Which approach to graphics features is better for gamers

[Keysplayr]

Insulting, disingenuous post. You've managed to turn a desire for open standards into a smokescreen to hide hurt feelings, while insisting no one actually cares about the industry, just that their side wins. That may be your reality but looking down in derision on anyone that actually cares about the consumer over the corporation? Really now.

I've managed to do all that huh? Tell me Mistwalker. Can you picture any one of these anti-gamworks closed source opponents crying the same way if AMD came to the table with proprietary tech? Closed and only works on AMD gpus? Were you not here for the Mantle second coming? All Hail and all that?
Please dude.

No, Keys, YOU want games optimized for YOUR GPU. GAMERS want as many people as possible to enjoy games in whatever optimal way they can. Eyefinity? I used nothing but AMD in those days and guess what? I thought it unfortunate a feature like that was limited to one camp, and glad Nvidia developed their own solution. I thought Mantle was a great idea but was disappointed it was unlikely to help users of non-AMD GPUs, but now we have DX12 benefiting everyone, so happy ending there. Every technology developed by either team has been great, but I've never wanted any of them denied to the other. As a gamer, I want everyone to have the maximum number of options for enjoying their hobby. The ONLY people who believe, truly believe that their side "winning" is all gamers care about, are either total corporate sellouts or fanboys. Period.

YES!!! I want games optimized for MY GPU!! Who wouldn't!! And I am getting exactly that because of the choice I made. And NO. Gamers only want THEIR game to be enjoyed by THEM. It isn't a church session every time someone sits down to game. Love thy brother as you're blowing their brains out with an MP44.
I'm playing a game, I'm playing it for my own enjoyment. Not for another persons enjoyment. You can't sell that.

I don't care or want anyone to "win" a features war that is about gating, and thus limiting, access to options. If one company is demonstrably, consistently going in that direction, then I do believe it hurts gaming as a whole where the end-user is concerned. Do not presume to tell me the name on my GPU is really all I care about.

It only hurts the user not using the products that have the optimizations. It actually benefits those who do.

The only time you see folks saying "you can bet everyone else is just as bad!" is when your chosen company has done something bad. And for the record, no, not all companies follow the same route to profit, no matter how much you say it's so. See: Sony and Microsoft.

You can sit there and try to convince me that all corporations don't exist for profit, but you cant sell that to me either. No two companies take the same road. Agreed. But the end result is expected to be in the form of money. We can go back and forth all day long at different things any corp has done.

 

[Keysplayr]

I'm a PC Gamer, I like features in games to be brand agnostic, because locking myself into one vendor is just like console gaming. It removes my purchasing power to dictate which hardware offer the better value.

I don't want to see AMD go dirty like NV. I want AMD GE titles to run well on all hardware. Because the situation if they play dirty, is if you want to play GE games, you need an AMD GPU, then if you want to play a GW game, you need an NV GPU. That's screwing up gamers.

What you call dirty, is what others call smart. You yourself, not long ago at all, were praising Nvidia for their strategy and calling it Game Over for AMD if they didn't follow suit. AMD needs to go dirty (smart) if they wish to survive. No question about it. This is corporate America (at least where I am). The most cutthroat business machine on the surface of the Earth. It is sad. I don't much like it. But it is how it is. And it's not screwing up gamers, Silverforce. Just let them buy an Nvidia GPU if they want those features. It's not a crime. Stop treating it as such.

 

[Azix]

What you call dirty, is what others call smart. You yourself, not long ago at all, were praising Nvidia for their strategy and calling it Game Over for AMD if they didn't follow suit. AMD needs to go dirty (smart) if they wish to survive. No question about it. This is corporate America (at least where I am). The most cutthroat business machine on the surface of the Earth. It is sad. I don't much like it. But it is how it is. And it's not screwing up gamers, Silverforce. Just let them buy an Nvidia GPU if they want those features. It's not a crime. Stop treating it as such.

playing dirty isn't the only way to succeed, it's just the preferred way of some less than nice people.

"smart" is actually having good product and making the right choices. Nvidia's tactics are those of an incompetent company that happens to have tons of cash.

 

[railven]

playing dirty isn't the only way to succeed, it's just the preferred way of some less than nice people.

"smart" is actually having good product and making the right choices. Nvidia's tactics are those of an incompetent company that happens to have tons of cash.

