AMD outlines its Gamers Manifesto

Unless you’ve been living under a rock for the past few years, you know that CUDA is Nvidia’s take on GPU-accelerated, general-purpose computing. You probably also recognize PhysX, which is the company’s GPU-powered physics scheme. And, at one point or another, you’re likely to have seen a The Way It’s Meant To Be Played logo pop up when loading a new game.

When it comes to branding and marketing various initiatives, Nvidia is about as good as it gets in this industry. AMD, on the other hand, tends to be less vocal when pushing its message. The Stream computing initiative, for example, isn’t trumpeted nearly as much as CUDA. We’ve heard bits and pieces from AMD about physics acceleration over the years, starting with Havok FX and progressing to Open Physics, but neither has been evangelized as extensively as PhysX. AMD did try to answer Nvidia’s The Way It’s Meant To Be Played with its own Get In The Game program way back in 2003. However, there’s been little talk of it since and not even a mention of the program on AMD’s own Game website. In recent years, many of us haven’t heard AMD say much of anything about its dealings with game developers.

That changed last week, when prior to the Game Developers Conference in San Francisco, AMD assembled a group of journalists to talk about how it works with the folks responsible for the latest and greatest PC games. Chief Marketing Officer Nigel Dessau kicked off the presentation by formally unveiling AMD’s Gamers Manifesto, whose four guiding tenets are listed below.

  • We will consult with the gaming community to help align our innovations to their wants and needs.
  • Wherever feasible we will move quickly to move our innovations into the industry standards.
  • We will provide the technical and business support game developers need to help make their games a success.
  • All gamers, those with AMD hardware in their system, or not, deserve the best gaming experience possible.

Dessau then passed the torch to AMD Director of ISV Relationship Management Neal Robison, who pointed out that the company has been working under these principles for “a long, long time.” The manifesto fits under a new branding initiative dubbed Gaming Evolved, which AMD hopes will clearly describe how it works with the gaming community.

How do you market developer relations? With a Venn diagram, of course. Source: AMD

The first tenet is straightforward enough, although we should note that the gaming community encompasses developers and gamers alike. AMD consults with the former when crafting new graphics architectures, asking forward-looking developers what can be done to address the graphics problems they’re trying to solve. In some cases, chip architects will sit down with developers for “architecture tours” that have been valuable in producing new features for upcoming graphics hardware.

Of course, AMD doesn’t limit its community engagement to interacting with developers. The company also looks at gaming trends to determine what features are important to the folks actually playing. Robison cited a couple of online polls that recently suggested gamers deem DirectX 11 and Eyefinity support more important than PhysX.

That leads us nicely to the next principle, which affirms AMD’s support for industry standards. Robison listed a number of AMD innovations that have found their way into industry standards over the years, such as the tessellation engine built for the Xbox 360 that eventually migrated to DirectX 11, the 3Dc compression scheme that became BC5 in DirectX 10, and the alternate-frame rendering approach to multi-GPU teaming developed for the Rage Fury MAXX and now commonly used by SLI and CrossFire. Along those lines, AMD intends to pursue an open standard for stereoscopic 3D, which will soon add a measure of depth to Eyefinity setups.

Robison was quick to push AMD’s Open Physics initiative, which, unlike PhysX, offers “free, unrestricted access” with “no proprietary vendor lockouts.” This initiative has already borne fruit in the form of cooperation with the developers of Bullet Physics, whose open-source libraries offer rigid-body simulation, cloth, fluids, and particle systems via DirectCompute 11 and OpenCL. Pixelux’s latest Digital Molecular Matter simulator is also available as a part of the Open Physics initiative. The soft-body physics engine is OpenCL-only, but it’s tightly integrated with Bullet Physics.

AMD couldn’t name any games that will use either physics engine, but it did point out that the Open Physics initiative is relatively new, having only been announced in September. Of course, Radeon owners have been promised GPU-accelerated physics before. ATI was showing off GPU-accelerated Havok FX demos years ago, but the tech never seemed to make its way into actual games.

PhysX, on the other hand, has been implemented in a number of titles, even if it’s just for additional eye candy. The open nature of AMD’s physics approach may appeal to gamers and enthusiasts more than Nvidia’s proprietary PhysX tech, but one can’t deny that the GeForce folks have had much more success with developers. Mirror’s Edge and Batman: Arkham Asylum are good examples of PhysX in action, and given how many new PC games are ported over from consoles, the fact that the PhysX API is supported on both the PlayStation 3 and Xbox 360 bodes well for future releases.

Although its physics efforts haven’t been especially robust to date, AMD Developer Relations Manager Richard Huddy pointed out that the company has been working closely with game developers in other ways for quite some time—and not just a few of them. Huddy said AMD is working with all the big studios and numerous smaller developers, but declined to disclose the size of its developer relations team, insisting that results matter more than a head count. According to Huddy, the team speaks nine languages and is spread across Asia, Europe, and North America.

On the technical front, AMD keeps devs supplied with the latest and greatest graphics hardware. When GPUs are released with new capabilities, the company puts a greater focus on educating developers at major events like GDC and with smaller group seminars. Software tools are provided, as well. Huddy said AMD’s current focus on this front is supplying developers with tools to aid with DirectX 11 development, DirectCompute, and OpenCL. Since there are a multitude of different Radeons on the market, AMD also conducts extensive compatibility testing for game developers.

As one might expect AMD engineers are available to lend a hand with coding and optimization, too. In what may have been a back-handed reference to the competition, Huddy claimed AMD is focused on making games better for anyone who plays them, regardless of whether they’re running a Radeon.

Huddy pointed to S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Clear Sky as one example of the company’s efforts to improve everyone’s gaming experience. At first, the game’s deferred rendering engine didn’t get along with multisampled antialiasing, he said. AMD developed a fix that required DirectX 10.1-compatible graphics cards, which only it offered at the time. Rather than restricting its MSAA fix to DirectX 10.1, AMD came up with another workaround for DirectX 10, which then-current GeForces did support. Both approaches were submitted to Clear Sky developer GSC Game World.

