Since the disastrous launch of the RTX 50 series, NVIDIA has been unable to escape negative headlines: scalper bots are snatching GPUs away from consumers before official sales even begin, power connectors continue to melt, with no fix in sight, marketing is becoming increasingly deceptive, GPUs are missing processing units when they leave the factory, and the drivers, for which NVIDIA has always been praised, are currently falling apart. And to top it all off, NVIDIA is becoming increasingly insistent that media push a certain narrative when reporting on their hardware.
No, I don’t remember that. What are you talking about?
Why would Nvidia make DLSS work on other brands hardware? It’s hardware dependant btw - it needs their cuda cores.
@FreedomAdvocate … this question is totally unimportant for the fact that their current behaivior is not very consumer friendly or harder expressed anti consumer.
Second cuda is not hardware dependend ;) https://github.com/vosen/ZLUDA/tree/master | https://www.xda-developers.com/nvidia-cuda-amd-zluda/
“Imagine a world where noone needed a brand specific addition to have modern features” … oh those ideas exist since centuries ( DX / OpenGL / Vulkan … ) … now ask yourself why nvidia always tries to operate outside of those api’s ?
…
That’s essentially an emulation layer. Nvidia make DLSS specifically for their GPUs, which have CUDA cores on them. It’s the reason why DLSS doesn’t work on their pre-CUDA core hardware.
Could they make DLSS work on AMDs hardware? Sure, they could - but it would not be DLSS as we know it, and again - why would they? They are allowed to make stuff exclusively for their hardware.
@FreedomAdvocate zuda is an reimplementation of an api not a emulation.
I said it’s essentially emulation, which it is. Its like WINE, which is also essentially emulation but isn’t emulation.
@FreedomAdvocate there is a reason why WINE = Wine is not (a) Emulator is used. So don’t call a api reimplementation a emulation specially since other api reimplementation have shown to be better than the original implementation from the hardware provider ( example dxvk on amd > the original amd dx implementation ) . But this gets us far from the original topics , my point was if nvidia wanted to have real competition they would have included all those new fance features into official api’s like for example DX or Vulkan or any other.
They didn’t … and while not directly against the consumer it is against the consumer end.
So i have brought up another point why i call nvidia anti consumer … neither you like it or not.
I’m not sure if English isn’t your first language, or if you’re just being wilfully obtuse, but I didn’t call it emulation. I said it is essentially emulation, like WINE. I know WINE isn’t emulation, which is why I said it is “essentially” emulation because it’s doing the same thing - converting calls from one set of APIs to work on other hardware/architecture. It’s not emulation, but it’s essentially the same thing.
Why would Nvidia want competition? AMD don’t want competition either, but they made FSR work on everything because they were so far behind Nvidia (and because it was all done in software, requiring no special hardware) that they have to give it away to try and catch up.
Companies making proprietary tech is not anti-consumer - unless of course you think that everything other than making everything free and open source is “anti-consumer”, which I am thinking you might?
@FreedomAdvocate This is my last answer.
Anti Consumer = working against the Consumer …
https://www.reuters.com/technology/nvidia-faces-us-doj-probe-over-complaints-rivals-information-reports-2024-08-02/
^^^ if you define NVidias Consumer as business
If you define NVidia Consumers as common people wanting a gamer gpu than you can keep believing that they try to do all those things to make you the cheapest and best offer and keep buying them.
I am not going to stop you! Since you don’t know me and you don’t know my experience and past with nvidia and seem not want to accept my standpoint -> i am not going to force it on you. But i want to ask you to refer from calling something “most stupid” just because you aren’t sharing the other opinion…
Ok cool, so you do think that having to pay for a GPU is “anti-consumer” and think that everything should be free.
We’re done here.
@FreedomAdvocate https://forums.tomshardware.com/threads/ati-cheating-on-benchmarks.877565/
read about that when they got grilled in the early 2000s
And how much nvidia influences media ->
https://www.heise.de/en/news/Nvidia-significantly-influences-early-tests-of-the-GeForce-RTX-5060-10388613.html
But nvidia got dragged across the coals for using frame-gen in their performance benchmarks too. Did you miss that?
Also ATI wasn’t owned by AMD then…AMD aquired ATI in 2006. Your link is from 2001.
Also no one should be listening to official GPU manufacturer benchmark results. No one. Review companies do their own benchmarking, and you do know that you can turn off DLSS and DLSS Frame-Gen, don’t you? I haven’t seen any reviewers only compare DLSS+Frame-Gen on an nvidia card to native-with-no-frame-gen on AMD cards. You must have, so can you link to any?
@FreedomAdvocate so you didn’t read the heise link which showed you that pre release tests had strict rules on how to test including framegen settings …
Nvidia can say what they want, but reviewers didn’t follow those.
Sounds like you need to find better GPU review sites.
@FreedomAdvocate what is more shady a reviewer who doesn’t follow nda’s or the company who makes nda’s … you can decide yourself i have made my decission and we have since then got far away from what it was… Is NVIDIA anti consumer … yes on multiple levels … you can disagree but i have enough resons to say so