AMD: R9xx Speculation

nV has every right doing that. It's up to devs if they bite the bait.

But what happens when a money making machine like Intel starts paying off game devs copious amount of dough and screws both nV and AMD? Intel GPUs may be the slowest and crappiest of all, but hey, who cares, what matters is how much dough you give to devs, right? It's nVs and AMDs fault they can't match the bribe.

 

Are you actually eastmen's clone or is this simplistic reasoning just fashionable in certain circles?

The fact that you can't let this case be judged on its own merit says enough, doesn't it?

But ok, let's examine this (strawman) analogy you need to come up with to demonstrate how you feel about this. Hmm, now if AMD were to do this they'd only be damaging their own platform, so I don't see it happening. And if Intel did it it'd be a sure fire instant antitrust suit. Awesome

 

That'd be funny if AMD wasn't the first out with DX11 and tessellation.

 

Apparently some devs do care..

True, NVIDIA has a better track record with new releases than ATI. But I'm specifically referring to cases where NVIDIA coerces developers to not support ATI features (Assassin's Creed and DX10.1) or lock out basic features on ATI hardware (MSAA in Batman:AA).

 

If it beats a 5850 at everything..nice!

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18197104&page=8&postcount=230

 

Yeah, but it seems, that we don't need any more until 2012.
And for Huddy Tessellation "was the biggest hardware feature of DX11". Now it's something that you could use but plz not in a way that is would be useful.

 

I want tessellation in games, I just don't want stupid amounts of tessellation for no reason whatsoever other than to win a small part of Red vs Green my-balls-are-bigger wars.

 

Excellent rebuttals!

 

Which would still leave Nvidia looking better than AMD at that point. Unless they were to call the true successor to GTX 480 as GTX 590 or 595. Similar to how AMD is trying to pull a fast one on it's consumers by calling Cayman 69xx.

Funny thing is, now with the price pressure by Nvidia prior to launch. AMD may end up cutting launch prices enough that 68xx prices end up where 67xx prices would have been accounting for inflation and generational improvements in architechture and speed.

So at the end 68xx will have the performance of an x7xx card. And the pricing of an x7xx card. But they'll call it an x8xx in an attempt to make it appear better than it actually is.

At least Nvidia will be taking a x8x card and calling it an x8x card. If it ends up just being a rename of GF100 and isn't something like a GF102 then well, I'm still not sure they're worse than AMD calling basically Rv940 a 68xx card.

Hell, even Nvidia's renaming schenanigans of the past come up smelling roses compared to AMD forcing the Rv940 (Barts) into the slot the Rv970 (Cayman) should have gone into. At least with all the various renaming schemes of G92, they generally progressively moved it down the performance chain. Even G92 being called the 9800 GTX when it was similar to 8800 GTX performance isn't as bad as that was their fastest refresh/next gen chip of the time.

Might want to look at that again as the report before yours mentioned Tesselation can't even be enabled on 85%+ of Dx11 cards. So Nvidia would basically be paying them to make sure a feature that should work on all cards isn't working on their competitors cards. If true, this would trump the whole Batmangate fiasco.

Regards,
SB

 

But not in 2009, right? Afterall, the very first DX11 games that came out were all Tessellation enabled.

 

You mean the company which has had tesselation hardware in its GPUs for several generations?

Me too! God that game was awful… I got it with my FX 5900 XT, Point of View, I think.

 

We will see, if it a problem of the benchmark or the xbitlabs guy.

 

Can AMD help promote specifically or get involved in creating a game engine specifically tailored for AMD products? If not, IMO, it's time for such a move.

 

Can Or Will.. a big difference.

yes they can, no they won't.

 

Hey, you get no argument from me . But it would be nice to get an official answer though. This is the kind of presence and PR AMD needs for both developers and consumers as it's clear how their competitor has decided to compete against them.

 

You only need PR when your products can't talk for themselves.

 

I'm also including developer relations. Not every developer out there wants to create their own game engine. And it wouldn't hurt to diversify a bit.

 

... and now is unable to make chip with fast tesselation for 2 years

 

You mean "don't bench our cards with tesselation ON" ?

 

http://www.legitreviews.com/article/1444/3/