In addition to providing technical resources, AMD works with game developers on bundling, advertising, and other co-marketing projects. Developers who implement DirectX 11, Eyefinity, or other technologies that AMD happens to be pushing at the time have greater access to marketing resources and funding than those who don’t. Nvidia takes a similar approach, which strikes me as reasonable even if it leaves the door open for either company to trade feature support for marketing dollars. Both companies are adamant that technical assistance is provided to developers regardless of whether they implement preferred technologies or competing ones—or even if they work closely with rivals.

The last principle in the Gamers Manifesto specifically states that AMD’s developer interactions seek to make games better for everyone, even if they’re not running the company’s hardware. This tenet applies to GPUs and CPUs alike; Dessau said AMD’s work with game developers won’t disadvantage folks with Nvidia graphics cards or those running Intel processors. As for those with Intel graphics, well, they’re disadvantaged already.

Putting theory into practice

All this talk of principles and manifestos sounds great, but what about results? To make AMD’s case, Robison pointed to the quick adoption of DirectX 11, which is now supported by a number of big-name titles, including DiRT 2, Aliens vs. Predator, Battlefield: Bad Company 2, Metro: 2033, BattleForge and S.T.A.L.K.E.R.: Call of Pripyat. That’s an impressive list, especially considering that the first DirectX 11-compliant Radeon launched just six months ago. Convincing developers to take advantage of the latest major DirectX release might seem like an easy sell, but AMD surely deserves some credit for getting so many titles to support the standard so quickly.

DirectX 11 tessellation in Aliens vs. Predator. Source: AMD

Although AMD kept Eyefinity under wraps until the launch of the Radeon 5000 series, numerous developers have started to support the multi-display technology. Alongside all the DirectX 11 games mentioned above, Eyefinity also works with a slew of additional titles, such as Supreme Commander 2, H.A.W.X., Command & Conquer 4, Crysis Warhead, World of Warcraft, Batman: Arkham Asylum, Need for Speed: Shift, and a stack of Source-engine offerings, just to name a few. Getting games working with Eyefinity has apparently been an easy task. Chris Kingsley, CTO of Aliens vs. Predator developer Rebellion, said it only took “a day or two” to implement Eyefinity in the game. Gas Powered Games CEO Chris Taylor echoed those sentiments, joking that the company spent more time setting up its multi-display array than it did actually adding Eyefinity support to Supreme Commander 2.

Eyefinity in action in Damage Labs

Despite the apparent ease with which developers have been able make their games play nicely with Eyefinity, Robison admitted that much work remains to be done. An Eyefinity SDK is coming soon, and AMD has a new validation program that will test games for multi-display support.

Somewhat surprisingly, though, Robison thinks Eyefinity is more important for gamers than GPU-accelerated physics. That assumption might make sense if you’re just talking about PhysX rather than an open or at least vendor-neutral GPU-accelerated physics implementation. However, I have to wonder if the number of gamers who would appreciate better in-game physics is really greater than the number who are willing to put together a multi-display Eyefinity wall, bezels and all. Let’s hope that AMD’s apparent focus on DirectX 11 and Eyefinity doesn’t doom the Open Physics initiative to be yet another Radeon-accelerated physics implementation that never quite materializes in games.

Conclusions

As a statement of principles, the Gamers Manifesto hits all the right notes, even if they’re obvious ones. AMD may have been living under these guidelines for a long time, but I like seeing the specifics laid out in writing for all the world to see. Nvidia actually gave a similar presentation during its CES briefings, albeit without an explicit manifesto. While the green team has chosen to push its proprietary CUDA and PhysX technologies, Nvidia Director of Developer Technology Ashu Rege says “do no harm” is a key tenet of the company’s developer engagements

At least officially, then, neither AMD nor Nvidia is trying to gain an advantage at the expense of the other.  Unofficially, plenty of accusations have flown back and forth over whether that’s actually the case. However, we’re not going to entertain that particular he-said, she-said debate today—the legal departments at both companies appear to have successfully sapped the juiciness from all on-the-record comments on the subject.

At the end of the day, I have a feeling the majority of gamers are going to care more about results than behind-the-scenes shenanigans. AMD can point to an impressive list of DirectX 11 and Eyefinity-ready games to make the case that it’s working with developers effectively. I can’t recall any recent examples of new games that performed poorly or otherwise had issues with the latest Radeon graphics drivers, either, suggesting that AMD’s optimization and compatibility efforts are paying off. However, I do wonder whether AMD will be able to get developers onboard with its Open Physics and upcoming stereoscopic 3D initiatives. AMD certainly has the most capable graphics hardware on the market right now; perhaps that competitive advantage will help persuade game developers to embrace its technology agenda.

Comments closed
    • tomc100
    • 10 years ago

    For ATI/AMD to push it over the top, it needs to concentrate on making open physics acceleration a reality instead of a tech demo or worst a paper demo. Now that most games coming out are basically console ports including Crysis 2 (flame away), adding more fps when you’re above 60 doesn’t make any sense. Either force Nvidia to make physx an open API or kill it permanently. As long as the application is exclusive to only one gpu vendor it won’t go anywhere other than for certain games, ie. those that use the Unreal 3 engine and won’t revolutionize gaming that gpus have done for graphics. Lastly, they also need to have more support for gpu accelerated video re/encoding which is the second most important application other than gaming. Re-encoding a blu-ray movie on a q6600 takes almost 16 hours which could be considerably reduced if gpu were used. Work with the makers of AnyDVD to make it happen.

    • grantmeaname
    • 10 years ago

    Can plus and prime go train to be cage fighters? I want to battle them against each other.

    • pluscard
    • 10 years ago

    If it wasn’t obvious before, AMD is one of the good guys.

      • Meadows
      • 10 years ago

      I was wondering when you’d show up again.

