Overclock.net banner

[Maximum PC] Nvidia Responds to AMD's Allegations (Podcast)

14K views 279 replies 63 participants last post by  Silent Scone 
#1 ·
I am posting this because of all the controversy Richard Huddy started when he called out nVidia over Gameworks.
There are some good counterpoints and retorts by nVidia in this recording, if this is too editorial, please delete or move to the appropriate area...i figured this was a good spot since Huddy's stuff was also placed here.
They also discuss the new shield, so that is news.

anyway, source - http://www.maximumpc.com/no_bs_podcast_229_nvidia_responds_amds_allegations_and_shows_shield_tablet

 
#2 ·
What I think everyone should understand is that not all software has to be open source. And most software isn't open source... Yet we have people saying that Gameworks should be completely open source or otherwise it's anti-competitive etc.

The thing with this whole 'mess' (honestly just business as usual with more PR sprinkled on top) is that it got so much attention because of some unproven allegations and some completely false claims.

And the sad part is that those claims and lies got tons of coverage but very few people called them out or fact checked them. And if someone managed to do that or even got a counter argument most people didn't care because on the internet everyone's attention span is measured in seconds.

So in the end we have Nvidia who made some cool new tech, but didn't make it open source. Then we have AMD who tried/tries to stop people from using that tech. And we have masses of consumers who are victims of 'tabloid journalism'.

Some of those consumers who only read headlines on articles are now cheering for ignoring new technology and effects that could improve the PC versions of upcoming games. And when the only similar tech AMD is even potentially thinking about is a system where they create a PR name (something like OpenWorks) and then different game developers create and submit the actual effects (read = AMD does little to no actual work), I really have to ask, is it consumers who win here or just AMD's bottom line?

I think Petersen puts it best when he says that at Nvidia they're going to talk about what they do, they're going to do it and they're not going to comment much about AMD's strategy or stuff. That's the attitude I want to see, make your product and software perks and focus on your own stuff. Don't always go screaming about your competitor doing X or Y. AMD marketing as of late has been extremely focused on everything Nvidia does. While Nvidia have just done their thing. How about AMD tried just doing their thing for a while.
 
#3 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alatar View Post

What I think everyone should understand is that not all software has to be open source. And most software isn't open source... Yet we have people saying that Gameworks should be completely open source or otherwise it's anti-competitive etc.

The thing with this whole 'mess' (honestly just business as usual with more PR sprinkled on top) is that it got so much attention because of some unproven allegations and some completely false claims.

And the sad part is that those claims and lies got tons of coverage but very few people called them out or fact checked them. And if someone managed to do that or even got a counter argument most people didn't care because on the internet everyone's attention span is measured in seconds.

So in the end we have Nvidia who made some cool new tech, but didn't make it open source. Then we have AMD who tried/tries to stop people from using that tech. And we have masses of consumers who are victims of 'tabloid journalism'.

Some of those consumers who only read headlines on articles are now cheering for ignoring new technology and effects that could improve the PC versions of upcoming games. And when the only similar tech AMD is even potentially thinking about is a system where they create a PR name (something like OpenWorks) and then different game developers create and submit the actual effects (read = AMD does little to no actual work), I really have to ask, is it consumers who win here or just AMD's bottom line?

I think Petersen puts it best when he says that at Nvidia they're going to talk about what they do, they're going to do it and they're not going to comment much about AMD's strategy or stuff. That's the attitude I want to see, make your product and software perks and focus on your own stuff. Don't always go screaming about your competitor doing X or Y. AMD marketing as of late has been extremely focused on everything Nvidia does. While Nvidia have just done their thing. How about AMD tried just doing their thing for a while.
I see both sides of the fence and to me both companies are right in a way. NVIDIA makes IP and uses it to advance NVIDIA tech. AMD wants open standards and devs to move tech along. AMDs way would benefit everyone but it just cant be done without them doing the work. Devs cannot get together to create an open effects library. Whos gonna waste money to help out everyone else?

That Interview was rough and i really didnt like NVIDIAs position on alot of what they said but i do understand that they spend alot for thier customers so they charge a lot, which is understandable.
 
#4 ·
Both sides are correct and wrong at the same time.
 
#5 ·
coles?

aint nobody got 1hr45min
 
#6 ·
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by twitchyzero View Post

coles?

aint nobody got 1hr45min
I watched through it in its entirety, well worth it if you can find the time.

Edit: For clarity the interviewers are pretty awful, however there is a plethora of detail provided by nvidia there.
 
