Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 43

Thread: Catalyst 10.1 Still Trash In Heaven, But Good News

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    6,598

    Default

    @bridgman

    The only hw vendor with a 10-1 driver is ATI, so why was it NV now?

  2. #32
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    2,276

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Joe Sixpack View Post
    I've actually read something similar to this in the past. I've heard certain ATI issues with wine or xorg stemming from Nvidia actually providing more functionality than required by spec. This situation has come up dozens of times. Can you comment on it?
    It 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.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kano View Post
    @bridgman

    The only hw vendor with a 10-1 driver is ATI, so why was it NV now?
    N

    D

    A


  4. #34
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Toronto-ish
    Posts
    7,282

    Default

    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...

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    "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.

  6. #36
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,264

    Default

    Quote 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, 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?)

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    2,908

    Default

    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.

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V!NCENT View Post
    I, 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.
    Knowing how this kind of stuff works, odds are fairly good that you're right on the money on this line of thought...

    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?)
    Call it what you like. I know I'm not thinking it was a success...

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    3,046

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by rohcQaH View Post
    As 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.
    Uh... The first might be useless for Workstation work, but don't kid yourself about the second not being very, very useful.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by agd5f View Post
    It 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.
    If 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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •