NVIDIA Responds to AMD Allegations

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

AMD can't complain about open source bullshit when they won't even make Mantle open source RIGHT NOW. 

 

Keep up the talk AMD, lets see you actually do something about it. 

 

If you told everyone you were making something that was going to blow their minds in the future, would you show them before it was done or at least completed to an acceptable level?

 

People seem very split on this one, but I guess so has been the customer base between AMD and Nvidia.

 

Competition implies on company is trying to get ahead of their competitors. It might cost both companies money to optimize drivers, but proprietary technologies, like gameworks and mantle, only cost on party money.

 

You say Mantle will work on everything. Just like AMD promises it will work on everything. Just like Tony Abbott promised no cuts to health and education, or increased taxes. And since I see you're from Australia, you'll see that the Liberals, heading by Tony Abbott, broke every single election promise in the first budget. If anything, that should be a lesson to look at bold claims cautiously until they're delivered. So in conclusion:

 

Fixed that for you

 

Yeah, I realise we'll never know what they'll do until they do it and they can easily go back on their words. I should have made that more clear.

 

A question I would like to see brought up, is why are they so against hybrid solutions.

The ability to purchase a dedicated physx card regardless of the primary gpu or overall system would allow the proprietary competition to continue, and reduce anti-consumer behavior. The split and damage done to the gaming community as a whole is what I don't like to see, it holds back what could be great technology and innovation. A simple solution in my opinion would be to allow AMD card users to make use of an nvidia card as well for physx, cuda, etc and officially support the secondary card.

 

It could even be a great marketing ploy to bolster sales of their lower end GPU's which some could be re-branded as dedicated physx cards.

 

They probably don't do it because it would reduce profit margins for them. As far as I know, they mark up their graphics cards based on a percentage, not a fixed amount (say, $50 per graphics card regardless of the GPU). If you buy a higher end graphics card for PhysX, Cuda and general gaming, the profit is higher. For example, if the profit margin is 10%, the profit they would recieve from a $150 graphics card and a $500 graphics card is $15 and $50. If you buy a higher-end AMD graphics card for general game rendering and a lower end Nvidia card for PhysX, Cuda, etc., they would get less money.

 

Also, if all their products exist within a closed ecosystem, there is more profit. You want PhysX, Cuda, Shadowplay, Gsync and all those cool things but AMD's cards are cheaper? Too bad. They won't let AMD users use those features, so I guess you'll just have to give Nvidia your money for something that is probably overpriced.

 

Most companies only exist for profit, which is unfortunate because when they get cocky, their customers mean less and less to them.

 

I hope that makes sense (I'm partially guessing here)

[LAwLz]

If you told everyone you were making something that was going to blow their minds in the future, would you show them before it was done or at least completed to an acceptable level?

Well one thing is for sure, if I wouldn't keep it a secret and then at the same time throw shit at my competitor for keeping things secret. That's just hypocrisy.

[bogus]

Well one thing is for sure, if I wouldn't keep it a secret and then at the same time throw shit at my competitor for keeping things secret. That's just hypocrisy.

After all this time do you still don't understand what is happening? Or you are doing it on purpous?

No one cares about secrecy, AMD never said they want to use Gameworks secrets, or make use of NVIDIA hard work. They simply don't want it to be used as a performance crippling tool - wich is pretty easy to be one since it's a black box.

Mantle will never cripple anyone because, even if it was AMD intention to be such a tool, you can simply use DX. That's not what happens with Gameworks. First because you can't disable many features, second because the game most of the times is presented with such effects - and that's misleading the consumer since they wont get the presented product.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

Well one thing is for sure, if I wouldn't keep it a secret and then at the same time throw shit at my competitor for keeping things secret. That's just hypocrisy.

 

If you're referring to Gameworks, that's not really an unfinished product as far as I know. AMD just wants to have it as good as they can before they release it, which is good IMO. I think the difference between Mantle and Gameworks (apart from it being a completely different piece of software) is that Nvidia didn't want AMD to be able to use Gameworks from what we've all heard, whereas AMD doesn't care if Nvidia wants to use Mantle. Technically Intel is a competitor to AMD and AMD still gave them the stuff for Mantle. All Nvidia needs to do is ask for the source for Mantle and they've got it, from what we've heard.

[LAwLz]

After all this time do you still don't understand what is happening? Or you are doing it on purpous?

No one cares about secrecy, AMD never said they want to use Gameworks secrets, or make use of NVIDIA hard work. They simply don't want it to be used as a performance crippling tool - wich is pretty easy to be one since it's a black box.

Mantle will never cripple anyone because, even if it was AMD intention to be such a tool, you can simply use DX. That's not what happens with Gameworks. First because you can't disable many features, second because the game most of the times is presented with such effects - and that's misleading the consumer since they wont get the presented product.

But you can disable GameWorks features if you want. Mirror's Edge is an example of this where they got a simple on/off switch for PhysX.

It's 100% up to the developers how they want to implement it, not Nvidia. It's the same deal as if someone decided to only support Mantle, except then instead of lower performance the Nvidia users are unable to play the game entirely.

The blame is on lazy developers that misuse the tools, not AMD or Nvidia.

 

 

 

If you're referring to Gameworks, that's not really an unfinished product as far as I know. AMD just wants to have it as good as they can before they release it, which is good IMO. I think the difference between Mantle and Gameworks (apart from it being a completely different piece of software) is that Nvidia didn't want AMD to be able to use Gameworks from what we've all heard, whereas AMD doesn't care if Nvidia wants to use Mantle. Technically Intel is a competitor to AMD and AMD still gave them the stuff for Mantle. All Nvidia needs to do is ask for the source for Mantle and they've got it, from what we've heard.

Except AMD still hasn't given Intel Mantle. Intel asked for it and AMD went "we will give it to you later", as far as we know.

Pretty much everything regarding Mantle can be summed up like this "AMD said they would do X, but so far they haven't done anything". I am skeptical towards all claims made by all companies, so I don't just blindly trust their word. Until they actually do something other than talk, their words are meaningless. Again, it's as if Nvidia would say "yeah we are totally going to make GameWorks free and open in the future". You wouldn't believe them until they actually did something, right? I treat almost all companies equally when it comes to promises, and that's by saying "I only believe it when I see it".

[AxelRantila]

Good post but I would like to add that Mantle is in no way "open" or "free". I still don't understand why everyone seem to think it is. It's propritary (as in AMD own all the rights to it) and it's closed source.

The only reason why people think it is open is because AMD said they plan on opening it up in the future. That means jack shit until they actually do it though. I mean, I doubt people would believe Nvidia if they said GameWorks was "open" and "free" because they planned on opening it up in the future.

 

Stuff can be open even if they are still in development. I know that SFML 2.0 (a Multimedia API) was open despite being in development for quite some time. Mantle is open when it is fully open. Which it isn't right now

 

And I'll personally wait a bit and see what happens with DX12, because I believe that Microsoft is more than capable of developing good products.

[Nomelas]

This just gives me more of a reason to NEVER support nvidia again....

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

But you can disable GameWorks features if you want. Mirror's Edge is an example of this where they got a simple on/off switch for PhysX.

It's 100% up to the developers how they want to implement it, not Nvidia. It's the same deal as if someone decided to only support Mantle, except then instead of lower performance the Nvidia users are unable to play the game entirely.

The blame is on lazy developers that misuse the tools, not AMD or Nvidia.

 

Except AMD still hasn't given Intel Mantle. Intel asked for it and AMD went "we will give it to you later", as far as we know.

Pretty much everything regarding Mantle can be summed up like this "AMD said they would do X, but so far they haven't done anything". I am skeptical towards all claims made by all companies, so I don't just blindly trust their word. Until they actually do something other than talk, their words are meaningless. Again, it's as if Nvidia would say "yeah we are totally going to make GameWorks free and open in the future". You wouldn't believe them until they actually did something, right? I treat almost all companies equally when it comes to promises, and that's by saying "I only believe it when I see it".

 

1st paragraph

 

Isn't PhysX different to Gameworks? I was under the impression that PhysX was all about particle physics and rendering on the consumer side, whereas Gameworks is more about giving developers presets and pre-made effects to use for these kinds of things in their games. Edit: Just remembered what Gameworks actually was

 

2nd paragraph

 

Could I get a source on that? I was under the impression that Intel had received Mantle and was tinkering with it already.

