Which approach to graphics features is better for gamers

[Red Hawk]

AMD is in the business of selling cards not "improving gaming."

They can't be in both?

 

[DaveSimmons]

They can't be in both?

That isn't what their shareholders demand or what executive bonuses are given out for, no.

"Bringing rainbows and unicorns into every home" isn't the main goal of either AMD or nvidia, nor is using the blood of kittens as the liquid in their heatpipes. Making more money is goal #1.

 

[Azix]

Loaded question is loaded. And not credible. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

AMD made TressFX to sell more AMD cards. AMD made Mantle to sell more AMD cards. AMD released Fury and Fury X to sell more AMD cards.

AMD is in the business of selling cards not "improving gaming."

You dont sell more AMD cards with tech that works on the competitions hardware as it does on yours. The idea that companies do not do things for anything but cash is silly. It's people with passions and interests who are behind these things. SOMETIMES they will do things because they think it is better that way.

The main benefit from tech like TressFX is being the first to have it. It actually benefits square-enix more than AMD because, being what it is, it runs as well on Nvidia cards.

Azix, your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs immediately tell where you're going to try and steer the topic.
Nvidia evil. AMD good. Yes we know.

If you thought for one moment that TressFX being open or closed makes any difference at this stage of the game, I think you are wrong. Also, if you believe that TressFX isn't designed by AMD inspired by desire for greater profits, I think you're wrong there also.

Let's assume they somehow will benefit greatly from open source equally well performing libraries. The question still remains. Should we favor what nvidia is doing to what AMD does? It would seem an easy question to answer considering one runs better but some persons still advocate nvidias methods over AMD.

That isn't what their shareholders demand or what executive bonuses are given out for, no.

"Bringing rainbows and unicorns into every home" isn't the main goal of either AMD or nvidia, nor is using the blood of kittens as the liquid in their heatpipes. Making more money is goal #1.

It really depends on the culture of the organization. I can say nvidia took the route they did with hairworks for the sake of making their hardware look good even if it hurts overall performance and is the less efficient way of doing things. For AMD, it just seems natural that they would find the better solution because they do not (currently) employ the same tactics we see with gsync, physx, hairworks etc.

 

[DaveSimmons]

It really depends on the culture of the organization. I can say nvidia took the route they did with hairworks for the sake of making their hardware look good even if it hurts overall performance and is the less efficient way of doing things. For AMD, it just seems natural that they would find the better solution because they do not (currently) employ the same tactics we see with gsync, physx, hairworks etc.

If you consider it fact that nvidia is evil while AMD only wants to share and cooperate then there isn't anything left to debate.

Once framed as "is good better for gamers than evil?" what can we say?

 

[Keysplayr]

You dont sell more AMD cards with tech that works on the competitions hardware as it does on yours. The idea that companies do not do things for anything but cash is silly. It's people with passions and interests who are behind these things. SOMETIMES they will do things because they think it is better that way.

The main benefit from tech like TressFX is being the first to have it. It actually benefits square-enix more than AMD because, being what it is, it runs as well on Nvidia cards.



Let's assume they somehow will benefit greatly from open source equally well performing libraries. The question still remains. Should we favor what nvidia is doing to what AMD does? It would seem an easy question to answer considering one runs better but some persons still advocate nvidias methods over AMD.



It really depends on the culture of the organization. I can say nvidia took the route they did with hairworks for the sake of making their hardware look good even if it hurts overall performance and is the less efficient way of doing things. For AMD, it just seems natural that they would find the better solution because they do not (currently) employ the same tactics we see with gsync, physx, hairworks etc.

It's really very simple. Honestly. Railven actually said this best in another thread. What do you get for your money when you buy AMD? What can AMD provide over Nvidia? What can Nvidia provide over AMD?

You'll find this list is slanted heavily in favor of one over the other. Why? Nvidia knows how to preserve it's value. It works to expand it's feature set to accompany it's great hardware. It is for their hardware and for their customers. AMD has a duty to it's shareholders to bring in the bucks. AMD could do this the same way Nvidia is. In fact, they would have to in order to survive. But I fear it's far too late for that now though. Threads like this are just rants to complain that Nvidia doesn't do anything for AMD customers and it's bad for all gamers. Is it? Tell that to gamers that own Nvidia cards.
Sorry for the ranting, but this is simply just another bash gameworks and Nvidia thread.

 

[Azix]

If you consider it fact that nvidia is evil while AMD only wants to share and cooperate then there isn't anything left to debate.

Once framed as "is good better for gamers than evil?" what can we say?

