News Why is AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution Taking So Long To Develop?

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the Tom's Hardware community: where nearly two million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
ottonis said:
In my opinion, now that AMD is earning good money, they really should employ and hire a few more high-level engineers that will speed up the graphics card R&D.
Click to expand...
AMD are recruiting - the main problem is that there aren't that many bigwigs in that area that aren't already employed by either a competitor (main problem : non-competiton clauses) or a partner (dev poaching is not cool between partners) and training promising newbies takes time. And only then can they start working.
 
You guys are still missing the point. The opengl driver in Linux for AMD work on nearly all AMD cards, and is 50% faster. The driver is a fraction of the size, and works with most if not all AMD products... So why is Microsoft making it hard to digitally sign Drivers and also navigate difficult loopholes with a difficult to access eco system.

AMD isnt the problem, Intel and Microsoft are... Monopolistic favors, both of them play... But AMD doesn't really care. It has far less budget and still beating the competition.

It also tells me that a lot of the Bloat on the driver file size are optimisations and work arounds for the harware abstract layer called DX12... How is it that Vulcan is superior is easy when you ask game designers. Yet they fall in line for Microsoft.
 
Last edited:
There are a couple of great points here.

It is true that there is no definition of what is 100% complete.

also there is conjecture that both Intel and Nvidia were rigging the market against AMD in games. These optimisations and the crap with the compiler were always going to hamper any progress that could be made with Driver optimisations. And the other fact is, games would also take sides with AMD or the other two and this is sad.
But after all, optimisations on drivers could also be apparent due to the game code itself (which seems to be the case with litigation that Intel had to pay for on a few occasions), and so they product is expected a driver work around, when the real problem is the game code.

But it us bit as if Mircrosoft didn't have major problems either. For all we know, Metal and vulkan could have a problem because MS likes to favour its DX12, because Vulkan was smacking its azz. To prove it, vulkan works very well on the Phone Eco system, with much small GPUs getting carzy close to the last generation speeds of games benchmarks... in small for factor and throttled GPUs, which goes to show that there is Shoddy work in coding , or deliberate sabotage for corporate favours.

Fact, AMD favours Open projects, it has nothing to hide... Intel and Nvidia don't always agree to being a part of them... That always smelled to me of that stinky stuff.
 
ginthegit said:
Fact, AMD favours Open projects, it has nothing to hide... Intel and Nvidia don't always agree to being a part of them... That always smelled to me of that stinky stuff.
Click to expand...
Not a fact. AMD doesn't favor open projects, they want to make money just like Nvidia and Intel do off the tech they develop. Problem is, AMD's 20% market share in both the CPU and GPU market forces them to have to promote open projects because they don't have the clout and market dominance to force industry changes and charge everyone else for that privilege. AMD also has a checkered past for long term support of their promoted features and not the best reputation for vendor support either which further hampers their ability to gain industry support for any closed ecosystem they may want to develop.
 
spongiemaster said:
Not a fact. AMD doesn't favor open projects, they want to make money just like Nvidia and Intel do off the tech they develop. Problem is, AMD's 20% market share in both the CPU and GPU market forces them to have to promote open projects because they don't have the clout and market dominance to force industry changes and charge everyone else for that privilege. AMD also has a checkered past for long term support of their promoted features and not the best reputation for vendor support either which further hampers their ability to gain industry support for any closed ecosystem they may want to develop.
Click to expand...

