Does GameWorks influences AMD's Cards game performance?

[SirPauly]

If nVidia and the developer used GPU physX calls and forced them on AMD, without the ability of an on/off setting that would be sneaky, disingenuous, and would do harm. I would be ashamed to be a nVidia gamer or loyalist.

 

[TheDigglerBing]

LOL @ this poll and it's results.

Very clearly shows why I don't bother with this forum. It's full of fkin idiots.




Insults and personal attacks aren't allowed.
We can help you with you not bothering with this forum.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[Zanovar]

*laughs*

 

[RussianSensation]

Failed flat as a theory when using the Win10 driver on Win8.1.

You aren't reading the computerbase article closely enough.

"H has now also carried out a benchmark run under Windows 10 to the latest Windows Update by partly filled with Catalyst drivers for the not yet released operating system. And lo and behold: Project Cars running faster. Even when compared with the same driver under Windows 8.1, the performance increases depending on the scenario by ten to 13 percent."
http://www.computerbase.de/2015-05/project-cars-guide-grafikkarte-prozessor-vergleich/3/

That means with the same driver, the performance still goes up switching from W8.1 to W10. W10's purpose was to reduce CPU overhead in games. The performance increase by just switching from W8.1 to 10 for R9 290X with the same driver is almost the same as moving from an FX8370 to an i7 4770K when using a GTX980.

Also, way to ignore all the other information/data in this thread re: PhysX.

LOL @ this poll and it's results.

Very clearly shows why I don't bother with this forum. It's full of fkin idiots.

Maybe you might want to try reading the entire thread before throwing accusations. If you have alternative explanations that make sense, please feel free to provide them and everyone will listen as long as they are logical. Alternatively, if you don't want to learn about how PhysX works on GPUs and why using PhysX on a GPU for 1 AIB for car physics engine is a distinct and unfair competitive advantage, because this methodology forces Intel/AMD GPU users to run the same calculations on the CPU, then go right ahead and make an account at ABT. They will love you over there. If ProjectCARS had some On/Off switch for certain aspects of PhysX, it would have been acceptable but to make the core physics engine based on PhysX is gross ignorance and disrespect to all PC gamers who do not own an NV gaming card. Calling people idiots isn't going to get you anywhere.

so blame the dev? seems logical to me.

Let's get one thing straight: the developer is way more to blame than NV here since the developer has the power to make game engine decisions that shape the entire game. However, once the developer decided to implement PhysX for the physics engine, it was NV that partnered with SMS and started marketing the game. Whatever a corporation does today sends a signal about what they stand for. Stating oh well, NV had nothing to do with it, the developer screwed the entire game, dismisses that corporations have a public image and whatever partnerships NV/AMD engage in, it is their corporate image that stands complementary with the end product, does it not?

When AMD openly goes out and publicly states that they have shared all the source code with Nvidia or anyone and any of that code can be optimized, but NV remains mum and pretends like who cares, what does that tell you?

Does it look to you like the developer just did all the work on PhysX on his own with 0 help from NV?

Did you not realize what the topic of the thread is? Did AMD ever side with a developer and helped them include a proprietary closed source code that could ONLY be run on AMD's GPUs but forced Intel/NV GPUs to run it on the CPU?

Yes or No?

Did AMD ever work with a developer to provide proprietary closed source GPU code that directly favoured their GPU architectures and that code could never be optimized, altered or modified by NV/Intel?

Yes or No?

Dude, NV is literally putting its face/brand logo with a game that from the get go was designed to alienate Intel/AMD PC gamers. Do you know of any game made on this planet that was made from day 1 knowing all Intel/AMD GPU setups would be at a distinct disadvantage because of its inherent design? What happens when a person with an Intel APU in 4-5 years decided to play this game and get 2-3X less performance than an NV GPU of a similar level of performance? Too bad, I guess?

It doesn't get much obvious than this. I guess you are OK with such business practices because you only buy NV GPUs, so who cares, right? Millions of other PC gamers worldwide with Intel and AMD GPUs - who cares about them - it's their fault for not buying NV, right?! I guess we should all just not care and buy NV and let the PC gaming industry become a monopoly = $550 mid-range GPUs, $1000 flagships. Go Premiums!

 

[bowler484]

As a PC gamer, I find this thread kind of odd.

I've always thought of Gameworks being Nvidia trying to present us with a better experience than consoles.

Nvidia spends their money to develop the tech and then spend their money to send people to the developer to help implement it.

And the tech should be just given away to your main competitor?

How many people here own or work for companies that spend r&d money and then give away the results to their main competitor to use for free?

I would support AMD doing the same thing Nvidia is doing simply because it makes PC gaming stronger. Except AMD doesn't seem to be interested outside of TressFX back in 2013 for 1 game.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps the reason AMD does nothing like this for us is because they have a vested interest in console sales?

If you don't want to support Gameworks then get on AMD's back to create their own version. If not, we'll end up with direct console ports assuming the developers even want to spend time doing a PC version.

 

[monstercameron]

As a PC gamer, I find this thread kind of odd.

I've always thought of Gameworks being Nvidia trying to present us with a better experience than consoles.

Nvidia spends their money to develop the tech and then spend their money to send people to the developer to help implement it.

And the tech should be just given away to your main competitor?

How many people here own or work for companies that spend r&d money and then give away the results to their main competitor to use for free?

I would support AMD doing the same thing Nvidia is doing simply because it makes PC gaming stronger. Except AMD doesn't seem to be interested outside of TressFX back in 2013 for 1 game.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps the reason AMD does nothing like this for us is because they have a vested interest in console sales?

If you don't want to support Gameworks then get on AMD's back to create their own version. If not, we'll end up with direct console ports assuming the developers even want to spend time doing a PC version.

Silliest thing I've read today, keep enjoying nvidias broken presents.

 

[RussianSensation]

As a PC gamer, I find this thread kind of odd.

I've always thought of Gameworks being Nvidia trying to present us with a better experience than consoles.

Nvidia spends their money to develop the tech and then spend their money to send people to the developer to help implement it.

- PC gaming has always been about open-standards and trying to cater to as many gamers as possible. It accomplished this goal better in the past than now with GW or AMD GE. The real problems lies with how developers make games from a financial perspective by catering to consoles. Does Blizzard or EA or Activision purposely create a game that runs like garbage on everyone's hardware besides NV's?

- Your point would be true if PhysX in Project CARS provided it the world's best racing simulation experience vs. what a 3rd party/developer built game engine can do. The developer should weigh in these type of choices. Otherwise, what you advocate is a PC gaming environment where whoever throws more $ at developers gets the best gaming experience. A lot of PC gamers who grew up in the 70s and 80s oppose such a thing. Also, what GW's features make PC gaming so superior that can't be done via alternative means? PCSS+, HBAO+, those are nothing special really.

- Also, it sounds like you think PC hardware and software development should be tied. You know that means NV could just start coding software in AAA games and alter the course of PC gaming, thus obsoleting older cards and favouring performance only on their hardware? Essentially you are for NV becoming a software as well as a hardware developer. Might as well advocate for NV to go full on into PC gaming franchise development at that point. Are you OK with that?

Then, how would you feel if Sony or MS would spend billions of dollars to make major franchisees run way better only on their hardware and PC gamers would suffer? Most developers try to code the game to work as best as possible on as much hardware as possible so that millions of gamers can enjoy their game. SMS, a GW's partner, as an example, doesn't view this as their #1 priority at all. In fact, the same developer, when they worked directly with NV's TWIMTPB, spent 0 time optimizing Shift 2 for Radeons but then got off their ass and provided patches that fixed the game. Many PC gamers do not find this helping PC gaming, but rather hurting it. Why should we spend $50-60 on a new game that's broken / unoptimized mess out of the box? As a result we buy these games for $5-10 which hurts the revenues and profits of publishers and developers.

Releasing broken/unoptimized games is far more detrimental to PC gaming than any benefits AMD's Gaming Evolved or NV's GameWorks can hope to provide.

This isn't just a problem of GW's but it goes beyond of how games are made because it starts to affect the desire of a PC gamer to buy a $60 AAA game at launch vs. waiting for 6-12 months until it's fixed and buying it for $5-20.

Need for Speed: Shift Patch 2 - Background
When Need for Speed: Shift was released, we criticized the surprisingly low performance of AMD's Radeon cards. Especially in scenes with many vehicles the framerate was bad - no matter if the resolution was set to 800 x 600, 1920 x 1200 or any other resolution. The first time the racing game was updated, the problem was not solved, but the second patch for Need for Speed: Shift delivers more frames per second - according to the readme because of "Improved ATI graphics card support”. The reason for the up to now poor performance of Radeon cards has not been unveiled although rumors say that certain Shader routines had not been optimized. Shift is part of Nvidia's TWIMTBP program.

Need for Speed: Shift - Benchmarks
In order to show the huge performance benefit for Radeon cards delivered by the patch, we race against 15 computer opponents on "Brands Hatch GP” in broad daylight. We record the framerate for 30 seconds. Without the patch a Radeon HD 5850 wasn't able to exceed 45 fps on average at 1280 x 1024 or 1680 x 1050 (each with 4x MSAA and 16:1 AF), but the update to version 1.02 the performance is increased by 44 percent.

Source

Why would anyone want a PC gaming market where AAA games are released this broken? Why would anyone want a PC gaming market that heavily favours any 1 party, whether it's Intel, AMD or NVidia? If that happens, we as consumers have less bargaining power. Imagine if ALL PC games ran 50-100% faster on Intel/NV GPU products or Intel/AMD GPU products, we would have no choice but to purchase those products and that gives these firms the ability to dictate prices. Essentially, we would be a the mercy of their optimization tactics. As consumers/gamers, we want bargaining power and choices because that's what keeps balances and competition in check from raising prices on us and controlling the market from the supply side.

 

[RussianSensation]

If nVidia and the developer used GPU physX calls and forced them on AMD, without the ability of an on/off setting that would be sneaky, disingenuous, and would do harm. I would be ashamed to be a nVidia gamer or loyalist.

Many professionals addressed many issues of PhysX a long time ago. I am not sure if NV fixed a lot of the underlying issues of PhysX but here is a good article from 2010 about how broken PhysX was just 5 years ago when it came to running it on x86 CPUs:

"A new investigation by David Kanter at Realworldtech adds to the pile of circumstantial evidence that NVIDIA has apparently crippled the performance of CPUs on its popular, cross-platform physics acceleration library, PhysX. If it's true that PhysX has been hobbled on x86 CPUs, then this move is part of a larger campaign to make the CPU—and Intel in specific—look weak and outdated. The PhysX story is important, because in contrast to the usual sniping over conference papers and marketing claims, the PhysX issue could affect real users.

We talked to NVIDIA today about Kanter's article, and gave the company a chance to air its side of the story. So we'll first take a look at the RWT piece, and then we'll look at NVIDIA's response.

Oh my God, it's full of cruft

When NVIDIA acquired Ageia in 2008, the GPU maker had no intention of getting into the dedicated physics accelerator hardware business. Rather, the game plan was to give the GPU a new, non-graphics, yet still gaming-oriented advantage over the CPU and over ATI's GPUs. NVIDIA did this by ditching Ageia's accelerator add-in board and porting the platform's core physics libraries, called PhysX, to NVIDIA GPUs using CUDA. PhysX is designed to make it easy for developers to add high-quality physics simulation to their games, so that cloth drapes the way it should, balls bounce realistically, and smoke and fragments (mostly from exploding barrels) fly apart in a lifelike manner. In recognition of the fact that game developers, by and large, don't bother to release PC-only titles anymore, NVIDIA also wisely ported PhysX to the leading game consoles, where it runs quite well on console hardware.

If there's no NVIDIA GPU in a gamer's system, PhysX will default to running on the CPU, but it doesn't run very well there. You might think that the CPU's performance deficit is due simply to the fact that GPUs are far superior at physics emulation, and that the CPU's poor showing on PhysX is just more evidence that the GPU is really the component best-equipped to give gamers realism.

Some early investigations into PhysX performance showed that the library uses only a single thread when it runs on a CPU. This is a shocker for two reasons. First, the workload is highly parallelizable, so there's no technical reason for it not to use as many threads as possible; and second, it uses hundreds of threads when it runs on an NVIDIA GPU. So the fact that it runs single-threaded on the CPU is evidence of neglect on NVIDIA's part at the very least, and possibly malign neglect at that.

But the big kicker detailed by Kanter's investigation is that PhysX on a CPU appears to exclusively use x87 floating-point instructions, instead of the newer SSE instructions.

...

