[GameGPU.ru] In nvidia we trust - on the example of War Thunder

[Erenhardt]

This thread purpose is to find a correlation between nvidia gameworks program, and relative graphics cards performance. If you have other examples where implementing gameworks changed the gpu hierarchy, or the impact on general gpu performance - feel free to share your findings!

So. Another patch for War Thunder tested by GameGPU.ru
http://gamegpu.ru/mmorpg-/-onlayn-igry/war-thunder-1-53-7-150-test-gpu.html

AMD cards are on the lower side, loosing to their nv counterparts. Thou, it is not as bad as the first GameWorks patch:

.

Performance made a long way since before nvidia started to help develope the game:

1.37 - AMD is faster by 20%
1.39 - AMD is slower by 20% (First gameworks patch)
1.52 - AMD is slower by 5%

The pattern is clear, the intentions the same, but consumer is foggy.

 

[Techhog]

Why is the only 300-series card here the 370?

 

[ShintaiDK]

So it improved for NVidia while staying the same for AMD. If thats GameWorks for you, then more of that. That just means GameWorks doesn't have an effect on AMD if we are to believe this thread.

But again, you are trying to mix Apples and Oranges in an attempt to miscredit GameWorks. Even worse, it backfired. But that's what being in Red Team is about isn't it?

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/124947-war-thunder-update-139/

Warning issued for callout.

 

[Erenhardt]

So it improved for NVidia while staying the same for AMD. If thats GameWorks for you, then more of that. That just means GameWorks doesn't have an effect on AMD if we are to believe this thread.

But again, you are trying to mix Apples and Oranges in an attempt to miscredit GameWorks. Even worse, it backfired. But that's what being in Red Team is about isn't it?

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/124947-war-thunder-update-139/

Your framerate may vary from map to map. Comparing absolute fps between those tests is not apples to apples. Comparing how the cards compete against each other is by all means an reliable source of information on the performance improvements/downgrades.

So, go ahead and analyze those graphs again with that in mind.

Also, why are you so obsessed with red team that you mention it in every post?

 

[crisium]

Even on the newest patch AMD performance is worse than pre-GW, and Nvidia (Kepler) performance is better.

I'm not sure their is even solace to be found in the Kepler performance. 970 still beats a 780 Ti, and 960 beats a 680. Both are indications of Kepler neutering. It's just that, like with many GW titles, GCN is also punished severely.

 

[tential]

So it improved for NVidia while staying the same for AMD. If thats GameWorks for you, then more of that. That just means GameWorks doesn't have an effect on AMD if we are to believe this thread.

But again, you are trying to mix Apples and Oranges in an attempt to miscredit GameWorks. Even worse, it backfired. But that's what being in Red Team is about isn't it?

http://forum.warthunder.com/index.php?/topic/124947-war-thunder-update-139/

This is actually the best example of Gameworks going WELL. Which we normally don't see....

I'm surprised OP didn't notice the 290x/other AMD gpus stayed the same, while Nvidia saw a huge jump....

There are so many BAD implementations of Gameworks, I'm unsure why OP started here. Gameworks is a very easy program to pick apart, it hurts both Nvidia and AMD GPUs, but this is a time where that's not the case.

 

[Teizo]

Well, that is the thing. Gameworks is for Nvidia hardware. If AMD cards don't lose performance, then there is nothing to state. Just because they relatively fall behind Nvidia doesn't mean they actually 'lost' performance....it just means Nvidia cards are further optimized.

Seems like a case of sour grapes.

 

[crisium]

Ultimately the newest patch results are not that bad. A minor swing in Nvidia favour, but well within the normal swings back and forth each company sometimes gets for non-GW games.

However, I wonder if there is anything to learn from the first GW patch. Such as Gameworks injections hitting AMD much harder and giving them a far larger hole to climb out of through optimizations. GW just appears to be a slap in the competition's face. In a sense it is anti-competitive, as the larger company spends money to inject GW and the smaller company spends less available money to counteract the injections. I don't see how anyone would find that to be a desirable trait.

 

[ShintaiDK]

This is actually the best example of Gameworks going WELL. Which we normally don't see....

I'm surprised OP didn't notice the 290x/other AMD gpus stayed the same, while Nvidia saw a huge jump....

There are so many BAD implementations of Gameworks, I'm unsure why OP started here. Gameworks is a very easy program to pick apart, it hurts both Nvidia and AMD GPUs, but this is a time where that's not the case.

Yep.

However it's also different test platforms, drivers and different game via endless patches.

 

[sontin]

Ultimately the newest patch results are not that bad. A minor swing in Nvidia favour, but well within the normal swings back and forth each company sometimes gets for non-GW games.

However, I wonder if there is anything to learn from the first GW patch. Such as Gameworks injections hitting AMD much harder and giving them a far larger hole to climb out of through optimizations. GW just appears to be a slap in the competition's face. In a sense it is anti-competitive, as the larger company spends money to inject GW and the smaller company spends less available money to counteract the injections. I don't see how anyone would find that to be a desirable trait.

It is not anti-competitive when a developer doesnt care about other companies. DICE has done the same with Battlefront and nobody is calling the coalition between AMD and DICE/EA "anti-competitive".

 

[crisium]

It is not anti-competitive when a developer doesnt care about other companies. DICE has done the same with Battlefront and nobody is calling the coalition between AMD and DICE/EA "anti-competitive".

I don't think that post contributes to the discussion. There is no AMD technology in Battlefront. The fact that the game performs better on GCN is absolutely not the same as injections of a proprietary black box SDK into a game resulting in demonstratively worse performance on the competition. Even for games that do have Gaming Evolved you have to come to term with the difference between open source and proprietary and that Gameworks is the latter which btw does not apply to Gaming Evolved or even the old TWIMTBP.

 

[Actaeon]

Wow, I expected AMD to turn it around a bit at 4k, but nope. Look at that 780Ti, very impressive 4k results with just 3GB of VRAM.

 

[crisium]

This game sips VRAM. I'll consider that a positive for sure.

 

[RussianSensation]

It is not anti-competitive when a developer doesnt care about other companies. DICE has done the same with Battlefront and nobody is calling the coalition between AMD and DICE/EA "anti-competitive".

But it sure as hell is terrible for the consumer when developers don't have the resources or care to spend $ to develop next gen game engines where there is a hardware manufacturer that's willing to do their bidding. Instead they take bribes in the form of co-marketing promotions, programming help and PR advertising.

DICE/EA have not introduced any proprietary technology into SW:BF that gimps performance on NV cards or AMD cards. You just pawned yourself with that example since SW:BF is the best (technical) looking PC game of 2015, if not ever and it's also the best optimized PC game of 2015. If 2015/2016 PC games are as good looking and as well optimized as SW:BF, that would be the greatest thing to happen to PC gaming in years. With 300 GWs engineers, NV still cannot create a GW's game better looking than 2013's Crysis 3 but instead almost every GW's game that comes ends up running like crap with GW's features turned on - AC Syndicate anyone? What an unoptimized turd once GW's features are turned on.

Everything is Frostbite 3.0 is open source. It's actually an embarrassment to 300 NV software engineers working on GameWorks for years now that to this date they couldn't produce any visual effects that run as good and look as good as SW:BF which is not even a new engine.

To this day you also don't understand the core differences between AMD GE program and NV's GW's. If NV wants to push proprietary tech by inserting NV-created source code that gimps performance (or is far worse optimized and looks worse than many superior open-source solutions), they should create their own games.

You clearly aren't seeing what PC gaming is becoming. What developers are doing is taking outdated game engines and throwing GW's features as a selling point of how it's the definitive edition to buy. I don't want outdated graphics tech with sprinkled gimmicks -- I want true next generation game engines. I know you'll defend anything NV does so having a logical discussion with you on any topic concerning NV is basically impossible. GW's horrendous track record vs. AMD's GE stands for itself.

Even on the newest patch AMD performance is worse than pre-GW, and Nvidia (Kepler) performance is better.

I'm not sure their is even solace to be found in the Kepler performance. 970 still beats a 780 Ti, and 960 beats a 680. Both are indications of Kepler neutering. It's just that, like with many GW titles, GCN is also punished severely.

Vote with your wallet. The only way for developers to stop using GimpWorks is if you stop buying AAA games at full prices and purchase them at bargain bin prices. The more of us do it, the more they'll get the message that Jeez, maybe they should create next gen PC games on their own or at least add open-source developer created & optimized graphical effects to PC games?! Welcome to 3-4 decades of how PC gaming used to be .

 

[DrMrLordX]

So it improved for NVidia while staying the same for AMD.

Am I missing something here? The 290x went from an average framerate of 104 in 1.37 to an average framerate of 56 in 1.39. Same settings, except that 1.37 apparently included AA while the test in 1.39 did not . . .

 

[ShintaiDK]

Am I missing something here? The 290x went from an average framerate of 104 in 1.37 to an average framerate of 56 in 1.39. Same settings, except that 1.37 apparently included AA while the test in 1.39 did not . . .