      • SiliconSlick
      • 10 years ago

      LOL – You mean the Abu Dhabi owned, canuckian homed, red rooster diaper doper baby company that loses a billion plus a year on nearly less in sales ?
      The “good company” that will soon need a bailout and has a rabid underdog (uberdog or uberred nazi like lying pravda commie) fomenting stance?
      Ati reps shrieking and screaming ati cards are a better deal, squeal that PhysX is nothing but proprietary, complain that cuda cranks through folding and Kasperky antivirus at 500X the ati rate(ROFL), whines about a few dollars at the same time lying largely about pricing, failing when it comes to additional value, and have only the single “direct compute 5.0” checkmark checked in GPU-Z when NVIDIA has all 4 checked because all 4 features WORK OUT OF THE BOX, yes you probably DO feel after guzzling the oil tankers full of koolaid that ati is “the good guys”, and so when they come out with “THE COMMUNIST MANIFESTO FOR RED ROOSTER ATI CARDS AND THEIR BRAINWASHED PROLETARIAT”, that of course is also a “good thing”.
      R O F L M A O
      the “manifesto” for the commie red rooster ati company with the AlQaeda Abu Dhabi backing! ROFLMAO !!
      I guess the wittle fanny red reps forgot a MANIFESTO comes from a LUNATIC mass murdering wacko or the equivalent ! LOL
      Brainwashed, penny whining, basement living, crybaby losers, the ati workers ( the few that there are)!
      Let’s not forget they are all global warming conspiracists, too, who can’t afford 30 cents in electric costs (unless it’s their power hungry 4870×2 ! ) ROFLMAO
      Oh, it’s so much fun watching the red rooster reps lie and wail and moan endlessly, then bite their stupid fingernails over a few pennies or bucks and pretend they have “a monster system!” and a brain…

    • eitje
    • 10 years ago

    Hey, do any of you guys remember 3dfx?

    Now *those* were cards made for gamers.

    /obligatory-better-days-rant

    • Madman
    • 10 years ago

    I am more like Nvidia fan, but this time I’m very happy that Ati is pushing such initiatives. Latest Nvidia technologies have been partially hacks, partially locked out, which means good things (PhysX, 3D Vision) won’t get implemented for everyone in a near future as they should. I hope Ati fixes this.

    • flip-mode
    • 10 years ago

    LOL11! ATI is whooping Nvidia’s ass into a can!

      • flip-mode
      • 10 years ago

      Whoops, Nvidia’s ass got canned?

        • DrDillyBar
        • 10 years ago

        … said the actress to the bishop.

    • alphaGulp
    • 10 years ago

    Unfortunately, it seems that AMD is going to continue pretty much like before, only ‘more so’ (wow – talk about a sclerotic organization).

    If Firefox is so good, it’s in large part because Google fed it tens of millions of dollars over the years. Linux similarly gets tons of real bucks spent on it every year (Ubuntu is the result of a multi-millionaire’s largess, and of course there are all the players in the Linux server space). It sounds like AMD has at best a dozen business-y ppl working on this – zero real developers, working on real code or able to understand what a developer really needs: concrete answers that fix problems, not talk!

    As a developer, the choice is clear between an API that is commercially supported and known to work (if on a subset of machines), vs. some open source mish-mash of spaghetti crap that still today can’t find a taker, even in the planned future!

    I wish Nvidia would wake up: a duopoly is not far removed from a monopoly, so no matter how relatively weak their current offerings, they still stand to make mega bucks if people decide to spend more on GPUs because of physics.

    But here’s the key thing: developers will keep holding back on their use of physics so long as physX is proprietary. Hello, Nvidia? What smart game developer will choose to restrict their game to functioning only on your hardware? The # of machines with enough horsepower to do both modern-looking graphics and significant physics calculations is already small enough, it needs to be restricted to Nvidia-only setups? There is a huge psychological barrier, as well: trying to control the platform is an old trick, one that everyone does their best to avoid falling into, so developers are making sure they are not _dependent_ on it.

    As a side note, physX’s implementation on the PC needs to start properly using the extra cores people have nowadays. Based on what I remember seeing of it, it’s pretty clear Nvidia’s physX still has a ridiculously gimpy CPU implementation (for when ppl don’t have nVidia hardware), which is annoying ‘cos their API should be making use of the extra cores in addition to whatever nVidia hardware is present: nVidia owners would then get even better performance, dont’cha know?

    Finally, Microsoft continues with its epic suckage: still nothing on physics from them. I paid hundreds of $ for Vista followed by Win7 over the last few years and really don’t feel like I got my money’s worth. This kind of API is specifically the type of thing an OS company should be offering, not that MS seems to ‘get’ the similarities between graphics and physics. DirectX was created to supplant OpenGL (which it has done successfully). Hello, Microsoft? We have an ‘Open Physics’ now, and it is Linux and Mac friendly, so you might want to rush in to release something – never mind that PC gamers might actually end up with some cool NEW stuff as a result? How many more years will you wait? It’s inevitable that you will be doing this, so why, oh why, do it so late?

      • SiliconSlick
      • 10 years ago

      you know alphagulp, some people just figured out that in order to support pc gaming, supporting the company and the games that make use of the awesome new PhysX, IS THE WAY TO DO THAT !
      The “other side” decided that whining endlessly about the very companies (except ati of course) that produce things that make pc gaming possible was the way to go.
      I don’t quite understand the impotent flaccid whining position of defeatism.
      If every whining ati card user, instead of screaming about how much they hate nvidia and “it’s proprietary technology” actually swallowed their foolish pride and bought a PhysX capable GPU and a game or two, we’d already have “the common standard”, because that pressure would have driven ati to ACCEPT the PhysX wrapper NGOHQ successfully developed quite easily, with little help from the engineers nvidia sent over to assist Eran – which he was very thankful and enthusiatic about. Likewise, ati would not have DESTROYED that wrapper Eran of NGOHQ made in it’s next driver release (which ATI DID DO, according to the very man who made the successful PhysX wrapper for ati cards!)
      So what we have here is a LARGE fanbase CUTTING THEIR OWN NECKS in the wild and fantasy driven dream of a card company that is in debt up to it’s neck and over it’s head (ATI) producing “an open standard” (for free apparently, since ati cannot afford dime one to do it), OVER merely accepting defeat, and having a bit of humility and taking the PhysX wrapper for ati cards, paying a small fee, and letting it become the standard.
      We already know it works GREAT on ati cards, better than it does on nvidia cards in some cases, so compatibility is NOT an issue.
      NVIDIA designed it THAT WAY, as they would LOVE for ati to adopt it and have it become “the standard” – as ALL OTHER standards develop from “originally proprietary work” implementations.
      What the whiners and crybabies ask for is some miracle, from clear out of the blue, put down from on high (some consortium of PRIVATE COMPANIES !! DUH! SETTING THE STANDARD !!! that’s how it works! how it has always worked! ) and that standard arising from PHANTOM “open source” code, that MUST BE DEVELOPED ON ATI AND NVIDIA CARDS BY GOD KNOWS WHOM BECAUSE WHO IS GONIG TO PAY THE HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS TO PROGRAMMERS TO DO SO ?!?!???!!
      I guess the ati peeps want some mega billion dollar lawsuit against Nvidia, and “make them pay for it” and “develop it” from “an open source choice that ati makes”.
      Right ?
      Either THAT, or the ati peeps think it will all go down magically, and the open source code and working platform software will appear after Jack tosses a few more beans into the dirt and the giant beanstalk grows all on it’s own …
      “It’s all free ! Free ! Free FREE !!!!!” said the red as he wrapped the manifesto on top of the tin foil head cooler….

    • ronch
    • 10 years ago

    Frankly I’m not really thrilled by Eyefinity. Instead of buying six monitors I’d rather buy one large 42″ LCD and hook it up to my PC. It probably wouldn’t be as big for the price, but it’ll be good enough without the software support needed for Eyefinity and the screen would be one contiguous area.

    Ten years from now the idea of putting together six LCDs to come up with a big screen will look prehistoric, kinda like the way Pentium II was built into a cartridge because Intel at that time still couldn’t feasibly put the L2 cache on-die.

    • sigher
    • 10 years ago

    All talk, that’s AMD, and I think they also have quite the separation of offices and employees, PR department can say one thing and the rest does another.
    Same for all other departments, they don’t seem to have a single line, even when a few have an earnest well meaning idea and push it; the rest of the company might not even know or care to do the same.
    You see that with quite a few companies actually, some like MS have that issue because of their sheer size though.

    • AMDguy
    • 10 years ago

    So … what’s Intel doing with Havok since Larrabee got shelved? Just sitting on it to make sure AMD can’t use it?

    Or is Havok out there, but for some reason developers don’t like it or use it?

      • DrDillyBar
      • 10 years ago

      This may offer some insight:
      §[<http://www.havok.com/index.php?page=available-games<]§

        • axeman
        • 10 years ago

        Guitar hero is on there? what the what what?

      • MadManOriginal
      • 10 years ago

      You’d think they would put some effort in to making it run even better on CPUs. Maybe they have? It would be a good reason to push higher core counts for gamers.

    • thermistor
    • 10 years ago

    Eyefinity IMO is a budget immersive environment, far less costly than a 30″ panel, or gaming on a HD set of some sort. Plus you get the peripheral vision effect a bit by angling displays.

    The cost of Eyefinity should be compared not to existing single panel setups, but rather the cost of 2 smaller panels (say 2 x 22″ or 24″ to match the current panel on your desk) versus a single large display. Oh, one of them-thar $100 DP to DVI adapters.

    Frankly, I already have 2 matching 22″ panels; I’d only need to invest an additional $250 (plus card price which doesn’t really count as it is not an incremental Eyefinity cost but just the price of entry for DX11) to have a complete Eyefinity setup.

    Besides, I don’t hear anyone saying that they really need to get better X to take advantage of all that PhysX goodness…PhysX is a yawner compared to Eyefinity, even with Eyefinity’s drawbacks (bezels is the only real thing I can think of…).

    • PRIME1
    • 10 years ago

    l[

      • cygnus1
      • 10 years ago

      l[

      • ew
      • 10 years ago

      *[http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/?sort=chg<]§

        • willyolio
        • 10 years ago

        i wonder why they don’t count the 5k series as dx11 cards…

          • ew
          • 10 years ago

          They also aren’t included in the DX10 section.

        • PRIME1
        • 10 years ago

        §[<http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/<]§ ATI @ 30% Also note that they lumped all 58xx series cards together and yet they barely beat the GT220. Awesome. Any more damaging to ATI links you want to post?

          • ew
          • 10 years ago

          *[

          • Jigar
          • 10 years ago

          I could see HD 48++ smacking all your Nvidia cards…

            • PRIME1
            • 10 years ago

            Jiggy you are adding a whole series against a single card. Using that same fuzzy math…

            9 of the top 10 cards are from NVIDIA.
            §[<http://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/videocard/?sort=pct<]§ Also notice the percentage that are DX11.... 0.00% Impressive.

            • ew
            • 10 years ago

            I don’t think anyone is disputing that Nvidia has a larger market share right now.

            As for the DX11 bit. Clearly it is an error. They aren’t including 5xxx series cards in DX10 or DX11 listings.

            • Jigar
            • 10 years ago

            I agree, but before 48** all the other ATI series sucked big time. So you got to give them credit where it’s due.

            • anotherengineer
            • 10 years ago

            lolz

            As I recal the ati 9800pro, and the x1900xtx at the time beat its direct competition (fx5600 or 5800? and 7800gtx).

            §[<https://techreport.com/articles.x/4966/18<]§ - "Go get a Radeon 9800 Pro if you want a high-end graphics card." §[<https://techreport.com/articles.x/9310/14<]§ - "Well, it looks like the Radeon X1900 XTX has earned the title of the fastest single video card known to man." but hey what do I know, Im just a dumb engineer ;)

            • Jigar
            • 10 years ago

            I am sorry, i keep on forgetting the legends of ATI… but i have to tell you, i was addressing the HD2900XT fiasco.

            • anotherengineer
            • 10 years ago

            Yes the hd2900xt was probly the equivalent of nvidia’s old “dust buster”

            • DrDillyBar
            • 10 years ago

            With power consumption to match

            • PRIME1
            • 10 years ago

            The x1900xtx was hot, loud and sucked a lot of power.

            Which ATI fans loathe. So by their metric it was a failure.

            • DrDillyBar
            • 10 years ago

            Fail on every point. I owned one.
            Edit: my timestamp still wins.

            • PRIME1
            • 10 years ago

            §[<https://techreport.com/articles.x/9310/13<]§ X1900XTX under load uses more power than 2 7800s in SLI. Now that sucks.

            • flip-mode
            • 10 years ago

            From your link:

            q[

            • MadManOriginal
            • 10 years ago

            Seriously, this whole thread about old cards is rediculous.

            2006 called and it said WHO GIVES A RAT’S ASS ABOUT ANCIENT CARDS?

            (yes Meadows I know I’m ‘doing it wrong’ :p)

            • PRIME1
            • 10 years ago

            What part of “sucked a lot of power” don’t you understand.

            Probably all of it.

            You are lost once again.

            • flip-mode
            • 10 years ago

            I understand. The 7800 GTX 512 sucked a lot of power.

            • DrDillyBar
            • 10 years ago
      • Cuhulin
      • 10 years ago

      Fanboi-ism at its most basic level.

        • Meadows
        • 10 years ago

        Spelling failure at an elevated level.

          • MadManOriginal
          • 10 years ago

          Meadows being a poopyhead at the usual level.

      • RumpleForeSkin72
      • 10 years ago

      when you write this shit doesn’t it just feel wrong?

      how have you gotten this far in life without walking into a bus… it truly amazes me that you DO in fact think you are correct, even when the facts say otherwise..

      all I can think of is….
      best comicbook ever… and you go on munching on your hotpocket

      • grantmeaname
      • 10 years ago

      there are other factors at play in the sales figures, such as price, length of time on the market, and oh, all the other features of the cards. There are too many confounding variables, if you will, for sales of the PhysX capable GPUs to be directly compared to sales of the DX11 capable GPUs

    • agawtrip
    • 10 years ago

    “However, I have to wonder if the number of gamers who would appreciate better in-game physics is really greater than the number who are willing to put together a multi-display Eyefinity wall, bezels and all.”

    i think there are more interested with multi-display,
    not all of us have the money to buy additional 2 or 3 monitors just for gaming…….

      • Cuhulin
      • 10 years ago

      Fortunately, multiple monitors — especially at the 2 or 3 monitor level — have lots of usefulness for work.

    • Hattig
    • 10 years ago

    Until GPU accelerated physics actually make a game different to play, they will remain eye candy. Games won’t be written to use physics for core gameplay until the hardware capability to do it is available on more than a small subset of potential customers – small physics-lite games aside (Boom Blox, etc). At least AMD look like they’re going to up the lowest common denominator with Llano to 480 SPs (rumoured), which might be enough to run games at 12×10 with physics nicely. Also having accurate physics get in the way of storyline (oh oops, that explosion threw a truck/rocks across the exit to continue the story) means a lot of testing and special-case code to ensure the story can progress.

    • Silus
    • 10 years ago

    “Convincing developers to take advantage of the latest major DirectX release might seem like an easy sell, but AMD surely deserves some credit for getting so many titles to support the standard so quickly.”

    §[<http://www.fudzilla.com/content/view/15593/1/<]§ That's certainly convincing enough :)

      • Meadows
      • 10 years ago

      Why, what do you think nVidia is doing on the other side? The exact same thing.

        • willyolio
        • 10 years ago

        nvidia certainly isn’t throwing money at developers to support a standard they currently have no video cards for.

          • Meadows
          • 10 years ago

          Stop twisting the point and admit it.

            • JustAnEngineer
            • 10 years ago

            Just the opposite, actually. NVidia made a multi-million dollar payment to a developer (Ubisoft) to encourage them to remove advanced DirectX features from a game that had already shipped (Assassin’s Creed) because NVidia didn’t have any products that supported those features at the time.

            The evil marketing geniuses at NVidia are brilliant and ruthless. They have never hesitated to hurt the PC gaming industry as a whole if it meant getting slightly ahead of their main rivals.

            • Meadows
            • 10 years ago

            That’s what I said.

    • Fighterpilot
    • 10 years ago

    l[< nVidia is quick to throw in a feature their competitor has if it's worthwhile.<]l Yeah like DX11....oh wait....(and wait,and wait....)

    • xtremevarun
    • 10 years ago

    i think half the fun is in trying to setup the six displays 🙂

    • HisDivineShadow
    • 10 years ago

    AMD has physics, too! And it’s “open,” even though nVidia’s PhysX is open and ported to every console, plus iPhone/iPod Touch. nVidia even tried to get AMD on board and AMD refused. Seems like AMD’s the rebel rouser. If AMD would just get on board, PhysX (or GPU physics) would be a reality. Instead, AMD intends to put ANOTHER effort on the table (in addition to PhysX and Havok). Thanks, AMD.

    AMD has multi-monitor gaming, too! (Matrox did it first.) Congratulations, you created a multidisplay technology that’s nice for those with more money than sense. In the future, this technology could be interesting as monitors drop in price, but a single 2560×1600 display is still finer and better in nearly every way.

    AMD has stereoscopic gaming, too! nVidia’s got quite a lead here. Just like with CUDA and PhysX. While AMD’s been sitting on their hands, “talking” with developers that ignored them in favor of TWIMTBP, nVidia’s been developing and debugging the hell out of 3D, CUDA, and GPU-based physics.

    Then when AMD finally gets something all to itself (ie., Eyefinity), boom! nVidia’s already hacking it into their card. Now you can argue all you want their solution will probably not be as good or as great a performer (ie., requiring two cards to have enough connectors in some cases), but you have to admit… nVidia is quick to throw in a feature their competitor has if it’s worthwhile.

    nVidia is six months late to the DX11 and Eyefinity parties. Meanwhile, AMD’s how many YEARS late to the generic mobile drivers, GPU-assisted physics and 3D glasses parties?

    I wonder how much longer AMD will hamstring efforts to get physics into games before they finally decide to get on board with the only well-defined system in place.

    I suspect AMD’s Open platforms they’ve been spewing out info about lately will wind up with the same fate as Truform, 2×3 pipelines, Get in the Game, and GPU-assisted Havok: forgotten.

    In a couple years, they’ll be like, “Gamers Manifesto, whatsit? Oh! RIGHT! That PR crap we threw out! Haha, well… now that you mention it, our PR reps are about to release our ‘Software Constitution!’ Stay tuned! It’ll explain everything about ‘WIDE open physics,’ ‘WIDE open 3d Stereo,’ and ‘Super Soaker Stream technology!’ The green team may be open to everyone, but OURS are WIDE open!”

      • human_error
      • 10 years ago

      actually AMD claims that even though nvidia claim to have offered physx to amd to use, privately they refuse to liscence it.

      “[Nvidia] put PhsyX in there, and that’s the one I’ve got a reasonable amount of respect for. Even though I don’t think PhysX – a proprietary standard – is the right way to go, despite Nvidia touting it as an “open standard” and how it would be “more than happy to license it to AMD”, but [Nvidia] won’t. It’s just not true! You know the way it is, it’s simply something [Nvidia] would not do and they can publically say that as often as it likes and know that it won’t, because we’ve actually had quiet conversations with them and they’ve made it abundantly clear that we can go whistle.”

      from: §[<http://www.bit-tech.net/bits/interviews/2010/01/06/interview-amd-on-game-development-and-dx11/1<]§ As for AMD pushing true open standards i'm all for it - propriatery solutions only harm the industry and users as a whole, so screw physx unless nvidia make it fully open source.

      • sweatshopking
      • 10 years ago

      Lol @ you. crazy man. it’s about video games. chill out baby.

      • Meadows
      • 10 years ago

      Porting something doesn’t mean it’s open.
      Videogames are ported all the time too, and that doesn’t mean you get to take whatever you want from them and use it for your own projects.

        • HisDivineShadow
        • 10 years ago

        PhysX is available to AMD if they want to enable it, but they don’t. PhysX is available to be used in games across Xbox 360, PS3, Wii, PSP, iPhone/iPod Touch, and PC. It has a CPU-based version and a GPU-based version that can be inserted into games easily enough and has been across games in all these platforms, except iPhone.

        Honestly, AMD told you in the article above that they just don’t think physics is very important and as long as one of the major vendors doesn’t take the potential seriously, the technology will get no traction. It’d be like nVidia ignoring Eyefinity, which would lead to half the market shrugging and not bothering.

        But nVidia puts in the effort to get something like Eyefinity and so it will have support going forward from developers because it’s something that both sides can use.

        AMD’s lackluster efforts in physics will end up retarding the progress of GPU-based physics. Perhaps if they were serious about their Open Physics, it’d be better than nothing, but when they don’t even have a single game using their platform to speak of… well, this is all just PR BS.

          • Meadows
          • 10 years ago

          PhysX is not available to AMD. That’s just marketing talk by nVidia to win the hearts of people. Truth is, hell will freeze over before nVidia lets AMD use anything. Part of that is locking out the Radeon/GeForce combo from happening, in newer PhysX drivers.

          Stop believing everything 1 company tells you, and look at several sources instead.

          • Meadows
          • 10 years ago

          And another thought, GPU-based physics /[

      • JustAnEngineer
      • 10 years ago

      If you bought a PhysX physics processing card or a GeForce processing card a year or two ago, you might have used it with an AMD Radeon graphics card. NVidia explicitly changed their drivers to stop the PhysX cards from working with AMD graphics cards a few months ago. That certainly doesn’t match the “do no harm” claim.

      • grantmeaname
      • 10 years ago

      The reason AMD is “years late” to uniform mobile drivers is completely because laptop OEMs asked them too!! I’ve been using the catalyst drivers for years on two different laptops; the only necessary step is to remove the section of the installer that checks to see if it’s made by one of the OEMs that wants to provide the drivers themselves. Don’t even try to paint that as a technological hurdle that AMD just got over! It’s clearly not.

        • clone
        • 10 years ago

        graphics vendors like to alter pcb’s and card specifications depending on their own intentions… should we all get bent because not all graphics cards in a series are not factory overclocked?

        you are picking a vendor issue and trying to push that it’s indicative of a trend….. it’s not.

        AMD has uniform drivers now they could have had them sooner…. big deal, they are available now.

        Nvidia still disables PhysX if an ATI card is present, Nvidia’s PhysX is still closed not open, Nvidia still optimises games for Nvidia hardware only while ATI does both, Nvidia’s TWIMTBP continues to hurt the PC gaming industry by adding a level of complexity between consumers and feature support because of it’s efforts to remain closed.

        I’m for supporting all features…. I’d like to have all features supported but Nvidia has been forcing choices on informed consumers for some time while screwing uninformed.

        yet another valid reason why consoles do so well vs PC gaming despite the tech gap.

          • grantmeaname
          • 10 years ago

          A graphics card vendor is not the same thing as a notebook OEM. For example, Dell is a notebook OEM. Sapphire is a graphics card vendor. Notice that Sapphire is no more a notebook OEM than Dell is a graphics card vendor. HisDivineShadow was picking a vendor issue and trying to push that it was indicative of a trend; my post merely explained why that was innacurate.

          For the record, just so we can clear this up between us, did you read my post?

          • JustAnEngineer
          • 10 years ago

          You forgot to mention how much NVidia hurts the future of PC gaming every time that they re-re-re-name a two-generations old card rather than producing an actual new GPU that supports the latest version of DirectX.

        • HisDivineShadow
        • 10 years ago

        You mean the same OEM’s that nVidia has and has had for years? Ahem. I doubt nVidia had more pull with the OEM’s than AMD. Based on what I read, it was all a question of AMD/ATI deciding to modify their agreements with OEM’s.

        If it had been important to them years ago, they would have done it years ago. But years ago, all that was important to them was bullet points about features and not ensuring the updated drivers were there to improve the experience for gamers.

        Now that they are finally in a position to make real gains, they finally look around and realize they’ve been doing things backwards (having the OEMs opt in instead of opt out) and fixed it.

        Bout time, but it sure did take forever. And it wouldn’t have happened if nVidia hadn’t blazed the trail for them for some time prior…

          • grantmeaname
          • 10 years ago

          I can’t comment on anything based on what you read, now can I? Do you care to support that with any links, for example? I’ve heard internet search engines are nice.

          With regards to the rest of your statement: you seem to assume that AMD is a single human being with a very small amount of free time. Keep in mind that AMD is a huge company with entire teams dedicated to each of the functions that you suggest are all competing for the same limited time and effort. AMD could very easily change the list from opt-in to opt-out, for example, without sacrificing anything substantial on its driver featurelist. AMD can look around the market without having to claw its way to the top first.

          And as for nVidia blazing the trail of a using a different driver model? That metaphor is so nonsensical and so much of a stretch that it is almost literally laughable.

      • brucect
      • 10 years ago

      before start to say anything begin with don t by pass Vodoo .!!!

    • rhysl
    • 10 years ago

    Yawn x2 , more action less Venn diagrams!

    • stmok
    • 10 years ago

    Talk is nice…But let’s see how they execute it.

    From the open source side, AMD have been very helpful with releasing specs to their Radeon GPUs and now their IGP chipsets for Coreboot. But it took time; as they needed their lawyers to comb through potential patent (or other legal) issues…So they did as they promised. It just took time.

    Talking up the gaming crowd like this, is asking for trouble. I would rather do more, then talk about it later in an interview or presentation.

    Less talk, more action.

    • shank15217
    • 10 years ago

    It really doesn’t matter, all AMD has to do is execute their GPU line like they did with radeon 4k and 5k and even PRIME1 is gonna have a hard time fan boying Nvidia…

    • MadManOriginal
    • 10 years ago

    q[

    • Bensam123
    • 10 years ago

    Eyefinity is more important to physics? Seriously what fricking retarded gamers are they talking to? Console or the PC variant…

    Anyone that knows what physics CAN do and is capable of should hands down vote for physics over adding more monitors.

    It’s quite sad that one of the most revolutionary changes in gaming in the last 10 years is still still-born. It’s almost like the people making the cards for the gamers don’t actually play games themselves or even know what they would want in a good game.

      • Meadows
      • 10 years ago

      Not more important than physics. More important than /[

        • Ushio01
        • 10 years ago

        “Somewhat surprisingly, though, Robison thinks Eyefinity is more important for gamers than GPU-accelerated physics.”

        I don’t see physX mentioned.

          • Meadows
          • 10 years ago

          Because you’re either blind or stupid. Today, GPU-accelerated physics is pretty much equal to flat-out saying “PhysX”.

          Even later on, new GPU-accelerated physics engines under the likely aegis of DirectCompute (or anything else) should not be treated as the second coming of pick-your-messiah, unless they add a lot to the game.

          I don’t think that’ll happen. GPU-accelerated physics will never do more for /[

            • SHOES
            • 10 years ago

            Oh yea and why so down on Eyefinity? If you break it down and settle with say a slightly budget system, Eyefinity really isn’t all that expensive. Especially if you consider the rather affordable panels available today its not all that stupid or over the top. Plus have you even experienced this yet? I found it quite pleasing, sure matrox did it but back then the textures looked like crap so all you got was bigger blotchy crapness with todays games its simply beautiful. Try your favorite fps with 3 24″ monitors lined up and tell me its not worth it.

            • Meadows
            • 10 years ago

            I haven’t said a thing about Eyefinity. But to address your concerns, it’s not a very feasible way yet, because panels still *do* cost a bit, and borderless screens are only just starting to slowly seep in around the corners of the IT map.

            When those become popular, it’ll get a lot better.

      • Mat3
      • 10 years ago

      I’ll take Eyefinity over PhysX any day. The Nvidia accelerated physics that I’ve seen, quite frankly, aren’t that impressive. I highly doubt it couldn’t be done with 2 usually unused cores of a quad CPU.

        • Bensam123
        • 10 years ago

        Thats because it hasn’t been encouraged and they believe gamers don’t actually want destructible environments or a brand new way of playing!

          • swaaye
          • 10 years ago

          Red Faction Guerilla?

          I would like to know exactly what physics simulation that would be useful for games that a CPU is incapable of performing. I sense a lot of “physx said that CPUs can’t do it!!!”, and their word means nothing considering where NV’s vested interests and corporate goals lie.

          FYI, a little interesting tidbit about GPU Physx. It apparently can not do rigid body simulation, which is one of the most interesting types of physics simulation. CPU Physx does support it, however. There seems to be some sort of fundamental problem with getting data from the GPU back to the system.

