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

[desprado]

There was a time where AMD was making Fixer Ads and looked very Strong but seriously now their PR has only goal which is always crying about Gamework no matter what even if it is Interview,Presentation,forum or twitter.

AMD need to spend money to gain shares not crying.

 

[Azix]

There was a time where AMD was making Fixer Ads and looked very Strong but seriously now their PR has only goal which is always crying about Gamework no matter what even if it is Interview,Presentation,forum or twitter.

AMD need to spend money to gain shares not crying.

This isn't the work of their PR department. It's interviews and I like that AMD speaks candidly in these. When nvidia had such on PCper it was pretty much like their PR releases.

 

[crashtech]

The portrayal of victim is rather inevitable if there are no resources available to counter.

 

[monstercameron]

There was a time where AMD was making Fixer Ads and looked very Strong but seriously now their PR has only goal which is always crying about Gamework no matter what even if it is Interview,Presentation,forum or twitter.

AMD need to spend money to gain shares not crying.

yeah this is a great situation to be in, being extorted by the devs, pay to play huh? this industry is doomed with this kinda thought.

 

[Diceman2037]

This is CDP's fault, Hairworks supports static and dynamic tesselation factors, CDP chose to go with a Static factor.

 

[VirtualLarry]

And rumored $850 Fiji XT is not my idea of winning me back. I defended the $550 price for HD 7970 at launch, I don't think I could defend $850. Even if it beats Titan X. Both these companies have lost their minds in my opinion.

No, that's the harsh reality of a shrinking discrete graphics market. With Intel CPUs with IGP, and AMD's APUs, the bottom-tier of GPUs is basically gone. Cheapest discrete that makes sense to buy is now $100. So, correspondingly, higher in the product stack is also going to cost more, as they aren't selling those millions of lower-end GPUs for cash cows anymore. The R&D pipeline isn't free, and in order to continue it, they need to raise prices on existing GPU classes.

 

[Silverforce11]

No, that's the harsh reality of a shrinking discrete graphics market. With Intel CPUs with IGP, and AMD's APUs, the bottom-tier of GPUs is basically gone. Cheapest discrete that makes sense to buy is now $100. So, correspondingly, higher in the product stack is also going to cost more, as they aren't selling those millions of lower-end GPUs for cash cows anymore. The R&D pipeline isn't free, and in order to continue it, they need to raise prices on existing GPU classes.

Yup, PC Master Race needs to get used to higher prices for the top GPUs moving forward.

It's a combination of multiple factors, including @VirtualLarry's valid point but also the demands placed on foundries for wafers by the ever growing mobile market along with each node shrink getting harder & more expensive.

We can only hope mid-range stuff remains affordable, as it has been with the well priced 970 and R290/X.

 

[3DVagabond]

This is CDP's fault, Hairworks supports static and dynamic tesselation factors, CDP chose to go with a Static factor.

You really think? You don't think this is the way nVidia supplied the feature?

 

[MisterLilBig]

We can't have it both ways. You can't claim something cripples you then show an example of where it does not and expect people not to notice.

Disagree, most people are "blindless idiots". Just because it can't be optimized, does not mean that it will run bad.

Rockstar Games used neither Hairworks nor TressFX in GTA V.

True, they used shadow features mostly.



You know, there is no "good" reason to use GameWorks, unless you develop the game mainly for PC(almost no games are) or you get paid to do it.

Think about it, why add something you don't need? It literally is extra work.

How's the hair and fur on the consoles with W3? (I'll check out a HD comparison video.)

 

[Flapdrol1337]

You really think? You don't think this is the way nVidia supplied the feature?

Hard to believe there wouldn't be settings the developer can choose.

The 1.03 patch has "improved hairworks performance", wouldn't be surprised if they just lowered tessellation a notch.

 

[SirPauly]

Disagree, most people are "blindless idiots". Just because it can't be optimized, does not mean that it will run bad.

Most of the vocal awareness was attributed to the official quote from W3 -- I doubt blindlless idiot fits here:

http://i.imgur.com/YPvGUWK.png

 

[MisterLilBig]

Most of the vocal awareness was attributed to the official quote from W3 -- I doubt blindlless idiot fits here:

My reply was to what he said. He says that just because one feature cripples performance, all of them should also. Otherwise, the argument is null.

That is nonesense. The "issue" is that the developer went with NV, not AMD, and NV has a closed source license.

And if what AMD said is true, the developer did not want AMD to optimize the game and add TressFX. Two months away from release just to add some post effect on hair and fur is not a game breaking issue. The developer picked NV, period. And that is fine, but, AMD should not be blamed for it.

 

[caswow]

My reply was to what he said. He says that just because one feature cripples performance, all of them should also. Otherwise, the argument is null.

That is nonesense. The "issue" is that the developer went with NV, not AMD, and NV has a closed source license.

And if what AMD said is true, the developer did not want AMD to optimize the game and add TressFX. Two months away from release just to add some post effect on hair and fur is not a game breaking issue. The developer picked NV, period. And that is fine, but, AMD should not be blamed for it.

there is no simple going with amd or nvidia. its all pr and marketing. its who pays more. thats it. it has nothing to do who has the better software or closed sources. money talks. sadly its bad for the consumer.

 

[Cloudfire777]

I`d say Hairworks can cripple pretty much any GPU out there, Nvidia or AMD.
37FPS for GTX 970 and 53FPS for GTX Titan X on freaking 1080p resolution looool

 

[chimaxi83]

I`d say Hairworks can cripple pretty much any GPU out there, Nvidia or AMD.
37FPS for GTX 970 and 53FPS for GTX Titan X on freaking 1080p resolution looool

Yes, until you change tessellation value. It's been running perfectly fine on my single 290.

 

[SirPauly]

My reply was to what he said. He says that just because one feature cripples performance, all of them should also. Otherwise, the argument is null.

That is nonesense. The "issue" is that the developer went with NV, not AMD, and NV has a closed source license.

And if what AMD said is true, the developer did not want AMD to optimize the game and add TressFX. Two months away from release just to add some post effect on hair and fur is not a game breaking issue. The developer picked NV, period. And that is fine, but, AMD should not be blamed for it.

The developer basically said it was too late to add tressFX. My point, why couldn't of AMD been more pro-active in getting TressFx in there earlier? AMD must of suspected that nVidia would utilize x64 tessellation for Hairworks and really the performance hit should of not surprised them. Did they even try to ask earlier? They had an opportunity to showcase how their method is from an efficiency and open point-of-view, may be superior. Instead, it is the blame game and telling everyone what nVidia should do with their IP and really think complaining and talking hurts their brand instead of doing.

 

[AnandThenMan]

there is no simple going with amd or nvidia. its all pr and marketing. its who pays more. thats it. it has nothing to do who has the better software or closed sources. money talks. sadly its bad for the consumer.

The dev said no money changed hands in fact became offended by the suggestion. I don't believe them but it's worth noting.

The developer basically said it was too late to add tressFX. My point, why couldn't of AMD been more pro-active in getting TressFx in there earlier? AMD must of suspected that nVidia would utilize x64 tessellation for Hairworks and really the performance hit should of not surprised them. Did they even try to ask earlier? They had an opportunity to showcase how their method is from an efficiency and open point-of-view, may be superior. Instead, it is the blame game and telling everyone what nVidia should do with their IP and really think complaining and talking hurts their brand instead of doing.

You are making the assumption the dev was open to work with AMD from the start as they did with Nvidia. As usual you blame AMD and completely absolve the dev or Nvidia of any responsibility.

 

[monstercameron]

The developer basically said it was too late to add tressFX. My point, why couldn't of AMD been more pro-active in getting TressFx in there earlier? AMD must of suspected that nVidia would utilize x64 tessellation for Hairworks and really the performance hit should of not surprised them. Did they even try to ask earlier? They had an opportunity to showcase how their method is from an efficiency and open point-of-view, may be superior. Instead, it is the blame game and telling everyone what nVidia should do with their IP and really think complaining and talking hurts their brand instead of doing.

From my understanding it seems that hair works was integrated years before release, and this has been a game works game from inception. Don't think they would have used and tech either way.

 

[digitaldurandal]

No data sorry. Likewise, I know you don't have any data either.

What you said is that most PC gamers don't have the horsepower to use hairworks or physx, and they don't have G-sync monitors, etc. You were conflating use with knowledge. Merely pointing out that isn't the case. Don't flip flop.

Hairworks isn't just limited to some "special video" on youtube. If you follow Nvidia on facebook or Twitter it's shown up there long before the controversy (1.8 million people liked Nvidia on FB and over 800k people follow Nvidia on twitter, 566k for Nvidia GeForce). And now hairworks has constantly been in tech "news" because of the fiasco. The fact that you're trying to downplay it's only exposure as some obscure video on youtube that no one has seen is plainly disingenuous.

This is where you are incorrect, I did use data. Please see Steam data. You are the one who asserted an extreme claim. Please support it.

1.8m is a very small fraction of the market. In H1 of 2014 AMD sold 10 million GPUs and Nvidia sold 16 million. That is 26 million in half of a year. Even if every single person who was in the market for a GPU bought one in H1 2014 that would still be less than 10% of the market. In reality it is probably less than 1%.

You have shown an extreme lack of understanding of global market size and television advertising exposure vs social media. Nvidia makes over a billion dollars PER QUARTER mostly from GPU sales. 1.8 million users on facebook is nothing and that is making an assumption that every single one of those users sees those advertisements.

 

[SirPauly]

The dev said no money changed hands in fact became offended by the suggestion. I don't believe them but it's worth noting.

You are making the assumption the dev was open to work with AMD from the start as they did with Nvidia. As usual you blame AMD and completely absolve the dev or Nvidia of any responsibility.

nVidia's responsibility is to their customers and shareholders -- why does this surprise you? I've been very vocal and disagree with nVidia and desire GameWorks to be more open -- would like to see AMD fairly optimize considering GameWorks uses industry standards and many of the features are brand agnostic but I certainly understand nVidia's point-of-view considering it's their IP after all -- their risk and resources.

The author of the Forbes article presents some sound, reasonable points.

 

[ocre]

Nope. Devs only care about the color of nVidia's money. They couldn't care less about an IHV's marketshare except as it relates to the size of their wallets.

The dev has stated publicly that they received no money from Nvidia. I am pretty sure you not only know this, that you have read the statement yourself.

So do you just like spreading misinformation? I think you should post proof of your bold claim or stop with the bologna

 

[ocre]

You hit the nail right on the head.

Nvidia should immediately stop allowing AMD hardware to run anything Gameworks related. If AMD users are getting extra features, it should be AMD creating them.

GTA is the perfect example of what could become of this. Both teams supported the developer with features and the game ran very well right out of the gate. As a PC gamer, we need more like this happening.

GTA proved with 100% certainty that the presence of Gameworks alone has virtually no effect on how AMD cards run the game when Gameworks is turned off despite what they've been telling us. If AMD is not getting game code because of Gameworks, how did they optimize GTA?

The Forbes author has been an AMD supporter for a long time and has called out Nvidia on numerous occasions for nonsense they pull. It's only right and fair that he does the same with AMD when it's deserved and in this case it is.

Watch Dogs was the poster child for Gameworks supposedly crippling AMD. HBAO+ and TXAA were the Gameworks tech in that one. GTA V has TXAA and PCSS. Why was one "crippled" and one not? Because AMD put the effort in with GTA that's why.

Does it not concern anyone that AMD talks about how Gameworks cripples them and calls out developers on it. Then magically they make up and the game gets fixed because AMD finally puts the effort in? Forbes noticed this and so have other sites.

The bottom line is AMD is purposely not optimizing anything Gameworks until the game is released. It's being done so people believe Gameworks is the one and only cause when it's not. It paints AMD and it's users as victims to make Nvidia look bad.

I implore you all to wake up and stop being AMD's pawn here. They are using you every bit as much as Nvidia is. We have one company that's become overly greedy because their success and another company that's not doing well so now they tell lies to try to win back market share.

And I'm stunned that you can't.

And it's not masochism, it's manipulation and you're falling for it.

In the past, we'd hear a bit about each company having issues with games that fell under the other one's banner. After a couple weeks, stories long gone and patches fixed stuff and it's all good or close to it.

Suddenly, one company that's losing market share and has no new product in the pipeline to win it back gets a couple tech news outlets to run the story that Gameworks is crippling them and they can no longer optimize starting with Watch Dogs. TXAA simply doesn't run on AMD cards so that's not it. HBAO+ is shown by multiple sites to have the same effect running on either camp's cards. So what exactly couldn't they optimize? Newer AMD drivers show gains being made in performance because once they got the point across, they put the time in and fixed it.

Now each time a Gameworks game gets released, we get the same old song and dance. Project Cars, AMD and developer have twitter war blaming each other. Then comments get retracted and they get to work optimizing for AMD. Why was this not done earlier so AMD users didn't have a bad experience? So AMD could blame Gameworks for that bad experience.

It's really funny how nobody will address GTA V use of Gameworks anywhere and how it ran fine for AMD right out of the box. Maybe, just maybe, because AMD actually worked with the developer before release.

The proof is there for those who want to see it.

Many people on this thread are gonna blow off what you are saying but there is a clear pattern. I really dont think many people have the guts to say what you have for fear of the push back.

I have seen enough lately that makes me wonder. It seems that part of AMDs plan could be to twist Nvidia advantages into something bad, evil, or awful. I dont want to get too far off topic and i will only touch on this. As an example, nvidia comes out with Gsync and AMDs response was fist to attack and downplay then manipulate. Just look at the name of their alternative technology and clearly you can see the psychological intent.

Back to your theory on gameworks, I was confused when people blamed gameworks for poor performance in watchdogs, AC untiy, etc. Yet the smear campaign seemed to take hold very well, at least on tech forums.
I just couldnt see how though. For most the big games, HBAO+ was the only gameworks feature that even ran on AMD HW.....yet the performance hit was not out of proportion on AMD cards. The hit was similar on both Nvidia and AMD cards.
Clearly, there was/is something else going on. It was not gameworks at all.

This is proven when, all of a sudden, several weeks after the game has launched AMD GPUs magically get a huge boost in performance. I think it was 40% increase for Unity. That is massive. But how? If gameworks was the issue, if HBAO+ was the issue, how did AMD get 40% increase in performance? I thought there was nothing they could do?

Obviously there was something that could be done.
When I brought up the fact that HBAO+ doesnt penalize performance a crazy amount on AMD HW, or that it doesnt even have to be used at all, that you can turn off completely....that the gameworks feature HBAO+ just cannot be responsible for the performance issues in those games, then you get met with a list of other mixed up reasoning. Like, AMD cant work with developers on gameworks titles, that Nvidia prevents them in their contracts.

These are interesting claims. A mixture of facts with fallacy, like all good conspiracy theories are. Nvidia does prevent developers from sharing gameworks code. This is stretched to become........the entire game. Nvidia doesnt allow developers to share HBAO+ or TXAA code and this is twisted to become something far far more sinister. If AMDs goal is to downplay or turn Nvidia advantages, this sure would be a great way to try to do it.

Ultimately, there is a huge problem with those claims. See the fact that AMD somehow manages to get up to 40% more performance down the road, it is completely at odds. Obviously AMD could optimize and gain performance on a gameworks game. They have done this, time and time again. Why do they wait till after the fact? It could be by design, as you suggest.

I think AMD does have a strategy and does try to down play/reduce the image of Nvidia advantages. I believe there is this very real matter of resources that all people can accept but the people might be blind to the smear campaign that i think is in full force. I believe both are guilty of smearing from time to time.
As for AMD purposely not optimizing just because it is a gameworks title, it might be a little more complicated. Perhaps resources are at play here as well. AMD may be taking a back seat and responding once they see how popular these games become. In the meantime, to save face it is gameworks and nvidia who gets the blame. Can we expect them to say, "well we only have so much money"

It is more than obvious that gameworks is a scapegoat. HBAO+ and TXAA had no hand in harming AMD performance in those games. Even without running gameworks features, the performance wasnt too strong. When Nvidia spends time on games they think are gonna be big, they maximize performance and optimize as much as they can. They do a lot of work before the game even comes out. So for a game like unity, this kind of work AMD done after the game launched. All the while, gameworks was blamed.

So basically i can see what you are getting at. There is little doubt in my mind, the pattern that plays out. I just dont know if i would say that AMD is waiting after a game launches to optimize in a plan to attack gameworks/nvidia. I propose a different reason.

 

[bowler484]

Many people on this thread are gonna blow off what you are saying but there is a clear pattern. I really dont think many people have the guts to say what you have for fear of the push back.

I have seen enough lately that makes me wonder. It seems that part of AMDs plan could be to twist Nvidia advantages into something bad, evil, or awful. I dont want to get too far off topic and i will only touch on this. As an example, nvidia comes out with Gsync and AMDs response was fist to attack and downplay then manipulate. Just look at the name of their alternative technology and clearly you can see the psychological intent.

Back to your theory on gameworks, I was confused when people blamed gameworks for poor performance in watchdogs, AC untiy, etc. Yet the smear campaign seemed to take hold very well, at least on tech forums.
I just couldnt see how though. For most the big games, HBAO+ was the only gameworks feature that even ran on AMD HW.....yet the performance hit was not out of proportion on AMD cards. The hit was similar on both Nvidia and AMD cards.
Clearly, there was/is something else going on. It was not gameworks at all.

This is proven when, all of a sudden, several weeks after the game has launched AMD GPUs magically get a huge boost in performance. I think it was 40% increase for Unity. That is massive. But how? If gameworks was the issue, if HBAO+ was the issue, how did AMD get 40% increase in performance? I thought there was nothing they could do?

Obviously there was something that could be done.
When I brought up the fact that HBAO+ doesnt penalize performance a crazy amount on AMD HW, or that it doesnt even have to be used at all, that you can turn off completely....that the gameworks feature HBAO+ just cannot be responsible for the performance issues in those games, then you get met with a list of other mixed up reasoning. Like, AMD cant work with developers on gameworks titles, that Nvidia prevents them in their contracts.

These are interesting claims. A mixture of facts with fallacy, like all good conspiracy theories are. Nvidia does prevent developers from sharing gameworks code. This is stretched to become........the entire game. Nvidia doesnt allow developers to share HBAO+ or TXAA code and this is twisted to become something far far more sinister. If AMDs goal is to downplay or turn Nvidia advantages, this sure would be a great way to try to do it.

Ultimately, there is a huge problem with those claims. See the fact that AMD somehow manages to get up to 40% more performance down the road, it is completely at odds. Obviously AMD could optimize and gain performance on a gameworks game. They have done this, time and time again. Why do they wait till after the fact? It could be by design, as you suggest.

I think AMD does have a strategy and does try to down play/reduce the image of Nvidia advantages. I believe there is this very real matter of resources that all people can accept but the people might be blind to the smear campaign that i think is in full force. I believe both are guilty of smearing from time to time.
As for AMD purposely not optimizing just because it is a gameworks title, it might be a little more complicated. Perhaps resources are at play here as well. AMD may be taking a back seat and responding once they see how popular these games become. In the meantime, to save face it is gameworks and nvidia who gets the blame. Can we expect them to say, "well we only have so much money"

It is more than obvious that gameworks is a scapegoat. HBAO+ and TXAA had no hand in harming AMD performance in those games. Even without running gameworks features, the performance wasnt too strong. When Nvidia spends time on games they think are gonna be big, they maximize performance and optimize as much as they can. They do a lot of work before the game even comes out. So for a game like unity, this kind of work AMD done after the game launched. All the while, gameworks was blamed.

So basically i can see what you are getting at. There is little doubt in my mind, the pattern that plays out. I just dont know if i would say that AMD is waiting after a game launches to optimize in a plan to attack gameworks/nvidia. I propose a different reason.

It could be a lot of things. I can see how lack of resources comes to mind as AMD doesn't have the cash to send it's people to work with as many devs as Nvidia can. Nor do they have the same size driver team.

But as you said, the pattern is there for anybody willing to look. All the Gameworks games that AMD said they could not optimize for have all gotten optimizations after the fact. But the fact that we seem to always get tech articles ripping Nvidia each time before the game gets fixed is rather convenient in it's timing.

For the most part, Gameworks is crap. It would not hurt my feelings one bit if Hairworks and Physx disappeared. But HBAO+, TXAA and PCSS have benefits that are worth saving.

 

[3DVagabond]

The developer basically said it was too late to add tressFX. My point, why couldn't of AMD been more pro-active in getting TressFx in there earlier? AMD must of suspected that nVidia would utilize x64 tessellation for Hairworks and really the performance hit should of not surprised them. Did they even try to ask earlier? They had an opportunity to showcase how their method is from an efficiency and open point-of-view, may be superior. Instead, it is the blame game and telling everyone what nVidia should do with their IP and really think complaining and talking hurts their brand instead of doing.

You can't buy off the world. Besides, what you are advocating is AMD paying protection money. Anyone who thinks that's OK business, must work for the Mob.

AMD is doing the only other thing they can, bringing it to everyone's attention. And if you think this whole fiasco is doing more to hurt AMD's brand, you haven't been paying attention. Trust me, nVidia wouldn't have all their shill sites in damage control mode if it wasn't having an effect.

1) The 970 fiasco. Gimping the last 1/2GB of RAM is a feature. lol And actually when you use the last 1/2GB it shares resources with the previoud 1/2GB so you really end up with 1GB of slow VRAM.
2) The $1000 Titan without double precision. We all know (supposedly) DP was the only thing that justified the Titan prior to now. Now it's 12GB of old last gen VRAM that people should buy it for.
3) The laptop O/C'ing. Again, removing something was somehow a feature.
3) The tanking of Kepler performance. Not just compared to Maxwell but compared to AMD cards that people paid far less for but are getting better support from supposedly a dieing broke company. A company who all these people buying Kepler were assured wrote awful drivers and nVidia was so awesome at it.
4) Now we have shady Mob type business practices that people here are actually trying to defend. If only AMD had paid the money Gameworks wouldn't be hurting them right now(sic)!

But it's AMD who needs to change the way they do things? How can anyone want these two companies fighting it out like this at our expense? It's you and I who pay for anything these companies do. It's you and that are paying nearly 200% markups to nVidia (that's what 65% GP is in reality folks) so they have the money to buy Devs and put crappy performing features in. These features aren't designed to help games or you and I, they are designed to hurt everyone. Even Titan X is performing like crap. Where are all of the people who are proponents of 120Hz gaming? Why don't I hear any of you complaining that you need $2000 worth of graphics cards to enjoy these games when it's totally unnecessary. Especially if you consider that these $1000 cards are likely to get beaten by cards that can be bought for 1/2 the price a few months from now.

Look at this chart. The GTX 780 is running down around the R9 285. A card that failed @ $250 and is considered a failure now even @ $200 (Just looked and you can actually get 285 for $160AR). R9 290X beating the $1000 Titan by a whopping 20%+. I guess TPU was feeling sorry for nVidia and didn't want to put 780 ti or Titan Black numbers in their? Keep in mind this is a game that nVidia is the IHV in bed with the Dev. Not AMD. And people really want AMD to do this too?

Anyone who can't look at that chart and tell exactly what nVidia is doing is truly blind.

 

[casiofx]

The dev has stated publicly that they received no money from Nvidia. I am pretty sure you not only know this, that you have read the statement yourself.

So do you just like spreading misinformation? I think you should post proof of your bold claim or stop with the bologna

Really? I find it hard to believe since the game is bundled in Nvidia graphics card D: