER is a classic example...DirectX yet they claim a R300 based card can't render the shaders propely :?
But everyone could expose N-Patches. And everyone could use it. So no exclusivity of features at all.
That some developer might limit the use of a certain feature to certain hardware is in no way related to the original topic, I just wanted to point that out.
Doomtrooper
05-Nov-2003, 17:55
True :D
Doomtrooper, the best thing you could do is buy a Nvidia sponsored game and run it on an ATI card. It doesn't buy Nvidia squat.
ATI is smarter because they are buying HL2 and giving it to ATI card owners. That rocks.
unless you like that type of business practice and forced to buy hardware to play a PC title you may like.
I don't see anything wrong with that. After all we're forced to buy MS Windows, for most PC games.
jimbob0i0
10-Nov-2003, 14:43
unless you like that type of business practice and forced to buy hardware to play a PC title you may like.
I don't see anything wrong with that. After all we're forced to buy MS Windows, for most PC games.
MS Windows ~ £100
Highend graphics card ~ £400-~£500
um care to comment?
MS Windows ~ £100
Highend graphics card ~ £400-~£500
um care to comment?
The principal is still the same. MS is only one company, that you need to pay money to get most games to work, because most developers only support Windows.
Again, I don't see anything wrong with it. Its just business.
Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.
11-Nov-2003, 10:14
MS Windows ~ £100
Highend graphics card ~ £400-~£500
um care to comment?
The principal is still the same. MS is only one company, that you need to pay money to get most games to work, because most developers only support Windows.
Again, I don't see anything wrong with it. Its just business.
It's bad business. Unless you can guarentee a near monopoly as MS has on the home desktop, all you do is split the market, which benefits neither the game developer (who loses half his sales) or the hardware manufacturer (who finds it impossible to gain customers from the "opposing camp" who has a collection of ATI/Nvidia specific games).
It's a sign of desperation that Nvidia is using it's large reserves of cash in order to effectively bribe developers to cripple their games on ATI cards. If Nvdia cards were good enough, they would stand on their own merits, and Nvidia wouldn't have to piss away their money on this kind of runaround instead of building better chips.
Doomtrooper
11-Nov-2003, 23:03
It appears people are happy with Monopolies, Microsoft is for sure one, they enter into whatever business they desire and within months are a the new 'big player' with endless cash to blow...how much money did the X-box lose on launch.
I for one enjoy choice, the PC platform is supposed to be open..always was. Now it is IHVs paying XXX amount of cash to make the other IHVs look inferior. In the end the consumer is the loser here, especially if you don't have the super duper anti-matter powered video card that is sponsoring the title, then you won't see the 'special effects'....the product we as the consumer is 'the effects' it is intangable but still is the product itself.
I for one enjoy choice, the PC platform is supposed to be open..always was. Now it is IHVs paying XXX amount of cash to make the other IHVs look inferior. In the end the consumer is the loser here, especially if you don't have the super duper anti-matter powered video card that is sponsoring the title, then you won't see the 'special effects'....the product we as the consumer is 'the effects' it is intangable but still is the product itself.
...did you read any of this thread?
It's likely, almost certain, that it's nothing sinister. Epic and the IHVs work closely together anyway, and the IHVs want to know what direction Epic are heading, and vice versa. This is no different to ATi and nVidia having Doom 3 optimisations in the hardware. They want their next-next generation products to work well with the software that's going to be around when they debut, so obviously they'll try and work in some hardware that's going to help a big engine like Unreal.
No idea where you're heading with your comment, since it doesn't seem to have any basis in reality or this discussion.
Doomtrooper
11-Nov-2003, 23:54
Ok I will make it simple for you then, Optimizing for one IHV in the PC industry will increase warez movement greatly.
Thankyou. :lol:
P.s I obviousally read better then some.
No idea where you're heading with your comment, since it doesn't seem to have any basis in reality or this discussion.
That applies to 99% of the comments he makes....just ignore him :wink:
It's bad business. Unless you can guarentee a near monopoly as MS has on the home desktop.
You don't get monopoly, by sitting silently. :wink: This could be NV ploy for monopoly, or they're just taking care of their customers.
If this is a blunder on NV side, so be it, they'll go the way of the Dodo.
3dilettante
13-Nov-2003, 03:34
After reading Uttar's last editorial, the thought occurred to me that maybe this is just the result of some Nvidia manager promising some intern at Epic the moon.
Perhaps it's not even a marketing ploy or power grab, but simply more evidence of fragmentary communications and infighting.
Of the three possibilities that I can think of: mis-statement of a general optimization of a method, much like how Ultrashadow is sometimes considered a Doom3 optimization, even though it is available to anyone willing to use it; evidence of actual hardware dedication to a specific program, or signs of internal miscommunication--I think the most preferable one would be a marketing slip-up.
Eolirin
16-Nov-2003, 22:21
It's likely, almost certain, that it's nothing sinister. Epic and the IHVs work closely together anyway, and the IHVs want to know what direction Epic are heading, and vice versa. This is no different to ATi and nVidia having Doom 3 optimisations in the hardware. They want their next-next generation products to work well with the software that's going to be around when they debut, so obviously they'll try and work in some hardware that's going to help a big engine like Unreal.
Doomtrooper was following a discussion thread that's spun off from the main topic. He's effectively OT, but he wasn't saying anything that didn't make sense given what he was talking about. Currently there are several games, which Doomtrooper pointed out, that do exactly what he's complaining about.
After reading Uttar's last editorial, the thought occurred to me that maybe this is just the result of some Nvidia manager promising some intern at Epic the moon.
Actually, I personally believe the whole thing is rather legitimate. How much it is being exaggerated though, I don't know.
I'd say this is extremely similar to how IDSoftware had input into the NV35 design: remember "UtlraShadow" was a direct request of the man himself; John Carmack. And NVIDIA implemented it.
Why do you think ID seems to love NVIDIA so much? ;)
I'd say this is similar. Nothing big. But considering the monumentum Epic currently has, NVIDIA must have asked them to say they're contributing to the NV50 design, which would in fact be true.
I'd say Marketing making it look bigger than it already is, perhaps without understanding it's not all that big ( although when it comes to that, they GENERALLY still got a slight clue ). Eh.
Uttar
3dilettante
17-Nov-2003, 22:14
I can see the sense in having developers who work with the latest 3d features having an input in a chip's design.
I concur that the "UnrealEngine 3 specific optimizations" is overstating the situation that exists, or at least I hope it is.
I don't know how I'd feel if in the future the NV50 die plot has UnrealEngine3 and Doom4 execution units. :lol:
I'd say this is extremely similar to how IDSoftware had input into the NV35 design: remember "UtlraShadow" was a direct request of the man himself; John Carmack. And NVIDIA implemented it.
Why do you think ID seems to love NVIDIA so much? ;)
I seem to remember a certain J. Carmack pushing for 64-bit color, too. What do you know, the FX line seems to like FP16 a lot more than FP32. :)
That was his point friend...
And it is a humorous one at that...well b/c Nv did it and now everyone is mad that it isn't enough, but I bet that is why J.C. couldn't care less whether he has fp34, or fp16 since he specifically asked for fp16...it is actually amazing he can push things forward so much, and I am happy that software people can.
my bad
But, still, he asked for 64 bits integer. This is asking for 16 bits precision per color. nvidia is oferring, what, TEN? Range is a non existant problem on Carmack engines. They are too dark.
Hdr outdoors?
what outdoors? :wink:
Meanwhile Ati is oferring 16 bit precision procesing (whether you want it or not) + range
bits of mantissa != "precision"
bloodbob
19-Nov-2003, 02:51
Yeah there is 10 bits of precision between power ranges 2^X and 2^(X-1) so there is 10 bits of precision in the range 2.0-1.0 when you go between two ranges I don't know how high the precision would scale if you can quantifiy it at all.
What I think carmack wants is 16 bits RAMDACs as well as ample intermediate precision.
I tell you I can still see the yuckness of 8 bit compontents in various situations espically when having a single hue and going from black to full luminance.
bits of mantissa == precision in worest case.
Well thats all in my humble opion I could just be stuipid today I guess.
Ignore ranting that got deleted.
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.