 

Found this quote by Richard Huddy on June 25th.

 

"I know that Intel [has] approached us for access to the Mantle interfaces, et cetera. And right now, we've said, give us a month or two, this is a closed beta. And we'll go into the 1.0 [public release] phase sometime this year, which is less than five months if you count forward from June. They have asked for access, and we will give it to them when we open this up, and we'll give it to anyone who wants to participate in this," said Richard Huddy from AMD."

 

Again, that was in June, so things could have changed since then.

[LAwLz]

1st paragraph

 

Isn't PhysX different to Gameworks? I was under the impression that PhysX was all about particle physics and rendering on the consumer side, whereas Gameworks is more about giving developers presets and pre-made effects to use for these kinds of things in their games. Edit: Just remembered what Gameworks actually was

PhysX is one of the many things in GameWorks. GameWorks is a collection of different things Nvidia has created. You can pick and choose which ones you want to use, for example PhysX. Here is a list of all the things GameWorks includes, and as you can see PhysX is one of them.

 

 

2nd paragraph

 

Could I get a source on that? I was under the impression that Intel had recieved Mantle and was tinkering with it already.

Here is what Richard Huddy from AMD told PCWorld:

 

"I know that Intel have approached us for access to the Mantle interfaces, et cetera," Huddy said. " And right now, we've said, give us a month or two, this is a closed beta, and we'll go into the 1.0 [public release] phase sometime this year, which is less than five months if you count forward from June. They have asked for access, and we will give it to them when we open this up, and we'll give it to anyone who wants to participate in this."

That was the last thing we heard from them, so I am going to assume Intel still don't have access yet (it's only been like a month since they said "a month or two"). I mean, if they got access then I am pretty sure someone would have made an announcement.

So again, we only have their word for it but we have not seen them actually give anyone access yet.

[SpaghettiCarbonara]

PhysX is one of the many things in GameWorks. GameWorks is a collection of different things Nvidia has created. You can pick and choose which ones you want to use, for example PhysX. Here is a list of all the things GameWorks includes, and as you can see PhysX is one of them.

 

 

Here is what Richard Huddy from AMD told PCWorld:

That was the last thing we heard from them, so I am going to assume Intel still don't have access yet (it's only been like a month since they said "a month or two"). I mean, if they got access then I am pretty sure someone would have made an announcement.

So again, we only have their word for it but we have not seen them actually give anyone access yet.

 

Lol, googled and edited before I refreshed and saw your post

[Askew]

I can't believe nobody has pointed this out already.

 

[VulsaviiK]

please don't bring politics into this, aside from starting a heated debate about something that is not related, your comments make you sound biased and don't fairly portrait politics in Australia.

 

 

Except AMD still hasn't given Intel Mantle. Intel asked for it and AMD went "we will give it to you later", as far as we know.

Pretty much everything regarding Mantle can be summed up like this "AMD said they would do X, but so far they haven't done anything". I am skeptical towards all claims made by all companies, so I don't just blindly trust their word. Until they actually do something other than talk, their words are meaningless. Again, it's as if Nvidia would say "yeah we are totally going to make GameWorks free and open in the future". You wouldn't believe them until they actually did something, right? I treat almost all companies equally when it comes to promises, and that's by saying "I only believe it when I see it".

 

LAwLz basically summed up the point I wanted to make. It wasn't a good example, and it was slightly exaggerated, but the point remains valid. AMD hasn't delivered on that promise, so I find it troubling that this community has hung a halo over their heads and slapped devil horns on Nvidia. I find this type of discussion uncomfortable

 

 

Isn't PhysX different to Gameworks? I was under the impression that PhysX was all about particle physics and rendering on the consumer side, whereas Gameworks is more about giving developers presets and pre-made effects to use for these kinds of things in their games. Edit: Just remembered what Gameworks actually was

 

Gameworks is a development kit with a few bits and pieces in it, one of which being PhysX, visual effects, that sort of thing. In theory developers could have an option to run the game without Gameworks features. It would look kind of shitty without them though

 

And I'll personally wait a bit and see what happens with DX12, because I believe that Microsoft is more than capable of developing good products.

 

I liked this post for a reason.

 

 

Didn't this all stem from an article published by Forbes? This was something I looked into. Because its one thing for a business site to publish benchmarks, but it's something else completely for a more "legit" PC orientated site like Kotaku or something. I mean if you look at these two articles:

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/05/watch-dogs-benchmarked-how-does-your-pc-stack-up/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/watch-dogs-pc-benchmark-results-multiple-amd-and-nvidia-cards-tested/   <------ The article which bought this up in the first place

 

Kotaku cite competing cards at similar levels of performance, at 1920x1200 (I find that a silly resolution, but whatever), whereas the major inconsistency appears to be the R9 290X between the two. Forbes also state that SLI and Crossfire reduce performance, I can say from my experience with the game, and running it a few days ago with SLI turned off (stupidly, I forgot to turn it back on), I noticed a reduction in performance from NOT using SLI

 

So Kotaku vs. Forbes, benchmarking a Gameworks game. Who's right? Who's wrong?

[PopReference]

I can't believe nobody has pointed this out already.

 

-IMG-

I was just looking to see if anyone else felt like that. Here's what I thought:

 

Actually, I watch the AMD interview and it was good. This Nivida PR interview was painfully to watch IMHO.

[klotza1]

Nearly two hours of the maximum PC crew sucking the dicks of an NVIDIA PR team..... Sweet....

[Nomelas]

I was just looking to see if anyone else felt like that. Here's what I thought:

 

Actually, I watch the AMD interview and it was good. This Nivida PR interview was painfully to watch IMHO.

Yeah, this just shows Nvidia are doing some shitty stuff lately and they know it's wrong (and won't admit it).

[Sammael]

But you can disable GameWorks features if you want. Mirror's Edge is an example of this where they got a simple on/off switch for PhysX.

It's 100% up to the developers how they want to implement it, not Nvidia. It's the same deal as if someone decided to only support Mantle, except then instead of lower performance the Nvidia users are unable to play the game entirely.

The blame is on lazy developers that misuse the tools, not AMD or Nvidia.

 

 

 

Except AMD still hasn't given Intel Mantle. Intel asked for it and AMD went "we will give it to you later", as far as we know.

Pretty much everything regarding Mantle can be summed up like this "AMD said they would do X, but so far they haven't done anything". I am skeptical towards all claims made by all companies, so I don't just blindly trust their word. Until they actually do something other than talk, their words are meaningless. Again, it's as if Nvidia would say "yeah we are totally going to make GameWorks free and open in the future". You wouldn't believe them until they actually did something, right? I treat almost all companies equally when it comes to promises, and that's by saying "I only believe it when I see it".

 

 

Guys, stop b*tching about amd not giving mantle to intel.  They said explicitly that they were waiting for it to leave a sort of initial beta before they made it available for wider release to companies like intel, and then they could support it as well.

 

So before you claim they lied, wait to see if what they said is true.   

[OlekKing]

 

Oh AMD, how about you start making higher quality products and properly invest to support them instead of pointing fingers and playing the victim card.

[LAwLz]

Guys, stop b*tching about amd not giving mantle to intel.  They said explicitly that they were waiting for it to leave a sort of initial beta before they made it available for wider release to companies like intel, and then they could support it as well.

 

So before you claim they lied, wait to see if what they said is true.   

I never said they lied. What I said was that the only thing we got is their word for it until they actually release it.

The problem is that they until they actually do something, they are hypocrites when complaining about Nvidia's proprietary technologies. AMD is just as bad until they actually do something good, instead of just promising to do good things.

[Notional]

So what are you saying here? Should nVidia turn over all of their hard work, that they invested money into, just to keep AMD and AMD customers happy?

 

Turn over? Of course not, but black boxing their effects, which are mandatory in the games, nvidia pay devs to use, is abusive and ends up hurting the competition. When Tomb Raider with TressFX came out, it ran like poo on nvidia. AMD released the source code of TressFX to nvidia. Lo and behold, now there is no difference in performance between the two in TR. That is good business ethics.

 

But let me ask you: Would you prefer that AMD made their own "gameworks", which would be exclusively used in certain games, and would run badly on Nvidia hardware? 

