By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Gaming Discussion - My gripe with all console manufacturers using AMD powered graphics ...

 

What do you think ?

Agree ? 18 22.50%
 
Disagree ? 31 38.75%
 
WTF ? 31 38.75%
 
Total:80
fatslob-:O on 29 March 2014
bonzobanana said:
Theres a lot of talk about the performance difference between AMD and Nvidia but I think the reality is Nvidia are a very poor company to work with. Microsoft had big issues with Nvidia demanding high royalties even when the original xbox was near the end of its life. Microsoft had to abandon the xbox early and it probably led to the huge disaster of RROD as the 360 was released too soon. Since the original xbox we now have two generations of xbox console using AMD graphics. Originally paired with powerpc but now with AMD's own CPU.

Sony also had issues with nvidia and again has moved away from them.

Nintendo again has gone the AMD route again.

The fact is AMD are a far better company to work with.

Ouya is about the only console manufacturer willing to work with nvidia nowadays....

I'll give AMD some credit for being more friendly to larger corporations but to small developers their sort of a hindrance. I keep hearing stories from other developers not getting a response from AMD and if they do the problems don't get fixed. 



Around the Network
GProgrammer on 29 March 2014
fatslob-:O said:
GProgrammer said:
Pemalite said:
GProgrammer said:
With my Graphics Programmer cap on

Tessellation is way down the list of useful GFX tech


I disagree.
Geometry is going to play a massive role this coming generation.

No it wont

In all my years as a professional game developer, I've never seen an application vertex setup bound.

Yes in the 20th century this used to happen but not for the last 15 years

 

Tesselation only makes sense if you couple it with a displacement map

You can't say that tessellation is NOT important. It could actually be the key to making games ultra detailed like the precursor of the geoverse demos. 

I dont think you understand what it does

tesselation gives no extra information, it just smooths out data points

heres a picture of no tesselation vs very high tesselation. The vertex count of the second picture is probably over 10 times what it is in the first picture, but you can hardly tell the difference between the two

Like I said, Tesselation only makes sense with displacement mapping. It doesnt magically add details



fatslob-:O on 29 March 2014
GProgrammer said:

I dont think you understand what it does

tesselation gives no extra information, it just smooths out data points

heres a picture of no tesselation vs very high tesselation. The vertex count of the second picture is probably over 10 times what it is in the first picture, but you can hardly tell the difference between the two

Like I said, Tesselation only makes sense with displacement mapping. It doesnt magically add details

@Bold That's where your wrong. Tessellation DOES generate extra information such as QUADS, LINES, and POINTS as well. 

Your example is pretty much irrelevant since most games don't push tessellation. The demo below will show a large difference.

Your right about displacement mapping being needed to make tessellation a noticeable advantage but the games in the coming future will have this built in mind with them. 



GProgrammer on 30 March 2014
fatslob-:O said:

@Bold That's where your wrong. Tessellation DOES generate extra information such as QUADS, LINES, and POINTS as well. 

do GFX hardware for years generates QUADS or LINES. Yes extra vertices and triangles are created.

Your video from uengine shows tesselation and displacement mapping. If it was tesselation only then there would be hardly any difference between the two. eg the flat ground with the stones would be still flat 

For the last time tesselation without displacement mapping is practically worthless



fatslob-:O on 30 March 2014
GProgrammer said:
fatslob-:O said:

@Bold That's where your wrong. Tessellation DOES generate extra information such as QUADS, LINES, and POINTS as well. 

do GFX hardware for years generates QUADS or LINES. Yes extra vertices and triangles are created.

Your video from uengine shows tesselation and displacement mapping. If it was tesselation only then there would be hardly any difference between the two. eg the flat ground with the stones would be still flat 

For the last time tesselation without displacement mapping is practically worthless

And what games WON'T have displacement mapping in the future ? 



Around the Network
ethomaz on 30 March 2014

It is not that bad because no game will ever use this level of tessellation...

While the GCN tesselation units are not that strong compared with Kleper for consoles it will be a huge upgrade from what we had in PS360.

AMD is the only to make APU (GPU + CPU)... Intel does but its GPUs is a crap (while the CPU is the best you can find).



fatslob-:O on 30 March 2014
ethomaz said:

It is not that bad because no game will ever use this level of tessellation...

While the GCN tesselation units are not that strong compared with Kleper for consoles it will be a huge upgrade from what we had in PS360.

AMD is the only to make APU (GPU + CPU)... Intel does but its GPUs is a crap (while the CPU is the best you can find).

How do you know that no games will ever use this level of tessellation ? Sure unigine heaven is a bridge between synthetics and applications but I was expecting next gen to have extreme quality from unigine heaven. 

It definitely is a huge upgrade but it won't be enough in 5 years and PC gaming will be held back once again because of consoles. 

I keep getting tired of hearing how bad Intel GPUs are but I'd argue that their more innovative than the last couple iterations from AMD or Nvidia due to the fact that Intel are the ones trying to push more programmability into them a la pixel sync and their pretty decent for low end gaming purposes. You know what, I'll bet that the top end broadwell processor will smash the A10 7850K in BOTH CPU AND GPU performance. 



Darc Requiem on 30 March 2014

Until they prove otherwise, I wouldn't bet on Intel's GPU tech. They've made several attempts to get into the market and have failed miserably each time.



fatslob-:O on 30 March 2014
Darc Requiem said:
Until they prove otherwise, I wouldn't bet on Intel's GPU tech. They've made several attempts to get into the market and have failed miserably each time.

They don't have to prove anything! We all know that 28nm process node is no match for the 14nm process node! Intel will finally get to kick AMD's ass in the integrated graphics arena. 



Darc Requiem on 30 March 2014

Their GPU tech has never proven to be up to snuff thus far. Until they prove other wise, it's foolish to say. "It's gonna be good because it's Intel"