Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Batman AA, the battle continues...

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 6:12:54 PM

http://www.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=20991

Quote:
AMD received an email dated Sept 29th at 5:22pm from Mr. Lee Singleton General Manager at Eidos Game Studios who stated that Eidos’ legal department is preventing Eidos from allowing ATI cards to run in-game antialiasing in Batman Arkham Asylum due to NVIDIA IP ownership issues over the antialiasing code, and that they are not permitted to remove the vendor ID filter.


November 3, 2009 7:01:33 PM

Um...this will deter me more from buying the game rather than to make me buy a Nvidia card...
a c 229 U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 7:50:46 PM

The last paragraph sums it up but I'm missing something:

"The entire episode can be viewed one of two ways. On the one hand, NVIDIA's spent money and resources in enabling AA for an engine - Unreal Engine 3.5 - that doesn't natively support it, so why should AMD be given the code, gratis, to enable AA on its hardware? The counterpoint, as AMD may well argue, is that the company is (at a later stage than NVIDIA) prepared to put in the legwork but is apparently claiming it isn't being given an opportunity of doing so."

I didn't see anything, in the article at least, that would prevent anyone else from adding AA functionality with their own independent code optimizations.
Related resources
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 7:59:43 PM

CF AA = Custom Filtering Edge-detect filter (ATI)
AD AA = Adaptive Antialiasing at the Supersampling Quality level (ATI)
CS AA = Coverage Sampled Antialiasing (NVIDIA)
TR SSAA = Transparency Supersampling AA (NVIDIA)

Not all AA algorithms are created equal, with some giving better quality then others. NVIDIA's is supported, ATI's is not.
November 3, 2009 8:14:37 PM

If all behaved like nvidia the PC platform would not exist. A chaos with a lot of wasted development, for different vendors ...,
What would happen if ATI locked, "or tailored", their dx11 development to ATI hardware?
This can not be in the interest of Microsoft. You think?
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 8:24:48 PM

krumme said:
If all behaved like nvidia the PC platform would not exist. A chaos with a lot of wasted development, for different vendors ...,
What would happen if ATI locked, "or tailored", their dx11 development to ATI hardware?
This can not be in the interest of Microsoft. You think?

Considering DirectX comes from MS I'd like to see AMD carry out that threat, it could be interesting. :lol: 
a c 229 U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 8:32:01 PM

Actually that PC platform exists despite these problems.....that's the Mac's primary selling point. That's also what "licensing" is all about. Let's say Intel developed a new chipset, could they say to ATI or nVidia that we ain't gonna let you run SLI and / or XFire unless you pay a licensing fee ?
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 8:39:05 PM

Ok so most of us know that each teams AA works differently, now i freely admit that I'm not very knowledgeable when it comes to driver level stuff so and please be gentle with me, what good does getting the vendor IP filter taken off of Nvidia's optimised AA coding do ATI ? don't they need to supply Eidos with their own AA optimised code for ATI AA to work properly ?

Mactronix
November 3, 2009 8:46:58 PM

If AMD would be anything like Nvidia, they would demand any games they are helping with DX11 or any additional features would lock-out Nvidia cards from them. Lucky for us (especially Geforce owners), AMD ISNT like Nvidia, thank God.
November 3, 2009 8:57:26 PM

Harrisson said:
If AMD would be anything like Nvidia, they would demand any games they are helping with DX11 or any additional features would lock-out Nvidia cards from them. Lucky for us (especially Geforce owners), AMD ISNT like Nvidia, thank God.

1 DX is owned by microsoft, microsoft showing a bais would be fun to see how that pans out
2 AMD is AMD they just lock Nvidia out of IGP department on AMD boards just like Intel has done to Nvidia for the time being. Nvidia has no friends it's why you don't see too many igp from nvidia on mobo's ION is basically their last go at it in that department until intel pushes them out of that and developed decent graphics for their atom to run with.

And why doesn't AMD just supply edios with their AA code to insert into the game?
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 9:00:56 PM

"It’s also worth noting here that AMD have made efforts both pre-release and post-release to allow Eidos to enable the in-game antialiasing code - there was no refusal on AMD’s part to enable in game AA IP in a timely manner."

Nvidia are claiming that Batman is owned by Eidos, it's their call. Eidos are saying Nvidia's lawyers are preventing them from allowing ATI to use the AA in the game.

What do you believe? Hint : Who has most to gain and who gains nothing by disallowing AA on ATI's?
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 9:02:31 PM

IzzyCraft said:
1 DX is owned by microsoft, microsoft showing a bais would be fun to see how that pans out
2 AMD is AMD they just lock Nvidia out of IGP department on AMD boards just like Intel has done to Nvidia for the time being. Nvidia has no friends it's why you don't see too many igp from nvidia on mobo's ION is basically their last go at it in that department until intel pushes them out of that and developed decent graphics for their atom to run with.


AMD do not and never have locked Nvidia out of anything. It was Nvidia who abandoned AMD in favour of the intel platform, and it served them right to be treated like dirt by intel so now they have no chipset business worth calling that.
November 3, 2009 9:22:34 PM

IzzyCraft said:
1 DX is owned by microsoft, microsoft showing a bais would be fun to see how that pans out


AA is standard too and isnt OWNED by Nvidia, its implementation is IP, same can be said about AMDs help for devs. But as I said, we as customers win because AMD isnt douche like Nvidia, at least in this regards. Nvidia is losing market share, fast, although we need competition, at least JHH will come to his senses (maybe) and stop dividing PC gamers market, its having tough time as it is vs consoles.

IzzyCraft said:

2 AMD is AMD they just lock Nvidia out of IGP department on AMD boards just like Intel has done to Nvidia for the time being. Nvidia has no friends it's why you don't see too many igp from nvidia on mobo's ION is basically their last go at it in that department until intel pushes them out of that and developed decent graphics for their atom to run with.

And why doesn't AMD just supply edios with their AA code to insert into the game?

No, AMD didnt locked out of IGP, only Intel did it. Nvidia simply were losing market share there and decided not to invest R&D. Oh, and AMD supplied AA code, Eidos refused to use it. Not like it needed extra code, current worked just fine if you remove vendors ID, but we returned to square one - Nvidia is mildly speaking unethical company.
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 10:53:07 PM

I think all devs should start doing this.
Each company can have its own AA, and have to pay the devs for its usage in i6ts game, and also limit it to each game, so the dev dets money for the next game as well
Now, we could have ATI AA for ATI cards, and nVidia AA for nVidia cards.
Who needs a standard? Why not help those poor devs?
I for one will never own this game, period
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 10:54:47 PM

It makes it look good for nVidia, while being totally off topic I guess?
a b U Graphics card
November 3, 2009 11:50:12 PM

Well, nVidia has said, its selling its SW, talks CUDA, talks CUDA cores, talks Fermi, talks gpgpu, talks about how DX10.1 and DX11 arent that important.
So, I guess they want money for anything they do, including something as simple as SLI.
Not that theyre money grabbing here. Coming in with 600$+ cards etc.
Keeping their overpriced, underperforming G200s priced high etc etc
Its not about the money, remember that, its for you, the consumer, all these things
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 1:01:25 AM

This was already said by ATI weeks ago, as they attempted to work with the devs at that time.
I guess Huddy just raised it up a notch is all.
Its really a shame, and for a company that claims their cards are sooooo much better by using their proprietary IP and charging for it, and cutting off usage of other, again, etc etc, theyre losing their own base.
In one of the comments/emails, Lars says:
With your comment regarding locking DX11, do you try to indicate that AMD invented DX11 and could have been an AMD-only feature?? DirectX 11 is a new version of DirectX, that will be fully supported by Fermi, as we announced at GTC. It seems that AMD tries to create the perception that DX11 is a AMD only feature. It is not.



My problem with that is, if its ATIs IP making these things work in DX11, then, according to him, why not?
AA is NOT owned by nVidia either, nor is it proprietary.
Eidos, pull your head out, and next time, say, thanks but no thanks
a c 229 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 1:14:43 AM

Something's getting lost here:

1. Eidos chose a game engine that doesn't do AA.
2. NVidia and ATI had equal shot at taking the provided gaming technology as is.
3. nVidia chose to invest their time and money in develping code which added AA to the game.
4. Eidos chose to accept the enhancements under the provisio that nVidia provided technology would be provided freely to only nVidia product owners.
5. ATI has been offered the "same deal". ATI s free to develop their own code which would add AA for their cards.....

There's enough broohaha going on in the industry to point fingers at vendors (i.e nVidia PhysX) but this is not one of them. That's why every civilized nation has a patent system....to protect intellectual property. I'll jump up and down complaining about nVidia's locking ATI out of PhysX when it detects a ATI card, in addition to an nVidia card, but to limit proprietary technology for use only when the developers product is present is perfectly justifiable. Why should nVidia or anyone else have to share the results of their R & D w/o just compensation ?

As to why do people charge $500-600 for their cards .... cause they can. That's why nVidia charged $499 for their 295....cause it was top dog and therefore it could...... that's why ATI will charge $599 for the 5870x2 .... cause it will soon assume top dog status and therefore they can.
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 1:23:19 AM

Wrong. Where has ATI been offered as much, using the same API?
Wrong, nVidia "thought" they could charge that much for their G200s, and rebates prove them wrong.
And, as DX11 games are devved, and its usage is propelled forwards by ATI devrel helping those devs, why should nVidia be able to use any of that?
It wouldnt have been there unless they work on it.
Sorry Jack, this is like being the kid with the only baseball, and hes decided to take it home.
Some things need to be overlooked, just for compliancy in a PC gaming world
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 10:03:37 AM

This whole issue is very cloudy to say the least.
I read an email that said Edios were told by legal not to change Nvidia code and thats fair enough.
I read an email where ATI responding to the Nvidia reply that they basically could if they wanted to which seemed to be saying good we can use your code after all.
I read an email from ATI saying they tried getting their own code in during and after development. Didnt see anyone refute that but didnt see it confirmed either.
What i didnt read was anything saying Nvidia or Edios refused to implement or tried to block ATI code in fact towards the end Edios even specifically asked for code, and to be honest i didnt really understand the answer but it wasnt "Ok here it is" or "we will send someone over"
There should be as JDJ said ATI and Nvidia AA libraries for Devs to use when the games are developed and that way its there for all to use. Sod paying for it, if you want your game to be as playable as possable for as many people as possable then you would use both wouldnt you ? likewise ATI and Nvidia should want the same. No ?

Anyway seems like a lot of BS is being spread about within these Emails and untill something breaks proving what went on either way i cant see how we can blame anyone either way.

I decided i wasnt buying the game ages ago anyway.

Mactronix
November 4, 2009 10:33:24 AM

mactronix said:

I read an email that said Edios were told by legal not to change Nvidia code and thats fair enough.

So it seems it was Nvidia code to block out ATI, and not Eidos? Since AA is standard both companies abide, its no wonder when you remove block, AA works just fine on Radeons too. Thats why funny counterpoint is AMD should block out Geforce owners from DX11 and any features they help developers with ;)  I wonder how those who defend Nvidia would react then, I can bet it wouldnt be "they have a right to do it" or "fair enough" :sarcastic: 
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 11:06:16 AM

Quote:
AA is standard too and isnt OWNED by Nvidia, its implementation is IP, same can be said about AMDs help for devs. But as I said, we as customers win because AMD isnt douche like Nvidia, at least in this regards. Nvidia is losing market share, fast, although we need competition, at least JHH will come to his senses (maybe) and stop dividing PC gamers market, its having tough time as it is vs consoles.


Not really. AA is a really basic math function, all things considered. Runs slow as molasses though, which is why both ATI and NVIDIA came up with alternative methods to achieve the same exact effect (SuperSampling, Multisampling, Edge Detect, etc). Tell me, why should ATI be allowed to hijack NVIDIA's own functionallity?

