11 ms·
Your rhetoric is a bit out of date. I have no problem with AMD (their hardware is good!), but I don't think your presentation is accurate. > CUDA Implemented
by twtw 8y ago
Your rhetoric is a bit out of date. I have no problem with AMD (their hardware is good!), but I don't think your presentation is accurate.
> CUDA
Implemented by AMD too, under the moniker "hip."
> their RTX crap
Vendor-independent via DXR, soon to be available through Vulkan as well.
> Gsync
Nvidia GPUs now work with freesync monitors
> Physx
Open source, as of december.
I want to feel good about AMD, but they have thus far failed to build a stable platform around their GPGPU stack(s). Nvidia has done a pretty good job with making CUDA a stable platform for SW development, however anti-competitive you might think it is.
- AnthonyMouse 8y agoThe reason they're doing that now is AMD forcing them to. nVidia's goal was to lock everyone in, which kind of worked, but everybody hates it. And AMD has been successful enough with their open alternatives that it created the significant risk people could switch to that instead. It's forcing nVidia's hand. If they try to keep everything proprietary and the market starts to shift to the open alternatives because everybody hates that, everyone who used their solutions to begin with and has to throw them out and start over would be displeased. So their only hope is to try to be just open enough that people continue to use their stuff. But they still suck -- look at the state of the open source drivers for their hardware. And they should hardly be rewarded for doing the wrong thing for as long as the market would bear. Forgive them after they fall below 40% market share.