Yes, you missed the 1.53 patch (Or perhaps any between 1.39 and 1.53 ). Not to mention all the game changes from 1.37 to 1.39. The 290X went from 110 to 106.

And remember the older tests are reused. Not rerun. The 1.37 was run with catalyst 13.12, the 1.39 by catalyst 14.4.

But this entire thread is as usual just anti GameWorks propaganda by a Red Team member. Unfortunately it was a very poor attempt.

Also the changelog was posted for 1.39. Try spot the error.

This is when GameWorks was implemented:
https://warthunder.com/en/devblog/current/834

That's right, nothing to do with 1.39.

 

[96Firebird]

Thread backfired on OP.

I've never heard of this game, time to research!

 

[Erenhardt]

1.39 patchnotes:

Graphics and models
Significantly optimized render on processors with 2 or less cores
Improved and accelerated grass rendering
Improved and optimized particle rendering
Improved and optimized rendering of the landscape on Dx9/Dx11
Improved OPENGL render
Accelerated water rendering
Accelerated cloud rendering in Dx11 (now not slower than in Dx9)

I don't see this improvement on graphs. Changes to rendering powered by nvidia and we have 1.39 - performance halved for amd.

It is worth noting the presence of the profile of the game War Thunder in the GeForce Experience. Currently, NVIDIA and Gaijin working on the integration of other technologies of NVIDIA Corporation in the game. Details will be disclosed later.

 

[DarkKnightDude]

I wonder how they do the benchmarks for this game, because there's an air battle component that runs like a dream, then on the ground some of the maps as tanks feels like they run terribly and need work.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Yes, you missed the 1.53 patch (Or perhaps any between 1.39 and 1.53 ). Not to mention all the game changes from 1.37 to 1.39. The 290X went from 110 to 106.

But it dipped to almost half its performance from 1.37 to 1.39 . . .

And remember the older tests are reused. Not rerun. The 1.37 was run with catalyst 13.12, the 1.39 by catalyst 14.4.

Older versions of catalyst provided (overall) lower performance. That certainly wouldn't account for War Thunder running so much slower on 1.39.

Also the changelog was posted for 1.39. Try spot the error.

This is when GameWorks was implemented:
https://warthunder.com/en/devblog/current/834

That's right, nothing to do with 1.39.

See Erenhardt's reply?

 

[boozzer]

preaching common sense and here I find him defending gameworks.

 

[el etro]

I see AMD driver team being more aggressive.

Kepler versus GCN showed AMD how important is the work of the driver team.

 

[tential]

I see AMD driver team being more aggressive.

Kepler versus GCN showed AMD how important is the work of the driver team.

More than anything nvidia has "done", it's amd and their own core issues that ruin it for me. Amd needs to get their drivers for new architectures in an optimal state quicker. This way they can compete at launch day instead of needing to "wait bro it'll eventually be better".

Amd needs to figure out a marketing strategy. I have heard the "amd is an engineering company first". That makes zero sense. It's a business it should be run as such. That quote makes me never want to buy another amd product ever again. Make products consumers want and give me what I need. I don't care about performance for other tasks I don't do for a gaming card. There are other cards for those tasks.

Amd needs to figure out a supply issue. Both the fury x and 290x were unavailable at launch. 290x was even worse since price sky rocketed and aib coolers weren't ready so it got horrible reviews on an otherwise ok gpu. That's on amd again. You have a winning chip, and internally while testing it you never used the cooler? Ever? Seriously what does amd do testing wise do they ever test a gpu before sending it out? Or do they just Yolo? It's am unfinished job each time. Just 1 step away from perfection in key parts that turn an otherwise great product into one we can easily tear apart.

Like sure maybe eventually we could recommend fury x against the 980ti in some magical world where the fury x becomes faster in dx 12 games. But who will find those reviews then? They will most likely find one of the reviews where the 980ti wins.

I like what amd wanted to do with fury x, but it was just the wrong time. Imagine if amd had done this with the 290x vs the Titan and 780/ti. Imagine coming out with the fury x style cooler then, and then no reference designs? And we'd be talking about fury x and r9 290 sapphire trix, amd launches the Hawaii gpu series, it's a slaughter house... We're still picking up broken pieces of titans from angry nvidia gpu owners...
And with actual decent launch drivers, none of this "wait eventually amd comes out ahead." dude how long? Are you sure? Like I'm not buying a product based on hoping for future performance. That's ridiculous 290x/290 launch should have been devastating to nvidia, but amd can't get good drivers out Early, can't plan a gpu release, I mean they're simply inept.

Amd only has itself to blame. It's late to every party, when it's early to the party it's hours early. I mean ok, if you show up late lol. But I mean who shows up to a party that starts at 11 p. at 9 am? Amd does.

Freesync has been a number of monitors but no standout amazing monitor to really showcase freesync. Amd should have been working with someone to have a freesync monitor available with a huge range, strobe, etc. Something like a "this is the best it can be". Working with Asus or any other company to have a premium freesync monitor out would be useful, instead amd throws it to the wolves, we're constantly trying to figure out the real refresh rate window. Why not have a database on amds site so we don't have to guess?

I could go on until and on until the food I'm cooking eventually begins to burn and I wouldn't be done getting through the list of issues amd has. Gameworks is annoying, but amd has other issues far more annoying than gameworks. Who forgets to use hdmi 2.0 in a gpu for htpc use? Amd does... But don't worry the adapter is coming soon.

I can't tell which group is more out of touch. The people who defend amd, or the people who work there.

 

[Silverforce11]

More than anything nvidia has "done", it's amd and their own core issues that ruin it for me. Amd needs to get their drivers for new architectures in an optimal state quicker. This way they can compete at launch day instead of needing to "wait bro it'll eventually be better".

R290/X was very competitive versus Titan and 780 when it launched, with day 1 drivers.

The fact that they are now competitive versus 970/980 with the same chip is testament to the fact that GCN matures better.

It will keep on maturing better well into the DX12 era, you can be certain of this and quote me on it in a year's time.

 

[littleg]

More than anything nvidia has "done", it's amd and their own core issues that ruin it for me. Amd needs to get their drivers for new architectures in an optimal state quicker. This way they can compete at launch day instead of needing to "wait bro it'll eventually be better".

Amd needs to figure out a marketing strategy. I have heard the "amd is an engineering company first". That makes zero sense. It's a business it should be run as such. That quote makes me never want to buy another amd product ever again. Make products consumers want and give me what I need. I don't care about performance for other tasks I don't do for a gaming card. There are other cards for those tasks.

Amd needs to figure out a supply issue. Both the fury x and 290x were unavailable at launch. 290x was even worse since price sky rocketed and aib coolers weren't ready so it got horrible reviews on an otherwise ok gpu. That's on amd again. You have a winning chip, and internally while testing it you never used the cooler? Ever? Seriously what does amd do testing wise do they ever test a gpu before sending it out? Or do they just Yolo? It's am unfinished job each time. Just 1 step away from perfection in key parts that turn an otherwise great product into one we can easily tear apart.

Like sure maybe eventually we could recommend fury x against the 980ti in some magical world where the fury x becomes faster in dx 12 games. But who will find those reviews then? They will most likely find one of the reviews where the 980ti wins.

I like what amd wanted to do with fury x, but it was just the wrong time. Imagine if amd had done this with the 290x vs the Titan and 780/ti. Imagine coming out with the fury x style cooler then, and then no reference designs? And we'd be talking about fury x and r9 290 sapphire trix, amd launches the Hawaii gpu series, it's a slaughter house... We're still picking up broken pieces of titans from angry nvidia gpu owners...
And with actual decent launch drivers, none of this "wait eventually amd comes out ahead." dude how long? Are you sure? Like I'm not buying a product based on hoping for future performance. That's ridiculous 290x/290 launch should have been devastating to nvidia, but amd can't get good drivers out Early, can't plan a gpu release, I mean they're simply inept.

Amd only has itself to blame. It's late to every party, when it's early to the party it's hours early. I mean ok, if you show up late lol. But I mean who shows up to a party that starts at 11 p. at 9 am? Amd does.

Freesync has been a number of monitors but no standout amazing monitor to really showcase freesync. Amd should have been working with someone to have a freesync monitor available with a huge range, strobe, etc. Something like a "this is the best it can be". Working with Asus or any other company to have a premium freesync monitor out would be useful, instead amd throws it to the wolves, we're constantly trying to figure out the real refresh rate window. Why not have a database on amds site so we don't have to guess?

I could go on until and on until the food I'm cooking eventually begins to burn and I wouldn't be done getting through the list of issues amd has. Gameworks is annoying, but amd has other issues far more annoying than gameworks. Who forgets to use hdmi 2.0 in a gpu for htpc use? Amd does... But don't worry the adapter is coming soon.

I can't tell which group is more out of touch. The people who defend amd, or the people who work there.

Bang on the money:thumbsup:

AMD has great ideas but absolutely horrible implementation. As for their 'marketing', they'd be better off firing the whole department and not bothering. Their efforts in this field tend to do more harm than good.