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

[Enigmoid]

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

PC sales are falling as a whole. However, gaming PC's seems to be increasing or at the least holding constant. Its the demise of the email PC that are driving the drop in PC sales.

 

[maddie]

Wow. Nobody wants to answer.

I thought I did answer, but maybe not the one you want.

Are you looking for a specific answer? Is this a test with only the answer you want as the correct one?

Now I understand.

 

[KingFatty]

Why doesn't the game developer CD Projekt get the full blame here?

I mean, even if they are fully blamed, is it wrong to implement a proprietary feature? It's not like they broke the game, it's just that they include an NVidia exclusive hair feature that Nvidia customers can take advantage of if they want.

If people are upset that CD Projekt didn't also include an AMD specific hair feature, then complain about CD Projekt. AMD doesn't seem to have the money/resources to dedicate extra personnel to help CD Projekt do their jobs. Maybe Intel could step up their game and send massage therapists and nurse maids (to wipe the bottoms of the programmers and help them out) to implement some Intel-specific GPU features? /s

 

[maddie]

PC sales are falling as a whole. However, gaming PC's seems to be increasing or at the least holding constant. Its the demise of the email PC that are driving the drop in PC sales.

I can agree with this, but the huge amount of low end cards sold in the past help fund the R&D costs. This is disappearing = worrying situation.

 

[sontin]

CD Projekt shouldnt get the blame.
They produced a console game and ported it to the PC. nVidia helped to integrate two pc exclusive features.

AMD did nothing. I think they dont really care. Their hardware is in the consoles. So the games will always be AMD optimized to a certain point.

 

[SirPauly]

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

I'm actually encouraged considering PC game revenue is actually growing and growing, eventually there may be more focus on the PC platform over-all if this continues.

 

[Headfoot]

I thought I did answer, but maybe not the one you want.

Are you looking for a specific answer? Is this a test with only the answer you want as the correct one?

Now I understand.

Yup, pretty much.

It's like that joke where you say really fast "anidiotsayswhat?" and they go "What?" and you laugh at them. Except here, he goes "afanboysayswhat?" then is surprised when no one says "what"

 

[96Firebird]

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

Yes, those are optional features. Sounds like you're catching on!

Is it valid if I complain because my card can't run the game in 4K?

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?

Like AMD, Intel can do whatever they want with their chipsets. How is this so hard to understand?

Would I be happy? No. But what can I do? I would have to re-evaluate PC gaming and see if it was worth it to me. I would also think the competition would come up with a way to get around it, working with developers and such.

But let's be real, the backlash of something that major would be hilarious. Which is exactly why I pointed out the vast differences of your original comparisons. Some things are just too out there to happen, which is why arguing about it is futile.

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.

I don't complain about things I have absolutely no control over. The only thing I'd be able to do is spend my money elsewhere, which is exactly what I would do.

Sorry I didn't fit into your stereotype...

 

[exar333]

I can agree with this, but the huge amount of low end cards sold in the past help fund the R&D costs. This is disappearing = worrying situation.

Worrying for who?

The market of gaming-capable PCs has never been better. Falling PC sales can be explained in a lot of ways. What does a new quad-core CPU do that a quad sold 4 years ago can't do? Not much. Power-users and business refresh cycles are driving most new sales, the average user with a relatively new CPU is doing just fine.

The low-end GPUs have been mostly replaced by APUs and iGPU Intel options. Both of those CPUs can game older games, or newer 'less graphically' intense options. While discrete #s are down, ASP is up. Discrete GPUs are not going to go away, but CPUs/APUs may fill-in for what most users require, and power-users will opt for a true, discrete option. It may mean discrete options could continue to get more expensive though, but only so much. There are only so many people willing to pay $300, or $600 or $1000+. I doubt NV/AMD made much on a $70 GPU anyways...

PC gaming, as a whole, is in great shape. The hardware-base is there, we just need more good games.

 

[zlatan]

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

An IHV shouldn't be a middleware provider. I don't support any kind of xyzWorks even if it's open. We do plenty of research, so we don't need new effects, but we need more usable tools. Not just from one IHV. We need ISA manuals, disassemblers, perftools from all of them. This should greatly improve the PC gaming industry.
They should also provide a standardised intermediate and queueing language. If not HSA, than another platform, but it should be a standard.

 

[exar333]

An IHV shouldn't be a middleware provider. I don't support any kind of xyzWorks even if it's open. We do plenty of research, so we don't need new effects, but we need more usable tools. Not just from one IHV. We need ISA manuals, disassemblers, perftools from all of them. This should greatly improve the PC gaming industry.
They should also provide a standardised intermediate and queueing language. If not HSA, than do another platform, but is should be a standard.

Well said.

 

[maddie]

Yes, those are optional features. Sounds like you're catching on!

Is it valid if I complain because my card can't run the game in 4K?



Like AMD, Intel can do whatever they want with their chipsets. How is this so hard to understand?

Would I be happy? No. But what can I do? I would have to re-evaluate PC gaming and see if it was worth it to me. I would also think the competition would come up with a way to get around it, working with developers and such.

But let's be real, the backlash of something that major would be hilarious. Which is exactly why I pointed out the vast differences of your original comparisons. Some things are just too out there to happen, which is why arguing about it is futile.



I don't complain about things I have absolutely no control over. The only thing I'd be able to do is spend my money elsewhere, which is exactly what I would do.

Sorry I didn't fit into your stereotype...

Try reading and thinking about that a few times.

 

[moonbogg]

It really does seem like the Kepler cards can no longer compete with the cards they were intended to compete with, such as 7970 and R9 series. As new games come out, including witcher, far cry and others, Kepler seems to be tapering off more and more in terms of relative performance. That would be a pretty unbelievable coincidence. What makes more sense is that Nvidia actually IS making these products less competitive, because people already bought them and they want to create incentive for new upgrades. It makes sense, its not crazy, and any company that could get away with it would probably do it too and I'm sure many already have been. "Planned obsolescence", Its already got a name and everything.
Its not a crime though, right? I think it just sucks that when you buy hardware, you think you are getting a certain amount of power based on GPU characteristics, shaders and what not. But really your performance is directly dependent on the driver support from the company you bought the product from, the same company that wants you to buy yet another product to do the same thing your existing product should already be able to do just fine.

 

[96Firebird]

Try reading and thinking about that a few times.

If you think one's petty money going elsewhere means taking control of a situation, you are in for a rude awakening.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

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.

Reread what I said and then answer a question for me. What should nvidia do for it's customers that bought $1000 titans, $700 dollar 780ti's, $550 gtx780's that now perform worse than cards they used to dominate?

Answer that. Stop trying to push the complaints about gameworks off as an AMD user issue. It's a PC gaming issue. leave the vendors out. Gameworks hurts EVERYONE in every game it has been used in to date.

 

[maddie]

If you think one's petty money going elsewhere means taking control of a situation, you are in for a rude awakening.

I wonder what happened to Blackberry.

 

[SirPauly]

An IHV shouldn't be a middleware provider. I don't support any kind of xyzWorks even if it's open. We do plenty of research, so we don't need new effects, but we need more usable tools. Not just from one IHV. We need ISA manuals, disassemblers, perftools from all of them. This should greatly improve the PC gaming industry.

I don't enjoy just ports with console fidelity -- if more developers placed more focus and resources for the PC platform there probably wouldn't need GameWorks. It seems the only way to receive some focus is by the resources spent from AMD or nVidia.

 

[BFG10K]

Yes, those are optional features. Sounds like you're catching on!

You heard it here first folks: artificial lock-out doesn't matter as long it has an in-game menu option.

Is it valid if I complain because my card can't run the game in 4K?

Depends. Is another vendor intentionally crippling something else in the system so the card can't do 4K?

Like AMD, Intel can do whatever they want with their chipsets. How is this so hard to understand?

No they can't. Look up "antitrust" and "monopoly". Just because you don't value your money and happily accept consumer rights violations, don't mistake that as somehow legal.

But let's be real, the backlash of something that major would be hilarious. Which is exactly why I pointed out the vast differences of your original comparisons. Some things are just too out there to happen, which is why arguing about it is futile.

What differences? They have menu options so they're all just optional features according to you:

Yes, those are optional features. Sounds like you're catching on!

Games have the option of running on Intel's iGPU, so this makes an nVidia dGPU optional. Again, your reasoning.

Or are you saying some optional features are classed as "major" while others aren't? If so, again I'll ask: who makes that decision?

I don't complain about things I have absolutely no control over. The only thing I'd be able to do is spend my money elsewhere, which is exactly what I would do.

You have no control over my posts, yet you respond to them. Shouldn't you be taking your time elsewhere?

If you think one's petty money going elsewhere means taking control of a situation, you are in for a rude awakening.

A business exists solely to make money. You believe taking money away from it doesn't control anything? Wow...just, wow.

 

[amenx]

It really does seem like the Kepler cards can no longer compete with the cards they were intended to compete with, such as 7970 and R9 series. As new games come out, including witcher, far cry and others, Kepler seems to be tapering off more and more in terms of relative performance. That would be a pretty unbelievable coincidence. What makes more sense is that Nvidia actually IS making these products less competitive, because people already bought them and they want to create incentive for new upgrades.

Yes, it would give me an incentive to upgrade.. to AMD. Most people would not likely buy a high priced product that they expect to be obsolete or performance gimped so soon. Nvidia would be incredibly stupid to even consider such a thing as 'planned obsolesence', esp when the cards are still being used in benchmarks vs the competition. Something is wrong with kepler, thats for sure. But not likely a result of any deliberate policy. More new games using directcompute and opencl where Maxwell and AMD do much better could be an issue. If so, then may just be that Kepler was a short-sighted design that did not take into account 'next gen' games very well. Lets see what happens on driver side of things now that this has raised such a big stink at Nv forums.

 

[Jaydip]

Lol @ this carebear attitude of folks.NV developed GW to have value add for their customers which they did, it is absolutely irrelevant how good/bad AMD runs it.Did we ever ask AMD how good NV cards run mantel? NV only have to fix the performance of the Kepler cards end of story.

 

[SirPauly]

It's a PC gaming issue. leave the vendors out. Gameworks hurts EVERYONE in every game it has been used in to date.

imho,

I don't agree with this at all. Sure, some abilities are a bigger performance hit and one can simply disable the fidelity feature. The major PC issue for fidelity is the lack of focus there is from developers or simply the resources available to the developer for the PC. So nVidia decides to do something about it for their customers and provides middlewares to create higher quality fidelity features and options and is pro-active creating and trying to get them in titles so their customers may enjoy them and easy for the developer to implement them.

Is it ideal? Absolutely not! They're proprietary in nature engineered for nVidia's vision and architectural strengths.

 

[iiiankiii]

Yes, it would give me an incentive to upgrade.. to AMD. Most people would not likely buy a high priced product that they expect to be obsolete or performance gimped so soon. Nvidia would be incredibly stupid to even consider such a thing as 'planned obsolesence', esp when the cards are still being used in benchmarks vs the competition. Something is wrong with kepler, thats for sure. But not likely a result of any deliberate policy. More new games using directcompute and opencl where Maxwell and AMD do much better could be an issue. If so, then may just be that Kepler was a short-sighted design that did not take into account 'next gen' games very well. Lets see what happens on driver side of things now that this has raised such a big stink at Nv forums.

You might be right about Kepler. But, people are still pissed off. Kepler owners are getting shafted pretty hard. Nvidia is suppose to be the "premium" brand. It's suppose to be superior. That perception is definitely coming back and bitting them in the rear. People that bought Kepler are expecting that "premium" brand; not some short sighted, gimped and neglected product that falls of the charts the moment Maxwell hits the streets. That just doesn't fit well with their perceived "premium" image.

 

[maddie]

Yes, it would give me an incentive to upgrade.. to AMD. Most people would not likely buy a high priced product that they expect to be obsolete or performance gimped so soon. Nvidia would be incredibly stupid to even consider such a thing as 'planned obsolesence', esp when the cards are still being used in benchmarks vs the competition. Something is wrong with kepler, thats for sure. But not likely a result of any deliberate policy. More new games using directcompute and opencl where Maxwell and AMD do much better could be an issue. If so, then may just be that Kepler was a short-sighted design that did not take into account 'next gen' games very well. Lets see what happens on driver side of things now that this has raised such a big stink at Nv forums.

This is where it gets very interesting. Between a rock and a hard place.

1) If there are patches/drivers soon that improve performance appreciably on Kepler, then Nvidia will have to explain why no one saw this coming with all the pre-release testing and why such an uproar has to be raised before anything was done.

2) If no improvement is forthcoming, then one has to question the longevity of the cards.

 

[SirPauly]

.

2) If no improvement is forthcoming, then one has to question the longevity of the cards.

That's a fair point and has happened before with nVidia's 7900 generation compared to ATI/AMD's X1900 generation. Sometimes, an IHV offers a superior forward thinking architecture that is realized years later with new content. I think more credit should go to AMD

 

[n0x1ous]

That's a fair point and has happened before with nVidia's 7900 generation compared to the ATI/AMD's X1900 generation. Sometimes, an IHV offers a superior forward thinking architecture that is realized years later with new content. I think more credit should go to AMD

I think a possible answer is also we are seeing games finally being built exclusively for xbone/ps4 generation and having GCN in those consoles is finally paying dividends for AMD as far as what games are optimized for.

Either that or Nvidia are being real dirtbags and sandbagging Kepler for Maxwell sales.