Does GameWorks influences AMD's Cards game performance?

[lilltesaito]

Sounds to me like some are saying it is "wrong" because it is hurting AMD, and we need to do everything in our powers to help AMD!

The victim card is an easy one to play.

I would not say because to help AMD, I would say it is to protect the investment they made on an AMD card.

I have a 780ti and the way it looks to me is they are screwing with the drivers to even make this card bad compared to the newer cards. I do not like that I paid so much for this card to not get the full support of the manufacture to make sure this card is running at the best it can.

I am a customer and feel cheated by this tactic.

 

[AtenRa]

For people that advocate intentionally crippling game code on competitors hardware. Suppose AMD gets a big cash infusion and does the same thing Nvidia is doing but on a larger scale. Going forward your nice expensive Nvidia hardware is going to significantly under perform and there won't be anything you can do about it unless you buy a Radeon GPU.

Now remember AMD would be doing exactly what some are championing Nvidia for doing. AMD is being blamed for bad dev relations and bad drivers even though neither is why GW titles don't run like they should on a Radeon GPU. If the shoe is on the other foot will Nvidia be blamed for bad drivers and poor dev relations?

Dont go that way, just take Intel and its 70-75% of the total PC (Desktop+Mobile) GPU market share. Now add to the equation all the $$$$$ Intel has and multiply what you said.

Imagine what an Intel GW initiative could to to AMD and NVIDIA in the mobile market. Imagine every game to be optimized for the Intel iGPU and especially for the Iris Pro. Imagine Intel Iris Pro at 45W TDP to have the same performance as the NVIDIA GTX980M at 95W TDP. Nobody would by a Laptop with an NVIDIA or AMD dGPU ever again.

Not to mention the desktop, Iris Pro would be faster than middle-end GTX750Ti/GTX960 leaving only a small piece of the pie for AMD and NVIDIA Desktop dGPUs making the GPU business not viable for both of them.

I would like to see the comments of all those people that believe what NVIDIA is doing with GW is ok, if the above scenario would become real tomorrow.:whiste:

 

[krumme]

I would not say because to help AMD, I would say it is to protect the investment they made on an AMD card.

I have a 780ti and the way it looks to me is they are screwing with the drivers to even make this card bad compared to the newer cards. I do not like that I paid so much for this card to not get the full support of the manufacture to make sure this card is running at the best it can.

I am a customer and feel cheated by this tactic.

I have the same irritation. I got a complaint yesterday from one of the kids about mysterious lacking fps of an older nv gaming laptop. For a moment we thought this quad i7 was missing cpu perf. But no - we are just irrelevant as a customer for nv. Never gw titles is slow the 3 first months on strong amd gcn but all older nv stuff gets slow. Instead of using ressources making gcn slower why not continually make fermi and kepler faster - its modern arches and both dx12 compliant.
Except 5 series Nv havnt made bad cards since the first gforce. They have always been agressive on marketing but i actually think this strategy is hurting them more than what they benefit.

Brent on H can take his "gcn and kepler is outdated" talk and....

I can say give the driver guys the money instead of all this gw tactics. Its adds nothing but the usual over tessalated nonsense - at best.

 

[Spanners]

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.

If you prefer that description of Mantle to mine that's fine I don't think it affects the point I was trying to make which was that Mantle didn't provide any roadblocks to Nvidia optimising the DX11 codepath in any game that featured it.

(I would contend that the plan post-beta for Mantle and subsequent Vulkan API make your "proprietary, closed API" statement a bit shaky also)

 

[5150Joker]

Making a GPU choice should not also mean you can only play certain games optimized for the hardware. That is NOT what PC gaming is all about why is this point lost on some people? The more financial power a vendor has to basically bride game developer to favour their hardware the less hardware choice we will all ultimately have. Do you really want that?

Not a single GW game excludes AMD GPU owners from playing it as well. It just happens to run better on NVIDIA hardware and is optimized for it. It may as a side effect, cause some issues on AMD hardware like Project Cars and that's up to AMD to respond. Clearly they choose not to in some situations (like Project Cars) and so if the AMD customer suffers, they should direct their anger at AMD, not NVIDIA. NVIDIA is serving it's customers the best experience they can have and as an owner of NVIDIA hardware, I applaud their efforts and hope they continue to expand GW.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Mantle was more-so a proprietary, closed API...

Was, past tense. When is GameWorks going to have the libraries opened up for anyone to use? Are they going be adopted by the likes of the Khronos group, Microsoft, Apple and others? Also Spanners is bang on Mantle did nothing to hinder DX11 performance on GeForce cards but I'm sure you are fully aware of this.

