[Forbes] Why 'Watch Dogs' Is Bad News For AMD Users

[RaulF]

Be nice if we can all get along.


And Carfax, AMD does not dictate what the retailers charge for items. They make a suggested price and retailer raise or lower as they want. So don't act like AMD lowered and raise the prices on the R9 GPUs.

 

[Keysplayr]

I say let each company do their very best to make themselves look as if they are the better option, as long as there isn't any foul play (provable) or slander. I like options. I want more options. Couldn't care less about proprietary tools or not. Gameworks is pretty cool and anyone with an nvidia gpu probably agrees. Unless you belong to the national self haters club.

 

[96Firebird]

What are you basing this on, the 1920x1080 benchmarks? If so those are basically irrelevant to many people.

LOL!

 

[x3sphere]

Perhaps you didnt phrase that the way you wanted but 1080p performance is relevant to the vast majority of people.

I should have said "many people that buy high end graphics cards." Most do not buy a $400-500 card for 1080p.

 

[Keysplayr]

I should have said "many people that buy high end graphics cards." Most do not buy a $400-500 card for 1080p.

Source?

 

[x3sphere]

Source?

There is no source, just basing it on what I see on forums like this. Even then, some that run 1080p are into downsampling or run SSAA which incurs the same performance hit as running natively in a higher res. If you are into that, then looking at a 1080p benchmark that only uses temporal AA probably won't be representative of the performance difference between a comparable Radeon and GeForce card.

 

[Mand]

Some further info:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...ut-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/

To put this particular argument to bed, I told Cebenoyan I wanted crystal clear clarification, asking “If AMD approached Ubisoft and said ‘We have ideas to make Watch Dogs run better on our hardware,’ then Ubisoft is free to do that?”


“Yes,” he answered. “They’re absolutely free to.”

In addition to that key point is this other one:

As for the Nvidia-specific source code: “The way that it works is we provide separate levels of licensing,” Cebenoyan explains. “We offer game developers source licensing, and it varies whether or not game developers are interested in that. Now, like any other middleware on earth, if you grant someone a source license, you grant it to them. We don’t preclude them from changing anything and making it run better on AMD.”

So, what Nvidia is saying that it prevents the dev from giving Nvidia's code to AMD, but not the developer's code. That's a pretty key distinction which seems to be getting glossed over in the outrage. That, and the dev is free to change Nvidia's code however they see fit.

Why should Nvidia let a dev give Nvidia's code to AMD?

 

[BrightCandle]

There are a couple of potential problems with Nvidia's response which are a bit weasel like.
1) As mentioned above they grant the source code to the developers (at a cost, probably a substantial cost) and they wont be able to transfer it to AMD so AMD can't see or do anything about it although they can recommend things that would perform better on their hardware and drivers and the developers can implement that.

2) It seems very one way for Nvidia to pass code to the developers and not take performance improvements back. Not saying this is how it works but imagine a developer has issues on AMD, fixes the problems and finds it improves AMD and has no impact on Nvidia would Nvidia take the source code changes? I suspect not. That means in the future someone else getting gameworks would have the exact same issue.

3) Unless a company buys the source code licence (for extra) they wont be able to fix issues on AMD cards. If you don't have the source code you can't fix it and if you do then pay extra to fix it you have to do the same fix another developer did before making it more expensive to support AMD cards well. Some developers aren't going to bother.

Have no idea if this is how Nvidia goes about doing it, its just my experience of companies doing this source code licence thing is not that they take fixes - they tend to tell you to go away. I basically got paid for 6 months worth just to fix the same bug in 10 different systems all using a similar licencing scheme (not games something else) because the company would not accept bug fixes. I dislike this sort of style of development greatly, it causes no end of troubles for developers and for every hour it saves in dev time it normally takes two in hard to track down problems.

AMD has an option however, it can build its own competing middleware, open source it and take patches from Nvidia, game developers etc and build a truly open standard implementation. It would kill gameworks pretty quickly.

 

[sontin]

I dislike this sort of style of development greatly, it causes no end of troubles for developers and for every hour it saves in dev time it normally takes two in hard to track down problems.

But that is not nVidia's fault. They are offering a solution to a problem. Take it or leave it.

AMD has an option however, it can build its own competing middleware, open source it and take patches from Nvidia, game developers etc and build a truly open standard implementation. It would kill gameworks pretty quickly.

This would take years. Look how far AMD has come with "Open Physics".

 

[SimsReaper]

There are a couple of potential problems with Nvidia's response which are a bit weasel like.
1) As mentioned above they grant the source code to the developers (at a cost, probably a substantial cost) and they wont be able to transfer it to AMD so AMD can't see or do anything about it although they can recommend things that would perform better on their hardware and drivers and the developers can implement that..

I'm sorry but I may be missing your meaning. I don't see anything at all that is weasel like, or anything negative. Nvidia has spent their own money researching, developing, and building tools to assist game developers and cut down the developers costs. They do this for a license fee. This is a business model that is completely acceptable. Of course they can not transfer that tools source code it to AMD, and no one should expect that. GM does share blueprints with Ford. If AMD wanted to, they could reverse engineer the code from their version of the product, at I would assume to be a fairly large commitment of time and money.

2) It seems very one way for Nvidia to pass code to the developers and not take performance improvements back. Not saying this is how it works but imagine a developer has issues on AMD, fixes the problems and finds it improves AMD and has no impact on Nvidia would Nvidia take the source code changes? I suspect not. That means in the future someone else getting gameworks would have the exact same issue.

This isn't weird. For the code derived from their licensed GAMEWORKS toolset, Nvidia would have completely optimized drivers already in place. This is where they would get their performance boost from. The developer can fix any issue they want, but it comes down to them wanting to spend the extra money. The only reason to use a toolset like GAMEWORKS (or TressFX) is to save on development costs, so that the programmers don't have to build effects from scratch. Putting all the time into fixing and optimizing code that basically does work, but maybe not as well on certain systems as others, is a decision made by the developer on a cost/ benefit scale. And honestly, it would rarely be worth it, as there are always bugs and problems that will be more pressing than a few fps that only affects certain systems. (and that can and will be helped by driver updates performed by another company)

3) Unless a company buys the source code licence (for extra) they wont be able to fix issues on AMD cards. If you don't have the source code you can't fix it and if you do then pay extra to fix it you have to do the same fix another developer did before making it more expensive to support AMD cards well. Some developers aren't going to bother.

I would agree, very few developers would bother, but this is the developers fault. It isn't Nvidia's fault for offering a product that helps developers cut costs, of AMD's fault for doing the same with TressFX.

 

[monstercameron]

I'm sorry but I may be missing your meaning. I don't see anything at all that is weasel like, or anything negative. Nvidia has spent their own money researching, developing, and building tools to assist game developers and cut down the developers costs. They do this for a license fee. This is a business model that is completely acceptable. Of course they can not transfer that tools source code it to AMD, and no one should expect that. GM does share blueprints with Ford. If AMD wanted to, they could reverse engineer the code from their version of the product, at I would assume to be a fairly large commitment of time and money.

the times are changing...just look at unreal's new business model, community contributions with source code access via a subscription model not unlike adobes creative suite. It is pretty old fashioned to do this kind of dev behind closed doors when they are trying to provide value to as many devs as fast as possible. It is antithetical to their stated goals of trying to push the industry forward[sentiments from the pcper editorial].

 

[SlitheryDee]

I should have said "many people that buy high end graphics cards." Most do not buy a $400-500 card for 1080p.

I have several games that have noticeably low FPS at 1080P on my R9 290X at max settings. Crysis 3, Tomb Raider, and Watch Dogs come to mind immediately. It always puzzled me that review sites and people in general call high end cards overkill for 1080p when I can clearly see some slowdown at that resolution at maximum settings on a number of games. For me it's not overkill unless you can max out every graphically intensive popular game out there without ever seeing frame rates drop to a noticeably low level. As it is now I feel like I'm getting merely acceptable performance at 1080P for a lot of games rather than the kind of worry free "Just turn all the settings up and play" experience I wanted when I got this card.

 

[Mand]

There are a couple of potential problems with Nvidia's response which are a bit weasel like.
1) As mentioned above they grant the source code to the developers (at a cost, probably a substantial cost) and they wont be able to transfer it to AMD so AMD can't see or do anything about it although they can recommend things that would perform better on their hardware and drivers and the developers can implement that.

2) It seems very one way for Nvidia to pass code to the developers and not take performance improvements back. Not saying this is how it works but imagine a developer has issues on AMD, fixes the problems and finds it improves AMD and has no impact on Nvidia would Nvidia take the source code changes? I suspect not. That means in the future someone else getting gameworks would have the exact same issue.

3) Unless a company buys the source code licence (for extra) they wont be able to fix issues on AMD cards. If you don't have the source code you can't fix it and if you do then pay extra to fix it you have to do the same fix another developer did before making it more expensive to support AMD cards well. Some developers aren't going to bother.

I don't understand how any of this is weasely. Under what justification is AMD entitled to see GameWorks code just because a third party is developing software using it?

 

[monstercameron]

I don't understand how any of this is weasely. Under what justification is AMD entitled to see GameWorks code just because a third party is developing software using it?

there isn't any, just the fact that they can not optimize it. I don't see how this is a hard concept to grasp?

 

[sontin]

Sure they can. Or how was AMD able to provide a day zero driver update for Watch Dogs?
And how were they able to provide Ubisoft with tips for changes if they hadn't got builds of the game?

The biggest irony is: AMD has no right to see anything. If Ubisoft doesnt care it's their problem. If Ubisoft thinks that HBAO+ brings something to the table then its their decision.
But yet AMD is talking if there is some law that Ubisoft needs to share their property with them...

 

[Mand]

But yet AMD is talking if there is some law that Ubisoft needs to share their property with them...

No, AMD is talking as if there is some law that Nvidia needs to share their property with them.

Sorry, but no.

The claims by AMD are just outrageous in this case. Not only are some of them provably false (things they said weren't provided are freely available on the Nvidia website, even now), but they fly in the face of all notions of intellectual property.

AMD is pushing well beyond marketing spin and into outright deception and lying lately, and I don't like it.

 

[monstercameron]

No, AMD is talking as if there is some law that Nvidia needs to share their property with them.

Sorry, but no.

The claims by AMD are just outrageous in this case. Not only are some of them provably false (things they said weren't provided are freely available on the Nvidia website, even now), but they fly in the face of all notions of intellectual property.

AMD is pushing well beyond marketing spin and into outright deception and lying lately, and I don't like it.

another troll/amd is lying post...how am I not surprised. Can you plz be constructive!?

where did AMD deceive you and how do you even know?

Warning issued for personal attack.
-- stahlhart

 

[Mand]

How do I even know?

When AMD makes a claim that is easily proven false by a Google search. It's happened several times now.

It's not trolling to criticize AMD when they do blatantly disreputable things.

 

[SimsReaper]

the times are changing...just look at unreal's new business model, community contributions with source code access via a subscription model not unlike adobes creative suite. It is pretty old fashioned to do this kind of dev behind closed doors when they are trying to provide value to as many devs as fast as possible. It is antithetical to their stated goals of trying to push the industry forward[sentiments from the pcper editorial].

Unreal's business model? I will assume you mean Epic Games business model, focusing on the Unreal Engine. Yes, they utilize community supplied labor for their own business practices. I think its funny that you think getting work given to you as people pay to use your practice is a "good" business model. I suppose I would also think that if I was Epic Games. Charge a low intro price, $19/mon, get community generated content back for free, and if products are released, they owe Epic a 5% royalty fee.... They are doing the same thing, only they get developer support for free from those who offer it. Then they turn around and license their product to developers for a royalty of any product, and the code is still copyrighted by Epic Games, same as Nvidia does with gameworks, same as AMD does with TressFX. This doesn't push the industry farther at all, any more so than any other company providing a licensed technology or intellectual property.

 

[Attic]

Yea, i'm not buying the defense from nVidia here.

Tress-FX works on both vendors hardware and nVidia can see that code. nVidia is weaseling here pretty hard as they typically do in their response to being called out for the shenanigans they hide behind in gameworks. So they have code in the game, nvidia supplied code, that AMD is going to have to jump through hoops to optimize *if AMD is even allowed to get through those hoops?

Don't hide whats in gameworks and people won't wonder why it results in spectaluarly poor performance more often than not.

I don't like seeing gameworks drive industry apart through this kind of BS. If gameworks resulted in a well optimized and beautiful looking game in for instance Watch Dogs and if it ran well on both vendors hardware i'd be a huge fan of nVidia, nvidia is not delivering this, not by a long shot. I can't imagine this is what's driving the massive extra cash nVidia whats for their hardware in a given performance segment?, it's clearly what they intend, but cmon!

 

[blackened23]

I don't like seeing gameworks drive industry apart through this kind of BS. If gameworks resulted in a well optimized and beautiful looking game in for instance Watch Dogs and if it ran well on both vendors hardware i'd be a huge fan of nVidia, nvidia is not delivering this, not by a long shot. I can't imagine this is what's driving the massive extra cash nVidia whats for their hardware in a given performance segment?, it's clearly what they intend, but cmon!

Well I have great news for you there Attic. The ONLY GAMEWORKS feature in Watch Dogs is HBAO+ (aside from TXAA which requires CUDA). Guess what?

HBAO+ works on AMD. HBAO+ is gameworks. Guess you can go ahead and start being a fan of nvidia, because this feature is a gameworks feature that works on both AMD and Nvidia, and runs at similar speeds on both AMD and nvidia. So i'll break the good news to you. It's time to be a fan, per your claim.

Really, Mr. Hallock the AMD marketer did a number here. It's just hilarious to read some of this stuff. Apparently according to him Nvidia programmed the entire game. Apparently nvidia programs Ubisoft's entire game catalog. LOL. The only feature from gameworks used on both hardware sets is HBAO+. Nvidia didn't program the game. The game engine isn't theirs, the assets are not theirs, Ubisoft simply added HBAO+. Literally everything else in the game, NV had nothing to do with at all. Hard to believe huh? Or you can believe Mr. Hallocks side of events which would indicate that Nvidia programmed the entire freakin game and sabotaged it.

Oh yeah, and has it been mentioned that HBAO+ has literally the exact same performance impact on both AMD and Nvidia GPUs. So much for the theory of AMD being sabotaged through gameworks features. Oh well. Or, if you want, you can make your game experience 100% nvidia feature free by turning off HBAO+. It's that simple. But, why would you do that when it isn't crippled on Radeons? Go look at HBAO+ benchmarks for the game. The performance penalty is nearly exactly the same for both AMD and nvidia. I know that flies in the face of the narrative perpetuated by AMD's deceptive marketing, but facts are facts. Again, make your game experience nvidia free by simply turning off HBAO+. Nothing else in the game has anything to do with NV.There is nothing there for nvidia to "cripple". If they wanted to cripple HBAO+ performance on AMD, well, apparently NV didn't do a very good job.

So welcome to the NV fanclub. HBAO+, being gameworks, does in fact work on both vendors hardware. Funny how that works despite the lies uttered by Mr. Hallock's and his marketing team.

 

[PhIlLy ChEeSe]

Be nice if we can all get along.


And Carfax, AMD does not dictate what the retailers charge for items. They make a suggested price and retailer raise or lower as they want. So don't act like AMD lowered and raise the prices on the R9 GPUs.

Fan BOY!

 

[f1sherman]

Well I have great news for you there Attic. The ONLY GAMEWORKS feature in Watch Dogs is HBAO+ (aside from TXAA which requires CUDA). Guess what?

HBAO+ works on AMD. HBAO+ is gameworks. Guess you can go ahead and start being a fan of nvidia, because this feature is a gameworks feature that works on both AMD and Nvidia, and runs at similar speeds on both AMD and nvidia.

HBAO+ runs certainly above my expectation on 290.
I was expecting significant to crippling penalty on AMD, yet that does not happen.
So unless AMD is taking shortcuts in their codepath (i've seen slight shadow flickering on the grass, and HBAO+ is supposed to be completely flicker-free), ty NV is in order

So what are we rallying against here?
WD runs pretty damn good on 14.6 and it's NV cards with 2-3GB that are in trouble at highest settings.

Isn't that some weird and convoluted plan by NVIDIA: making Radeons look pretty damn competitive?
WTH... whats going on here... I read NV is supposed to cripple our frames and there is nothing AMD can do about it

 

[blackened23]

That's the story AMD's marketing would have everyone believe. And apparently, a lot of people do believe it. It was the same thing with free-sync. Half based on truth, half based on nonsensical stupidity.

The truth is far different. Watch Dogs only uses HBAO+ as the common gameworks feature. If NV set out to cripple radeon's, they sure did a horrible job. Neither NV or AMD programs game engines or games. HBAO+ is the only nvidia feature used on radeons, and that is optional. Someone get JHH on the batphone and tell them they aren't doing a good enough job of crippling radeons, right?

It really would be hilarious if NV's marketing did the same strategy of trying to question the intent of AMD through continuous lies and half truths as Mr. Hallock did with Watch Dogs. I don't think i've seen NV's marketing do anything like that. They just continue to do their thing with hardware without trying to create a marketing war of words. Which is what AMD does. And it's pretty despicable because the entire thing is a joke. HBAO+. That's it. That's what this entire controversy was about. And it runs at the same speed on AMD. LOL.

Christ. The sad thing is AMD does have great graphics hardware with the 290 GPUs, reference design not withstanding. Why AMD insists on spending million upon millions on deceptive marketing really baffles me. To create controversies that are entirely baseless such as this one. They don't need to do that. Put that money towards software development instead for frick sake.

 

[PPB]

Why AMD insists on spending million upon millions on deceptive marketing really baffles me. To create controversies that are entirely baseless such as this one. They don't need to do that. Put that money towards software development instead for frick sake.

Do you have proof of AMD spending millons on deceptive marketing? The actual proof tends to point Nvidia is actually spending money in deceptive marketing and FUD. A good bunch of posts from the usual suspects are only understood if they are being paid for having such hilarous points of view (claiming Mantle reduced view distance and bam, patch from DICE fixing the fog without losing even 1 fps, claiming no one needed Mantle and the gains where minimal, then clapping MS for releasing in 2 years it's carbon copy for every vendor, having their mouths shut about the Titan Z abyssmal reviews).

It is even more suspectful that a lot of these posts behave in a synchronous manner. When there is a Nvidia product to be defended (Gsync), they all go and rehash the same logic, even if it was refuted a whole bunch of posts before. When there is a successful AMD product just launched, they try to dismiss it even if it involves constant goalpost moving (saying cooling and temps mattered when reference 290x launched, until 295x launched and trumped every Nvidia card while being 15+ degrees cooler, then the usual radial silence). And then, when Nvidia makes a colossal fail like Titan Z is, they are nowhere to be found, while lot's of "red tagged" people here usually bash an AMD product when there is reason to.

Then you add dubious campaigns like Nvidia telling system builders to drop AMD in order to get various benefits to the mix and really think if it isnt the green company the one putting really big bucks into making their competition look bad. Put all that money into more R&D instead and I bet 10 bucks lots of their recent shortfalls would have been avoidable (Tegra division to be the most relevant).