I am not sure that you completely understand the concept of market forces and how much Intel is actually earning. Even with 20% market share, the company is very comfortable, so comfortable in fact that its earnings far outweigh its expenditures.
AMD has prices now comparable to Intel per product, and this is not due to increase of prices for the cost of its R&D and contracts with TMSC etc, but because they are becoming greedy thinking the same philosophy of " The price of a product is worth what a customer will pay for it!". Lisa Su could spell the company downfall with this Philosophy, as many, like me, supported AMD's inferior products over the years, to keep Intel Honest and to deprive them of a monopoly that always stifles innovation.
In the past, around 2003-2006 when Intel had its Prescott systems (Pentium 4) as an inferior product to the AMD Athlon, AMD still kept is price low, which ultimately garnered it Support from fans to stop it going under. But over time, as TSMC, global foundries and others were stuck at the 28nm node and Intel had its day with the 14nm and 22nm nodes, it asserted monopolistic practices (which kept the AMD fans in the game desperately supporting AMD to keep it in the game. AMD was saved by Litigation against Intel and Sony with Microsoft deciding to build their next gen consoles with AMD tech. Around this time AMD produced METAL, which was a FREE abstraction layer that has eventually formed into VULKAN (also FREE except for the specific Vulkan code additions above METAL). Must AMD not only gave another Kick to both Intel and Microsoft (like AMD64 and Metal over DX11; to form DX12) but also continues to develop the OpenGL which Metal heavily derived. The VULKAN ecosystem that heavily defines Mobile Graphics owes its thanks to AMD on its Revolutionary Free license. Which somehow you seem to have missed.
AMD, in general, does not make money from its software implementation, which is arguably why it is poor to start with. It favoured Innovative design and Innovative approach over Intel's often lazy approach (except for Intel's 2 thread per core method; which eventually turned out to be a big weakness).
AMD does not need money from its software. It goes by the Philosophy of "the software sells the hardware!" and then puts it in the Free open source arena (like METAL).
Your philosophy of AMD must charge for its Software Projects because of its low share of the Market, it a bit of an over simplified approach to this and lacks depth of understanding of either INTEL or AMD. AMD has a Fraction of the Cost in day to day running , that Intel or Nvidia have, but still continue to be slightly ahead or no more than 15% behind in performance for equivalent complexity products.
One of the Philosophies that has saved AMD is its friendly approach to Open products, and Intel hates the fact that METAL was an Idea from its much smaller competitor, as was AMD64 and the Memory transport tech that AMD utilised to get over the poor design and speeds of the old 28nm limits when Intel had a 2-2.5 density and 30% power advantage with 14nm tech. Now it (AMD) has the Slight lead in IPC and massive lead in Multicore implementation.

So my point still stands. AMD favours open Projects... Unless you can show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE to prove the opposite other than your very weak understanding of the Market forces.

Your Checkered past of AMD also misses the point in that Both Intel and Nvidia have similar problems and still need to continually issue patches and fixes. The main difference is, due to R&D costs and team size, those 2 companies can fix their software more quickly than AMD. So this is to be expected. AMD is a Hardware company, not a software one, where as the other 2 aren't always.
If we are talking about checkered Pasts. Look at Microsoft and Intel who have been litigated for Billions due to stolen tech and poor implementation... And Intel also showed its weakness with the 10nm node, finally trying to solve the Transistor Junction design failure (of its complex 3D design) with Cobalt... How long did that take...????

Marring AMD with its faults while forgetting its competitors, is poor understanding of comparison on your part.
 
Last edited:
ginthegit said:
I am not sure that you completely understand the concept of market forces and how much Intel is actually earning. Even with 20% market share, the company is very comfortable, so comfortable in fact that its earnings far outweigh its expenditures.
AMD has prices now comparable to Intel per product, and this is not due to increase of prices for the cost of its R&D and contracts with TMSC etc, but because they are becoming greedy thinking the same philosophy of " The price of a product is worth what a customer will pay for it!". Lisa Su could spell the company downfall with this Philosophy, as many, like me, supported AMD's inferior products over the years, to keep Intel Honest and to deprive them of a monopoly that always stifles innovation.
In the past, around 2003-2006 when Intel had its Prescott systems (Pentium 4) as an inferior product to the AMD Athlon, AMD still kept is price low, which ultimately garnered it Support from fans to stop it going under. But over time, as TSMC, global foundries and others were stuck at the 28nm node and Intel had its day with the 14nm and 22nm nodes, it asserted monopolistic practices (which kept the AMD fans in the game desperately supporting AMD to keep it in the game. AMD was saved by Litigation against Intel and Sony with Microsoft deciding to build their next gen consoles with AMD tech. Around this time AMD produced METAL, which was a FREE abstraction layer that has eventually formed into VULKAN (also FREE except for the specific Vulkan code additions above METAL). Must AMD not only gave another Kick to both Intel and Microsoft (like AMD64 and Metal over DX11; to form DX12) but also continues to develop the OpenGL which Metal heavily derived. The VULKAN ecosystem that heavily defines Mobile Graphics owes its thanks to AMD on its Revolutionary Free license. Which somehow you seem to have missed.
AMD, in general, does not make money from its software implementation, which is arguably why it is poor to start with. It favoured Innovative design and Innovative approach over Intel's often lazy approach (except for Intel's 2 thread per core method; which eventually turned out to be a big weakness).
AMD does not need money from its software. It goes by the Philosophy of "the software sells the hardware!" and then puts it in the Free open source arena (like METAL).
Your philosophy of AMD must charge for its Software Projects because of its low share of the Market, it a bit of an over simplified approach to this and lacks depth of understanding of either INTEL or AMD. AMD has a Fraction of the Cost in day to day running , that Intel or Nvidia have, but still continue to be slightly ahead or no more than 15% behind in performance for equivalent complexity products.
One of the Philosophies that has saved AMD is its friendly approach to Open products, and Intel hates the fact that METAL was an Idea from its much smaller competitor, as was AMD64 and the Memory transport tech that AMD utilised to get over the poor design and speeds of the old 28nm limits when Intel had a 2-2.5 density and 30% power advantage with 14nm tech. Now it (AMD) has the Slight lead in IPC and massive lead in Multicore implementation.

So my point still stands. AMD favours open Projects... Unless you can show me ACTUAL EVIDENCE to prove the opposite other than your very weak understanding of the Market forces.

Your Checkered past of AMD also misses the point in that Both Intel and Nvidia have similar problems and still need to continually issue patches and fixes. The main difference is, due to R&D costs and team size, those 2 companies can fix their software more quickly than AMD. So this is to be expected. AMD is a Hardware company, not a software one, where as the other 2 aren't always.
If we are talking about checkered Pasts. Look at Microsoft and Intel who have been litigated for Billions due to stolen tech and poor implementation... And Intel also showed its weakness with the 10nm node, finally trying to solve the Transistor Junction design failure (of its complex 3D design) with Cobalt... How long did that take...????

Marring AMD with its faults while forgetting its competitors, is poor understanding of comparison on your part.
Click to expand...
Is this your AMD stump speech? You wrote this novel in response to my 4 sentence post? I didn't even need to read it to know you weren't going to respond to what I said and would spend the whole time countering points I never made. For the record, Metal was developed by Apple and I doubt Intel could care less about it. AMD developed Mantle (which I doubt Intel cared about 8 years ago either) which contributed to DX12 and Vulkan. When you can't even get the basics right, I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of it.
 
spongiemaster said:
Is this your AMD stump speech? You wrote this novel in response to my 4 sentence post? I didn't even need to read it to know you weren't going to respond to what I said and would spend the whole time countering points I never made. For the record, Metal was developed by Apple and I doubt Intel could care less about it. AMD developed Mantle (which I doubt Intel cared about 8 years ago either) which contributed to DX12 and Vulkan. When you can't even get the basics right, I'm not going to waste my time with the rest of it.
Click to expand...

OK, I made the mistake of calling it metal and not mantle, however both of them were being developed at the same time and in part collaboration, which was why they were both similar to their performance. Metal was moving on the advancement of the AMD bus architecture, and Mantle was a co product being developed as a consequence. Apple Largely keeps its OS implementation secret, so AMD could only give their Hardware based implementation, which essentially made half of METAL. Unsurprisingly, when AMD had given over its secrets, Apple dumped them, it had what it needed, an API that could essentially make AMD reliance null, and could pull more performance out of INTEL's crappy fusion tech of GPU on CPU die.

AMD Utilised its own version calling it Mantle and essentially offered in OPEN FORM in light of apples refusal to OPEN its coding to Metal to the Open code... Which essentially proves my point... AMD does OPEN, the other 2 generally don't

So my apologies for saying METAL when I meant Mantle.. But essentially they are 2 implementations of the same project... And I am again proved right, as Mantle (version of metal for LINUX and Windows) was released for free with an AMD only implementation due to its new Hyper Transport architecture.

So you are still wrong except for forcing my correction on Metal for Mantle.

Oh and By the Way, Mantle released as an open source (FREE) was an up yours to Microsoft, intel and apple and all done for free. Microsoft basically could then make DX12 based on the OPEN mantle project... Again I am correct. AMD made a new software solution for Free and the others stole from it (at apples dismay)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom