GPUOpen initiative gives devs the keys to AMD’s graphics black boxes

A couple weeks ago at AMD's Radeon Technologies Group Tech Summit, Nick Thibieroz, senior manager of ISV engineering for the division, told us about what the company perceives as major problems for developers on the PC these days. He argued that limited access to the GPU and proprietary code wrapped up in black boxes (a thinly-veiled reference to Nvidia's GameWorks middleware) are causing headaches for developers who want to extract the most performance possible from the underlying hardware. He also feels that proprietary resources stifle information-sharing and collaboration among developers, a situation that ultimately harms graphics innovation in games.

AMD wants to counter this notion of the black box and cultivate more information-sharing by open-sourcing large portions of its software and tools. This initiative, called GPUOpen, will offer game developers full source code access to effects like TressFX, tools like the CodeXL static analyzer, and the LiquidVR and Firerays SDKs when it goes live in January 2016. What's more, AMD will make these resources available under the permissive MIT License, meaning that GPUOpen resources can be examined, modified, reused, and resold without restriction.

AMD says GPUOpen resources will get a dedicated portal with links to open-source content hosted on GitHub. The company also plans to offer blog posts related to its resources and the graphics development community. The company was adamant that those posts will be written by developers, not marketing personnel.

As an example of what developers can do with GPUOpen resources, AMD brought Jean-Normand Bucci, director of Labs R&D for Eidos Montreal, on stage to talk about his team's work with TressFX. The team wanted to extend TressFX for its work on the upcoming Deus Ex: Mankind Divided, and because TressFX is now a GPUOpen resource, the Labs R&D team was able to improve that code for its internal use.

The notion of "AMD games" and "Nvidia games" that include proprietary resources from those companies (to the perceived or actual detriment of the competitor's hardware) has been a major bone of contention among PC gamers over the past couple years. GPUOpen could be seen as a de-escalation in that battle, in that the community will have the opportunity to dig into AMD's development resources and tools without restriction. This move could also be risky in that it gives competitors a detailed peek into the workings of AMD's formerly proprietary tech. We'll have to see what devs can do with the keys to the kingdom.

Comments closed
    • Klimax
    • 4 years ago

    Not bad. But it is not going to save them from GameWorks and NVidia’s other initiatives. Nvidia goes further then this like helps with various optimizations, debugging and testing. (Quite cooperation)

    AMD apparently still haven’t learned from Project CARS and other high profile fails. This gets them out code and tools (nice for say verification of some things), but for devs it won’t be enough.

    • Kougar
    • 4 years ago

    I’m all for this. Major props to AMD, I hope this garners interest from game studios to attract better game integration and performance so AMD can keep it going.

    Batman Arkham Knight was meant to be a showpiece for NVIDIA’s GameWorks, and we all know how that turned out. And that was despite NVIDIA engineers helping tie it into the game for additional effects. And now Just Cause 3 is another GameWorks game that was apparently launched before it was even finished with Arkham Knight-esque problems to show for it. If that’s what GameWorks has to offer gamers buying AAA titles then it’s clearly not helping optimize anything or improve performance, and comes across as a joke.

      • LostCat
      • 4 years ago

      Just Cause 3 plays pretty well out of the gate, unlike Arkham Knight.

    • HisDivineOrder
    • 4 years ago

    This feels like the move of a desperate company in a clutch moment that’s do or die. They fought doing this for a long time and to do it now, it feels like surrender.

    Like Mantle and Freesync being given away. They knew their own proprietary effort had failed and if they wanted anyone to use their efforts (and the optimizations for their own products), they’d have to give people some reasons to use it.

    That said, I fear Gameworks will continue to be used because nVidia may not give the code away, but they do pay the publishers in a variety of ways that isn’t free code. They’ll pay for the QA, they’ll help do the port, they’ll do lots of marketing, or they’ll pay actual cash up front.

    Publishers prefer their payment in money over free code.

      • Pancake
      • 4 years ago

      It’s a strategy fairly common in biology – AMD has gone to seed.

    • SiSiX
    • 4 years ago

    I read this and my brain translates as

    …”We can no longer have the funds or the manpower to develop these tools ourselves, therefore we ask you, our loyal fans and followers to once again step into the breach and do what we once again find that we are unable to do.”…

    • NoOne ButMe
    • 4 years ago

    GCN everywhere advance one step further.

