Just how playable are Gameworks titles on AMD cards?

Toggle sidebar Toggle sidebar
B

barroso

Member
Nov 3, 2015
30
0
0
Hi there,

im building a new rig for gaming @1080 and was pretty much set on buying the 970 GTX until i read about the async compute controversy.

After some research i figured the 390s would be the best option, also because of the extra vram but i saw some benchmarks where even the fury x gets dropped ~10-15 fps on 1080 ultra(that would be the 0,1% lows) on gameworks titles. http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2015/amd/fury-x-w3-1080.png

Now, i wonder what is the overall impression of the gaming experience? Im interested in the fps fluidity, but also wonder whether image quality is affected. Cheers
 
Shmee

Shmee

Memory & Storage, Graphics Cards Mod Elite Member
Super Moderator
Sep 13, 2008
8,117
3,058
146
I dont know if it is gameworks, but Wolf NWO ran decently on my 290s.
 
B

barroso

Member
Nov 3, 2015
30
0
0
Well i meant in general, in case Nvidia ever decides to go aggressive with this strategy.

The Witcher 3 graph which i linked to my OP for example puts AMD in a really bad light and thats a current game.
 
poofyhairguy

poofyhairguy

Lifer
Nov 20, 2005
14,612
318
126
barroso said:
Well i meant in general, in case Nvidia ever decides to go aggressive with this strategy.

The Witcher 3 graph which i linked to my OP for example puts AMD in a really bad light and thats a current game.
Click to expand...

Actually after patches AMD does ok on that game.
 
thesmokingman

thesmokingman

Platinum Member
May 6, 2010
2,302
231
106
poofyhairguy said:
Actually after patches AMD does ok on that game.
Click to expand...


How long did that take? Some GW titles are still broken. GW libraries are a black box, they're meant to keep AMD out so any improvement they can manage has to be achieved thru great effort.
 
I

iiiankiii

Senior member
Apr 4, 2008
759
47
91
barroso said:
Hi there,

im building a new rig for gaming @1080 and was pretty much set on buying the 970 GTX until i read about the async compute controversy.

After some research i figured the 390s would be the best option, also because of the extra vram but i saw some benchmarks where even the fury x gets dropped ~10-15 fps on 1080 ultra(that would be the 0,1% lows) on gameworks titles. http://media.gamersnexus.net/images/media/2015/amd/fury-x-w3-1080.png

Now, i wonder what is the overall impression of the gaming experience? Im interested in the fps fluidity, but also wonder whether image quality is affected. Cheers
Click to expand...

A single GTX 970 isn't good enough to turn on GameWorks without getting hit pretty hard on performance. You'll need a GTX 980/TI to run at max settings in Witcher 3. Most benchmarks are done with GameWorks settings OFF.

Turning on GameWorks feature will drop performance so low that it doesn't matter if a GTX 970 will do slightly better than a 390 in GameWorks tittle. Just turn off GameWorks and enjoy much, much better performance. The performance hit with GameWorks on isn't worth it.

Honestly, I believe a R9 390 is a better GPU going forward. If you plan on keeping your GPU for more than 2 or 3 years, the R9 390 is the better option unless you're uber concern with power consumption.
 
T

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
Goatsecks said:
Not true. Game devs can optimise for hardware other than Nvidia.

http://wccftech.com/nvidia-gameworks-amd-both-sides-analysis/3/
Click to expand...

What you said doesn't change the fact that he was talking about AMD optimizing.
You're talking about Game Devs optimizing. So what he said is in fact true.
What you said is also true.

@OP
This is something we have all had to decide on if you chose an AMD card.
From my perspective (As I CERTAINLY am not stupid enough to talk in absolutes) this is how I see it in general terms:

-Gameworks titles are broken on release for AMD cards. Day 1, AMD performance just isn't good. It may be the whole game, or a specific setting.

-As the title is out longer, AMD gets patches in and the title usually is playable or even AMD may be faster in the long run.

-Some games still suffer poor performance (I honestly can't name one other than Project Cars?) or don't allow crossfire which hurts if you want to go high end.

-Gameworks specific features are MASSIVE performance hits. This is one thing I'm not sure why it is not talked about more. The specific features like Hairworks for example are very hurtful to performance on mid high end GPUs. You won't even use the futures most likely due to how much it will hit your FPS. Unless you're at a GTX980Ti level GPU, I'd say you'd be better off waiting whether you're AMD or Nvidia user on a Gameworks game until it has received some patches.
Anno2205 while I'm not sure if it's a GW game, it's the typical broken GW game performance.
It takes a GTX980Ti to get just 60fps max settings. If not, you're at a GTX 970 with 30 FPS or so? Is that what you're happy with? I'll wait for the game to be fixed, AMD or Nvidia because even if I have a 980Ti, I'll prefer to take advantage of my high refresh rate screen, or use my 4K monitor. You don't pay for a GTX 980Ti, and get excited for 1080p/60fps gaming.
----------

Should this deter you away from AMD? Sure, if you play a LOT of PC games, and feel GW titles are a must play at release.
That is the conclusion I have come to. That when it comes to GW to me in picking between AMD and Nvidia, it really doesn't matter to me, because sure, Nvidia has better day 1 performance, but the day 1 performance of 30-40 FPS on a GTX 970 on max settings on a game just isn't appealing to me either way. 1080p 60 fps isn't what I'd spend $650 on a gpu for.

Look at Anno2205 as an example and decide if you think it's worth it to have a GTX 970 to be able to play that game TODAY at those settings/fps. If it is, go Nvidia for SURE. If it's not worth it, and you'd wait, then AMD and Nvidia are still both options for you!
 
B

barroso

Member
Nov 3, 2015
30
0
0
@iiiankiii

After reading a couple of articles on the 390s i did opt for it over the 970 myself, mostly because of the 8GB as this build is meant to last as long as it can. But those 12fps lows were a cold shower, i mean nobody wants to cash $1500 for a brand new rig and see those numbers, in ANY game and %.

On the graph above though the difference between Nvidia and AMD isn't just slight. The 970 delivers a thoroughly playable experience @1080 ultra with 54fps average and lows above 30 while even the Fury X falls inside the stutter zone(the situation is different at higher res but AMDs lows are still there).

Now, whether this is due to the bench being done on an early version of the game, or whether, as i just read, it may be due to AMDs inferior tessellation performance i dont know.

@tential

Personally, vram and dx12 support apart, id opt for Nvidia or rather id be bullied to opt for Nvidia if developers/publishers would show to be keen on supporting their strategy and optimize software for their hardware, just to be sure as they are the major force and have the muscle and superior market share that allows them to influence the ecosystem.

But if indeed later patches do improve performance for AMD and take those 0.1% - 1% lows out of the stutter zone then yes id be comfortable with going for AMD and wait for those patches.
 
Last edited:
I

iiiankiii

Senior member
Apr 4, 2008
759
47
91
Like I said, how long do you plan on keeping your card? It does matter. Nvidia strategy is to support their latest and greatest (which makes sense). The moment Pascal hits, don't expect to see the same kind of support in GameWorks title that you'll getting now with Maxwell. Just like Kepler, it'll become second rate citizens. If you plan on upgrading again when Pascal hits, grab the GTX 970. It should do fine until then. If you plan on keeping the GPU a bit longer, the R9 390 is the better option.

What you need to understand is that a GTX 970 isn't good enough to run GameWorks at the smoothness you'll want. Thus, making it rather mute to compare GameWorks when the effects of turning it on is undesirable. If you want GameWorks turned on, you'll need a better GPU than the gTX 970. That's the bottomline. My Titan X took a huge dump with GameWorks enable in the Witcher 3. Granted, I was able to overclock (1550mhz/8100mhz) it enough to push it above 60fps most of the time @ 1440p with some settings turned off/down. That's with Anti-alias turned off. GameWorks for the win, right? NOT..
 
NTMBK

NTMBK

Lifer
Nov 14, 2011
10,410
5,674
136
If you try to play a Gameworks title on an AMD card, Jen Hsun Huang will personally come round your house and punch you in the face.

nvidia_huang.top.jpg
 
B

barroso

Member
Nov 3, 2015
30
0
0
iiiankiii said:
Like I said, how long do you plan on keeping your card? It does matter. Nvidia strategy is to support their latest and greatest (which makes sense). The moment Pascal hits, don't expect to see the same kind of support in GameWorks title that you'll getting now with Maxwell. Just like Kepler, it'll become second rate citizens. If you plan on upgrading again when Pascal hits, grab the GTX 970. It should do fine until then. If you plan on keeping the GPU a bit longer, the R9 390 is the better option.

What you need to understand is that a GTX 970 isn't good enough to run GameWorks at the smoothness you'll want. Thus, making it rather mute to compare GameWorks when the effects of turning it on is undesirable. If you want GameWorks turned on, you'll need a better GPU than the gTX 970. That's the bottomline. My Titan X took a huge dump with GameWorks enable in the Witcher 3. Granted, I was able to overclock (1550mhz/8100mhz) it enough to push it above 60fps most of the time @ 1440p with some settings turned off/down. That's with Anti-alias turned off. GameWorks for the win, right? NOT..
Click to expand...


I understand what you're saying and agree with you, i just pointed out that in that specific case - the Witcher 3 benchmark with Hairworks and HBAO+ OFF - AMD still performed substantially worse than NV, with those 12fps dips that pinch my eyes.

Bui if, as it seems, the general consensus is that subsequent patches do take AMD out of those stuttering lows and bring performance on par - or close to it - with equivalent Nvidia cards even on Gameworks titles, then i really see no problem in opting for AMD.
 
IllogicalGlory

IllogicalGlory

Senior member
Mar 8, 2013
934
346
136
Gameworks titles in general don't perform well on AMD, but generally they're alright if you turn off the Gameworks features. Witcher 3 and Dying Light, for example, play fine on my rig.
 
B

barroso

Member
Nov 3, 2015
30
0
0
IllogicalGlory said:
Gameworks titles in general don't perform well on AMD, but generally they're alright if you turn off the Gameworks features. Witcher 3 and Dying Light, for example, play fine on my rig.
Click to expand...


Fine means smooth, stutterless gaming experience with everything on ultra except Gameworks features? Well "everything on ultra" by this criterium.
 
Last edited:
T

tg2708

Senior member
May 23, 2013
687
20
81
shite fallout 4 may have gameworks additions which could end up crippling amd cards. My hype level has been cut in half.
 
T

tential

Diamond Member
May 13, 2008
7,348
642
121
barroso said:
@iiiankiii

After reading a couple of articles on the 390s i did opt for it over the 970 myself, mostly because of the 8GB as this build is meant to last as long as it can. But those 12fps lows were a cold shower, i mean nobody wants to cash $1500 for a brand new rig and see those numbers, in ANY game and %.

On the graph above though the difference between Nvidia and AMD isn't just slight. The 970 delivers a thoroughly playable experience @1080 ultra with 54fps average and lows above 30 while even the Fury X falls inside the stutter zone(the situation is different at higher res but AMDs lows are still there).

Now, whether this is due to the bench being done on an early version of the game, or whether, as i just read, it may be due to AMDs inferior tessellation performance i dont know.

@tential

Personally, vram and dx12 support apart, id opt for Nvidia or rather id be bullied to opt for Nvidia if developers/publishers would show to be keen on supporting their strategy and optimize software for their hardware, just to be sure as they are the major force and have the muscle and superior market share that allows them to influence the ecosystem.

But if indeed later patches do improve performance for AMD and take those 0.1% - 1% lows out of the stutter zone then yes id be comfortable with going for AMD and wait for those patches.
Click to expand...
Then you understand my sentiment perfectly it seems. I would be bullied into Nvidia if I played those titles day 1. I DO NOT.
So then I recommend the R9 390.

Then to take it 1 step further, you'll buy a monitor soon I hope. Freesync is cheaper than Gsync as well. So you will save twice in a row.

I really can't recommend a Maxwell GPU unless you go 980Ti, or you play gameworks games on Day 1. If you do then Maxwell all the way. Otherwise, the R9 390 is the king. It's been the king for SO long (It was the 290).

Don't be crazy and buy into the GPU vendor hype. Buy the GPU that does best for you in your scenario which is AMD right now.

Me personally, my GPU criteria is stupid simple.
Do you support Freesync/Gsync above 50 inch displays? Only Freesync does, so I only buy AMD. Otherwise, I'd have a 980Ti... so fast.... so good.... Or Crossfire Fury X(Scaling is better than 980Ti in SLI, all heat exhausted outside of case, etc.). GTX 970 is a joke GPU to me. Unless you play Gameworks games day 1, or have a need for a lower power consumption system for HTPC use (Despite lavaheadcase showing a 290x LIGHTNING in a mitx system....).

I just can't stress how stupid of a decision the GTX 970 is if you aren't using it for gameworks or gameworks exclusive features(nvidia exclusive features, etc.).

If you can afford a GTX 980Ti though.... I'd get that and sell it when you want. It's going on sale and may dip below $600 with combo deals/sales/coupons, and it's the ONLY TIME we'll see a high end GPU actually look price/perf competitive.... Haha but that's because I wish I could get one personally too. Just get the R9 390 on sale though OP, then decide what you want to do afterwards when Pascal/AI hits. You should at most lose $50 reselling the R9 390, and the upgrade to Pascal/AI will be worth it.
 
Last edited:
happy medium

happy medium

Lifer
Jun 8, 2003
14,387
480
126
barroso said:
im building a new rig for gaming @1080 and was pretty much set on buying the 970
Click to expand...

I just bought a new rig today for 1080p. I just could not see spending over 200$ for a gpu I will want to replace in about 9 months with a brand new next gen card.
So I just grabbed a cheap gtx960 4gb to hold me over. @ 1080p with a good overclock it should play most games at high settings till next August.
Sell card next year for 100$ and grab something made for direct x 12 , much faster for 300$ -my 100$ for my 960. I'm sure next year I will get a card 2x faster than a 960 for under 300$.
 
S

showb1z

Senior member
Dec 30, 2010
462
53
91
For TW3 specifically, hairworks on Geralt looks bad anyway. Get the mod that enables hairworks on monsters only.
Best of both worlds. Monsters look good and your framerate doesn't take a hit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

COMPANY
RESOURCES
FOLLOW
Top Bottom