AMD just scored a pretty big win with Apple. The higher-end Macbook Pros have Polaris GPUs in them.
http://techreport.com/news/30881/radeon-pro-s … in-macbook-pros

agent_x007 wrote:

@up
Both, the conservative rasterization, and rasterizer ordered views are Optional for DirectX 12 (FL12_0) : LINK, and that's what M$ says.

What does that matter?
AMD doesn't support them, while Intel and nVidia do.

Standard Def Steve wrote:

AMD just scored a pretty big win with Apple. The higher-end Macbook Pros have Polaris GPUs in them.
http://techreport.com/news/30881/radeon-pro-s … in-macbook-pros

Could be Apple scoring the win. Just like MS and Sony scoring a win with their consoles.
AMD is basically giving those chips away for free. Yes, it keeps their products on the market, but it doesn't bring in much profit. Which means R&D budgets have to be cut, which is why AMD is struggling harder and harder to keep up in the CPU and GPU markets.
nVidia said they didn't want the console deals at the prices AMD was offering. And nVidia was right. Their business has been doing fine without the consoles, while AMD has been struggling despite the console deals.
Perhaps nVidia also didn't want an Apple deal for the same reason.

Scali wrote:

What does that matter?
AMD doesn't support them, while Intel and nVidia do.

Well, AMD doesn't need to support them to have DX12 support (FL12_0).

agent_x007 wrote:

Well, AMD doesn't need to support them to have DX12 support (FL12_0).

Nobody claimed otherwise. Besides, I don't see how that's relevant.
They don't support these features, so there's various rendering techniques that cannot be implemented on their hardware. Whether you want to connect that to whatever graphics API or feature level doesn't make a difference. It's just missing from the hardware.
Gamers don't care about APIs or feature levels, they just care about their games running as fast and with as much eyecandy as possible.

Well, you claimed AMD Polaris has limited DirectX 12 support :

Scali wrote:

AMD does not have support for these features at all, and as such only has very limited DX12 support.

And I wanted to pointed out that it isn't limited, since those features aren't needed for it.
Feature Levels are important for devs (from both program and marketing point of view), because they determine what features are needed to have a "DirectX 12 support" sign on the box.
In case of DX 12, we can have games that utilise DX12 "FL11_x" (for older GPU's with limited support like Kepler), "FL12_0" ie. base spec, and "FL12_1" for extended/maximum functionality.

Both FL12_0 and FL12_1 mean full DirectX 12 support (detailed specs for both are listed in earlier link).
If ALL features listed by M$ were needed for DX12, they didn't add "Optional" for some of them in FL12_0 (and since that FL clearly has "12" in it's name, THAT is what DirectX 12 minimum feature set looks like - and AMD supports it).

Gamers don't care about APIs or feature levels, they just care about their games running as fast and with as much eyecandy as possible.

I 100% agree.
That's why there will be A LOT of them saying DX11 games are better than DirectX 12 games (at least for now).

agent_x007 wrote:

Well, you claimed AMD Polaris has limited DirectX 12 support

Which is true, since it does not support all feature levels of DX12, unlike nVidia's and Intel's hardware. Hence it only supports a limited set of DX12 featurelevels.
"Full" DX12 support doesn't mean anything. There's no such thing specified in the Microsoft links you like to throw around. You're just making that up.
I don't know why you even want to go down that line of argument. As I already said, it's all irrelevant. AMD just doesn't support the features, no matter how you try to phrase it.
Just give it up. I was part of the DX12 Early Access program, and helped develop the API as one of the graphics devs/companies that MS partners with. I'm pretty sure I have a better understanding of the API and its featurelevels than you do, so I would appreciate it if people stopped their arrogant tries to 'explain' it to me.

agent_x007 wrote:

That's why there will be A LOT of them saying DX11 games are better than DirectX 12 games (at least for now).

They are? I just said they don't care.
Besides, DX11 got an update in DX11.3, which also adds support for conservative rasterization and rasterizer ordered views.
Which obviously AMD still doesn't support, because as I said, it's simply not in the hardware, no matter what kind of API or featurelevel you want to relate it to.
(Tomb Raider's conservative rasterization implementation is actually using DX11.3 as well, not DX12).

@up OK.

Booyah!!! How about this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/advanced-micro- … E?.tsrc=applewf

snorg wrote:

Booyah!!! How about this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/advanced-micro- … E?.tsrc=applewf

Shareprices =/= profits. They are still steadily losing market share to Nvidia and Intel.
I dont have the links to back this up, but Ive read somewhere that Pascal cards are outselling Polaris 10 to 1 on Amazon.

Munx wrote:

snorg wrote:

Booyah!!! How about this: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/advanced-micro- … E?.tsrc=applewf

Shareprices =/= profits. They are still steadily losing market share to Nvidia and Intel.
I dont have the links to back this up, but Ive read somewhere that Pascal cards are outselling Polaris 10 to 1 on Amazon.

Yea, nVidia is reporting record figures at the moment, mainly from Pascal, but the deal with Nintendo is also working out nicely: http://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-anno … ter-fiscal-2017