Why 'Watch Dogs' Is Bad News For AMD Users -- And Potentially The Entire PC Gaming Ecosystem

[andybird123]

Interesting find Andy would seem there been dodgy dealings on bothsides in the past ,, Not that i really thing anyone in there right mind wouldnt of already assumed so.
Hopefully now the issue's resolved to peoples satisfaction

This is the point a lot of us have been making, both green and red teams do all sorts of marketing efforts, working with developers is inevitably going to lead to a skew, just some of the AMD users on here like to whitenite for AMD and try to claim that everything they do is for the good of all gamers, when clearly if they are spending money on advertising they expect to get a benefit from that

They have even now openly admitted that they have no intention of bringing mantle to other vendors, but people are still banging on about it being "open"

 

[Deceptor]

Probably better reading the Forbes article which goes into more detail:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...ut-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/

For the lazy:

To put this particular argument to bed, I told Cebenoyan I wanted crystal clear clarification, asking “If AMD approached Ubisoft and said ‘We have ideas to make Watch Dogs run better on our hardware,’ then Ubisoft is free to do that?”
“Yes,” he answered. “They’re absolutely free to.”
And there’s nothing built in to GameWorks that disables AMD performance? “No, never.”

They've reached out to Ubisoft, so hopefully we'll see some official response from them too.

 

[Orangey]

The code samples disappear from the website, AMD mentions it and they miraculously resurface when the heat is turned up...

Looking forward to being proved right in a year's or so time when games keep coming out that run faster on a 770 than a 290X.

 

[Sgt_Pepper]

The code samples disappear from the website, AMD mentions it and they miraculously resurface when the heat is turned up...

Would you like some hat with that tinfoil sir

 

[Avenged7Fold]

Interested in seeing the results from the Ubisoft interview.

 

[gpuerrilla]

@ Th0nt, that is not my info I only posted it here and have do not care for Watch Dogs so will not be playing it and nothing DM posts is worth reading and I do not even see his posts.

Nobody has to buy or read about watch dogs, however this is a wd's thread . If you ignore DM's threads then you are like shaken but not stirred and have probably got upset somewhere along the line when you don't like what is presented.

The tit for tat actions of both companies don't do any of the consumers any favours except generate these types of discussions.

 

[LtMatt]

Probably better reading the Forbes article which goes into more detail:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...ut-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/

For the lazy:



They've reached out to Ubisoft, so hopefully we'll see some official response from them too.

Your move AMD. As i said, still more to come on this. Nice to see Nvidia made the D3D samples available again though.

This was AMD's take on it before the Nvidia article yesterday.

Gameworks and Mantle are different. Mantle is a new low overhead API that allows developers to optimize their game and create new experiences using AMD hardware. The code is available to all, the developers and AMD share the source - and as your pointed out, Mantle only runs on AMD hardware right now.

Gameworks is different. Gameworks libraries are precompiled blobs that the developer can't adjust, can't change, can't see how they work to tweak for their use. AMD can't optimize or fix bugs, it's all dark code, no way to know why the code doesn't run as fast on an AMD card as it does on an NVIDIA one. Is it a problem with a driver? Is it problem with how a shader is compiled? Is it code deliberately written to overflow a buffer or stall out a hardware cache?

Both companies are optimizing the experience for the users - this is expected and encouraged by consumers in their reactions of drivers, game updates, new releases. AMD's method with Mantle and the freely available technologies like TressFX - which runs just as well on NV hw as it does AMD hw - is intended to move the industry forward, give the developers the tools and access they want to make great games.

Watch Dogs performance looks like NV are going after performance wins not by optimizing to their hardware or improving their drivers, but by blocking the ability of AMD to optimize on the same codepath. As Techreport states:

"It's evident that Watch Dogs is optimized for Nvidia hardware," Evangelho writes in his story, "but it's staggering just how un-optimized it is on AMD hardware." Evangelho also links an older article by ExtremeTech. That article made a similar observation about Batman: Arkham Origins, and it similarly pinned the blame on GameWorks.

We've seen in our own testing how AMD graphics cards can underperform in some GameWorks-enabled games, including Batman: Arkham Origins and Assassin's Creed IV: Black Flag, so Evangelho likely isn't wrong there. For whatever reason, some GameWorks titles do seem to run poorly on Radeons.

http://techreport.com/news/26515/amd-lashes-out-at-nvidia-gameworks-program


Of course, I work for AMD so I am biased in this matter - but look at all the sites examining performance and their conclusions. Is it sour grapes on AMD's part? Or is it a problem as claimed by Extremetech - gamers are being blocked from the full potential of their hardware because of Gameworks? No matter which way you think, I think it's in everyone's interest that the details are discussed and the problem exposed.

