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

[SirPauly]

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

That's no true -- HBAO+ doesn't destroy performance -- what about PhysX cloth and Destruction? Even HairWorks can be tweaked to improve performance by their tessellation slider -- WTF?

 

[sontin]

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

Radeon users can integrate TressFX into the UE4 engine.
But i guess they want that nVidia is doing this, too. :awe:

 

[Keysplayr]

You should ask instead.

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

So you didnt like the question then. Anyone else?

 

[coercitiv]

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.

Last time they showed the world how it's done enough voices complained about Mantle leading to a more fragmented development environment. Benefits were downplayed, skepticism was high. Some even considered Mantle a pure PR campaign, smoke and mirrors. Even I kept my optimism in check since I had little faith in AMDs capability to provide enough momentum for this initiative to succeed.

Fast forward several months later, Mantle proved to be the spark for a revolution. AMD sold Mantle to the world. (as in persuade someone of the merits of)

I don't see a passive & whiny company. I see a team delivering products that shape an entire industry, not just a pony tail.

 

[SirPauly]

You should ask instead.

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

To try to differentiate, innovate and improve the gaming experience -- if ya don't, hardware and software would be exactly the same -- and more like console gaming.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

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

Why are you trying to pin the uproar from gameworks solely on AMD "proponents." Nvidia proponents should should be just as pissed about gameworks. It's crippling year old flagship nvidia cards as well. For no perceptible increase in image quality.

Even the gtx980 and 970 would run these games much better if they decided to find a sweet spot where image quality is the same, but the excessive overuse of tesselation and other things is unnecessary.

I think most of use understand why you feel the need to defend them, but please be a little more realistic about what you are stating. It's not just AMD customers who should be mad about gameworks in it's current implementation.

 

[Keysplayr]

Last time they showed the world how it's done enough voices complained about Mantle leading to a more fragmented development environment. Benefits were downplayed, skepticism was high. Some even considered Mantle a pure PR campaign, smoke and mirrors. Even I kept my optimism in check since I had little faith in AMDs capability to provide enough momentum for this initiative to succeed.

Fast forward several months later, Mantle proved to be the spark for a revolution. AMD sold Mantle to the world. (as in persuade someone of the merits of)

I don't see a passive & whiny company. I see a team delivering products that shape an entire industry, not just pony tail.

Even if everything you said here was 100% accurate, its a failing model as AMD opens itself out of existence. Then what will your position be?

 

[showb1z]

To try to differentiate, innovate and improve the gaming experience -- if ya don't, hardware and software would be exactly the same -- and more like console gaming.

Proprietary code that forces you to buy certain hardware (Nvidia's endgame) is exactly like console gaming.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why are you trying to pin the uproar from gameworks solely on AMD "proponents." Nvidia proponents should should be just as pissed about gameworks. It's crippling year old flagship nvidia cards as well. For no perceptible increase in image quality.

Even the gtx980 and 970 would run these games much better if they decided to find a sweet spot where image quality is the same, but the excessive overuse of tesselation and other things is unnecessary.

I think most of use understand why you feel the need to defend them, but please be a little more realistic about what you are stating. It's not just AMD customers who should be mad about gameworks in it's current implementation.

Another non answer. I couldnt be more realistic if i tried. You're the one that envisions corps holding each others hands singing kumbaya. Again. What do you want Nvidia to do for it's competitors customers. And try to answer without cracking yourself up.

 

[zlatan]

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.

That's just a part of the problem. Sure you can override the main parameters for the effect to gain speed without sacrificing quality. Changing the 64x tesselation factor to 16x is a great start because anything over 16x won't give you any quality advantage. But even if you do that, the HairWorks effect won't have better AA, or proper transparency and self shadowing. You can't add these with simple hacks, so the overall quality will be still very bad.

There is no problem when an IHV create effects without quality. Sure there are sometimes when the performance matter. But creating a performance hog effect without quality is a bad thing for the PC gaming industry, and NVIDIA exactly do that with HairWorks. This is the only problem, and sadly nobody talks about it.
Proper transparency, self shadowing and AA solution is a must for these hair/fur effects.

 

[sontin]

The developer is resonsible for the quality of the fur.
Download the Hairviewer from the nVidia site and look for yourself.

 

[coercitiv]

Even if everything you said here was 100% accurate, its a failing model as AMD opens itself out of existence. Then what will your position be?

SirPauly depicted AMD as reactionary and whiny, not being able to show the world how to do it. I provided him with a clear example that paints the same company as proactive and capable to execute even with limited resources.

Why do you care more about my position than the discussion at hand?

 

[lilrayray69]

Forbes knows what's up with gaming & technology, obviously.


Do even Nvidia owners use HairWorks? I have a 970 and I don't because Hairworks On = an FPS loss greater than AA, Sharpening, Bloom, Blur, higher textures, etc. all combined. And I have a 970...so really, who's even using it?

 

[SirPauly]

Last time they showed the world how it's done enough voices complained about Mantle leading to a more fragmented development environment. Benefits were downplayed, skepticism was high. Some even considered Mantle a pure PR campaign, smoke and mirrors. Even I kept my optimism in check since I had little faith in AMDs capability to provide enough momentum for this initiative to succeed.

Fast forward several months later, Mantle proved to be the spark for a revolution. AMD sold Mantle to the world. (as in persuade someone of the merits of)

I don't see a passive & whiny company. I see a team delivering products that shape an entire industry, not just pony tail.

imho,

Mantle was proprietary, closed option for most and did cause some division, chaos and fragmentation but when a company risks proprietary there is also a possible reward: awareness, innovation and hopefully some of this vision becomes part of industry standards.

I've said this years ago when proprietary was such a dirty word and such one sided views:

Proprietary may cause some division, chaos and fragmentation but also brings welcomed choice, innovation and awareness, which hopefully becomes an industry standard to mature.

I was pro low overhead API from the start with this awareness - it's rare that I agreed with Richard Huddy:

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

And this post from Repi:

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

What kind of person doesn't like efficiency? And proprietary breaks the shackles of industry standards so a company can innovate and compete and offer choices that go beyond standards, too. AMD was very pro-active here, very welcomed but how does it compete with GameWorks? Since Mantle, AMD has dramatically lost share.

 

[BFG10K]

Who decides what features are optional? Well that's an easy one, the game developer does! They set all the menu options, and sometimes settings can be changed via ini files and the like.

OK, so according to you, texture quality and resolutions are optional features because they can be set in the menu. Gotcha.

AMD can disable anything they want when their chipsets are used, but good luck selling many CPUs when this happens... They are in no position to do such a thing, so arguing that point is, well, pointless.

Way to completely miss the point. Clearly you're an Intel user, so let me try it again:

If Intel throttled back to PCEx1 whenever it detected resolutions above 800x600 being used, would you be happy with that?

After all, 1080p is just an optional feature. You can turn it off and run 800x600 if you don't like Intel's performance hit, right?

As for your last question, I don't speak on other's behalf, nor do I have any way to know how they would react. It's a silly question, to be honest.

That was a rhetorical question. We both know you'd be the first to complain if Intel starting pulling the same stunts as nVidia and it was negatively impacting your gameplay experience.

All of that crap about "disabling optional features" would go straight out the window.

 

[MrK6]

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

Wow, stop. I feel like I'm watching political pundits and not a graphics discussion thread.

This quotation explains everything wrong with this discussion - just because people don't care for one company's tactics doesn't mean they're a proponent or even like the other. It's this "you're either with us or against us" mentality that highlights how rooted nvidia's marketing is (either actively or passively). Stop trying to force positions on people.

I would like to see nvidia actually develop a piece of software that improves gaming experience instead of a marketing ploy under the guise of a feature that tanks performance. It can still be locked to only their cards, but I would at least like to see them make an effort to develop something positive for once.

 

[BFG10K]

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

Why even talk about AMD customers? The problem starts with nVidia customers.

For a start, how about not disabling hardware PhysX - a feature nVidia's customers paid for - when a USB monitor is plugged in.

 

[MrK6]

OK, so according to you, texture quality and resolutions are optional features because they can be set in the menu. Gotcha.


Way to completely miss the point. Clearly you're an Intel user, so let me try it again:

If Intel throttled back to PCEx1 whenever it detected resolutions above 800x600 being used, would you be happy with that?

After all, 1080p is just an optional feature. You can turn it off and run 800x600 if you don't like Intel's performance hit, right?


That was a rhetorical question. We both know you'd be the first to complain if Intel starting pulling the same stunts as nVidia and it was negatively impacting your gameplay experience.

All of that crap about "disabling optional features" would go straight out the window.

Right on, great post. :thumbsup:

 

[Enigmoid]

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

Why would (or perhaps should they) care about PC users in general? They care about, and have an obligation (the kepler degradation is another issue) toward their own customers but what and why are they obligated to do for AMD and Intel users?

I feel this question needs to be answered first before any meaningful discussion can be made.

The answer is not: "Because its good for PC gaming." Nvidia is a business run by shareholders whom they have an obligation to turn a profit for. People are confusing what they want with Nvidia is obligated to give them (entitlement generation).

Personally I feel that the discussion must go toward and be applied to other examples to analyze strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.

Look at apple for instance. Want Final Cut, aperture, iphoto or an up-to-date safari (or numerous other applications)? Buy a mac. Apple's not going to give your their software, their work for free. If you want that software the only alternative is to buy a mac. Of course this negatively impacts computing in general but I don't see a huge fuss about this kind of thing. Are they obligated to provide windows and linux versions of their propitiatory software to improve professional photo and video editing?

