4 ms·

I read something very similar in this anonymous Slashdot post when Assassin's Creed Unity came out: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6048819&cid=48382

I read something very similar in this anonymous Slashdot post when Assassin's Creed Unity came out: http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6048819&cid=48382141 http://games.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=6048819&cid=483821... Choice quote: "Nvidia literally doesn't care if bouncing ten simple particles on your screen uses 30% of your GPU performance, so long as the same effect on an AMD GPU takes 80%. Nvidia is this dirty."

deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
rrss1122 11y ago
The thing is, I have an nVidia card and ACU doesn't even run on it. It feels like they are not only trying to deter people from buying AMD, but that they are also trying to deter people from buying lower tier nVidia cards. I have to get ACU down to sub-720p resolution to even get more than 20fps. It's ridiculous.
- mesozoic 11y ago
  I think the problem there is just that ACU was just a very poorly made game.
ikeboy 11y ago
>So Nvidia 'invented' TXAA- an horrifically bad AA method both in appearance and 'hit' on performance- but a method that runs far better on new Nvidia hardware than it does on new AMD hardware. Why is that, though? Why can't AMD do whatever Nvidia's doing to make it just as fast on their system?
- tarpherder 11y ago
  Because Nvidia is playing to their relative strengths. Differences in hardware can't always be overcome in software.