Remember when they came out with slightly stronger tessellation unit? The result was Nvidia paying developers to do this: "Unnecessary geometric detail slows d

Remember when they came out with slightly stronger tessellation unit? The result was Nvidia paying developers to do this: "Unnecessary geometric detail slows down all GPUs, of course, but it just so happens to have a much larger effect on DX11-capable AMD Radeons than it does on DX11-capable Nvidia GeForces. The Fermi architecture underlying all DX11-class GeForce GPUs dedicates more attention (and transistors) to achieving high geometry processing throughput than the competing Radeon GPU architectures." https://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/ https://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-to... conveniently techreport "lost" images, but we still have archive.org https://web.archive.org/web/20121002034311/http://techreport.com/review/21404/crysis-2-tessellation-too-much-of-a-good-thing/2 https://web.archive.org/web/20121002034311/http://techreport... I wonder if certain sponsor didnt suggest removing images to techreport. Sounds preposterous until one remembers Intel commissioned tomshardware story from 2001 https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-4.html https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/hot-spot,365-4.html Turned out it was mostly a lie of omission and tomshardware published a retraction, but neither that retraction http://www.tomshardware.com/column/01q4/011029/index.html http://www.tomshardware.com/column/01q4/011029/index.html or its archive.org copy are available anymore. archive.org returns "Sorry. This URL has been excluded from the Wayback Machine." for that one single retraction link. Curiously original now confirmed to be wrong story is still there for everyone to read 22 years later, imagine that. Also https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/07/did-nvidia-cripple-its-cpu-gaming-physics-library-to-spite-intel/ https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/07/did-nvidia-cripple-it...