My point here is, proprietary is bad for gaming, and making a game to perform better on 1 isnt good for the other
I want to see both companies just stand up to perf, or price/perf, and no proprietary things
Tho, having eyefinity or 3D can also make a companys product stand out as well, but outside of dev in games
If it starts going both ways, itll hurt more than help, and is why I dont buy in to certain things, period, from anyone
If theres 2 competitors, then let them compete, but when a 3rd parties involved, level the playing field, as in games and game devs
To be honest im a little shocked all this isnt already available.
The first point •Query AMD GPU software and hardware state information that is not normally available through standard operating systems or graphic APIs.
What so games devs don't already have access to higher level GPU features ? do me a favour.
AMD's official Eyefinity bumf says the only thing you need is games that support non-standard aspect ratios because its required for panning across three displays. Dosent sound too difficult to me.
We all know that if you can get something actually coded into the games engines then it saves work in the drivers but to be honest i cant see this amounting to anything. Coding a game is hard enough as it is so why add something that gives you no benefits what so ever.
That would have more to do with Crytec and the approach they took to the game, ( Assuming that forum post has any substance to it). they have stated they just threw hardware at the game to make a better game, i don't actually know but will guess that Tri SLI G80's was the best you could get back then ?
I don't see that as being the same thing at all really.
Offering a Library to developers is totally different from making something that only works on your hardware and then coding your drivers to disable the feature if it detects other brands of cards are so far apart as makes no difference.
Its like they cant win, they get flack for not working closely enough with the developers,allowing Nvidia in with AA development etc, then when they release this which can be used or not and wont make squat difference you worry that it might somehow spiral into some sort of proprietary thing and will be bad for gaming.
Sorry JD but i just don't see it.
I agree, but again, if things like Crysis, or the rumored Crysis2, AC, BA etc have been known, or at least seen as medling, how long before we see AMD do this?
Im trying to bring rationalization to those who think such things are good for us, but also putting the shoe on the other foot, to avoid obvious over defensive reactions
And, this could happen as well
To me, it is a fight, but here, there should be a referee (M$), who makes sure both competitors abide within a certain rules strcture, cause, as 1 goes for below the belt often enough, certainly, the other will start as well
Tesselation is 1 point
Some look at R Huddy and think, paid shill
Of course he is, but even so, shouldnt his message about tess be heard, and thought out?
Imagine if it were AA, and company b had a gpu that ate AA for lunch, so, the devs should just not focus on this at all, and put in demanding 32x sampling in each game?
Should there be sliders? Should dev define its usage within the game, therefor of course more costly, but as for anything within devving a game, all things needs restraint to some degree
nVidia has in Fermi a HW monster for tess, but dont promote devving to allow for overusage of tess, what dev is learning from this?
What sales structure benefits from this? Only highend? And, iof course, nVidia primarily
So, AMD catches upthis gen, whats the dev learned?
I believe in cooperation between devs and card makers, not favoring
One company shouldnt pay a dev team to make our games better, whether by incentives, such as carrying that game with new cards sales, or direct payment, which is the same thing, to an extent
The devs, if both parties enter into this fight with no referees, could just sit back, make junk until one of the competitors comes along with incentives, and I dont mean delays, but expectations
To me, its a slippery slope, where we ultimately lose, one way or another
Personally i have never understood why this has been allowed to go on. I bet you if Intel paid software writers to code in a way that suited their CPU's and disadvantaged AMD ones they would have a lawsuit on their desk in a flash.
I agree with you JD, i feel that in a way MS have tried to level the field a bit, or at least one thing to come out of what MS have done with DX11 has. Hopefully when we get a decent uptake of DX11 propper the sliders you mention will be built in, with cards of all abilities being able to do the best job they can with what capabilities they have.
That was the idea wasnt it ?
Agreed, not just being barely enough for the top cards, if that, but to provide the whole spectrum of capable cards
As weve entered into DX10 and on, weve needed extra changes/requirements, thatve slowed these developements
Why then, should we want more?