[Nvidia.com] Nvidia GameWorks unleashed at GDC.

[Keysplayr]

Very well said. Nice post ^

 

[Silverforce11]

If nvidia and AMD stuck with open standards, pc games would be stuck being straight up console ports with higher res textures. GPU particle, smoke, hair, and cloth simulation wouldn't be happening and DX12 may not have been developed within the same time frame.

Sorry but I don't want to wait on not-for-profit consortiums and console-centric Microsoft to push innovation in the PC space. You sound like a good candidate to be a console-first user.

I'm pretty sure DX11 was PC first for a long time before recent consoles have it, and soon DX12 again will be PC first for many years.

You can achieve a lot with Direct Compute and Open CL, you don't need closed propriety APIs to do particles, smoke, hair, water etc. Note, BF3/4 have great particles, smoke and lighting, all via DX11. Dynamic Water was first done with tessellation in Dirt. Hair in TR. etc

I'm not arguing with you on the merits of superiority of DX or PhysX or Gameworks, I just wish both sides would try their best to push a common open standard.

But I did include a caveat, that I fully understand companies to leverage their ability to out-compete others so Mantle and Gameworks being vendor specific is understandable. There's no need to throw an insult at me with the console remark.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm pretty sure DX11 was PC first for a long time before recent consoles have it, and soon DX12 again will be PC first for many years.

You can achieve a lot with Direct Compute and Open CL, you don't need closed propriety APIs to do particles, smoke, hair, water etc. Note, BF3/4 have great particles, smoke and lighting, all via DX11. Dynamic Water was first done with tessellation in Dirt. Hair in TR. etc

I'm not arguing with you on the merits of superiority of DX or PhysX or Gameworks, I just wish both sides would try their best to push a common open standard.

But I did include a caveat, that I fully understand companies to leverage their ability to out-compete others so Mantle and Gameworks being vendor specific is understandable. There's no need to throw an insult at me with the console remark.

I think they should just keep doing what they're doing.

 

[tviceman]

There's no need to throw an insult at me with the console remark.

You took it as an insult. I did not intend it as such. The PC has always had proprietary technology / implementations at the high end. The lack of open standards where no standards exist, or where no momentum with a supposed open standard is supposed to exist, is the price you pay to hang with a constantly evolving platform. If its too much to keep up with, or too frustrating that your hardware can't do what other hardware can, then consoles are where it's at for you.

Nvidia is likely to push Gameworks and physx harder than ever since AMD is making a legitimate effort (finally) to push their own platform and proprietary tech. I think its only going to get worse.

 

[Silverforce11]

Nvidia is likely to push Gameworks and physx harder than ever since AMD is making a legitimate effort (finally) to push their own platform and proprietary tech. I think its only going to get worse.

The PC market has been quite stable ever since DX9 or so, there's been no dominant propriety tech. PhysX was good but only in few titles. Every since DX11 blossomed we've had a lot of graphic innovation on the PC using an open standard so I disagree with the need for PC to be at the forefront through closed APIs. We'll see when DX12 hits it will continue to push the forefront of graphics.

Also I agree moving forward both companies will compete more viciously, I would not say it's "worse" because while I prefer innovation with open standard so gamers with any GPU can enjoy the benefits, its true and expected they are going to push propriety features to allow their brand to stand out.

Either way, gamers will benefit. AMD gamers can enjoy extra features in AMD sponsored games and vice versa. Is it ideal? No. But better than no innovation.

 

[SirPauly]

It's called money.

Imho,

Indeed! The idea behind many projects is to try to actually make it! This is why the core game-play is consistent over-all and why titles are not GPU vendor specific. It would be financial suicide for a developer to be GPU vendor specific.

 

[RaulF]

Believe me when I tell you that current Nvidia hardware users, which make up more than 60% of the discrete GPU market, actually does appreciate Nvidia's efforts to improve and enhance performances on that very hardware. Let AMD users worry about what AMD can do for them, and let them do it in another thread to boot.

You can't be serious.

I haven't been back in the PC gaming market for too long (was gone for quite a few years) but by the few examples i know of it is obvious that these "Nvidia" efforts as you call them are crap.

Look at physx in Black flag. Yes let me turn it on so i can have a bunch of smoke blocking my view. The same can be said in COD Ghost, turn physx and animal fur and performance drops to shit and makes the game stutter when you need to react to another player.

Yes that we want, useless features.

 

[Keysplayr]

You can't be serious.

I haven't been back in the PC gaming market for too long (was gone for quite a few years) but by the few examples i know of it is obvious that these "Nvidia" efforts as you call them are crap.

Look at physx in Black flag. Yes let me turn it on so i can have a bunch of smoke blocking my view. The same can be said in COD Ghost, turn physx and animal fur and performance drops to shit and makes the game stutter when you need to react to another player.

Yes that we want, useless features.

So then you'd like nothing more for things to stay where they are. No progression. No new feature development. No improvements. There are more games than Black Flag. Raul, I'm not buying your story. To sit there and say you don't want new features isn't believable. Whether they are OK, or need improvement or freaking awesome!! Anything more is welcomed.

 

[NTMBK]

I think they should just keep doing what they're doing.

Oh great, keep forcing developers to support two rival APIs.

DirectX 12 is a good example of the right thing to do. Mantle has some clear benefits, so Microsoft have basically copied it (from what I gather) and made it the new standard. Now NVidia, Intel and AMD users will will get the benefits of the new API, developers can just target DirectX 12 (perhaps with a DirectX 10 fallback path), and we win. Now Mantle can just quietly die off, as it's done its job.

 

[zlatan]

Oh great, keep forcing developers to support two rival APIs.

DirectX 12 is a good example of the right thing to do. Mantle has some clear benefits, so Microsoft have basically copied it (from what I gather) and made it the new standard. Now NVidia, Intel and AMD users will will get the benefits of the new API, developers can just target DirectX 12 (perhaps with a DirectX 10 fallback path), and we win. Now Mantle can just quietly die off, as it's done its job.

I don't think that there will be a D3D10 fallback path. Maybe D3D11, but anything below will be to complicated. The easiest way to support the developers is to bring D3D12 to Win7/8/8.1 and so on. MS should consider this option.
Mantle is still a better API than D3D12. Also easier to extend it with new features, so it can lead the market, and MS will always know where to go in the next D3D upgrade.

 

[Stuka87]

I think they should just keep doing what they're doing.

How on earth can you say this with a straight face? Do you actually work for nVidia? Because I cannot see why somebody would go to the lengths you do to defend a corporate entity.

Fragmentation is never good for the consumer. And in the case of gaming, its also bad for the developers. They have a finite amount of resources, and now they have to split those resources across three different rendering paths.

Innovation is good yes, but innovation with the sole purpose of creating vendor lock in is bad. How can you think any company that creates something that only half of consumers can use good? If things continue on this path, everybody is going to need to have one PC with an AMD card, and one with an nVidia just so they can play all the games. Because if things continue as they are, games are going to start becoming vendor specific.

 

[stahlhart]

Tone down the rhetoric, now, and don't make this discussion personal.
-- stahlhart

 

[MeldarthX]

I'm pretty sure DX11 was PC first for a long time before recent consoles have it, and soon DX12 again will be PC first for many years.

You can achieve a lot with Direct Compute and Open CL, you don't need closed propriety APIs to do particles, smoke, hair, water etc. Note, BF3/4 have great particles, smoke and lighting, all via DX11. Dynamic Water was first done with tessellation in Dirt. Hair in TR. etc

I'm not arguing with you on the merits of superiority of DX or PhysX or Gameworks, I just wish both sides would try their best to push a common open standard.

But I did include a caveat, that I fully understand companies to leverage their ability to out-compete others so Mantle and Gameworks being vendor specific is understandable. There's no need to throw an insult at me with the console remark.

Silver; for DX 11 that's correct; but it won't be for DX 12.

DX 12 is about fixing MS's horrible dev tools for Xbox 1.....they are just as bad if not worse than PS3's original tool; and those were beyond description bad.

MS can't afford to wait to have those fixed; only people that can do it....AMD....

close deals are done......business is the name of the game; DX is DX and mantle is mantle......*coughs DX 12 code will translate easily into mantle just like PS4's code translates easily into mantle*

this is good for everyone.....

 

[Keysplayr]

How on earth can you say this with a straight face? Do you actually work for nVidia? Because I cannot see why somebody would go to the lengths you do to defend a corporate entity.

Fragmentation is never good for the consumer. And in the case of gaming, its also bad for the developers. They have a finite amount of resources, and now they have to split those resources across three different rendering paths.

Innovation is good yes, but innovation with the sole purpose of creating vendor lock in is bad. How can you think any company that creates something that only half of consumers can use good? If things continue on this path, everybody is going to need to have one PC with an AMD card, and one with an nVidia just so they can play all the games. Because if things continue as they are, games are going to start becoming vendor specific.

What lengths to defend which company?

I said I think "they" (AMD and Nvidia) should keep doing what "they're" doing.
And what is vendor lock? A game that can be played on only one vendors GPU?
cause AFAIK, short of bugs, their isn't any game that can be played on one and not the other.

 

[RaulF]

So then you'd like nothing more for things to stay where they are. No progression. No new feature development. No improvements. There are more games than Black Flag. Raul, I'm not buying your story. To sit there and say you don't want new features isn't believable. Whether they are OK, or need improvement or freaking awesome!! Anything more is welcomed.

I like that they have their own specific technologies.

But at the same time they pimp them out like they are the greatest thing since slice bread. And i have yet to see where, phyxs is worth using.

DICE does phyxs without nvidia, and seem to do it better. Since it just bogs down the gpu. What benefit is that!

 

[blackened23]

I'm not super attached to physx or anything but you literally are naming the worst example to be had. AC IV. Yeah physx isn't great in AC IV. But there are some games with excellent physx implementations, such as Batman: Origins, Batman: Arkham city and Borderlands 2. It all depends on the game. No, it isn't great in AC IV. But I do like physx a LOT in BL2. And all the Batman games.

All in all it's a value added feature for nvidia users. If you don't like it, okay? It's not meant to be a must have feature. It's a value add for NV users, if you like it...cool...if not...cool. It's neat to have and is great in some games, but it isn't something that has ever been suggested to be a pre-requisite. I certainly don't buy NV for physx, I like nvidia GPUs for other reasons. And like I said you literally named some of the worst physx implementations there are. Some games are fantastic. Not all are. And as is the case with myself, i'd say not many NV users that buy for solely for physx, they buy for other NV features or reasons. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

 

[Keysplayr]

I like that they have their own specific technologies.

But at the same time they pimp them out like they are the greatest thing since slice bread. And i have yet to see where, phyxs is worth using.

DICE does phyxs without nvidia, and seem to do it better. Since it just bogs down the gpu. What benefit is that!

I like it to. Freedom of choice.

And they pimp them out because it's their jobs to do that. There are a lot of people who work at AMD and Nvidia and depend on sales, so are you going to pimp your wares or are you going to just lean back and say, "Well, we have this feature. It's OK. You might like it you might not. Buy our stuff."



And yes you did quite literally give the worst examples for PhysX. Blackened gave some good examples that are true value adds for the feature.

 

[monstercameron]

I like that they have their own specific technologies.

But at the same time they pimp them out like they are the greatest thing since slice bread. And i have yet to see where, phyxs is worth using.

DICE does phyxs without nvidia, and seem to do it better. Since it just bogs down the gpu. What benefit is that!

physx isnt just fluff, it is a gpu accelerated physx[dammit! physics] engine. How devs implement this have no bearing on what it is nor its capability [to an extent]. Dont blame physx because in some games [hawken] devs overdo it, blame it for its proprietary nature.

 

[Keysplayr]

physx isnt just fluff, it is a gpu accelerated physx engine. How devs implement this have no bearing on what it is nor its capability [to an extent]. Dont blame physx because in some games [hawken] devs overdo it, blame it for its proprietary nature.

Blame it for it's proprietary nature? Why? It's a value add for Nvidia users. I don't see why it deserves any blame for anything at all.

 

[monstercameron]

Blame it for it's proprietary nature? Why? It's a value add for Nvidia users. I don't see why it deserves any blame for anything at all.

were it not proprietary it would gain more adoption...as most open things do. Nvidia could then have more games that use this technology but they would keep the prestige of introducing/developing it...Its all about perception, IMO that is.

 

[OCGuy]

were it not proprietary it would gain more adoption...as most open things do. Nvidia could then have more games that use this technology but they would keep the prestige of introducing/developing it...Its all about perception, IMO that is.

A different proprietary GPU technology is getting much more press, I would say. This argument just doesnt hold much water anymore.

 

[Keysplayr]

A different proprietary GPU technology is getting much more press, I would say. This argument just doesnt hold much water anymore.

Yeah, it really doesn't. I think we've come to the end of the road for the "proprietary arguments".

 

[VulgarDisplay]

A different proprietary GPU technology is getting much more press, I would say. This argument just doesnt hold much water anymore.

Its getting more press because it has broken years of stagnation on the api front, and is genuinely awesome for its users.

I fail to see how blowing newspapers and jello are earth shattering implementations of physx in bl2 and batman. As another poster said phsyx is held back by its proprietary nature. It can't change gameplay so its always going to relegated to fluff that you would not notice if it was missing. We are still waiting for the dust to settle from mantle. No one knows if it will always be proprietary or not, buy physx is staying that way.

 

[RaulF]

I'm not super attached to physx or anything but you literally are naming the worst example to be had. AC IV. Yeah physx isn't great in AC IV. But there are some games with excellent physx implementations, such as Batman: Origins, Batman: Arkham city and Borderlands 2. It all depends on the game. No, it isn't great in AC IV. But I do like physx a LOT in BL2. And all the Batman games.

All in all it's a value added feature for nvidia users. If you don't like it, okay? It's not meant to be a must have feature. It's a value add for NV users, if you like it...cool...if not...cool. It's neat to have and is great in some games, but it isn't something that has ever been suggested to be a pre-requisite. I certainly don't buy NV for physx, I like nvidia GPUs for other reasons. And like I said you literally named some of the worst physx implementations there are. Some games are fantastic. Not all are. And as is the case with myself, i'd say not many NV users that buy for solely for physx, they buy for other NV features or reasons. It's all in the eye of the beholder.

I like it to. Freedom of choice.

And they pimp them out because it's their jobs to do that. There are a lot of people who work at AMD and Nvidia and depend on sales, so are you going to pimp your wares or are you going to just lean back and say, "Well, we have this feature. It's OK. You might like it you might not. Buy our stuff."



And yes you did quite literally give the worst examples for PhysX. Blackened gave some good examples that are true value adds for the feature.

Very well.


I have not played the Batman game, but have seen the video. It does look pretty cool.

 

[ams23]

This argument just doesnt hold much water anymore.

PhysX is GPU-accelerated on systems with NVIDIA GPU's (which represents a huge install base), and it is CPU-accelerated on countless other systems. NVIDIA claims that PhysX is the most popular physics SDK on the market (used in more than 500 games), while also being included in major game engines such as UE3 and UE4 (among others): https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-physx-overview