Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Catalyst 10.1 Still Trash In Heaven, But Good News
Collapse
X
-
The Unigine rep didn't actually mention Cat 10.1, if you read the fine print. The rest of the paragraph reads like supposition. It may actually be the case (I don't know), but the statement from Unigine wasn't "the driver is not ready" or "ATI/AMD asked us..." but rather "a hardware vendor asked us...".
It just seemed a bit odd to me...Test signature
Comment
-
"We don't want to release our program for Linux until Linux can run it well."
Is the program even ready and that is simply an excuse? Are you afraid it will look bad? Or are you joining with a hardware vendor to release everything all at once to try to drum up more attention?
I vote 3, if not all of them, but who knows. It's a CORPORATE MYSTERY.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Yfrwlf View Post"We don't want to release our program for Linux until Linux can run it well."
Is the program even ready and that is simply an excuse? Are you afraid it will look bad? Or are you joining with a hardware vendor to release everything all at once to try to drum up more attention?
I vote 3, if not all of them, but who knows. It's a CORPORATE MYSTERY.
I think it is a little to early to just start to speculate about it. Maybe it's the result of the UT3 disaster. (I can call it a disaster, right?)
Comment
-
I think the most likely explanation is that AMD still wants the ability to modify their extension a bit if necessary. Once there's a demo out there that is actually trying to use it, it becomes much harder to justify changing the api and breaking compatibility even if the demo is just programmed against an unsupported pre-released driver.
Comment
-
Originally posted by V!NCENT View PostI, for one, just think that they are co?perating with HW vendors to get it to work with all modern and capable cards that are out there and that one HW vendor told them to (better) wait a little longer because they haven't finnished fixing bug X or feature Y yet.
I think it is a little to early to just start to speculate about it. Maybe it's the result of the UT3 disaster. (I can call it a disaster, right?)
Comment
-
Originally posted by rohcQaH View PostAs far as you're concerned, they do. fglrx is mostly maintained for the workstation customers (and has to be maintained for them), but AMD isn't throwing lots of man-power at it to quickly implement consumer-features like video acceleration or shiny, but useless heaven demos.
Comment
-
Originally posted by agd5f View PostIt depends largely on what GPU the game was mainly developed up on. The 3D API are pretty loose in a lot of corner cases. That's why it's important to be first with new DX/GL HW since more game vendors will tend to use your hardware and expect your driver's behavior in those gray areas.
Interesting.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack View PostIf what you say is true, then I suspect the GPU landscape is about to change significantly. ATI's DirectX 11 cards have been on the market for almost 5 months now, while nvidia's performance line doesn't even support DirectX 10.1. Does this mean the next generation of games will be designed to work with ATI's gray areas? That could be huge, especially considering ATI already holds the power efficiency crown with the HD 5850.
Interesting.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Joe Sixpack View PostIf what you say is true, then I suspect the GPU landscape is about to change significantly. ATI's DirectX 11 cards have been on the market for almost 5 months now, while nvidia's performance line doesn't even support DirectX 10.1. Does this mean the next generation of games will be designed to work with ATI's gray areas? That could be huge, especially considering ATI already holds the power efficiency crown with the HD 5850.
Interesting.
Comment
Comment