A lot of GameWorks stuff is ported to DirectCompute instead of running on CUDA like the original version hence Flex, etc. rather than the original PhysX based versions of the functionality rather than forcing people to use CPU on hardware that doesn't support CUDA.
-
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.
PCGH asks Nvidia on Gameworks
- Thread starter _Alatar_
- Start date
A lot of GameWorks stuff is ported to DirectCompute instead of running on CUDA like the original version hence Flex, etc. rather than the original PhysX based versions of the functionality rather than forcing people to use CPU on hardware that doesn't support CUDA.
Could you elaborate on this please? are you trying to say that Mantle gives superior quality results than DirectX?
Yes of course hence why when you turn off the Gameworks features in Watchdogs both AMD and Nvidia have a similar performance drop off.
Its been a long day.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,520
I think both AMD and Nvidia work with game developers to optimise a game for their own hardware, I think that by definition this means that some games will work better on one vendor than the other
I don't think the gameworks libraries themselves are an attempt by nvidia in their own right to sabotage AMD's performance in games that use them - lots of games use third party libraries and not having the source code for them shouldn't make a single jot of difference to a competent driver team
I think the purpose of the gameworks libraries is to give game devs a quick option to enable additional eye candy -
I think that testing shows that effect X gives the same performance difference on/off, so I don't think a particular gameworks feature in itself is causing AMD any problems and their claims otherwise are pretty childish
both AMD and Nvidia have programs (TWIMTPB and Gaming Evolved) that involve them working with devs on core game code, unrelated to TressFX / Gameworks / Mantle... and that is where the real problem lies, in core game code, not in the add-ins that would be really easy to spot "foul play"
I think game devs that shove buggy pieces of crap out of the door should be boycotted, whipped, humiliated and generally strung up, but I don't go blaming the hardware vendor who sponsored them
I agree with most of what you said, there is something amiss somewhere(NOT a blanket GW statement), be it GW's implementation, overuse of tessellation, or something else, the wall of silence each time a dev is questioned publicly there is nothing but silence-alarm bell time with good cause.
Nvidia should be commended on not locking down these effects, but there should not be any attempt to stop competitors seeing what has to run on their tech, no matter innocent or guilty.
Optimise away but there is no need whatever the vendor stopping the other from optimising or and using harmful effects that detriment their own customers hardware never mind your competitors.
Nice to have a decent discussion btw, thanks very much.
@bru,
Easiest way to put it is 670 v 7950 except even though the 670 fps counter is higher, the 7950 is outputting the equivalent experience of a 780-just an example.
Nvidia should be commended on not locking down these effects, but there should not be any attempt to stop competitors seeing what has to run on their tech, no matter innocent or guilty.
Optimise away but there is no need whatever the vendor stopping the other from optimising or and using harmful effects that detriment their own customers hardware never mind your competitors.
Nice to have a decent discussion btw, thanks very much.
@bru,
Easiest way to put it is 670 v 7950 except even though the 670 fps counter is higher, the 7950 is outputting the equivalent experience of a 780-just an example.
Soldato
- Joined
- 30 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 11,520
I agree they shouldn't do it, but they both do and that is just a fact of life
Soldato
- Joined
- 1 Apr 2010
- Posts
- 3,034
Soldato
- Joined
- 29 Aug 2010
- Posts
- 8,551
- Location
- Cornwall
I agree with most of what you said, there is something amiss somewhere(NOT a blanket GW statement), be it GW's implementation, overuse of tessellation, or something else, the wall of silence each time a dev is questioned publicly there is nothing but silence-alarm bell time with good cause.
Nvidia should be commended on not locking down these effects, but there should not be any attempt to stop competitors seeing what has to run on their tech, no matter innocent or guilty.
Optimise away but there is no need whatever the vendor stopping the other from optimising or and using harmful effects that detriment their own customers hardware never mind your competitors.
Nice to have a decent discussion btw, thanks very much.
@bru,
Easiest way to put it is 670 v 7950 except even though the 670 fps counter is higher, the 7950 is outputting the equivalent experience of a 780-just an example.
I don't see a problem with not letting AMD see GameWorks source code (Open Source is nice, but far from the only way to do software), there shouldn't be anything in place to stop the other vendor optimising for the game or (if the devs are ok with it) both vendors seeing the game source (again there may be reasons the devs don't want the vendors to see ALL the source, industry secrets they don't want being passed on, etc.).
Developers not commenting on this stuff does mean they're hiding anything, they might just be refusing to join in with the silly bickering that we've done in so many threads. In the same way that not showing source code doesn't mean it's doing anything wrong. Mantle isn't open source (at the minute at least) but that doesn't mean it's doing anything dodgy to affect Nvidia or DX.
On a slightly unrelated note, I wonder if things like TressFX and GameWorks will be re-written for DX12?
I'm not aware that AMD have re-written TressFX for Mantle, so maybe DX12 won't need or even be able to use these sort of libraries in their current form.
Nvidia's Cem Cebenoyan:
Nvidia's Andrew Burnes:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...14-14-beta-drivers-released#comment-820105287
TR Patch 722.3 Notes:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=135435
That's how things should be done.
At the end of the day, regardless whether there is/isn't any wrong doing, if accusations like these cause a stink and publishers make a stance and say no to any of these practices, it can only be of benefit to gamers.
Nvidia's Andrew Burnes:
http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...14-14-beta-drivers-released#comment-820105287
TR Patch 722.3 Notes:
http://forums.eidosgames.com/showthread.php?t=135435
That's how things should be done.
At the end of the day, regardless whether there is/isn't any wrong doing, if accusations like these cause a stink and publishers make a stance and say no to any of these practices, it can only be of benefit to gamers.
Last edited:
Its a good job TR's TressFX isn't full of dll's or Crystal Dynamics would never have got it to work well on Nvidia.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,879
- Location
- Surrey
Its a good job TR's TressFX isn't full of dll's or Crystal Dynamics would never have got it to work well on Nvidia.
The difference between Gaming Evolved and GameWorks. One allows source code viewing, optimisation and working with the developer to modify and optimise source code to fix bugs. The other does not. Go back to the ExtremeTech article and remind yourself what game devs, including Epic say regarding being able to see and optimise source code for middleware.
Remember, GameWorks has contract clauses that forbids AMD from seeing that source code and that the developer cannot show AMD the source code, or work with them to improve it on AMD hardware. Nvidia admit to this in the OP. Therein lays the problem that AMD have faced with every single GameWorks title to date.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,879
- Location
- Surrey
Mantle isn't open source either. You're taking a snippet without fully understanding the context but I can see why as it's deliberately taken out of context.
There is plenty of 'middleware' that isn't open source. It is nothing new, stop looking for a smoking gun as you won't find one.
The real criminals are people like Ubisoft who release a severely broken game to the public even after being given money from the GW programme. What doesn't require a following, is a AMD/Nvidia marketing war
There is plenty of 'middleware' that isn't open source. It is nothing new, stop looking for a smoking gun as you won't find one.
The real criminals are people like Ubisoft who release a severely broken game to the public even after being given money from the GW programme. What doesn't require a following, is a AMD/Nvidia marketing war
Last edited:
Mantle currently doesn't run on Nvidia hardware. If it did, it could be comparable to some degree.
I'm taking a snippet because it explains the problems AMD have with GameWorks titles and that quote came from game developers rather than from AMD/Nvidia PR.
Can you name any other middleware that results in crossfire not working, or working poorly? High end AMD cards losing out to mid range Nvidia cards under certain settings/games? Code that runs up to 9 times better on Nvidia hardware than AMD? Middleware that will work well for one side but not the other? Middleware that can be changed and tweaked at driver level for one side, but not the other? Can you name any other middleware that uses different code paths depending on what hardware you have, that results in one code path being highly optimal and the other the polar opposite? Can you name any middleware that will change just before a game is launched to hamper one side and not the other? Is there any middleware that will be present in a benchmark sequence, that is used to judge graphics cards, aside from this?
I can see why AMD are concerned.
Soldato
- Joined
- 5 Sep 2011
- Posts
- 12,879
- Location
- Surrey
You have been shown countless times, your not going to change your opinion but that's cool, it's just the way things are, some agree, some disagree.
...Can you give me an example?
Lol.
Watch Dogs is the most recent title and that actually runs better on my 290s...
That's what makes me laugh the most, Matt. If you're a gamer how come you've never played a single GW title to date. Or at least tried to...
It makes it very difficult to have a rational discussion.
Because the game RUNS FINE on AMD hardware.
Quit hitting yourself
Last edited:
The solution would be to allow the dev to work with AMD, to show them the source code to allow them to optimise the code to perform better on AMD hardware. If that happened the problems would disappear overnight. Nvidia would still have a performance advantage which is fair enough, it's their code after all. AMD users would get a better experience on GameWorks titles if this were to happen. The problem is AMD are being forced to use code which Nvidia created and does not use themselves.
Seeing as you mentioned Mantle, although AMD wants to retain control of it, they will release a public SDK with full source code. Nvidia will then be free to write drivers using that source code. (when it's made public - end of the year). Of course we all think they won't support it mind. The same will apply for Intel, who i think might adopt it until DX12 arrives. Intel would benefit nicely from Mantle with IGPU.
Last edited:
So you think NVidia should just give away IP ? why should they tbh, just because one side or the other does doesnt mean the other has to or should.
In a ideal world all tech would run on all cards equally but then you would also have no competition and the industry would stagnate.
If Nvidia has found a way to boost their cards above where they should be in the gpu hierarchy in some features why should they then turn around and release that to the competition?
Surely that would make R@ D's investment into working out how to wasted?
Last edited:
No examples? Can't say im surprised.
I've not played Watchdogs, not giving Ubisoft any of my money. I've played plenty of other GW titles though.
No they should retain control of it, but remove the contract clauses they have in place which forbids game dev - AMD cooperation and optimisation of source code. It's unhealthy when this is harming performance for gamers and when it's used to judge graphic card performance, in my opinion.
Last edited: