AMD GPUs seems to have an advantage over the equivalent GeForce models in the BF5 alpha

[leadeater]

27 minutes ago, mr moose said:

EDIT: and you didn't answer my question, way before what time?  perhaps you thought the complaint and the agreement we have been talking about where from different investigations?

I was under the impression that Intel had updated their compiler some time before the FTC ruling, seems that was not the case. Intel compiler version 11.1.054 (12/15/2009) still was doing it.

[mr moose]

11 hours ago, leadeater said:

Knowing that your product does that, actively pursuing game developers to use the tool without disclosing that information is that. You can mistakenly make the tool do that from the start but you can also leverage that effect to your gain and hide that fact.

 

 

 

https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/press-releases/2009/12/ftc-challenges-intels-dominance-worldwide-microprocessor-markets

 

And in the actual ruling, section Nature of the Case:

 

Section on the Compiler:

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/091216intelcmpt.pdf

Yes they challenged it, that's what the agreement we have posted already claims,  Using their defense as the crime isn't how it works though. The FTC directly accused Intel of gimping AMD, Told them to stop it and to inform everyone of the effects of their compiler (as well as release a changed one).  Intel refuse to release a changed one and claim they didn't do it on purpose.  FTC disagrees and so does the evidence. Juxtaposition that to nvidia where there is no evidence this is about gimping and we have a different case.

 

Do you also think that Intel's crime was forcing OEM's to sell only Intel systems or was it failing to tell everyone they were forcing OEM's to make Intel only systems?

[Stefan Payne]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Do you also think that Intel's crime was forcing OEM's to sell only Intel systems or was it failing to tell everyone they were forcing OEM's to make Intel only systems?

That was one part in many of the lawsuit that Intel Lost.

Especially in the EU ruling that was part of it.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Yes they challenged it, that's what the agreement we have posted already claims,  Using their defense as the crime isn't how it works though. The FTC directly accused Intel of gimping AMD, Told them to stop it and to inform everyone of the effects of their compiler (as well as release a changed one).  Intel refuse to release a changed one and claim they didn't do it on purpose.  FTC disagrees and so does the evidence. Juxtaposition that to nvidia where there is no evidence this is about gimping and we have a different case.

They were accused of a lot of things, and it's the combination of what they were doing all inclusive that made it illegal and a breach of trade practices which the FTC oversees. No single thing, in regards to the compiler, is illegal so absolutely no the Intel compiler alone doing what it was doing is not illegal and is not the sole defining reason they were punished, which is made very clear in the document by the FTC if you actually care to read it in full and understand the context of it and what the mandate of the FTC actually is.

 

Intel is under no obligation to make software that runs well on anyone else's hardware, they do have an obligation to not hide and deceive that fact, because that is an unfair trade practice and is what the FTC cares about.

 

Because they breached trade practices they were required to do a number of things to remedy the situation, do not confuse those requirements with what is defined as allowed and not allowed trade practices.

 

Intel made changes to their compiler giving only their products the full architecture performance benefits and excluded AMD from those. They then failed to disclose these changes in any change logs and failed to notify customers and mislead people when directly asked about it. They distributed that software to vendors and convinced them to use it leading to software that directly favored their hardware, some of that software was performance benchmark software commonly used in the industry. To cut a long story short go read the document, I'm not going to retype it. You can't pick one single factor and say that is why the FTC brought charges on them because it's not a single factor issue, never was.

 

So back to actually why this relates to Nvidia, because I've already discussed what I said I wouldn't and I won't do it again.

 

Nvidia is making development tools used in the process of making games and has a direct impact over large facets of that resulting software, that itself to me is an issue but not an unfair trade practice. However if Nvidia is not clear that in using their software that games will significantly favor and perform better on their hardware then that could be deemed an unfair trade practice. Games are also used in hardware benchmarking of products so by Nvidia doing what they are doing they will influence benchmarks, like Intel, so it must be made clear why so consumers are informed as to why.

 

Unlike game engine developers who are independent of the hardware design and manufacturing and do not have a clear conflict of interest Nvidia does, like Intel does/did. Game engine developers can seek technical advice from anyone they choose and can even result in a game engine that favors one vendor over another, we have yet to see it on magnitudes in the order of 50% though, and integrate any tools they like so long as they are not mislead. The same applies to game developers.

 

Nvidia is stepping in to an area they have a clear conflict of interest and my personal feeling on that matter is that they are not being open and transparent enough over the ramifications of their actions and using their tools and are changing the nature in which games are developed, the effects used and the techniques involved which all leads to software/games that favor their hardware. Notice the similarities? But just so it's clear and not misunderstood, not illegal unless they are misleading developers.

