• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

[OC3D.net] Nvidia making GameWorks Source Code Publicly available

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
At least now the experts can go over the source code and determine if there is some truth to the "intentionally tanks performance" claims.
 
TheELF said:
At least now the experts can go over the source code and determine if there is some truth to the "intentionally tanks performance" claims.
Click to expand...

And yet you have no idea if this is the actual code running in the game or not. Step in the right direction but still not resolved. Also they removed any history from the files, so no idea what they used to look like.
 
Bacon1 said:
And yet you have no idea if this is the actual code running in the game or not. Step in the right direction but still not resolved. Also they removed any history from the files, so no idea what they used to look like.
Click to expand...

I'd think that it would be pretty easy to tell if it's the code running in the game or not. Swap out the GW that's in the game for the version on GitHub and see how they both run.

When you say they removed any history from the files, does that mean that there are no notations in the code?
 
AMD's GPUOpen only open-sourced four effects; three of which (ShadowFX, AOFX, GeometryFX) aren't used in any games/software. Two of which (AOFX, ShadowFX) are GCN-centric technologies.

Developers can license the full Gameworks SDK source (even the new stuff) if they see fit. If developers want, they can have full control over all Gameworks effects. The only stipulation is that they can't release Nvidia's source code to AMD or Intel, and they can't change it in a way that's detrimental to Nvidia GPUs. Pretty reasonable in software licensing terms.
People want Nvidia to do is give away their proprietary software for free to anyone with no strings attached. While it's great that AMD did it with only four of their effects technologies, why does Nvidia have to release all of theirs?
 
Last edited:
Raising said:
AMD's GPUOpen only open-sourced four effects; three of which (ShadowFX, AOFX, GeometryFX) aren't used in any games/software. Two of which (AOFX, ShadowFX) are GCN-centric technologies.

Developers can license the full Gameworks SDK source (even the new stuff) if they see fit. If developers want, they can have full control over all Gameworks effects. The only stipulation is that they can't release Nvidia's source code to AMD or Intel, and they can't change it in a way that's detrimental to Nvidia GPUs. Pretty reasonable in software licensing terms.
People want Nvidia to do is give away their proprietary software for free to anyone with no strings attached. While it's great that AMD did it with only four of their effects technologies, why does Nvidia have to release all of theirs?
Click to expand...

What AMD released is Open, what Nvidia released is not.
 
Raising said:
AMD's GPUOpen only open-sourced four effects; three of which (ShadowFX, AOFX, GeometryFX) aren't used in any games/software. Two of which (AOFX, ShadowFX) are GCN-centric technologies.

Developers can license the full Gameworks SDK source (even the new stuff) if they see fit. If developers want, they can have full control over all Gameworks effects. The only stipulation is that they can't release Nvidia's source code to AMD or Intel, and they can't change it in a way that's detrimental to Nvidia GPUs. Pretty reasonable in software licensing terms.
People want Nvidia to do is give away their proprietary software for free to anyone with no strings attached. While it's great that AMD did it with only four of their effects technologies, why does Nvidia have to release all of theirs?
Click to expand...

http://gpuopen.com/

For games and CGI there are only 4 effects. However games and CGI also has 20 SDK's and Libraries and 3 tools. Additionally for compute there are 5 tool, 12 libraries, 6 infrastructure resources and 8 applications.

Seems like there are more than just 4 of AMD's technologies.
 
The question is if NV wanted to go Open Source to stop the backlash of their black box, why did they just not go all out and do it properly, everything under MIT license, without a clause to say they can revoke it anytime for any reason?

Atm, it's not actually what they claim it is, in that some things are modifiable, others are not. And the biggest issue of all, NV still retains full control in their ability say "NOPE!" and pull it down anytime and sue your ass if you do not comply.
 
Magee_MC said:
I'd think that it would be pretty easy to tell if it's the code running in the game or not. Swap out the GW that's in the game for the version on GitHub and see how they both run.

When you say they removed any history from the files, does that mean that there are no notations in the code?
Click to expand...

That would be interesting.
 
Good_fella said:
Everyone praising AMD for free open source but you still have to pay for final product. I haven't noticed that AMD's sponsored games are cheaper than Nvidia's.



But in DX12 benefit only for AMD.
Click to expand...

Agree. Damn them for not controlling the selling price of PC games. Sometimes it's almost like the dev studios and publishers are completely separate companies selling a completely different product.

Damn them I say.
 
littleg said:
Agree. Damn them for not controlling the selling price of PC games. Sometimes it's almost like the dev studios and publishers are completely separate companies selling a completely different product.

Damn them I say.
Click to expand...

I'm detected your sarcasm and praising open source is pointless.

Silverforce11 said:
Then why did NVIDIA put the DX12 logos on their products, retail boxes etc. They even claim they support DX12 Async Compute. Why did they do those things falsely?
Click to expand...

Supporting =/= get benefits. Also whole DX12 isn't only about Async. AMD just using dominating position with exclusive feature. Which isn't bad because exclusivity is bad only when Nvidia is using it.
 
Good_fella said:
I'm detected your sarcasm and praising open source is pointless.



Supporting =/= get benefits. Also whole DX12 isn't only about Async. AMD just using dominating position with exclusive feature. Which isn't bad because exclusivity is bad only when Nvidia is using it.
Click to expand...

Exclusive feature in industry standard API? D: AMD has dx12 in the pocket.

Big News! Pascal will not support AC - confirmed by Good_fella
 
Well it's a step in the right direction. Hopefully AMD will at least be able to optimise their drivers a bit better if they can see the code, even if they can't contribute performance fixes back to it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top