Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

NVIDIA Releases More GameWorks Projects As Open-Source With Linux Support

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #11
    Originally posted by aw1cks View Post
    It seems quite likely that the recent change in heart is connected to the ARM acquisition... the easiest way to make ARM feasible for gaming would be by bolstering Linux support. Note how they've been testing gaming on Linux with non-X86 processors recently. Could this even tie in with Valve perhaps, given the recent push of the new SteamOS?
    Yknow I had wondered what nvidia would think of the Deck, given their Shield and attempts at streaming...

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by doomie View Post

      Yknow I had wondered what nvidia would think of the Deck, given their Shield and attempts at streaming...
      I don't think it would have been possible for NVidia to make a device with the same performance/power usage if it was with a discrete GPU (i.e. separate chip than the CPU). Only exception here is if it was released with ARM rather than x86 but that wouldn't have been appropriate for this device considering its whole point was to work with Steam's catalog (they would have had to emulate x86 on ARM like apple which is possible but is already a lot of work ontop of working with wine/proton).

      AMD being vertically integrated definitely has advantages here.

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by loligans View Post
        It feels good to see nvidia capitulating to some of the pressure AMD has been applying. hopefully they continue making more things open sourced and eventually their drivers.
        I doubt this has anything to do with pressure from AMD.
        AMD releasing stuff as open source is a great business strategy, it allows them offer something their main competitor doesn't which gives them a unique selling point that attracts customers to their products.

        Nvidia making GameWorks open source has nothing to do with any pressure from AMD, instead it is a good business decision which lowers the barrier to entry and allows more third-parties to integrate their games and game engines with Nvidia's GameWorks middleware which allows those games and game engines to run better on Nvidia hardware which strengthens Nvidia foothold by making their products more attractive with a bigger ecosystem of games working great on Nvidia hardware.

        Originally posted by unic0rn View Post
        Doubt they give a damn about AMD.

        Perhaps not everyone is happy with the direction Microsoft is going with Windows 11, and people need options.
        I also doubt they give a damn about AMD (read above my answer to loligans).

        I think Windows 11 has nothing to do with it , and I think both Nvidia and consumers in general will be very pleased with Windows 11. Windows 10 is very well received, and I think people will like Windows 11.

        For gamers Windows 11 is going to be great with better support for Microsoft's DirectStorage API already in use on Xbox Series S and X which allows blazing fast transfer of data from NVM Express solid-state drives directly to the GPU memory without first going through the CPU and the RAM. This dramatically increases performance as well as lowers the overhead on the CPU allowing things such as faster loading times and immediate transition between maps and vastly different worlds.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by Linuxxx View Post

          My only concern is that MrCooper (Daniel Vetter if I'm not mistaken) is giving them a hard time behind-the-scenes...
          I'm Michel Dänzer. Daniel's account here is "danvet" presumably.

          Comment


          • #15
            Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post

            I don't think it would have been possible for NVidia to make a device with the same performance/power usage if it was with a discrete GPU (i.e. separate chip than the CPU). Only exception here is if it was released with ARM rather than x86 but that wouldn't have been appropriate for this device considering its whole point was to work with Steam's catalog (they would have had to emulate x86 on ARM like apple which is possible but is already a lot of work ontop of working with wine/proton).

            AMD being vertically integrated definitely has advantages here.
            My thoughts exactly, and even if Valve did want to push something like ARM at some point, they've got far more leverage than nvidia to actually get that done.

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
              I don't think it would have been possible for NVidia to make a device with the same performance/power usage if it was with a discrete GPU (i.e. separate chip than the CPU). Only exception here is if it was released with ARM rather than x86 but that wouldn't have been appropriate for this device considering its whole point was to work with Steam's catalog (they would have had to emulate x86 on ARM like apple which is possible but is already a lot of work ontop of working with wine/proton).
              It would have been possible of Nvidia was willing to share with Intel or VIA to get the x86 part but Nvidia has not wanted todo this. Remember when AMD shared a GPU with Intel so its possible. Remember deck is Zen 2 so its been development for quite some time. The deck development was happening when Nvidia was refusing to support Xwayland and Valve need Xwayland for scaling old game effectively. You can ignore the x86 vs arm bit because like it or not Nvidia treatment of Wayland had them dead in the water for Valve usage case with the Deck. Valve does not have a interest in these devices running windows because windows store is a serous threat to them.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                It would have been possible of Nvidia was willing to share with Intel or VIA to get the x86 part but Nvidia has not wanted todo this.
                I think saying it would have been "possible" is a massive overstatement. For starters intel is pushing their own GPU's heavily right now (so there is no business reason for them to help their competition, i.e. NVidia) and VIA is now essentially a Chinese X86 licensing gimmick masquerading as a company, in other words NVidia would also have to design their own x86 CPU which they have zero experience in.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
                  I think saying it would have been "possible" is a massive overstatement. For starters intel is pushing their own GPU's heavily right now (so there is no business reason for them to help their competition, i.e. NVidia) and VIA is now essentially a Chinese X86 licensing gimmick masquerading as a company, in other words NVidia would also have to design their own x86 CPU which they have zero experience in.
                  I said it would have "been possible" with the been meaning historic. Not that it still currently possible. Intel deciding to get off ass and design their own GPU from scratch has been caused from Intel losing contract after contract to AMD due to not having a suitable GPU offering to joint compete with. Remember Intel and Nvidia won first Microsoft Xbox because they did in fact work with each other. Then Nvidia had a change in management and everything went down hill.

                  Remember Intel had zero experience design highend GPU as well. Nvidia forced Intel hand.

                  VIA still has the license to intel and AMD x86 patents. Intel of course is not going to sell Nvidia x86 patents neither is AMD. The reality here is Nvidia will not be able to go out and design their own x86 solution without being on the wrong side of the patent pool.

                  Qualcomm had to fight Intel to have a x86 support on arm. Remember Qualcomm is another party stuck out side the x86 patent pool.

                  Nvidia current location would require them to grovel to Intel like releasing open source drivers giving Intel a production license to embed Nvidia GPU tech inside cpu. Remember Nvidia has dug themselves into this location by not providing a competitive option to Valve and game consoles due to being way too restricting on what those parties want to-do.

                  Thing to remember the Valve deck was in development before Intel started their own dgpu push. If Nvidia had made sure they had decent wayland support instead of leaving it to the last min they would to be in as much trouble as they are in now.

                  AMD has been the way smarter company here. Nvidia own stubborn nature is coming back at them. Like it or not Nvidia stubborn nature has effectively burn out their bridges on the x86 platform. Attempting to bring x86 support to Nvidia ARM platform will most likely get Nvidia in legal trouble with Intel as well.

                  Reality here once we have AMD and Intel GPUs how much force will be on Nvidia.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post

                    I said it would have "been possible" with the been meaning historic. Not that it still currently possible.
                    Agreed

                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                    Intel deciding to get off ass and design their own GPU from scratch has been caused from Intel losing contract after contract to AMD due to not having a suitable GPU offering to joint compete with. Remember Intel and Nvidia won first Microsoft Xbox because they did in fact work with each other. Then Nvidia had a change in management and everything went down hill.
                    Well regarding Xbox this is a terrible example, NVidia's GPU was still discrete which is very different to NVidia making a general purpose CPU + GPU on the same die (with it being x86). One thing is working together, but another thing is allowing NVidia to make x86 chips. I don't think in any historic or alternate branch of history would intel give the x86 license for NVidia to make such chips. There is a reason why NVidia is going so hard at ARM.

                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                    AMD has been the way smarter company here. Nvidia own stubborn nature is coming back at them. Like it or not Nvidia stubborn nature has effectively burn out their bridges on the x86 platform. Attempting to bring x86 support to Nvidia ARM platform will most likely get Nvidia in legal trouble with Intel as well.

                    Reality here once we have AMD and Intel GPUs how much force will be on Nvidia.
                    I would argue this has very little about being stubborn or more about NVidia having their hand forced and not being able to do anything. As I said before, I don't see any way, whatsoever, how Intel would have gotten an X86 license apart from buying VIA and without that license, they literally cannot do jack. Claiming that AMD has an advantage here because they are "open" is completely missing the fact that they conveniently had an x86 license since the 70's (which was actually a relic of American military policy in that they wanted to make sure that the supply of CPU's was never constrained by a single company so they forced Intel give AMD a license) and back then NVidia didn't even exist.

                    Also AMD was only really open for the past 8 years I would say (before that they were only open as much as it was convenient for them to do so which was evident by the shit quality of their released drives).

                    This has nothing really to do with Wayland, as is seen Nvidia is willing to play ball in getting Wayland working because they have done just that. Its more to do with the fact that such a device really needs a combined CPU + APU (for efficiency reasons) and be x86 and I am sorry, but I cannot imagine in realistic alternate history how NVidia could have done that unless you think NVidia's competitors (i.e. Intel) giving NVidia the ability to compete on their own turf is a good business strategy. If the Steam deck would have allowed ARM, then sure you would have a point but then that completely kills the point of the steam deck. Any kind of business deal between Intel and NVidia was always on premise that NVidia did the GPU as a discrete graphics chip, anything else would make zero business sense for Intel.

                    Ontop of this we are of course missing the blatantly obvious in that NVidia is already in the handheld gaming market, its called the Switch and its ridiculously successful (as in the highest selling console ever successful). Clearly Wayland was close to an almost non factor in the grand scheme of things.

                    This yet again is another one of your "Its always Nvidia's faults" posts.
                    Last edited by mdedetrich; 25 July 2021, 12:02 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
                      Well regarding Xbox this is a terrible example, NVidia's GPU was still discrete which is very different to NVidia making a general purpose CPU + GPU on the same die (with it being x86). One thing is working together, but another thing is allowing NVidia to make x86 chips. I don't think in any historic or alternate branch of history would intel give the x86 license for NVidia to make such chips. There is a reason why NVidia is going so hard at ARM.
                      There is so much wrong in here this is because you have not looked at amd and intel have done..

