Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
AMD Graphics Games

AMD, NVIDIA, and Developers Weigh In On GameWorks Controversy 80

Posted by Soulskill
from the there-can-be-only-one-(or-more) dept.
Dputiger writes: "Since NVIDIA debuted its GameWorks libraries there's been allegations that they unfairly disadvantaged AMD users or prevented developers from optimizing code. We've taken these questions to developers themselves and asked them to weigh in on how games get optimized, why NVIDIA built this program, and whether its an attempt to harm AMD customers. 'The first thing to understand about [developer/GPU manufacturer] relations is that the process of game optimization is nuanced and complex. The reason AMD and NVIDIA are taking different positions on this topic isn't because one of them is lying, it’s because AMD genuinely tends to focus more on helping developers optimize their own engines, while NVIDIA puts more effort into performing tasks in-driver. This is a difference of degree — AMD absolutely can perform its own driver-side optimization and NVIDIA's Tony Tamasi acknowledged on the phone that there are some bugs that can only be fixed by looking at the source. ... Some of this difference in approach is cultural but much of it is driven by necessity. In 2012 (the last year before AMD's graphics revenue was rolled into the console business), AMD made about $1.4 billion off the Radeon division. For the same period, NVIDIA made more than $4.2 billion. Some of that was Tegra-related and it's a testament to AMD's hardware engineering that it competes effectively with Nvidia with a much smaller revenue share, but it also means that Team Green has far more money to spend on optimizing every aspect of the driver stack.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

AMD, NVIDIA, and Developers Weigh In On GameWorks Controversy

Comments Filter:
  • by drinkypoo (153816) <martin.espinoza@gmail.com> on Wednesday June 04, 2014 @07:52AM (#47163499) Homepage Journal

    It is pretty obvious that AMD/ATi has always favored Windows/Microsoft and has put minimal effort into supporting Unix based platforms.

    The same is true of nVidia, the definition of "minimal" over there is simply greater than it is at AMD. nVidia is well known to have aimed their cards directly at D3D support and filled in the gaps in [slower] software for OpenGL in the past. The difference is either in where they threw up their hands and said fuck it, or simply in the area of competence. They, too, put more of their effort into development for Windows. But they also manage to put together a working Linux driver. As you say, ATI can't even put together working Windows drivers. Anecdote of the moment, my [now ancient] Gateway LT3103u with R690M/X1250 chipset works with official drivers under Vista, causes hangs on shutdown, reboot, hibernate etc. under Windows 7, or works perfectly with the hacked "DNA" drivers for my system. That's right, I have to run hacked drivers under Windows to make my ATI card not crater my system. Meanwhile under Linux, fglrx doesn't support it and radeon has massive display trashing which has only gotten worse over the years as ATI has continued to fail to provide the specifications needed to support it, in spite of their fake-ass bullshit lying claim to support the OSS driver.

    nVidia ain't perfect, they have had numerous long-standing bugs, but they're still worlds ahead of ATI. I shudder to think of what would happen without ATI for competition, though, so I hope they continue to exist and I hope morons continue to buy their cards.

Sigmund Freud is alleged to have said that in the last analysis the entire field of psychology may reduce to biological electrochemistry.

Working...