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

[blackened23]

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).

This post really is a gem. You talk about usual suspects. Care to clarify on that? That's your proof? Or are you trolling to deflect away from the fact that the claims of AMD marketing about Watch Dogs was, in fact, baseless? You're literally going on and on about stuff not on topic.

Let's review the gameworks features common to NV and AMD for Watch Dogs:

HBAO+.

Is it crippled on Radeons?

No.

Did nvidia program the game or game engine? Does AMD or NV ever do that?

No.

You could discuss that, or you could go on and on about usual suspects and the way people post. I said nothing about forum goers, and everything about Robert Hallock who probably lies so much that he believes himself.

Bottom line is this. It only uses HBAO+. Despite AMD waiting until the last second to work with Ubi on game optimizations (while they kicked their marketing slander campaign in high gear), HBAO+ works fine on AMD GPUs with no severe performance penalty. It doesn't have a performance deficiency on AMD hardware. End of story. But that's not the narrative that AMD's marketing claimed. Now you tell me whose marketing department is deceptive. Of course i'm not saying NV's marketing is innocent, I found their Titan Z marketing quite stupid as well. But, the entire premise of AMD's marketing for Watch Dogs was done by Robert Hallock, one of their head marketing guys, and it was based on half truths or lies (unintentional or intentional, I do not know). Not the "usual suspects" as you so fondly call others. I'm not even talking about forum goers. I'm talking about real AMD marketers that outright lied and made incorrect claims. As it turns out, Watch Dogs is yet another instance of just that. More lies.

 

[Mand]

You talk about usual suspects. Care to clarify on that?

He means that we should not listen to certain posters here because they must be paid shills because he doesn't like what they say.

 

[raghu78]

Actually the title should be Why Watch Dogs is bad news for PC users. It really is so bad according to many review sites. The product definitely deserved more polish for the PC version. luckily a patch seems to be on the way.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...atch-dogs-offers-advice-to-boost-performance/

http://www.polygon.com/2014/5/28/5757992/watch-dogs-pc-performance

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/05/28/watch-dogs-on-pc-showing-poor-performance

http://www.kotaku.com.au/2014/05/watch-dogs-pc-at-its-best-and-worst/

As for performance on AMD cards its the developer's responsibility to get the performance up to expected levels. AMD can work with the developer but I am guessing some level of source code access to the Gameworks library will be required to tune performance. People who have done game engine/graphics engine development might be able to tell whether source code access is required for performance optimization.

 

[f1sherman]

It could have been better, but it's far from bad news.
It's one of those games that gets rolled over by an internet hating machine for no apparent reason.
There is not a single thing warranting this kind of community response, but when everything gets connected it's the perfect storm of anger.

Or maybe I am exaggerating, and this is just a matter of very few but very loud gamers.

I really do enjoy the game as it as it is, but I feel like when/if modding scene gets the hold of it, Watch Dogs will become an essential city roaming game.

For example drawing distance is impressive as it is, but some objects like cars need increased cut-off distance. It feels like the engine is capable of so much more then the current state of ingame visuals.
Which again are not bad, but it leaves me wanting more.

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

:ninja:

 

[Vesku]

Even an Ubisoft programmer doesn't like how Nvidia is going about things with their Gameworks program:

Bart Wronski - ‏"still,if nvidia keeps secrecy they will shoot themselves in their feet"

https://twitter.com/repi/status/452812842132332544

Bart Wronski - Ubisoft Montreal

 

[f1sherman]

Even an Ubisoft programmer doesn't like how Nvidia is going about things with their Gameworks program:

Bart Wronski - ‏"still,if nvidia keeps secrecy they will shoot themselves in their feet"

so just a matter of personal preference?
nothing about "Nvidia deliberately crippling performance on AMD products"


yeah I don't like many things too, but I don't go around screaming bloody murder

 

[Vesku]

so just a matter of personal preference?
nothing about "Nvidia deliberately crippling performance on AMD products"


yeah I don't like many things too, but I don't go around screaming bloody murder

Well, it contradicts how Nvidia is portraying Gameworks. "Oh, a game developer can totally tinker with it." <whispers> "Only when and how we permit them to."

 

[f1sherman]

you'll have to forgive me if I don't respond right away.
playing Watch Dogs, and ALT-TABing in between the missions xD

Totally tinker with it??

Totally does not sound like something Nvidia would say.
Hope this helps:
https://twitter.com/basisspace/status/471368809924665346

And the working thesis for OP article and AMD is
"Nvidia deliberately crippling performance on AMD products"

not "Nvidia not giving us sources and tools and debuggers so we can totally tinker with it" ^_^

 

[Vesku]

From Nvidia's official response to the article "developers can, under certain licensing circumstances, gain access to (and optimize) the GameWorks code"

'under certain licensing circumstances'

Note that the game developers I posted the twitter exchange of don't appear very happy with those "circumstances".

 

[f1sherman]

I did note that. Such is life.

And I can see how they can be unhappy about Nvidia's lack of public documentation. But this is hardly something new.

Gameworks unusable? Then simply don't use it.
But it works pretty good as far as I can see in HBAO+. By far the best AO!
Remember that Far Cry 3 shimmering garbage? uke:

 

[BrightCandle]

I found a strange inconsistency from Nvidia on settings for the game. They have a review out which says the settings should be ultra for all but textures on the 680 SLI and yet in GeForce experience it even wants to set the textures to ultra, which does not work.

Actually I have played most of the game on high, I prefer the higher frame rate when trying to escape the cops in a car.

 

[sontin]

Even an Ubisoft programmer doesn't like how Nvidia is going about things with their Gameworks program:

Bart Wronski - &#8207;"still,if nvidia keeps secrecy they will shoot themselves in their feet"

https://twitter.com/repi/status/452812842132332544

Bart Wronski - Ubisoft Montreal

Yeah, somebody should tell this guy that nVidia worked with Ubisoft closely to implementent HBAO+ in Splinter Cell:Blacklist.

But i guess at this time is was not a problem for him...

BTW: After Tomb Raider has been confirmed that nVidia didn't get the final versions until a few days before the release, they even didn't get a copy of Sleeping Dogs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZI3AeT9pI9w&feature=player_detailpage#t=626

So, "Gaming Evolved" is a much bigger threat to PC gaming than anything else. :lol:

 

[TeknoBug]

HBAO is an annoying feature for me, the ugly shadows around characters and objects (although SSAO is less intense in BF4 than HBAO), enabling HBAO in Saints Row 3 makes this black aura around people that it looks hideous. I usually turn off AO in games anyways.

PS- I stopped caring about Gaming Evolved a long time ago, when I install AMD drivers I do custom install and untick Raptr everytime, what a waste of resources it is.

I like how you use only one set of benchmarks to prove you point. More benchmarks show the AMD cards being faster, more VRAM or not. High or Ultra textures.

I don't see a difference here.

Really? A 290X that's comparable to a 780Ti gets beaten by a non-Ti 780 by 25-30% and you don't see a difference?

 

[sontin]

PCLab.pl did a comparision between a Windforce GTX780 and 290X with two different CPUs: i5-4690 and FX-8320@4,7GHz.

And the result shows clearly why AMD is bad news for AMD users and no other company - performance summary:

http://pclab.pl/art57842-20.html

As long as AMD doesnt care about open standards like DX and OpenGL AMD user will see worse performance in these games when it comes to cpu limited situations.

 

[3DVagabond]

PCLab.pl did a comparision between a Windforce GTX780 and 290X with two different CPUs: i5-4690 and FX-8320@4,7GHz.

And the result shows clearly why AMD is bad news for AMD users and no other company - performance summary:

http://pclab.pl/art57842-20.html

As long as AMD doesnt care about open standards like DX and OpenGL AMD user will see worse performance in these games when it comes to cpu limited situations.

When did DX go open standard, and does this game have an OpenGL rendering path?

 

[sontin]

DX is accessible for everyone on the Windows plattform. So it is an open standard.

 

[3DVagabond]

DX is accessible for everyone on the Windows plattform. So it is an open standard.

No, it's not an open standard. You are creating your own definition. You're making it like AMD doesn't support DX which is FUD. I'm still wondering what the relevance of OpenGL was in the context of this game?

 

[PrincessFrosty]

How is this functionally any different from Mantle?

Both sides are always going to do this, as a consumer it's up to you to vote with your wallet with how game developers do things and what technology they adopt. For example I don't like the fact that the Battlefield Devs wasted a bunch of time implementing mantle that only benefits AMD users, so I refuse to buy their game.

Vote with your wallet, it's the only voice you have.

 

[Atreidin]

DX is accessible for everyone on the Windows plattform. So it is an open standard.

That is a definition that practically nobody uses. If you use different definitions to the rest of the world, then people should ignore what you have to say because it either means you don't know what you are talking about, or are trying to be manipulative.

 

[KingFatty]

Battlefield Devs wasted a bunch of time implementing mantle that only benefits AMD users, so I refuse to buy their game.

In what sense, do you mean that they delayed the game by wasting time? Or do you mean that a thing that benefits some people, but not all people, is therefore a waste?

 

[Keysplayr]

In what sense, do you mean that they delayed the game by wasting time? Or do you mean that a thing that benefits some people, but not all people, is therefore a waste?

I think his post covered both of these aspects. All senses covered.

 

[frozentundra123456]

How is this functionally any different from Mantle?

Both sides are always going to do this, as a consumer it's up to you to vote with your wallet with how game developers do things and what technology they adopt. For example I don't like the fact that the Battlefield Devs wasted a bunch of time implementing mantle that only benefits AMD users, so I refuse to buy their game.

Vote with your wallet, it's the only voice you have.

Exactly. Both AMD and nVidia are trying to get a edge. There is not even necessarily anything wrong with that. Just seems ridiculous to cry foul when your competitor responds in kind to what you are doing though.

 

[wand3r3r]

How is this functionally any different from Mantle?

Both sides are always going to do this, as a consumer it's up to you to vote with your wallet with how game developers do things and what technology they adopt. For example I don't like the fact that the Battlefield Devs wasted a bunch of time implementing mantle that only benefits AMD users, so I refuse to buy their game.

Vote with your wallet, it's the only voice you have.

Do you buy games with physx?

 

[Fox5]

How is this functionally any different from Mantle?

Both sides are always going to do this, as a consumer it's up to you to vote with your wallet with how game developers do things and what technology they adopt. For example I don't like the fact that the Battlefield Devs wasted a bunch of time implementing mantle that only benefits AMD users, so I refuse to buy their game.

Vote with your wallet, it's the only voice you have.

Well, the difference is that AMD's is actually doing something different and better with technology, whereas nvidia is essentially using DRM to prevent AMD from optimizing it.

But the end result is more or less the same, and both are pretty dangerous to the future of PC gaming.

 

[SirPauly]

I think both, Amd and nVidia, are doing good over-all because they're raising the technology bar, bringing more choice, trying to improve the gaming experience and promoting and trying to create awareness for the PC platform.

Ideally, it would be nice if all parties would be on equal footing but after all they are competitors in a very competitive landscape with some division and protection for their work. Personally never allow idealism to be the enemy of good!