I don't like nvidia. What I think of AMD overall changes with the weather. Right now advocating for their practices benefits me as a gamer.

Some persons defend what nvidia does with gameworks. maybe they can say why, knowing they could do things better

It's really very simple. Honestly. Railven actually said this best in another thread. What do you get for your money when you buy AMD? What can AMD provide over Nvidia? What can Nvidia provide over AMD?

You'll find this list is slanted heavily in favor of one over the other. Why? Nvidia knows how to preserve it's value. It works to expand it's feature set to accompany it's great hardware. It is for their hardware and for their customers. AMD has a duty to it's shareholders to bring in the bucks. AMD could do this the same way Nvidia is. In fact, they would have to in order to survive. But I fear it's far too late for that now though. Threads like this are just rants to complain that Nvidia doesn't do anything for AMD customers and it's bad for all gamers. Is it? Tell that to gamers that own Nvidia cards.
Sorry for the ranting, but this is simply just another bash gameworks and Nvidia thread.

that's a tricky question because if you look at kepler for example, some might regret the choice. Its all well and good to try to use software to make your hardware look good, but it seems counterproductive in the end. PC software on a specific OS is not expected to have these stupid quirks. Then when you update your hardware you create even more problems. Do you expect nvidia to maintain these inefficient features across generations of hardware? This is why PC software is so universal per OS. The only piece of software that should be going that route is your driver software, anything else is bound to damage the platform, and your own users as we have seen.

AMD seems to focus on innovating with hardware. I like what nvidia did with shadow play, but they should do more. Just one example I find interesting would be AMDs inclusion of ACEs since GCN 1. That is a REAL differentiator. Something that won't disappear on the whim of a software developer. In the end you are buying hardware after all.

 

[Keysplayr]

I don't like nvidia. What I think of AMD overall changes with the weather. Right now advocating for their practices benefits me as a gamer.

Some persons defend what nvidia does with gameworks. maybe they can say why, knowing they could do things better

Ok. First tell us how it benefits you as a gamer.

 

[Azix]

Ok. First tell us how it benefits you as a gamer.

Ok. Lets take this from the perspective of a nvidia user. I'd prefer tressfx in Witcher 3 vs hairworks. Bullet or havok instead of physx. I'd be worried about the performance impact nvidias features result in because they are not made to be universally efficient but rather are contrived for the sake of making a specific hardware, which I might not have updated to, look better. I laugh when nvidia users criticize AMD even though it is in their favor what AMD does. The only obstacle to them benefiting from some of the more specialized things like freesync is nvidia.

As an AMD user I'd simply rest easy knowing that AMD enables developers rather than throws money and closed libraries at them. I'd know that when I buy a GE game it's likely to be solid vs the gameworks games that have all been broken one way or the other. I'd know if I wanted to get an adaptive refresh rate monitor it would cost much less and the feature would persist due to it being a monitor standard. Because they are more focused on hardware rather than creating artificial advantages through software I am more likely to have unique hardware features like ACEs, True Audio, multiGPU without bridges and avoid issues created by over-complicating the software landscape.

From either perspective nvidia's approach is simply worse for the gamer. For the shareholders, maybe its better. Better if they play it right and don't get on the wrong side of gamers. As it is under every mention of gameworks you see comments about needing a 4 way sli titans to run it well. You see criticisms of the FPS etc. Image matters eventually.

 

[monstercameron]

The on-screen prompt is circle so PS4 is likely. If it were PC or Xbox 1, XBox Buttons would be more likely. That should be how it will be on consoles at the very least.

Its pretty impressive in rise of the tomb raider as well. And we get a glimpse of what looks like tressFX applied to the bear

https://youtu.be/fkFG6aoo21Y?t=9m40s

I was thinking and ended up at the conclusion that nvidia probably thinks the ideal situation would be them owning unreal engine completely. Or at least having their own engine they claim does things better and pushes gaming forward. Because when you look at it what they are doing is taking aspects of games, building software to create these aspects (more easily or less, but almost certainly with worse performance). So why not just take over the entire engine rather than just the physics or rendering shadows etc.

looks great on lara but are you sure the effect is applied to the bear?

PS. guys please debate the tech in questions and not the philosophy, gets too muddy!

 

[Azix]

looks great on lara but are you sure the effect is applied to the bear?

PS. guys please debate the tech in questions and not the philosophy, gets too muddy!

The bear has fur and you can see fibers but its not as animated as say lara's hair. Bears usually have short fibers that do not move that much when they move, so it is realistic. Doesn't HAVE TO be tressFX I guess but typically animals don't look that way in games. They look like below

I was kinda focusing on the philosophy/approach. In tech there is always the thinking behind the implementation. And the angle the problem is approached from matters. It does get muddy though. Will always come back to tressfx vs hairworks etc.

 

[3DVagabond]

That isn't what their shareholders demand or what executive bonuses are given out for, no.

"Bringing rainbows and unicorns into every home" isn't the main goal of either AMD or nvidia, nor is using the blood of kittens as the liquid in their heatpipes. Making more money is goal #1.

It's the blood of virgins. Get it right, will you!

 

[Red Hawk]

That isn't what their shareholders demand or what executive bonuses are given out for, no.

"Bringing rainbows and unicorns into every home" isn't the main goal of either AMD or nvidia, nor is using the blood of kittens as the liquid in their heatpipes. Making more money is goal #1.

Of course making money is a goal, that doesn't mean it has to be their ONLY goal. They can prioritize making money while also pushing the potential of PC graphics and providing satisfying products and services to customers to achieve those graphics as a good way to make that money.

Now, does AMD do that? I can't say for sure. I do think that ultimately AMD's TressFX technology was developed to give customers an incentive to buy new graphics cards. But I also think there's something to the comparison of Hairworks and TressFX that Azix was making. Some design choices for Hairworks seem to be made at the expense of gamers trying to run it efficiently. Whereas TressFX's design choices seem more sensible and efficient. Hairworks feels a little "shady", then, using unnecessary tricks to further incentivize customers to buy newer and more powerful cards. TressFX, by comparison, feels like it's simply advancing graphics tech as a way to incentivize new graphics card purchases, without resorting to such tricks.

 

[3DVagabond]

Advancing the industry that you produce products for is a way of making money.

 

[Silverforce11]

There's another major difference and it applies to developers. TressFX being open source, allows devs to optimize it further to cater to their wishes. HairWorks & other GW libraries relies on NV doing the optimizations. Does NV care about AMD or it's older Kepler performance?

This is why Witcher 3 devs told gamers to turn off HairWorks if it hurts performance, since they can't optimize it.

 

[Keysplayr]

There's another major difference and it applies to developers. TressFX being open source, allows devs to optimize it further to cater to their wishes. HairWorks & other GW libraries relies on NV doing the optimizations. Does NV care about AMD or it's older Kepler performance?

This is why Witcher 3 devs told gamers to turn off HairWorks if it hurts performance, since they can't optimize it.

Or Fermi for that matter. Why stop at Kepler?
It's not a problem to rely on NV to optimize. Because they do it. And will continue to do it. And please stop with the Kepler mantra. Kepler is a last gen GPU that still performs very well in most cases. Time to move on.

 

[Silverforce11]

Kepler is a last gen GPU that still performs very well in most cases. Time to move on.

It does. It performs very well when NV is NOT involved with the game's development.

 

[Keysplayr]

It does. It performs very well when NV is NOT involved with the game's development.

It performs well either way. It cannot handle gameworks as well as Maxwell2 apparently, but it handles it. You're acting like anyone who bought Kepler is doomed and trying to create a momentum insinuating that people who buy Maxwell today are doomed tomorrow.
Like I asked, please stop the sensationalism. It's like satire at this point.

 

[godihatework]

If you consider it fact that nvidia is evil while AMD only wants to share and cooperate then there isn't anything left to debate.

Once framed as "is good better for gamers than evil?" what can we say?

sigged

it's sad that this is what this forum seems to have devolved to. i lurked for years because there was good information to be had - but at this point every thread seems to be these pis*ing contests.

I'm sure it's cyclical - but right now (anecdotally) there seems to be a ton of AMD shilling going on, whether overt or covert.

What value does a thread like this have?

EIDT

seriously - like ten threads below this one is a locked thread arguing about gameworks. How many do we need?

EDIT 2


and four below another thread blaming gameworks for poor performance in games that apparently don't even include gameworks?

seriously?

 

[Unoid]

Or Fermi for that matter. Why stop at Kepler?
It's not a problem to rely on NV to optimize. Because they do it. And will continue to do it. And please stop with the Kepler mantra. Kepler is a last gen GPU that still performs very well in most cases. Time to move on.

Nvidia focus group member? Professionals have to recuse themselves for conflicts like this. So why bother arguing here? Might as well be a Tabacco company telling everyone cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer.
"time to move on."



It's obvious from the general consensus that Gameworks is a flawed product that is underhanded and the majority of gamers dislike it. AMD's methods, being more open are preferable. Thread title has been answered.