    The end goal is to basically to give no reason for GCN not being optimized for.

    • UnfriendlyFire
    • 4 years ago

    “GPUOpen resources can be examined, modified, reused, and resold without restriction.”

    Ever heard of “Embrace, Extend, and Extinguish”?

    A competitor could use AMD’s codes to make versions that would still work with AMD cards, but some features are only available to the competitor’s products.

      • BobbinThreadbare
      • 4 years ago

      Sure they could, they could also just do that in the first place without AMD’s code.

      • Theolendras
      • 4 years ago

      Developpers need to see value in order to use it, some value is lost optimizing code for only a fraction of the market, so propriatary binaries requiring certain piece of hardware or multiple code path are not good. Say you have the choice to improve your game for Gameworks of DirectX 12 in a 2 year project starting now, which one would you chose. I’m sure as hell the one I would pick if there is no NVidia subvention involved.

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 4 years ago

      That would be superior to the current scenario. Right now, Gameworks doesn’t even bother with the “still work with AMD cards” except in the light of it running at all. Doesn’t run very well.

      Then again, Gameworks effects usually don’t run very well on nVidia GPU’s either…

    • Ninjitsu
    • 4 years ago

    This is good, especially for Linux I suppose. The cynic in me says that AMD’s outsourcing the work because it can’t finance all the work internally. But, maybe this is a smart thing to do in that situation.

      • Flatland_Spider
      • 4 years ago

      Well, yeah. They don’t have the resources to really support the software like they would like, so they’re letting other people hack on it too if they are so inclined. The junky software they’ve produced has just weighed down their products.

      This is the smart play. They are a hardware company, and it’s not 1980.

    • Tristan
    • 4 years ago

    This is nonsense. Developers do not have time and money to fix AMD-made tools, libraries and effects. They need mature, well tested, ready to use and easy to integrate solution, together with support. Beside of this, many effects cannot be just pushed into game engine as independent solutions. Some effect that work great in one engine, may be problematic in another engine. There are no effect that work universally great on every engine / GPU. This greatly undermines whole idea of ‘shared library’. Single integrated enviroment like GameWorks is better, because iall supported effects are integrated in performance / GPU friendly way, and easy to use.

      • shank15217
      • 4 years ago

      Are you a paid shill, because you sound like one. If you are you should disclose your association.

        • Tristan
        • 4 years ago

        You are trolling here without providing any meritoric arguments. My opinions are unbiased and fanboyism-free.

          • auxy
          • 4 years ago

          “merithorical” isn’t a word… (´・ω・`)

      • xeridea
      • 4 years ago

      The tools are mature, and ready to use, they have been used in games already. They perform better than GameWorks. If you have the source code, it is much easier to make the game work with your engine, rather than rely on a black box. I don’t know why you think GameWorks is performance/GPU friendly, it mostly just brute forces tessellation, and even runs poor on Nvidia hardware. I don’t know any developer who would be unhappy with being given source code. If you don’t want to look at it or modify it, you don’t have to, it is available to make it easier to integrate and optimize. Tweaking or sharing your improvements is purely optional, it already works well.

        • bhappy
        • 4 years ago

        When AMD starts consistently delivering on their promises, I might begin to believe them again. You’d be an idiot to believe anything that AMD is promising before then but for the last decade they have an awful record of over promising and under delivering. If you don’t believe me just look at their stock price history.

          • Tristan
          • 4 years ago

          Yeah, they promised Mantle for everyone. Ended with rejecting Mantle for everyone, with releasing to public useless API reference manual, probably for joke.

            • BobbinThreadbare
            • 4 years ago

            They ended up with Vulkan for everyone.

        • Tristan
        • 4 years ago

        GameWorks rely on Geforce features that are well implemented in hardware and drivers, like tesselators, while AMD effects are implemented to use strong features that are on Radeons. That was one of reasons, why NV locked GameWorks. They didn’t want to make job in favour of AMD and provide two codepaths, one for Geforce, and one for Radeon. Instead they told game developers ‘go to AMD and ask them for effects for Radeons’, which is pretty logical and fair. It is pretty logical that code optimized for specific GPU, won’t be equally fast on other GPU, but AMD interpreted this as sabotage of their GPU. It will be interesting to see, if some developers prepare forks of TreeFX or other effects, that use strong Geforce features and eork faster on Geforces than on Radeon. Probably AMD will refuse to include these improvements into their codebase.

      • bfar
      • 4 years ago

      Whatever the intention, Gameworks has not been a good experience for gamers, particularly those who preorder AAA titles. I say this as an Nvidia user since 2006.

        • Chrispy_
        • 4 years ago

        And my group of developer friends split across three different companies also have nothing nice to say about it.
        Black boxes cause problems when developing, period.

        I’d go as far as saying that no Gameworks game on the market is anything other than an underperforming, bug-riddled mess.

      • erwendigo
      • 4 years ago

      I’m sorry for you, and the attack that fanatics made on you (massive downvoted), but you are saying the truth. And these fanatics, shame on them, didn’t stop a moment to THINK with their BRAINs and don’t with their guts or penis.

      IF you are a developer, you only use THIRD PARTY source code for parts of your project that you… want to finish soon and without ANY problem.

      You don’t want to fix the source code of other people, because it’s a task that consumes much time, more than if you need to fix YOU own source code (that you know perfectly and understand all the functions and rest of the code), and it’s a chance that you can´t fix some issue for the unknown condition of the “alien source code”, because many times the source code of someone is very difficult to understand for any except the original author. Or with good and llegible source code, at least the task is much time consuming.

      You use third party source code for two reasons:

      1.- You want to reduce the time of developing of some subsystems.

      2.- You don’t have the skills for resolve some specific issue with the best result.

      Period.

      You don’t want to lost time fixing source code of other people.

      And for the fanatics, run a fxxx game, and look to the brandings and propaganda in the launch of that game. You can see MANY closed source libraries like TreeFX, Bink, etc.

        • Tristan
        • 4 years ago

        No reasons to care about downvoting. I view this as degree of psychical deviation expressed by AMD fanatics.

          • Theolendras
          • 4 years ago

          Most sane people do not view AMD gesture as a pure altruism. This is because they have half the market share that Nvidia have, that they have to rely on open API in order to stay relevant in the game developpers mind and attention. Regardless we all benefit. Sooner or later Geforce card and or even Intel IGP with asynchronous rendering that seems to be usable under newest developpement framework will probably support Vulkan, Freesync and GPUOpen if it gain traction at all and we as consumer all benefit from lower price point hardware with widely compatible software. It’s the economic stupid !

        • Deadsalt
        • 4 years ago

        Lets go through a thought experiment:
        You want to implement hair effects into your game but are unsure if visual effect is worth it.
        So you do a proof of concept. You decide to use third party code just to test the effect.

        [quote<]IF you are a developer, you only use THIRD PARTY source code for parts of your project that you... want to finish soon and without ANY problem.[/quote<] So you pull down TressFX, and get it working into your game for the proof of concept. Now I did make the assumption that TressFX was supported well enough in my dev's game engine, which is reasonable since you wouldn't do a POC with a unsupported library. If GameWorks had a hair effect library that was supported you'd pull that down vs a unsupported TressFX library. If the library was unsupported then of course my dev would have to deal with the fact that he may need to check issues with the source code and his own code base. You are making the assumption that these SDKs, libraries, and overall code base is junk and will be impossible to integrate. You also make the assumption that AMD's items are not already integrated in some game engines. Is someone else's code harder to fix than your own? Yes, this happens to the developers I work with all the time. [quote<] You use third party source code for two reasons: 1.- You want to reduce the time of developing of some subsystems. 2.- You don't have the skills for resolve some specific issue with the best result.[/quote<] This is valid, but that does not mean you do not want improve the performance of those subsystems if you have the skill to do so. I do get what you and Tristan are saying. In the fast time crunched world of video games no one wants to lose time due to some issue with third party code. The issue everyone is taking umbridge to is that the items AMD is open sourcing are tested and are working in games. You are acting as though it will always break and is an untested pile of junk. People are a bit hyped about this news but that is not without reason. Getting the production ready source code for something is generally considered a good thing.

      • Theolendras
      • 4 years ago

      Failed !

    • tipoo
    • 4 years ago

    Well, I hope this goes somewhere good. Gameworks does cripple AMD cards.

      • baobrain
      • 4 years ago

      It cripples nvidia cards somewhat as well. I really hope GW dies out because of this.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 4 years ago

        It cripples Nvidia’s cards. It crippled AMDs cards more.

          • Klimax
          • 4 years ago

          Nope. In most cases it cripples equally even when tessellation gets used. (As measured by HardOCP) And usually in the remaining cases its drivers problem…

            • tipoo
            • 4 years ago

            I saw something a bit different, I’ll have to look at the HardOCP results later (tbh that site fell off my regular reading list). From this which I saw earlier, it was the difference between a dip from 50 to 40fps, to going to nearly half of 50 on AMD.

            [url<]http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/206517-revisiting-gameworks-amd-nvidia-tangle-over-optimizations-to-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt[/url<] It also looks like the program precludes AMD tailored optimizations to the game? [url<]https://steamcommunity.com/app/292030/discussions/0/522729359055831210/?l=english[/url<]

            • Klimax
            • 4 years ago

            Here’s the article on HOCP:
            [url<]http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/08/25/witcher_3_wild_hunt_gameplay_performance_review/[/url<]

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            TW3 is an anomaly for GameWorks features. Normally it hurts AMD more than NVidia.

    • Herem
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]The team wanted to extend TressFX for its work on the upcoming Deus Ex: Human Revolution, and because TressFX is now a GPUOpen resource, the Labs R&D team was able to improve that code for its internal use.[/quote<] Hopefully the teams enhancing any of this software will also consider providing their enhancements for inclusion under the same license. This way the software industry won't have to keep reinventing the wheel each time resulting in faster development cycles with more polished looking games.

      • Shobai
      • 4 years ago

      As long as that doesn’t translate into semi-annual CoD releases, go for it!

    • ronch
    • 4 years ago

    [quote<]This move could also be risky in that it gives competitors a detailed peek into the workings of AMD's hardware. We'll have to see what devs can do with the keys to the kingdom.[/quote<] Exactly my sentiments. It's kinda silly how AMD always seems to want to open up all their secrets for the sake of openness and competition and coming up with open (i.e. FREE) standards like Freesync and Mantle that they spent big money on and in the end would just give away, but really, isn't the bottom line supposed to be having an advantage over their competitors and actually making money? For a company that's bleeding cash almost to the point of death, they're definitely in no position to give away work for free like they're swimming in Scrooge's money bin. Or is AMD doing this simply because they're the ones who are behind these days? If so, why not spill the beans on Bulldozer as well, seeing as it is far behind Intel more than their graphics chips are behind Nvidia. What could Intel possibly learn from Bulldozer (How NOT to make a CPU core. -Ed)? Get a grip, AMD. We love freebies but it won't help us if you die before Zen is out.

      • K-L-Waster
      • 4 years ago

      It only makes sense *if* it leads to more people buying AMD hardware.

      Based on their financials, I am not convinced this is actually happening.

        • ronch
        • 4 years ago

        Exactly. It doesn’t. And I don’t see how opening up more of their tech for others to see would help. AMD should stop this nonsense and just bring out products that beat the competition, period.

          • CaptTomato
          • 4 years ago

          How can they do this with the 80/20 sales ratio in CPU?…I think AMD fares better in the GPU race, but they’re always up against a behemoth with virtually unlimited R&D.

        • TopHatKiller
        • 4 years ago

        I think we’d have to reserve judgement on that until AMD actually [i<]have[/i<] new products to sell.

          • K-L-Waster
          • 4 years ago

          For this particular initiative, yes. But they have been doing similar things for a few years now, FreeSync and Mantle being the highest profile examples. There has been plenty of opportunity for those initiatives to lead to higher sales.

          So far, I don’t see that they have.

      • flip-mode
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<] It's kinda silly how AMD always seems to want to open up all their secrets for the sake of openness and competition[/quote<] But they are not doing it for the sake of that. They are doing it for the sake of improved game performance, improved utilization of the technological capabilities of the products they make, and improved tools and access for developers. That is WHY they are doing it and yes, there is an element of risk to doing it, but there is a lot of potential for payoff as well.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 4 years ago

        If it doesn’t lead to increased sales, they will go out of business. How will that help anyone except Nvidia? (You might say Intel as well, but let’s face it, Intel probably barely notices AMD anymore….)

          • flip-mode
          • 4 years ago

          If this move is what they are hanging their entire future on then the ship is already sunk. This move will not be the cause of either their end or their rise to the top. It is merely an action that will help developers and help the performance of their products.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 4 years ago

          They may have calculated that the risk of going out of business is high even if they play it safe.

        • nyqua.xyla
        • 4 years ago

        Where would the potential for payoff come from? It comes only if there are a lot of developers out there, who can help to improve these libraries. But for the most part, I’d imagine that such developers may be already working for one of these companies, or perhaps a game studio who may already have some code accessing license, even prior to this announcement.

        The one big payoff may be that this helps to show their support for the morals of open-source software. That’s something I have a lot of respect for; but honestly I don’t think it’ll help much AMD financially, on its own.

          • Anonymous Coward
          • 4 years ago

          If AMD can pick up some clever developers from game studios who do free work for their open ecosystem, and not nVidia’s closed ecosystem, than AMD is getting helped. Since they are behind nVidia, and short of resources, this could be a good move.

          • flip-mode
          • 4 years ago

          I don’t see a lot of downside to it. Let’s say Nvidia takes 100% of what AMD releases and puts it to use in their products. Nvidia would probably have to adapt it to the Geforce architecture and it probably is sooo tailored and built from the ground up for Radeons that Nvidia probably would not get a perfect adaptation of it. Don’t know. But let’s say Nvidia does. So then it becomes pretty much a defacto standard – and that seems to be a perfect outcome for AMD – to have the game development/optimization technology that is the basis of Radeon GPUs becomes default and the go-to choice for developers… developers do a slow fade from the old tools that happened to serve Nvidia’s products better than AMD’s, and gravitate towards tools and technologies that are fundamental to Radeon products…. How does AMD lose?

          I honestly don’t see much of a downside here as long as AMD retains all of it’s patents.

      • Flapdrol
      • 4 years ago

      Nvidia has many more of these silly effects, AMD can’t compete directly with it, so they try to discredit them. It’s a sound strategy imo. Going proprietary now would only piss off the customers that bought amd for this reason, so it’s probably best if they keep them open.

      Hopefully amd sales will improve when dx12 games start to come out.

        • bfar
        • 4 years ago

        Exactly, this is all about killing Gameworks.

          • swaaye
          • 4 years ago

          ATI/AMD has been trying to kill NVIDIA’s vendor lock in efforts since TWIMTBP. That started around 2002, I think? I think we’ve seen that NV has much better leadership. At this point, with AMD at an all-time low, it seems humorous watching them grasping for another little scheme.

            • bfar
            • 4 years ago

            but this looks like a back-off rather than another scheme, doesn’t it?

      • xeridea
      • 4 years ago

      Every GameWorks title runs like garbage on AMD hardware. The effects are all cheesy looking lazy implementations that just brute force tessellation. TressFX runs better than GameWorks… on Nvidia’s own hardware. GameWorks also runs slow on last gen Nvidia. If AMD can convince people GameWorks is a scam, and it is much easier to develop when you have the source code right in front of your eyes, their frame times improve, they sell more cards, and everyone wins (except Nvidia).

      • Flatland_Spider
      • 4 years ago

      A bunch of people in their basements have reverse engineered the hardware and written drivers for it, so I don’t think there is much left to hide.

      It’s AMD. They are a second tier company. Locking this stuff up like Nvidia does works because Nvidia is seen as the market leader. AMD needs to provide a lower barrier to entry, and open sourcing their graphics software will provide an advantage. They should have done this years ago, to be quite honest. They’re giving this stuff away for free anyway. It’s not a profit center, so they might as well let people contribute back, if they are so inclined.

      People could take Nvidia’s blackbox package, or they could use AMD’s free and open package which they can modify as they need to. Being able to modify the tools is a pretty big advantage. Everyone has to use the same Nvidia package, but companies could gain a significant advantage by having their own custom AMD package. Or they could upstream the stuff for fame and glory. Either way, this is a win for AMD.

      • GTVic
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]"always", "all their secrets", "spent big money on", "just give away", "bleeding cash almost to the point of death"[/quote<] Reality, the baseline that gives us all a sense of scale or magnitude.

        • ronch
        • 4 years ago

        Ok, I may have exaggerated there a bit, but I don’t think I’m a mile off the mark.

      • arandomguy
      • 4 years ago

      This overlooks the benefits of such a strategy such as possibly less costs and resources through collaboration with other parties as well as encouraging adoption without having to be more direct. Not to mention a nice PR spin.

