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

[stuff_me_good]

If nVidia's extremist, evil, purposely sabotaging strategy was to force Kepler and Fermi owners to buy Maxwell, why in the hell offer Fermi and Kepler owners a DSR feature marketed for Maxwell? nVidia would of ignored Kepler and Fermi customers and not spent the resources but yet they did.

Probably by gimping the feature at the same time so when gamer next time tries this "new" feature and experiences huge disappointment in performance, so next logical step is to buy new card and praise the lord on how well it works on new magnificent maxwell.

 

[Kenmitch]

Probably by gimping the feature at the same time so when gamer next time tries this "new" feature and experiences huge disappointment in performance, so next logical step is to buy new card and praise the lord on how well it works on new magnificent maxwell.

No need to gimp it. It's actually inherently more demanding. I'll agree on the rest.

 

[xthetenth]

If nVidia's extremist, evil, purposely sabotaging strategy was to force Kepler and Fermi owners to buy Maxwell, why in the hell offer Fermi and Kepler owners a DSR feature marketed for Maxwell? nVidia would of ignored Kepler and Fermi customers and not spent the resources but yet they did.

I don't necessarily hold the view of active sabotage but instead malign neglect, but why not give that feature? It's giving a feature to older versions which is good will, and it lets people sell themselves on the need for more performance. If you decide you want the extra IQ from that feature you need more performance to run it well, and that means an upgrade.

Well that'll teach me to leave replies unposted.

 

[SirPauly]

Probably by gimping the feature at the same time so when gamer next time tries this "new" feature and experiences huge disappointment in performance, so next logical step is to buy new card and praise the lord on how well it works on new magnificent maxwell.

That's an interesting view - huge disappointment? Gimping? The feature has the flexibility to add these DSR factors; 1.2,1.5, 1.78, 2.0, 2.25, 2.50. 3.0, 4.0 A tool to find the right balance of quality and performance and add value to the experience. There are countless titles where this may enhance, with many that are not compatible with traditional methods of anti-aliasing as well, and why the tool was welcomed. But, it's part of the master plan of gimping I guess.

 

[xthetenth]

If the performance is already pants, the feature doesn't have to be gimped, it just has to turn performance into IQ to show what people could be getting at acceptable framerates if they upgraded.

 

[SirPauly]

If nVidia desired the feature to gimp kepler and Fermi and force or sell upgrades, they wouldn't of offered so many DSR factors, which provides value and flexibility for one's library of titles.

 

[xthetenth]

If nVidia desired the feature to gimp kepler and Fermi and force or sell upgrades, they wouldn't of offered so many DSR factors, which provides value and flexibility for one's library of titles.

If all you can manage with decent performance is 1.2, having the option for that factor lets you run the feature and be thinking about it, and how if you go to the new cards you can run a higher factor. It's adding another very big slider and you know how people get about not being able to max their sliders.

 

[Deders]

Something I've just noticed, If I turn hairworks from on to off, neither Geraldt's or Roach's hair changes (still waves about), but my framerate goes up. Changing it back and it goes back down.

Has someone somewhere decided to lock off part of the hardware just for Hairworks?

 

[Silverforce11]

Something I've just noticed, If I turn hairworks from on to off, neither Geraldt's or Roach's hair changes (still waves about), but my framerate goes up. Changing it back and it goes back down.

Has someone somewhere decided to lock off part of the hardware just for Hairworks?

The standard hair waves about in response to your motion. The HairWorks hair differs in that it responses to light sources better and it can get "wet".

I hated the shimmering of the HairWorks so I turn it off.

 

[ocre]

Probably by gimping the feature at the same time so when gamer next time tries this "new" feature and experiences huge disappointment in performance, so next logical step is to buy new card and praise the lord on how well it works on new magnificent maxwell.

This is a joke, right?
I hope you are just trying to be funny cause there is no way you can be serious. It is hard for me to read it with a straight face!

If all you can manage with decent performance is 1.2, having the option for that factor lets you run the feature and be thinking about it, and how if you go to the new cards you can run a higher factor. It's adding another very big slider and you know how people get about not being able to max their sliders.

You don't know much about the feature.
There are plenty of old games that work great with the higher DSR options. Newer games, not so much.

It is not a Kepler problem, maxwell struggles on modern titles with higher DSR too. I love the effect on some games, it is really phenomenal. But other games, it nowhere near as dramatic and not worth the performance hit.

Honestly it is just an option. I guess nvidia options are always evil to some but i am willing to bet the largest majority of PC gamers welcome more options.

You want to know something funny. Nvidia GeForce experience never once suggested DSR in any of my games. See, they have an app that will optimize your games by suggesting settings for the best IQ and experience for your particular system. With one mouse click, it is done. The game settings are changed.
Since nvidia promotes and suggest that people use GeForce experience to optimize their games, the claim that DSR option for kepler cards is some kind of ploy just makes that much less sense.

People will say and make up anything when it comes to nvidia conspiracies, no matter how ridiculous.

 

[PrincessFrosty]

I find it funny that people are throwing around all sorts of moral arguments.

A 3 of these entities are businesses, that includes both Nvidia, AMD and CDPR. They all have the same goal, to make money by offering customers and partners value in the way of solutions to problems. They're all completely voluntary exchanges as the free market allows for, and so nothing fundamentally immoral is going on.

It's very simple, if you do not like the behaviour of Nvidia then vote with your wallet and shoot for AMD, if you don't like the behaviour of CDPR then don't play their game, pick up another game instead.

You could make the argument that Tressfx is documented and that good programmers ought to be able to imlement it without help, maybe the programmers at CDPR are either incompetent or they're under too much other external pressure to devote the time, either way AMD have the free market choice of offering some engineer time with them to help them get it working at their own expense and can use the opportunity to help sell the benefits of TressFX, for whatever reason that negotiation never happened.

There is a lot of hate for Nvidia here it seems, their interest is in adding value to their products to make them more attractive to consumers and they invest money by going out there and having engineers work with game developers to implement features to benefit their customers. AMD have this option to and don't take it, that just makes Nvidias products hold more value.

The only thing that annoys me about these kinds of situations (not this specific one) is when developers add fallback effects which are clearly inferior to what is possbile, I saw a lot of this in the Batman games, the moment PhysX was off a number of effects which are perfectly possible on the CPU such as bullet ricochet effects, smashed tiles and some others, these went away. That's more of a complaint to the developers than anything else.

Some of you need to get your head out of the clouds with regards to how businsses operate, this isn't some hippy gaming circle where we all join hands and sing kumbaya and live as one happy family, these businesses are competing and they respond to the market, if gamers have a problem with Nvidia locking in features then simply buy AMD and demonstrate to the market that you disapprove of the action, right now that doesn't appear to be happening Nvidia is just as popular as ever, they offer value added features to their customers which improve our options as gamers.

 

[showb1z]

they offer value added features to their customers which improve our options as gamers.

It would be great if they actually did this, but what value has Gameworks added exactly? People with AMD hardware can run Hairworks better than Nvidia's precious customers, because they actually have the option to tweak it.
How about they start by properly optimizing their features so they don't destroy 30% of our performance for no IQ gain. Right now it's just a way to make their competitor and their older cards look worse so more people upgrade.
Gameworks is not about adding value, it's about destroying it.

 

[SirPauly]

imho,

The value is GameWorks offer the ability to offer more advanced fidelity features instead of the dreaded port console fidelity.

My constructive nit-pick is I desire developers to place more fidelity focus and innovate for the PC experience but for many, their focus is on multi-platform and consoles, so they may be budget and time constraints for the PC.

What do you do?

You can actually do some good over-all by offering libraries for developers and more choices for one's customers or reactionary complain?

Of course, GameWorks isn't ideal in a competitive landscape, but what is worse is reactionary complaining, especially when there is absolutely nothing stopping others to create their own libraries and innovate.

 

[coercitiv]

GameWorks isn't ideal in a competitive landscape, but what is worse is reactionary complaining

Reactionary complaining isn't ideal in the competitive landscape, but what is worse is GameWorks. Strange what mirrors do.

 

[SirPauly]

Reactionary complaining isn't ideal in the competitive landscape, but what is worse is GameWorks. Strange what mirrors do.

That's fine and some have polar opposite views and personally will allow the market to decide.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Of course, GameWorks isn't ideal in a competitive landscape, but what is worse is reactionary complaining,

People complaining about exclusionary tactics are in your view worse than the actual tactics Nvidia uses that ultimately hurts all gamers? That's like saying complaining about a player or team that cheats is worse than the player/team cheating. Are the people that "complain" about steroid use in sports worse than the athletes taking the drugs?

 

[Goatsecks]

People complaining about exclusionary tactics are in your view worse than the actual tactics Nvidia uses that ultimately hurts all gamers? That's like saying complaining about a player or team that cheats is worse than the player/team cheating. Are the people that "complain" about steroid use in sports worse than the athletes taking the drugs?

So Nvidia developing features for its customers that are paid for by its customers is cheating?

 

[SirPauly]

People complaining about exclusionary tactics are in your view worse than the actual tactics Nvidia uses that ultimately hurts all gamers?

I have no problems with exclusive or proprietary innovation when it comes to fidelity settings that may be enabled or disabled or simply trying to do more for one's customers. This idea of everything has to be equal or the same is very odd when differentiation may be key, especially in the context of risk and resources.

 

[Keysplayr]

It would be great if they actually did this, but what value has Gameworks added exactly? People with AMD hardware can run Hairworks better than Nvidia's precious customers, because they actually have the option to tweak it.
How about they start by properly optimizing their features so they don't destroy 30% of our performance for no IQ gain. Right now it's just a way to make their competitor and their older cards look worse so more people upgrade.
Gameworks is not about adding value, it's about destroying it.

I don't understand. If you insist that Gameworks isn't a value add, then why tout that it can be tweaked to run better on anything, let alone AMD hardware? Should this matter? Because your implying that it matters and for something to matter, it would probably have to be a value add.

