Let's play what if: AMD owned PhysX instead of NV

[Azix]

We don't really have to imagine.

Look at TressFX and what they did or rather didn't do.

If AMD put as much effort into tressfx as they do into badmouthing gameworks, we'd have some pretty good amd based features.

huh? They are already at version 3.0 and have had it in as many games as hairworks I think. It also runs better than hairworks (keep saying it, but in TR a 5770 could run it fine along with decent graphics).

All thats left is to use it on a wider variety of models.

Additionally, tressfx is in deus Ex coming up and you will likely love how well that game runs without nvidia being in there.

 

[Final8ty]

huh? They are already at version 3.0 and have had it in as many games as hairworks I think. It also runs better than hairworks (keep saying it, but in TR a 5770 could run it fine along with decent graphics).

All thats left is to use it on a wider variety of models.

Additionally, tressfx is in deus Ex coming up and you will likely love how well that game runs without nvidia being in there.

And also in the next Tomb raider and runs on the consoles GPUs.

 

[bystander36]

huh? They are already at version 3.0 and have had it in as many games as hairworks I think. It also runs better than hairworks (keep saying it, but in TR a 5770 could run it fine along with decent graphics).

All thats left is to use it on a wider variety of models.

Additionally, tressfx is in deus Ex coming up and you will likely love how well that game runs without nvidia being in there.

Hairworks is an Nvidia tech. TressFX is AMD's hair software.

 

[Azix]

Hairworks is an Nvidia tech. TressFX is AMD's hair software.

why do you say that? I know.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Who said anything about GPU PhysX? It is all owned by Nvidia...

CPU physx doesn't care what GPU you have.

 

[Azix]

And also in the next Tomb raider and runs on the consoles GPUs.

good point. Tressfx can actually work well on consoles.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P0PW_VGtKAI

looks pretty good. That was tressfx 2.0.

Hairworks is definitely behind.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Hair works looks better and more natural to me.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Debbie Downers!
AMD prefers industry standards, open source, no funny biz!

Probably would have better uses, adoption, maybe even game changing effects. Side effects of open standards.

Say it like it is, not what the team wants to hear!

It could still have been open source and worked to their benefit.

 

[digitaldurandal]

If AMD owned it, it'd be just as useless and irrelevant as it is today.

I think it has its use. Most games just don't use it properly, it is used in gimmick ways.

If Project Cars is really using it to the extent they claim I find it pretty impressive.

 

[Silverforce11]

Hair works looks better and more natural to me.

Subjective, but what isnt is the neutering of performance of Hairworks on everything (Kepler included) except Maxwell.

TressFX runs very efficient on both AMD/NV GPUs, no crippling competition. That's undeniable.

Also they're up to v3.0 now, looks pretty awesome from tech demos at GDC. Interestingly, Square Enix makes their own Hair Simulation, that looks the best so far.

 

[cmdrdredd]

Subjective, but what isnt is the neutering of performance of Hairworks on everything (Kepler included) except Maxwell.



TressFX runs very efficient on both AMD/NV GPUs, no crippling competition. That's undeniable.



Also they're up to v3.0 now, looks pretty awesome from tech demos at GDC. Interestingly, Square Enix makes their own Hair Simulation, that looks the best so far.

It doesn't run on anything when no games use it and it still doesn't look as natural.

 

[soresu]

Bear in mind Bullet is also used by many 3d DCC packages for real time simulations, both built in and as a plugin.

Also AMD are very open about how they implemented TressFX, and we can expect to see grass/foliage and fur being added probably to future TressFX titles.

Even if Gameworks was technically better, we all know it will never run as well on AMD cards because nVidia will never be open with it, IMHO AMD takes the long view of bettering PC gaming with their open tech, and see the potential bragging rights of having games use it as secondary to building a better (and bigger) future for PC gaming.

Isnt AMD working on some new rendering method called Forward+ too?

 

[Silverforce11]

It doesn't run on anything when no games use it and it still doesn't look as natural.

How many games have Hairworks, how many games have TressFX? You would be surprised. :0

 

[96Firebird]

Is this thread about GameWorks or PhysX?

 

[Silverforce11]

Isnt AMD working on some new rendering method called Forward+ too?

They released that a long time ago, I even tested the Forward+ demo.

Which is what is used in Witcher 3 in fact. Forward + rendering to enable deferred engines to apply global lighting & MSAA via direct compute.

It's open source like all of AMD's features.

"CD project in-house engine uses for The Witcher 3 Direct X 11 and a Forward + renderer, texture blending and LoD system by Umbra 3 middleware save power and memory."

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Technik-Test-1158845/

 

[digitaldurandal]

Is this thread about GameWorks or PhysX?

The thread was about PhysX. I don't think comparing technologies such as hairworks and tressfx between the two companies is off topic as it could be an indication of how things may have turned out.

 

[96Firebird]

They released that a long time ago, I even tested the Forward+ demo.

Which is what is used in Witcher 3 in fact. Forward + rendering to enable deferred engines to apply global lighting & MSAA via direct compute.

It's open source like all of AMD's features.

"CD project in-house engine uses for The Witcher 3 Direct X 11 and a Forward + renderer, texture blending and LoD system by Umbra 3 middleware save power and memory."

http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-PC-237266/Specials/Technik-Test-1158845/

Thanks for solving the Kepler performance mysteries in TW3! I'll post this over there...

The thread was about PhysX. I don't think comparing technologies such as hairworks and tressfx between the two companies is off topic as it could be an indication of how things may have turned out.

There is a major difference between PhysX and GameWorks though, PhysX's CPU-based source is available and isn't the "black box" GW is made out to be.

 

[digitaldurandal]

Thanks for solving the Kepler performance mysteries in TW3! I'll post this over there...



There is a major difference between PhysX and GameWorks though, PhysX's CPU-based source is available and isn't the "black box" GW is made out to be.

PhysX is often run on the GPU. This is what we are discussing here. It does indeed cripple the competition whether or not it is a black box. See Project Cars for example.

 

[Silverforce11]

Thanks for solving the Kepler performance mysteries in TW3! I'll post this over there...

The thing with Forward+ is its open source, if you google Forward+ Rendering you will see lots of papers & technical discussions from game devs. You also see AMD presented it at the 2013 GDC (Game Dev Conference). That was during the time where many game engines were moving to deferred rendering to handle bigger & more complex scenes, but the drawback is lack of effective global lighting & AA. Crytek implemented Forward+ (their optimized version of it due to open source nature of Forward+) into their engine awhile go, with its usage in Ryse.

780/Titan/780Ti performs fine in Ryse btw. No NV's blackbox present in that game.

 

[ShintaiDK]

You're right actually, the 780 Ti still holds the lead - but not a convincing one considering its price. NVIDIA is making a tough case for their high ends parts, $300 more at launch yet the R9 290 edges it out here.

It probably wouldn't sting so much if they hadn't priced it at $700.. had it been closer to the R9 290X there really wouldn't be any argument.

A GTX780ti is an obsolete product and it doesnt cost 700$ anymore. It was released in 2013.

Really..move on.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Subjective, but what isnt is the neutering of performance of Hairworks on everything (Kepler included) except Maxwell.

TressFX runs very efficient on both AMD/NV GPUs, no crippling competition. That's undeniable.

Also they're up to v3.0 now, looks pretty awesome from tech demos at GDC. Interestingly, Square Enix makes their own Hair Simulation, that looks the best so far.

Tomb Raider release disagrees with you.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Even consoles run PhysX

 

[Silverforce11]

Tomb Raider release disagrees with you.

It's a good thing TressFX is open source, enabling NV to optimize rapidly.

Wish it were the same from NV.

 

[nvgpu]

TressFX is garbage and runs very poorly even on AMD hardware and pretty much crippled performance on Nvidia cards.

http://techreport.com/news/24463/nvidia-acknowledges-tomb-raider-performance-issues

It's so bad even devs turn it off.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/261760/discussions/2/620700960748580422/

We purposely disabled TressFX on NVIDIA cards. We delivered TressFX on AMD hardware as part of our partnership with AMD.

 

[3DVagabond]

TressFX is garbage and runs very poorly even on AMD hardware and pretty much crippled performance on Nvidia cards.

http://techreport.com/news/24463/nvidia-acknowledges-tomb-raider-performance-issues

It's so bad even devs turn it off.

https://steamcommunity.com/app/261760/discussions/2/620700960748580422/

Article from March 2013. Yeah, that's relevant today. Somehow? Maybe? No, didn't think so.

I also find this quote interesting,

We are aware of performance and stability issues with GeForce GPUs running Tomb Raider with maximum settings. Unfortunately, NVIDIA didn’t receive final game code until this past weekend which substantially decreased stability, image quality and performance over a build we were previously provided.

But don't they say you don't need the game code to optimize drivers?