Does GameWorks influences AMD's Cards game performance?

[Erenhardt]

The podcast from last year where nVidia accoused AMD that Eidos wasnt allowed by contract to support nVidia with the release version of the game prior the launch.

Nv has release candidate version of the game. It didn't had Treesfx in it, but they got that aswell eventually. They could optimize everything. They didn't get much time to work with treesfx, but they did get the source code.

Not even remotely close to Gameworks closed libraries with the contract that forbids any optimizations for amd hardware to be done.

 

[3DVagabond]

Nv has release candidate version of the game. It didn't had Treesfx in it, but they got that aswell eventually. They could optimize everything. They didn't get much time to work with treesfx, but they did get the source code.

Not even remotely close to Gameworks closed libraries with the contract that forbids any optimizations for amd hardware to be done.

That was one game from years ago. It was also the first game that had TressFX. I would doubt that AMD had finished code much before that launch of the game. In the end, it's an outlier. It doesn't show any kind of pattern of AMD trying to lock nVidia out of optimizing of GE games. If that's all sontin has it's a pretty week case.

 

[Dribble]

Been through this before. Show me a AMD game with Mantle that ran poorly on NV GPU.

My point was AMD introduced something completely AMD only - mantle doesn't run at all on nvidia hardware. Nvidia are just using DX11, which does run on AMD hardware. Imagine for a second if nvidia had done mantle instead of AMD. Chances are it would have been done much better, and we would have had nvidia mantle works which are truly nvidia only - no render path at all for AMD. Meaning you got extra features that really only ran on nvidia (like physx), only nvidia didn't, they stuck too DX11.

If AMD had done less failing then that would have been mantle's future - mantle specific stuff that isn't in the DX11 path and uses *features* available just in AMD gpu's and I bet the AMD powered consoles. That would have sold AMD cards. AMD didn't do this not because they are really nice open source people, but because they weren't able too. So before crucifying nvidia for being evil by making it hard on AMD reflect that AMD's solution (mantle) is in fact more evil.

That was one game from years ago. It was also the first game that had TressFX. I would doubt that AMD had finished code much before that launch of the game. In the end, it's an outlier. It doesn't show any kind of pattern of AMD trying to lock nVidia out of optimizing of GE games. If that's all sontin has it's a pretty week case.

TressFX is AMD's games works, and in the same way as nvidia features it ran better on AMD because it was optimised for AMD. The fact that it's a one off just shows AMD hasn't got the devs to do this properly and really have a games works competitor. It reminds me very much of 3d where nvidia was dominating so AMD did one AMD 3d game (deux ex) to show they loved 3d as well and that was it. They eventually completely gave up on 3d, unlike nvidia who really supported it and still do. See previous post about AMD's lack of money meaning lack of devs meaning they can't compete, this is the harsh capitalist fact of it.

 

[Silverforce11]

@Dribble
I dont think you understand the concept if you compare TressFX as GameWorks. Let me make it simple for you.

One feature is open source, freely available for devs to pour through the code and optimize it for any hardware compatible with DX11, including NV's GPUs.

The other is close source, obfuscated, developers cannot optimize it for AMD.

Pretty simple really, surprising so many of you (well, ~16% of you heh) don't understand the difference.

 

[AtenRa]

If AMD had done less failing then that would have been mantle's future - mantle specific stuff that isn't in the DX11 path and uses *features* available just in AMD gpu's and I bet the AMD powered consoles. That would have sold AMD cards. AMD didn't do this not because they are really nice open source people, but because they weren't able too. So before crucifying nvidia for being evil by making it hard on AMD reflect that AMD's solution (mantle) is in fact more evil.

That is against AMDs mentality and the way the company works and operates. They will never do such a think not because they are not able but because it is against the way the company operates.

on the topic,

I still remember the time that NVIDIA was cheating with low Image Quality through drivers (remember Aquamark ???).
They both (ATI and NVIDIA) came to an agreement to stop those practices and keep image quality standards high. I hope they will both seat in the same table now and sort this think with GE and GW with new standards that will benefit everyone especially the PC Gaming community.

 

[Silverforce11]

So, that is your only argument? Certain games run better on AMD hardware?!
Call of Duty isnt a Gameworks game and runs better on nVidia hardware. Or Total War: Atilla.

What is with Evolve and Modor? Both are Gameworks games and both run equal or better on AMD cards.

Maybe it isnt just the developer.

I said the developers are always the ones responsible, ultimately. It's their choice which vendor they optimize for and how. I posted a link to show what happens when devs do not optimize for NV, the game runs badly for NV GPUs.

Evolve & SoM are NV GameWorks titles?? Better double check that.

Edit: Devs have to bare the brunt of the responsibilities because they are the ones writing the code, designing the game and choosing or not to use closed-source GameWorks, when they do choose to use it, they leave part of the game development in NV's hands. That turns out badly for AMD in every GW title thus far.

 

[Headfoot]

So says you. Show me one GE title that nVidia doesn't have access to the entire code base for every aspect of the game. You say "many many". One shouldn't be too hard to find for you then.

Way too reasonable of a request. The modus operandi here is drive-by-monologue without any hint of productive discussion

 

[Silverforce11]

Way too reasonable of a request. The modus operandi here is drive-by-monologue without any hint of productive discussion

I'm still waiting for their example of Mantle games that cripple NV GPUs...

 

[Spanners]

My point was AMD introduced something completely AMD only - mantle doesn't run at all on nvidia hardware. Nvidia are just using DX11, which does run on AMD hardware. Imagine for a second if nvidia had done mantle instead of AMD. Chances are it would have been done much better, and we would have had nvidia mantle works which are truly nvidia only - no render path at all for AMD. Meaning you got extra features that really only ran on nvidia (like physx), only nvidia didn't, they stuck too DX11.

If AMD had done less failing then that would have been mantle's future - mantle specific stuff that isn't in the DX11 path and uses *features* available just in AMD gpu's and I bet the AMD powered consoles. That would have sold AMD cards. AMD didn't do this not because they are really nice open source people, but because they weren't able too. So before crucifying nvidia for being evil by making it hard on AMD reflect that AMD's solution (mantle) is in fact more evil.

Some real logical gymnastics going on here. Mantle was/is an alternative API not black box proprietary middle-ware so to begin with they aren't directly comparable. Games with the Mantle alternative codepath in no way to my knowledge sabotage/obfuscate Nvidia's DX11 optimisation which is the contention here with Gameworks.

You seem to be saying that if Nvidia had been behind their own version of Mantle then there would have been more proprietary features but AMD were unable to implement that, but you know they wanted to? Therefore Mantle is potentially more "evil" than Gameworks because it could create even greater division in the market if only AMD was as competent as Nvidia? My head is spinning just typing that.

Besides the fact that invoking Tu quoque wouldn't make anything Nvidia is doing (allegedly) any less underhanded you seem to be just speculating about what AMD might have done given some hypothetical scenario which never existed.

 

[SirPauly]

I hope they will both seat in the same table now and sort this think with GE and GW with new standards that will benefit everyone especially the PC Gaming community.

It's admirable to think this way but these are corporations that have to answer to shareholders, create revenue, profits and strong margins to continue to innovate. The idea is to create a strong brand, innovate, differentiate and to create an ecosystem that the market may embrace.

 

[Headfoot]

Some real logical gymnastics going on here. Mantle was/is an alternative API not black box proprietary middle-ware so to begin with they aren't directly comparable. Games with the Mantle alternative codepath in no way to my knowledge sabotage/obfuscate Nvidia's DX11 optimisation which is the contention here with Gameworks.

You seem to be saying that if Nvidia had been behind their own version of Mantle then there would have been more proprietary features but AMD were unable to implement that, but you know they wanted to? Therefore Mantle is potentially more "evil" than Gameworks because it could create even greater division in the market if only AMD was as competent as Nvidia? My head is spinning just typing that.

Besides the fact that invoking Tu quoque wouldn't make anything Nvidia is doing (allegedly) any less underhanded you seem to be just speculating about what AMD might have done given some hypothetical scenario which never existed.

Despite there being a blatant tu quoque fallacy as one of the provided answers to the poll, only 5 posters fell for it. Which I've found immensely surprising given the otherwise rampant and shameless use of logical fallacies in "debate" here

 

[SirPauly]

That turns out badly for AMD in every GW title thus far.

Gameworks isn't ideal but they are some neat effects that enhance.

Instead of complaining about it, ask AMD to invest more to compete with it and simply open it up completely. This blaming and trying to point fingers, cast dark shadows, this one's at fault becomes circular.

They're competitors and pretty tough to receive idealism for all.

 

[AtenRa]

It's admirable to think this way but these are corporations that have to answer to shareholders, create revenue, profits and strong margins to continue to innovate. The idea is to create a strong brand, innovate, differentiate and to create an ecosystem that the market may embrace.

Well they did exactly that 12 years ago. They had all those things you mention back in 2003 but they actually agreed to keep high quality image standards in games through their drivers and hardware.

That benefited all parties.

 

[Silverforce11]

How are they gonna open it up? It's up to NV to make it closed or open. :/

 

[SirPauly]

Well they did exactly that 12 years ago. They had all those things you mention back in 2003 but they actually agreed to keep high quality image standards in games through their drivers and hardware.

That benefited all parties.

Not really though, there were still aggressive filtering optimizations 'till hardware could actually offer quality with efficiency.

How are they gonna open it up? It's up to NV to make it closed or open. :/

AMD could offer their own middlewares and features to combat nVidia's.

 

[caswow]

what does gw bring to us pc gamers that was never seen before? hbao? tess? anti aliasing? fire "physics"? or wouldnt there no hbao, tess or some kind of "physics" without nvidias gw? there was never anything worthwhile in pc game graphics before nvidia introduced gw?

 

[SirPauly]

Mantle was/is an alternative API not black box proprietary middle-ware so to begin with they aren't directly comparable. Games with the Mantle alternative codepath in no way to my knowledge sabotage/obfuscate Nvidia's DX11 optimisation which is the contention here with Gameworks.

