That's a monster of a die size.
Next Generation Hardware Speculation with a Technical Spin [post E3 2019, pre GDC 2020] [XBSX, PS5]
- Thread starter DavidGraham
- Start date
-
- Tags
- john sell
- Status
That's a monster of a die size.
I am confident in my measurements of 24mmx15/16mm. The silver part in the middle is the die! You must be measuring the substrate too.
I don't see your lines for the invisible chip(s).
DavidGraham
Veteran
Any indication about the expected style of hardware RT acceleration from these patents? Will it be something hybrid like the revealed AMD patents? or something more pure, NVIDIA RT cores style?
Secret sauce PSU!!!! Shortbread find it first!!!!That's because the PSU hasn't been shown yet.
bbat should present his work for peer review like everyone else who's tried die-size estimates has. You can't post 'everyone is wrong' and expect any acceptance of your assertion without it being backed up. Peer review is vital to ensure we don't make mistakes too. It's not uncommon for a scientific paper to be disproven and a fault in the original method identified thanks to peers investigating.
anexanhume
Veteran
No. It’s descriptions of methods mostly.
Seems counter-intuitive. Aren't APIs, by their nature, divorced from a very specific method of doing something.
Further: Wouldn't WINE have to be infringing on any API patents MS might have (if that was a thing).
I think it is divorced, the only thing specified are inputs and the outputs; I think the exact method in which that is completed is on the driver.
Probably true on the wine.
Miniature Kaiju
Newcomer
APIs aren't patentable. They might be copyrightable, though, but that's still hanging on that Oracle vs. Google case (they shouldn't be copyrightable as they're basically language, but the Appeals Court fucked up a perfectly well ruled case by Judge Alsup).
Don't believe anything of that die size he mentions, anyway.
Software patents are a thing and algorithm patenting is happening in a big way.
In 2011, the USPTO granted almost 125,000 software patents, up from about 25,000 in 1991, according to a report in August 2013 by the US Government Accountability Office (GAO).
Legal enforceability of these are, I think, still in debate.
Miniature Kaiju
Newcomer
I was talking specifically about APIs, not software or algorithms. APIs are neither, APIs are language. Those aren't patentable - hence why Oracle went the copyright route against Google.
Shouldn't have held any water, but alas, this legal system is complete and utter trash.
Last edited:
API's are software. How is MS developing a software layer with its own copyrightable design not as patentable as a piece of direct-to-hardware drawing code?
You also have to bare in mind that what's officially patentable and what can be patented by paying the Patent Office aren't necessarily the same. If MS feel they need to file a patent for their stuff, they might well do and it might be there to review.
You also have to bare in mind that what's officially patentable and what can be patented by paying the Patent Office aren't necessarily the same. If MS feel they need to file a patent for their stuff, they might well do and it might be there to review.
Miniature Kaiju
Newcomer
You seem to be confusing an API with an API implementation. An API is just a bunch of language designed such it is used as interface. An API implementation is software that receives inputs in the shape designated by an API and does something. DirectX implements an API, it isn't THE API.
For example: I write a piece of software that takes digits from 0 to 9 and returns an emoji. Take a 1, get a
. This software is copyrightable (and there's a huge discussion on whether it should be patentable). If you want to talk to my software, the digits 0 to 9 are the API.Imagine I get a patent on that API. Any time some piece of software sends a digit from 0 to 9 to another piece of software to do anything - because APIs are divorced from specific methods of execution, they don't implement anything - it's infringing on that patent. That would be a huge problem. Hence the war between Google and Oracle and why a lot of people were pretty pissed off when that Appeals Court shat on a smart and informed ruling (Alsup actually learned how to code in Java to better understand the case).
I'm not fully understanding here. So let me approach from another perspective.
If DirectX cannot be patent; what's stopping another company from completely lifting Direct X and just rebranding it ?
OpenGL and DX11 even though they have the same functions, say render_triangle_strip; the method in which they get the GPU to do it will undoubtedly be different.
So what are we missing?
Miniature Kaiju
Newcomer
Copyright.
Wine, for instance, gets around Windows copyright by reimplementing all of the APIs through clean room implementation - the person doing the implementation never really has any contact with any of the actual code, so their stuff is assuredly original.
Last edited:
I think proprietary also means: "could contain patents". You may both be right.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
