AMD GPUOpen: SDK suite made open-source and "Unified" Linux driver

Discussion in 'Tools and Software' started by ToTTenTranz, Dec 15, 2015.

  1. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    11,263
    Likes Received:
    5,861
    http://www.anandtech.com/show/9853/amd-gpuopen-linux-open-source

    After the Boltzmann initiative, AMD is taking yet another jab at GameWorks by making all their GPU Compute SDK/libraries completely open-source using the MIT license (anyone can fork it and use it for closed-source for-profit products).
    This includes TressFX, LiquidVR, CodeXL and even code samples for DirectX11 and DirectX12 (and I imagine Vulkan when it becomes available):

    [​IMG]


    With all consoles using Radeon GCN (most probably NX too), the new Radeon Technology Group seems to be very committed on taking down all the Gameworks deals happening on way too many AAA titles. They definitely seem to consider Gameworks much more dangerous than e.g. Maxwell's superior performance/watt and performance/die-area.

    Sure, this won't screw Gameworks by night. There are probably many titles with Gameworks under development, nVidia's suite is still much more complete than AMD's and they also have an army of engineers being sent to dev teams to write code tailored for screwing AMD GPUs boosting nVidia GPUs, which AMD can't afford.
    But if AMD manage to make Gameworks useless with the help of the Open Source community, it'll be a long way to overcome their diminishing marketshare on discrete GPUs.
     
  2. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    244
    Location:
    india
    Well, it's not like they are mutually exclusive.

    Hocp's review of Fury gave a very good example of it with Dying Light performance comparison vs. 980.

    With everything turned up, 980 is 14% faster than Fury.

    A lowered 'best quality' setting, Fury is 3% faster than 980.

    All gameworks features disabled, Fury is 31% faster than 980.

    http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review/5#.VlyIey6deZ8
     
  3. ToTTenTranz

    Legend Veteran Subscriber

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2008
    Messages:
    11,263
    Likes Received:
    5,861
    Yes, and Dying Light isn't even one of the most extreme cases, like Project Cars, Arkham Knight and Witcher 3.

    Nonetheless, even with the 980 being 30% slower than the Fury, it's still a chip with better performance/watt and performance/die-area. The GM204 is 33% smaller and the 980 card consumes 40% less power (though the Fury has the HBM advantage, so per-chip power consumption difference should actually be larger).
     
  4. gamervivek

    Regular Newcomer

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    747
    Likes Received:
    244
    Location:
    india
    980Ti is around 25% and Titan X is 33% faster than the 980.
     
Loading...

Share This Page

  • About Us

    Beyond3D has been around for over a decade and prides itself on being the best place on the web for in-depth, technically-driven discussion and analysis of 3D graphics hardware. If you love pixels and transistors, you've come to the right place!

    Beyond3D is proudly published by GPU Tools Ltd.
Loading...