I dunno. Intel plays dirty like the dickens. People need to remember these are corporations.

End of the day, who's the dumb company?
The one making millions or the one losing millions?

People have to stop investing so emotionally on these companies like they'll be at your dog's funeral. They don't care about you. So why do you care about them? [Of course unless you are financially tied to them, in which case you should care but your opinion is invalid.]

 

[Keysplayr]

playing dirty isn't the only way to succeed, it's just the preferred way of some less than nice people.

"smart" is actually having good product and making the right choices. Nvidia's tactics are those of an incompetent company that happens to have tons of cash.

Interesting.

 

[Silverforce11]

What you call dirty, is what others call smart. You yourself, not long ago at all, were praising Nvidia for their strategy and calling it Game Over for AMD if they didn't follow suit. AMD needs to go dirty (smart) if they wish to survive. No question about it. This is corporate America (at least where I am). The most cutthroat business machine on the surface of the Earth. It is sad. I don't much like it. But it is how it is. And it's not screwing up gamers, Silverforce. Just let them buy an Nvidia GPU if they want those features. It's not a crime. Stop treating it as such.

It's a brilliant tactic (leveraging $ advantage to buy devs, add closed source propriety middleware that runs worse on competitor hardware), doesn't make it less dirty.

I rather they focus on making great hardware and allow game devs full access to optimize their games (ie, open source features). I hope AMD remains with its open nature practice**. If they both play dirty, I would just buy a console and quit PC gaming because paying for expensive hardware to run un-optimized turds is not a good investment.

** Because then, we can be confident of GE titles being excellent on all hardware. Let's see what happens with the next wave of AAA titles, since they aren't NV GameWorks: Battlefront, Hitman, Deus Ex, Fable etc. As it is, as a PC gamer with AMD hardware, I've boycotted most GW titles because it would be a waste of my money to play broken unoptimized console ports and support these devs & NV. But luckily, there's plenty of other games where its excellent, without the GW taint. So IF AMD GE becomes dirty like GW, most AAA titles will be a mess.

 

[sandorski]

It's a brilliant tactic (leveraging $ advantage to buy devs, add closed source propriety middleware that runs worse on competitor hardware), doesn't make it less dirty.

I rather they focus on making great hardware and allow game devs full access to optimize their games (ie, open source features). I hope AMD remains with its open nature practice**. If they both play dirty, I would just buy a console and quit PC gaming because paying for expensive hardware to run un-optimized turds is not a good investment.

** Because then, we can be confident of GE titles being excellent on all hardware. Let's see what happens with the next wave of AAA titles, since they aren't NV GameWorks: Battlefront, Hitman, Deus Ex, Fable etc. As it is, as a PC gamer with AMD hardware, I've boycotted most GW titles because it would be a waste of my money to play broken unoptimized console ports and support these devs & NV. But luckily, there's plenty of other games where its excellent, without the GW taint. So IF AMD GE becomes dirty like GW, most AAA titles will be a mess.

Indeed. Closed Standards just leads to the Consolation of PC Gaming. That is no good for anyone.

 

[Blitzvogel]

TressFX and Hairworks really is a waste of time, as it doesn't really add much of anything.

AMD and Nvidia should be focusing on making interactive physics on GPUs more common.

 

[Azix]

TressFX and Hairworks really is a waste of time, as it doesn't really add much of anything.

AMD and Nvidia should be focusing on making interactive physics on GPUs more common.

It has a huge impact I think. The movement of laras hair adds to the immersion and when you add animals to the mix its a big deal. I am partial to good physics though (beyond hair and fur). These techs can be applied to vegetation so thats something too

 

[Mistwalker]

I've managed to do all that huh? Tell me Mistwalker. Can you picture any one of these anti-gamworks closed source opponents crying the same way if AMD came to the table with proprietary tech? Closed and only works on AMD gpus? Were you not here for the Mantle second coming? All Hail and all that?

I think it's natural to cheer for new technologies and advances, from Eyefinity to PhysX to Mantle. If those people were cheering *because* they only worked on AMD GPUs, or even worse, hoped those features would *never* reach anyone outside their immediate ecosystem, then I would say the same about them: either fanboys or anti-consumer gamers who value companies more than the gaming experience.

You can sit there and try to convince me that all corporations don't exist for profit, but you cant sell that to me either. No two companies take the same road. Agreed. But the end result is expected to be in the form of money. We can go back and forth all day long at different things any corp has done.

I didn't even remotely imply companies aren't out for profit, of course they are. No need for strawmen here. My question is this: if company A's strategy is in being consumer friendly and offering choice, whereas company B does the opposite, which would you want to support?

And NO. Gamers only want THEIR game to be enjoyed by THEM. It isn't a church session every time someone sits down to game. Love thy brother as you're blowing their brains out with an MP44.
I'm playing a game, I'm playing it for my own enjoyment. Not for another persons enjoyment. You can't sell that.

Many gamers do. Again, the large number of XBox users who were completely fine with the XBox One's original incarnation because none of it's exclusionary features or policies affected them personally, come to mind. Thankfully an even larger group stood up and realized that supporting products just because they personally benefit is not going to benefit gamers as whole in the long run. I see a lot of parallels between the two situations, personally, but maybe that's just me.

No one is trying to take your enjoyment away. What I have to wonder is if you would feel your enjoyment lessened, in some way, if everyone else could enjoy the same experience as you. I game for my own enjoyment too, but because I actually care about gaming, it's important for me that there be as few restrictions and barriers as possible for everyone. If you don't care about all that, fine, but what I'm trying to reiterate is that not everyone takes the selfish approach to their hobby.

It only hurts the user not using the products that have the optimizations. It actually benefits those who do.

If you support products that place demands on you to benefit from them, you ARE going to be hurt in the long run. It's fewer options for you as well. It's higher prices for you as well. Everyone loses when exclusionary technologies win the day. Your thinking here is short-term and/or from the standpoint of the company, not the consumer.

 

[kasakka]

Few of you seem to understand software development. Let's say that a game developer wants hair physics in their game. They have AMD's and Nvidia's packages to choose from. The things software developers in general want is not the one that has the highest performance or is open source but the one that a) integrates with their code and development workflow the best and b) has the best API documentation. After that come performance considerations but if there isn't a massive difference then the afore-mentioned are more important.

Business decisions are often out of the hands of the actual programmers but if Nvidia is willing to sponsor their Gameworks package with support for implementing it that is going to be very enticing to many developers.

Sure, hair physics and other similar features can cause a large performance hit but so can antialiasing. That's why usually there is a toggle to turn them off. While Nvidia's CUDA exclusivity to their cards and having PhysX only run on it is a bad thing overall, I can understand why they've decided to go that route. They can improve and change CUDA as they please without going thru a standards body which usually means long time to get the needed changes. It's also the framework their programmers will be familiar with, hence PhysX running on CUDA.

 

[MongGrel]

I dunno. Intel plays dirty like the dickens. People need to remember these are corporations.

End of the day, who's the dumb company?
The one making millions or the one losing millions?

People have to stop investing so emotionally on these companies like they'll be at your dog's funeral. They don't care about you. So why do you care about them? [Of course unless you are financially tied to them, in which case you should care but your opinion is invalid.]

+1

 

[sontin]

It's a brilliant tactic (leveraging $ advantage to buy devs, add closed source propriety middleware that runs worse on competitor hardware), doesn't make it less dirty.

And yet you find this only "dirty" when nVidia is doing this. :|

I rather they focus on making great hardware and allow game devs full access to optimize their games (ie, open source features). I hope AMD remains with its open nature practice**. If they both play dirty, I would just buy a console and quit PC gaming because paying for expensive hardware to run un-optimized turds is not a good investment.

Wait... You want that nVidia is "making great hardware" but they arent allowed to use this hardware to create features?
Hairworks is open. Is uses a standard API called Direct3D. If AMD cant optimize their hardware for this API maybe they should create a closed one...

** Because then, we can be confident of GE titles being excellent on all hardware. Let's see what happens with the next wave of AAA titles, since they aren't NV GameWorks: Battlefront, Hitman, Deus Ex, Fable etc. As it is, as a PC gamer with AMD hardware, I've boycotted most GW titles because it would be a waste of my money to play broken unoptimized console ports and support these devs & NV. But luckily, there's plenty of other games where its excellent, without the GW taint. So IF AMD GE becomes dirty like GW, most AAA titles will be a mess.

Yes, these GE titles like Tomb Raider and Drage Age 2 (broken mess at launch on nVidia), Sleeping Dogs (stuttering mess at launch on nVidia), Dirt:Showdown (Advanced Lightning with >60% performance hit on nVidia), Lichdom (nVidia users are forbidden to use TressFX) or games with huge amount of draw calls (Battlefield 4).