That's an extreme case and the point could be made that there is no third party that is ultimately selling the goods. Nvidia however, creates and licenses its closed libraries who ultimately have the choice about integrating them into their own software (knowing the strengths and limitations).

The difference between Mantle and Gameworks must also be discussed. Mantle is only available to developers who sign up and are approved by AMD. I am assuming there are a lot of NDA's involved with beta mantle access and I do not know the minutiae. Its similar to gameworks in that its closed and limited to AMD gpus (perhaps they relented and let intel in - and nvidia if nvidia wanted in). Lets not forget the 'openness' of mantle which was developed and v1.0 created without any input from intel (who were told "go away") to work solely on AMD GPUs. If AMD was so concerned about openness why tell intel to buzz off when intel inquired about mantle details (mantle was already in several games at the point so a lot of the groundwork must have already been done - surely they could have worked with intel).

http://developer.amd.com/mantle/

 

[zlatan]

The developer is resonsible for the quality of the fur.
Download the Hairviewer from the nVidia site and look for yourself.

I'm not talking about the assets. I'm talking about the effect quality.
On the simulation side HairWorks is not bad. It should use a strand-slave optimization, but the simulation is not a big protion of the time budget, so this is not critical.
On rendering wise HairWorks is a total mess. There is no proper self shadowing, and the AA is bad. This is basically an MSAA with 8x render target. And MSAA has some compatibility issue with some renderers, so building a pipeline around it is not a good idea.
HairWorks is very bad on creating smooth edges and it has very limited transparency support. I think an OIT solution is a must for these effects to prevent any sampling for the non-edge hair strands. I'm aware that a PPLL data structure can use to much memory, but there are some other ways, for example a mutex-based solution.

 

[SirPauly]

SirPauly depicted AMD as reactionary and whiny, not being able to show the world how to do it. I provided him with a clear example that paints the same company as proactive and capable to execute even with limited resource

You did and a great example and AMD may need more of this in creating a potential OpenWorks instead of reactionary complaints.

 

[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?

So you didnt like the question then. Anyone else?

You're correct. I did not like the question as I found it glib and trivial, but as it seems so important to you, here goes.

Nvidia, as an AMD user, please let me see the light. I need to know that you will be there for me in my moment of need. Convince me to spend more for your cards and KNOW that you will make me better than those other card gamers. Encourage effects in games that make me realize there is no stopping, even for a while on a older system. I need to learn that we march nonstop into the future, past purchases be damned. Whatever you say, I will believe. What ever you say, I will accept. Do this for me Nvidia.

 

[Keysplayr]

Why even talk about AMD customers? The problem starts with nVidia customers.

For a start, how about not disabling hardware PhysX - a feature nVidia's customers paid for - when a USB monitor is plugged in.

Wow. Nobody wants to answer.

 

[maddie]

Why would (or perhaps should they) care about PC users in general? They care about, and have an obligation (the kepler degradation is another issue) toward their own customers but what and why are they obligated to do for AMD and Intel users?

I feel this question needs to be answered first before any meaningful discussion can be made.

The answer is not: "Because its good for PC gaming." Nvidia is a business run by shareholders whom they have an obligation to turn a profit for. People are confusing what they want with Nvidia is obligated to give them (entitlement generation).

Personally I feel that the discussion must go toward and be applied to other examples to analyze strengths and weaknesses of the arguments.

Look at apple for instance. Want Final Cut, aperture, iphoto or an up-to-date safari (or numerous other applications)? Buy a mac. Apple's not going to give your their software, their work for free. If you want that software the only alternative is to buy a mac. Of course this negatively impacts computing in general but I don't see a huge fuss about this kind of thing. Are they obligated to provide windows and linux versions of their propitiatory software to improve professional photo and video editing?

That's an extreme case and the point could be made that there is no third party that is ultimately selling the goods. Nvidia however, creates and licenses its closed libraries who ultimately have the choice about integrating them into their own software (knowing the strengths and limitations).

The difference between Mantle and Gameworks must also be discussed. Mantle is only available to developers who sign up and are approved by AMD. I am assuming there are a lot of NDA's involved with beta mantle access and I do not know the minutiae. Its similar to gameworks in that its closed and limited to AMD gpus (perhaps they relented and let intel in - and nvidia if nvidia wanted in). Lets not forget the 'openness' of mantle which was developed and v1.0 created without any input from intel (who were told "go away") to work solely on AMD GPUs. If AMD was so concerned about openness why tell intel to buzz off when intel inquired about mantle details (mantle was already in several games at the point so a lot of the groundwork must have already been done - surely they could have worked with intel).

http://developer.amd.com/mantle/

Because all should be concerned with the ramifications of falling PC sales.

 

[monstercameron]

who has the most to gain from the failing pc ecosystem? whoever is in the consoles.