      It is a business decision that fits AMDs current situation. They save on resources and costs and hope to leverage their console design wins so that developers will naturally target the strength of their architectures due to multiplatform design.

      At the same time because of no console design wins Nvidia does actually need to be more hands on with Gameworks to encourage developers to leverage their architecture.

      It isn’t just about directly leading to more sales but also hedging against your competitors gaining some type of competitive advantage over the longer term.

      • Anonymous Coward
      • 4 years ago

      What do they care if their “secrets” are exposed, no doubt they are of no value to nVidia. AMD is behind. If AMD can pick up free development resources, then their cards can work better, and they can sell more of them. AMD gets a tail wind, nVidia still needs to sail under their own power.

      • erwendigo
      • 4 years ago

      “Exactly my sentiments. It’s kinda silly how AMD always seems to want to open up all their secrets for the sake of openness and competition and coming up with open (i.e. FREE) standards like Freesync and Mantle that they spent big money on and in the end would just give away”

      What a non-sense.

      Do you know that Mantle is closed source and you can’t access to it freely? What are you saying? You don’t have any idea about what is going out of your mouth!!

      [url<]http://developer.amd.com/mantle/[/url<] "Protected: Mantle Resources for Beta-Registered Developers The Mantle NDA Developer SDK website is open to professional game developers that are interested in evaluating and developing games with the Mantle API. Only a limited set of developers are provided access to the Mantle NDA Developer SDK and access is subject to a selection process. To register your interest please send an email to mantleaccess [at] amd [dot] com with the following information: " AMD plays with the words, they use openness and another ones to confuse people that want to believe in AMD. But the true is that if you want to access to Mantle, first you can't directly, second you need a validation from AMD, validation that can be rejected, do you remember intel?, yes the firm that was rejected to access mantle from AMD. Do you know why don't have access by third sources around the internet to the SDK and docs of AMD for Mantle? EASY, ALL the people that can access to the beta program of Mantle had a NDA with AMD, and all the data that they could access is signed, the reason behind that nobody, no one, tried to free the Mantle SDK in the wild, because if you did it, the signed files will be signaling you for that violation of the NDA. You don't need to firm any NDA, or wait for a validation with the risk of being rejected with many closed sources APIs, like, yes, PhysX or Direct3D. And yes, you can access to SDK and sources for the first moment, freely and without any NDA. The "openness" of AMD is a lie to hide its incompetence in many areas. Point.

        • ronch
        • 4 years ago

        Point is, they spent time and money on Mantle only to give it away. Sure, Kronos holds it now but yeah, AMD just gave it away. Could benefit AMD’s graphics cards in the future though, but their vision of creating a new API that’s closer to the metal is now practically vaporware. We don’t know how much of the code Kronos will actually implement in OpenGL.

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 4 years ago

          You assume they spent much time and money on Mantle.

          The XBO/PS4 both needed some form of low level API made. Probably by AMD as part of the deal for the APUs.

          Mantle is derived from those projects and extra costs shouldn’t be that much. Opening it up is currently leading down a path very import for AMD.

          Makes the game control the hardware. You basically optimize in the game instead of a driver optimizing it.

          This move basically means game developers are the people who performance for a vendor leans more on instead of the drivers. And open sourcing all GCN related stuff while also having both consoles.

          Unless your PC only there is no sane reason to not be optimized for GCN unless you are paid off.

            • ronch
            • 4 years ago

            So you don’t think Nvidia will get their hands on it and do a little bit of poking?

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            Elaborate please.

            As I don’t see how Nvidia poking around hurts what AMD is aiming to do.

        • K-L-Waster
        • 4 years ago

        IIRC, AMD basically donated Mantle to the OpenGL group for inclusion in Vulkan. So it’s out in the wild now…

      • HisDivineOrder
      • 4 years ago

      They have to give their stuff away. They’re losing marketshare hand over fist. If they want people to use Freesync, Mantle, or increasingly their GPU’s, they have to give away everything not nailed down.

