-
Competitor rules
Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
Why 'Watch Dogs' Is Bad News For AMD Users -- And Potentially The Entire PC Gaming Ecosystem
- Thread starter LtMatt
- Start date
- Status
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 33,188
There isn't anything inherently wrong with guarding code for use on your GPU's. The "wrong" part of it comes when you're paying dev's to force the alternative cards to use that same code while also making a contractual arrangement that PREVENTS the game maker from implementing an alternative code or method for AMD. AMD can write an entire top to bottom replacement for gameworks that works great on AMD cards but the game dev's, due to the contract they signed with Nvidia, couldn't legally use it for AMD cards.
The game dev agreeing to this over money is also very wrong, but Nvidia stipulating that effectively AMD must use their closed box code. Again I'd point out, unoptimised except for previous gameworks games AMD has optimised for... yet those optimisations are apparently useless for all but the same code... .for Nvidia.
It's like Physx, or Mantle, or DX, you don't change an API drastically from one game to another. 14.4 has a Watch Dogs profile already, yet the previous gameworks optimisations did nothing. AMD have to time and time again work out what kind of BS extra code baggage they've added in to sabotage them and to try and minimise it.
There is one reason to pay a company to use your code, and refuse to let them implement alternative paths for AMD, I would bet a huge sum of cash on the fact that Nvidia has within gameworks an optimised and slow as **** version which runs when an AMD card is detected, and that they change this game to game to make it hard for AMD to optimise for. We saw this with Physx, they ran an uber optimised and compiled with every performance flag possible version for their gpu, and the CPU version was compiled to use something like 95% x87 instructions. Simply compiling and coding effectively for X86-64 bit instructions, or not completely obsolete instructions, would have sped Physx up on the CPU in the region of 5-10x as fast. This is the kind of crap Nvidia has pulled for a very long time.
Ubisoft should have told Nvidia where to shove the contract when they insist on supplying their own code for AMD to run... it's a shockingly bad path to go down. Thankfully, as yet, not many companies are stupid/desperate enough to sign up to such an agreement.
I would also once again point out to you that previous NON gameworks games, in which they are sponsored by Nvidia, meaning in general AMD don't get a chance to optimise till or after launch, don't show the same performance difference as gameworks games do.
This is categorically Nvidia's gameworks to blame and not simply not an optimised driver for the game.
Should also point out that it's another gameworks game with crap performance(considering the graphics and hardware), why is Nvidia spending huge money on getting Nvidia sponsored games... they aren't using Nvidia hardware on the consoles are they, so surely they should be paying and helping make a great PC version... yet we get this steaming pile of ****(in terms of performance), as Batman was woeful performance wise for a game in which most of the world was drab and basic as hell.
The game dev agreeing to this over money is also very wrong, but Nvidia stipulating that effectively AMD must use their closed box code. Again I'd point out, unoptimised except for previous gameworks games AMD has optimised for... yet those optimisations are apparently useless for all but the same code... .for Nvidia.
It's like Physx, or Mantle, or DX, you don't change an API drastically from one game to another. 14.4 has a Watch Dogs profile already, yet the previous gameworks optimisations did nothing. AMD have to time and time again work out what kind of BS extra code baggage they've added in to sabotage them and to try and minimise it.
There is one reason to pay a company to use your code, and refuse to let them implement alternative paths for AMD, I would bet a huge sum of cash on the fact that Nvidia has within gameworks an optimised and slow as **** version which runs when an AMD card is detected, and that they change this game to game to make it hard for AMD to optimise for. We saw this with Physx, they ran an uber optimised and compiled with every performance flag possible version for their gpu, and the CPU version was compiled to use something like 95% x87 instructions. Simply compiling and coding effectively for X86-64 bit instructions, or not completely obsolete instructions, would have sped Physx up on the CPU in the region of 5-10x as fast. This is the kind of crap Nvidia has pulled for a very long time.
Ubisoft should have told Nvidia where to shove the contract when they insist on supplying their own code for AMD to run... it's a shockingly bad path to go down. Thankfully, as yet, not many companies are stupid/desperate enough to sign up to such an agreement.
I would also once again point out to you that previous NON gameworks games, in which they are sponsored by Nvidia, meaning in general AMD don't get a chance to optimise till or after launch, don't show the same performance difference as gameworks games do.
This is categorically Nvidia's gameworks to blame and not simply not an optimised driver for the game.
