Radeon R9 380X Based on "Grenada," a Refined "Hawaii"

[AsRock]

Insane?
Totally changes the game?

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/articles/borderlands-2-physx

Ermmm you mean some extra particles that bounce away when you shoot something or some particle made water flowing somewhere?
Because that does not change the game in any way shape or form.
Its exactly the same gimmicky nonsense that physX does in Warframe.
Hell in that article they do not refer to the physX as "effects" for nothing, thats all it adds, some effects.

It adds nothing but some orbs flying around, while it could be the entire basis for how things are build up and react (ya know... Physics) like those tech demo's they show of it.

The fact that you can turn it off is pretty much the dead give away that it infact does not "totally change the game" because a game that is based around those physX would not work without it.
You cannot turn havok off in for example HL2, because the game does not function anymore if that would be the case.

Basically dumbed down what could be done without PhysX hardware and made the extra which is not really NV PhysX. Lets face it it's nothing in that vid that a CPU could not handle, never mind the game being cartoon like it seen much better in other games and even Arma 3 has better shit than that.

Shit GTA 4 has better Physics than that game and that ran on a good system today runs really well.

 

[arbiter]

All vendor implementations of all standards are proprietary by that definition. Way to completely invalidate your own argument!

No, you are trying to twist things to fit your own logic. AMD took what was standard and used it in their own way that is LOCKED to their hardware and software. It can't be used by Nvidia that is what makes it proprietary. What you are tring to claim is HDMI 2.0 on gtx900 cards is proprietary and AMD can't use HDMI 2.0, that is your ass-backwards logic.

Basically dumbed down what could be done without PhysX hardware and made the extra which is not really NV PhysX. Lets face it it's nothing in that vid that a CPU could not handle, never mind the game being cartoon like it seen much better in other games and even Arma 3 has better shit than that.

Um cpu could handle it? Try using same setting and set the phyx to cpu and see how well the game runs then.

 

[AsRock]

No, you are trying to twist things to fit your own logic. AMD took what was standard and used it in their own way that is LOCKED to their hardware and software. It can't be used by Nvidia that is what makes it proprietary. What you are tring to claim is HDMI 2.0 on gtx900 cards is proprietary and AMD can't use HDMI 2.0, that is your ass-backwards logic.



Um cpu could handle it? Try using same setting and set the phyx to cpu and see how well the game runs then.

It would need to be optimized for CPU which i bet not much was done. Other company's can do it so they could if they really wanted too, same ol BS over again to try to make it look better than it actually is.

BL2 is BS anyways 1/2 made frigging game from lazy asses. They just got lucky as they were out of time with the 1st one and people liked it so they pushed more 1/2 done bs and not make what they intended to make in the 1st time.

 

[petteyg359]

No, you are trying to twist things to fit your own logic. AMD took what was standard and used it in their own way that is LOCKED to their hardware and software. It can't be used by Nvidia that is what makes it proprietary. What you are tring to claim is HDMI 2.0 on gtx900 cards is proprietary and AMD can't use HDMI 2.0, that is your ass-backwards logic.

No, they took a standard, and branded their implementation of it. No duh the "FreeSync" is locked to their hardware. It's a brand name. You're complaining that Asus can't go around selling screens with "Dell UltraSharp" labels. If nVidia chooses to support Adaptive-Sync for G-Sync instead of their ACTUALLY-PROPRIETARY-WITH-ALL-THE-NEGATIVE-CONNOTATIONS-BECAUSE-IT-ISN'T-STANDARDIZED custom hardware, there's no reason a monitor couldn't be both "FreeSync certified" and "G-Sync certified" at the same time.

There's "ass-backwards logic" in here, but it ain't in my posts.

 

[Aquinus]

No, they took a standard, and branded their implementation of it.

Actually, it's because they really don't have HDMI 2.0 but rather 1.4a with some modifications to support 2.0-like features. Get your terms right.

No duh the "FreeSync" is locked to their hardware. It's a brand name. You're complaining that Asus can't go around selling screens with "Dell UltraSharp" labels.

One is a technology, the other is branding. There is a big difference.

Lets clarify one thing here because I think people don't know definitions:

All vendor implementations of all standards are proprietary by that definition. Way to completely invalidate your own argument!

Lets take a quote:

Proprietary software is software that is owned by an individual or a company (usually the one that developed it). There are almost always major restrictions on its use, and its source code is almost always kept secret.

That does not make the fact a company developed it turn it into a proprietary software. It's proprietary because it's not open which imposes restrictions. Something is proprietary usually by how much of it you're willing to share. There is no such thing as open source proprietary software, which is what you would get if a company wrote open software by your definition.

For someone with only 7 posts, you've dug yourself a nice little hole for yourself rather quickly on a seemingly stupid topic (the definition of "proprietary").

there's no reason a monitor couldn't be both "FreeSync certified" and "G-Sync certified" at the same time.

I will agree with this statement unless there are specific rules for either that forbid having both at once.

With that all said, it's entirely possible to have both a proprietary and open source versions of an implemented specification, but doing it doesn't make it proprietary de-facto.

 

[petteyg359]

Lets take a quote:

That does not make the fact a company developed it turn it into a proprietary software. It's proprietary because it's not open which imposes restrictions. Something is proprietary usually by how much of it you're willing to share. There is no such thing as open source proprietary software, which is what you would get if a company wrote open software by your definition.

I like how you stripped the context there so you could claim I said the opposite of what I said.

 

[bencrutz]

on every amd threads @ TPU? good god