      Otherwise, their significantly less marketshare is going to make those marketing dollars nVidia is offering publishers just to use “a few” Gameworks effects AWFULLY tempting…

    • wiak
    • 4 years ago

    huh, these are not the keys your looking for…
    hasnt most of these resources been available on developers.amd.com?
    just not in a MIT License package… and i like their new branding and github hosted, that will sure help amd alot more, it will be simpler to git clone a repo than dl a file on a website, and its simpler to read the code on github too btw

    • guardianl
    • 4 years ago

    It’s a long term strategy, but AMD has nothing to lose doing this and everything to gain.

    “This move could also be risky in that it gives competitors a detailed peek into the workings of AMD’s hardware.”

    That’s not really true. There are no secrets in software that isn’t SaaS, because if you care enough to know you just take the binary and step through the assembly via decompilation. [url=http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2467372,00.asp<]Most of the fear in the GPU industry is patent-related not trade secrets.[/url<]

      • Sam125
      • 4 years ago

      Interesting. Although that Nvidia patent lawsuit has pretty much been ruled in favor of Qualcomm and Samsung. Even patent infringement related cases seem to have died down quite a bit.

        • guardianl
        • 4 years ago

        ITC rulings appear to be pretty unpredictable. Personally, I believe most patents should never have been granted under the obvious doctrine, but we live in a world where you can get a design patent for a rounded rectangle and a business process patent for a 15 minute meeting, so companies are right to fear patent cases.

        [url=http://www.anandtech.com/show/4122/intel-settles-with-nvidia-more-money-fewer-problems-no-x86<]Nvidia won their first round[/url<] Intel settled to the tune of billions because the fear was if Nvidia won an ITC ruling Intel would literally be unable to ship processors into the USA.

          • Chrispy_
          • 4 years ago

          Hah, Intel should have called that bluff.

          Everyone would blame Nvidia for the lack of Intel processors in the US and people would have to buy APUs, and avoiding Nvidia out of spite. Their greed would be their ultimate undoing whilst finally providing AMD the revenue they needed to compete better.

          /ifonly.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 4 years ago

            NVidia is run by evil marketing [b<]geniuses[/b<], not evil marketing morons.

            • NoOne ButMe
            • 4 years ago

            They do some pretty stupid stuff occassionally. Their actions with patents stands to cost over 100 million in potential profit for ther fiscal year 2016.

            And cost them lots of legal fees, and probably paying everyone they sue legal fees. And to get zero money out of it.

          • Sam125
          • 4 years ago

          Yes, taking any dispute is always unpredictable which is why companies will often settle out of court just to remove the unpredictability of having the case be heard by non-techies. Yes, you’re right that people tend to patent everything these days, but if any company were to try to enforce all of their patents, the majority would be rendered invalid due to the obviousness of the patent, much like what happened with Nvidia v Qualcomm and Samsung. Two of the patents were overturned and the third was rendered invalid.

          Patent litigation in the US seems to be a fear tactic that has run its course. Thankfully.

          • NoOne ButMe
          • 4 years ago

          You mean they won all the round against Intel?

          In which most if not all of the money paid to Intel was not due to patents. If you talked to Intel. Or Nvidia before they started to try to license their patents and products.

        • NoOne ButMe
        • 4 years ago

        It has been a landslide for Qualcomm and Samsung. Especially as Nvidia pulled 4 of their 7 patents they put forth to the ITC. Basically saying they aren’t going to do anything.

        Either due to being invalidated or due to not being applicable. And the ITC ruling affected pretty much every GPU type they claimed in their original briefing. Not just Qualcomm’s GPUs and the Mali GPUs Samsung has implemented.

        Nvidia already admitted it’s licensing efforts are done also.

    • chuckula
    • 4 years ago

    If this means that platforms like Linux can finally gain access to more GPU features then I’m 100% for it.

    THANK YOU WASSON! 😉

      • Duct Tape Dude
      • 4 years ago

      [quote<]THANK YOU WASSON! ;-)[/quote<] Regardless of truthiness, from here on out I am crediting Scott with everything good we hear from Radeon Technologies Group. We'll blame the bad stuff on Su or global warming or something. Nice work, Scott!

        • tipoo
        • 4 years ago

        Thanks, Scott, for the Cop21 climate change agreement!

          • fhohj
          • 4 years ago

          exactly my feelings. he’s already on the ball, boys!

        • skitzo_zac
        • 4 years ago

        I’m glad I’m not the only one that came to the comments to thank Damage, now back to the top of the page to actually read the news post…

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This