Also I don't understand this statement: "How about they start by properly optimizing their features so they don't destroy 30% of our performance for no IQ gain."
If there is no IQ gain, why complain there is a 30% performance loss. Turn it off. Because the alternative is no loss of performance just so you can have a no IQ difference Gameworks enabled in a given game.

Also: "it's just a way to make their competitor and their older cards look worse"
What is a way to make their competitor and their older cards look worse?
If there isn't any IQ difference, then there isn't any reason to have it enabled. Hence your argument has defeated itself? I think?

Nvidia is going to continue to offer differentiating features. Pretty much end of story, so you may as well get used to it. The market is speaking and always has been speaking. Customers want more. Nvidia intends to give it.

 

[SirPauly]

My idealism and like to see:

PC game revenue continues to grow and continues to separate from consoles. With revenue growing may translate into more developer focus, time and higher game budgets for the PC platform, which may help all PC gamers.

 

[xthetenth]

You don't know much about the feature.
There are plenty of old games that work great with the higher DSR options. Newer games, not so much.

It is not a Kepler problem, maxwell struggles on modern titles with higher DSR too. I love the effect on some games, it is really phenomenal. But other games, it nowhere near as dramatic and not worth the performance hit.

Honestly it is just an option. I guess nvidia options are always evil to some but i am willing to bet the largest majority of PC gamers welcome more options.

You want to know something funny. Nvidia GeForce experience never once suggested DSR in any of my games. See, they have an app that will optimize your games by suggesting settings for the best IQ and experience for your particular system. With one mouse click, it is done. The game settings are changed.
Since nvidia promotes and suggest that people use GeForce experience to optimize their games, the claim that DSR option for kepler cards is some kind of ploy just makes that much less sense.

People will say and make up anything when it comes to nvidia conspiracies, no matter how ridiculous.

Oy vey. The entire point of my post was that bringing DSR to Kepler is in NV's best interests no matter their motivations. Anything that lets you turn performance into tangible benefits is in the best interests of both the company selling more performance and the customer who sometimes has a surfeit of performance. So it's neither evidence of good intentions or malign intentions. I could see how that would get lost in a response to someone saying it's definitely an unalloyed good thing that is proof of good intentions though.

I'm pretty familiar with GFE what with having NV GPUs since the 8800 GT, it's a relatively nice service, but it not turning on DSR by default is a good move considering how weird UI scaling can be and other fringe cases. I'd be pretty annoyed since for some reason my monitor will accept higher resolution signal and downscale it, and DSR will only downscale to the monitor's maximum resolution not its reported native resolution (thanks Nvidia!). Stuff like that means it's not guaranteed safe the same way just configuring settings is.

That's fine and some have polar opposite views and personally will allow the market to decide.

For the market to work properly it is imperative upon the customers to act in their best interest, even when the long-term best interest is best served by a choice other than that which maximizes short term gains. If people don't seriously work to protect their long term interest, the result is like expecting a river to take the shortest path.

 

[Dribble]

Reactionary complaining isn't ideal in the competitive landscape, but what is worse is GameWorks. Strange what mirrors do.

There's nothing wrong with gamesworks - it's optional extra's that nvidia spent the time and money to get added to a game. In every case you can turn them off, and if nvidia hadn't got involved the game with them off is all you would have got. If you hate it so much then just turn it off and you can live in a world where for you gamesworks don't exist.

The rest of us appreciate when someone is attempting to make the pc version more then a straight console port, to give us extras. Yes nvidia is a business and they spent that money to get a return on investment by selling more gpu's but you can hardly blame them for that - that's how business works, how companies make money.

Really the only reason to hate gamesworks is if you want AMD to do better then they are because AMD's inability to compete effectively in this area is costing them sales. However truth is outside of these forums no one gives a ... about AMD or nvidia, they just want to play the games. The only way AMD will do better is by competing better, not by a few forumites trying to convince the rest of us to accept straight console ports just so AMD doesn't look bad.

 

[SirPauly]

Another idealistic view even though I understand nVidia's point:

One of the major reasons why nVidia opened up more PhysX, Apex Cloth and Destruction was for adoption and also like to ideally see a GameWorks' feature like HairWorks open up more as well, for adoption purposes. I would think if enough constructive views were read and calls from developers, nVidia may eventually rethink a bit, but going to be tough on GPU related abilities, but I'm going to continue to try and be vocal. My selfish agenda: would like to see more innovation of dynamics in gaming titles and desire more adoption.

 

[xthetenth]

Honestly, if reviewers standardized on turning off GW features in benchmarks, it'd go a long way. The other half is if it were designed as a value add for PC gaming rather than NV gaming. Otherwise it's distorting the market and serving as another mechanism to destroy the barely stable equilibrium that's maintaining some competition.

 

[AnandThenMan]

constructive views

I would have thought that people voicing their displeasure when it comes to GW tossing a wrench into older Nvidia GPUs would be one of them. But clearly you don't think that is the case so can you provide one or maybe a few examples?