OP
OP
PP Mguire
Build Guru
- Messages
- 32,592
- Location
- Fort Worth, Texas
Yes it is. Certain games use only partially what it's capable of and most people don't give a **** about it. Especially AMD guys. I'm sorry, but extra unrealistic particles flying out of a wall, ridiculous over foggy environments, and flappy sheets in the wind is crap to me. There's a bit more, but that's the gist of what is being used out of PhysX today by these titles. It's properly ****.
Because everybody has the problems that G-sync fixes. Image tearing, stutter, input lag, are all problems revolving around refresh and the use or lack of any type of Vsync. Any person using either AMD or Nvidia cards (even IGPs) can benefit from this technology. Not to mention all the extra stuff that Carmack and Tim explain. Your last question is basically exactly why I made this thread to begin with. The ignorance about what G-Sync really is and does is astounding. It's not a new Vsync, it basically eliminates it completely, as well as stuttering, image tearing, and input lag associated with it and low refresh.
Their financial analysts only want to make money, but having a flop on their hands is a complete loss of R&D, whether it brings in a small amount of cash initially or not. You don't have to listen to me, it's simply financing and marketing. What makes more sense in the PC market? Making your tech only for you in a market full of AMD or Nvidia while you make a small amount from people who adapt the tech. Or make money from those same people, while also making money from your competitor from licensing, AND the people they sell product to? Seriously, it's literally that simple. Corporate politics keeps it from being that simple though. Why make sense, when we can just keep it to ourselves? You said it yourself.
But you missed the original point entirely on that. I couldn't care less if they are greedy. It's a simple case of, if it flops we as enthusiasts and consumers lose on a piece of tech that could have changed the game because of corporate politics. It pretty much happens with ALL proprietary tech revolving around GPUs and their manufacturers. AMD guys couldn't care less if it gave them 100fps more, or a nice blow job. If it has Nvidia on it, they won't give a **** what it does, they will not buy it. Don't believe me? Go visit TPU, a forum made up of almost entirely all AMD fanboys. Aimlessly bashing the tech because it's Nvidia before even knowing exactly what it does, because they don't care. Think one forum isn't enough? Go on Youtube and read the comments on almost any video about this tech or the Nvidia press conference. Ignorance flying everywhere about it, but AMD people don't want to sit down and understand it because it isn't AMD. Much like how all Nvidia people don't care about Mantle, because it's AMD. Sad really.
That's where my point comes from about proprietary tech. You make it proprietary in a market split down the middle and it'll basically flop because enthusiasts, gamers, whoever as a whole won't adapt it. I'd say one of the only widespread techs that made it is DirectX, but only because they shined in an area where OpenGL was buggy as hell and Glide went down the tube during 3DFX's downfall. Anything beyond this is rather irrelevant to my original point though.
Because everybody has the problems that G-sync fixes. Image tearing, stutter, input lag, are all problems revolving around refresh and the use or lack of any type of Vsync. Any person using either AMD or Nvidia cards (even IGPs) can benefit from this technology. Not to mention all the extra stuff that Carmack and Tim explain. Your last question is basically exactly why I made this thread to begin with. The ignorance about what G-Sync really is and does is astounding. It's not a new Vsync, it basically eliminates it completely, as well as stuttering, image tearing, and input lag associated with it and low refresh.
Their financial analysts only want to make money, but having a flop on their hands is a complete loss of R&D, whether it brings in a small amount of cash initially or not. You don't have to listen to me, it's simply financing and marketing. What makes more sense in the PC market? Making your tech only for you in a market full of AMD or Nvidia while you make a small amount from people who adapt the tech. Or make money from those same people, while also making money from your competitor from licensing, AND the people they sell product to? Seriously, it's literally that simple. Corporate politics keeps it from being that simple though. Why make sense, when we can just keep it to ourselves? You said it yourself.
But you missed the original point entirely on that. I couldn't care less if they are greedy. It's a simple case of, if it flops we as enthusiasts and consumers lose on a piece of tech that could have changed the game because of corporate politics. It pretty much happens with ALL proprietary tech revolving around GPUs and their manufacturers. AMD guys couldn't care less if it gave them 100fps more, or a nice blow job. If it has Nvidia on it, they won't give a **** what it does, they will not buy it. Don't believe me? Go visit TPU, a forum made up of almost entirely all AMD fanboys. Aimlessly bashing the tech because it's Nvidia before even knowing exactly what it does, because they don't care. Think one forum isn't enough? Go on Youtube and read the comments on almost any video about this tech or the Nvidia press conference. Ignorance flying everywhere about it, but AMD people don't want to sit down and understand it because it isn't AMD. Much like how all Nvidia people don't care about Mantle, because it's AMD. Sad really.
That's where my point comes from about proprietary tech. You make it proprietary in a market split down the middle and it'll basically flop because enthusiasts, gamers, whoever as a whole won't adapt it. I'd say one of the only widespread techs that made it is DirectX, but only because they shined in an area where OpenGL was buggy as hell and Glide went down the tube during 3DFX's downfall. Anything beyond this is rather irrelevant to my original point though.