AMD is as bad as nVidia.

 

[NTMBK]

Hairworks is open. Is uses a standard API called Direct3D. If AMD cant optimize their hardware for this API maybe they should create a closed one...

If it is provided as a black-box binary with no source code, no, it is not open.

 

[Keysplayr]

I think it's natural to cheer for new technologies and advances, from Eyefinity to PhysX to Mantle. If those people were cheering *because* they only worked on AMD GPUs, or even worse, hoped those features would *never* reach anyone outside their immediate ecosystem, then I would say the same about them: either fanboys or anti-consumer gamers who value companies more than the gaming experience.

People knew right from the beginning that it was down to the metal for AMD GPUs. Still cheered. You didn't say what you said you would have said. I can probably safely bet on that. If you pull up a post of yours condemning that practice, then I will fully apologize to you.

I didn't even remotely imply companies aren't out for profit, of course they are. No need for strawmen here. My question is this: if company A's strategy is in being consumer friendly and offering choice, whereas company B does the opposite, which would you want to support?

Company A's strategy is far more detrimental to the industry. They are going to fail. What happens to our choices then? Obliterated. You want your cake and you want to be able to eat it as well. I think you can see that it can't happen in this hyper competitive business. You must be smart. You must be savvy. You must see the writing on the wall (clairvoyant if you will) to keep up and remain relevant. And by the way, Company B does offer choice. Either buy from them, or buy from company A.

Many gamers do. Again, the large number of XBox users who were completely fine with the XBox One's original incarnation because none of it's exclusionary features or policies affected them personally, come to mind. Thankfully an even larger group stood up and realized that supporting products just because they personally benefit is not going to benefit gamers as whole in the long run. I see a lot of parallels between the two situations, personally, but maybe that's just me.

I think people buy and XBOX and a game. Go home. Play it. Have fun. The end.

No one is trying to take your enjoyment away. What I have to wonder is if you would feel your enjoyment lessened, in some way, if everyone else could enjoy the same experience as you. I game for my own enjoyment too, but because I actually care about gaming, it's important for me that there be as few restrictions and barriers as possible for everyone. If you don't care about all that, fine, but what I'm trying to reiterate is that not everyone takes the selfish approach to their hobby.

You think my gaming enjoyment would be lessened if everyone else could enjoy the same experience as I? Are you serious? You've determined that if I care only about my own gaming enjoyment, than I am selfish? Do you collect stamps for somebody else's enjoyment? Do you stack silver for some person in California to enjoy? Do you build your own hot rod and let somebody else race it? You might. You just might. You aren't making any rational sense here, Mistwalker.

If you support products that place demands on you to benefit from them, you ARE going to be hurt in the long run. It's fewer options for you as well. It's higher prices for you as well. Everyone loses when exclusionary technologies win the day. Your thinking here is short-term and/or from the standpoint of the company, not the consumer.

I do support products that place demands on me. Financial demands. I use money to buy all my computer components. This is besides what Nvidia occasionally sends me. I have 7 PCs in my home and all of them get upgraded regularly. It costs money. That is the demand placed on me. You act as if all will be free. It never was and never will be.

 

[Silverforce11]

Hairworks is open.

Why do you feel its okay to blatantly make false claims?

Closed source code, raw code is obfuscated. That is the opposite of open in any sane person's world.

AMD will be as bad as NV when good game developers come out and say this (when users report it runs crap) of their features: "Just turn it off, we can't optimize it".

 

[Keysplayr]

Why do you feel its okay to blatantly make false claims?

Closed source code, raw code is obfuscated. That is the opposite of open in any sane person's world.

AMD will be as bad as NV when good game developers come out and say this (when users report it runs crap) of their features: "Just turn it off, we can't optimize it".

I'd ask Sontin to explain "in what sense" he feels Hairworks is open. What is his definition of open and closed?

 

[sontin]

Why do you feel its okay to blatantly make false claims?

Closed source code, raw code is obfuscated. That is the opposite of open in any sane person's world.

AMD will be as bad as NV when good game developers come out and say this (when users report it runs crap) of their features: "Just turn it off, we can't optimize it".

It runs over Direct3D. So the driver knows exactly what to do.
Saying that Hairworks is not open is just wrong. Would it be closed it would not work over a third party api.

Closed is just the source code (HLSL). But you dont need this because you see every API call through the driver layer of the API.

 

[Keysplayr]

It runs over Direct3D. So the driver knows exactly what to do.
Saying that Hairworks is not open is just wrong. Would it be closed it would not work over a third party api.

Closed is just the source code (HLSL). But you dont need this because you see every API call through the driver layer of the API.

So you're saying Hairworks can easily be optimized for without its source code? If so, please explain how?

 

[sontin]

Like every other application: You change things within the driver -shader replacement, optimization of function etc.

How do you think nVidia and AMD can increase performance in older gamers without a game patch? This talk about access to the source code is nothing else than a distraction.

 

[showb1z]

These discussions always run the same course...

People need to stop making this Nvidia vs AMD. You're not "winning" because hairworks in TW3 happens to run a little bit better on your Geforce card. You're still losing 30% of your performance for no good reason. The irony that people with AMD hardware can actually run hairworks better because they have the option to tweak the tesselation to reasonable levels is ridiculous.

Even if you only buy Nvidia for the rest of your gaming days you are getting screwed over by something like GameWorks.
A hardware company having it's own black box code in an increasing amount of software, allowing them to obsolete hardware whenever they feel like it can not be a positive development. The only way not to get screwed over is by always buying their latest and greatest.
If you can't see the problem in this you're either a shareholder or a fanboy.

 

[Noctifer616]

Like every other application: You change things within the driver -shader replacement, optimization of function etc.

How do you think nVidia and AMD can increase performance in older gamers without a game patch? This talk about access to the source code is nothing else than a distraction.

Because there are parts of the game that are controller by the driver, not the application. mGPU can't be optimized or enabled in a game since it's purely handed by the driver.

You are not going to see driver optimizations for Vulkan/DX12 games because it's all in the game.

 

[Silverforce11]

@sontin
So after reading inputs from AMD, NV and game devs (3 perspectives)...

http://www.extremetech.com/gaming/1...elopers-weigh-in-on-the-gameworks-controversy

You still think its not necessary to have an open source code that isn't encrypted or obfuscated to help you optimize features?

Sure, if you had to do it blind, you could, eventually. It just makes the task much harder. Which is the entire point and reason why NV actually obfuscate GW libraries. To delay AMD's ability as well as lock-out the developer from actually able to optimize it (which is what Witcher 3 devs confirmed) for competitor hardware.

Surely AMD's open source features like TressFX helps NV optimize it a lot faster than if they had to do it blind. Just look at the 10 days for NV to fix their poor performance in TressFX TR. Perhaps you think NV software engineers are Gods and they could have done it just as fast if the code was closed & encrypted...

ps. When people in the programming industry refer to Open, they mean full source code open. Not open as in, using an standard language or API while encrypting the source code to make reverse engineering much much harder.

 

[Atreidin]

The discussion about a company's motivations is so pointless. As a gamer I just want them to do things that align with my own self-interest. My self-interest includes keeping the field healthy for the future, not just what I can get now. If enough people have the same ideas and give money to which company aligns better with the behavior they want, then they then corporate behavior will change to compete on who can behave closer to the ideal. Right now the vast majority of gamers don't care enough so expect everything to be downhill from here. Gaming isn't important enough to enough people to see a big enough demand for a particular direction in ethical behavior to drive a change in behavior in search of profits.

 

[Stuka87]

It runs over Direct3D. So the driver knows exactly what to do.
Saying that Hairworks is not open is just wrong. Would it be closed it would not work over a third party api.

Closed is just the source code (HLSL). But you dont need this because you see every API call through the driver layer of the API.

You sir, have no clue what "open" means.

And you obviously have no actual experience with software development, which may be why you are wrong on what open is. Just because something uses DX does not mean its open. That just means its compatible. Gameworks is closed, entirely. Dev's are forbidden from optimizing it for AMD/Intel, and are not allowed to see the source code themselves.

If you were actually a gamer, you would see how closed source anything is bad for gamers. Anything in games that is vendor locked is bad for gamers. Anything that purposefully hurts the competitions products is bad for gamers. If somehow AMD did go under, and there was only NV, this would be TERRIBLE for gamers.

So if you truly care about gaming, and not being a fanboy for a morally questionable corporation, wake up.