Gameworks, Mantle and a pot calling a kettle black

[Ayahuasca]

People seem to forget the number one reason nvidia and AMD make these technologies is to try and pull in sales, look at the marketing AMD did for BF4 WITH MANTLE, or nvidia's physx logo slapped all over games like Borderlands 2. They aren't created to advance the industry at all, in fact all it seems to do is hinder it as they're too busy trying to get one up on each other instead of just focusing on making their cards good for all games. Unfortunately that's never going to happen so we'll just have to put up with the red vs green stuff for as long as it's only these 2 competing or a fair industry standard is put in place that doesn't benefit one over the other unless their card is actually better.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Haha, yeah you're probably right.. The fanboy stuff is what ruins PC gaming imho. It's just so laaame. Who cares what brand it is. I like the hardware from both camps, happily use all of it. All this fanboy cringe stuff makes me ashamed to be into PC stuff

Personally I think AMD and Nvidia should try and work together more. Intel is going to cause more and more problems,as they are now focusing on GPU tech,and they are attacking from the low end and mobile first. They are even trying to displace Nvidia compute cards with MIC.

We are already seeing less and less discrete cards being sold,as the lower end is starting to be eaten away.

ATM,Intel actually pays Nvidia each year(something like $200 milion or thereabouts) as part of a settlement(due to Intel screwing them over with chipsets IIRC) until 2016.

By then Intel could actually be a serious threat. Sure,AMD and Nvidia will have the performance cards,but most gamers are not on them,and Intel can probably outspend the other two in optimising games for their GPUs too.

 

[LtMatt]

I think you have posted in the wrong thread and should have posted that in the GameWorks (any of them) threads. This is about how both AMD and nVidia are out to get an advantage and both swinging handbags at dawn whilst neither is a saint.

I agree with the guy and reiterates things I have said in the many GameWorks threads.

This is a GameWorks thread and you quoted me. I'm just responding.

Oh, has this been proved now?

Aside from the Batman results with FXAA running, the quote from Epic is pretty revealing and they're Nvidia's partner.

The various developers we interviewed indicated that source code access for middleware was extremely important if not mandatory. Middleware, it turns out, is often buggy or requires significant additional changes to perform as desired. Without access to the underlying code, developers are stuck either trying to convince the middleware owner to fix it or hacking out workarounds in their own implementation.

GameWorks may not set out to deliberately harm AMD performance. The problem is it does though likely for the reason that Epic and other devs revealed above.

 

[ubersonic]

Strange that they didn't mention Cebenoyan's comments on AMD contractually requiring developers buddied up with them on a couple of games to deny Nvidia even basic access to the games until a couple of weeks before release. Would like to see somebody look into that even if it is proven he lied.

 

[Gregster]

This is a GameWorks thread and you quoted me. I'm just responding.

Yer fair point. Can you answer GoogalyMoogaly please, as I no longer have a clue.

 

[Confused Stu]

Oh, good. Another thread started purely to stir up the arguments between the usual half dozen fanboys that bicker in each one of these threads. Just what the Graphics Card sub-forum needs.

I'm out.

 

[Gregster]

Oh, good. Another thread started purely to stir up the arguments between the usual half dozen fanboys that bicker in each one of these threads. Just what the Graphics Card sub-forum needs.

I'm out.

Lol Wut? I started the thread because the article was a good read and shows how the GPU industry is as bad as each other and each want to get the edge on the competitor. I had no intention of making it a fanboy thread and this kind of comment isn't needed to be fair.

 

[Ayahuasca]

Oh, good. Another thread started purely to stir up the arguments between the usual half dozen fanboys that bicker in each one of these threads. Just what the Graphics Card sub-forum needs.

I'm out.

Why were you ever IN if that's all you can offer, posts like that are arguably worse than some light arguing, this thread isn't even that fanboy tbh.

 

[whyscotty]

Aside from the Batman results with FXAA running, the quote from Epic is pretty revealing and they're Nvidia's partner.

So it's not been proven

 

[LtMatt]

So it's not been proven

I don't think it ever will. However i think we can safely say it does, or perhaps i should say has harmed amd performance. Not deliberately but for the reasons i listed above and that's straight from people using GameWorks. I think that's about as fair an outcome as we'll get for now. I'm sure this is not the last we'll hear of this though lol. (just what everyone wanted to hear im sure lol)

 

[Gregster]

I honestly don't feel nVidia has ever purposefully hampered AMD performance and the same for AMD hurting nVidia performance but early doors see's teething problems.

GameWorks is all new and hence why AMD might be having some issues. Take Mantle on AMD for example, they had/have? teething problems with it and people are reporting issues still. I feel once AMD get their head around the source, they will be fine and AMD have full entitlement to see the libraries (except PhysX and TXAA).

GameWorks is nVidia's enticement to come to nVidia
Mantle is AMD's enticement to come to AMD

Neither have been proven to do underhand tactics and speculation is purely that.

 

[drunkenmaster]

Strange that they didn't mention Cebenoyan's comments on AMD contractually requiring developers buddied up with them on a couple of games to deny Nvidia even basic access to the games until a couple of weeks before release. Would like to see somebody look into that even if it is proven he lied.

AMD and Nvidia have done this for ages, and Nvidia started it.

But there is a monumental difference between not letting Nvidia be involved throughout the development, and AMD providing black box code that Nvidia gpu's HAVE to run, and not letting anyone see the source code.

The former isn't great, but it's the reality of investing in games from AMD/Nvidia. The latter is terrible for the industry, AMD don't do it, Nvidia do.

No one mentions whoever the heck that is comments because it's been standard in the industry for a long time, and after years apparently people want to hit AMD with it as if Nvidia don't do it. Funnily enough in the very thread that was brought up recently I had already posted earlier to say AMD and Nvidia do precisely that, then someone posted these quotes like it was some new secret that had been uncovered, it's not.

Nvidia's "oh, we let them see source code.... if they get the more expensive license.... and we absolutely won't tell you how much that costs"... is a laughable excuse around this.

They may have for the sake of argument and winning little forum threads, made it possible to review the source code, but their statement remains true if the non source code license costs 500k, and the full source code licence costs $50million, it's "available", but would effectively be unused, thereby effectively locking everyone out of that option.

People are also trying to go with the "but Watch dogs isn't slower on AMD hardware with HBAO+ enabled", no it's just slow in general on AMD hardware above and beyond what anyone would expect.

It was a genuine question at first, is it gameworks that made Watch Dogs slow, most people are leaning towards it being more a case of the game being slow on AMD rather than specific game works features. But that argument doesn't change that other games like Batman were/are significantly slower on AMD hardware. One game not proving to be slower with gameworks does not in any way lead to the conclusion it isn't true for other games.

It was that Batman was and is slow on AMD hardware that made people jump to the conclusion that gameworks was the reason for Watch Dogs being slow, the latter not being true doesn't equate to the former not being true at all.

Gameworks sucks for the industry, full stop, basically everyone(but Nvidia, and SOME of those they pay) says so.

 

[Gregster]

Only managed a couple of lines DM but where are you getting the "Black Box code" from? AMD can see the libraries and nobody is stopped from seeing it.

 

[LtMatt]

Only managed a couple of lines DM but where are you getting the "Black Box code" from? AMD can see the libraries and nobody is stopped from seeing it.

I'll let DM handle this one.

 

[whyscotty]

I don't think it ever will. However i think we can safely say it does, or perhaps i should say has harmed amd performance. Not deliberately but for the reasons i listed above and that's straight from people using GameWorks. I think that's about as fair an outcome as we'll get for now. I'm sure this is not the last we'll hear of this though lol. (just what everyone wanted to hear im sure lol)

No doubt it will keep getting brought up.

Some people just love to throw unfounded allegations around with the proof the substantiate it

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Aside from the Batman results with FXAA running, the quote from Epic is pretty revealing and they're Nvidia's partner.

From the sounds of Nvidias quotes they don't get source code either a lot of the time. They say you don't need it. Maybe they're just more talented than their AMD counterparts who can't figure things out and need to have it all explained?

AMD and Nvidia have done this for ages, and Nvidia started it.

But there is a monumental difference between not letting Nvidia be involved throughout the development, and AMD providing black box code that Nvidia gpu's HAVE to run, and not letting anyone see the source code.

The former isn't great, but it's the reality of investing in games from AMD/Nvidia. The latter is terrible for the industry, AMD don't do it, Nvidia do.

No one mentions whoever the heck that is comments because it's been standard in the industry for a long time, and after years apparently people want to hit AMD with it as if Nvidia don't do it. Funnily enough in the very thread that was brought up recently I had already posted earlier to say AMD and Nvidia do precisely that, then someone posted these quotes like it was some new secret that had been uncovered, it's not.

Nvidia's "oh, we let them see source code.... if they get the more expensive license.... and we absolutely won't tell you how much that costs"... is a laughable excuse around this.

They may have for the sake of argument and winning little forum threads, made it possible to review the source code, but their statement remains true if the non source code license costs 500k, and the full source code licence costs $50million, it's "available", but would effectively be unused, thereby effectively locking everyone out of that option.

People are also trying to go with the "but Watch dogs isn't slower on AMD hardware with HBAO+ enabled", no it's just slow in general on AMD hardware above and beyond what anyone would expect.

It was a genuine question at first, is it gameworks that made Watch Dogs slow, most people are leaning towards it being more a case of the game being slow on AMD rather than specific game works features. But that argument doesn't change that other games like Batman were/are significantly slower on AMD hardware. One game not proving to be slower with gameworks does not in any way lead to the conclusion it isn't true for other games.

It was that Batman was and is slow on AMD hardware that made people jump to the conclusion that gameworks was the reason for Watch Dogs being slow, the latter not being true doesn't equate to the former not being true at all.

Gameworks sucks for the industry, full stop, basically everyone(but Nvidia, and SOME of those they pay) says so.

This seems like more speculation that started the whole thing. It could be a lot more expensive, it could be very slightly more expensive.
Do all developers get the source code for Mantle?

Unless GameWork effects can't be turned off AND there is proof that they run worse on AMD cards for reasons other than AMD not knowing (or bothering (because then they get the AMD army to accuse Nvidia of stuff) how to optimise, then I don't see the problem.

