Nvidia created GameWorks to advance gaming at a faster pace.

[urbanfox]

Code written by Nvidia, heavily optimized for Nvidia and effectively lowers AMD performance. Ubisoft has been the biggest partner for this.

Perfect example: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/far.../1100-6423415/

"Optimal" is a 680 for Nvidia, but for AMD they recommend a 290x...

[Linchpin]

Perfect example: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/far.../1100-6423415/

"Optimal" is a 680 for Nvidia, but for AMD they recommend a 290x...

I don't see the issue here, if AMD was the more dominant company they'd be doing the same thing to Nvidia. That's just business, you maximize the optimisation for your product and if that messes with the competition well that's two birds with one stone.

Either way graphics are all good and great but can we also get an original game once in a while rather than something with 3 or 4 in the title while we're at it?

[urbanfox]

I don't see the issue here, if AMD was the more dominant company they'd be doing the same thing to Nvidia. That's just business, you maximize the optimisation for your product and if that messes with the competition well that's two birds with one stone.

Either way graphics are all good and great but can we also get an original game once in a while rather than something with 3 or 4 in the title while we're at it?

It's not like it's optimizing drivers, it's putting specific code in game built specifically for your GPU that hampers the competition in the process. This would be a problem if AMD was doing it, too. It's going to create a rift between AAA titles where instead of natural contenders competing against each other (say 7970 vs 680, 290x vs 780 Ti/290x, etc), you have a mismatch of competitors cards and performance. That IS bad for gamers.

[DeathReborn]

It's not like it's optimizing drivers, it's putting specific code in game built specifically for your GPU that hampers the competition in the process. This would be a problem if AMD was doing it, too. It's going to create a rift between AAA titles where instead of natural contenders competing against each other (say 7970 vs 680, 290x vs 780 Ti/290x, etc), you have a mismatch of competitors cards and performance. That IS bad for gamers.

The same argument can be made for Mantle (AMD's differentiator) and developers not putting as much effort into DirectX/OpenGL API support for those titles. They both focus on their own product range and try to maximise that and to call one bad and not the other is bad. In general these technologies are a good thing and AMD should either work on supporting them or making their own equivalents. Same goes for Nvidia & Mantle etc but that's another story.

Great avatar btw.

[WARDOZER9]

I keep seeing people make this claim but I can't for the life of me find a single instance where this happened in the private sector. A far more likely scenario would be AMD continuing down their road to bankruptcy and eventually selling off the graphics division to a company like Apple, Samsung, or even a company not in the tech sector that wants to expand in that direction. This notion that nVidia would just sit back, relax, and end their 20 year mission of moving graphics technology forward, is just foolish.

You missed the entire G9x product cycle I assume? Nvidia is just the company to sit back and do nothing for years without a reason to move forward. The longest rehash in the history of GPU's was a direct result of lack of competition to force a change and for that, gamers suffered. And it gets even worse if you take into account that the G9x were nothing more than tweaked G8x parts making things even worse. I mean it's bad when a high end product 3 generations later is tied and often beaten by it's great great grandfather i.e. GTS 250 A.K.A. 9800 GTX\GTX+, A.K.A. 8800 GTS G92 and the often better 8800 GTX

[Charles Wirth]

I partly agree with you wardozer, we see major die changes for things like DX to maintain but we do not see huge performance improvements.

It would be nice to see Nvidia hold themselves to a performance schedule, to hit certain goals and deliver new tech at an improved pace.

But this thread is about improving games with support for developers. Brute force methodology doesn't work so well any more when we have so many constraints on the entire system.

[AbortRetryFail?]

Perfect example: http://www.gamespot.com/articles/far.../1100-6423415/

"Optimal" is a 680 for Nvidia, but for AMD they recommend a 290x...

nVidia had to get a little 'marketing' propaganda for all that cash they put up ...



From [H]ard|OCP

[Lanek]

Well, after batman, Watchdog, Assassin Creed unity, and maybe Farcry4 soon.. i think we will need to retain what advance mean lol... Nice joke...

[Evantaur]

Well, after batman, Watchdog, Assassin Creed unity, and maybe Farcry4 soon.. i think we will need to retain what advance mean lol... Nice joke...

it was all AMD's fault
http://games.slashdot.org/story/14/1...or-performance

[STEvil]

Its not those $99 "micro" payments to pay for nVidia's technology causing the performance issues?