Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

The Highly-Anticipated XCOM 2 Game For Linux Will Be NVIDIA-Only

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

  • Daktyl198
    replied
    Originally posted by Serafean View Post
    I understand this is said in jest, right?
    Of course. Being funny doesn't come across well on forums, I'm afraid :/

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by Serafean View Post
    I understand this is said in jest, right?

    bug77 : I get your point and your "it just works" stance, and I respect it. Just do one thing, please : look how it works on consoles... Pick up a game and play? Nope. If each vendor has his own variant of OpenGL, buying a game for PC would also require checking you have a compatible GPU (as is the basis of this thread).

    Edit : ad windows : yes, there Catalyst is a lot more complete, and AFAIK AMD has copied nvidia's hacks so it just works(tm)...
    If (and I say if, because I have no positive confirmation Nvidia's permissiveness is what causes all this friction) Nvidia is playing the non-compliance game, then it's more like IE back in the day. Except that AMD is not Netscape/Firefox/Opera just yet.

    Leave a comment:


  • Serafean
    replied
    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post

    Michael, I petition to give this guy the title "Official NVidia Fanboy"
    I understand this is said in jest, right?

    bug77 : I get your point and your "it just works" stance, and I respect it. Just do one thing, please : look how it works on consoles... Pick up a game and play? Nope. If each vendor has his own variant of OpenGL, buying a game for PC would also require checking you have a compatible GPU (as is the basis of this thread).

    Edit : ad windows : yes, there Catalyst is a lot more complete, and AFAIK AMD has copied nvidia's hacks so it just works(tm)...

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by Daktyl198 View Post

    Michael, I petition to give this guy the title "Official NVidia Fanboy"
    I don't know whether I'm a fanboy. Just a guy that has known for years that getting an Nvidia card means guaranteed support for any kernel, X server and performance in virtually any 3D application. I had no trouble recommending an R9 380 to a friend a few days ago, since Nvidia has left that segment largely unoccupied and my friend doesn't know Linux.

    Also, the problem isn't people testing only on Nvidia. There's no such problem on Windows. The problem here is that AMD has neglected Linux drivers for so long, they probably have 10% market share of the 1% desktop systems (systems that run Linux) and that is so low, people can't justify the costs of testing and eventually supporting AMD anymore.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daktyl198
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    Yeah, ok. You guys are doing everything just fine, but it must be a world-class conspiracy confining you to under 20% market share.
    Michael, I petition to give this guy the title "Official NVidia Fanboy"

    It's not a conspiracy, it's a combination of NVidia's (questionable, but brilliant) marketing and admittedly slower DX11 drivers on AMD's side. Most of these "AMD-only problems" didn't exist when ATI/AMD had a similar market share to NVidia, but once AMD's market share slipped under the 35% market share or so, barely anybody bothered testing on it more than cursory, since they didn't deem it worthy. THAT'S when NVidia's laxness in the standard finally showed through, forcing bugs to show up in standards-complient drivers like AMD or Intel, further forcing them down in market share since people thought they were buggy on the latest triple-A games.

    Now it's just a vicious circle of people only testing on NVidia leading to bugs in AMD leading to less people buying AMD leading to people only testing on NVidia and so on and so forth.

    Leave a comment:


  • Daktyl198
    replied
    Everybody seems to be blaming the Catalyst drivers, but as somebody pointed out the MESA drivers are at the same feature parity as OSX drivers, and faster to boot. This is where I'm confused, especially since Macs use AMD gpus now so... wtf Feral? Couldn't they have targeted the much less buggy MESA drivers instead of trying it once or twice on Catalyst and going "nope, doesn't work"?

    Leave a comment:


  • Cyber Killer
    replied
    This is bull! XCOM 1 is running better on my machine with Mesa drivers than with fglrx (it's running barely playable though - about 20-25fps, I got R7 250X), and here with the same engine they say they won't make it run on Radeons?

    Like a couple of people said - nvidia should get the boot for breaking the specs.

    Leave a comment:


  • bug77
    replied
    Originally posted by bridgman View Post

    The checking I am talking about dropping is the checking you referred to when you said "become more permissive". Whatever that was.

    If you want a video card that works then you shouldn't be talking about other driver vendors dropping checking. If any other vendor made free-for-all drivers then you would suddenly start seeing code developed on those drivers breaking on NVidia, since (all together now) "there is no standard for non-standard behavior.

    If all vendors are strict everything works. If one vendor has lax checking everything works for them but not for anyone else. If more than one vendor has lax checking then everything falls apart very quickly.
    Yeah, ok. You guys are doing everything just fine, but it must be a world-class conspiracy confining you to under 20% market share.

    Leave a comment:


  • SyXbiT
    replied
    I understand the reasons why, but it's a real pity that a game released in 2016 is running on an ancient version of the Unreal Engine.
    UE4 would have made porting much easier.

    Leave a comment:


  • hagda
    replied
    Originally posted by bug77 View Post

    If being strict incurs such overhead that developers would rather drop AMD and intel support altogether, yes, become more permissive. Cause it probably means there's something wrong with the standard.
    This is sending the wrong signal though, you're effectively penalyzing those who play by rules and follow the specs while rewarding parties like Nvidia who deliberately violates the official specs. If passing validation tests of a specification isn't enough to be compliant this hurts everyone involved, and risks making the specification irrelevant altogether.

    Moreover, being more permissive can also result in worse performance, as you may need more runtime checks to explicitly test for stuff you wouldn't need to test for if you only handle the defined parts of the specification. Could very well be that the parts where NVidia diverges from the spec give *their* hardware a benefit, but would cause performance problems for everyone else.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X