So the primary issue at hand is WHY ATI's implementation didn't make it in game. Could be Edios didn't want to have to test/support ATI hardware; maybe NVIDIA locked them out as part of the deal to work with NVIDIA. We'll probably never know.
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 11:26:33 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
Wrong. Where has ATI been offered as much, using the same API?


As far as I'm concerned the following two emails put that question to rest mate.

Quote:
From: Lee Singleton
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:22 PM
To: Huddy, Richard
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum

Hi Richard,

We have worked closely with our local legal team today and we have been advised that we should not reuse or change the code written by nVidia. If ATI have robust sample code we can use it will accelerate any fix, if not Rocksteady will need to start from scratch.

Best,

Lee

But instead of replying with a "here you go, there is the code put it in as soon as." it's still a case of no we want to use Nv's code because we are unwilling or unable to provide our own.

Quote:
From: Huddy, Richard
Sent: 29 September 2009 17:09
To: Lee Singleton
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum

Guys,

I believe this technique is very closely related to a technique which we've seen NVIDIA recommend before now - so actually it may well fit very well with the code that they've given you...

Richard "7 of 5" Huddy

Worldwide Developer Relations Manager, AMD's GPU Division


For me that shows that ATi are not about looking after their customers best interests, the other amusing thing coming out of this is the so called unimportance of PhysX, when you consider that ever since (and before) Nv bought the tech it was being downplayed by both sides and since it's ownership by Nv it's been pretty much derided by the ATi faithful but as soon as they are prevented from using it they decide that it's suddenly important enough to shout about and write hacks for so that they can use it!

The plus side to this of course is that the amount of noise that the ATi faithful are making is getting PhysX into the limelight far better than any marketing that Nv could do and is helping to get the interest of potential customers who might otherwise have not even noticed or cared about the whole thing.
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 11:41:47 AM

Harrisson said:
So it seems it was Nvidia code to block out ATI, and not Eidos? Since AA is standard both companies abide, its no wonder when you remove block, AA works just fine on Radeons too. Thats why funny counterpoint is AMD should block out Geforce owners from DX11 and any features they help developers with ;)  I wonder how those who defend Nvidia would react then, I can bet it wouldnt be "they have a right to do it" or "fair enough" :sarcastic: 



If you had a company and your legal department advised you not to do something would you ? Thats what i mean by fair enough but yea you take on it works too and i would say fair enough either way.

Mactronix
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 11:43:00 AM

Mousemonkey said:
As far as I'm concerned the following two emails put that question to rest mate.

Quote:
From: Lee Singleton
Sent: Tuesday, September 29, 2009 5:22 PM
To: Huddy, Richard
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum

Hi Richard,

We have worked closely with our local legal team today and we have been advised that we should not reuse or change the code written by nVidia. If ATI have robust sample code we can use it will accelerate any fix, if not Rocksteady will need to start from scratch.

Best,

Lee

But instead of replying with a "here you go, there is the code put it in as soon as." it's still a case of no we want to use Nv's code because we are unwilling or unable to provide our own.

Quote:
From: Huddy, Richard
Sent: 29 September 2009 17:09
To: Lee Singleton
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum

Guys,

I believe this technique is very closely related to a technique which we've seen NVIDIA recommend before now - so actually it may well fit very well with the code that they've given you...

Richard "7 of 5" Huddy

Worldwide Developer Relations Manager, AMD's GPU Division


For me that shows that ATi are not about looking after their customers best interests, the other amusing thing coming out of this is the so called unimportance of PhysX, when you consider that ever since (and before) Nv bought the tech it was being downplayed by both sides and since it's ownership by Nv it's been pretty much derided by the ATi faithful but as soon as they are prevented from using it they decide that it's suddenly important enough to shout about and write hacks for so that they can use it!

The plus side to this of course is that the amount of noise that the ATi faithful are making is getting PhysX into the limelight far better than any marketing that Nv could do and is helping to get the interest of potential customers who might otherwise have not even noticed or cared about the whole thing.


Pretty much what i was saying but put much better :) 

Mactronix
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 11:54:18 AM

mactronix said:
Pretty much what i was saying but put much better :) 

Mactronix

;)  Cheers mate, The other thing notable in it's absence is the proof that ATi did proved code and or engineers and that they were not used, as they are quite happy to show us emails that are being sent back and forth where is the copy of the shipping note, plane tickets or whatever receipt you would have after sending code or engineers to the dev's? I've not seen anything like that yet, have you?
November 4, 2009 11:57:14 AM

Mousemonkey said:

For me that shows that ATi are not about looking after their customers best interests, the other amusing thing coming out of this is the so called unimportance of PhysX, when you consider that ever since (and before) Nv bought the tech it was being downplayed by both sides and since it's ownership by Nv it's been pretty much derided by the ATi faithful but as soon as they are prevented from using it they decide that it's suddenly important enough to shout about and write hacks for so that they can use it!

The plus side to this of course is that the amount of noise that the ATi faithful are making is getting PhysX into the limelight far better than any marketing that Nv could do and is helping to get the interest of potential customers who might otherwise have not even noticed or cared about the whole thing.

MM, so are you suggesting AMD should block-out Geforce from DX11 and any features they help devs with, and it would be ok? Just making sure I understand your point :p 

I dont understand about PhysX noise either, its dead-end tech, which soon will be replaced by the open standard anyway.


a c 130 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 12:00:08 PM

Mousemonkey said:
;) Cheers mate, The other thing notable in it's absence is the proof that ATi did proved code and or engineers and that they were not used, as they are quite happy to show us emails that are being sent back and forth where is the copy of the shipping note, plane tickets or whatever receipt you would have after sending code or engineers to the dev's? I've not seen anything like that yet, have you?


Exactly there is all sorts of speculation and inferance but no actual proof that ATI even lifted a finger to get this sorted. Im not an anyones side here just calling it as i see it.
Just for those who like to brand people fanboys for what they post i would like to point out that if anything i personally favour ATI as agraphics solution and am just calling it like it reads.

Mactronix
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 12:00:14 PM

Harrisson said:
MM, so are you suggesting AMD should block-out Geforce from DX11 and any features they help devs with, and it would be ok? Just making sure I understand your point :p 

I dont understand about PhysX noise either, its dead-end tech, which soon will be replaced by the open standard anyway.

As DX is owned by MicroSoft, yes why not? :lol: 
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 12:09:49 PM

I really don't know the answer to this, nor do I really care since the game doesn't interest me, but in the above email:

"I believe this technique is very closely related to a technique which we've seen NVIDIA recommend before now - so actually it may well fit very well with the code that they've given you... "

Note how he says he "believes 'this' technique...may well fit very well [with NVidia Code]". That tells me ATI gave them something, otherwise why would he be talking about something working well with NVidia code, if none of his code is in the game? After that though, maybe it wasn't deemed acceptable, or some darker reason, or who cares.
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 12:43:40 PM

EXT64 said:
I really don't know the answer to this, nor do I really care since the game doesn't interest me, but in the above email:

"I believe this technique is very closely related to a technique which we've seen NVIDIA recommend before now - so actually it may well fit very well with the code that they've given you... "

Note how he says he "believes 'this' technique...may well fit very well [with NVidia Code]". That tells me ATI gave them something, otherwise why would he be talking about something working well with NVidia code, if none of his code is in the game? After that though, maybe it wasn't deemed acceptable, or some darker reason, or who cares.

That to me says that they've sent nothing but they have seen with other titles (Bioshock?) that the code from Nv can work for them thus Eidos should ignore their own legal dept and just enable the Nv code as ATi can't be arsed to send their own.
Quote:

From: Huddy, Richard
Sent: 29 September 2009 17:09
To: Lee Singleton
Subject: RE: Multisampling Anti-Aliasing in Batman: Arkham Asylum

Guys,

I believe this technique is very closely related to a technique which we've seen NVIDIA recommend before now - so actually it may well fit very well with the code that they've given you...

Richard "7 of 5" Huddy

Worldwide Developer Relations Manager, AMD's GPU Division


They've = Nvidia, if it had said we've given you then I would agree with you EXT64.
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 2:16:11 PM

So, DX11 specific is OK?
You know, nVidia does sabe alot of monies at the hands of ATI.
I think this may work out after all.
Make nVidia come up with its own DX11 implementation in every game, no crossover, and maybe then , TWIMTBP wont have all the time and money to mess with other things
a c 130 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 2:30:59 PM

Well if Nvidia want it so that anything they specifically worked on is coded not to allow ATI hardware to benefit then i don't see why ATI cant code anything they specifically work on to disallow Nvidia hardware.

Mactronix
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 2:42:42 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
So, DX11 specific is OK?
You know, nVidia does sabe alot of monies at the hands of ATI.
I think this may work out after all.
Make nVidia come up with its own DX11 implementation in every game, no crossover, and maybe then , TWIMTBP wont have all the time and money to mess with other things


Fine by me, you see the way I'm reading this bit in the email:
Quote:
I believe this technique is very closely related to a technique which we've seen NVIDIA recommend before now - so actually it may well fit very well with the code that they've given you...
suggests to me that this has happened before with other games and that rather than use their own code ATi have waited for the game to be released, reviewed and benched and then have ripped the code apart found the vendor tags and written a workaround into their next set of drivers thus getting the performance boost that is always being touted as an ATi strong point (it will only get better as the drivers mature, sound familiar?), simply because they have always been using the Nv specific code rather than supplying their own. The burden of proof here is at ATi's door, where is the code that they provided? what proof do they have that it was offered and turned down or sent and not used? and if the cards are so different because ATi cards are so much better with DX10.1 and now DX11 capabilities and because of their internal architecture which is so much more refined than Nv's big power hungry rubbish, why would they want to use Nv code anyway?
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 2:46:23 PM

Theres been other mention of denial of working together as well, not just that email, but previous twitter statements between nVidia and ATI reps, where again, nVidia passes the buck to the devs.
Its like hot potato, and no one wants it to land in their hands.
Time will tell soon
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 5:37:51 PM

Yeah mm, I agree it is fairly unclear. I could read it both ways, but I feel putting so much thought into something that the guy probably spent 5 seconds writing is a case of reading too far into it.

But, just to explain what I meant a little further:

"so actually it [what it? This is where I am assuming he is referring to his code. Obviously though if that is true, somewhere that code lost its way, as it isn't in the game currently (though who knows, could be in testing] may well fit very well with the code that they've [and like you said, this is referring to NV code] given you..."

So, I guess the question is, what is the it? I could see it being either ATI AA implementation or the ATI guy saying that NV code would "fit" well with the way the ATI cards do AA. If the latter is the case, then I am fine with ATI being barred until they 'contribute' in some way. However, if it is referring to code and Eidos decided not to use it (assuming it worked) then shame on them. Oh well, as long as AC2 and SH5 aren't AA-less, I won't lose any sleep. Interesting emails, regardless of what they mean.
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 5:54:02 PM

This was one of the main reasons I picked it up for PS3 instead of PC (that and trophies, hah, I'm such a T-whore) as I use an ATI card in my gaming rig, and really wasn't happy at all with not having that option. If I have to play with no AA, might as well do it on a console, where there are other rewards, heh.
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 5:57:20 PM

Well, can't say I'm surprised we'll never see it in action, but I wasn't expecting that to be the reason why. Still, I see why NVidia did that, as that would be attacking one of their pure profit (taxes) sectors.
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 6:06:02 PM

Like I said earlier, this is all for us, consumer.
They deliver, for a cost.
At this point, PC gaming needs more team than individuals, and since theres been rumors of nVidias ignoring the gaming area, this too plays right into it.
November 4, 2009 6:54:12 PM

Hmmmm, that's very interesting.

Glad I've never supported Nvidia*.

*Everytime I've had money for hardware, ATI has suited my needs better (9700Pro, X850XT, HD 4670).
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 7:16:16 PM

This just in!!!!!!!!!!!!
CUDA buys nVidia!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
a b U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 7:23:38 PM

2 things about this I find troubling, besides the obvious.
One is, having the exclusive to me would be great for MSI, so ditching it doesnt make sense.
The other is Intels involvement with LH, unless Intel was using this as alternatives to SLI if they couldnt settle it out with nVidia
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 4, 2009 7:56:01 PM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
2 things about this I find troubling, besides the obvious.
One is, having the exclusive to me would be great for MSI, so ditching it doesnt make sense.
The other is Intels involvement with LH, unless Intel was using this as alternatives to SLI if they couldnt settle it out with nVidia

As in Intel would have gone the Lucid route if they could not have got it for the x58?
a c 229 U Graphics card
November 5, 2009 2:24:15 AM

Quoting ATI press releases, "adding two more models to the world's first and only suite of graphics cards to fully support Microsoft Direct X 11 technology" ... don't see ATI claiming co-development credit anywhere.

Someone oughta send a memo to Ballmer and let him know about ATI's hand in developing DX11 as MS appears to be unaware of this.

http://www.microsoft.com/games/en-US/aboutGFW/pages/dir...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DirectX

You won't find ATI mentioned anywhere in relation to DirectX development though you will find nVidia mentioned since they developed the API's for Direct X for Microsoft's X-Box.

NVidia added something to the game at their cost and expense, they shouldn't have to give it away for free. ATI has the market all to itself for the next few months.....they can use some of that cash infusion to hire a few programmers and go thru the same R&D effort nVidia did.

or maybe we should just get rid of the whole patent, intellectual property and copyright thing ..... download all the songs, movies, games and whatever we want and not pay anyone for their efforts....damn rock stars, movie stars, authors, inventors are just a greedy bunch of no talents taking advantage of the consumer. How dare people shut down sites like Pirate Bay and have their lawyers block consumer access to things like this !

REJOICE, ATI has done a fine thing this year, reversing the fortunes of 2007 and 2008 and sitting at the top of the GFX industry going into 2009's holiday season. This "win" will have significant effect on the market and be good for the consumer. ATI needs to keep the media focus on this win and not dilute the significance of it with nonsensical arguments about "you developed something on your own that we don't have access to and we are gonna whine if you don't let us use it".

What they should be concentrating on if they want to take the injured party role, now that the "Play Nice" patch allows use of PhysX when ATI hardware is present, put some pressure to bear and try and force nVidia to drop theri efforts in creating barriers for use of dedicated nVidia PhysX cards when ATI hardware is present. NVidia doesn't have the firm staunch capitalistic moral ground to stand on in that instance as they do with Batman.

OTOH, if the AA effects are being handled by the dedicated nVidia PhysX card under the "play nice" patch and they are still disabled when it detects ATI hardware present, then I'd have a beef w/ nVidia.
a b U Graphics card
November 5, 2009 7:36:32 AM

Mousemonkey said:
As in Intel would have gone the Lucid route if they could not have got it for the x58?

That, and or it cuts off gpu usage to others in an easy way, also, could be used for LRB.
Bad news for nVidia, as this will surely kill off SLI licensing.
Good news for the consumers, as its been rumored that the SLI costs are spread thru out all mobos, not just SLI ones
a c 272 U Graphics card
November 5, 2009 8:50:00 AM

JAYDEEJOHN said:
That, and or it cuts off gpu usage to others in an easy way, also, could be used for LRB.
Bad news for nVidia, as this will surely kill off SLI licensing.
Good news for the consumers, as its been rumored that the SLI costs are spread thru out all mobos, not just SLI ones

That Lucid chip isn't free so it's just swapping one cost for another, how is that good? and if it does not perform as well as an Nv chip or the X58 & P55 chipsets, how is that a good thing? and what's the beef with licensing? if it's such a bad thing and company's don't have to respect each others IP and licences, then why should we as consumers?
!