                      Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
                      I would argue this has very little about being stubborn or more about NVidia having their hand forced and not being able to do anything. As I said before, I don't see any way, whatsoever, how Intel would have gotten an X86 license apart from buying VIA and without that license, they literally cannot do jack. Claiming that AMD has an advantage here because they are "open" is completely missing the fact that they conveniently had an x86 license since the 70's (which was actually a relic of American military policy in that they wanted to make sure that the supply of CPU's was never constrained by a single company so they forced Intel give AMD a license) and back then NVidia didn't even exist.
                      Yes this is a problem for Nvidia but its not a impossible problem amd and intel shows Nvidia the soluton.


                      Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
                      This has nothing really to do with Wayland, as is seen Nvidia is willing to play ball in getting Wayland working because they have done just that. Its more to do with the fact that such a device really needs a combined CPU + APU (for efficiency reasons) and be x86 and I am sorry, but I cannot imagine in realistic alternate history how NVidia could have done that unless you think NVidia's competitors (i.e. Intel) giving NVidia the ability to compete on their own turf is a good business strategy.
                      https://www.forbes.com/sites/marcoch...d-evaluations/
                      The reality here this Intel/AMD deal first offer from Intel was to Nvidia not AMD. So yes Intel would have let Nvidia in on this deal and intel staffer mentioned that in the question asked about the that hybrid. Yes it would have been two bits of silicon in one package. This is a "system in package solution' instead of just a stand alone discrete graphics chip.

                      Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
                      If the Steam deck would have allowed ARM, then sure you would have a point but then that completely kills the point of the steam deck.
                      The fact the steam deck was not going to be arm based was fairly much told to us by the Steam Machine and by the collection of games valve has to sell. Remember we are dealing Valve here. There is a lot of jokes made about Valve time. The reality here is Valve fairly much telegraphing there punches many times decades in advance. Yes decade before the Steam Machine valve was talking about making their own console.

                      Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
                      Any kind of business deal between Intel and NVidia was always on premise that NVidia did the GPU as a discrete graphics chip, anything else would make zero business sense for Intel.
                      This is false. Lets list AMD products. You have the CPU+APU then you have the SIP GPU (system in package) and then you have the discrete graphics chip and then you have the licensed to third parties like Samsung. So the reality here AMD has set themselves up here. Lets say Intel was still making faster CPUs than AMD could make. When the Valve deal come up AMD could have offered to make a joint chip with a AMD SIP GPU with a Intel SIP CPU.

                      SIP GPU is different normal as it uses the CPU MMU. Discrete graphics chip that Nvidia has always made has always had its own memory. Nvidia has never designed a GPU to suite a SIP solution where the GPU does not have its own MMU. SIP solution both companies get to keep their intellectual property. CPU+APU solution vs SIP CPU wit SIP GPU on power usage is down right close because you don't have two MMU so you don 't have two lots of ram to power and refresh.

                      The reality here is Nvidia has completely missed making a particular product.

                      Originally posted by mdedetrich View Post
                      Ontop of this we are of course missing the blatantly obvious in that NVidia is already in the handheld gaming market, its called the Switch and its ridiculously successful (as in the highest selling console ever successful). Clearly Wayland was close to an almost non factor in the grand scheme of things.
                      The reality here is Valve made it clear they would be making a console of some form in future. Valve also made it clear they wanted Wayland for scaling and other things. Valve also made it clear back with the failure of the steam machine power efficiency would be important. So here a future market valve telling the complete market what they want and you see AMD get ready doing the deal with Intel to cover their bases if they could not make a good enough GPU. Nvidia completely does not get ready yes part of getting ready for this was Wayland support. AMD had everything in order Intel offered Nvidia a chance to be competitive and Nvidia turned Intel down.

                      Sorry Nintendo DS family is the most sold not the switch. The reality here is Nintendo already had a pool of arm tested applications.

                      Yes I know that for Nvidia getting a x86 license and the full control of the solution that gives could be better but company has work the best they can with the hand they are handed. Nvidia is not doing this. Lack of a SIP GPU is a problem. This means nvidia cannot compete effective against AMD for particular markets.

                      Nvidia not providing SIP GPU has results in intel looking to make their own discrete graphics chip and SIP GPU. Please remember AMD and Intel stack-able silicon. Nothing says that a cpu package has to contain only 1 bit of silicon.

                      Lets say some other party wants to make a CPU that is risc-v with GPU in the package. AMD and Intel with their SIP GPU offerings can sell that party a GPU that will be power effective as bit of silicon to be added to the package. Where is Nvidia in this deal that right no where.

                      There is more ways to skin the integrated GPU problem other than demand access to the CPU IP as the GPU vendor.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X