Mantle was more-so a proprietary, closed API that was engineered to give AMD a competitive advantage and to create awareness. There was nothing wrong here, since it was AMD's work and investment.

 

[Kenmitch]

AMD could offer their own middlewares and features to combat nVidia's.

AMD's more into the industry standards approach it looks like. In the long run it's the best option most likely for them.

On any given day it's most likely safe to say more people gamed on AMD hardware....Think consoles

It's the only reason consoles don't count as gamers. There wanna be gamers. Real gamers are only PC gamers....Sounds funny to me!

Maybe the 1st thing a person should see when the consoles boot is Powered by AMD.

 

[AnandThenMan]

AMD could offer their own middlewares and features to combat nVidia's.

This is exactly what PC gaming needs, more middleware from AMD/Nvidia so they can fight each other tooth and nail wasting resources in the process. PC games tend to be buggy as it is, much more so in GW titles from what I've seen.

At this point I really hope Intel buys AMD and smacks Nvidia down they are out of control with their proprietary BS.

 

[5150Joker]

Where have AMD been seen crying about Gameworks? You say it twice, are you sure you're not conflating stuff people here have said here and stuff AMD has said? I don't recall AMD making any comments let alone "crying".

Can't disagree with better dev relations being a positive thing I suppose they have less resources and influence in that regard though, welcome to capitalism and all that.

I've owned around double the number of Nvidia cards vs AMD over the years but I'd drop PC gaming in a heartbeat if it becomes some Gameworks vs Gaming Evolved battleground. I hope AMD don't got down this road (maybe they couldn't make it work anyway) and I find it baffling that you think this could be anything other than a negative for the gaming industry in general.

Give this a look: http://gamingbolt.com/amd-nvidia-ga...ty-of-the-developers-gamers-who-run-amd-cards

Seems like a lot of crying from AMD to me.

 

[SirPauly]

what does gw bring to us pc gamers that was never seen before? hbao? tess? anti aliasing? fire "physics"? or wouldnt there no hbao, tess or some kind of "physics" without nvidias gw? there was never anything worthwhile in pc game graphics before nvidia introduced gw?

The areas that excite me the most was hair and fur, TressFx/Hairworks

https://developer.nvidia.com/hairworks

http://www.amd.com/en-us/innovations/software-technologies/technologies-gaming/tressfx

Turbulence:

https://developer.nvidia.com/apex-turbulence

What I enjoyed most with advanced physics is how many abilities work in conjunction and nVidia created FLex:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1o0Nuq71gI4

 

[Kenmitch]

Mantle was more-so a proprietary, closed API that was engineered to give AMD a competitive advantage and to create awareness. There was nothing wrong here, since it was AMD's work and investment.

More of a proof of concept. Kick in the arse of Microsoft. Exploiting it wasn't the AMD way.

Strange how AMD thinks at times. Looks to have more morals than NVIDIA. Morals don't seem to be as profitable these days.

 

[Azix]

Mantle was more-so a proprietary, closed API that was engineered to give AMD a competitive advantage and to create awareness. There was nothing wrong here, since it was AMD's work and investment.

Mantle was going to give amd an advantage simply because of how their architecture worked. If nvidia should make their architecture and drivers better they would benefit as much. Despite that, the api was going to be open and is going to be available in the form of dx12 and vulcan. I don't see a problem creating useful tech that your hardware might be better with if it doesn't harm the competition and especially if the competition is allowed to optimize for it.

At least I think AMD is set to benefit more from low lvl apis than nvidia.

Something like mantle could never come from nvidia because nobody is going to adopt it as widely due to the cost they would naturally attach to its use. eg. gsync. That's nvidia right there. It'll end up just as niche as physx.

 

[SirPauly]

This is exactly what PC gaming needs, more middleware from AMD/Nvidia so they can fight each other tooth and nail wasting resources in the process. PC games tend to be buggy as it is, much more so in GW titles from what I've seen.

At this point I really hope Intel buys AMD and smacks Nvidia down they are out of control with their proprietary BS.

Not really, efficient tools that make fidelity features easier to implement may actually get advanced PC features in gaming titles.

Without AMD and nVidia's talents, there would be many more straight ports --- nVidia and AMD are instrumental to go beyond what the developer may of intended for the PC

 

[Spanners]

Give this a look: http://gamingbolt.com/amd-nvidia-ga...ty-of-the-developers-gamers-who-run-amd-cards

Seems like a lot of crying from AMD to me.

I hadn't seen that, but I wouldn't categorize it as crying it seemed fairly calmly stated and accurate.

“The same cannot be said for Gameworks, which remains a mystery to developers unless they commit to a special license for which there are no public details.”

“That is a disservice to the significant percentage of the gaming public that runs AMD Radeon graphics, and it’s a disservice to the ingenuity of the developers.”

These seemed to me the strongest statements quoted in the article. You seem to be the only one attaching oddly emotional language to this.