 

 

 

So Kotaku vs. Forbes, benchmarking a Gameworks game. Who's right? Who's wrong?

 

It's problematic basing it on just one game. So here's Crysis 2 and Arkham Origin as well:

 

http://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/2 Worlds greatest concrete slab.. More images and scenes in the next pages.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-program-usurps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd (remember to look at the second page for the ingame images)

[Misanthrope]

I never said they lied. What I said was that the only thing we got is their word for it until they actually release it.

The problem is that they until they actually do something, they are hypocrites when complaining about Nvidia's proprietary technologies. AMD is just as bad until they actually do something good, instead of just promising to do good things.

 

I feel like we've been making this point like 20 different times already and we're at page 4 again already. Evidently a rational and unbiased response is just not going to be listened to in fanboy wars here LawLz, time to just "nope" the entire argument and leave.

[Notional]

I never said they lied. What I said was that the only thing we got is their word for it until they actually release it.

The problem is that they until they actually do something, they are hypocrites when complaining about Nvidia's proprietary technologies. AMD is just as bad until they actually do something good, instead of just promising to do good things.

 

Well AMD has released source code for TressFX to nvidia, which is why it runs Tomb Raider with TressFX just as well as AMD now. So far AMD, has proved most of what they claim. AMD simply come out more credible, as their actions support their claims.

[Misanthrope]

Well AMD has released source code for TressFX to nvidia, which is why it runs Tomb Raider with TressFX just as well as AMD now. So far AMD, has proved most of what they claim. AMD simply come out more credible, as their actions support their claims.

 

TressFX is small potatoes compared to a brand new API, It's like promising you'll donate your house for all to use and expect to be believed just because you gave a few cents to a homeless man once.

[Notional]

TressFX is small potatoes compared to a brand new API, It's like promising you'll donate your house for all to use and expect to be believed just because you gave a few cents to a homeless man once.

It's a perfectly valid comparison with Gameworks (sure there's more effects in gameworks, but it's still the same thing) And again, the mantle API is not mandatory in games that supports it, unlike gameworks.

[LAwLz]

TressFX is small potatoes compared to a brand new API, It's like promising you'll donate your house for all to use and expect to be believed just because you gave a few cents to a homeless man once.

Indeed, but at the same time I think AMD will release Mantle in a proper way. All I am saying is that until they do it, they are pretty much as bad as Nvidia.

There is no excuse for this kind of hypocrisy. When (because I think they will) they release Mantle as open source they will be ethically/morally better than Nvidia. Until that day they are hypocrites.

 

 

 

 

It's a perfectly valid comparison with Gameworks (sure there's more effects in gameworks, but it's still the same thing) And again, the mantle API is not mandatory in games that supports it, unlike gameworks.

[Citation needed]

We already have games that has GameWorks features (PhysX) in them but with on/off switches. I don't see any reason why you'd think it's mandatory.

 

TressFX is very very tiny compared to GameWorks as well.

[Notional]

Indeed, but at the same time I think AMD will release Mantle in a proper way. All I am saying is that until they do it, they are pretty much as bad as Nvidia.

There is no excuse for this kind of hypocrisy. When (because I think they will) they release Mantle as open source they will be ethically/morally better than Nvidia. Until that day they are hypocrites.

 

 

[Citation needed]

We already have games that has GameWorks features (PhysX) in them but with on/off switches. I don't see any reason why you'd think it's mandatory.

 

TressFX is very very tiny compared to GameWorks as well.

 

1. How are AMD hypocrites? Noone is saying Mantle will be open source, only that other companies will have access to the source, once it's out of beta. That is nowhere near the same thing. Sure before the fact, it will be a question of trust, but like I've stated earlier, AMD's actions seems to support their claims.

 

2. I guess it depends on how you define mandatory, and to what extent the gameworks effects are being incorporated into a game (if the effects are only for hihg/ultra, or used in all quality settings). But if you chose ultra settings, a gameworks based game will always use gameworks effects on both AMD and nvidia (like hbao+, smoke, bokeh dof, etc for watchdogs). AMD users want to have the best effects on their gameworks games, just like nvidia users wanted tressfx on Tomb Raider.