Which approach to graphics features is better for gamers

Page 6 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Status
Not open for further replies.

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
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.

Neither a shareholder nor a fanboy, and as someone who does upgrade frequently, I don't see a problem.

If my money is going to a product that delivers features/experiences I enjoy/want - how is that wrong? If AMD did something similar to lure me back, how is that a problem?

One company is using its leverage to secure development relationships. That benefits me as a gamer - I get a slightly different experience than the competitor and more so than the console users. Am I cheesed about the lack of a slider iN TW3? Sure, and I hope NV learns from that, but like most PC gamers - I know how to tweak *.ini files. Is that the best solution? No, but I still got options.

I already got consoles, I'm not upgrading my PC to play console games with higher resolutions (well I sort of am for these niche Japanese games haha).

I went from pom-pom waiving AMD fanboy buying their cards every year just because I like red and ATI holds a special place in my heart. This is my second upgrade cycle where I went with Nvidia. And I have zero regrets.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
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.

Yeah, and it seems sales keep giving Nvidia the go-ahead with their anti-consumer practices.

So, end of it all, majority seem to have no issue with it. /shrug So either someone gets the message out to the general public or AMD lays the smack down. Frankly, I don't see either of those two happening.

The reign of Nvidia will continue.
 

Dribble

Platinum Member
Aug 9, 2005
2,076
611
136
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.

That's not actually true:

Nvidia’s PR Manager, Brian Burke, ... GameWorks source code is provided to developers that request it under license, but they can’t redistribute our source code to anyone who does not have a license. ...

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...over-optimizations-to-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt

But don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
@sontin
You still think its not necessary to have an open source code that isn't encrypted or obfuscated to help you optimize features?

Nope. Because the developer can track the performance impact without having access to the source code. If they dont like it they can refuse it to use.

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.

So like Tomb Raider? Eidos was forbidden to send nVidia a release version with the latest AMD codes prior the launch.
And yet you are blaming some closed dlls for such behaviour. :|

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...

They fixed the poor performance because the game was broken for them.
The better question is: Why would nVidia have to fix a GE title when AMD is such a good boy? Why didnt AMD fix the game for them? :biggrin:

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.

nVidia doesnt get source code of gaming evolved title. Which makes your argumentation pointless. What matter is the source code of the application and not something which was released on a web site.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
That's not actually true:

Nvidia’s PR Manager, Brian Burke, ... GameWorks source code is provided to developers that request it under license, but they can’t redistribute our source code to anyone who does not have a license. ...

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...over-optimizations-to-the-witcher-3-wild-hunt

But don't let that get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.

Yeah I do recall that now. The only question is what does it take to get licensed. So some devs can see it, but still not allowed to optimize for it.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
Nope. Because the developer can track the performance impact without having access to the source code. If they dont like it they can refuse it to use.



So like Tomb Raider? Eidos was forbidden to send nVidia a release version with the latest AMD codes prior the launch.
And yet you are blaming some closed dlls for such behaviour. :|



They fixed the poor performance because the game was broken for them.
The better question is: Why would nVidia have to fix a GE title when AMD is such a good boy? Why didnt AMD fix the game for them? :biggrin:



nVidia doesnt get source code of gaming evolved title. Which makes your argumentation pointless. What matter is the source code of the application and not something which was released on a web site.

AMD does not prevent dev's from optimizing for nVidia. GE titles simply get first party support from AMD for implementing AMD designed features (Such as advanced lighting in Dirt, or Hairworks in Tomb Raider). AMD has stated that they do not prevent the company from optimizing for other GPU makers.

nVidia did have TressFX running fine within ~1 week after release. TressFX source code is available, making it quite easy for nVidia to optimize for it.
 

Sabrewings

Golden Member
Jun 27, 2015
1,942
35
51
Yeah I do recall that now. The only question is what does it take to get licensed. So some devs can see it, but still not allowed to optimize for it.

They may not be able to optimize the code itself, but they could optimize their engine to work with it better or put less demands on it and improve performance.
 

Azix

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2014
1,438
67
91
They may not be able to optimize the code itself, but they could optimize their engine to work with it better or put less demands on it and improve performance.

Tough. They'd have to compromise the quality of other aspects of their game just to leave enough room for gameworks to do its thing.


Yeah I do recall that now. The only question is what does it take to get licensed. So some devs can see it, but still not allowed to optimize for it.

The restrictions from https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-sdk-eula are below. It would take some doing to find out if any devs have been allowed to see the source. its kind of pointless if they can't change it.

Restrictions. You will not, and will not permit others to: (a) modify, translate, decompile, bootleg, reverse engineer, disassemble, or extract the inner workings of any portion of the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK except the Sample Code, (b) copy the look-and-feel or functionality of any portion of the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK except the Sample Code; (c) remove any proprietary notices, marks, labels, or logos from the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK or any portion thereof; (d) rent, transfer or use as a service bureau all or some of the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK without NVIDIA’s prior written consent, except in the form of Applications and subject to the requirements of this Agreement; (e) utilize any computer software or hardware which is designed to defeat any copy protection device, should the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK be equipped with such a protection device; or (f) use the NVIDIA Licensed Software in any manner that would cause the NVIDIA Licensed Software to become subject to an Open Source License. "Open Source License" includes, without limitation, a software license that requires as a condition of use, modification, and/or distribution of such software that the NVIDIA Licensed Software be (i) disclosed or distributed in source code form; (ii) be licensed for the purpose of making derivative works; or (iii) be redistributable at no charge. Unauthorized copying of the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK, or failure to comply with any of the provisions of this Agreement, will result in automatic termination of this license.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
@sontin
So basically with NV saying they do not allow devs to share GW source code (if they had a special license to see it in the first place) or optimize for AMD (like Witcher 3 devs, unable to optimize it at all)..

AMD's features are open, so devs OR NV can optimize for it.

Is the same in your world?

Strange place you live in, where ethical standards don't seem to equate.
 

showb1z

Senior member
Dec 30, 2010
462
53
91
Neither a shareholder nor a fanboy, and as someone who does upgrade frequently, I don't see a problem.

If my money is going to a product that delivers features/experiences I enjoy/want - how is that wrong? If AMD did something similar to lure me back, how is that a problem?

One company is using its leverage to secure development relationships. That benefits me as a gamer - I get a slightly different experience than the competitor and more so than the console users. Am I cheesed about the lack of a slider iN TW3? Sure, and I hope NV learns from that, but like most PC gamers - I know how to tweak *.ini files. Is that the best solution? No, but I still got options.

I already got consoles, I'm not upgrading my PC to play console games with higher resolutions (well I sort of am for these niche Japanese games haha).

I went from pom-pom waiving AMD fanboy buying their cards every year just because I like red and ATI holds a special place in my heart. This is my second upgrade cycle where I went with Nvidia. And I have zero regrets.

Don't you see the irony in what you're saying? A closed ecosystem (Gameworks, Gsync) like Nvidia is trying to create has a lot of similarities to a console.
But you're making this AMD vs Nvidia again, no interest in that. AMD's performance in Gameworks is irrelevant to me if Nvidia's middleware makes even their own hardware perform way below what it should.

Am I cheesed about the lack of a slider iN TW3? Sure, and I hope NV learns from that, but like most PC gamers - I know how to tweak *.ini files. Is that the best solution? No, but I still got options.

The only thing Nvidia will have learned from that is that it got quite a few 780(Ti) owners to upgrade to Maxwell ;)
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
Don't you see the irony in what you're saying? A closed ecosystem (Gameworks, Gsync) like Nvidia is trying to create has a lot of similarities to a console.

Well aware of that, but frankly these are the options we have now. In order to fight a closed proprietary system consumers need to be against it. They aren't. They've accepted it with open arms.

But you're making this AMD vs Nvidia again, no interest in that. AMD's performance in Gameworks is irrelevant to me if Nvidia's middleware makes even their own hardware perform way below what it should.

Fault goes two ways there. AMD for not doing something to mitigate this, Nvidia for initiating this. These are companies, not victims. If AMD wants to stop Nvidia from being "mean" they need to step up. Will it hurt consumers? Possibly, or it will create enough rift that consumers wake up to what Nvidia is doing and CHOOSE AMD. You know, that whole speak with your wallet?

The only thing Nvidia will have learned from that is that it got quite a few 780(Ti) owners to upgrade to Maxwell ;)

Yerp, and as a business - that's a boom. And I bet you those people that upgraded are exceptionally satisfied with their purchases. Yet, the AMD crowd is "grumble... grumble..." as AMD market share plummets and financial losses increase.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
AMD does not prevent dev's from optimizing for nVidia. GE titles simply get first party support from AMD for implementing AMD designed features (Such as advanced lighting in Dirt, or Hairworks in Tomb Raider). AMD has stated that they do not prevent the company from optimizing for other GPU makers.

And nVidia is claiming the same. ;)

nVidia did have TressFX running fine within ~1 week after release. TressFX source code is available, making it quite easy for nVidia to optimize for it.
Tomb Raider's problem was not TressFX. The game was broken and needed a game patch to fix it for nVidia user. But you could say that AMD's code was the primary reason for this. :p
However nVidia fixed their problems because they got the release version. Has nothing to do with some source code on some website.
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
And nVidia is claiming the same. ;)

Tomb Raider's problem was not TressFX. The game was broken and needed a game patch to fix it for nVidia user. But you could say that AMD's code was the primary reason for this. :p
However nVidia fixed their problems because they got the release version. Has nothing to do with some source code on some website.

nVidia is NOT claiming the same. CDProjectRed came out and said publicly that they are not allowed to optimize for AMD, and that AMD users should expect low performance because of this. This isn't some rumor, its been proven by several developers, and nVidia's OWN DOCUMENTATION!

WHY are you trying to defend what they are doing? What do you have to gain from a fragmented gaming ecosystem?
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
nVidia is NOT claiming the same. CDProjectRed came out and said publicly that they are not allowed to optimize for AMD, and that AMD users should expect low performance because of this. This isn't some rumor, its been proven by several developers, and nVidia's OWN DOCUMENTATION!

CDProject said that they cant optimize Hairworks for AMD. They never said they werent allowed to do it.
Eventually they released two patches which increased the performance of Hairworks.

AMD's hardware is not suitable for this kind of workload. At some point a developer cant care for companies who dont care about standards.

WHY are you trying to defend what they are doing? What do you have to gain from a fragmented gaming ecosystem?
I gain better graphics.
What do you gain from a company which is doing less? :\
 

Stuka87

Diamond Member
Dec 10, 2010
6,240
2,559
136
CDProject said that they cant optimize Hairworks for AMD. They never said they werent allowed to do it.
Eventually they released two patches which increased the performance of Hairworks.

AMD's hardware is not suitable for this kind of workload. At some point a developer cant care for companies who dont care about standards.

I gain better graphics.
What do you gain from a company which is doing less? :\

*sigh*

nVidia made hairworks use 64x tessellation. This kills the performance of all cards for no reason. Yes Maxwell is a bit better at it, but Kepler and AMD get hurt more so. There is NO visual difference that you can see in game between 16x and 64x. But there is a 75% boost in performance.

You gain something now, but if AMD decides to do the same thing, then you gain some visuals for a few games, while a few other games become unplayable because nVidia is unable to optimize for them.

Seriously, look ahead, do you not see all the issues that would come about if the gaming industry got fragmented like this?

This is my last post on this thread. No point in trying to prove the obvious to the blind.
 

iiiankiii

Senior member
Apr 4, 2008
759
47
91
*sigh*

nVidia made hairworks use 64x tessellation. This kills the performance of all cards for no reason. Yes Maxwell is a bit better at it, but Kepler and AMD get hurt more so. There is NO visual difference that you can see in game between 16x and 64x. But there is a 75% boost in performance.

You gain something now, but if AMD decides to do the same thing, then you gain some visuals for a few games, while a few other games become unplayable because nVidia is unable to optimize for them.

Seriously, look ahead, do you not see all the issues that would come about if the gaming industry got fragmented like this?

This is my last post on this thread. No point in trying to prove the obvious to the blind.

He knows. He just doesn't care. I bet he leaves GWs off when he play those games. :) The majority of professional reviewers out there recommend GameWorks be turned off to get games playable. It's that poorly optimized... even for Maxwell.
 

Azix

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2014
1,438
67
91
CDProject said that they cant optimize Hairworks for AMD. They never said they werent allowed to do it.
Eventually they released two patches which increased the performance of Hairworks.

AMD's hardware is not suitable for this kind of workload. At some point a developer cant care for companies who dont care about standards.

I gain better graphics.
What do you gain from a company which is doing less? :\

Hairworks improvements may have been sent in by nvidia for their own hardware. Developers cannot modify the code in gameworks, from the information we have seen.

What standard? Oh you still think hairworks is completely down to some standard in dx11? One could create software to run on dx11 but completely cripple nvidia hardware, would that mean nvidia is ignoring standards?

You gain worse performance and graphics that would have been there otherwise.

And nVidia is claiming the same. ;)

Tomb Raider's problem was not TressFX. The game was broken and needed a game patch to fix it for nVidia user. But you could say that AMD's code was the primary reason for this. :p
However nVidia fixed their problems because they got the release version. Has nothing to do with some source code on some website.

Source? Most of the complaints were about tressfx performing badly on nvidia when on. I've seen another guy try to shift this to something else like 3dvision. Yet the thing that changed most significantly was tressfx working better on nvidia hardware.

Nvidia also said they can't fix the issue through driver alone.

ultimately what happened with tomb raider is a clear indication that nvidia is simply being dishonest when they say AMD does not need these things. When it is them on the receiving end they are glad for devs to be able to optimize and glad to be able to see source.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
@sontin
Go read the [H] TR review in early March 2013, it was an NV driver that fixed TressFX performance. Why do you guys keep wanting to re-write history...

You like to cheer on wasteful un-optimized GW, why exactly, what benefits do you get out of it as a gamer?

On AMD, I can force x16 tessellation and run HairWorks to the same visual quality as NV GPUs, but do so with less performance hit. Wouldn't it be better for you to cheer NV to make their GW open so game devs are able to modify and optimize it so we can all run it much faster?
 

SirPauly

Diamond Member
Apr 28, 2009
5,187
1
0
Well aware of that, but frankly these are the options we have now. In order to fight a closed proprietary system consumers need to be against it. They aren't. They've accepted it with open arms.



Fault goes two ways there. AMD for not doing something to mitigate this, Nvidia for initiating this. These are companies, not victims. If AMD wants to stop Nvidia from being "mean" they need to step up. Will it hurt consumers? Possibly, or it will create enough rift that consumers wake up to what Nvidia is doing and CHOOSE AMD. You know, that whole speak with your wallet?



Yerp, and as a business - that's a boom. And I bet you those people that upgraded are exceptionally satisfied with their purchases. Yet, the AMD crowd is "grumble... grumble..." as AMD market share plummets and financial losses increase.

Ideally, it would be nice if nVidia opened up more to increase adoption for their innovation, neat tech/features, but on the other side of the coin, they're a corporation that has to answer to the bottom line, their employees and shareholders. The key to the importance of these abilities is it creates awareness, PC differentiation and improves the experience from the console ports and their PC competitors. The key to nVidia's success is the major reactionary complaining by vocal posters -- nVidia is not the problem -- AMD has to step up -- roll up their sleeves -- and try to out work, out innovate nVidia.
 

sontin

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2011
3,273
149
106
@sontin
Go read the [H] TR review in early March 2013, it was an NV driver that fixed TressFX performance. Why do you guys keep wanting to re-write history...

No, it wasnt alone the driver:
First patch:
- Addressed some stability and startup issues on machines that have both Intel and NVIDIA graphics hardware.
Second patch:
We’ve been working closely with NVIDIA to address the issues experienced by some Tomb Raider players. In conjunction with this patch, NVIDIA will be releasing updated drivers that help to improve stability and performance of Tomb Raider on NVIDIA GeForce GPUs.
http://store.steampowered.com/news/?feed=steam_updates&appids=203160

Eidos released patches which have addressed the problems on the other hardware.


You like to cheer on wasteful un-optimized GW, why exactly, what benefits do you get out of it as a gamer?
Better graphics.

On AMD, I can force x16 tessellation and run HairWorks to the same visual quality as NV GPUs, but do so with less performance hit. Wouldn't it be better for you to cheer NV to make their GW open so game devs are able to modify and optimize it so we can all run it much faster?
Funny that you mentioned it:
With Cat 15.15 AMD has optimized the Tessellation setting for The Witcher. It is now set to 16x at default. And this is affecting the quality of the hair assets:
15.5:
http://images.akamai.steamuserconte...609/FE6BDB9B5D43671C05EC8E0BF038771C81F22152/

15.15:
http://images.akamai.steamuserconte...871/D5C25C5BFAAACEFD66A7F60636DC681055FE9F58/

source: http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10673306&postcount=47

So no, you get worse quality and worse performance:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review/3#.Vaf3qEGh0uU

A GTX980 is still faster than a Fury and will offer better graphics.
 

Azix

Golden Member
Apr 18, 2014
1,438
67
91
Funny that you mentioned it:
With Cat 15.15 AMD has optimized the Tessellation setting for The Witcher. It is now set to 16x at default. And this is affecting the quality of the hair assets:
15.5:
http://images.akamai.steamuserconte...609/FE6BDB9B5D43671C05EC8E0BF038771C81F22152/

15.15:
http://images.akamai.steamuserconte...871/D5C25C5BFAAACEFD66A7F60636DC681055FE9F58/

source: http://www.forum-3dcenter.org/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=10673306&postcount=47

So no, you get worse quality and worse performance:
http://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/07/10/asus_strix_r9_fury_dc3_video_card_review/3#.Vaf3qEGh0uU

A GTX980 is still faster than a Fury and will offer better graphics.

The setting affects the quality in that it is a setting for the quality. can you tell the difference? Probably not
 

Keysplayr

Elite Member
Jan 16, 2003
21,219
55
91
The setting affects the quality in that it is a setting for the quality. can you tell the difference? Probably not

There was a whole argument that 16X tesselation held no visual difference from 64X tesselation.

Are you now maintaining that this isn't the case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.