←back to thread

1045 points mfiguiere | 9 comments | | HN request time: 2.368s | source | bottom
Show context
btown ◴[] No.39345221[source]
Why would this not be AMD’s top priority among priorities? Someone recently likened the situation to an Iron Age where NVIDIA owns all the iron. And this sounds like AMD knowing about a new source of ore and not even being willing to sink a single engineer’s salary into exploration.

My only guess is they have a parallel skunkworks working on the same thing, but in a way that they can keep it closed-source - that this was a hedge they think they no longer need, and they are missing the forest for the trees on the benefits of cross-pollination and open source ethos to their business.

replies(14): >>39345241 #>>39345302 #>>39345393 #>>39345400 #>>39345458 #>>39345853 #>>39345857 #>>39345893 #>>39346210 #>>39346792 #>>39346857 #>>39347433 #>>39347900 #>>39347927 #
1. alberth ◴[] No.39346210[source]
DirectX vs OpenGL.

This brings back memories of late 90s / early 00s of Microsoft pushing hard their proprietary graphic libraries (DirectX) vs open standards (OpenGL).

Fast forward 25-years and even today, Microsoft still dominates in PC gaming as a result.

There's a bad track record of open standard for GPUs.

Even Apple themselves gave up on OpenGL and has their own proprietary offering (Metal).

replies(4): >>39346518 #>>39346665 #>>39348821 #>>39348947 #
2. incrudible ◴[] No.39346518[source]
To add to that, Linux gaming today is dominated by a wrapper implementing DirectX.
replies(1): >>39346997 #
3. Keyframe ◴[] No.39346665[source]
Let's not forget the Fahrenheit maneuver by Microsoft that left SGI stranding and not forward OpenGL.
replies(1): >>39348960 #
4. Zardoz84 ◴[] No.39346997[source]
Vulkan running an emulation of DirectX and being faster
5. okanat ◴[] No.39348821[source]
OpenGL was invented at SGI and it was closed source until it was given away. It is very popular in its niche i.e. CAD design because the original closed source SGI APIs were very successful.

DirectX was targetted at gaming and was a much more limited simpler API which made programming games in it easier. It couldn't do everything that OpenGL can which is why CAD programs didn't use it even on Windows. DirectX worked because it chose its market correctly and delivered what the customers want. Window's exceptional backwards compatibility helped greatly as well. Many simple game engines still use DX9 API to this day.

It is not so much about having an open standard, but being able to provide extra functionality and performance. Unlike the CPU-dominated areas where executing the common baseline ISA is very competitive, in accelerated computing using every single bit of performance and having new and niche features matter. So providing exceptional hardware with good software is critical for the competition. Closed APIs have much more quick delivery time and they don't have to deal with multiple vendors.

Nobody except Nvidia delivers good enough low level software and their hardware is exceptionally good. AMD's combination is neither. The hardware is slower and it is hard to program so they continuously lose the race.

6. pjmlp ◴[] No.39348947[source]
Also to note, dispite urban myths, OpenGL never mattered on game consoles, which people keep forgeting about when praising OpenGL "portability".

Then there is the whole issue of extension spaghetti, and incompatibilities across OpenGL, OpenGL ES and WebGL, hardly possible to have portable code 1:1 everywhere, beyond toy examples.

replies(1): >>39349145 #
7. pjmlp ◴[] No.39348960[source]
Yeah, it never mattered to game consoles either way.
8. beebeepka ◴[] No.39349145[source]
I guess every recent not-xbox never mattered.
replies(1): >>39350807 #
9. pjmlp ◴[] No.39350807{3}[source]
Like Nintendo, SEGA and Sony ones?