GT300- Next generation Nvidia 40nm chip yields are fine

Page 7 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar



I haven't decided yet.

If Eidos could come out and show some proof that AMD were invited to their studios, that would *really* help theirs, and Nvidia's cases.

Let's see if they do.
 



It doesn't work that way though, if AMD say the sky is green then it's up to them to convince us of it, not up to us to disprove them.

Eidos says there was an offer. It's up to Eidos to prove that offer exists.
 

According to the Nv PR machine :-
Games in The Way It’s Meant to be Played are not exclusive to NVIDIA. AMD can also contact developers and work with them.
Click to expand...
thus AMD/ATi have to prove that they were in some way prevented from participating.
http://www.legitreviews.com/news/6570/
 
http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15813/1/
Thats 2 rumor sites saying this now, first Charlie and now FuaD, and FUaDs been sticking up for the green team lately.
It may be a decent card, but theyd better get those wires inside the pcb first heheh, so it may be awhile yet
 
Nv can say anything they like at this point, so long as they produce something soon that backs up the waffle and as long as that something kicks botty at some level the only people who are going to remember or care about this incident are those of us on these forums, as the general public will continue on as before, never knowing and not caring.
 
If I remember correctly, these innocent devs , well the ones that made Assassins Creed, they said they were looking into the DX10.1 problem, and thats the last weve heard from them.
No one pressed them, and all this petty bickering is bad, especially if it divides the pc gaming market, so either way, it isnt good, and should have been done right the first time.
I know ATIs coverage on game devs helping with games isnt the best, but neither is TWIMTBP either, as after AC, everyone INCLUDING TWIMTBP should at least be trying to be heads up about this.
If the man at ATI said this happened, Im inclined to believe him, as any mention of BAA is enough for any type of ads/hype, to sell more games, and in a court of law, theres motive right there for either the devs of BAA or nVidia
Id also like to remind everyone that nVidia bought a ton of BAA games for promos
 


NOT, telling ATI they can use physx through a tech news website is not the same as http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/1557123/amd-touts-graphics-physics-engine so i can see why ati declined there offer
 

If Nv were breaking any laws I don't think ATi's parent company would hesitate in legal proceedings, it's not like they have ever shied away from declaring they've been unjustly kept in the cold before, but as they have yet to announce anything along those lines I don't think Nv is doing anything illegal, morally reprehensible perhaps but then who has the right to dictate what moral path every company has to tread.
 

Er... Batman is DX9, and it uses the Unreal 3 engine which is a deferred shading engine. Deferred shading does not allow for the typical implementation of hardware-based MSAA due to the separation of the geometry and lighting stages. You can't just turn it on.
 

Dude, there is no telling some people. The way I see it it's either legal or moral, if it's a legal matter then rest assured AMD/ATi will fire off a lawsuit and if it's moral then they will have to come up with their own idea, say some sort of open source physics engine that anyone and everyone can use.
 
Im not even inferring they broke laws, what I am saying is, they have motive, both the devs and nVidia to keep this thing rolling.
As has been said, even bad news is still news, and this has been talked about alot, so, in that respect, it gets mentioned, both Physx and AA and BAA all together.
People will want to see what the fuss is about, and it moves sales.
nVidia buys a ton of BAA games to promote it, and at the same time promote their Physx, which is highhly thought of by nVidia, by their mentioning of a 130$ card being better than a brand new 300$ card.

Its all motives and hype, and as long as it works, who cares? The ONLY legal problems nVidia may have is by eliminating the usage of aegia cards with ATI cards for Physx, that could be construed as possibly being illegal, but thats for another thread, if anything ever comes of it.

My other point was, the AC devs said they were looking into the problems on their DX10.1, but do you see it? And thats the last we heard from them, it was from TR.
So, if 1 devs that way, another may be as well, just build it, we help, dont look back, we have you covered, itll go away and youll make money
 
In reality, I think this claim from AMD is pretty much unfounded - NVIDIA has long been accused of doing things like this but AMD has similar relationships with developers - see games like Battle Forge, DiRT 2 and Tom Clancy's H.A.W.X.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. Working relationships with devs are NOT what these issues are about, its about extending TWIMTB Payed from working with devs to support certain features (which is totally fine), to deliberately harming opponent (and players). Call me when AMD forced devs to remove something like DX10.1 if they didnt had it themselves, or to disable AA to harm performance and quality for gamers with opponents cards, or to disable features if other manufacturers card is detected. NONE of that has happened yet AFAIK, therefore Ryan Shrout claim is baseless.

In the case of Batman's AA support, NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos - AA didn't exist in the game engine before that. NVIDIA knew that this title was going to be a big seller on the PC and spent the money/time to get it working on their hardware.
Click to expand...
Now he is lying, and not because AA "didnt exist in the game engine", but because "it didnt exist before that" and "NVIDIA essentially built the AA engine explicitly for Eidos". Both bogus claims. AA was implemented and run fine on ATI cards on xbox360 (Nvidia had zero to do with it) and run just fine when ATI block was removed on PC port as well. Therefore AMD didnt even had to "implement" something that wasnt there, all Rocksteady had to do is to enable the feature already in place.

