[Extremetech] Nvidia’s GameWorks program usurps power from developers, end-users, AMD

[mindbomb]

i don't even understand what he was trying to say about tessellation. With modern AMD cards, tessellation performance is better than their competitors, so that whole section didn't make sense. His benchmarks also didn't show anything. Does he get paid by the length of his article? There seemed to be large swaths of pointlessness. I'm not even clear on the problem with gameworks.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The thread has devolved into two groups of people with negligible proof of anything saying that the other side is wrong because their negligible proof is way better. I can remember when the thread was about enthusiastic discussion about what mantle could mean for the industry. I will never understand the negativity that is being displayed in this thread. If mantle forces Microsoft to get DX fixed it benefits us all. Even if you want amd to fail for whatever reason at least acknowledge that fact and then stop posting your trash in this thread.

This thread isn't even about mantle, except tangentially in that it is debating the validity and fairness of vendor specific software. However, it is a far cry from questioning undocumented claims by a company or developers working with them to hoping for them to fail.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

This thread isn't even about mantle, except tangentially in that it is debating the validity and fairness of vendor specific software. However, it is a far cry from questioning undocumented claims by a company or developers working with them to hoping for them to fail.

Not sure how the post ended up in here. Guess I forgot where I was.

 

[FiendishMind]

As in, NVidia's proprietary, closed platform, which is fragmenting the market and slowing GPGPU adoption? Which is still entirely closed after 6 years of releases?

Well, it's not entirely closed. http://www.anandtech.com/show/5238/nvidia-releases-cuda-41-cuda-goes-llvm-and-open-source-kind-of

 

[MrK6]

I wonder if this actually catches or it's the beginning of the end for nvidia - a bold initiative like this could be either. With AMD controlling the console sector and devouring marketshare due to cryptocoin mining, it puts nvidia in a tight spot. Interesting times ahead.

 

[AnandThenMan]

I wonder if this actually catches or it's the beginning of the end for nvidia -

This does feel like an inflection point. I look at it this way, GameWorks to me is further validation from Nvidia that Mantle and AMD's monopoly in consoles has Nvidia's full attention.

 

[Genx87]

Yes Nvidia providing free to use optimized libraries is proof that after nearly a decade of owning the console market. AMD is going to finally end them.

The developer is free to develop their own libraries. Or code for two paths. Only on a tech board can a hardware company providing optional optimized libraries be some inflection point or conspiracy theory about unfair competition.

 

[Genx87]

I wonder if this actually catches or it's the beginning of the end for NVidia - a bold initiative like this could be either. With AMD controlling the console sector and devouring marketshare due to cryptocoin mining, it puts nvidia in a tight spot. Interesting times ahead.

Been hearing this since, well, 2003.

 

[dguy6789]

Been hearing this since, well, 2003.

It was before 2003 since the last time Nvidia was on the defensive in so many different markets at the same time.

 

[Genx87]

It was before 2003 since the last time Nvidia was on the defensive in so many different markets at the same time.

Oh I would never know that given how many times since 2003 Nvidia was on their death bed because of Intel, ATI\AMD, or whatever wonder technology that was flavor of the month.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Oh I would never know that given how many times since 2003 Nvidia was on their death bed because of Intel, ATI\AMD, or whatever wonder technology that was flavor of the month.

AMD has been declared dead 100 times more than Nvidia I bet. But make no mistake, Nvidia is being pressured more than they have since, probably ever. How they respond is what matters, I worry they will dig too far into the bag of dirty tricks. At some point such a strategy makes too many enemies.

 

[blastingcap]

"The first three scenes of the benchmark in Arkham Origins hammer tessellation. AMD’s driver allows us to manually define the tessellation level — changing that setting to x4 improves performance in the first three scenes of the test by 11%, from 134fps to 150fps. Total test performance improves by 7%, from 148fps to 158fps. AMD attempted to provide Warner Bros. Montreal with code to improve Arkham Origins performance in tessellation, as well as to fix certain multi-GPU problems with the game. The studio turned down both. Is this explicitly the fault of GameWorks? No, but it’s a splendid illustration of how developer bias, combined with unfair treatment, creates a sub-optimal consumer experience.

Under ordinary circumstances, the consumer sees none of this. The typical takeaway from these results would be “Man, AMD builds great hardware, but their driver support sucks.”
A fundamentally unequal playing field

Nvidia’s GameWorks program is conceptually similar to what Intel pulled on AMD 8-10 years back. In that situation, Intel’s compilers refused to optimize code for AMD processors, even though AMD had paid Intel for the right to implement SSE, SSE2, and SSE3. The compiler would search for a CPU string rather than just the ability to execute the vectorized code, and if it detected AuthenticAMD instead of GenuineIntel, it refused to use the most advantageous optimizations.

Nvidia_logo

The situation here is different, in that we’re discussing third-party libraries and not the fundamental tools used to build executables, but the end result is similar. AMD is no longer in control of its own performance. While GameWorks doesn’t technically lock vendors into Nvidia solutions, a developer that wanted to support both companies equally would have to work with AMD and Nvidia from the beginning of the development cycle to create a vendor-specific code path. It’s impossible for AMD to provide a quick after-launch fix."

(from the article in OP)

"The fundamental difference between Mantle and GW, to the best of my knowledge, is this: mantle does not hurt NVs ability to optimize games in DX11. Developers who agree to use Mantle can still optimize for NV. There are no new hurdles. GW creates near-impossible hurdles for AMD. I seriously doubt a GW title can support Mantle without developers committing to enormous additional work."


(article poster's comment)



Solution: boycott all game companies that do this kind of crap.

 

[AtenRa]

In order to understand the differences between Mantle and Gameworks.

Lets assume we have Game A,
Lets also assume that NV GPU = AMD GPU in performance

Now lets see what happens,

Game A Neutral development
AMD GPU = 100fps
NV GPU = 100fps

Game A with Mantle
AMD GPU = 130fps
NV GPU = 100fps

Game A with GameWorks
AMD GPU = 70fps
NV GPU = 130fps

I believe this makes it clear for everyone.

 

[sontin]

So, since when are nVidia cards able to use Mantle?

Right, so let me correct you:

Game A Neutral development
AMD GPU = 100fps
NV GPU = 100fps

Game A with Mantle
AMD GPU = 130fps
NV GPU = X

Game A with GameWorks
AMD GPU = 70fps
NV GPU = 130fps

 

[AtenRa]

So, since when are nVidia cards able to use Mantle?

Right, so let me correct you:

Game A Neutral development
AMD GPU = 100fps
NV GPU = 100fps

Game A with Mantle
AMD GPU = 130fps
NV GPU = X

Game A with GameWorks
AMD GPU = 70fps
NV GPU = 130fps

You are joking right ??

You mean you will not be able to play BF4 with an Nvidia card after the mantle patch ???

 

[SiliconWars]

You're missing the point Sontin. On a game basis Nvidia can always optimize DX, so they can always optimize the game. With GameWorks AMD can no longer optimize the game, period.

This is way worse than Mantle yet the Nv guys are lining up to defend it, while simultaneously dropping their recently found love of open standards.

No surprise really. :|

 

[Lonbjerg]

In order to understand the differences between Mantle and Gameworks.

Lets assume we have Game A,
Lets also assume that NV GPU = AMD GPU in performance

Now lets see what happens,

Game A Neutral development
AMD GPU = 100fps
NV GPU = 100fps

Game A with Mantle
AMD GPU = 130fps
NV GPU = 100fps

Game A with GameWorks
AMD GPU = 70fps
NV GPU = 130fps

I believe this makes it clear for everyone.

[CITATION NEEEDED]

Can I throw in my own made up numbers as counter "argument"?

 

[sontin]

You are joking right ??

You mean you will not be able to play BF4 with an Nvidia card after the mantle patch ???

The reason why you can play BF4 with an nVidia card is simple:
EA wants to sell copies to >80% of the market.

Without another API path a Mantle application will only run on AMD hardware.

Gameworks on the other hand doesn't block other hardware vendors.
It may not be optimize for them but it will certainly not block them from using the DX path.

You're missing the point Sontin. On a game basis Nvidia can always optimize DX, so they can always optimize the game. With GameWorks AMD can no longer optimize the game, period.

This is way worse than Mantle yet the Nv guys are lining up to defend it, while simultaneously dropping their recently found love of open standards.

No surprise really. :|

The only suprise is that you have no clue about DX. Optimizing happens much more on a driver than on the code level. How do you think AMD was able to improve the performance with 8xMSAA in Batman:AO two days after the release? Or nVidia increased the performance in Sniper Elite 2?

What you want is that developers change code or reduce the workload to help AMD. I wonder why Eidos didn't change TressFX to nVidia's solution? Or the guys from Sniper Elite 2 didn't implement nVidia's DoF?

Hm.

 

[SiliconWars]

The reason why you can play BF4 with an nVidia card is simple:
EA wants to sell copies to >80% of the market.

Without another API path a Mantle application will only run on AMD hardware.

Gameworks on the other hand doesn't block other hardware vendors.
It may not be optimize for them but it will certainly not block them from using the DX path.

Mantle doesn't block Nvidia from using DX, or optimizing DX.

Gameworks blocks AMD from optimizing DX.

This is the clear difference. You have to understand what competition is about - fair competition means trying to beat your opponent with new ideas while not excluding or deliberately hobbling them.

 

[sontin]

Seriously?!

So Mantle will automatically create a "open" API path for all the others vendors to let them have access to the application?

Yeah, nice try.

 

[SiliconWars]

The only suprise is that you have no clue about DX. Optimizing happens much more on a driver than on the code level. How do you think AMD was able to improve the performance with 8xMSAA in Batman:AO two days after the release? Or nVidia increased the performance in Sniper Elite 2?

What you want is that developers change code or reduce the workload to help AMD. I wonder why Eidos didn't change TressFX to nVidia's solution? Or the guys from Sniper Elite 2 didn't implement nVidia's DoF?

Hm.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...rps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd/2

The situation here is different, in that we’re discussing third-party libraries and not the fundamental tools used to build executables, but the end result is similar. AMD is no longer in control of its own performance. While GameWorks doesn’t technically lock vendors into Nvidia solutions, a developer that wanted to support both companies equally would have to work with AMD and Nvidia from the beginning of the development cycle to create a vendor-specific code path. It’s impossible for AMD to provide a quick after-launch fix.

 

[AtenRa]

The reason why you can play BF4 with an nVidia card is simple:
EA wants to sell copies to >80% of the market.

Without another API path a Mantle application will only run on AMD hardware.

Gameworks on the other hand doesn't block other hardware vendors.
It may not be optimize for them but it will certainly not block them from using the DX path.

So, let me make it more clear for you.

Game A Neutral development
AMD GPU = 100fps (DX11)
NV GPU = 100fps (DX11)

Game A with Mantle
AMD GPU = 130fps (Mantle)
NV GPU = 100fps (DX11)

Game A with GameWorks
AMD GPU = 70fps (DX11)
NV GPU = 130fps (GameWorks)

Do you get it now ???

Edit: Also, if the game only use CUDA it will only work with NVIDIA GPUs :whiste:

 

[SiliconWars]

Seriously?!

So Mantle will automatically create a "open" API path for all the others vendors to let them have access to the application?

Yeah, nice try.

What are you talking about? This is about exclusion from the GAME, not the API. You play GAMES not API's.

 

[Lonbjerg]

So, let me make it more clear for you.

Game A Neutral development
AMD GPU = 100fps (DX11)
NV GPU = 100fps (DX11)

Game A with Mantle
AMD GPU = 130fps (Mantle)
NV GPU = 100fps (DX11)

Game A with GameWorks
AMD GPU = 70fps (DX11)
NV GPU = 130fps (GameWorks)

Do you get it now ???

No.
What are you basing those number on?

 

[SiliconWars]

No.
What are you basing those number on?

The fact that the 770 is almost equal to the 290X in this game is a good indication that Nvidia is hobbling AMD. That and the devs not allowing AMD to optimize...isn't this ringing any alarm bells?