Which approach to graphics features is better for gamers

[Azix]

Title changed from TressFX vs Hairworks to reflect why I made the thread. TressFX and Hairworks just seem to represent the two approaches well.

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.

I've been thinking lately that these show very clearly the difference between AMD and Nvidia, or at least make up a very interesting comparison.

IMO TressFX looks better. The really interesting thing is that it runs so much better. With all the tomb raider stuff that came out and the use of hairworks in Witcher 3 it was hard to ignore

Basically, TressFX runs on consoles and looks like this

http://www.allgamesbeta.com/2015/07/rise-of-tomb-raider-video-shows-some-of.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6ppNfF8B0tc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZ19JCTOGfI

Hairworks kills high end hardware, but looks like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB2RcvWRh40

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md4Hmgtl8q0 - at the very most not much better

The tressfx videos are tomb raider and deus ex. It seems in deus ex the NPCs all have it. If the gameplay is on a console you can see just how dramatically different the performance of these two techs are. It likely will be like this on consoles on release. TressFX in tomb raider with the snow interacting with the hair etc. One wonders what else could be much better done

People often make the argument nvidia is adding value with gameworks, seems to me its too much of a trade off. Even with physx we would be much better off with other physics engines because they simply work and look better.

I think for our sake something has to be done about gameworks. Nvidia does not have the competence but their cash/influence reach is damaging our experience.

 

[railven]

I've been thinking lately that these show very clearly the difference between AMD and Nvidia, or at least make up a very interesting comparison.

IMO TressFX looks better. The really interesting thing is that it runs so much better. With all the tomb raider stuff that came out and the use of hairworks in Witcher 3 it was hard to ignore

Basically, TressFX runs on consoles and looks like this

http://www.allgamesbeta.com/2015/07/rise-of-tomb-raider-video-shows-some-of.html

Hairworks kills high end hardware, but looks like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tB2RcvWRh40 - at the very most not much better

People often make the argument nvidia is adding value with gameworks, seems to me its too much of a trade off. Even with physx we would be much better off with other physics engines because they simply work and look better.

I think for our sake something has to be done about gameworks. Nvidia does not have the competence but their cash and influence reach is damaging our experience.

Well, first of all why isn't that optimized version of TressFX (what is it 2.0 or 3.0?) not used in the PC version? It is used in the console exclusive "Definitive Version." EDIT: Ah, didn't realize you were using the unreleased sequel, thought it was this updated version of TressFX

I personally feel TressFX IS better, at least from what little I've seen. And that is the issue. Like the constant attack on PhysX "where is it?" I feel AMD's TressFX suffered the same issue. How many games can you list with TressFX?

Now for the bold, TressFX only applies to that specific mesh. The NPCs don't get that beautiful hair, nor do the environments, and I feel this is where the Gameworks performance hit comes in. People focus only on Geralt's hair, sure it's a constant, but they ignore this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md4Hmgtl8q0

Hairworks gets applied to some NPCs and some monsters. Where as TressFX just Lara's hair.

I'd love to see more TressFX, frankly it would give Hairworks a run for it's money and probably win. But how many games use it? Or plan to use it? Or have said they will use it?

 

[Sabrewings]

Personally, if I were a developer, I'd go with TressFX every time. That being said, there are better examples for how Hairworks looks than what you provided, but they're all pretty performance impacting.

 

[Azix]

Personally, if I were a developer, I'd go with TressFX every time. That being said, there are better examples for how Hairworks looks than what you provided, but they're all pretty performance impacting.

I added nvidias video in an edit. It does look good on some monsters but yeah, performance gets stupid.

Now for the bold, TressFX only applies to that specific mesh. The NPCs don't get that beautiful hair, nor do the environments, and I feel this is where the Gameworks performance hit comes in. People focus only on Geralt's hair, sure it's a constant, but they ignore this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Md4Hmgtl8q0

Hairworks gets applied to some NPCs and some monsters. Where as TressFX just Lara's hair.

I'd love to see more TressFX, frankly it would give Hairworks a run for it's money and probably win. But how many games use it? Or plan to use it? Or have said they will use it?

The NPCs in those games show TressFX as well. What I would like to see is how it works on animals and monsters. Hairworks does look good on some monsters.

The performance impact is down to how its done I think. The antialiasing, tessellation and whatever else they do. Probably the coding as well.

 

[railven]

I added nvidias video in an edit. It does look good on some monsters but yeah, performance gets stupid.



The NPCs in those games show TressFX as well. What I would like to see is how it works on animals and monsters. Hairworks does look good on some monsters.

The performance impact is down to how its done I think. The antialiasing, tessellation and whatever else they do. Probably the coding as well.

I think after the blowback from Witcher 3, NV would be smart to offer a slider for Hair works. Something along the lines of:
Off > Low > Medium > High > Ultra
represented by levels of tessellation found to work with the AMD CCC slider
Off > 4x > 8x > 16x > 64x

 

[monstercameron]

Sorry but check out nvidias hair works 1.1 video and be amazed!

 

[Azix]

Sorry but check out nvidias hair works 1.1 video and be amazed!

huh?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IltIVf_TeFg

Not amazed. Actually saw it already and downloaded the demo. The part about small memory footprint was funny. Yeah, multiply the amount of tessellation and pretend using less memory means it will work wonderfully.

 

[monstercameron]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hVQax6olpUQ

Sorry on mobile

 

[sontin]

What is funny about it? It is the truth that the memory footprint will be much lower with Hairworks because geometry is generated on the fly on the GPU.

And people doing a lot more stuff with Hairworks than with TressFX:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GUV1GeBrmJE

Unreal Engine 4:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cyvw0fniTWY

And Mario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfZZjwK0OWE

 

[Azix]

memory footprint is the least of your worries when it comes to performance when you are tessellating that hard. The cards with the power to do that won't be lacking VRAM in the first place.

Those are tech demos.

 

[geoxile]

Gotta agree with the "What games is it in" argument. This open-source, hands-off approach by AMD is just stupid. It should be a vendor-locked feature that's aggressively pushed through partnerships, support, money, etc. like PhysX

So far that's TressFX 1.0 in Tomb Raider (and an updated version in the console remaster) and TressFX 3.0 in the upcoming Deus Ex? It's really not much. Meanwhile, hairworks has integration into Unreal Engine 4 and it's already in Witcher 3, Far Cry 4 (fur), and CoD: Ghosts (fur).

 

[Stuka87]

Gotta agree with the "What games is it in" argument. This open-source, hands-off approach by AMD is just stupid. It should be a vendor-locked feature that's aggressively pushed through partnerships, support, money, etc. like PhysX

So far that's TressFX 1.0 in Tomb Raider (and an updated version in the console remaster) and TressFX 3.0 in the upcoming Deus Ex? It's really not much. Meanwhile, hairworks has integration into Unreal Engine 4 and it's already in Witcher 3, Far Cry 4 (fur), and CoD: Ghosts (fur).

So you are fine with nVidia paying developers off to use the lower quality, higher performance hit hairworks?

 

[futurefields]

I think after the blowback from Witcher 3, NV would be smart to offer a slider for Hair works. Something along the lines of:
Off > Low > Medium > High > Ultra
represented by levels of tessellation found to work with the AMD CCC slider
Off > 4x > 8x > 16x > 64x

but bro, then low end gpu's would be able to run hairworx flawlessly and nvidia wouldn't sell as many high end gpu's

why would nvidia implement a feature that will only ever cost them money?

 

[sontin]

Memory footprint is important when you want more characters on the screen.
AMD's per pixel link list needs memory to store all the information.

Here a few numbers from Tomb Raider (on - off):
1080p: 1744mb - 1538mb => +13,3%
1440p (4SSAA): 2416mb - 2050mb => +17,8%
2160p: 3057mb - 2212mb => +38,2%

This is just for one character for the hair only.

The Witcher 3 with Hairworks
Geralt only:
1440p: 2250mb - 2243mb => +0,003%

Geralt + 50 wolves:
1440p: 2377mb - 2271mb => +4,6%

 

[Azix]

Gotta agree with the "What games is it in" argument. This open-source, hands-off approach by AMD is just stupid. It should be a vendor-locked feature that's aggressively pushed through partnerships, support, money, etc. like PhysX

So far that's TressFX 1.0 in Tomb Raider (and an updated version in the console remaster) and TressFX 3.0 in the upcoming Deus Ex? It's really not much. Meanwhile, hairworks has integration into Unreal Engine 4 and it's already in Witcher 3, Far Cry 4 (fur), and CoD: Ghosts (fur).

its been in at least 2 games.

Physx has been around for years and its still an afterthought for most people. Point is nvidias incompetence cant be overcome with money and aggressive marketing. AMDs approach simply works for US. Case in point, TressFX performance. If you care more about how many GPUs the companies can sell by making proprietary tech rather than how best to improve your gaming experience then that's you.

I still remember running Tomb Raider on my q9300 + 5770 system with Tresfx on. Ran REMARKABLY better than turning on hairworks on my much more powerful system now (smoothness. both around 30fps). It's plain rubbish. Well, its either incompetence or intentional. Maybe both. If all they are doing is developing these graphical features just to make their current hardware look better it becomes fruitless. Gameworks will continue to suck on the previous generation from nvidia.

This thread is not just about which is better or in more games, its about what each represents for gamers. We are better served by companies that compete on hardware, not those that try to cheat with software.

 

[sontin]

So, you played with less than 20FPS in 1080p?!
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-R...mb-Raider-PC-Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1058878/

A GTX670 lost 33% performance with TressFX.
A GTX970 loses 20% with Hairworks: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-Spiel-38488/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

So why exactly is TressFX better than Hairworks? Is uses much more memory and cost more performance on a nVidia card.