#8 ·
AMD has a history of playing catchup due to these proprietary techs... for most of their history they existed in Intel's shadow not even allowed to make current chips (read up on the early history of amd's chip business, they were literally a shield intel propped up to avoid anti-trust laws), it wasn't until they won in court the right to expand on the design of x86 chips did they actually start to compete with intel, only to have intel use every trick up their sleeve (plus plenty of their own questionable business decisions) to crush them in the end... then look at the gpu side of things... ATI and later AMD dealt with PhysX for the better part of a decade... which was nothing short of nvidia leveraging their position as console gpu manufacturer to shove some proprietary tech/software down everyone's throat that didn't even do a better job then existing open software.

Now i'm not saying AMD is right in this case, what i'm saying is i think at this point they can be forgiven for getting a little twitchy at this stuff. Besides they're easily 2nd place in both the gpu and cpu markets. In that position they WANT an open market. The more open they can make things... the more universal, the more likely they'll be able to reverse their market position if they ever have that one "idea".

This is why i believe them when they say mantle will be open. because it's in their best interest to propagate mantle into everything. If they can replace DX as the standard they can take a little bite out of wintell, AND they can then in the future perhaps leverage mantel to giving them that little leg up on nvidia needed to overturn market position AND blunt the chip advantage intel has at the same time. So as you can see it's not altruism that fuels their behavior. they don't want open and free because of truth and goodness and the american way, but because open and free is the pathway into greater market share and keeping their doors open a little longer.

Its smart and desperate business.

So them going after gameworks or physx or them getting upset at intel giving away baytrail atom cpus (and they are) is just part of the trend. They're trying to keep the market open so they can survive a little longer. besides... when you're number 2 it doesn't hurt to be known as the friend of the "little guy"... they need all the good will they can get from the public.
 
  • Rep+
Reactions: Blaise170
#9 ·
Mantle will never be a Nvidia thing. Nvidia will use its $ to implement PhysX and GameWorks into games while AMD will use its $ to implement Mantle. Both give different things. Mantle will give better performance while Nvidia will give you better effects and essentially require more GPU power. Nvidia technology will push user to have faster hardware.
 
#10 ·
Totally agree with what Nvidia is saying. Regarding Mantle it does provide some increase in performance but it brings no new visual enhancements or features to advance gaming. Petersen's statement that there is no real benefit from using it already started making headlines and it is surely going to anger AMD's fan base. Its true though, better performance can be achieved with better drivers and with DX 12 coming it's just too much extra work for the developers to do. DX 12 will provide similar low level API advantages but with new technologies that will advance gaming as well.
 
#11 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by pterois View Post

Totally agree with what Nvidia is saying. Regarding Mantle it does provide some increase in performance but it brings no new visual enhancements or features to advance gaming. Petersen's statement that there is no real benefit from using it already started making headlines and it is surely going to anger AMD's fan base. Its true though, better performance can be achieved with better drivers and with DX 12 coming it's just too much extra work for the developers to do. DX 12 will provide similar low level API advantages but with new technologies that will advance gaming as well.
I dont know about you but i never cared about GameWorks or PhysX. When playing BF3 with 2 x HD 7970 i was really upset that my 3770K @ 4.6GHz was not able to provide enough power to fully push them. Never asked for Mantle but its something i always wanted for Dual GPUs+
 
#14 ·
Just by the interview and the body language you can tell that the MaxPc guys dont like NVIDIAS business model but they do understand it and i feel the same way. NVIDIA could take a different type of leading role but for them its 100% about the $$$, which, dont get me wrong, is not bad but they could better more than that.
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by azanimefan View Post

ATI and later AMD dealt with PhysX for the better part of a decade...
...You mean did practically nothing as GPU PhysX proved itself entirely useless and still only actually needs a GPU for something like, 10 games after how many years? Some of nVidia's proprietary software has helped (eg. CUDA) but most of it has just been fluff in terms of actual effect on the industry.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pterois View Post

Totally agree with what Nvidia is saying. Regarding Mantle it does provide some increase in performance but it brings no new visual enhancements or features to advance gaming. Petersen's statement that there is no real benefit from using it already started making headlines and it is surely going to anger AMD's fan base. Its true though, better performance can be achieved with better drivers and with DX 12 coming it's just too much extra work for the developers to do. DX 12 will provide similar low level API advantages but with new technologies that will advance gaming as well.
PhysX brought nothing new, it either ended up doing barely anything at best, or hindered physics development for games in the long run compared to if nVidia had put money in OpenCL or the like at worst.