Full story

I am pretty sure that later versions of PhysX (3.0+) introduced CPU multi-threading but the key theme was that NV's always intended to use PhysX as a key competitive/marketing advantage vs. running it on Intel/AMD setups. NV never intended to improve PC gaming as a whole for all PC gamers by starting to sell dedicated PhysX cards and pushing physics in PC gaming. It's pretty clear from day 1 that NV just cared about $ first and not the betterment of making PC gaming more realistic for the PC gaming community. That's exactly why to this date we can't buy stand-alone NV cards to use as PhysX cards in systems with Intel/AMD GPUs and why we NV keeps PhysX closed-proprietary on the PC.

 

[bowler484]

I suppose when someone wants to blame Nvidia for things that there really is no way to present another side because they simply will not even take the time to listen.

I didn't join PC gaming yesterday. The fact of the matter is that most AAA games end up needing multiple patches even when Nvidia has nothing to do with the game.

You want to blame Gameworks for all the problems? Go right ahead because history has already proven you wrong time and time again.

Gameworks ruined Farcry4? Why does nobody remember how many patches were needed to get Farcry3 running properly with my 7970? Gameworks didn't exist then so who should shoulder the blame? Just like today, it's the developer.

 

[RussianSensation]

Silliest thing I've read today, keep enjoying nvidias broken presents.

Some of the posts at other PC forums are eye-opening:

On NV:
"They don't intentionally cripple anything. They add features to a game that you otherwise would not get using AMD.

Once AMD is gone, we will hopefully get more feature filled games that no longer have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

There's an old saying that goes: "Lead, follow or get out of the way". It's time for AMD to get out of the way."

Response:

"Just think about your point for a second. Because if we did have another company and they happened to be like nvidia, this would just get worse. The problem would still remain because nvidia is not going to give that company access to physx, and that company will just do something similar with tech that nvidia will be closed off too and get worse performance with. In the end we end up with a situation where PCs have console limitations. Nvidia systems become one thing, the other company's system another thing."


I guess Eyefinity, ZeroCore Power, Mantle --> aka Vulkan API were all invented by NV too. We really just need NV as the only GPU provider it seems.

 

[Erenhardt]

GPU vendor exclusive titles... the ultimate end of pcgaming.

Master Console Gaming here I come!

 

[RussianSensation]

The fact of the matter is that most AAA games end up needing multiple patches even when Nvidia has nothing to do with the game. You want to blame Gameworks for all the problems? Go right ahead because history has already proven you wrong time and time again.

I never said GW's causes all problems in all PC games, did I? There are some games like GTA V that work very well on both AMD and NV products. However, it is extremely unusual that AMD cards, as well as Kepler GPUs perform so much worse than Maxwell in nearly all GW games.

Gameworks ruined Farcry4? Why does nobody remember how many patches were needed to get Farcry3 running properly with my 7970? Gameworks didn't exist then so who should shoulder the blame? Just like today, it's the developer.

The developer isn't free of blame. Who says they are? The developer's duty should be to make games unbiased to work well from day 1 and to run well on as many products as possible because that's what gets them sales.

However, you think it's just a coincidence that AMD performs so bad in almost all GW titles but their cards run well in vendor agnostic titles?

How are you dismissing AC DX10.1 removal, Batman Anti-aliasing fiasco, Shift 2 patch, HAWX and Crysis 2 over-tessellation? You think the developers just decided to screw over AMD because they were bored? You know they get programming support, help, marketing $ and other perks from NV. You think NV just provides GW and keeps it closed-source out of the goodness of their hearts?

You think the developers of games like ProjectCARS just magically make the game run way better on NV hardware because they love Titan X over R9 290X?

How come NV never provided closed-source proprietary game code into AAA titles during ATI days? It's because this practice would never be acceptable in the past. Why is that ATI cards ran so well in most AAA games but today anytime you see GW on a titlte, it's almost a guarantee that it'll run like garbage on AMD hardware for months. That's all coincidence to you?

GPU vendor exclusive titles... the ultimate end of pcgaming.

Mater Console Gaming here I come!

They should just make a PC gaming console with Intel and NV hardware. This way the PC gaming console would get PC exclusives that weak Sony/MS consoles can't run and still be upgradeable over time because it's a PC. The best of both worlds if you are OK paying $550 for mid-range and $1K for flagship GPUs. Everyone wins since PC gaming developers would have to do little coding as NV would provide a lot of the SDK source code to put into the game. Of course when NV upgrades PhysX or GW SDK to new versions and your old GPU architectures become obsolete for no apparent reason (like iOS upgrades on older iPhones), you'll just upgrade to the newer generation of GPUs. :wub:

 

[Arachnotronic]

It's pretty clear from day 1 that NV just cared about $ first.

You mean just like every company on the planet?

 

[Arachnotronic]

They should just make a PC gaming console with Intel and NV hardware.

That's exactly what NV is trying to do. They're very clear that they view GeForce as a platform and not just as a component.

 

[cusideabelincoln]

How are you dismissing AC DX10.1 removal, Batman Anti-aliasing fiasco, Shift 2 patch, HAWX and Crysis 2 over-tessellation? You think the developers just decided to screw over AMD because they were bored? You know they get programming support, help, marketing $ and other perks from NV. You think NV just provides GW and keeps it closed-source out of the goodness of their hearts?

Some tech site needs to dig right into the history of things Nvidia has done to intentionally cripple the competition.

 

[RussianSensation]

You mean just like every company on the planet?

While companies like Nvidia or Tesla do need $ to survive, the way in which they approach how to do business is totally different. Elon Musk is the polar opposite of JHH.

"June 12, 2014 (Bloomberg) -- Elon Musk, Tesla Motors Inc.’s outspoken co-founder, said patents for the maker of Model S electric cars will be “open source” and available at no charge as it seeks to expand adoption of battery-powered autos.

The carmaker will provide access to all the “several hundred” patents it has filed and won’t sue those who use them in “good faith,” Musk said today on a conference call. At Tesla’s June 3 annual meeting, he said too few automakers offer “serious” electric vehicles and pledged to do something about it.

“Tesla Motors was created to accelerate the advent of sustainable transport,” he said on the Palo Alto, California-based company’s website. “If we clear a path to the creation of compelling electric vehicles, but then lay intellectual property landmines behind us to inhibit others, we are acting in a manner contrary to that goal.”

BMW Visit

Executives from Germany’s Bayerische Motoren Werke AG, which sells the i3 electric hatchback and plug-in hybrid i8 sports coupe, met with Musk yesterday, he said.

In addition to suggesting that BMW collaborate on using Tesla’s “Supercharger” system to rapidly repower electric vehicles, “I suggested they build their own gigafactory,” Musk said on the call.

Kenn Sparks, a BMW spokesman, didn’t immediately respond to a call and e-mail on the matter."
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/artic...-patents-public-to-expand-electric-car-market

NV in the GPU sector is the exact the opposite of Tesla in the automotive sector. Instead of working as hard as possible with competitors and making everything open source to spur global innovation and advancement of newer advanced technologies in its respective industry sector, NV adopts the Apple-like business model of proprietary and closed-source everything and never working for the best interest of PC gamers by collaborating with Intel or AMD to benefit the PC gaming community.

If NV was like Tesla, PhysX would be 100% open source or NV would make PhysX available to everyone by selling PhysX cards as stand-alone options like Tesla sells batteries even if you don't want to buy a Tesla vehicle. Some companies have a global vision to change the entire industry, even if it means working with competitors or selling a part of your portfolio to consumers for their greater benefit, even if you don't want to use the entire product (i.e., home batteries vs. tesla vehicles with electric batteries vs. Nvidia GPUs vs. PhysX cards). NV's goal is not to transform PC gaming as a whole and its evident by everything that they do when it comes to how they approach new technologies which they try to make their IP immediately (TXAA, PhysX).

Tesla expands into batteries for homes

 

[ShintaiDK]

Some tech site needs to dig right into the history of things Nvidia has done to intentionally cripple the competition.

Considering the lack of same, including from AMD. What do you think. Tinfoil or reality?

 

[RussianSensation]

The Crew - GameWorks title

HardOCP

"HBAO+ - This game uses ShadowWorks to support NVIDIA's HBAO+ ambient occlusion method. This is a more precise, and optimized way to perform ambient occlusion and looks better compared to standard SSAO methods. This game actually supports two SSAO methods, SSAO and SSAO+ in addition to HBAO+.

However, HBAO+ will only work on NVIDIA GPUs in this game. AMD GPUs like the AMD Radeon R9 290X an 290 will not be able to use HBAO+, it doesn't even show up in the graphics settings. This is odd because we know HBAO+ itself is vendor agnostic. Far Cry 4 allows you to run it both AMD and NVIDIA GPUs with no issues. Therefore, the developers have artificially locked out HBAO+ to AMD GPU users, which we do not like at all."

Did NV partner with Ivory Tower and Ubisoft Reflections when The Crew was developed? Oh yes, it did! Was NV 100% aware that HBAO+ would never work on AMD GPUs in that game? Of course they were. You would be naive to think otherwise as their guide mentions how TXAA and HBAO+ "deliver striking graphics and an exhilarating gaming experience."

What Nvidia mysteriously forgot to mention that HBAO+ would only work for PC gamers who own NV graphics. Oops.

I guess it's 100% the developer's fault?

Can anyone name any PC game that Intel/ATI/AMD collaborated on where any graphical features are blocked from the competitor's products? That never happened.

 

[rgallant]

As a PC gamer, I find this thread kind of odd.

I've always thought of Gameworks being Nvidia trying to present us with a better experience than consoles.

Nvidia spends their money to develop the tech and then spend their money to send people to the developer to help implement it.

And the tech should be just given away to your main competitor?

How many people here own or work for companies that spend r&d money and then give away the results to their main competitor to use for free?

I would support AMD doing the same thing Nvidia is doing simply because it makes PC gaming stronger. Except AMD doesn't seem to be interested outside of TressFX back in 2013 for 1 game.

Has anyone ever stopped to think that perhaps the reason AMD does nothing like this for us is because they have a vested interest in console sales?

If you don't want to support Gameworks then get on AMD's back to create their own version. If not, we'll end up with direct console ports assuming the developers even want to spend time doing a PC version.

just asking
so if a game does not fully support amd's gpu's should amd user be paying the same price the as nv users , if they don't have all the game features and the same performance ,maybe a amd user should be paying$40..[$60.00 game] if they are only getting 2/3's of the product.[with out a disclamer for amd gpus]

 

[decoy11]

Wait I just remembered that Nvidia "free sourced" their CPU PhysX source code back in march. Technically doesn't that mean that AMD is allowed to see what PhysX is doing and help optimize it for their video cards?

https://developer.nvidia.com/content/latest-physx-source-code-now-available-free-github

 

[TurtleCrusher]

That's exactly what NV is trying to do. They're very clear that they view GeForce as a platform and not just as a component.

It's not a platform. It's a component. Tegra SOCs with Android are platforms. GeForce alone is a component. Intel/AMD/VIA with Windows/OSX/Linux are platforms.

On a related note it seems like focus group members are in justification mode. Things like this are never good for the consumer.

 

[RussianSensation]

Wait I just remembered that Nvidia "free sourced" their CPU PhysX source code back in march. Technically doesn't that mean that AMD is allowed to see what PhysX is doing and help optimize it for their video cards?

https://developer.nvidia.com/content/latest-physx-source-code-now-available-free-github

No, because while NV released the source code, it's for CPU use only. This isn't even news since NV allowed consoles to use PhysX well before releasing the source code for CPUs on the PC. That means some consoles games during PS3/360 generations already did use PhysX that was run on the console CPUs.

Since NV still prevents AMD/Intel GPUs from running any of the PhysX code on the graphics card, having access to the open source code for CPU isn't relevant for GPU optimization. PhysX has hundreds of threads for GPU usage and the GPU is a superior ASIC than a CPU for performing so many calculations/multiple threads. That's the whole point why NV keeps PhysX GPU vendor locked.

That's exactly what NV is trying to do. They're very clear that they view GeForce as a platform and not just as a component.

And you don't see that as damaging to PC gaming? Should we all just use 1 OS, 1 CPU type, 1 GPU type in all industry sectors? What is better more or less competitors in the PC gaming industry? Do you want bargaining power as a consumer when buying PC parts or would you rather have PC gaming become a closed proprietary platform/eco-system like consoles? I much prefer choices when buying PC parts. Without that, we would have a monopoly if PC gaming = GeForce platform.

 

[DooKey]

Don't like GW titles then don't buy them. I buy what I like regardless of which video card company sponsors it. Bottom line is regardless of the company sponsoring a title........ it works. It may not get you the FPS the other video card company gets, but it works. Anyway, all of this angst means nothing to either company.

