NVIDIA shows signs ... [2008 - 2017]

[Davros]

what next "oi devs if you want nvidias help you must prevent ati cards running in a res above 640x480, disable shadows + cripple crossfire" ?

As for the why dont you ask the devs question, we are asking Chris because he's here and he can get us an answer
the thing is will he get us an answer or will he try and weasel out of it because he doesnt want to appear in print saying anything that would cast nv in a bad light

 

[trinibwoy]

Really? If AMD helped a developer with their DirectX 10 code path, should Nvidia users be forced to use DirectX 9, even if there is no hardware/software limitation that restricts Nvidia users except for a VenderID check?

Sigh, exaggeration is a weak tactic. Same goes for you Davros. But, yes if AMD pays for a given value added feature to be implemented I see no reason why not. Obviously IHVs won't be influencing things like which API the game is developed for

 

[willardjuice]

if AMD pays for a given value added feature to be implemented I see no reason why not.

This is pure insanity and terrible for consumers. It's very saddening people actually think this way.

 

[digitalwanderer]

Obviously IHVs won't be influencing things like which API the game is developed for

What colour is the sky in your world?

 

[trinibwoy]

You mean the world in which companies invest in order to make a return instead of standing idly by whining? This notion that AMD should get a free ride without lifting a finger is some kinda weird pseudo-socialism. In the midst of all this outrage where is the evidence that AMD would have gotten AA support? So why should AMD users care if Nvidia gets something they wouldn't have had anyway? AMD makes good hardware, it's up to them to capitalize on their strengths. Right now I'm taking a corporate strat course and we haven't gotten to the "complain" strategy yet....

 

[Bouncing Zabaglione Bros.]

You mean the world in which companies invest in order to make a return instead of standing idly by whining? This notion that AMD should get a free ride without lifting a finger is some kinda weird pseudo-socialism. In the midst of all this outrage where is the evidence that AMD would have gotten AA support? So why should AMD users care if Nvidia gets something they wouldn't have had anyway? AMD makes good hardware, it's up to them to capitalize on their strengths. Right now I'm taking a corporate strat course and we haven't gotten to the "complain" strategy yet....

So you agree that AMD should capitalise on their hardware investment by blocking Nvidia products from working with AMD products? That means more sales for AMD graphics cards and chipsets, thus preventing Nvidia from getting a free ride off their CPU and platform business?

Nvidia doesn't make a CPU, so why should Nvidia users complain about not getting CPU support that they wouldn't have got anyway?

 

[DegustatoR]

So basically, BAA has AA support on NV's hardware because NV made this support for BAA while AMD was doing nothing and that's NV's fault that NV didn't made that AA for AMD's hardware?
I sense some serious lack of logic in this thread.

 

[digitalwanderer]

So why should AMD users care if Nvidia gets something they wouldn't have had anyway?

But that's not the case at all, it's much more nVidia is actively blocking AMD from using features that they could use in a game. Bit-o-a-difference.

 

[digitalwanderer]

So basically, BAA has AA support on NV's hardware because NV made this support for BAA while AMD was doing nothing and that's NV's fault that NV didn't made that AA for AMD's hardware?
I sense some serious lack of logic in this thread.

If your explanation was accurate I'd agree, but it's not.

 

[trinibwoy]

How do you know that digi?

BZB that's a flawed comparison. A CPU and GPU have absolutely zero dependency on each other from a functional standpoint. A CPU just has to work in the socket it was designed for and a GPU is just a PCIe peripheral. What we're discussing here is a business arrangement that involves the development of proprietary software (the game).

 

[Silent_Buddha]

So, if ATI devrel helped a Dev with a particularly tricky problem they were having. Say, shadows rendering correctly, or reflections working correctly or whatever...

Since ATI did all the work, they should be locking out Nvidia hardware with a VendorID check since they did all the work right? Despite the fact that the fix would work fine on Nvidia hardware also?

Since that's basically what's happening with Batman. AA works perfectly fine on ATI hardware as long as you provide it with an Nvidia VendorID.

So basically from now on, what you are advocating is...

If either Nvidia Devrel or ATI Devrel spend any resources to help a dev solve a problem. They should then be encouraged to put in VendorID lockouts so that it only works for their hardware.

So basically what you'd like is for all future TWIMTBP titles to have VenderID lockouts for ATI hardware.

And for all the GitG titles to have VendorID lockouts for Nvidia hardware.

Thank goodness ATI so far doesn't agree with this and isn't so desperate as to try such a disgusting solution to sell their own product.

Meanwhile Nvidia is quite happy to not only force a VendorID lockout but to also turn it into an advertisement for their hardware. If you wish to unlock this feature, buy Nvidia.

Prior to this I've been quite happy to recommend Nvidia to friends and family. Now? Only reluctantly...

Regards,
SB

 

[John Reynolds]

So, if ATI devrel helped a Dev with a particularly tricky problem they were having. Say, shadows rendering correctly, or reflections working correctly or whatever...

Since ATI did all the work, they should be locking out Nvidia hardware with a VendorID check since they did all the work right? Despite the fact that the fix would work fine on Nvidia hardware also?

Since that's basically what's happening with Batman. AA works perfectly fine on ATI hardware as long as you provide it with an Nvidia VendorID.

So basically from now on, what you are advocating is...

If either Nvidia Devrel or ATI Devrel spend any resources to help a dev solve a problem. They should then be encouraged to put in VendorID lockouts so that it only works for their hardware.

So basically what you'd like is for all future TWIMTBP titles to have VenderID lockouts for ATI hardware.

And for all the GitG titles to have VendorID lockouts for Nvidia hardware.

Thank goodness ATI so far doesn't agree with this and isn't so desperate as to try such a disgusting solution to sell their own product.

Meanwhile Nvidia is quite happy to not only force a VendorID lockout but to also turn it into an advertisement for their hardware. If you wish to unlock this feature, buy Nvidia.

Prior to this I've been quite happy to recommend Nvidia to friends and family. Now? Only reluctantly...

Regards,
SB

It does rather defeat the point of having such common features supported in an API like D3D.

 

[trinibwoy]

AA was broken now? It was not implemented at all as has been the case with every UE3 game to date. There's a big difference between helping to fix something and being responsible for its introduction....this is 100% sour grapes.

 

[John Reynolds]

AA was broken now? It was not implemented at all as has been the case with every UE3 game to date. There's a big difference between helping to fix something and being responsible for its introduction....this is 100% sour grapes.

Well, in my case I have a GTX 285 so no sour grapes at all here.

 

[neliz]

AA was broken now? It was not implemented at all as has been the case with every UE3 game to date. There's a big difference between helping to fix something and being responsible for its introduction....this is 100% sour grapes.

Again, editing the ini fail to say DX10=True and force AA through CCC enables AA on non-NV hardware.
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=95048.

There's a big difference in being responsible for it's introduction or being responsible for it's lock-out!
The TWIMTBP program made sure AA only runs on nVidia hardware instead of introducing it to the game.

 

[trinibwoy]

Yes neliz but the question is whether it wouldve been forceable at all without Nvidia's interference. Nobody seems to want to address the key point at the center of the issue.

I'm all for Nvidia being magnanimous and exposing the feature for all hardware. But that's their choice. What irks me personally is the general air of passiveness around AMD. They design great products then do nothing to promote them. So it's very hard for me to sympathize when Nvidia aggressively seeks to differentiate its products and defend a competitive adv where possible. What does it benefit them to invest on AMD's behalf? It's not like adding AA to BAA increases the TAM for all players, it's sole purpose is to differentiate their hardware. Same goes for PhysX for now.

 

[aaronspink]

AA was broken now? It was not implemented at all as has been the case with every UE3 game to date. There's a big difference between helping to fix something and being responsible for its introduction....this is 100% sour grapes.

So, should Intel and AMD check vendor IDs on interrupts and if the vendor ID = Nvidia, do a while(1e12) loop or just drop the interrupt? I mean after all, Nvidia hasn't done anything to get interrupts working on PCs, why should they get a benefit.

You're argument is beyond baseless.

 

[Davros]

Yes neliz but the question is whether it wouldve been forceable at all without Nvidia's interference. Nobody seems to want to address the key point at the center of the issue.

I do hence my question to chrisray...

 

[neliz]

The best answer would be Gears of War.

 

[Tchock]

Yes neliz but the question is whether it wouldve been forceable at all without Nvidia's interference. Nobody seems to want to address the key point at the center of the issue.

I'm all for Nvidia being magnanimous and exposing the feature for all hardware. But that's their choice. What irks me personally is the general air of passiveness around AMD. They design great products then do nothing to promote them. So it's very hard for me to sympathize when Nvidia aggressively seeks to differentiate its products and defend a competitive adv where possible. What does it benefit them to invest on AMD's behalf? It's not like adding AA to BAA increases the TAM for all players, it's sole purpose is to differentiate their hardware. Same goes for PhysX for now.

Arkham is probably so new that it uses a post GeOW PC Unreal Engine 3 build, where AA should be fixed in DX10 mode.

nVidia's method is either blocking that mode for ATI users (hacky), or using their old DX9 UE3-style hookup which is honestly... even more hacky for a (semi) deferred rendering pipe. (same goes for the normal UT3.exe renaming for ATI)

And you call this extra value? This is a feature that Epic, NOT nVidia implemented into UE3.(5).