      • SiliconSlick
      • 10 years ago

      #8, the immense sourpussed ati people are the ones blocking PhysX, as Eran of NGOHQ testified after he made the working port for ati, and they slammed it in the next driver release.
      That would be OK, IF ati actually made some thing as good or better, but they have not, and apparently can not, since they are billions in the hole, and can’t afford to.
      So the ati game is to make a bunch of end users whine endlessly about “proprietary” technology as ati issues “STREAM” (proprietary technology) and both companies cards runs on WINDOWS(proprietary technology), and get their base moaning and protesting so their base forgets that ati doesn’t have jack, hasn’t made jack, and isn’t about to produce jack when it comes to in game physics.
      AND “bullet physics” is being developed on NVIDIA CARDS – now how’s that for irony? The “main programmer” has publicly declared that to be 100% true.
      Now, why is that ? Why is ati so lame ? I think it’s because they decided that PR is “how they will try to win”.
      example:The endless complaints of ati card users about NVIDIA, that first come from ati reps like Ruddy – who publicly states them, in fact – see HEXUS for instance.
      So, it’s a politcal campaign for the minds of end users, and ati has wailing and whining about nvidia as their main course. Secondarily, they cry about 5-10 bucks on hundred dollar cards, and 50 bucks on 500 dollar cards, and 30 cents on electricity ( as if the drooling monster cards the “gaming community” stuffs in their 500 – 1500 WATTS massive power hungry machines are “saving electricity” (and the earth from total destruction for all the fruit loops now occupying every website) ).
      It’s a bad joke. Now worse. Now they have a “manifesto” – like the historical figures that murdered hundreds of millions – yet they are so into their PR charade, it never occurs to them that Karl Marx had a manifesto, the Unibomber had a manifesto, and the latest wacko who flew into the Austin IRS building had a manifesto.
      Maybe the crazed fan base is just that desperate. Sure wouldn’t surprise me after what I’ve seen.
      Ati/amd has been losing nearly two billion a year for years in a row, as that crazed fan base directed by the Ruddy types shrieked endlessly that ati could destroy nvidia by dropping prices on their tiny ati cores – that as only NVIDIA consistently made a near billion plus profit – every year, as ati lost that much and more.
      The rabid fanbase just blindly assumed that ati got paid as much as nvidia for their cores from the card manufacturers, instead of much less, even as they screamed nvidia charged too much for everything,
      Well, since ati’s core is smaller, and their cards go for almost the exact same amount as much larger cored nvidia cards, isn’t ati hauling in the bucks and scalping and greedy ? LOL
      Some people don’t think – at all – they just repeat stupid PR crud like mindless robots – over and over and over.
      I’ve watched for YEARS as the ati people screamed nvidia is going down and ati will drop prices – screamed, screamed it, over and over on every review site there is – oblivious to the fact that ati was losing billions as nvidia made billions.
      HOW can that possibly happen ? I mean, it does, the lies are everywhere – certainly on this site as well.
      It just goes to show us all, deception works on many, just like the manifesto PR stunt.
      The sad thing is that screaming fan base really believed they were telling the truth. If you gave them the stock output info with links to the financial charts and the actual monetary yearly reviews, they would clam up, scream it was a lie, or sneak away to scream another day.
      It’s too bad ati has to lie so much to try to get some support.
      Open source means “FREE”, and that’s what a BROKE card company like ati needs – an open source physics platform that they can GANK and STEAL from the “community of unpaid developers” for $0 !
      LOL
      Just like communists – it “should be free for everyone and profit (NVIDIA) is evil”.
      So ati wants some free physics they can just gank from open source, gank DX11 from microsoft, gank openCL from the open source community, … freebies freebies freebies freebies – like the welfare crowd – while they whine and moan about “the guys who made it” NVIDIA !
      ROFLMAO – Thanks for the time for my two cents, now you have the other side to the crybaby losers PR crud campaign.

    • wira020
    • 10 years ago

    Marketing… if this were Nvidia’s marketing they’d probably be saying how awesome Physx is or how much we need gpgpu… not to forget that their not yet released fermi is the best thing ever…

    I do hope however that game developer wouldnt depend too much on nvidia and start optimizing their games for both company… it’s just not much of a fair fight as it is right now..

    • ApockofFork
    • 10 years ago

    I agree with the other posts here. As far as PR stunts go this is pretty weak. They need to get their name into the game intros like nvidia’s the way its meant to be played. That works quite a bit better than just talk. If they were really making a big effort game developers would already be doing that I think. I’ll wait for AMD to actually prove me wrong.

      • wira020
      • 10 years ago

      And then what? Split PC gaming into 2 base? Right now we’re already seeing some feature disabled on Radeons.. if AMD fight back, we’d see more and more of these until 1 day, games might be released specifically for certain gpu company only…

    • Vasilyfav
    • 10 years ago

    A bunch of PR circlejerking.

      • rika13
      • 10 years ago

      agreed

      A team that speak nine languages says NOTHING. In Europe, especially central, eastern, and southern Europe, it is normal to speak a large number of languages due to proximity of other nations. The Schengen Agreement further pushes the desire for multiple languages by allowing for passport-free crossing of borders for most EU states.

      AMD is completely responsible for their lack of GPU-accelerated physics, they can simply make a variant of Bullet that works with their cards (zlib license, they don’t need to even ask, just attribute and declare its a modified version), pay Intel to bring back Havok FX, or work with nVidia to bring PhysX over to DirectCompute.

        • Meadows
        • 10 years ago

        No, speaking nine languages is uncommon and I doubt most of the individuals in AMD’s team speak even half that.

    • paulWTAMU
    • 10 years ago

    For blatant misuse of a venn diagram, the award goes to….

      • axeman
      • 10 years ago

      Marketing dorks are pretty good at misusing everything.

    • PRIME1
    • 10 years ago

    Yawn

      • Meadows
      • 10 years ago

      Your Krogian attitude only makes it a better article. After all:

      g{

        • PRIME1
        • 10 years ago

        Funny how you left out that AMD could not list any games supporting “open” physics.

          • Meadows
          • 10 years ago

          Neither PhysX nor open physics alternatives will mean jack, so it’s not really important. I don’t think any of them will ever add to gameplay – because if they did, they would have to be made CPU-workable anyway and couldn’t be locked to GPU resources. And then we’d be back where we started and should see that we should’ve never left that point.

    • SecretMaster
    • 10 years ago

    I’m pretty certain two years from now almost no one will remember this silly “gamer manifesto”, including AMD. The only thing I really read from this was AMD trying to say, “hey guys… we work with game developers too!”

      • SHOES
      • 10 years ago

      which is good and needs to be heard because they really want people to know they push “open” standards. Which is win for everyone in the end. I guess I dont know why everyone is so negative nancy about a release like this.

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This