Objectively Bad Opinion
Member
I posted it in the PC build thread but LG is also releasing monitors with Freesync support. Two Ultrawide (21:9) models.
I posted it in the PC build thread but LG is also releasing monitors with Freesync support. Two Ultrawide (21:9) models.
Umm how is noone mentioning the "9-240 Hz". Does that mean we'll have 240hz monitors?
I posted it in the PC build thread but LG is also releasing monitors with Freesync support. Two Ultrawide (21:9) models.
I realized that another benefit of FreeSync is 24 fps support for video.
It's a bit amusing to see AMD pushing Mantle (for its great low-level performance on their GPUs!) and Freesync (because it's based on an independent standard!) on the same day. Of course, all for-profit companies are caught in inconsistencies like that at some points.
I think this is more a dream than something which may happen.Looking forward to TVs supporting this.
I don't like to game sitting at a PC.
With both major consoles using AMD chips, I wonder if there's a chance of a displayport in the next major hardware refreshes...
24 Hz footage without somekind of little judder will only play evenly on even factors.How is that a benefit?
Not gonna happen, if things will stay like they are now and in the near future.Except that the Mantle SDK is coming the year and AMD is encouraging Intel and Nvidia to use it.
Not gonna happen, if things will stay like there are now and in the near future.
Theoretically, but that doesn't mean Free Sync monitors will be 240hz - it will depend on the panel. We're getting 4k samsung displays, and DP can't drive 4k @ 144hz, let alone 240hz.
Many people tend to read too much into it.Intel already approached AMD about Mantle
I posted it in the PC build thread but LG is also releasing monitors with Freesync support. Two Ultrawide (21:9) models.
Many people tend to read too much into it.
Intel wasn't thinking about supporting it, Intel did their own research on overhead reduction and they were interested how mantle tackle things and if they can gather arguments together with AMD.
I guess for things like DX12 and OpenGL-Next.
This was something Andrew Lauritzen from Intel elaborated in the Beyond3DForum.
Yes, many concepts and similarities can and probably will occur.So while they may not use Mantle itself...mantle or some of its architecture may end up in OpenGL Next anyway.
What am i reading?
Damn, should have held off on that G-sync monitor so I could experience a 9hz refresh rate without tearing or stuttering in AC:Unity.
The real question is whether Free Sync will be just as good as G-sync. Which we will need to wait for testing on; it's not like AMD would come out and say that it's inferior in some way.
Maybe they'll add DP to the consoles?
LOL nah.
You know, you could at least read the entire post you're quoting.Nvidia, the leader in proprietary tech does the same. I don't see you pointing these inconsistencies out for them, what gives?
Of course, all for-profit companies are caught in inconsistencies like that at some points.
I made a post on how Mantle is not in any way, shape or form an open standard in an earlier thread.Except that the Mantle SDK is coming the year and AMD is encouraging Intel and Nvidia to use it.
Are any of these Samsung monitors not TN or is the selection as annoyingly limited to low-quality panel types as the G-sync one?
The real question currently is - is there any reason for NV to not include Adaptive VSync support into their desktop GPUs? With them already supporting their own GSync standard this should be rather simple to do. I can't see any reason for them to not do this eventually.
I tried a TN panel said to be "high quality", and I really couldn't deal with it after a decade or so of using exclusively PVA and IPS panels. But I realize that I'm particularly picky in this regard.I have the current 4k Samsung monitor, the 590, and it's a 10-bit TN panel, so it doesn't suffer from the 6-bit issues with many other TN panels. It's cheap, and feels a bit on the cheap side, but I can handle that for that glorious 4k experience.
Since I just read it today, I can't resist linking to this in reply to that:As unthinkable as it is I would love Nvidia to support Mantle. I've been consistently impressed with the performance boost it offered, even in some situations where the GPU is the limiting factor.
I tried a TN panel said to be "high quality", and I really couldn't deal with it after a decade or so of using exclusively PVA and IPS panels. But I realize that I'm particularly picky in this regard.
Still, I wish someone other than only Eizo would make high-refresh-rate PVA. Or they made a higher res one.
Since I just read it today, I can't resist linking to this in reply to that:
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-11/benchmarks-und-grafikvergleich-zu-dragon-age-inquisition/
(Summary: Mantle is between 0% and 5% slower than DX11 in their DA:I benchmarks)
nVidia deliberately locked A-Sync out. It's fully coherent with their regular M.O. Close that garden as much as you can.
http://tech4gamers.com/nvidia-says-no-to-displayport-1-2a-and-vesa-adaptive-sync/
All of the scalers not supporting the extension aren't DP compliant.
Our own GPUs wouldn't be DP compliant.
If the alternative turns out better we'll change our strategy.
Well, TN is ancient technology. It's been around for like, what, 20 years? That's a geological era in computing time. The fact that panel makers can't let it goI tried a TN panel said to be "high quality", and I really couldn't deal with it after a decade or so of using exclusively PVA and IPS panels. But I realize that I'm particularly picky in this regard.
Bought an ROG Swift, best monitor I've ever bought. Gsync is absolutely amazing. More people finally getting this technology will be the best thing to happen to PC gaming in a long time.
Theoretically, but that doesn't mean Free Sync monitors will be 240hz - it will depend on the panel. We're getting 4k samsung displays, and DP can't drive 4k @ 144hz, let alone 240hz.
Thanks for this. News to me.Except that the Mantle SDK is coming the year and AMD is encouraging Intel and Nvidia to use it.
This is also very interesting. Do you have any links?.Many people tend to read too much into it.
Intel wasn't thinking about supporting it, Intel did their own research on overhead reduction and they were interested how mantle tackle things and if they can gather arguments together with AMD.
I guess for things like DX12 and OpenGL-Next.
This was something Andrew Lauritzen from Intel elaborated in the Beyond3DForum.
I'd love to see this post actually.Are any of these Samsung monitors not TN or is the selection as annoyingly limited to low-quality panel types as the G-sync one?
You know, you could at least read the entire post you're quoting.
I made a post on how Mantle is not in any way, shape or form an open standard in an earlier thread.
The whole idea that the first time the public would see an open standard API is over a year after it was created with an SDK release is, frankly, ludicrous.
Can I ask you something? And, to be clear, I'm not trying to engage in an argument, I just want to understand. I know about for preference for nVidia, but why hate AMD? I mean, sure, they have their flaws and some of them are really big. In fact, I have an AMD GPU and I plan to go back to nVidia whenever I buy another one, so it's not like I want to defend them, but I don't see why attack them.
I really hope FreeSync and Mantle get track. And I also hope other companies help with that. Not because of company X or Y getting profit, but because consumers will get the benefits. Even if I don't get to use any of them. Maybe Mantle will perform better in Inquisition after patch(es) and/or driver updates. Or maybe with Intel and nVidia eventually also supporting the API, they can also help it perform better (please, let's not get into the argument of it being open or not, let's just consider it will be, based on the latest news). When DirectX 12 is released, keeping Mantle support will force Microsoft to also improve on DX. And FreeSync competing with G-Sync may lead to better prices for all of us.
So what I don't get is the hate for AMD or even for nVidia by users in some cases. Competition is good and both of them should always perform on the best way they can so us (consumers) get the best of it. I understand calling their attention of they're not doing that, but not hoping a technology supported by one or another fails because someone thinks the other one is better.
I tried a TN panel said to be "high quality", and I really couldn't deal with it after a decade or so of using exclusively PVA and IPS panels. But I realize that I'm particularly picky in this regard.
Still, I wish someone other than only Eizo would make high-refresh-rate PVA. Or they made a higher res one.
Since I just read it today, I can't resist linking to this in reply to that:
http://www.computerbase.de/2014-11/benchmarks-und-grafikvergleich-zu-dragon-age-inquisition/
(Summary: Mantle is between 0% and 5% slower than DX11 in their DA:I benchmarks)
Where did he say he hated AMD?
Would you say it's just as good as going from platter hard drives to SSDs?
I don't hate AMD at all. In fact, I have an Athlon FX processor and an ATI Radeon 9700 displayed in my glass cabinet.Can I ask you something? And, to be clear, I'm not trying to engage in an argument, I just want to understand. I know about for preference for nVidia, but why hate AMD?
Sure:I'd love to see this post actually.
This hits the nail on the head, pretty much. If you want to look at how cross platform, industry standard APIs are built, look at the Khronos process for OpenCL. In the end, it's basically cross-platform CUDA, but its creation was still a long process proceeding in roughly this fashion:
That may sound plodding and cumbersome -- and really, it can be -- but this is how real open standards are made. Not by working on a hardware-specific API for your stuff with your closest partners in secret and then saying "bam it's open".
- Apple spearheads the creation of an initial proposal, and submits it publicly to the standards body (Khronos).
- They form a working group where a large group of hardware and software industry partners come together, and refine the proposal into a release candidate all can agree on for 6 months.
- The standard is approved, ratified and officially published.
- Implementations of the standard start trickling in from various industry partners.
- It is continually refined by the working group process at Khronos, with all members having the ability to contribute, and a formal process in place to guide its development.
What I really hate is marketing something as "open" which isn't open in the least, so I haven't been too happy about them since Mantle.
This is an more official statement from Intel, but it's basically the same what Andrew said in the B3D Forum:I'd love to see this post actually.
http://www.pcworld.com/article/2365909/intel-approached-amd-about-access-to-mantle.html"At the time of the initial Mantle announcement, we were already investigating rendering overhead based on game developer feedback," an Intel spokesman said in an email. "Our hope was to build consensus on potential approaches to reduce overhead with additional data. We have publicly asked them to share the spec with us several times as part of examination of potential ways to improve APIs and increase efficiencies. At this point though we believe that DirectX 12 and ongoing work with other industry bodies and OS vendors will address the issues that game developers have noted."
In a separate email, the Intel spokesman said that it had been working with the Khronos Group and with Microsoft to ensure that future APIs target "a wide range of graphics hardware".
"Our belief is that software developers will prioritize their investments by bringing their great games and user experiences to all platforms using non-proprietary/open solutions; and whilst we all experiment, we hope that these experiments are used primarily to drive better standards and improve the graphics industry for everyone," the Intel spokesman said.
Since Mantle the whole "being open" propaganda started and many believers are spreading from the ground.wtf? DICE pitched the mantle tech to nvidia first. It's not AMD's fault nvidia passed on it. Can you blame AMD for taking advantage of it?
Yes but that's not an exclusive process for open standard creation. You don't have to follow this path.I don't hate AMD at all. In fact, I have an Athlon FX processor and an ATI Radeon 9700 displayed in my glass cabinet.
What I really hate is marketing something as "open" which isn't open in the least, so I haven't been too happy about them since Mantle. And I guess I'm also highly iritated at some AMD fanboys.
Sure:
What exactly has AMD done that's not fair or somehow against openness?Since Mantle the whole "being open" propaganda started and many believers are spreading from the ground.
But it's far away from being fair and open.
And i also don't know why people are saying DICE pitched it first to Nvidia and some are even saying it's DICE API.
But nowadays you maybe should.Yes but that's not an exclusive process for open standard creation. You don't have to follow this path.
Developing an API in secret, releasing as a Beta, don't giving insights till a certain point and having the absolute control over it and the direction the standard will going.What exactly has AMD done that's not fair or somehow against openness?
Maybe i'm just too sceptical, but besides of PR, how serious AMD take this invitations?Given light of their recent invitations to Nvidia/Intel, these are some very weird and ironic claims
wants/think to support Mantle.
Since Mantle the whole "being open" propaganda started and many believers are spreading from the ground.
But it's far away from being fair and open.
And i also don't know why people are saying DICE pitched it first to Nvidia and some are even saying it's DICE API.
Noteworthy statements:
- Effort to have console-like access and programmability on PC started about 5 years ago. Johan spoke to different companies including Nvidia and Intel.
- Respect for AMD being the sole company to realize his suggestions.
I agree, DICE and some others ISVs talked to the IHVs about things and ideas that are important to them.
Nobody cared as much as AMD and greenlighted the idea of that kind of thing.
But where is the source saying DICE approached to Nvidia and/or Intel first?
I can't tell where DICE was first, maybe even at AMD, maybe parallel at each of them?
Who named the API Mantle?
I just think it was AMD and it's AMDs IP.
DICE helped out a lot, but it's not making it DICEs API.
Things about being open(source), Intel, DICE, Nvidia, AMD, i have read so much fiction about the topics and ask myself when will this stop.
You could show an old, blind man, where he can find the sentence, stating DICE pitched the idea first to Nvidia.You could like read the link he gave (or ask for a translation if you can't understand it even machine translated) instead spreading fiction on your own.
Im sorry but I really don't see any of this as unfair. Seems like standard stuff. AMD is undoubtedly for-profit so their commercial interests will always come first but non of this impedes progression. And yes usually if a company is developing something that they hope will evolve to a standard, then usually they provide a POC to start from.But nowadays you maybe should.
Developing an API in secret, releasing as a Beta, don't giving insights till a certain point and having the absolute control over it and the direction the standard will going.
Maybe i'm broken, but that doesn't sounds fair to me.
Is DX12 developing like this? Or OGL Next?
Maybe i'm just too sceptical, but besides of PR, how serious AMD take this invitations?
I don't hate AMD at all. In fact, I have an Athlon FX processor and an ATI Radeon 9700 displayed in my glass cabinet.
What I really hate is marketing something as "open" which isn't open in the least, so I haven't been too happy about them since Mantle. And I guess I'm also highly iritated at some AMD fanboys.
Sure: