Will ATI Play Nice?

5

Comments

+ Add a Comment
avatar

nigratruo

AIT and NVIDIA try to peddle their proprietary BS, each one trying to get as much profit from it as possible. Being useful to the user? Nope. That is not on their plan. They don't realize that PC gaming is in dire straits and dieing fast.

As current, Physical engines are a total joke. No game really uses them. HalfLife 2 did some great stuff, but that got invented for nothing, because Valve probably made the licensing so expensive that nobody cared to use it. WHY o WHY do you always have to reinvent the wheel? 

 How about cooperating for a change? How about using the Bullet physical engine, OpenSource? Sure, you won't be able to charge for it or sell it. No dummy, it does not belong to you. It belongs to the community, which developed it. BUT you can use it and offer a physical engine that runs on EVERYTHING, GPU, CPU, ATI, NVIDIA, Linux, Mac, everything. It is called OPEN STANDARDS. Not something that you will be getting stinking rich off profits (which seems the dream of every dumb company, meanwhile the market dies and nobody will be left buying any products afterwards)

ATI and AMD should adopt the Bullet Engine (as used in Blender 3D), help develop it and for ONCE accept that you don't have to own everything all the time to use it to your benefit. Yeah, you have to give back the changes and additions you do in it (I guess it is GPL), but it would work a charm, since Physixs is pretty far already. But surely pretty expensive and developing something yourself? Dumb dumb dumb!!!

Let me spell it again for you guys: "DON'T....INVENT....THE.....WHEEL....AGAIN!"

it is already there.

 

But frankly, I would be surprised if they manage to use bullet really, since company are incredible blind at seeing anything that is not:

a.) licensed

b.) owned by other companies

c.) proprietary

d.) heavily marketed

 

Now you might think that open source is evil and "wow....we cannot charge for that? And have to open up additions in source code too??? how sick is that"

But that is how the new world works. Welcome to the future. Physics engines are not THE selling point and won't sell bythemselves, but will make games very much fun indeed.  And that is what they should be used for. The reason that 90% of all games still don't use ANY physical engine is that every company has to eithre license it for TONS of money or develop it themselves (Modern Warfare 2: no physics to speak of)

use Bullet Physics and you got a working solution.

 

avatar

Dostovel

Well if this is the way ATI/AMD wants to play, by digging themselves into a deeper hole, so be it.  To hell with the stubborn SOBs.  It's obvious they are  clawing for dear life to get themselves out of a hole, but why try and still fight the war if they haven't even won any battles... Huh, if this is how it's going to be, I'll be inclined to plant my flag on nVidias side of the fence.

avatar

hogkill

 First off ATI isn't in a hole.  We are all aware that NVidia has been dominating the top tier market for graphics cards for a while now and ATI had been going through some troubles shortly after its merger with AMD, but with the release of its 4800 cards that has completely changed.  Are you aware that two 4850s in Crossfire outperform one GTX 280 by a large margin in virtually every application and the two of them together still cost $250 dollars less than one 280?  And that two 4870s completely smoke the 280 making it look like a year old GPU and you still save 50 bucks?

 If anyones in a hole now it's NVidia who have only been able to keep their  innefecient monster cards selling for the past year because of a lack of competition.  

 Also did you even read the article?  All I see our 4 sentences insulting ATI without even one refference to the topic at hand. We are talking about GPGPU here.  And no I dont think ATI should have to license CUDA from Nvidia any more than Nvidia should have to License Havok from ATI if they merge.  What they need is to both use an open source application or use one which neither of them have any dominion over.  To expect one of these two rival companies to concede to the other is ludicrous.  It isn't going to happen.

 Also do we really want GPGPU that badly?  Couldn't it hurt gaming as much as help it?  Do I really want my GPU to be doing physics algorythms during Crysis when it could just as easily leave it up to the CPU and focus on what it does best?  I think PureVideo is a great idea because it helps your computer when you'd otherwise not be using your GPU, but im a bit skeptical about dedicating physics to the GPU when the CPU can handle it just fine.  Perhaps ATI and NVidia should be making plans to manufacture dedicated physics chips on their cards, if they are already planning on which engine to use.

avatar

nigratruo

::What they need is to both use an open
source application or use one which neither of them have any dominion
over.  To expect one of these two rival companies to concede to the
other is ludicrous.  It isn't going to happen.

 Yeah, they never will. That is the problems with companies: there are in every case totally bent on dominating the market, megalomaniacially so. Me me me, they don't really care about anything else than themselves. 

It is like in the HD / bluray fight: the consumer had nothing from that, on the contrary, it was actually bad for the customers. If there would have been an alternative, a third one that would not have fought for dominance, but just offered the customer the most bang for the buck, they would have taken that and left bluray and HD in the dust. Why did this not happen? Well, these companies are huge and powerful and they can do pretty much anything they want, even stuff that harms or is of little benefit to the consumer. 

And they do and that is when things start going wrong, when companies don't have to work anymore for winning customers and have a defacto monoply. It harms the market. It is pretty much like Microsoft: they have never been less innovative, vista was a desaster (and they expected it to still work, because heck, they got the monoply and they know it), the don't have to fight anymore for consumers to buy them. And eventhough there are more innovative OS out there, they make sure they bully and kill all companies that could show how mediocre they are. Heck, what about the 3d Desktop of Vista and 7? How lame is that! there are no effects whatsoever, you can't call this a 3d desktop. Ever seen what compiz on Linux could do even before Vista came out? THAT is a 3d desktop. But Microsoft has so far been successfull of blocking all OEMs to install and offer Ubuntu on their laptops and desktops. Why? It would make Windows look bad (and too expensive). Dangerous: Customers might pick up Ubuntu, instead of Windows, to save 50 bucks or to escape the pathetic Windows 7 starter edition (a total ripoff on the netbooks).

and they might even like it. Heck, you can read mail, browse the web, listen to your music, use skype on linux, no problem. MS knows  that and they are affraid.

Anyway, gaming is not possible in the degree as in windows, of course. But the large majority does not use their PC for gaming, you can see that by the fact that Intels shared chipsets outsell any GPU manufacturer by far.

So it is these companies that really don't care about us, they only care about their profit. Very short sighted. They don't realize that nobody is going to buy into something that is going to be supported by every game studio, every GPU producer and every OS. PC gaming is dieing, there is no room for these extravagant charades. 

GPU that badly?  Couldn't it hurt gaming as
much as help it?  Do I really want my GPU to be doing physics
algorythms during Crysis when it could just as easily leave it up to the
CPU and focus on what it does best?

Again, NVIDIA was selfisch by saying that physix must run on the GPU, not on the CPU. Heck, they don't sell CPUs, that is all there is to it. Of course it performs badly on the CPU, and they made sure it does.

But it is this simple: Crysis is overloading the GPU right now. You have to choose between framerate, quality or resolution, you can't have it all, the game is just too demanding. Try to buy a rig that can perform HD in full quality with 60 fps and do tell me if you won the lottery. 

Games have always been like this on the PC: The GPU was overloaded, you could easily do with a faster one if you could afford it. But the CPU was bored to death, nothing to do. There is only one game on the planet that ever maxed out the CPU and that is Supreme Commander (the original, not nr. 2, which you cannot really call supreme commander at all anymore, that uses less cpu and gpu than the predecessor and less brain of you too and much less realism to boot :-(

So in pretty any game, (except if it is really really old and you got a fast GPU) your GPU is maxed out. Now what happens if you run physix on that? Well, your frame rate drops, it has to. And this, while your CPU is almost sleeping.

::   Perhaps ATI and NVidia should be making
plans to manufacture dedicated physics chips on their cards, if they are
already planning on which engine to use.

 I think that would be a specially bad idea, since the field is currently in movement, lots of changes. And why do more chips, if you got the capacity already? But of course, Intel plays the same dumb game: they don't want any physical engine run on GPUs. OpenCL is that: you run it on both. OpenCL does not care where stuff runs, and using your GPU and CPU to calculate and work is obvious.

 

avatar

Cache

The smells of the same kind of format war we've seen in the past (HD-DVD vs. Blu-ray, anybody?).  How much longer until I have to install a game specifically for my video card since the game won't play on a format developed by ATI?  And then there's the Dark Horse, Intel's Larrabe solution, that could bring something new to the party in another couple of years.

Log in to MaximumPC directly or log in using Facebook

Forgot your username or password?
Click here for help.

Login with Facebook
Log in using Facebook to share comments and articles easily with your Facebook feed.