Should also point out that it's another gameworks game with crap performance(considering the graphics and hardware), why is Nvidia spending huge money on getting Nvidia sponsored games... they aren't using Nvidia hardware on the consoles are they, so surely they should be paying and helping make a great PC version... yet we get this steaming pile of ****(in terms of performance), as Batman was woeful performance wise for a game in which most of the world was drab and basic as hell.
Last edited:
Product optimisation lockout is what this is, its forced Dependence on a rival Company to optimise for you.
Its like; a game is made in a way using Nvidia software that locks out AMD from optimising the performance on their GPU's, and having to depend on Nvidia do do that optimisation for them. No wait, that is exactly what it is.
Of course they will use it to gimp AMD as much as they can, they are rivals and that is the reason for Gameworks.
So who gets screwed by Ubisoft, anyone not using Nvidia.
But its ok, there is inherently wrong with that. And i'm an idiot.
Its like; a game is made in a way using Nvidia software that locks out AMD from optimising the performance on their GPU's, and having to depend on Nvidia do do that optimisation for them. No wait, that is exactly what it is.
Of course they will use it to gimp AMD as much as they can, they are rivals and that is the reason for Gameworks.
So who gets screwed by Ubisoft, anyone not using Nvidia.
But its ok, there is inherently wrong with that. And i'm an idiot.
First up no one FORCES a dev to use gameworks its there choice
Doesnt mean i agree with it thats simply how it is
Decepters point i think,, is that due to better optimization for w/e reason the 770 is punching above )eg its doing what a unoptimized 780 for EG would do) what it should actually be at through said optimization not that the amd cards are being dragged down
Once again not stating my if its right or wrong just trying hopefuly to explain what he means
Doesnt mean i agree with it thats simply how it is
Decepters point i think,, is that due to better optimization for w/e reason the 770 is punching above )eg its doing what a unoptimized 780 for EG would do) what it should actually be at through said optimization not that the amd cards are being dragged down
Once again not stating my if its right or wrong just trying hopefuly to explain what he means
You think? and yet you have no idea what the performance on AMD's GPU's would be if they weren't locked out of optimising.
And i guess to you its just coincidence that only in Games where AMD are locked out they have a 40% performance deficit.
Nvidia would never lock AMD and the developer out as to give themselves an artificial advantage.
Blind Faith, i'm also an atheist.
Pretty much, they're not dragging AMD down (directly at least anyway), they're just lifting their cards up with their own optimisations (kinda the point of gameworks to begin with...). People see nvidia performing well on a gameworks title and they instantly see sabotage, rather than the more obvious fact - it's optimised for nvidia.
With regards to previous nvidia titles and gameworks and the performance difference there, that's two different fish. Typically AMD/Nvidia would work with the developer to help them optimise the game sure, but gameworks is a full on library designed to run as best as possible and means there's less BS from the developer that could reduce any impact of optimisations made/suggested.
Lastly, AMD are not stupid. You think they don't test GW games with nvidia cards to see the calls being made from the API to the gfx driver? It would be immediately obvious if nvidia were intentionally slowing it down artificially and we'd be seeing a different news story entirely.
You think? and yet you have no idea what the performance on AMD's GPU's would be if they weren't locked out of optimising.
And i guess to you its just coincidence that only in Games where AMD are locked out they have a 40% performance deficit.
Nvidia would never lock AMD and the developer out as to give themselves an artificial advantage.
Blind Faith, i'm also an atheist.
Did you read the bit where i stated i'm trying to explain someones else point??
Dev's are only as you put it "locked out" if they choose to be they dont have to make it a gameworks title , The fact they choose to be means they arent worried about it
But i'll bite I have as much of a idea in reality of how much AMD could infact optimize for it as you do which is no True idea,, well unless you have seen the code for this game and are writing AMD driver optimzations now?? if you yes i'll listen to the % increases you can tell me about
You haven't read the article have you? ^^^
And i guess you do believe that its just coincidence that only in Games where AMD are locked out they have a 40% performance deficit.
You may remember Intel lost an Anti trust law suit that AMD brought, Intel did exactly the same thing, the only difference is Intel did not let it known what they were doing.
So you know what Intel did, they simply added "Works best on Intel CPU's" to their compiler marketing.
See here we have to trust Nvidia to optimise AMD GPU's, even if Nvidia could do that i think its extremely naive to believe they would.
it has no bearing on Nvidia at all if they let the developer optimise for AMD GPU's. (other than the performance being right on those GPU's) the only reason they would lock the developer out is because they don't want AMD GPU's to run as well as they can.
