AMD’s Answer To Nvidia’s GameWorks, GPUOpen Announced – Open Source Tools, Graphics Effects, Libraries And SDKs

[patrickjp93]

but it is still built off of open source backbone if proprietary is so much better why dont they build their own os from the ground up. thats the beauty of open source is that people can modify it to fit their needs not what a company thinks that they need

No, only the kernel remains (mostly) the same, and that is to reduce driver development time and costs. Unless you are IBM who can do 100% of the system integration in-house and can afford to work so closely with Nvidia, then ubiquity has to matter at some point. Linus Torvalds and Co. will always be behind Intel and IBM's proprietary Linux solutions. It's simply not avoidable.

 

No not really, open source is better for certain solutions, you can't have everything proprietary partially solutions which need to be shared, toolkits for example.

 

Rare is the toolkit that isn't O-S. Care to be more specific? Further, this is why licenses exist for shared work environments.

[spartaman64]

They don't need to, I've seen quite the number of AAA titles being a game works title and Nvidia seems fine with it. And I think Gameworks has presence in the market.

All I'm seeing day by day more titles use GameWorks, so if it works for Nvidia then why change it.

and nvidia has to force it to gain any market share with gameworks and many of those games doesnt turn out very well. in the past it looked like physx was going to be wide spread then nvidia killed it by buying it and locking it down. for something that is worth it for devs to implement it cant just be for a percentage of the market it need to work for the entire market

[cesrai]

To be fair, mantle still exists in liquidVR. AMD outright said that devs using DX12 would make more sense.

After what ? all the hype and marketing ?

[Castdeath97]

No, only the kernel remains (mostly) the same, and that is to reduce driver development time and costs. Unless you are IBM who can do 100% of the system integration in-house and can afford to work so closely with Nvidia, then ubiquity has to matter at some point. Linus Torvalds and Co. will always be behind Intel and IBM's proprietary Linux solutions. It's simply not avoidable.

 

 

Rare is the toolkit that isn't O-S. Care to be more specific? Further, this is why licenses exist for shared work environments.

 

I was referring to IDEs, most IDEs I know of are open sourced (e.g eclipse).

 

And yeah I forgot to mention android as well, it's no where near a failure and seemed to beat proprietary solutions (the ones for multiple manufacturers, so not iOS) like windows phone.  

[spartaman64]

No, only the kernel remains (mostly) the same, and that is to reduce driver development time and costs. Unless you are IBM who can do 100% of the system integration in-house and can afford to work so closely with Nvidia, then ubiquity has to matter at some point. Linus Torvalds and Co. will always be behind Intel and IBM's proprietary Linux solutions. It's simply not avoidable.

 

 

Rare is the toolkit that isn't O-S. Care to be more specific? Further, this is why licenses exist for shared work environments.

the kernel is a big part of the OS so to say that only the kernel remains the same is understating it a bit. and why dont they use windows server or osx server if those are better

[cesrai]

i can argue that linux is better than windows for the arguments you made about ios being better than android. and if proprietary is so much better then why do people use linux as a base for their OS and why not make their own from scratch

Making one from scratch requires a lot of money and time. In addition, why would they ? you have linux just use that and modify the shit out of it to fit your needs and save money and time.

[patrickjp93]

i can argue that linux is better than windows for the arguments you made about ios being better than android. and if proprietary is so much better then why do people use linux as a base for their OS and why not make their own from scratch

You ever tried building an OS from the ground up? It's excruciatingly difficult. Eventually when the pressures become too great, someone will come along and do it (BSD has arisen specifically because of Linux's problems), but that's millions of lines of code in investment. It's not like a physics library that frankly anyone with a physics textbook and some HPC experience can build with hardly any effort (speaking from experience since that was what my computer graphics class did all semester in OpenGL). System-level coding is its own tier of difficulty while having to pull from all the disciplines including HPC, security, etc..

 

Linux loses to Windows in every scenario other than servers. Theres nothing you can do on Linux that you can't do on Windows other than work directly with the code.

[patrickjp93]

and nvidia has to force it to gain any market share with gameworks and many of those games doesnt turn out very well. in the past it looked like physx was going to be wide spread then nvidia killed it by buying it and locking it down. for something that is worth it for devs to implement it cant just be for a percentage of the market it need to work for the entire market

When your products are 80% of the market, you practically are the market.

[spartaman64]

 

You ever tried building an OS from the ground up? It's excruciatingly difficult. Eventually when the pressures become too great, someone will come along and do it (BSD has arisen specifically because of Linux's problems), but that's millions of lines of code in investment. It's not like a physics library that frankly anyone with a physics textbook and some HPC experience can build with hardly any effort (speaking from experience since that was what my computer graphics class did all semester in OpenGL). System-level coding is its own tier of difficulty while having to pull from all the disciplines including HPC, security, etc..

 

Linux loses to Windows in every scenario other than servers. Theres nothing you can do on Linux that you can't do on Windows other than work directly with the code.

linux is better than windows at a lot of things like security parallel workloads etc so windows loses to linux in pretty much every scenario other than support

[patrickjp93]

I was referring to IDEs, most IDEs I know of are open sourced (e.g eclipse

If you're using Eclipse, I'm so sorry... It's a bulky, slow, cumbersome beast. Give me emacs, a command prompt, and Flymake with auto-completion and I'll keep up with and probably speed right by anyone using Eclipse. IDEs only slow down the compilation and debugging process. They also slow down remote file access. 