...Also, developers asked for Mantle...I think the entire reason behind it existing for their purpose at least was just to give MS a kick up the butt so they actually tried with DX12 which is what seems to have happened.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dir_d View Post

Just by the interview and the body language you can tell that the MaxPc guys dont like NVIDIAS business model but they do understand it and i feel the same way. NVIDIA could take a different type of leading role but for them its 100% about the $$$, which, dont get me wrong, is not bad but they could better more than that.
Exactly this.
 
#16 ·
Only i see that AMD lately is just PR PR PR and 0% actual work?

I want to see something real from AMD besides words...Psyhix/Gameworks maybe are crap and so on but at least they are something real, affects the game visually, makes it better. I've always been with nvidia, even if i appreciate the perf/cost ratio from AMD cards but lately AMD seems just frustrated and i don't think they have a roadmap or something, everything seems so chaotic there, from CPU's to GPU's. I hope i'm wrong and we will see some cool stuff from AMD and less PR.
 
#17 ·
^^ Been like that for at least the last 5+ years from AMD.
 
#18 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

...You mean did practically nothing as GPU PhysX proved itself entirely useless and still only actually needs a GPU for something like, 10 games after how many years? Some of nVidia's proprietary software has helped (eg. CUDA) but most of it has just been fluff in terms of actual effect on the industry.
PhysX brought nothing new, it either ended up doing barely anything at best, or hindered physics development for games in the long run compared to if nVidia had put money in OpenCL or the like at worst.

...Also, developers asked for Mantle...I think the entire reason behind it existing for their purpose at least was just to give MS a kick up the butt so they actually tried with DX12 which is what seems to have happened.
Exactly this.
Not talking about PhysX but actual visual enhancements that DX 12 will definitely bring. Higher framerates are nice and all but true game changing techniques that will move gaming further will come with DX 12. What was said and maybe misunderstood a bit is that at this point the standards like DX and openGL are what developers work with and with the upcoming release of DX 12, Mantle is too much extra work on the developers part. With no substantial improvements for the gaming experience apart from better performance it is suggested that developer's time would be better spent optimizing for DX that could achieve equal performance benefits when coupled with some better drivers from AMD.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by fashric View Post

Just a shame gameworks has been total crap so far.
It's just a set of effects that devs can use. So far you haven't really seen any of the new features implemented by anyone. Most of the stuff used so far has been HBAO, some AA methods and other old tech like PhysX.

However take Witcher 3 for example. The hair and fur technology is looking great so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutuz View Post

...You mean did practically nothing as GPU PhysX proved itself entirely useless and still only actually needs a GPU for something like, 10 games after how many years? Some of nVidia's proprietary software has helped (eg. CUDA) but most of it has just been fluff in terms of actual effect on the industry.
PhysX brought nothing new, it either ended up doing barely anything at best, or hindered physics development for games in the long run compared to if nVidia had put money in OpenCL or the like at worst.
You can argue that pure GPU physX hasn't had much of an effect but in general PhysX is really common. It's funny in a sense that everyone who brings up PhysX in these kinds of discussions will only do so in a GPU-PhysX sense. And then everyone will just go on using the various PhysX implementations without even knowing it. And it's been properly multithreaded on CPUs for years and years at this point despite what some people will try to claim.

Also fun fact about CUDA and OpenCL. CUDA is actually about as open as AMD claims mantle will be. The model isn't the exact as mantle but in the same way that AMD claims Nvidia could implement mantle AMD could have implemented CUDA. Why didn't they? Because Nvidia controls it and relying on something that your competitor controls is mostly suicide. And for the same reason mantle will not be implemented/adopted by anyone but AMD. And AMD knows this, everything else is just PR fluff.
Quote:
Originally Posted by geoxile View Post

Well there's one important point.

http://www.dsogaming.com/news/nvidia-finally-officially-speaks-about-amds-mantle-will-not-support-it-no-real-benefit-using-it/
http://wccftech.com/nvidia-finally-speaks-mantle-real-benefit-support/

Not surprising to be honest. Anyone could see it coming a mile away, which is probably why AMD went after developer support so aggressively rather than IHVs.
The main points are actually about gameworks and Nvidia just saying that they're investing millions in advancing all sorts of effects etc. and can't understand why they should be forced to work for free and make everything open source. A reasonable position for any company doing the kinds of things Nvidia is doing. The reason AMD does often go the open source route is that they rely on developers a huge deal. They don't research and create these things themselves as much as they put out an idea out there and then wait for someone to create an implementation of that idea for them.