 

[LtMatt]

No doubt it will keep getting brought up.

Some people just love to throw unfounded allegations around with the proof the substantiate it

Yep and no doubt ive done that a bit as well. However given their past track record its hard not to sometimes. Anyway at least we have some degree of closure, for now anyway.

From the sounds of Nvidias quotes they don't get source code either a lot of the time. They say you don't need it. Maybe they're just more talented than their AMD counterparts who can't figure things out and need to have it all explained?

Lol. Did you manage to keep a straight face while typing that? The answer my friend is in the excellent article Joel did. It really is a gold mine. I'll post the quotes. The developers who work with both sides explain what happens.

Do AMD and Nvidia need access to developer source code?

AMD: Being able to see and share source code access is very important to our driver optimization process.

Nvidia: Having source code is useful, but it’s just one tool in our toolbox. There are many, many things we can do to improve performance without touching it.

Developers say: They’re both telling the truth.

The first thing to understand about IHV – developer relations is that the process of game optimization is nuanced and complex. The reason AMD and Nvidia are taking different positions on this topic isn’t because one of them is lying, it’s because AMD genuinely tends to focus more on helping developers optimize their own engines, while Nvidia puts more effort into performing tasks in-driver. This is a difference of degree — AMD absolutely can perform its own driver-side optimization and Nvidia’s Tony Tamasi acknowledged on the phone that there are some bugs that can only be fixed by looking at the source.

AMD never get to look at the source.

 

[LambChop]

AMD guilty of anything ??? I don't believe that for one minute.

 

[Gregster]

Just for you Matt and I am not defending nVidia (nor lambasting them).

AMD, Driver Optimization, And GameWorks Agreements
One of the more damning statements made by AMD was this:

“Participation in the Gameworks program often precludes the developer from accepting AMD suggestions that would improve performance directly in the game code—the most desirable form of optimization.”

Nvidia’s Cebenoyan responded directly to this during our conversation: “I’ve heard that before from AMD and it’s a little mysterious to me. We don’t and we never have restricted anyone from getting access as part of our agreements. Not with Watch Dogs and not with any other titles. Our agreements focus on interesting things we’re going to do together to improve the experience for all PC gamers and of course for Nvidia customers. We don’t have anything in there restricting anyone from accessing source code or binaries. Developers are free to give builds out to whoever they want. It’s their product.”

So they have not restricted anyone from getting performance into the game code.

Seeking some clarification, I asked if perhaps AMD’s concern was that they’re not allowed to see the game’s source code. Cebenoyan says that a game’s source code isn’t necessary to perform driver optimization. “Thousands of games get released, but we don’t need to look at that source code,” he says. “Most developers don’t give you the source code. You don’t need source code of the game itself to do optimization for those games. AMD’s been saying for awhile that without access to the source code it’s impossible to optimize. That’s crazy.”

As for the Nvidia-specific source code: “The way that it works is we provide separate levels of licensing,” Cebenoyan explains. “We offer game developers source licensing, and it varies whether or not game developers are interested in that. Now, like any other middleware on earth, if you grant someone a source license, you grant it to them. We don’t preclude them from changing anything and making it run better on AMD.”

Watch Dogs is an Nvidia GameWorks title
Nvidia says that AMD was free to approach Ubisoft at any time to suggest tweaks and improvements to the game for their hardware.

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.”

Perhaps more fascinating was Nvidia’s response when I flipped the situation around. What about AMD-partnered titles like Battlefield 4 and Tomb Raider? How much lead time did Nvidia receive — and how much would they need — to optimize Nvidia GPUs for those games? While I didn’t receive a direct answer, what I got was Nvidia returning fire.

“It varies. There have been times it’s been more challenging because of what we suspect stems from deals with the competition,” Cebenoyan says. “It doesn’t happen often. But when it does there’s a fair amount of scrambling on our part. I can tell you that the deals that we do, and the GameWorks agreements, don’t have anything to do with restricting anyone’s access to builds.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonev...ut-gameworks-amd-optimization-and-watch-dogs/

So nothing restricting AMD from optimising for their users.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Yep and no doubt ive done that a bit as well. However given their past track record its hard not to sometimes. Anyway at least we have some degree of closure, for now anyway.



Lol. Did you manage to keep a straight face while typing that? The answer my friend is in the excellent article Joel did. It really is a gold mine. I'll post the quotes. The developers who work with both sides explain what happens.



AMD never get to look at the source.

Never? So how do they know it's so important if they never do it?
Also, there's an Nvidia quite earlier where they say that AMD can look at the source code (maybe not to GameWorks, but that's fair enough isn't it? I doubt Nvidia get to see Mantle source code). So maybe it's a case that AMD never bother to look at source code and just moan instead?

To me it seems normal that you don't get source code for API/Middleware/Libraries/Frameworks as a developer. If there's a bug in it then you tell it to the peopel that made it so they can fix it. If you don't like the library, then you don't use it and you do all its functionality (or what you need) yourself.
If you're being paid to use it then you need an agreement that states that if you have issues using it you will get a certain level of support for it.