 

[Stuka87]

It performs well either way. It cannot handle gameworks as well as Maxwell2 apparently, but it handles it. You're acting like anyone who bought Kepler is doomed and trying to create a momentum insinuating that people who buy Maxwell today are doomed tomorrow.
Like I asked, please stop the sensationalism. It's like satire at this point.

No it doesn't. When a GTX960 performs equal or better to a 780Ti in GameWorks games, something is wrong. A 780Ti has *WAY* more hardware, the fact that you are okay with this issue shows how blind NV loyalists are.

In non-NV sponsored games the 780Ti still performs great. In NV sponsored titles, its performance drops off significantly. This is not a mere coincidence.

 

[Azix]

Or Fermi for that matter. Why stop at Kepler?
It's not a problem to rely on NV to optimize. Because they do it. And will continue to do it. And please stop with the Kepler mantra. Kepler is a last gen GPU that still performs very well in most cases. Time to move on.

Not with shipped games you can't. Unless they have some mechanism to push out patches to these closed libraries in game patches. Sometimes they can, sometimes they won't. Its unlikely they will continue to support the games and clearly they didn't support kepler - if you want an actual recent example of them NOT optimizing.

No it doesn't. When a GTX960 performs equal or better to a 780Ti in GameWorks games, something is wrong. A 780Ti has *WAY* more hardware, the fact that you are okay with this issue shows how blind NV loyalists are.

In non-NV sponsored games the 780Ti still performs great. In NV sponsored titles, its performance drops off significantly. This is not a mere coincidence.

and this is why even some (older) nvidia users should prefer AMD. That's currently the only way their cards will show full potential.

 

[Keysplayr]

Nvidia focus group member? Professionals have to recuse themselves for conflicts like this. So why bother arguing here? Might as well be a Tabacco company telling everyone cigarette smoke doesn't cause cancer.
"time to move on."



It's obvious from the general consensus that Gameworks is a flawed product that is underhanded and the majority of gamers dislike it. AMD's methods, being more open are preferable. Thread title has been answered.

This is pretty twisted. Im the only one here open about their affiliation. And the general consensus youre speaking of are the majority of AMD proponents in here. So in that context, you're right.

 

[Keysplayr]

Not with shipped games you can't. Unless they have some mechanism to push out patches to these closed libraries in game patches. Sometimes they can, sometimes they won't. Its unlikely they will continue to support the games and clearly they didn't support kepler - if you want an actual recent example of them NOT optimizing.




and this is why even some (older) nvidia users should prefer AMD. That's currently the only way their cards will show full potential.

Quoting other AMD proponents isn't creating the convincing argument you might be expecting, Azix.

I recall one game where a 960 scored higher than 780Ti. Were there more that I'm unaware of? If so, please let me know.

 

[Chaotic0ne]

No it doesn't. When a GTX960 performs equal or better to a 780Ti in GameWorks games, something is wrong. A 780Ti has *WAY* more hardware, the fact that you are okay with this issue shows how blind NV loyalists are.

In non-NV sponsored games the 780Ti still performs great. In NV sponsored titles, its performance drops off significantly. This is not a mere coincidence.

I understand Nvidia non-maxwell GPUs ran into performance issues with Witcher 3, but if the game is on PC, someone will make performance enhancing mods, and they did that with Witcher 3. On the other hand, that proves purposeful intent by gimping the performance of older GPUs when a private modder can come up with really easy fixes that are never applied by the developers. Not to take away anything from modders, many of which are probably developers themselves, or possess their skill set, but professional development teams should be able to come up with these fixes easier and quicker than modders.

 

[DaveSimmons]

I understand Nvidia non-maxwell GPUs ran into performance issues with Witcher 3, but if the game is on PC, someone will make performance enhancing mods, and they did that with Witcher 3. On the other hand, that proves purposeful intent by gimping the performance of older GPUs when a private modder can come up with really easy fixes that are never applied by the developers. Not to take away anything from modders, many of which are probably developers themselves, or possess their skill set, but professional development teams should be able to come up with these fixes easier and quicker than modders.

That is nonsense. See: pretty much every Bethesda game, ever.

Perhaps the thread title should be changed again to something like "Those who believe AMD is a better company agree that AMD is a better company."

Edit: in case someone mistakes that for flaming or trolling, let me quote the first post again:

Hairworks - closed source. Inspired by desire for greater profits on latest hardware. Damages performance for all parties.

TressFX - More open. Inspired by desire to improve gaming and differentiate games.