Quoting: Whitewolfe80MMM makes sense from intel point of view they are never going to take nvidia place from windows desktop gaming but on linux its much easier task especially if they hit the ground with as good or better performance in gaming.

Oh, it most certainly does. But the thing is...they claimed this once before.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Stebs

Quoting: svartalfJust another reason to **NOT** use proprietary stuff, really.

Yeah, but ROCm (at least parts of it) is about to be open-sourced/intergrated in the open-source driver. I still have the little hope that during/after this, the strict PCIe 3.0 limitation is going away, don't want to be stuck forever on OpenCL 1.1 via deprecated clover.

Ah, so Oculus is about to make Linux support (they DID promise that, mind...) and apparently Stainless reneged on their deal with Carmageddon.

You cannot go off of promises...only delivered. Until they do and it shows that it's portable instead of being tightly tied to Radeons...you really should not buy into that, based on years of professional experience.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: drlambI hope you're just a troll as reading isn't that hard:

Not only am I not a troll, some of what I'd read showed DIFFERENT. If you've got differing info, it's **BETTER** to correct someone with it than to take the *sshole position you took. We won't get into the fact that even if you're "right", jack*ss, their position is STILL invalid. THQ Nordic's got the sole rights- not buying it because of Stainless Games' affairs is an idiot move worthy of the dressing down they got. YOU, on the other hand...

We’ll be committing to supporting Mac and Linux, and you’ll be able to select a version to download at the same $15 and above price. And, like the DRM free version, the shipping date for these versions will be further out, towards the end of 2013.

Fair enough. The real problem here is Stainless is NO LONGER INVOLVED WITH IT. THQ bought it. They'll be publishing, extending it, and carrying any franchise titles from it themselves. Sorry, still bull to whine and whinge about it as you put it, "reading isn't that hard"- and THEY AND YOU DIDN'T BOTHER MORESO THAN I.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestPolaris cards cannot use PCIE 2 with ROCm yet. They rely on PCIE atomics. I believe they will in the future, VEGA cards can, and also pre-Tonga cards can too... So be patient

In the mean time, just use the closed source OpenCL component by AMD, from the amdgpu-pro package. That is what i have been using.

Useful tidbits for all. I've been a smidge out of the loop on some aspects of things being that I've spent the last two years doing signal intelligence systems.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestToo many things to track for compute stuff, and I don't have a use case for it to learn from. Particles with compute in Vulkan is my current focus (because in my rare free time, I'm learning Vulkan). But I kept OpenCL around on Mesa until it wanted to pull in ruby and every damned library in existence....just to eselect I think. So I scrapped it out (meh, wasn't using it anyway).

Geez. They did that? Idiots.

As for use cases...I'll be learning from a DX12 based use case shortly with the intent on providing a Vulkan backend on the whole thing, rendering and compute. Working codebase that I'm to do that work and more against. Can't say much more there, sadly.

Thing is? I'm not likely to need PhysX- not for the work in question.

Having said this? I'm going to need something like Bullet or PhysX on other projects eventually... I'm open to Beer Investment... X-D

None of my hardware will run ROCm. Don't know how many years it's been since I've been wanting a new rig, but some expense always gets in the way.

None of mine support it either because it's AMD-only. Not interested in anything proprietary. CUDA doesn't interest. ROCm doesn't either. To me they're just about as craptacular as Apple's Metal, to be honest with you.

But anyway. The code as it is from PhysX still appears to use CUDA. So unusable for GPU accel as far as non-nvidia users go - but I'm still tempted by the CPU side of things.

For now, yes. Later on, now that it's fully BSD'ed, it will likely morph into something much more usable for everyone. There's a class of work involved, even with OpenCL that Bullet hasn't done (yet!) that PhysX has, at least in terms of CUDA, which can be ported moderately easily...

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: toorI backed this on kickstarter back then because of that promise.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. They won't see my money, THQ Nordic or not.

Excuse me. I feel that I should add my own two cents directly here, having read your comment and decided to expand upon yours and Luke Nukem's comments on this subject.

Kickstarter, etc. are not buying things, to be brutally blunt here- when you contribute, you are investing into the making of a title, much like a Studio going to a Publisher for the last-half steps or closer finishing to a title. It depends solely on what they promise to give out if funding goals are met from the investors, namely the prospective initial core customers for the title.

If I were to be Kickstarting a title or two, I'd not be playing that game- the core game would be explicitly offered as all three. But Stainless didn't offer that, now DID they? They offered Linux support as a stretch goal- which means if you funded on that, you'd have best made sure they were going to make it before investing.

Investors are mostly on their own recognizance unless there's actual fraud involved with the deal.

I'll be honest here... The both of you should actually back up and do a bit of soul-searching there. You aren't owed jack there. Never were. It's not like Oculus when they had been actually promising the support and walked it back in a manner that they couldn't be charged with Fraud or have people legitimately bitching...well, not initially. They were up-front with you and you flatly misunderstood. They promised it if the funding hit or exceeded the $600k funding mark- and ONLY when it did.

Not their problem, now is it? YOURS. Next time...perhaps you'll slow down a bit and find out what the story's going to be before blithely presuming you're backing a Linux version without realizing that, no, you're not. You two DIDN'T and you've little room to complain.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: DoctorJunglist

Quoting: toorI backed this on kickstarter back then because of that promise.
Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. They won't see my money, THQ Nordic or not.

They wouldn't see your money, even if you did buy it this time around. THQ Nordic would.

THQ Nordic just bought the IP, not the studios. The studio that made the game won't see a dime from this purchase.

So really, you're boycotting THQ Nordic - which had nothing to do with the kickstarter project you backed.

Couldn't have put it any better. I put it differently, but this describes my take WELL here on this subject.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Luke_Nukem:><::'(:D^_^:O:S::woot:

I'm just running the full gamut of emotions right now. I've never been pissed off at a developer team before as much as I have Stainless and their troll employees.

Well, they didn't GET the stretch goal, did they? Since it wasn't met, they didn't have to commit to making anything, did they?

Any of our community that went presuming that since they offered as a stretch goal that we'd get it eventually and acted accordingly got PRECISELY what they had coming from Stainless, unfortunately.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestWell Duke Nukem Forever was actually released. So anything is possible really.

It wasn't released...it ESCAPED...that's the only explanation for how atrocious the damn thing was... X-D

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Stebs

Quoting: svartalfUhm... WHAT? The only real differences there is overall speed of the CPU and the Intel GPU (which isn't getting used...or, rather, I hope not..). There's no architectural or ISA differences that should matter or prevent it from being usable on that CPU.

The difference is: Sandy Bridge (I think my mainboard too) is only PCIe 2.0, ROCm is PCIe 3.0+ only....

That's patently stupid. There's really not much of a bandwidth change as far as most cards are concerned and it's just that- a small bandwidth difference as far as the application should be concerned.

Just another reason to **NOT** use proprietary stuff, really.

View this comment - View article - View full comments