RTG3rd March – Will Discuss Polaris, Fury X2, VR, DirectX 12 and More

[Silverforce11]

@Arachnotronic

All your grandstanding aside, your original post raised the issue that GimpWorks doesn't actually seek to Gimp, it's a side-effect... I will quote it again in case you forgot.

Just a random thought. Has it ever occurred to anybody that GameWorks isn't intentionally "gimping" performance but that a "drop in" quick 'n dirty solution written by an IHV is never going to be as efficient as a solution written by the engine developer themselves and made to integrate seamlessly w/ said engine?

When my rebuttal shows this isn't true, that it does it exists to gimp... you are now saying that's business.

Well no duh, it's business and its dirty competition. NV can do whatever they like, but I vote with my wallet and I an entitled to voice my displeasure/opinions about why I think what they are doing, is harming PC gaming by causing a fragmentation or going down this road of exclusivity in games like consoles.

Let's play this to the conclusion, NV pays devs to use features only they can optimize (as they see fit), since NV controls their libraries of GameWorks.

This results in gimping of AMD GPUs. This also results in gimping of older NV GPUs (planned obsolescence).

This means NV sponsored games requires the latest gen NV GPU else you suffer gimped performance and visuals.

This is fragmentation of PC gaming. As a gamer, I am against this.

Something for you to consider in such a scenario why it's anti-gamer, imagine you have a Kepler 780Ti or AMD GPU and you play the latest AAA GameWorks title. You actually paid the same $ for these games, but since you don't have the latest NV GPU, you are running gimped, forced to turn down visuals to get acceptable performance. In effect, you get less game for the $, just because of NV's dirty practices.

 

[Game_dev]

NVIDIA isn't developing this technology for charitable reasons, there is a clear business rationale. Developing this stuff costs money and requires man-hours and the company wants to see a return.

Surely you wouldn't do work for somebody just for "funsies" right?



So you object to "business"?



That's great, but how does this help AMD sell more GPUs?



Yes, both AMD and NVIDIA should be working tirelessly to secure as many advantages over one another as possible. They owe their shareholders nothing less.

This competition is good for customers as well. Things like physx and hbao+ have made games better. We all know that opengl and directx have stagnated until very recently. Complaining that one card offers features another card does not, would be like complaining about a Chevy having AC and your Ford doesn't

 

[Arachnotronic]

@Arachnotronic

When my rebuttal shows this isn't true, that it does it exists to gimp... you are now saying that's business.

It doesn't really exist to "gimp" AMD, but to give NVIDIA users additional features/image quality enhancements to enhance the value proposition of owning an NVIDIA card. NVIDIA would not, and should not, spend time optimizing for AMD GPUs in this case.

Anyway, GameWorks features can be disabled in many cases and AMD gamers can enjoy all of the features that the developers programmed themselves w/o the "interference" of NVIDIA.

 

[Silverforce11]

If it does not exist to gimp competitor performance, why is it developers say they are not able to optimize for AMD?

If NV doesn't want to gimp AMD performance, why do they hide behind code encryption of their libraries? This prevents devs and AMD from optimizing it easily, it makes their work much harder than it has to be.

If NV does not want to be accused of such dirty play, all they have to do, is publish their features open source like AMD does. Then nobody can sling mud on them. Including developers who have called it a "black box".

The only reason you hide code for shaders, is because you do not want anyone to re-optimize it. It's intended to run as NV defines and optimize it (Maxwell only) as they see fit. Thus, we get frequent results of gimped AMD performance (this isn't a new phenomenon, it's happened so many times for it to be a coincidence) and even gimped Kepler performance.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Well no duh, it's business and its dirty competition. NV can do whatever they like, but I vote with my wallet and I an entitled to voice my displeasure/opinions about why I think what they are doing, is harming PC gaming by causing a fragmentation or going down this road of exclusivity in games like consoles.

Why is it "dirty"? Game developers can absolutely choose not to use the NVIDIA-designed technology in their games and can spend the $ and time rolling their own implementations of these features. It is precisely because it isn't worth the time to these devs to do so that NVIDIA's GameWorks is used at all.

This results in gimping of AMD GPUs. This also results in gimping of older NV GPUs (planned obsolescence).

This means NV sponsored games requires the latest gen NV GPU else you suffer gimped performance and visuals.

This is fragmentation of PC gaming. As a gamer, I am against this.

You can turn the GameWorks features off. If you want the latest NVIDIA-designed features, then is it so wrong for NVIDIA to design them to take full advantage of its latest GPUs?

I don't see the problem here.

Something for you to consider in such a scenario why it's anti-gamer, imagine you have a Kepler 780Ti or AMD GPU and you play the latest AAA GameWorks title. You actually paid the same $ for these games, but since you don't have the latest NV GPU, you are running gimped, forced to turn down visuals to get acceptable performance. In effect, you get less game for the $, just because of NV's dirty practices.

I'd turn down the detail until I am able to achieve performance that's acceptable. Why should I feel "entitled" to be able to run games at absolute max settings if the advanced technologies simply don't run well on my current hardware?

Anyway, call it dirty practices all you want, but I'd much rather have an IHV doing the work that devs aren't bothered to do than to have games not come with any additional, special features for the PC.

 

[Game_dev]

If it does not exist to gimp competitor performance, why is it developers say they are not able to optimize for AMD?

If NV doesn't want to gimp AMD performance, why do they hide behind code encryption of their libraries? This prevents devs and AMD from optimizing it easily, it makes their work much harder than it has to be.

If NV does not want to be accused of such dirty play, all they have to do, is publish their features open source like AMD does. Then nobody can sling mud on them. Including developers who have called it a "black box".

The only reason you hide code for shaders, is because you do not want anyone to re-optimize it. It's intended to run as NV defines and optimize it (Maxwell only) as they see fit. Thus, we get frequent results of gimped AMD performance (this isn't a new phenomenon, it's happened so many times for it to be a coincidence) and even gimped Kepler performance.

No company would share their code with the competition. That would actually be anti-competitve. If you want these features buy a NVIDIA card. Support them with your money.

 

[linkgoron]

Why is it "dirty"? Game developers can absolutely choose not to use the NVIDIA-designed technology in their games and can spend the $ and time rolling their own implementations of these features. It is precisely because it isn't worth the time to these devs to do so that NVIDIA's GameWorks is used at all.



You can turn the GameWorks features off. If you want the latest NVIDIA-designed features, then is it so wrong for NVIDIA to design them to take full advantage of its latest GPUs?

I don't see the problem here.



I'd turn down the detail until I am able to achieve performance that's acceptable. Why should I feel "entitled" to be able to run games at absolute max settings if the advanced technologies simply don't run well on my current hardware?

Anyway, call it dirty practices all you want, but I'd much rather have an IHV doing the work that devs aren't bothered to do than to have games not come with any additional, special features for the PC.

From Wikipedia: "AMD Chief Gaming Scientist, Richard Huddy, has claimed that developers who use GameWorks are contractually forbidden to work with AMD."
That's an example of why it's dirty.

 

[Silverforce11]

Why is it "dirty"? Game developers can absolutely choose not to use the NVIDIA-designed technology in their games and can spend the $ and time rolling their own implementations of these features. It is precisely because it isn't worth the time to these devs to do so that NVIDIA's GameWorks is used at all.


You can turn the GameWorks features off. If you want the latest NVIDIA-designed features, then is it so wrong for NVIDIA to design them to take full advantage of its latest GPUs?

I don't see the problem here.

I'd turn down the detail until I am able to achieve performance that's acceptable. Why should I feel "entitled" to be able to run games at absolute max settings if the advanced technologies simply don't run well on my current hardware?

Anyway, call it dirty practices all you want, but I'd much rather have an IHV doing the work that devs aren't bothered to do than to have games not come with any additional, special features for the PC.

It's not wrong or illegal, it's just unethical because it punishes gamers who aren't on the latest gen hardware.

If they didn't make it a black box, it would enable developers to optimize the features so it runs better on more hardware, including older gen like Kepler. It would also make it easier for AMD to optimize for their GPUs. This approach is beneficial for gamers, they still get their fancy PC features, but now it runs well on all hardware. NV's approach is "we decide how these features run, and we want it to run only well on our latest stuff"...

You see nothing unethical or dirty about it, fine, that's your opinion. We can agree to disagree.

 

[railven]

I don't understand the camps I also don't understand how someone can hate a brand they loved just because of a missing port

a missing port

my only metric, perf/$ no matter how rich I am, I always want the most out of my monies that is how you get rich and stay rich. never waste money. never.

the hate because of a missing port, ahahahahaaaa, so ridiculous . FYI I do understand where you are coming from, but I still find it rediculous.

Missing port?

It is kind of funny, it was a pretty simple reply to a question. I haven't even switched companies yet; if the scuttlebutt around the cooler is wrong and it's not ~110mm² and 232mm² AMD GPUs launching around the same time as GP104 it could very well be another Radeon in my sig. Rumours are just pointing to the other camp at the current time.

Either way, my reply to Silverforce's comment still stands. While laudable, IMO AMD's actions providing open source initiatives won't translate to more goodwill and sales. The net result is that if Purehair works great on both systems, but a number of GW titles just suck on AMD GPUs, it does not help much with sales.

Just looking at Gears of War, one should already see what is going to happen. AMD is credited as the creators of DX12 around here, yet they can't stop the first DX12 game (psuedo or not) to basically bomb on both their CPUs and GPUs. Woof I say.

As an aside, I wonder how many of the people questioning someone's ethics for their choice of IHVs in the face of some uncompetitive behaviour from one camp have chosen to use an FX-9590 in their primary gaming system rather than support a CPU from a questionable supplier?

Other side of the coin. These people would cry bloody murder on Nvidia's questionable business executions but have no qualms sporting an Intel processor.

My crocodile tears for the poor sap trying to play Gears of War on a Fury X + FX processor. Welcome the DX12 revolution!

 

[swilli89]

No company would share their code with the competition. That would actually be anti-competitve. If you want these features buy a NVIDIA card. Support them with your money.

Sigh. That's not at all what that means. An open source process of allowing developers to create code that works equally well on both major architectures allows for more competition at the hardware level.

 

[Game_dev]

Sigh. That's not at all what that means. An open source process of allowing developers to create code that works equally well on both major architectures allows for more competition at the hardware level.

Directx 12 is not open source, it won't run on Linux or Mac. How come no one is just as upset.

 

[JDG1980]

That's, like, terrible for games. It's just going to mean more broken crap at launch & game development timelines pushed out further. It may even completely discourage developers from developing PC games altogether because the potential ROI is just not worth it.

Or maybe the developers will actually start doing their damn jobs, if they can no longer count on Nvidia and AMD cleaning up their messes after the fact.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Or maybe the developers will actually start doing their damn jobs, if they can no longer count on Nvidia and AMD cleaning up their messes after the fact.

Honestly it's because it's not worth most developers' time and energy. The majority of the units of a game will be sold to game console owners, PC is just an afterthought to grab more cash.

 

[Arachnotronic]

Sigh. That's not at all what that means. An open source process of allowing developers to create code that works equally well on both major architectures allows for more competition at the hardware level.

They can, it's called not using libraries provided by third parties and rolling their own.

To be clear: nobody is FORCED to use GameWorks.

 

[Magee_MC]

They can, it's called not using libraries provided by third parties and rolling their own.

To be clear: nobody is FORCED to use GameWorks.

That's possible, however, since nobody who is actually in the know about how these deals are negotiated is talking, it's also possible that GameWorks is presented as an offer that they can't refuse. NV is the big dog on the block in PC gaming.

 

[Game_dev]

They can, it's called not using libraries provided by third parties and rolling their own.

To be clear: nobody is FORCED to use GameWorks.

I have a feeling that because directx 12 requires a lot more work to be close to hardware more developers will be flocking to gameworks.

 

[Mahigan]

They can, it's called not using libraries provided by third parties and rolling their own.

To be clear: nobody is FORCED to use GameWorks.

Nobody is FORCED to consume food. Nobody is forced to fill up their cars with gasoline. Nobody is forced to put on their seatbelts.

But it is in their interests to do so.

Therefore opening up the market for choices and competition ensures that people have more choices to pick from which serve their immediate interests as well as the interests of the big picture (the whole PC Gaming community).

Collusion,

Is antithetical to free market competition and thus is unethical.

The fact that GoW was not advertised as being a Gameworks title, the fact that HBAO+ was not mentioned as being the AO option in game pretty much rendered this agreement between The Coalition and NVIDIA a secret. It is thus a textbook example of collusion.

You may think that opening up the source code is anti-competitive but that's not the case. An open source allows for free and open competition based on innovation rather than anti-free market collusion.

Gameworks is anti-free market and thus anti-competition because it relies on collusion.

 

[Mahigan]

I have a feeling that because directx 12 requires a lot more work to be close to hardware more developers will be flocking to gameworks.

Nope.

Most big AAA DX12 titles aren't going to use GW.
Deus Ex
Hitman
Fable Legends
Quantum Break
Star Citizen
Battlefield 5
Need for Speed

The new Forza may contain GW but it's an old engine converted to DX12 like GoW offered up for free on the MS store.

King of Wushu will be a GW title.

 

[railven]

I can't wait for AMD to sue Nvidia. There are going to be some crazy fireworks!

 

[svenge]

I can't wait for AMD to sue Nvidia. There are going to be some crazy fireworks!

Unlike with impoverished criminal defendants, there's no such thing as free legal aid for indigent corporations launching baseless lawsuits.

As such, you would be better served not popping your popcorn in anticipation of such a scenario.

 

[railven]

Unlike with criminal defendants, there's no such thing as free legal aid for indigent corporations launching baseless lawsuits.

They can just start a kickstarter, link it here it'll top off in minutes.

 

[Stuka87]

This competition is good for customers as well. Things like physx and hbao+ have made games better. We all know that opengl and directx have stagnated until very recently. Complaining that one card offers features another card does not, would be like complaining about a Chevy having AC and your Ford doesn't

No game has been made better with those features. Most games with PhysX have effects that are so over the top they make them unplayable. Perfect example of this is Borderlands, where if you turn on PhysX, you cannot see anything during multiplayer. Its entirely unplayable.

All HBAO+ does is drop frame rates to unplayable levels, even if you have a 980Ti.

And nVidia cards do not have features that make them somehow far superior. GW is simply optimized for Maxwell 2 cards, and those cards only.

This is BAD for gaming. Period. Nothing you say will change this. Fragmentation always has been, and always will be bad.

 

[Arachnotronic]

No game has been made better with those features. Most games with PhysX have effects that are so over the top they make them unplayable. Perfect example of this is Borderlands, where if you turn on PhysX, you cannot see anything during multiplayer. Its entirely unplayable.

All HBAO+ does is drop frame rates to unplayable levels, even if you have a 980Ti.

And nVidia cards do not have features that make them somehow far superior. GW is simply optimized for Maxwell 2 cards, and those cards only.

This is BAD for gaming. Period. Nothing you say will change this. Fragmentation always has been, and always will be bad.

I say all games should be optimized for Intel HD Graphics 4000. No gamer left behind! #stopfragmentation

 

[3DVagabond]

This competition is good for customers as well. Things like physx and hbao+ have made games better. We all know that opengl and directx have stagnated until very recently. Complaining that one card offers features another card does not, would be like complaining about a Chevy having AC and your Ford doesn't

This has nothing to do with hardware features. The strawmen are flying thick around here.

No company would share their code with the competition. That would actually be anti-competitve. If you want these features buy a NVIDIA card. Support them with your money.

The bold is completely false. Have you heard of OpenGPU?

And again, it's not that the features aren't capable of running on AMD. It's not that nVidia has to spend any of their money optimizing it for AMD. AMD and the devs will do that themselves if allowed to. It doesn't take anything away from or damage nVidia in any way to allow optimizing for AMD.

 

[tweakboy]

Will UT4 use DX 12. thx gl