 

[amenx]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=hVQax6olpUQ

Sorry on mobile

Wow.. that is superior to anything else I've seen out there.

 

[Azix]

So, you played with less than 20FPS in 1080p?!
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-R...mb-Raider-PC-Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1058878/

A GTX670 lost 33% performance with TressFX.
A GTX970 loses 20% with Hairworks: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-Spiel-38488/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

So why exactly is TressFX better than Hairworks? Is uses much more memory and cost more performance on a nVidia card.

Have you been living under a rock? TressFX runs fine now, and will likely run fine in the future on nvidia hardware even if the code changed. It's fact that anyone running nvidia should be happy AMD is not like nvidia. Unfortunately a lot of these folks don't comprehend the issue with nvidias actions because they don't see the immediate effects.

Because of nvidias motivation behind this tech, or their coorporate culture. Hairworks for example will never reach tressfx performance. As a matte of fact I would not be surprised if next year it magically starts to suck on maxwell 2 cards.

 

[RaulF]

I think hair works looks awesome on the witcher NPC, have not seen it in game but the demo video looks bad ass.

Tomb raider tressfx looks good I own and play the game, I haven played witcher more due to time. But will drop back here and offer my opinion when I get a chance and get my Ti back from RMA

 

[sontin]

Have you been living under a rock? TressFX runs fine now, and will likely run fine in the future on nvidia hardware even if the code changed. It's fact that anyone running nvidia should be happy AMD is not like nvidia. Unfortunately a lot of these folks don't comprehend the issue with nvidias actions because they don't see the immediate effects.

Because of nvidias motivation behind this tech, or their coorporate culture. Hairworks for example will never reach tressfx performance. As a matte of fact I would not be surprised if next year it magically starts to suck on maxwell 2 cards.

What does "fine" mean? So nVidia designed a better architecture which has no problem with Hairworks and TressFX?

So, what reason exists for using TressFX when Hairworks is just as good and better with the memory usage.

 

[alcoholbob]

Hairworks with a 16x Tessellation option would be nice.

 

[Azix]

What does "fine" mean? So nVidia designed a better architecture which has no problem with Hairworks and TressFX?

So, what reason exists for using TressFX when Hairworks is just as good and better with the memory usage.

Runs as well on Nvidia hardware as Amd hardware is what fine means. Nvidia did not design a better architecture to gain this effect (they could have been stuck with that drop in performance). It happened because of the fundamental difference between Amd and Nvidia. Nvidia got access to source code which they said Amd doesn't need and got help from the devs which they also deny Amd through their game works terms.

Hairworks using less memory matters little If it kills perf anyway. A developer woulda use tressfx for consistent performance across gpus and for hair effects on consoles.

It's a huge deal if the deus ex and try gameplay came from consoles. Means with dx12 (more similar to consoles than 11) pc tressfx would make hairworks look like a performance sucking virus. Nvidia might as well be pushing malware in that case.


Hairworks can be made to run well clearly. Huge performance gains just from changing tess factor and aa. Some code changes and no doubt Amd would shine. Never gonna happen though and I bet officially Nvidia would not improve it for their own gamers because it serves their purpose as is.

 

[monstercameron]

Forget about the bickering, is there a list of hairworks games?

 

[3DVagabond]

Memory footprint is important when you want more characters on the screen.
AMD's per pixel link list needs memory to store all the information.

Here a few numbers from Tomb Raider (on - off):
1080p: 1744mb - 1538mb => +13,3%
1440p (4SSAA): 2416mb - 2050mb => +17,8%
2160p: 3057mb - 2212mb => +38,2%

This is just for one character for the hair only.

The Witcher 3 with Hairworks
Geralt only:
1440p: 2250mb - 2243mb => +0,003%

Geralt + 50 wolves:
1440p: 2377mb - 2271mb => +4,6%

Links where you are getting your numbers from please?

Are you comparing TressFX from 2 years ago to games released this year? Can't really tell without sources.

So, you played with less than 20FPS in 1080p?!
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/AMD-R...mb-Raider-PC-Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1058878/

A GTX670 lost 33% performance with TressFX.
A GTX970 loses 20% with Hairworks: http://www.pcgameshardware.de/The-Witcher-3-Spiel-38488/Specials/Grafikkarten-Benchmarks-1159196/

So why exactly is TressFX better than Hairworks? Is uses much more memory and cost more performance on a nVidia card.

OK, we have links here. 2013 called and wants it's argument back.

 

[Silverforce11]

[H] review of Tomb Raider in MARCH 2013, the same month it was released, basically 12 days after launch, NV released a driver to fix poor performance with TressFX. It helps tremendously when the source code is available and isn't obfuscated.

Go read that review if you don't believe me. The performance penalty for the optimized driver is tiny compared to the major performance loss of HairWorks, with Geralt only.

TressFX was also used in Lichdom. Soon to be use en-mass in Deus Ex, with the newer version applying to hair & fur.