Talk:GPUOpen

The 'Rationale' section of the article has almost no citations, and feels quite biased. The rest of the article seems fine in this regard. Examples of what I mean:

"AMD's GCN-based hardware could be called more advanced then the competition's hardware"

"Nvidia work-around for this lack of hardware support is slow."

"AMD's TeraScale-based Direct3D 10-capable GPUs, had already hardware blocks doing some sort of tessellation, predating Direct3D 11 with about 2 years! Sadly this did no became industry standard and therefore wide-spread, and therefore gave AMD not advantage what-so-ever."

"For unknown reasons, only very few game developers actually shipped products supporting Mantle."

"With many developers and GPU manufacturers being unable to properly view and optimize their products for GameWorks, game and software performance for consumers that use non-Nvidia GPUs suffers."

Honestly I don't think the section belongs on Wikipedia at all. Speculating the rationale behind something is a matter that should be left to blog posts and other publifications. I suppose the section could be renamed to History and use reliable sources and it'd be alright, but as it currently stands it shouldn't be in the article.

I'm putting the OR and NPOV tags on it for now, as it feels quite guilty of both to me. Please improve the section, and call me out on the talk page if you disagree with this. Turdas (talk) 03:05, 1 February 2016 (UTC)Reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GPUOpen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305020432/http://gpuopen.com/welcometogpuopen/ to http://gpuopen.com/welcometogpuopen/
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://github.com/amdadvtech/FireRenderSDK

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:55, 6 January 2017 (UTC)Reply

This library did exist at one point, I swear! But now it's no longer listed on the GPU Open website. I'm trying to track down what the story is here... but I guess the article is now incorrect by listing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.206.138.51 (talk) 23:18, 15 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

The article should mention that GPUOpen facilitates compatibility of AMD GPUs with a lot of things that are still said to be NVIDIA-only, such as CUDA, Torch, PyTorch, and TensorFlow. There may be a small time penalty due to porting/translation into AMD-compatible code, but it's still way faster than any CPU-based solutions. --2003:EF:170D:4588:892A:CA15:5B84:A6C0 (talk) 08:41, 11 August 2022 (UTC)Reply

Adding FSR 3 & could use help with references —danhash (talk) 15:40, 6 September 2023 (UTC)Reply