[maximumPC] Nvidia Tom and Rev interview on Contracts, Gsync + more

[Techhog]

There hasn't been any sarcasm in my posts. If you think there is, that's your issue.

Still looks like you're trying to say that the game or developer is at fault instead of the feature, using BF4 as an example, and attempting to extend that example to Gameworks titles. That doesn't work if AMD is the one to release the driver to fix it. In that case, it either means that AMD slacked off, or they're telling the truth and didn't have the source code for the games.

 

[f1sherman]

This whole issue with "AMD needs source code". I mean WTH...

If in today's every man for himself society, someone is asking for corporate empathy and advocating for some valiant etiquette of companies doing what's best for their competition, best for "everyone", for going above what's required by law.

I think he has to work to get to naive status

 

[Techhog]

This whole issue with "AMD needs source code". I mean WTH...

If in today's every man for himself society, someone is asking for corporate empathy and advocating for some valiant etiquette of companies doing what's best for their competition, best for "everyone", for going above what's required by law.

I think he has to work to get to naive status

The problem is that it's an anticompetitive practice going under the radar. :/

 

[f1sherman]

The problem is that it's an anticompetitive practice going under the radar. :/

Is that a legal qualification of what Nvidia is doing?

If so then - accusations are cheap; we've heard plenty from AMD Gaming Scientist.
Getting some proof... now that would be something.

How cool is AMD Gaming Scientist Huddy - holding competition to some-uber standards, and not having the common human decency to back his accusation with SOME kind of proof.

 

[Techhog]

Is that a legal qualification of what Nvidia is doing?

If so then - accusations are cheap; we've heard plenty from AMD Gaming Scientist.
Getting some proof... now that would be something.

How cool is AMD Gaming Scientist Huddy - holding competition to some-uber standards, and not having the common human decency to back his accusation with SOME kind of proof.

How is he supposed to prove it?

 

[f1sherman]

That's his problem, isn't it?

Some of the stuff he put out is impossible to DISPROVE by any legal means - disclosing contracts.
Other is flat out impossible to disprove - what's Nvidia's motive; what's in the head of their engineers "optimizing" gameworks etc...

To me it's pretty basic what he is doing - throwing manure at competition and generating any kind of noise to keep his company in headlines.

 

[Mand]

Still looks like you're trying to say that the game or developer is at fault instead of the feature, using BF4 as an example, and attempting to extend that example to Gameworks titles. That doesn't work if AMD is the one to release the driver to fix it. In that case, it either means that AMD slacked off, or they're telling the truth and didn't have the source code for the games.

I do place the primary responsibility for a game's performance on the developer, yes.

 

[sontin]

I've said it before but I doubt people care. The reason nvidia didn't get tress fx before hand is because they weren't part of the NDA that probably went along with it. Once the technology was released and the NDA was no longer necessary then nvidia was able to optimize for it.

Seriously? :|

Yes, nVidia was able to optimize for it - after the release of TR, after the initial benchmarks and after nVidia user were unable to play this game.

It's quite hilarious how many people still defend AMD after Tomb Raider and are believing their ongoing lies. :sneaky:

 

[blackened23]

Still looks like you're trying to say that the game or developer is at fault instead of the feature, using BF4 as an example, and attempting to extend that example to Gameworks titles. That doesn't work if AMD is the one to release the driver to fix it. In that case, it either means that AMD slacked off, or they're telling the truth and didn't have the source code for the games.

Is this a joke? Source code for games isn't given to NV or AMD, they optimize without it. Source being required for driver optimizations is FUD propagated by clowns like Huddy and Hallock, neither of which have programmed a day in their lives. But they sure can lie through their teeth. The actual software engineers at Valve and NV among others have re-iterated the retardedness of that statement, that source code is required for GPU optimizations. Both AMD and NV do without it and create drivers without it. Like, are you kidding? Game devs DO NOT give source code for their games out to anyone. LOL. Performance optimized drivers are done without source code.

This is the problem with having marketing scumbags who don't know what the hell they're talking about trying to talk about technical details. They get everything wrong. Or they lie. Probably the latter in this case.

 

[Techhog]

I do place the primary responsibility for a game's performance on the developer, yes.

Someone with actual knowledge proved that AMD was just slow with optimizing the game, so you win. AMD is the worse company.

 

[Techhog]

Is this a joke? Source code for games isn't given to NV or AMD, they optimize without it. Source being required for driver optimizations is FUD propagated by clowns like Huddy and Hallock, neither of which have programmed a day in their lives. But they sure can lie through their teeth. The actual software engineers at Valve and NV among others have re-iterated the retardedness of that statement, that source code is required for GPU optimizations. Both AMD and NV do without it and create drivers without it. Like, are you kidding? Game devs DO NOT give source code for their games out to anyone. LOL. Performance optimized drivers are done without source code.

This is the problem with having marketing scumbags who don't know what the hell they're talking about trying to talk about technical details. They get everything wrong. Or they lie. Probably the latter in this case.

Fair enough. I concede.

 

[f1sherman]

OK OK... but it's not that NV/AMD NEVER receive game source code, and that they always optimize on binaries or whatever.

To my understanding, it's done on case by case basis. But saying AMD can't optimize w/o source code is simply wrong.
I mean WTH they achieved Watch Dogs perf. parity by punching random keys

Huddy, Hallock, whoever, i wouldn't call them scumbags, they are only doing their job, but it's a sad business when they have to lie. Because surely they know all this.

 

[blackened23]

OK OK... but it's not that NV/AMD NEVER receive game source code, and that they always optimize on binaries or whatever.

To my understanding, it's done on case by case basis. But saying AMD can't optimize w/o source code is simply wrong.
I mean WTH they achieved Watch Dogs perf. parity by punching random keys

Correct. The vast majority of the time, AMD and NV cannot view or get access to source code. That is the property of the publisher and developers are not free to give it out to anyone. Not even NV or AMD. And they (NV+AMD) don't need it for performance drivers. I recall John Mcdonald (former NV software engineer) stating that they basically never got source code except in very rare cases and had to make do. Binaries as you stated. So it's all the more confusing when Huddy is advocating this source code nonsense, as if their hands are tied unless the publisher shares 100% of the source code.

I really wish the talking heads for AMD/NV were the guys in the field doing the actual software work. Would be much better that way, because you'd get the information straight from the horses mouth with no BS.

 

[f1sherman]

Correct. The vast majority of the time, AMD and NV cannot view or get access to source code. That is the property of the publisher and developers are not free to give it out to anyone. Not even NV or AMD. And they (NV+AMD) don't need it for performance drivers. I recall John Mcdonald (former NV software engineer) stating that they basically never got source code except in very rare cases and had to make do. Binaries as you stated. So it's all the more confusing when Huddy is advocating this source code nonsense, as if their hands are tied unless the publisher shares 100% of the source code.

I really wish the talking heads for AMD/NV were the guys in the field doing the actual software work. Would be much better that way, because you'd get the information straight from the horses mouth with no BS.

But wait wait... what happens when Nvidia updates their Gameworks, and devs apply this update for their game? Does that mean AMD has to punch random keys (optimize) all over again?

This is true for TressFX or any other game just the same.
Last I hear Oxide updated Star Swarm and NV is again not doing so well after they had pretty much achieved perf. parity and put to shame Oxide benchmark.

 

[blackened23]

But wait wait... what happens when Nvidia updates their Gameworks, and devs apply this update for their game? Does that mean AMD has to punch random keys (optimize) all over again?

This is true for TressFX or any other game just the same.
Last I hear Oxide updated Star Swarm and NV is again not doing so well after they had pretty much achieved perf. parity and put to shame Oxide benchmark.

I'm really not sure how the entire gameworks thing works. I can't think of any prior such technology, be it tressFX or any gameworks feature (be it physx, TXAA, or whatever) changing in performance from one build to another. Using common sense, it's in the interest of developers to ensure their games work as best possible on all PC platforms, so I don't really get it when I read on the web where certain fans have theories about game devs secretly crippling a game on one platform because of a contract. That's kinda stupid really. I mean , they want to sell their game to 100% of users. Not 65%, not 35%, they want to sell to the 100%. What sane game dev would do that. I can think of none. I think, more than likely, that most game devs would leave the special features portion alone as that seems to be what has been done the majority of the time. Borderlands 2 uses an INCREDIBLY old physx DLL, so old that if you replace it in your folder BL2 folder the game runs better w/ physx on NV hardware. Same for tressFX. I don't think Squeenix ever screwed around with TressFX at all since release.

Anyway, the only example I can think of is Watch Dogs and it only uses HBAO+. It runs at the same speed on AMD + NV, and nothing else in Watch Dogs uses gameworks. NV didn't program the game. AMD also didn't program Tomb Raider. People have this weird concept that AMD and NV program games. I really don't get that, but whatever.

Aside from HBAO+, I really don't know how that works. I'd assume AMD and NV would collaborate with the developer to optimize special features like that. AMD and NV both have field software engineers that travel to ensure these things happen, although AMD also has more limited resources. And once the game developer implements such a feature, I'd think they would more or less leave it alone? That seems to be what has happened in the past.

 

[dacostafilipe]

Yes, nVidia was able to optimize for it - after the release of TR, after the initial benchmarks and after nVidia user were unable to play this game.

It's quite hilarious how many people still defend AMD after Tomb Raider and are believing their ongoing lies. :sneaky:

You should maybe go back and read what really happend in the case of TressFX because you are far from the truth!

TressFX did add an equal hit to the FPS on both GPU's (+- 50% less frames) and a week after launch Square (722.3) + nVidia (GeForce 314.21) released updated to fix the DoF problem on nVidia GPU's (the main cause of poor benchmark scores) and improving performance overall.

TressFX had also a problem with video memory usage that hit both GPU vendors, but as it's the case today, nVidia was more hit because they usually have less RAM on the boards. This problem was fixed 10days after the launch with the 722.3 patch. I remember that patch really well because I've had this problem on my 660GTX at the time.

So please, stop blaming TreesFX for the poor performance when it's not the case!

 

[bunnyfubbles]

Until Mantle is made open, or "Freesync" actually exists, we're just going on promises and really shouldn't take any claim or "promise" on anything other than face value.

On the one hand it does suck that features like GPU accelerated physics or G-Sync tie you down to only nVidia, on the other hand such options wouldn't be options now if not for nVidia. So yeah, I don't really get why people are getting into a tizzy over anything, just come across as entitled whiners.

 

[blackened23]

I think a good argument was made with the analogy, "Why would BMW share their technology that they poured millions of dollars into with Mercedes?"?

It's a good question. The answer is, you don't. It's stupid. Yet in AMD's case (in my view based on their actions), their marketing is pushing so hard to make themselves look like the good guys and saints by proclaiming Mantle is open when it really, isn't. It isn't owned by a consortium of members and is restricted to GCN hardware.

A corporation doesn't spend millions on R+D just to give it away. Please. That is beyond stupid. For either AMD or NV. The alternative approach is just create something and throw it out there. Guess what happens there. Yeah, nothing happens because without effort in spreading adoption and spending more on software development, nobody cares. HD3D? Nobody used it. Bullet physics? Nothing uses it. AMD's approach has been to throw stuff out there in the past hoping that people use it. And nobody ever has. Mantle has been their first change of heart with this where they actually put some effort in getting people on board. And that has helped them immensely, because if they had just thrown it out there like they did with other things in the past, nobody would care.

Basically, AMD is trying to make a push for new tech as NV has. NV created new features and tech and poured their software engineering and R+D on it, spending tons of money. If they spend tons of money on something, it's theirs and theirs alone. For their customers as a value add. Just like Mantle is AMD's value add. And just as they should, AMD is spending money on spreading adoption and getting the word out to developers.

If AMD wants to hire their own guys and spend millions in R+D on something, just like NV has done on many things, it is AMD's thing to pursue and pursue fully. Mantle is AMD's proprietary tech and that is 100% fine. AMD should certainly go forth and do good things with Mantle. They should just be more forthcoming instead of sending so many smokescreens about it via social media to appear as the "good guys". The entire personify intel / NV as evil and greedy is just old and long in the tooth, and apparently this marketing strategy isn't working for AMD. I don't think anyone has an issue with Mantle being AMD's thing for AMD's products. But just call it what it is, and not what it isn't.

 

[VulgarDisplay]

I think people are confusing an open api with an open source api.

Also, until amd is proven wrong about mantle being open calling them liars to create controversy in a technical forum just screams off topic troll flame bait to me.

They have said that the api will open up once they are out of beta. They aren't out of beta yet so stop making false accusations until such time that amd proves your own lies correct by making the api closed.

 

[Mand]

I think people are confusing an open api with an open source api.

Also, until amd is proven wrong about mantle being open calling them liars to create controversy in a technical forum just screams off topic troll flame bait to me.

They have said that the api will open up once they are out of beta. They aren't out of beta yet so stop making false accusations until such time that amd proves your own lies correct by making the api closed.

Huddy said very clearly and very repeatedly that AMD intends to maintain total control over Mantle.

And I'm calling them liars about other things, not about their plans for Mantle.

 

[Saylick]

I think a good argument was made with the analogy, "Why would BMW share their technology that they poured millions of dollars into with Mercedes?"?

This is a good analogy but it only applies if it can be proven that GameWorks in no way or form harms AMD GPUs, but I don't think we have that kind of evidence, for either side that is.

 

[monstercameron]

This is a good analogy but it only applies if it can be proven that GameWorks in no way or form harms AMD GPUs, but I don't think we have that kind of evidence, for either side that is.

its a terrible analogy, car companies share[licence] drive-train and many components.

 

[blastingcap]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aG2kIUerD4c#t=6170

Highlights for me were:
- Nvidia does not have contracts in place stopping games developers from optimising their games for the competitors cards. But they wont show the contracts.
- Nvidia sends in the engineers that work on using Nvidia specific features, so its not the games company developers doing the integration of this stuff. So TXAA will be added by an Nvidia engineer.
- They asked how often gameworks developers get source code. They didn't answer the question. They added more detail about gameworks like the binaries are free and some of their partners the source is also free.
- Mantle - Nvidia isn't convinced by the benefits on "hardware that matters". However they do think we will see the benefits on DX12, which is very two faced comment.
- Mantle - They also mention with low level APIS we will loose the benefits of new hardware that is radically different and hence loosing compatibility with older games. They aren't sure what happens with multiple generations of cards, maybe its a constantly changing API. On consoles you have it for a long time, but not on the PC.
- Mantle is not true openness.
- Nvidia engineers don't just add their features when they go into game companies, they also optimise general DirectX use which helps their competitor as well.
- Gsync does NOT have 1 frame of latency, its a lookaside buffer
- Tom direct calls Huddy a liar, he repeats quite a few times. He also says he wont come into that chair and lie to the interviewers.

+ loads more

Highly recommended watch

Did anyone expect a different response? I still don't plan to go past Windows 7 unless absolutely necessary. Considering how DX12 will probably be reserved for Win 9, or at most Win 8.1 and 9, DX12 is not a real solution for me personally.

 

[ocre]

O

I think people are confusing an open api with an open source api.

Also, until amd is proven wrong about mantle being open calling them liars to create controversy in a technical forum just screams off topic troll flame bait to me.

They have said that the api will open up once they are out of beta. They aren't out of beta yet so stop making false accusations until such time that amd proves your own lies correct by making the api closed.

Oh, okay.

Well then gameworks is just as open as mantle. It is open for any developer to use. Heck even runs on amd hardware....so that makes it even more open than mantle is righ now.

So it is all how u want to define open

 

[Saylick]

its a terrible analogy, car companies share[licence] drive-train and many components.

Only if they feel like the cross licensing is mutually beneficial. nVidia doesn't believe that investing in Mantle is worth their time or money, especially since DX12 is within the foreseeable future.