 

[lilltesaito]

Not a single GW game excludes AMD GPU owners from playing it as well. It just happens to run better on NVIDIA hardware and is optimized for it. It may as a side effect, cause some issues on AMD hardware like Project Cars and that's up to AMD to respond. Clearly they choose not to in some situations (like Project Cars) and so if the AMD customer suffers, they should direct their anger at AMD, not NVIDIA. NVIDIA is serving it's customers the best experience they can have and as an owner of NVIDIA hardware, I applaud their efforts and hope they continue to expand GW.

Do you feel that way about Nvidia older hardware? Like how the 960 is little slower then the 780? They do not seem to be making me happy as a customer as I keep seeing the older cards getting lower numbers each new game and getting closer FPS to a slower card.

 

[5150Joker]

Do you feel that way about Nvidia older hardware? Like how the 960 is little slower then the 780? They do not seem to be making me happy as a customer as I keep seeing the older cards getting lower numbers each new game and getting closer FPS to a slower card.

Did you think that maybe Maxwell as a new architecture just had more room to grow vs Kepler that was maxed out?

 

[SirPauly]

Was, past tense. .

And nVidia decided to spend resources on DirectX 11 AND DirectX 12. I have no problem with Mantle and generally agreed with Richard Huddy and Repi from the very start:


http://techreport.com/news/20628/amd-huddy-developers-want-directx-to-go-away


https://forum.beyond3d.com/threads/...r-level-api-available-too.50828/#post-1548729


I'm all for innovation and efficiency

 

[Azix]

Did you think that maybe Maxwell as a new architecture just had more room to grow vs Kepler that was maxed out?

grow? maxed out? in what ways? maintaining a cards typical performance is to be expected. Its not like directx has changed yet.

 

[iiiankiii]

Did you think that maybe Maxwell as a new architecture just had more room to grow vs Kepler that was maxed out?

That' exactly what I feel. I've notice that Nvidia seems to reach its peak very early on b/c of Nvidia's "relations with the Devs". Then, it just tapers off. Kepler used to be on par with Tahiti. Now, Kepler's weaker hardware can no longer be optimized, while Tahiti is STILL improving and out performing Kepler. Basically, it really looks like if you want your hardware to last a bit longer, AMD is the better choice within the same generation. That's how I feel over the past 3 or 4 years. Things might change. who knows.

I expected Maxwell to come out blazing (and it did), then tapers off fast when Pascal is around the corner. Fiji will out brute Maxwell with less optimized code on some games (because, you know, GameWorks) and pull away from Maxwell within a year or 2 of release. Is history going to repeat itself?

 

[3DVagabond]

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.

A business also has a responsibility to the community it serves. I know that sounds like a lot of mumbo jumbo, but it's a fact. There are no excuses in the goals and objectives you listed, which are all valid, that allow you to damage the market.

 

[SirPauly]

Not a single GW game excludes AMD GPU owners from playing it as well. It just happens to run better on NVIDIA hardware and is optimized for it. It may as a side effect, cause some issues on AMD hardware like Project Cars and that's up to AMD to respond.

There's the crux, nVidia may optimize for their hardware with GW, but AMD is not allowed to for their hardware even though they can use the feature. It is a fair and valid point and third parties need to investigate if there is any harm or obvious differences from a percentage point-of-view. And would be nice to hear the official reason from nVidia, why their competitors are not allowed to optimize?

 

[3DVagabond]

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.

Oh, but this couldn't possibly be related, could it? nVidia's cash cow Gameworks couldn't possibly be hurting the overall performance of the game just to give nVidia a competitive advantage? I'm sure all nVidia cares about is that when the reviewers throw up a graph their name is on top. If they ruin the game in the process, why should they care?

You end up with situations like Project Cars where the Devs and AMD have to try and figure out a way to get the CPU overhead down on AMD systems because the extra PhysX calculations can't be done on the GPU. Is that somehow helping anyone except for nVidia?

I assume it's just frustration as far as Intel buying AMD?

 

[3DVagabond]

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.

Read the comments. They are about as one sided as our poll is.

Some people remind me of adolescents who just refuse to listen to reason. They think they know more than everyone else. There's always going to be that 5% who will stand there until they are blue faced just repeating the same misinformed rhetoric.

 

[stahlhart]

Some people remind me of adolescents who just refuse to listen to reason. They think they know more than everyone else. There's always going to be that 5% who will stand there until they are blue faced just repeating the same misinformed rhetoric.

Then I guess there's no point in having this discussion any longer, is there, Mr. Condescending Know-It-All? Thread closed.
-- stahlhart