[mr moose]

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They were accused of a lot of things,

And one of those things was intentionally gimping competitor CPU's which is why:

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

Intel is under no obligation to make software that runs well on anyone else's hardware,

Because it is not the outcome but the intention/motive of their action.

 

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

they do have an obligation to not hide and deceive that fact, because that is an unfair trade practice and is what the FTC cares about.

Because they gimped it in the first place.

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

 

Because they breached trade practices they were required to do a number of things to remedy the situation, do not confuse those requirements with what is defined as allowed and not allowed trade practices.

It seems that is exactly what you are doing, you are claiming because they are being forced to announce the effects of their compiler that the crime was not being transparent about the effects of their compiler, the crime was not transparency, the crime was gimping and transparency is the solution so they can't hide behind "optimization".

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Intel made changes to their compiler giving only their products the full architecture performance benefits and excluded AMD from those. They then failed to disclose these changes in any change logs and failed to notify customers and mislead people when directly asked about it.

So failing to tell people they gimped it is the crime? not the gimping itself? Why would they choose not to tell everyone they are artificially gimping competitor products I wonder?

Failing to tell people is wrong because the gimping was intentional, if it wasn't intentional there would be no requirement to tell people. 

 

14 minutes ago, leadeater said:

They distributed that software to vendors and convinced them to use it leading to software that directly favored their hardware, some of that software was performance benchmark software commonly used in the industry. To cut a long story short go read the document, I'm not going to retype it. You can't pick one single factor and say that is why the FTC brought charges on them because it's not a single factor issue, never was.

 

So back to actually why this relates to Nvidia, because I've already discussed what I said I wouldn't and I won't do it again.

 

Nvidia is making development tools used in the process of making games and has a direct impact over large facets of that resulting software, that itself to me is an issue but not an unfair trade practice. However if Nvidia is not clear that in using their software that games will significantly favor and perform better on their hardware then that could be deemed an unfair trade practice. Games are also used in hardware benchmarking of products so by Nvidia doing what they are doing they will influence benchmarks, like Intel, so it must be made clear why so consumers are informed as to why.

 

Unlike game engine developers who are independent of the hardware design and manufacturing and do not have a clear conflict of interest Nvidia does, like Intel does/did. Game engine developers can seek technical advice from anyone they choose and can even result in a game engine that favors one vendor over another, we have yet to see it on magnitudes in the order of 50% though, and integrate any tools they like so long as they are not mislead. The same applies to game developers.

 

Nvidia is stepping in to an area they have a clear conflict of interest and my personal feeling on that matter is that they are not being open and transparent enough over the ramifications of their actions and using their tools and are changing the nature in which games are developed, the effects used and the techniques involved which all leads to software/games that favor their hardware. Notice the similarities? But just so it's clear and not misunderstood, not illegal unless they are misleading developers.

Your premise still ignores the fact that the original crime and the intent is crucial.  You can't make a company fix issues with competitors products because you think they doing it on purpose. you need proof.  There is proof Intel gimped competitor CPU'S with no other advantage to their product (why they were ordered to disclose it all and change their compiler). There is no evidence nvidia are doing the same.  All you know is gameworks doesn't perform to well for some aspects, that's not evidence of no benefit, for all we know there are multiple benefits to nvidia and game developers that come at the expense of a performance. 

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

Because it is not the outcome but the intention/motive of their action.

And companies are actually legally allowed to be assholes to each other, just out in the open. Intel is within their right to remove SSE2 and SSE3 support for AMD processors for their compiler if they list it in the change logs.

 

Nice that you stopped at the commas, twice, to completely change the meaning of what as actually said.

 

1 hour ago, mr moose said:

It seems that is exactly what you are doing, you are claiming because they are being forced to announce the effects of their compiler that the crime was not being transparent about the effects of their compiler, the crime was not transparency, the crime was gimping and transparency is the solution so they can't hide behind "optimization".

Without both not a crime.

[leadeater]

49 minutes ago, mr moose said:

Your premise still ignores the fact that the original crime and the intent is crucial.  You can't make a company fix issues with competitors products because you think they doing it on purpose. you need proof.  There is proof Intel gimped competitor CPU'S with no other advantage to their product (why they were ordered to disclose it all and change their compiler). There is no evidence nvidia are doing the same.  All you know is gameworks doesn't perform to well for some aspects, that's not evidence of no benefit, for all we know there are multiple benefits to nvidia and game developers that come at the expense of a performance.

Nvidia's intent is to get developers to use their tool, ..... obviously, which leads to games that fundamentally favor their hardware. You seem to be under the impression that all the effects of GamesWorks and the impacts over the development of the game can be turned off which is not the case. Without the proper disclosure of the effects of using that tool as I just said and promptly ignored could be deemed unfair trade practice.

 

Got better things to do than debate this further, leave it at we don't agree with each other.

[veli2501]

On 7/8/2018 at 9:13 PM, Stefan Payne said:

And looking back to the 7800GTX and X1800XL, you'll see that compute is pretty important...

Because due to the architecture there are some programms that run usable on the X1800 (or rather X1900) than on the nVidia Cards due to their architecture...

In this case would you agree that it's up to AMD to ensure that those programs "run usable" on the NVidia cards?  Because by your logic they should.  Or does this only go one way?

[Stefan Payne]

29 minutes ago, veli2501 said:

In this case would you agree that it's up to AMD to ensure that those programs "run usable" on the NVidia cards?  Because by your logic they should.  Or does this only go one way?

When both Architectures are quite similar, then yes, of course.

Sadly that isn't the case with the CineFX Architecture vs. ATi's Architecture. The Problem is that NVidia's CineFX Architecture, wich the G70 is also based on, was just garbage.

And when it was EOL long enough nobody cared about that no more...

 

The Problem with CineFX was that Shader and TMU are dependent on each other and AFAIR TMU Operation can stall the shaders - wich is the reason for the performance discrepancy, while AMD had TMUs that operate independently from the shaders since forever at the time. Even the Radeon 9500 and 9700 had TMUs independently from the Shaders. Wich is why the TMUs can do their Texturing stuff while nobody has to care about what the Shaders do.

That was not the case for nVidia's Architecture...

 

But they fixed that with the DX10 Architecture, kinda...

 

The thing is, the difference between ATi/AMD and nVidia was never larger than in the DX9 area. After that, they became closer than ever. And that is also the case today...

 

If you optimize well for the AMD Architecture it (mostly) runs on nVidia very well, if you don't use Async Compute too much...

[-CLASSIFIED-]

i ahd no issues pushing 160fps with my titan Xp in bfv ... idk why everyone's up in a tissy over the game "performing like shit" 

[KingCoyne]

On 7/4/2018 at 1:41 AM, Spotty said:

Nvidia really needs to sort their DX12 shit out.

Let’s hope Turing is DX12 optimized.

[Stefan Payne]

4 hours ago, TheGingerKid said:

i ahd no issues pushing 160fps with my titan Xp in bfv ... idk why everyone's up in a tissy over the game "performing like shit" 

Its because AMD performs so well. That destroys a world for some people

Like you see here when they have to see a VEGA64 in front of a 1080ti in a pretty well optimized game, for that plattform...
 

Well, yeah, stuff like that happens from time to time...

[D13H4RD]

5 hours ago, TheGingerKid said:

i ahd no issues pushing 160fps with my titan Xp in bfv ... idk why everyone's up in a tissy over the game "performing like shit" 

It's not that the NVIDIA GPUs performed poorly 

 

It's how preliminary performance reports in the Alpha show that AMD GPUs have a significant performance lead. 

[Humbug]

5 hours ago, TheGingerKid said:

i ahd no issues pushing 160fps with my titan Xp in bfv ... idk why everyone's up in a tissy over the game "performing like shit" 

 

at what settings did you achieve that?

 

According to PC gamesn they got 114fps at 1080p Ultra settings on a gtx 1080ti

 

 

[mr moose]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

Nvidia's intent is to get developers to use their tool, ..... obviously, which leads to games that fundamentally favor their hardware.

I don't think that is illegal for the below mentioned reasons.

Quote

You seem to be under the impression that all the effects of GamesWorks and the impacts over the development of the game can be turned off which is not the case.

Not really,  maybe there are there are parts that can't be toggled off, but ultimately if the game is built around a custom API/Library that is designed specifically for Nvidia hardware then we should see some degradation on AMD hardware as a natural result, this does not equal unfair trade practice, you need specific motive for that. 

Quote

Without the proper disclosure of the effects of using that tool as I just said and promptly ignored could be deemed unfair trade practice.

And this is where we come unstuck, because I don't believe the Intel example shows that disclosure, in this context, is the crux of unfair trade practice. As the Intel agreement demonstrated that such practices were acceptable if they actually benefited the companies product, beyond gimping the competition. The disclosure bit was requested as the remedy not a law they had broken.
 

Quote

 

Got better things to do than debate this further, leave it at we don't agree with each other.

I can agree that we will never agree, but seeing as you added this to the end of a rebuttal,  I felt the right to reply was justified.