Nvidia: Are they losing the hardcore pc gaming battle?

  • 61 results
  • 1
  • 2
#51 Posted by clstirens (847 posts) -

@vackillers: Good points! I think I poorly worded my Subject, as it was really shorthand for "Is Nvidia allowing AMD too much leeway, and also focusing less on the hardcore pc market, such that they may lose their complete market dominance?" But not lose outright.

That being said, i can completely see a future where AMD's management basically fudges up the company DESPITE their deals with console makers, AND their extensive support from laptop manufacturers. All of this because of bad business practices and poor market decisions.

#52 Posted by Devildoll (876 posts) -

@vackillers: As far as i know, the xbox and playstation apu's will be siblings.
On top of that, AMD is putting these APU's in future computers, the cost of going on both teams wont be catastrophic, if anything, they are making sure their R&D money gets well spent, since it will be used in more appliances. basically pay for one, get all 3.

If one console bombs completely, then yeah, they might get a hit.

Of course Nvidia will say they didn't want in on the new consoles, what else are they going to say? that they couldnt match AMD's price, or offer a complete package?
They didn't get in, for whatever reason, theirs or otherwise.

It's going to take something insane for AMD to be able to compete with Intel for crowns again though.

#53 Posted by Snail (8574 posts) -

Battlefield 4 (aka, Frostbite in general) is AMD focused.

What does this mean exactly?

#54 Posted by Devildoll (876 posts) -

@snail said:
@clstirens said:

Battlefield 4 (aka, Frostbite in general) is AMD focused.

What does this mean exactly?

pretty much that those two companies have had tighter co-operation when developing a game.
I'm sure you've seen the AMD of Nvidia logos pop up when you boot up games. that's what the logos are supposed to mean.

#55 Posted by Snail (8574 posts) -

@snail said:
@clstirens said:

Battlefield 4 (aka, Frostbite in general) is AMD focused.

What does this mean exactly?

pretty much that those two companies have had tighter co-operation when developing a game.

I'm sure you've seen the AMD of Nvidia logos pop up when you boot up games. that's what the logos are supposed to mean.

No, alright, I get that. But what does that actually mean exactly, on a practical level? As far as I know, it could just be a marketing stunt, or mean little more than the fact that the game was mostly developed and tested on machines running AMD or Nvidia software.

I understand the benefits of stuff like PhysX integration, or CrossFireX/SLI optimization, and how it may make a game perform better on certain hardware. But really, what is meant by "AMD focused" or those splash screen logos?

#56 Posted by Devildoll (876 posts) -

@snail: im not sure what it means in detail either, the only thing i can come up with, that's concrete, is perhaps a game that wouldn't have had as advanced physics simulation if Nvidia hadn't helped them implement physx.

#57 Posted by clstirens (847 posts) -

@snail: @devildoll: It usually means dev test units are made with the advertised vendor's hardware. Dice has mentioned multiple times that they are primarily using AMD rigs for in house testing (not that they won't use Nvidia hardware in QA, that would be madness).

#58 Posted by Snail (8574 posts) -

@snail: @devildoll: It usually means dev test units are made with the advertised vendor's hardware. Dice has mentioned multiple times that they are primarily using AMD rigs for in house testing (not that they won't use Nvidia hardware in QA, that would be madness).

Are you sure about this? Not that I doubt you necessarily, but it would be cool if you could source it or tell us where you learned this.

So in most cases, it's mostly meaningless right? Borderlands 2's physics look a lot better with PhysX, but that sort of case seems to be an exception.

#59 Edited by Devildoll (876 posts) -

@snail: I know DICE showed of BF3 at GDC on one or multiple 580's, same for E3 that year, but for BF4, they supposedly used one or two HD 7990's

#60 Posted by p00rdevil (158 posts) -

@karkarov: Technically you get more bang for your buck with ATI cards, but Nvidia is just more reliable.

This has been my experience as well. The last ATI / AMD card I had was the HD 4850. In some applications it was great, in others it was awful. I was playing Age of Conan and under the 4850 I was getting textures issues like blurry or not loading properly. Also I was playing Gothic 2 off Steam and it would not run at an acceptable frame rate at all. Ancient game and the 4850 couldn't handle it? WTF is up with that? Then it came time to upgrade and I decided to go with Nvidia. Both those issues vanished and I have never had any thing like that happen with any game since switching to Nvidia. It will take a lot to persuade me to go back to AMD video cards.

#61 Edited by ajamafalous (11793 posts) -

The 360 has an ATI GPU if I'm not mistaken, so I don't really understand how AMD being in both next-gen consoles is doom and gloom for nVidia.

#62 Edited by Colourful_Hippie (4328 posts) -

@snail said:
@clstirens said:

Battlefield 4 (aka, Frostbite in general) is AMD focused.

What does this mean exactly?

pretty much that those two companies have had tighter co-operation when developing a game.

I'm sure you've seen the AMD of Nvidia logos pop up when you boot up games. that's what the logos are supposed to mean.

Oh, well in that case that means absolutely nothing then in terms of differences of performance between hardware. .

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.