Eidos told us in an email conversation that the offer was made to AMD for them to send engineers to their studios and do the same work NVIDIA did for its own hardware, but AMD declined.
Click to expand...
I dont believe for a second AMD refused to cooperate with devs, it makes no sense whatsoever. Either it didnt happened, or was done in a wrong way. I.e. if mail says something like this "Nvidia helped us with PhysX, why dont you do the same? CUDA is cool, implement on your cards", then I wouldnt be surprised if AMD declined :kaola:
 
*** off you suck eidos!

ofc what do i know, really nothing I'm not a person that does games for console or pc this is just conjecture.

EDIT:BALLS i wrote a long post and only got that little thing uptop

Anyways main points and assumptions

Making for Console is vastly different then for PC

PC is for compatibility
Console is specialty and you can make it for just that console

Porting to PC is not a copy paste job

360 and ps3 i assume have dedicated AA styles which are specific to them and which devs can easily access

Again it's not a copy paste job i assume they can't just make it for 1 system change a few lines of code paste it and resell it for ps3 now and then PC

Nvidia could have easily entered in earily in the project and offered to do the AA and PhsyX for them. Hell Nvidia knows how to do AA and PhsyX why not let them help out with the work unless they charge high amounts then =p!!!

AMD declined they didn't refuse they could have been focused their smaller staff of people they can send out to help with games to other things.

Like modern warfare 2, L4D 2, Star wars the old republic etc.

FPS,RTS,RPG online games that last for years vs maybe a month of play value.
 
Could be either thing. The problem Nvidia has is that we are all so used to their lies by now that nothing they say is believable.

You mentioned occam's razor earlier, for me the most likely explanation is Nvidia are lying, again. This perception is something Nvidia are gonna have to work really hard at fixing, if they want to that is.

It is very possible that AMD are now playing on this perception. If that is so, it's because Nvidia have made it easy to do.
 

Not really, you can pretty much use the same code and engine program to make ports to different platforms (with some manual adjustments), program adjusts code to platforms. Its not like current games are build from ground-up for each platform separately, devs have tools which simplify it a LOT. Then you have similar video cards, i.e. its not like ATI in xbox360 is so much different for devs than PC version. 😉


Again, PC version of AA works just fine on ATI, argument whether is hard or easy to port is irrelevant there, it was already ported.


Again, I would doubt AMD didnt wanted to cooperate, but even if its so - AA is already in place and works on their cards! Maybe AMD programers could have helped to optimize the code, but even if they didnt - you dont disable working AA, customers wont like it. And argument how AMD should finance ANY title to have BASIC features is absurd, no wonder some are joking AMD should start paying for colors in games too 😉
 

Its a good point. Nvidia fans likes to argue each case separately ("but its hard to port", "devs dont have money to implement AA for manufacturer who doesnt finance them", "DX10.1 had a bug in AC!", etc), but when you have full picture and long history of Nvidia's unethical behavior (mildly speaking), its much easier to believe of their ill intentions in such cases than otherwise. Common sense.
 
unethical?

shenanigans!

Besides being an opinion.

The only clear evidence of possible unethical behavior was the lawsuit at Nvidia and ATI about price fixing. How did that end anyways.

To claim the company is immoral and thus is capable of deplorable acts is just a way to push your own agenda, which kind of kills your point to a person looking for facts or logic used to derive your answer.
 

Every company (or person, for that matter) has an image, and once destroyed its hard to recover. It doesnt mean that everything someone does is necessarily bad if they did something ill in the past, yet there is a pattern of behavior and image in the play, you cant ignore that, common sense.
 
You can't rule out innocence just because of their reputation though. You have to look at the facts of this situation. If this ends up in court the judge isn't going to look at the fake Fermi pictures and say "gee, you don't look like a dishonest lot, I better fine you."
 
We have a choice to make based on a total lack of evidence either way. One of these companies has a history of lies, the other doesn't.

Tell me why exactly we should believe Nvidia again?
 
We shouldn't. But we shouldn't believe AMD either. Both have PR staff who are hired to BS their way through everything. The only choice I'm making is whether or not to buy the game, and that is based not on who has AA (I don't have that problem anyway), but whether the game is any good or not. From the demo, I think it's a load of crap. You do awesome tricks by repeatedly clicking LMB and that's about it.

When did this thread move from yields to Batman and AA?
 
I'm not sure, blame mousemonkey though. 😛

http://www.elitebastards.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=842%3Abatman-arkham-asylum-pc-review-performance-and-physx-evaluation&catid=14%3Agame-reviews&Itemid=27&limitstart=2

"The downside to Rocksteady's close work with NVIDIA on the PC version of the title is that it leaves non-NVIDIA graphics board users a little short changed - Physics effects when PhysX is disabled are pretty poor while other visual effects are missing entirely, which is understandable in some cases but simply look a little lazy in others, while the game also unhelpfully informs ATI graphics board owners that their card "doesn't support multi-sample anti-aliasing", which is simply untrue. Thankfully enabling anti-aliasing from ATI's driver control panel does the trick, but I felt my eyebrow twitching at such a misleading message."

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom