[WCCF tech] Both Nvidia And AMD Sides of The GameWorks Story, part I...

[Goatsecks]

For this story we engaged with Nvidia and AMD to hear both sides of the GameWorks debate and get to the bottom of the issue. And I’m quite pleased to say that both parties were very receptive. There’s been a lot of confusion, a lot of hearsay, misconceptions and mischaracterizations around several aspects of this vital issue that we mean to address head-on today. And with the help of both Nvidia and AMD we’re hoping that we will come out with a clear understanding of both perspectives at either end of the discussion table and perhaps even find common ground from which potential solutions can spawn.

Read more: http://wccftech.com/exclusive-nvidias-amds-perspectives-gameworks-bottom-issue/#ixzz3hM8fJxN8
​

Looking forward to part II.

 

[Silverforce11]

I found this quite alarming:

positively influence both the performance and the visuals to offer users of its latest GeForce products a better experience

Basically if you're on older GPUs like Kepler, you don't get to enjoy the positive influence. So if Kepler tanks in GW, it's fine, don't complaint but upgrade to the latest.

It’s abundantly clear that the company fears, many would argue falsely, that it may lose the competitive advantage that it has created with GameWorks by making the code accessible to its competitors. But by doing so it unfortunately took what has always been a traditional competitive play that leverages the hardware’s strong suit and turn it into something artificial.

I hope AMD won't share HBM2 tech (& their patented MC) with NV. Cos they are basically giving away a competitive edge, like they did with GDDR3 & GDDR5. I wonder how NV would feel about that.

 

[3DVagabond]

I found this quite alarming:



Basically if you're on older GPUs like Kepler, you don't get to enjoy the positive influence. So if Kepler tanks in GW, it's fine, don't complaint but upgrade to the latest.



I hope AMD won't share HBM2 tech (& their patented MC) with NV. Cos they are basically giving away a competitive edge, like they did with GDDR3 & GDDR5. I wonder how NV would feel about that.

AMD has already submitted it to JEDEC they are bound to license their IP attached to the tech under fair terms. (Sorry, I'm not up on the exact terms and conditions but it's to the effect that I've stated).

 

[Sabrewings]

I hope AMD won't share HBM2 tech (& their patented MC) with NV.

No one forced AMD to submit it to JEDEC. They already committed to sharing with that single action. I also haven't seen a MC patent that would affect Nvidia's ability to implement on GPUs (hint, they don't need ECC). Care to provide one besides the one implementing ECC? Without ECC, the patent isn't infringed upon. There's also sufficient other details in the patent to create a memory controller with enough variation to not infringe.

There's some anti-Gameworks quotes in this thread already, but I see some quotes that dispel things I've seen slung around here have been omitted.

Does partaking in the GameWorks program preclude a game developer from working with AMD to implement an alternative to a specific GameWorks visual effect like HairWorks for example?
No. We don’t prohibit them from adding technologies from other IHVs to their games.

Are game developers precluded from optimizing source code provided by Nvidia through the GameWorks program for non Nvidia hardware ?
No. Our agreements with developers don’t prevent them from working with any other IHVs to optimize their game or any GameWorks features. GameWorks is a middleware, and like any other middleware we offer developers a source licensing. We provide source code, under license, to developers who request it. Licensees just can’t redistribute our source code to anyone who does not have a license.

So, having Gameworks doesn't mean you can't add TressFX for example. It also means if you opt for the source code you can optimize for other vendor GPUs (as long as you don't hurt GeForce performance, which could be easy with a GPU check and code branch).

Sounds like developers are just as guilty then for any Gameworks issues as Nvidia.

 

[Goatsecks]

There's some anti-Gameworks quotes in this thread already, but I see some quotes that dispel things I've seen slung around here have been omitted.

The hate for game-works on this forum is almost fanatical. People seem to really struggle to accept more reasonable explanations in favour of sabotage and bribery.

I once attempted to start a troll thread about gameworks being to blame for the perceived deficiencies and problems of the fury-x, but the forum took it seriously. :S

 

[Sabrewings]

The hate for game-works on this forum is almost fanatical. People seem to really struggle to accept more reasonable explanations in favour of sabotage and bribery.

I once attempted to start a troll thread about gameworks being to blame for the perceived deficiencies and problems of the fury-x, but the forum took it seriously. :S

The AMD flag is held on to like a blanket by some around here. Can GameWorks be a performance hit for a lot of GPUs? Yes. Should devs make the performance more adjustable (as TW3 showed us it can)? Yes. Should devs put more effort into optimizing it for all GPUs? Yes. Could Nvidia help here? Yes, but I don't blame them for not.

No one forces a dev to use GameWorks. It's their decision and they know full well what they are getting and what that could mean to their customers. To listen to the talk around here you would think Nvidia storms their offices and puts a gun to their heads while they delete the TressFX SDK.

 

[Silverforce11]

It's okay for some of you, since you upgrade to NV's latest GPU always, it won't affect you one iota. I can see where you get that PoV from. It's understandable.. who cares right, doesn't impact you negatively!

What's interesting is I didn't realize the scope of GW, there's a team of hundreds of people working on it... but you get this statement from an NV customer on the latest GPUs:

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37594353&postcount=16

No one uses Hairworks because it is insignificant and poorly implemented.

Meh.

NV should get those hundreds of people to just form a game studio. Make games and crush AMD performance in those games. Then buy out review sites to use that game in their small selection of games ([H] anyone?).. If they did that, I'm pretty sure their competitive advantage would SKYROCKET for their investment.

Why diddly about injecting their middleware into games? It's getting a horrible rep now, so many sites are covering it and its been front page on Reddit several times with a ton of hate. They would do better just making GameWorks games themselves.

 

[Azix]

There's some anti-Gameworks quotes in this thread already, but I see some quotes that dispel things I've seen slung around here have been omitted.



So, having Gameworks doesn't mean you can't add TressFX for example. It also means if you opt for the source code you can optimize for other vendor GPUs (as long as you don't hurt GeForce performance, which could be easy with a GPU check and code branch).

Sounds like developers are just as guilty then for any Gameworks issues as Nvidia.

Doubt people thought they couldn't add things like tressfx. Some of the comments in that article failed to understand the complaints.

With the source code 1. cost, 2. limitations to changes. They would definitely have to check with nvidia each time.

having to pay to see code you are putting in your game is silly. If its heavy cost can't really blame them. Some of these developers are using gameworks to get money, so spending money just to see the source starts to get dumb. Instead of nvidia paying you, you are paying nvidia.

nvidia is almost certainly overstating the people involved in making gameworks.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

http://forums.anandtech.com/showpost.php?p=37594353&postcount=16


Meh.

NV should get those hundreds of people to just form a game studio. Make games and crush AMD performance in those games. Then buy out review sites to use that game in their small selection of games ([H] anyone?).. If they did that, I'm pretty sure their competitive advantage would SKYROCKET for their investment.

Why diddly about injecting their middleware into games? It's getting a horrible rep now, so many sites are covering it and its been front page on Reddit several times with a ton of hate. They would do better just making GameWorks games themselves.

Probably because it is the internet which can make it seem like a vocal minority holds the popular opinion. Which we know is false.

A question, why would a company not offer new features that are only offered on new hardware to drive sales? And why would they spend millions of dollars and time implementing these features to older products when, at the time, the consumer bought the product knowing exactly what features came with that product?

Can you name any other industry that wishes it customers not to upgrade to their latest product line?

EDIT:
Because there have been 3-5 threads about GW since I made an account here a couple week ago that have already gone over this, lets go ahead and come full circle.

Here's where the argument always falls flat:

ALL the Gameworks features are OPTIONAL and CAN be turned off.

There it is, plain and simple

 

[96Firebird]

having to pay to see code you are putting in your game is silly. If its heavy cost can't really blame them. Some of these developers are using gameworks to get money, so spending money just to see the source starts to get dumb. Instead of nvidia paying you, you are paying nvidia.

I'm just going by what has been stated and quoted in this thread, but what makes you think the developer has to pay Nvidia for the source code?

 

[Genx87]

I hope AMD won't share HBM2 tech (& their patented MC) with NV. Cos they are basically giving away a competitive edge, like they did with GDDR3 & GDDR5. I wonder how NV would feel about that.

Too late.

You ever think AMD submits these technologies to JEDEC to spur innovation and expand production? I'd imagine if AMD were the sole consumer of HBM very few memory manufacturers would even start production lines. The few that do would charge a lot for a low volume product. Which then costs AMD more money. Their margins are slim enough already.

 

[Sabrewings]

I'm just going by what has been stated and quoted in this thread, but what makes you think the developer has to pay Nvidia for the source code?

The Nvidia rep says so.

 

[frozentundra123456]

The hate for game-works on this forum is almost fanatical. People seem to really struggle to accept more reasonable explanations in favour of sabotage and bribery.

I once attempted to start a troll thread about gameworks being to blame for the perceived deficiencies and problems of the fury-x, but the forum took it seriously. :S

Not sure I would admit to starting a troll thread, but that is another issue. I do agree though that the hatred and whining about gameworks on these forums is absurdly over the top.

Now I am no fan of gameworks. I think the benefit you get for the performance hit with most of the features is absurdly low, even with nVidia cards. And I certainly do not think nVidia is taking the high road by making gameworks a closed system, especially making devs pay for the source code. *However*, they spent the time and money to develop the features, and they are certainly within their rights to provide access in any manner they see fit.

 

[4K_shmoorK]

Now I am no fan of gameworks. I think the benefit you get for the performance hit with most of the features is absurdly low, even with nVidia cards. And I certainly do not think nVidia is taking the high road by making gameworks a closed system, especially making devs pay for the source code. *However*, they spent the time and money to develop the features, and they are certainly within their rights to provide access in any manner they see fit.

Amen

/thread

 

[Azix]

Not sure I would admit to starting a troll thread, but that is another issue. I do agree though that the hatred and whining about gameworks on these forums is absurdly over the top.

Now I am no fan of gameworks. I think the benefit you get for the performance hit with most of the features is absurdly low, even with nVidia cards. And I certainly do not think nVidia is taking the high road by making gameworks a closed system, especially making devs pay for the source code. *However*, they spent the time and money to develop the features, and they are certainly within their rights to provide access in any manner they see fit.

As long as it affects no-one else. Physx never caused this much outcry even though it was exclusive for the GPU version. Nobody wants nvidias "features" like that, but it becomes a problem if it starts to reduce the experience of gamers beyond those suckered into buying nvidia GPUs.

If it didn't affect AMD users at all then it would only matter to the nvidia users it screws over. Probably still going to cause people to complain a lot then, but a little less.

 

[Goatsecks]

Not sure I would admit to starting a troll thread, but that is another issue.

The fact that troll thread like that was taken seriously indicates a more serious problem with the forums other than troll threads.

 

[ocre]

As long as it affects no-one else. Physx never caused this much outcry even though it was exclusive for the GPU version. Nobody wants nvidias "features" like that, but it becomes a problem if it starts to reduce the experience of gamers beyond those suckered into buying nvidia GPUs.

If it didn't affect AMD users at all then it would only matter to the nvidia users it screws over. Probably still going to cause people to complain a lot then, but a little less.

It doesn't effect AMD users. It's just being used as a scape goat on games AMD purposefully neglect to optimize for. People will blame Gameworks for bad performance in games when all the Gameworks features are turned off.

I believe AMD is behind the negative spin against Gameworks, it fits well into their playbook. If you cant compete, obstruct. Down play advantages and trash the competition. I think they purposely neglect GW games and are behind the propaganda against GW.

They aren't just optional....All GW features have to be turned on. T

 

[Silverforce11]

Can you turn off PhysX?

https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-physx-overview

 

[tential]

This is getting ridiculous because it's not like you just turnoff gameworks features. Many games with gameworks included end up being broken. There is a clear correlation between gameworks being used in a game and lower performance overall (and issues as well). There are games that don't suffer but the amount of games that do is staggering.

 

[Genx87]

Can you turn off PhysX?

https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-physx-overview

Any Physx implementation that affects AMD users will be rendered on the CPU. And Nvidia users will have the option to use GPU enabled Physx.

Next...

 

[NTMBK]

The use of Gameworks is indicative of a developer's internal culture. The entire point of Gameworks is to provide a quick and dirty shortcut to pretty graphics. Instead of investing lots in building up your own graphics tech, you outsource it to NVidia. My guess is that this is the reason so many "Gameworks" titles have lots of issues- the developer has a general culture of outsourcing, of doing it on the cheap, of cutting corners and not putting work into their technology.

 

[therealnickdanger]

Jus' Internet bein' Internetty. This is like the SJW cause of the tech world. Nothing has changed since 2013 and I can predict how Part II of the article will read:

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...surps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...d-potentially-the-entire-pc-gaming-ecosystem/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...ut-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/
http://www.techradar.com/us/news/ga...ia-gameworks-talks-amd-s-new-attitude-1255538

If a developer decides to take the quick and easy path to optimize a game for only select NVIDIA hardware, that's 100% their choice. It is also our collective choice, as consumers, to buy or not buy said game.

 

[ShintaiDK]

Whats next, game developers should write their own compilers because Intels compiler benefits Intel CPUs?

Dont make it into another excuse on why AMD sells and perform as they do.

 

[Sabrewings]

The use of Gameworks is indicative of a developer's internal culture. The entire point of Gameworks is to provide a quick and dirty shortcut to pretty graphics. Instead of investing lots in building up your own graphics tech, you outsource it to NVidia. My guess is that this is the reason so many "Gameworks" titles have lots of issues- the developer has a general culture of outsourcing, of doing it on the cheap, of cutting corners and not putting work into their technology.

Hear, hear!

It's like blaming the cow for the burger on the McDonald's menu sucking.

 

[Azix]

Any Physx implementation that affects AMD users will be rendered on the CPU. And Nvidia users will have the option to use GPU enabled Physx.

Next...

That's actually a bad thing as well. if it can't be turned off and is forced to run on CPU slower than it runs on GPU.

Whats next, game developers should write their own compilers because Intels compiler benefits Intel CPUs?

Dont make it into another excuse on why AMD sells and perform as they do.

nah. One would say they should use another compiler