Also the real reason mantle won't be adopted by anyone other than AMD is this:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauritzen
If "open" here means "we won't legally prevent you from implementing the spec that we designed and will always control" then fine, but I have no credit for that what-so-ever. On that note, where's AMD's CUDA driver? Why were they so anti-industry by going and doing their own (inferior) stuff with OpenCL vs. just supporting NVIDIA's "open" standard? Why are they so prideful at the expense of their users?

i.e. it's a [redacted] distinction meant purely to mislead consumers. You can split hairs all you want but for all intents and purposes Mantle is a proprietary API and AMD is making no effort to evolve it into an industry standard.

That said, it's totally fine to have a proprietary API and I have no ill-will against AMD for it. But you don't get points for being "open" too.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lauritzen
Quote:
Originally Posted by random guy
Yes, AMD will hold control of the API, but it will be free for anyone to implement
Meh, that is the least interesting part of "open" and AMD knows it. You don't think Huddy knows perfectly well that no one in their right mind is going to sign up for an API designed by and for competitive hardware that could at any point change something that you can't support (efficiently or otherwise)? Of course he does, which is why there's no need to put up legal barriers. He can call it "pride" if he wants but in reality there are a lot of details (beyond how you map pixel shaders to SIMD lanes, ironically a fairly irrelevant point in terms of these APIs) that may or may not map well to various architectures and the Mantle design does not consider anything beyond GCN.

It's really this simple: you either care about portability and design for it and talk to other vendors or you don't. There's no half way in the middle where you design for your own product then later say "well maybe if you mess with it a bit you could kind of support it a bit efficiently, I guess?". That's pure PR. AMD could support Intel's register specs at the GPU interface level too (or vice versa) - it's all fully documented. Do both companies just have too much "pride" to do it? It's a silly argument.
http://forum.beyond3d.com/showthread.php?t=64757&page=12
 
#20 ·
What the hell ? Nvidia said we won't support Mantle now they wants to use it ?
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xuper View Post

What the hell ? Nvidia said we won't support Mantle now they wants to use it ?
They never said they want to use it.

And I even ignoring all the practical issues I listed previously I don't see why they would ever want to support it.

1) DX12 is coming pretty soon
2) NV's DX11 improvements have closed the gap between mantle and DX11. NV for example is now faster in Star Swarm which is supposed to be a best case scenario for mantle
3) Mantle's benefits are mostly CPU overhead while Nvidia are more focused on additional effects and other visual improvements.
 
#23 ·
Well they say we don't need What Mantle Brings but they say "We'll get what Mantle brings through DX12".What exactly mean of this ?
 
#24 ·
I think the only one can Force Nvidia give in is Intel taking up full mantle support(unlikely) since intel is the one hold majority of the GPU market share.

I really dont care which champ, AMD or Nvidia as I own both whoever give me the best value I pick them up.

I only wish Nvidia at least come with some sense in their price/performance sector for any future GPUs. They are not as price competitive in kepler GPU like they had in Fermi.
 
#25 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xuper View Post

Well they say we don't need What Mantle Brings but they say "We'll get what Mantle brings through DX12".What exactly mean of this ?
That means that NVIDIA thinks that DirectX12 will be just as able to bring the same kind of improvements that Mantle does, without having to jump through the hoops of dealing with a hostile company's IP.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocknut View Post

I only wish Nvidia at least come with some sense in their price/performance sector for any future GPUs. They are not as price competitive in kepler GPU like they had in Fermi.
NVIDIA will price things as they see fit until it's no longer profitable to do so. Remember, they have a 65% market share in discrete GPUs (nearly a 2-to-1 ratio) so they have the necessary market pricing power.
 
#26 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clocknut View Post

I think the only one can Force Nvidia give in is Intel taking up full mantle support(unlikely) since intel is the one hold majority of the GPU market share.

I really dont care which champ, AMD or Nvidia as I own both whoever give me the best value I pick them up.

I only wish Nvidia at least come with some sense in their price/performance sector for any future GPUs. They are not as price competitive in kepler GPU like they had in Fermi.
amd has betterprice/performance but in these last families it all depends where you live
in US the Avg Price for an 290x is from 500 to 600$ reference to premium and the same with gtx780(well a little less) but in europe at least in my country the290x costs 350€ to 400€ and gtx780 480-580€, it's almost 200€ difference lol
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top