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

[digitaldurandal]

That's a fair view and worth discussing for more awareness.

I am not convinced that this is the case though. I have seen remarks regarding the way the tessellation LOD works. I think there may be more difference further away depending on the setting, even if up close it appears the same. However, I have not tested this at all, or seen screenshots of varying distance.

While, I do not think that Nvidia is working hard to optimize for Kepler any more, I also do not think that they are intentionally harming the performance of the card.

The architecture for Kepler was lacking in some areas that may have contributed to the performance hit. Additionally, the hairworks hit % for Kepler is virtually identical to the % hit for Maxwell.

 

[SirPauly]

I would like more awareness, so I can understand more considering how technical this may be.

 

[swilli89]

These assertions that nVidia has an obligation to share their code for gameworks with AMD are simply bull. If you follow this reasoning, there should be no licensed software. Adobe should make full photoshop free. Sigmaplot graphing program for which we paid several hundred dollars for our lab, oh, that should be free and open as well. So I have no problem at all with nVidia not giving access to AMD for the code of gameworks features. AMD can either use it with reduced performance, bypass it, or make their own alternative and compete with nVidia to get developers to implement it. It may sound harsh or unfair, but that is just business. In fact, if all software met this utopian dream of AMD fans that everything was free and open, ultimately I think this would harm the consumer, because it would eliminate a huge motivation for development of new software.

Nice strawman argument. We are simply stating that video card manufactures like AMD and NV should stick to engineering the hardware that they sell and the drivers to operate said hardware. Their drivers should be optimized for DirectX features as laid out by the standard.

It's a slippery road to allow one company to do backroom deals with developers. Humans are easily corruptible, end of story. YES it's possible to value add by helping integrate a feature into a game BUT this is only possible in a naive and innocent world. The simple possibility for abuse means it shouldn't be allowed 100%.

It's like the NSA human rights abuses that have occurred from their citizen spying/control program. Sure it could be used to stop a terrorist, but since the possibility exists for abuse then no, it should be wiped out.

No one is going to say nvidia has a clean track record. They've been caught before! So we already know they are willing to play underhanded tricks, so that should be enough! I'm forming a template letter for people to sign and send to their representative and senator. It will call for neutral software development independent of industry players. The aim is to prevent monopolistic practices like this.

 

[SirPauly]

Nice strawman argument. We are simply stating that video card manufactures like AMD and NV should stick to engineering the hardware that they sell and the drivers to operate said hardware. Their drivers should be optimized for DirectX features as laid out by the standard.

I strongly disagree with this and restricting innovation and a desire for a company to risk and do more.

 

[swilli89]

I strongly disagree with this and restricting innovation and a desire for a company to risk and do more.

Found the Republican! Classic boiler plate rhetoric of "restricting innovation".

Eliminating the conflict of interest from the developer would actually free them up to innovate more. Nvidia is still at full liberty to "take risks".

Look I'm all for open forums and collaboration between graphics card makers and interactive graphical software developers as this is a natural union. But ban the unethical backroom deals! Why can't nvidia and amd form an agreement to provide technical expertise to game developers?

If you continue on with how nvidia should be able to have a competitive edge in software performance then I'm officially classifying you as a shareholder. There is no other explanation for your argument! This is NOT good for the consumer and that is all that matters!

 

[AnandThenMan]

I strongly disagree with this and restricting innovation and a desire for a company to risk and do more.

Microsoft used the same excuse, lawmakers didn't buy it. The bottom line for me is if Nvidia was so confident in their hardware they would not need to resort to these underhanded tactics.

 

[sontin]

Yeah, because AMD would never, never complain about software which runs much better on nVidia hardware.

Project Cars has no Gameworks and PhysX is open to everyone. Yet they went into the public and blamed Gameworks for their performance.

HAWX2 was designed based on DX11 specifications and AMD went into the public and blamed Ubisoft for their performance instead of their own hardware.

So even if nVidia doesnt do anything, AMD would always be the victim - one way or another.

 

[SirPauly]

Don't be so obtuse -- there would be no Mantle or Cuda -- both helped move the industry forward.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Don't be so obtuse -- there would be no Mantle or Cuda -- both helped move the industry forward.

One of these is not like the other.

 

[xthetenth]

Cuda moved NV compute forward. Mantle moved PC gaming forward.

 

[swilli89]

Don't be so obtuse -- there would be no Mantle or Cuda -- both helped move the industry forward.

Obtuse - Annoyingly insensitive. Yeah don't think that applies here. Certainly entitled to say what you want but I fail to see how I am being insensitive.

Anyways you are comparing apples to oranges. Let's define the discussion to avoid this. I'd like to see the end of proprietary:

• 
  Graphical features that can be switched on or off, that result in the game looking different and running faster or slower as a result.

I want to be clear I am speaking as a gamer first and foremost. So the above parameter is what I am addressing.

I have absolutely no qualms about CUDA. Doesn't affect me or the way my games run.

I also have no issues with Mantle however I will say yes, this one is iffy. I think it should have been an open standard to address the need for low level API. Fortunately, it looks like that standard is included in DX12 so this is now a non issue. It's also a bit disingenuous to compare a low level API that is an essential part of your drivers to the code implemented game side.

No one will argue Mantle had ANY effect on NV cards' performance in games.

Isn't that was DirectX is for? Standardize graphical features then let the GPU companies go off to the races to design the best hardware to run it?

 

[Goatsecks]

One of these is not like the other.

Are you suggesting that one of these did not make a positive contribution?

 

[SirPauly]

One of these is not like the other.

Don't be so obtuse -- the point was if one sits idled and only caters to open standards -- makes it difficult for a company to innovate at times -- Mantle and Cuda are good illustrations of this.

 

[AnandThenMan]

Are you suggesting that one of these did not make a positive contribution?

Cuda moved NV compute forward. Mantle moved PC gaming forward.

This.

Don't be so obtuse -- the point was if one sits idled and only caters to open standards -- makes it difficult for a company to innovate at times -- Mantle and Cuda are good illustrations of this.

When is CUDA going to be rolled into an industry standard that any GPU can leverage?

 

[swilli89]

Don't be so obtuse -- there would be no Mantle or Cuda -- both helped move the industry forward.

Don't be so obtuse -- the point was if one sits idled and only caters to open standards -- makes it difficult for a company to innovate at times -- Mantle and Cuda are good illustrations of this.

Are you doing that on purpose?

 

[Goatsecks]

This.

When is CUDA going to be rolled into an industry standard that any GPU can leverage?

1) CUDA is extensivley used in scientific computation.

2) CUDA should be open source?

 

[SirPauly]

Obtuse - Annoyingly insensitive.

It also means, slow to understand!

 

[Jaydip]

Pauly stop wasting your time here.These are the folks who did the cheer leading when AMD announced mantle, to them AMD is good NV is evil lol end of story.

 

[Goatsecks]

slow to understand

+1

 

[swilli89]

It also means, slow to understand!

I see you may have misidentified me as an AMD fan. That's ok, I can survive a simple ad hominem fallacy.

I'm a simple person that knows that industries can't go unregulated for too long. Unfair and anti competitive business practices are simply a function of time. The longer an unregulated market goes, the higher probability exists that corruption exists.

I am an advocate of the consumer, of the gamer that saved for months to spend a few hundred bucks on an NV or AMD gaming card. I want them to be able to have choices, to get maximum bang for their dollar. We need a fair market for this to exist into the future.



Simple truths:

• nVidia has stated themselves Gameworks could be used to hurt AMD.
• BOTH ATI and NV have been caught in the past creating unethical optimizations.

Thus we know that:

A) The mechanisms EXIST in Gameworks code to hurt AMD performance AND:
B) The companies in question have been caught utilizing cheats before.

It's a simple as 1+1=2 !

We have all the data we need to know that this situation is unethical. Here we must agree that the possibility should be taken as what's happening and not a theoretical occurrence.

 

[Goatsecks]

• nVidia has stated themselves Gameworks could be used to hurt AMD.

Please I am not disputing you but could you provide a link? I am curious to see the context. Do they say that it is, or could, be used this way? I think the distinction is quite important, no?

 

[Enigmoid]

Shareholders I agree... but consumers? What value there is in gimping performance for no visual benefit?

There are two issues here.

I don't think anyone disagrees that the Hairworks implementation is crap.

The point under discussion, and not to be confused with the above is the rather poor AMD hairworks performance relative to nvidia. Its the effect of gameworks on AMD not how good or bad gameworks performs.

 

[swilli89]

Please I am not disputing you but could you provide a link? I am curious to see the context. Do they say that it is, or could, be used this way? I think the distinction is quite important, no?

That's ok to dispute anyhow! Its what debate is all about. But here you go:

 

[xthetenth]

It also means, slow to understand!

It's funny because you're repeatedly making a flawed analogy and calling the people patiently explaining it to you dense.

Benefiting ecosystems in which competition exists is better than benefiting ones in which it does not.

 

[SirPauly]

But, you didn't use the entire context and left this out, initially:

but that’s not the point of the program or the reason we developed it.