Why i think Nvidia do this;
Nvidia can't beat AMD on Performance, they are unwilling to compete on price for performance, they want to charge way over the odds for their GPU's, and often already do. whats getting in the way is AMD's price for performance.
So their answer is this, Gimp AMD where they can so they can justify those high prices, and perhaps higher yet if more start using this Gameworks.
At the end of the day AMD users end up with bad performance in these game, and Nvidia users get fleeced.
There is no winner here, other than Nvidia's shareholders.
And i guess you do believe that its just coincidence that only in Games where AMD are locked out they have a 40% performance deficit.
You may remember Intel lost an Anti trust law suit that AMD brought, Intel did exactly the same thing, the only difference is Intel did not let it known what they were doing.
So you know what Intel did, they simply added "Works best on Intel CPU's" to their compiler marketing.
See here we have to trust Nvidia to optimise AMD GPU's, even if Nvidia could do that i think its extremely naive to believe they would.
it has no bearing on Nvidia at all if they let the developer optimise for AMD GPU's. (other than the performance being right on those GPU's) the only reason they would lock the developer out is because they don't want AMD GPU's to run as well as they can.
Why i think Nvidia do this;
Nvidia can't beat AMD on Performance, they are unwilling to compete on price for performance, they want to charge way over the odds for their GPU's, and often already do. whats getting in the way is AMD's price for performance.
So their answer is this, Gimp AMD where they can so they can justify those high prices, and perhaps higher yet if more start using this Gameworks.
At the end of the day AMD users end up with bad performance in these game, and Nvidia users get fleeced.
There is no winner here, other than Nvidia's shareholders.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Aug 2012
- Posts
- 2,657
Iv'e got AMD/Nvidia in the same rig and PhysX is disabled by Nvidia, something that company will fail to divulge when they sell you that PC, if you skip the youtube vid to 1,47 you'll notice PhysX isn't available to the user.
Since the Physx block is apparently at the driver level, ie if the nvidia drivers sense AMD drivers they put the blocks up, could you in theory have a dual-boot system with 1 installation for nvidia and 1 installation for AMD?
Obviously I don't know how Windows would deal with the AMD hardware on your nvidia installation as I'm sure it would continually try to automatically install drivers from its own library.
Something I have always wondered given the fragmented way the pc gaming industry is.
I know in the past that there was a hybrid version of physx, but I don't believe the guy who worked on this supports it any longer.
Interesting idea and i dont see why you couldn't just not install windows drivers for w/e card,, but i dont know if nvidia would still see the card somehow and block it?
To all those saying "devs aren't FORCED to use Gameworks", here is likely what is happening:
Nvidia pay the publisher (Ubisoft) $$$ to offset their costs. Of course they jump at this. Then all of a sudden the heads of the actual dev studio gets called into a meeting telling them they are making a Gameworks game.
The Way It's Meant To Be Paid™
Nvidia pay the publisher (Ubisoft) $$$ to offset their costs. Of course they jump at this. Then all of a sudden the heads of the actual dev studio gets called into a meeting telling them they are making a Gameworks game.
The Way It's Meant To Be Paid™
It does...with reduced settings. Unless running 6gb cards on green you won't be maxing this game out, not even nearly.
780 3gb sli @ 1080, either use medium textures with aa or high/ultra textures with no aa. Otherwise say hello to the vram wall and single digit frame rates. The fact the same vram usage appears at 1440p is enough to tell me this is all down to the game engine being poo rather then the game being demanding. With any other game vram usage would scale with resolution.
I like advancements in games. But I cannot tell whether this need for more VRAM is because it's a sexy game that can be made to look awesome... or bad/lazy coding. I have sold my 290s now and have purchased Green... just because I needed less heat... I checked uPlay this morning and my game is there, so will be redeeming it and testing tomoz
It's nothing like that. Mantle is an API and an alternative to DirectX, no one is forced to use Mantle, unlike gameworks. Even if they were forced to use Mantle, it's open source so optimisations could be made, unlike gameworks.
AMD only?
Not the same effect at all.
The Mantle API does not the effect the DX11 API or game optimization for any brand running DX11 API.
Where as Gameworks does effect the DX11 API and tries to prevent game optimization for any brand running the DX11 API other than Nvidia cards.
Last edited:
- Status