[Forbes] AMD Is Wrong About 'The Witcher 3' And Nvidia's HairWorks

[Enigmoid]

But I feel if they knew the default was 64x, they would have pushed nVidia to drop that down to 16x. The 75% performance boost and no visual quality difference is a pretty big driver to drop that.

You place far too little blame on Project RED. Of course they knew the default was 64x. Do you really think they would implement a feature without testing? While the code may have already been written its a lot of work to integrate into the engine. Furthermore the performance loss is not something competent developers are going to write off. They would investigate what is causing - 40-60% fps drops and try to work around it.

This looks like Nvidia being stupid and simply not optimizing.

As far as performance differences between AMD and Nvidia...


Nvidia wrote the code...of course its optimized better for their chips. Its poorly written but the fact that it performs better for their chips is no surprise and (assuming this is the only reason for the performance difference) should be expected. If its doing anything low level why on earth would you assume its going to perform well on AMD or intel setups.

 

[Kenmitch]

Oh I have no doubt they knew the performance impact of enabling those features. They even said as much before release.

But I feel if they knew the default was 64x, they would have pushed nVidia to drop that down to 16x. The 75% performance boost and no visual quality difference is a pretty big driver to drop that.

EDIT: I actually had a hard time seeing the difference between 8x and 16x, other than 8x ran better. Tested by forcing it down via the AMD control center.

That's because your focusing on the game play dummy

To truly enjoy the awesomeness of 64x tessellation you need to focus on the visual fidelity. Take some pretty screenshots, zoom in and enjoy the awesomeness.

Guess you could view the W3 examples in this thread to get an idea of how it's meant to be seen.

How are you gonna have tessagasm if your more into the game play?...Some have multiples tessagasmic experiences!

 

[Silverforce11]

Project Cars is the best example that AMD just doesnt care about pc gaming anymore. So instead of pushing graphics on the pc plattform and helping developers they expect that they do all the work on their own.

Project Cars is the best example of maliciousness from NV.

Not shocking that a game filled with NV logos everywhere as a constant reminder runs poorly on AMD hardware, not at all, its expected.

The shocking and malicious result is that a lowly gtx960 is matching a 780Ti and destroying Titan & 780.

All that and the game is worse than Assetto Corsa & Dirt Rally (Alpha!), both of which run at blazing speeds on Kepler, Maxwell & AMD.

Also, any takers on the new DICE Need for Speed Reboot looking better and running better than Proj Cars?

In-game footage: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybZ5nchDm6o

 

[SirPauly]

I don't understand how everyone doesn't have a problem with excessive use of tessellation that grants basically zero visual improvements.

This is a valid point -- and a fair criticism. I've been wondering what are the quality differences for x64 and really don't know --- I think it helps with undersampling and helps with memory savings -- but nVidia has been consistent with x64 -- would like to see someone ask nVidia and see what their view is.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

This is a valid point -- and a fair criticism. I've been wondering what are the quality differences for x64 and really don't know --- I think it helps with undersampling and helps with memory savings -- but nVidia has been consistent with x64 -- would like to see someone ask nVidia and see what their view is.

There view is that as long as x64 makes their cards look better than the competition they don't care how awful performance is as a result. Just have to be on top.

 

[greatnoob]

Project Cars is the best example of maliciousness from NV.

Not shocking that a game filled with NV logos everywhere as a constant reminder runs poorly on AMD hardware, not at all, its expected.

The shocking and malicious result is that a lowly gtx960 is matching a 780Ti and destroying Titan & 780.

All that and the game is worse than Assetto Corsa & Dirt Rally (Alpha!), both of which run at blazing speeds on Kepler, Maxwell & AMD.

Don't blame Nvidia or the developers, it's all AMD's fault because:

• they aren't spoonfeeding game developers with already documented libraries that even a sole indie game developer can port over into a game engine (source)
• they aren't selling their open-source libraries despite that being a paradox in itself
• they aren't releasing proprietary libraries that hamper performance on their competitors' and even their own EOL hardware
• they aren't shilling enough sites
• they aren't restricting features that were once available
• they aren't shilling enough studios
• they aren't being anti-competitive enough
• they aren't trying to create division in the PC landscape

If you have the audacity to even think that Nvidia is to blame here you are an AMD fanboy and shill who has a vested interest in their anti-competitive and deceptive business and its practices. Wow, how dare you! I'm not a software or hardware engineer nor am I a financial analyst but believe me when I say that you don't know anything and I know much more than you even though I have no idea how anything works. I am going to keep posting drivel to arguments here that actually make sense if I read them but I think it'd be better if I just blindly followed and backed up a business that barely cares about consumers unless it has an adverse effect to their shareholders' wealth. /s

 

[monstercameron]

Don't blame Nvidia or the developers, it's all AMD's fault because:

• they aren't spoonfeeding game developers with already documented libraries that even a sole indie game developer can port over into a game engine (source)
  [*]they aren't selling their open-source libraries despite that being a paradox in itself
• they aren't releasing proprietary libraries that hamper performance on their competitors' and even their own EOL hardware
• they aren't shilling enough sites
• they aren't restricting features that were once available
• they aren't shilling enough studios
• they aren't being anti-competitive enough
• they aren't trying to create division in the PC landscape

If you have the audacity to even think that Nvidia is to blame here you are an AMD fanboy and shill who has a vested interest in their anti-competitive and deceptive business and its practices. Wow, how dare you! I'm not a software or hardware engineer nor am I a financial analyst but believe me when I say that you don't know anything and I know much more than you even though I have no idea how anything works. I am going to keep posting drivel to arguments here that actually make sense if I read them but I think it'd be better if I just blindly followed and backed up a business that barely cares about consumers unless it has an adverse effect to their shareholders' wealth. /s

selling f/oss isnt a paradox, it is even RMS approved!

 

[greatnoob]

selling f/oss isnt a paradox, it is even RMS approved!

Actually no. Selling an open-source library = not allowed. Selling of a final product which uses an open source library = allowed.

I have never heard of anybody selling open source libraries for a profit (defeats the purpose). There is distinction between software and code. When you're selling open source software, you're generally selling a license not the actual code. Selling code under one of the many common open-source licenses doesn't seem to make much sense.

 

[boozzer]

Don't blame Nvidia or the developers, it's all AMD's fault because:

• they aren't spoonfeeding game developers with already documented libraries that even a sole indie game developer can port over into a game engine (source)
• they aren't selling their open-source libraries despite that being a paradox in itself
• they aren't releasing proprietary libraries that hamper performance on their competitors' and even their own EOL hardware
• they aren't shilling enough sites
• they aren't restricting features that were once available
• they aren't shilling enough studios
• they aren't being anti-competitive enough
• they aren't trying to create division in the PC landscape

If you have the audacity to even think that Nvidia is to blame here you are an AMD fanboy and shill who has a vested interest in their anti-competitive and deceptive business and its practices. Wow, how dare you! I'm not a software or hardware engineer nor am I a financial analyst but believe me when I say that you don't know anything and I know much more than you even though I have no idea how anything works. I am going to keep posting drivel to arguments here that actually make sense if I read them but I think it'd be better if I just blindly followed and backed up a business that barely cares about consumers unless it has an adverse effect to their shareholders' wealth. /s

I just feel like this needs to be quoted at least 1 more time :biggrin:

 

[selni]

Actually no. Selling an open-source library = not allowed. Selling of a final product which uses an open source library = allowed.

I have never heard of anybody selling open source libraries for a profit (defeats the purpose). There is distinction between software and code. When you're selling open source software, you're generally selling a license not the actual code. Selling code under one of the many common open-source licenses doesn't seem to make much sense.

Happens all the time, even with free libre open source software (remember open does not automatically imply free, and free can mean $$ rather than permissions) - eg redhat, mysql and so on.

You're always selling IP rights rather than "code" - software isn't a physical thing and trying to distinguish these concepts is not meaningful. If you mean selling ownership of the IP, that happens too.

 

[greatnoob]

Happens all the time, even with free libre open source software (remember open does not automatically imply free, and free can mean $$ rather than permissions) - eg redhat, mysql and so on.

You're always selling IP rights rather than "code" - software isn't a physical thing and trying to distinguish these concepts is not meaningful. If you mean selling ownership of the IP, that happens too.

Open source libraries are sold? No. Open source/proprietary software sold with open source code? Yes. You are confusing open source software and open source code/libraries.

This article seems to explain it better than me (in this case it's the GPL license):

The GNU project itself "encourages people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can... You can charge nothing, a penny, a dollar, or a billion dollars. It's up to you, and the marketplace."

Please note that "as much as you wish" only applies to the executable form of the software, not its source code. This is explained in subsections 6a and 6b of the GPL: if you want to sell a binary copy of a GPL software program, you must include either its complete source code or a written, formal offer valid at least three years to provide it to whoever possesses the binary.

Source

I have yet to find an open source license that permits the selling of code/libraries (not software) probably because it wouldn't make much sense.

 

[selni]

Open source libraries are sold? No. Open source/proprietary software sold with open source code? Yes. You are confusing open source software and open source code/libraries.

This article seems to explain it better than me (in this case it's the GPL license):

Source

I have yet to find an open source license that permits the selling of code/libraries (not software) probably because it wouldn't make much sense.

Again, this distinction doesn't make any sense. What are you referring to as a "library" here? The source code? It's perfectly ok for me to say, download the source of a GPLv3 licensed repository and try to sell copies of the source. It'd be dumb as chances are no one would be stupid enough to buy it, but the license doesn't forbid this (section 4). Section 5 lets me do the same thing with modified source code.

The reason it's dumb is of course automatic licensing and unlimited redistribution - anyone who gets a copy is free to do what they want with it.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Are the GNU and other open source licensing rules really relevant to the thread?

 

[showb1z]

Don't blame Nvidia or the developers, it's all AMD's fault because:

• they aren't spoonfeeding game developers with already documented libraries that even a sole indie game developer can port over into a game engine (source)
• they aren't selling their open-source libraries despite that being a paradox in itself
• they aren't releasing proprietary libraries that hamper performance on their competitors' and even their own EOL hardware
• they aren't shilling enough sites
• they aren't restricting features that were once available
• they aren't shilling enough studios
• they aren't being anti-competitive enough
• they aren't trying to create division in the PC landscape

If you have the audacity to even think that Nvidia is to blame here you are an AMD fanboy and shill who has a vested interest in their anti-competitive and deceptive business and its practices. Wow, how dare you! I'm not a software or hardware engineer nor am I a financial analyst but believe me when I say that you don't know anything and I know much more than you even though I have no idea how anything works. I am going to keep posting drivel to arguments here that actually make sense if I read them but I think it'd be better if I just blindly followed and backed up a business that barely cares about consumers unless it has an adverse effect to their shareholders' wealth. /s

Good thing you put that /s in there!
Also QFT.

 

[amenx]

Nobodys suggesting AMD sell their open source libraries, ridiculous. How anyone can interpret that in the literal sense is either thick-skulled or purposely disingenuous. AMD (like any other business, let alone a failing one) need to advocate or more insistently convince devs why their code is more advantageous vs a competitors. Open source does not mean automatic implementation by devs, who for whatever reason, may not be as acutely aware of benefits, trade-offs of certain code vs others especially when it is being continuously improved or enhanced (ie, TressFX 1.0 vs 3.0 vs Hairworks), even though they should. CPDR may have been convinced that Hairworks was more viable at the beginning of W3 project, but did not foresee that the new GPUs down the road would still not be able to run it well. They may have also ignored anything having to do with TressFX since they were dead set on Hairworks/Gameworks. In retrospect, and as things unfolded, I would say that CDPR may be regretting not offering TressFX as an option for AMD users. So this may have been avoided, if again, AMD had been more insistent and engaged with CPDR on the matter from early on.

Quite funny how in the end, as many AMD users found, Hairworks is not really a problem for them when using the tess slider.. an advantage they have over Nvidia in this case which does not yet have that option, even in Maxwell. This with little trade-off on the IQ front.

 

[coercitiv]

In retrospect, and as things unfolded, I would say that CDPR may be regretting not offering TressFX as an option for AMD users.

Unless legally bound otherwise, they can always offer TressFX as part of a performance patch.

 

[greatnoob]

Nobodys suggesting AMD sell their open source libraries, ridiculous. How anyone can interpret that in the literal sense is either thick-skulled or purposely disingenuous. AMD (like any other business, let alone a failing one) need to advocate or more insistently convince devs why their code is more advantageous vs a competitors.

Here's a blast from the past (page 1):

They cannot just sit on their asses and assume their open source is automatically going to be used. They have to sell it! They have to push game devs to use it. But they didnt. Thats poor management in my book. What a pathetic forumula for any competing hardware maker to use... 'hey, if we make it open source... everyone is going to use it, no ifs, ands or buts about it'!

The only way you can (as you said) push game devs to use it is to sell it (monetary connotation) to them. You cannot push something onto a business. Your very precise selection of words (push, sell) shows that you want AMD to bribe them (why?).

To clear this up for you one more time (as I stated in pg 1):
Open source libraries exist for the benefit of developers only, not the consumers even though a lot of that benefit is passed onto them too. OOP 101: never reinvent the wheel. There is no need for AMD to entice any developer when the benefits of using such a library are so obvious to a developer in the first place.

Somebody here stated that Nvidia did not pay CDPR to implement Gameworks. If that were the case, what benefit did they see against using TressFX vs a proprietary load of shit that has led up to this controversy in the first place?

 

[Silverforce11]

Unless legally bound otherwise, they can always offer TressFX as part of a performance patch.

They don't need to. AMD users can just override Tessellation to 16x and enjoy HairWorks in all its glory with minimal performance loss. NV users need that slider in control panel, just in case more future NV sponsored titles push Tessellation to the max for no visual benefits just because. As someone in the know said: "That's sub-pixel... there's no way a pixel can confer that much detail." Total waste of processing power for zero visual gains.

It's a shame there's no PhysX slider in Proj Cars, updating car physics 600 times per second (1.6ms) is utterly pointless when GPUs struggle to run it at 60 fps (16ms). Again here, total waste of processing power (10x) than rendering speed.

 

[sontin]

To clear this up for you one more time (as I stated in pg 1):
Open source libraries exist for the benefit of developers only, not the consumers even though a lot of that benefit is passed onto them too. OOP 101: never reinvent the wheel. There is no need for AMD to entice any developer when the benefits of using such a library are so obvious to a developer in the first place.

Developers dont need access to source code. They just dont care. They care about the result not the way. If the middleware doesnt provide the right result they will scrap it.

Somebody here stated that Nvidia did not pay CDPR to implement Gameworks. If that were the case, what benefit did they see against using TressFX vs a proprietary load of shit that has led up to this controversy in the first place?

Because it is better? :|
Why would they care to implement a second technique for the same result when it will cost them money and time without any gain?
Hairworks runs on AMD hardware. So they can use it. If the performance hit is to much, they can disable the feature.

 

[amenx]

Here's a blast from the past (page 1):


The only way you can (as you said) push game devs to use it is to sell it (monetary connotation) to them. You cannot push something onto a business. Your very precise selection of words (push, sell) shows that you want AMD to bribe them (why?).

You clearly are unaware of the full definition of 'sell' (aside from the monetary conotations), which is why I alluded to the "literal sense" where some can flub the term.

Excerpted from American Heritage Dictionary

5. To persuade (another) to recognize the worth or desirability of: They sold me on the idea.

To clear this up for you one more time (as I stated in pg 1):
Open source libraries exist for the benefit of developers only, not the consumers even though a lot of that benefit is passed onto them too. OOP 101: never reinvent the wheel. There is no need for AMD to entice any developer when the benefits of using such a library are so obvious to a developer in the first place.

Sorry, any smartly run business would do something (if they could) to entice another business to see their POV if it would benefit them. Regardless if "the benefits of using such a library are so obvious to a developer", the 'push' must go through at the first sign the dev chose not to 'benefit' from it. It does not have to involve 'bribery'. Engagement or dialogue of any sort should have been a given. That did not seem to occur until way past the cut-off date. BUT... it DID occur.. just too late.

Somebody here stated that Nvidia did not pay CDPR to implement Gameworks. If that were the case, what benefit did they see against using TressFX vs a proprietary load of shit that has led up to this controversy in the first place?

The benefit of having a better running game, less prone to complaints and controversy.

 

[SirPauly]

It's the same complaining and just becomes circular. nVidia will probably continue to add features and improve upon their current GameWork middlewares for their customers. If AMD's answer is to whine about a competitor that has spent probably many millions for a competitive advantage to open it fully is not solving the issue to me -- show the gaming world with your own innovation and abilities to get your vision in gaming titles for your customers. If they don't, they could be at the tipping point where they will not be able to compete from a brand or resource point-of-view.

It's the same circular debate -- insert gaming title; point fingers at nVidia and game developers usually for trying to do more for their customers and as AMD complains they keep on losing precious share. AMD's message is reactionary, defeating and tarnishes their brand to me. It's a competitive landscape.

Appreciate calls or vocal points so nVidia may rethink their GameWork strategies for more cooperation for the over-all good but to ignore the resources and investments spent into creating GameWorks and a desire to focus on their customers and shareholders. It would be nice if nVidia did this but would it be smart? Spending immense resources to try to improve their customers' experiences and simply give away and share fully their IP to their competitors? It's at least understandable to a small degree.

That Forbes article addressed many of my views -- AMD may need to do something more than reactionary complaining and an investment in OpenWorks may seem to be the answer -- show the World how to do it ---- instead of being reactionary and complaining toward a company that is doing something for their customers and shareholders.

 

[sontin]

nVidia is giving their Gameworks libaries away for free - look at the Unreal Engine 4 integration. What they dont give away is the source code - their own IP.

 

[Sunaiac]

Of course they give it for free.
It destroys everything it touches, but destroys it more for radeon users.

 

[Keysplayr]

AMD proponents. What exactly do you want Nvidia to do for AMD customers?

 

[maddie]

AMD proponents. What exactly do you want Nvidia to do for AMD customers?

You should ask instead.

AMD proponents. What exactly do you want Nvidia to do for PC customers?