 

[bowler484]

I never said GW's causes all problems in all PC games, did I? There are some games like GTA V that work very well on both AMD and NV products. However, it is extremely unusual that AMD cards, as well as Kepler GPUs perform so much worse than Maxwell in nearly all GW games.

Do you have definitive proof that Gameworks is responsible for anything you've pointed out or are we going to leave it defined as "extremely unusual?"

The developer isn't free of blame. Who says they are? The developer's duty should be to make games unbiased to work well from day 1 and to run well on as many products as possible because that's what gets them sales.

I agree 100%.

However, you think it's just a coincidence that AMD performs so bad in almost all GW titles but their cards run well in vendor agnostic titles?

No, I don't. But don't you find it quite odd that for quite awhile AMD was getting their cards up to par with optimizations despite Gameworks? Then we started to see articles about how they suddenly can't optimize because Gameworks locks them out. And now AMD seems to have stopped even trying in order to drive home that point?

The fact is they can optimize despite Gameworks. It may not be as well as games without Gameworks but they can still do a respectable job. Instead, AMD users have been left without drivers for months at a time lately. Why do they get a pass for it instead of being taken to task like Nvidia would be?

How are you dismissing AC DX10.1 removal, Batman Anti-aliasing fiasco, Shift 2 patch, HAWX and Crysis 2 over-tessellation? You think the developers just decided to screw over AMD because they were bored? You know they get programming support, help, marketing $ and other perks from NV. You think NV just provides GW and keeps it closed-source out of the goodness of their hearts?

Same way you'd dismiss Tomb Raider, Dirt and Hitman?

So you're saying that Nvidia manipulated the developer into purposely harming AMD performance? Yet after all this time, we have zero definitive proof and only speculation as to why this is. Imagine all the people that have switched jobs since that time and could blow the whistle anonymously about it yet it hasn't happened.

You think the developers of games like ProjectCARS just magically make the game run way better on NV hardware because they love Titan X over R9 290X?

Same answer as above. Nvidia had their people there with the developer. Did AMD send anybody or did they just not bother because it was Gameworks and they need to drive home the point that Gameworks is bad?

They should just make a PC gaming console with Intel and NV hardware. This way the PC gaming console would get PC exclusives that weak Sony/MS consoles can't run and still be upgradeable over time because it's the PC. The best of both worlds if you are OK paying $550 for mid-range and $1K for flagship GPUs. Everyone wins since PC gaming developers would have to do little coding as NV would provide a lot of the SDK source code to put into the game. Of course when NV upgrades PhysX or GW SDK to new versions and your old GPU architectures become obsolete for no apparent reason (like iOS upgrades on older iPhones), you'll just upgrade to the newer generation of GPUs. :wub:

Nobody wants this silly scenario to happen. It would be bad for all gamers.

 

[RussianSensation]

Don't like GW titles then don't buy them.

That already highlights a problem. Was an PC title called "AMD game", "Intel game" or "NV game"? That's not how PC gaming came about. I think you forgot what PC roots are all about. By calling a game a "GW Title" (aka NV game), already highlights a problem in the industry.

There is nothing inherently wrong about the gameplay or graphics of PC games which have GW sponsorship. The problem is the GW's platform itself. Why in the world would any PC gamer desire for AAA PC gaming to be altered by closed-source code provided by some hardware manufacturer to favour its products only, whether its Matrox, AMD, Intel, NV, Asus, MSI, EVGA, etc.

I buy what I like regardless of which video card company sponsors it.

Translation: It doesn't affect me, so I don't care. It's not my problem. Got it. Just more proof that PC gaming is becoming a segregated community that doesn't care for the greater good of PC gaming as a whole unless in your view hardware monopoly is what you desire. Today it's all about siding with the popular brands, who cares about unethical business practices, and who cares about long-term consequences. I guess we should all suck it up then and accept $1K Titan Xs as the new norm for high-end flagships like you have done. I guess the 1% of PC gamers who pay $2000 for Titan Xs might not care if there is competition in the GPU industry at all. I am sure you'd readily buy $1500 Titan Y Pascal edition in pairs so naturally poor game optimization in AAA titles for Intel/AMD GPU users is something you could care less about. Got it.