Source
http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34011092

 

[andybird123]

So how do they respond to the fact, that many of us have been pointing out, that AMD and Nvidia rarely even get source code, but use game binaries as with lots of other 3rd party libraries to optimise

The sample never went anywhere, theyve been there the whole time, which Google cache confirms

This whole thread is just sad how easily people are going to let themselves be led along by the nose by amd

 

[ubersonic]

Your move AMD. As i said, still more to come on this. Nice to see Nvidia made the D3D samples available again though.

No they didn't, they just pointed out to AMD where to look (I.E their normal place).

IMO it was rather bad form of AMD to cry foul play just because they were having trouble navigating a website

 

[LtMatt]

The sample never went anywhere, theyve been there the whole time, which Google cache confirms

No they didn't, they just pointed out to AMD where to look (I.E their normal place).

IMO it was rather bad form of AMD to cry foul place just because they were having trouble navigating a website

Google cache does indeed show it there after looking, however this is hardly the crux of the matter. Lets see what happens next. Would be great if some devs would come forward and say what's what.

 

[_Alatar_]

Since it's apparently now just AMD and Nvidia saying completely different things let's throw in the opinion of Intel's Graphics Lead in here.

Straight from Andrew Lauritzen:

AMD isn't quite the white knight you make them out to be here. For instance while they seem to unofficially "say" that game devs are allowed to modify the TressFX code (although they have no license to say as much), they will not allow other IHVs to post optimized versions. Mantle is similar... to the press they say that they want it to be portable and would discuss standardizing it but have so far refused to even share specs with other IHVs let alone have a discussion. Really not that different from GW in practice, they've just managed to avoid getting press attention about it so far.

Anyways enough said really. As I noted none of this is new at all... folks who think this hasn't been the situation since day one are just fooling themselves. Pretty much all IHVs are entirely self-serving and their actions are mostly equivalent... the only thing that varies is the PR spin.

http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1850372#post1850372


Intel for example seems to have asked AMD about mantle specs for drivers but AMD has refused:

We have asked them for specs several times (which would be step one) and they have refused.

 

[LtMatt]

Since it's apparently now just AMD and Nvidia saying completely different things let's throw in the opinion of Intel's Graphics Lead in here.

Straight from Andrew Lauritzen:


http://beyond3d.com/showthread.php?p=1850372#post1850372


Intel for example seems to have asked AMD about mantle specs for drivers but AMD has refused:

Yes and reading your link it sounds like Intel applied before Mantle entered the closed Beta and have not attempted to since. Before Mantle entered closed beta they were not accepting applications from anyone apart from a few hand picked devs. Now they are accepting applications and are focusing on game developers for the purpose of rapid development of Mantle with a view to becoming open by the end of this year.

Mantle is only just getting out of the "beta" phase as the moment and we are rolling out the access on a controlled basis as we gauge the number of requests and support requirements (hence the release a few weeks ago on access for 40 dev's).

The comment was fairly clear, the efforts are focused on game developers right now. The number of people that know Mantle in detail are pretty small, limited to the architecture team that have written it and some of our ISV engineers. The architecture team are still developing it (i.e. getting the first phase out of beta, working on "whats next", ensure it is operationally feature comparable with DX/OGL [see "switchable graphics" support being just added], etc.), while the ISV teams focus is on supporting the developers that are using it.

Yep that makes sense Dave, thanks for saying it clearly. Hopefully that will reduce the confusion levels here

http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1850479&postcount=198
http://beyond3d.com/showpost.php?p=1850523&postcount=204

EDIT

Oh looks like AMD aren't the only ones finding Nvidia's samples hard to find.

Spoiler

 

[_Alatar_]

Yes and the AMD rep is apparently saying that they are focusing on game devs.

If you translate that into non PR speak it means that they're not interested in talking to intel and Nvidia at the moment, or any time soon either. Despite what the dozens of PR slides they've had have said.

AMD's PR strategy has almost always been to play the victim and do the same things everyone else does while no one is looking. Put out a fancy press event where you say one thing. And then do something completely different.

 

[Deceptor]

Big difference between some random person saying they can't find it versus AMD publicly stating it doesn't exist though

 

[LtMatt]

Yes and the AMD rep is apparently saying that they are focusing on game devs.

If you translate that into non PR speak it means that they're not interested in talking to intel and Nvidia at the moment, or any time soon either. Despite what the dozens of PR slides they've had have said.

AMD's PR strategy has almost always been to play the victim and do the same things everyone else does while no one is looking. Put out a fancy press event where you say one thing. And then do something completely different.

Yes, that's obvious. They've said that from the very start Alatar. The plan is by the end of the year to make Mantle open to ALL. That's been the objective since the very start and the slides say that. Don't make me dig them up or dig up quotes from Robert Hallock on this very forum which confirm all this.

Big difference between some random person saying they can't find it versus AMD publicly stating it doesn't exist though

Granted.

 

[triss]

Big difference between some random person saying they can't find it versus AMD publicly stating it doesn't exist though

+1 i feel sorry for what ever AMD employee that said it

 

[mmj_uk]

This is the point a lot of us have been making, both green and red teams do all sorts of marketing efforts, working with developers is inevitably going to lead to a skew, just some of the AMD users on here like to whitenite for AMD and try to claim that everything they do is for the good of all gamers, when clearly if they are spending money on advertising they expect to get a benefit from that

They have even now openly admitted that they have no intention of bringing mantle to other vendors, but people are still banging on about it being "open"

The main difference is that AMD only seem to reach out to a very small number of developers, they expect the rest to go out of their way to optimise games for AMD cards without them having to lift a finger and if that doesn't happen they blame NVidia. Then their fanboys all act like oppressed victims to the evil NVidia empire once again.

NVidia invest a lot of money towards improving their customers' experience, AMD sell cheaper cards and don't. The whole "It's NVidia's fault!" excuse for when games don't run optimally on AMD hardware is tiring, AMD fanboys should be asking more of AMD not blaming NVidia and if that means paying more for hardware then so be it, it's not NVidia's job to support AMD cards.

 

[andybird123]

Yes, that's obvious. They've said that from the very start Alatar. The plan is by the end of the year to make Mantle open to ALL. That's been the objective since the very start and the slides say that. Don't make me dig them up or dig up quotes from Robert Hallock on this very forum which confirm all this.



Granted.

AMD have since told reporters that because of DX12 coming they are no longer interested in making mantle available to other vendors

 

[LtMatt]

AMD have since told reporters that because of DX12 coming they are no longer interested in making mantle available to other vendors

There's a lot of speculation in this thread, so let me clear the air by stating the cold, hard facts:

1. Mantle is not specifically tied to Graphics Core Next, though it's obviously optimized in this direction.

2. Mantle has a meaningful, though thin, layer of abstraction that would permit it to be compatible with any modern, programmable (e.g. DX11-11.2) graphics architecture.

4. While Mantle is currently in closed beta for the purposes of rapid development, our intention to release a public SDK by the end of the year would open Mantle to the same extent as any other graphics API. Further adoption beyond that point would be limited only by a hardware vendor's willingness to do so. This would also permit a software vendor to optimize a Mantle render backend for other microarchitectures.

We fully support, and intend to pursue, any action that would broaden the adoption of Mantle and its philosophy of low-overhead game development. It is clear from the comments by Oxide, Firaxis, EA and other developers this is a worthwhile pursuit with clear and positive ramifications for the overall simplicity and robustness of game development.

The facts.

//edit: Added on sentence of clarification in the first paragraph of point #4.

I don't see how this can be construed as "magic," as this is precisely how an API works. Every API hides a certain level of core hardware functionality behind libraries/functions that greatly simplify the ability to leverage hardware features, but this comes at the expense of not always knowing what route the hardware is taking to achieve your result because the API is hiding it from you.

Mantle eliminates a substantial amount of the abstraction, for example giving developers direct control of their own work queues, memory management, texture loading, batching, threading, etc. Eliminating this abstraction does not magically tie an API to one specific architecture. It just exposes the hardware for what it is.

Mantle was designed to be compatible with modern programmable graphics pipelines. Period.

This is a common and unfortunate misunderstanding. The API is only a layer that exists between the engine and the hardware, or the driver and the hardware. Releasing a public SDK for the API (which we intend to do this year) would permit any software developer of any sort to create a software package the incorporates and utilizes Mantle's functionality.

Once you have the API in your hands via a robust SDK, software optimization is limited only by skill and the boundaries of the hardware you're targeting. For example, DirectX is a vendor-neutral API with a public SDK, but through careful optimization it can be tuned to produce wildly different performance profiles depending on the hardware vendor.

Mantle too will become an API with a public SDK. That means anyone could use it to get the software overhead out of the way, either in an engine or a graphics driver. It is only a matter of willingness.

//EDIT: To be abundantly clear, a graphics API exists to facilitate communication between the game/driver/hardware triangle. Mantle greatly emphasizes the engine/hardware line, and greatly diminishes the size of the driver line, but the graphics driver must still support the API and know how to respond to those API calls!

Mantle as a general rule enables more performance than competing APIs, but requires extra effort from developers who crave the explicit hardware control that helps squeeze out that extra performance. Mantle takes the blinders off.

But that does not mean one slice of Mantle code would run equivalently on two wildly different architectures. Just like any other API, some degree of specialization in the code would be required to target a non-GCN architecture, but this is a trivial and expected outcome for anyone familiar with graphics API development.

Source Posted a few days ago on this very forum
http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showthread.php?t=18600973&page=4

 

[andybird123]

and SDK is a software developers kit, a kit for SOFTWARE developers to develop games, this is not what a HARDWARE manufacturer would need to write drivers for it

no where in your quotes does thracks say that it will be opened up to intel and nvidia for them to implement it on their hardware