[spartaman64]

When your products are 80% of the market, you practically are the market.

then why isnt physx used more often or g sync 

[patrickjp93]

 

 

linux is better than windows at a lot of things like security parallel workloads etc so windows loses to linux in pretty much every scenario other than support

 

Hahahaha! No. Linux's security lays in the fact it is used by so few, and big institutions get hacked on a daily basis. Linux is not really better at anything security that we can objectively measure.

[SkilledRebuilds]

then why isnt physx used more often or g sync 

Bcos Developers... Nvidia can't force them to use ALL blackbox technologies at once, let alone the few they do choose to use.

[patrickjp93]

then why isnt physx used more often or g sync 

G-Sync and FreeSync are both fairly new, and few people care about VRR right now outside of the enthusiast segment. PhysX gets used quite a bit. More than 1/3 of the AAA games released this year use it in some way or another. That said, some game companies, if purely for marketing, have developed their own effects so as to not P/O the remaining 20%. As that percentage shrinks, those companies will see little reason more to invest in their own solutions if they can use PhysX and Gameworks to achieve the desired results.

[cesrai]

and nvidia has to force it to gain any market share with gameworks and many of those games doesnt turn out very well. in the past it looked like physx was going to be wide spread then nvidia killed it by buying it and locking it down. for something that is worth it for devs to implement it cant just be for a percentage of the market it need to work for the entire market

Define force please. And it's true that some GameWorks titles were a disaster on launch but that's the default not Nvidia.

[patrickjp93]

I was referring to IDEs, most IDEs I know of are open sourced (e.g eclipse).

 

And yeah I forgot to mention android as well, it's no where near a failure and seemed to beat proprietary solutions (the ones for multiple manufacturers, so not iOS) like windows phone.  

As per Windows Phone, that's mostly because Microsoft has not been a good mobile-facing company and failed to bring in the proper designers. Apple has always been about design, and so has Google. Companies do have strengths and weaknesses. Intel has had a weakness in mobile SOC design certainly, though they're catching up at breakneck speed to ARM in that regard as well.

[spartaman64]

Hahahaha! No. Linux's security lays in the fact it is used by so few, and big institutions get hacked on a daily basis. Linux is not really better at anything security that we can objectively measure.

no linux is also harder to hack because there isnt gaping holes in security like windows has. it is harder for a program to gain root access on linux than it is for a program on windows to gain administrator access. and security vulnerabilities gets patched faster on linux than it is on windows 

[cesrai]

no linux is also harder to hack because there isnt gaping holes in security like windows has. it is harder for a program to gain root access on linux than it is for a program on windows to gain administrator access. and security vulnerabilities gets patched faster on linux than it is on windows

Source ?

[spartaman64]

Source ?

http://www.techrepublic.com/blog/linux-and-open-source/linux-the-clear-choice-for-security/

[patrickjp93]

no linux is also harder to hack because there isnt gaping holes in security like windows has. it is harder for a program to gain root access on linux than it is for a program on windows to gain administrator access. and security vulnerabilities gets patched faster on linux than it is on windows 

And yet every month there's a new way to do it that has a scare article posted on every major news site from extremetech to whitehat. Sorry but BS. Security on Linux is little more than its much smaller market. Windows does not have huge security holes. It simply has far more people looking for the tiniest crack. 

[LAwLz]

See all 130 some distros of Linux. See Virtual Box. See O-S GPU drivers for BSD and Linux. See the last three attempts at fully O-S game engines. There's at least one O-S antivirus that's still sitting dead on Github too.

Simply see github. Most of it is a graveyard.

Well it's not like all proprietary products are successful and innovative either. I don't think it has much to do with proprietary vs Open Source.

For every success story there are hundreds of failures, regardless of whether or not the source code is open or not. It's just the way the software industry is as a whole.

[christianled59]

no linux is also harder to hack because there isnt gaping holes in security like windows has. it is harder for a program to gain root access on linux than it is for a program on windows to gain administrator access. and security vulnerabilities gets patched faster on linux than it is on windows

How would security vulnerabilities get fixed faster on Linux? Considering there are so many distros of it, I'd only imagine the major, more popular and important distros getting patches in a decent time period. An OS that is O-S would have so many more security holes. Every detail of the OS is publicly available. Security on Linux is like someone breaking into a bank where they have the blueprints of the building. For windows, it's more of the same but without the blueprints.

[Misanthrope]

How would security vulnerabilities get fixed faster on Linux? Considering there are so many distros of it, I'd only imagine the major, more popular and important distros getting patches in a decent time period. An OS that is O-S would have so many more security holes. Every detail of the OS is publicly available. Security on Linux is like someone breaking into a bank where they have the blueprints of the building. For windows, it's more of the same but without the blueprints.

 

Being tied to a distro doesn't has to mean that you're tied to their update process: some distros allow you to update the offending parts manually if needed. And even on distros that have tight control you can usually activate things like custom repositories to force updates if needed.

[Valentyn]

Source please?

OpenGL after a decade, Linux, OpenCL, and more.

 

I hope Vulkan takes off, but we've seen very little about it as well. Hopefully big companies and Indie jump on some GPUOpen to at least experiment with it on incoming games next year.

[don_svetlio]

Nvidia - please take note of how things SHOULD be. Thank you.

#GameWorks - #GameBreaks