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.
  • Glog78@digitalcourage.social
    0·
    25 days ago

    @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 ?

    …

    • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auEnglish
      1·
      25 days ago

      Second cuda is not hardware dependend

      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@lemmy.net.auEnglish
          1·
          24 days ago

          I said it’s essentially emulation, which it is. Its like WINE, which is also essentially emulation but isn’t emulation.

          • Glog78@digitalcourage.social
            01·
            24 days ago

            @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.

            • FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.auEnglish
              1·
              24 days ago

              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?