Exclusive – Nvidia Talks GameWoks And DirectX 12 Plans For 2016

[Gregster]

Haha, I genuinely didn't notice

 

[Insanties_birth]

Greg, I would reserve a couple of posts after you post an article so it can be edited for the useful information to go. Saves reading the pages of QQ'ing and people not having a clue.

If you refuse to add anything to the discussion other than throwing your dummy out because you can't handle a rational discussion from people trying to discuss from a neutral standpoint rather than a biased one then don't pretend it's not yourself QQ'ing. Either way I hope not to derail the thread with your lazy posting, if you can't handle a fair and reasoned discussion without resorting to being childish then I'm surprised gregster was willing to back you up when he called me out in that regard. Seems a little biased but that's the high tide we fight against these days it seems and it doesn't seem to get lower no matter how much people profess to it.

This.

No matter how many times I say it, it gets ignored and then statements of "crippling performance on AMD hardware" People also ignore that it cripples performance on Nvidia hardware (not everyone I will add) but the fact is, the effects look good for the most and if they are detrimental to performance on the end users system, turn them off).

To be fair switching it off and on is totally irrelevant to the points being raised that it has developers focus on Nvidia beneficial software which is then an argument about if it's fair and anti-competitive. That's a bit more of an educated discussion than whether you can switch it off or not like a light bulb so it's not quite as simple as that, I even pointed out that if it wasn't such a big deal then the link I gave you wouldn't have had AMD up in arms about the situation as it is somewhat anti-competitive and even when you switch those particular effects off it could still lead to a situation where in order to make sure the rest of the game integrates well with gameworks they are being pushed to make coding that is preferential to Nvidia. I can see it's difficult to get past the obvious switch off and switch on part but discussions of this sort can be more complex than that and so your point would get ignored if it's too simple or not really relevant. It was more a discussion on whether that kind of preferential position and access to the code can still lead to anti-competitive advantages even outside the effects themselves. I doubt you're much up for that kind of thing though as when it gets tough it seems a lot on these threads rely on posting small blanket statements they can try and get away with which are not always relevant and aim to sidetrack discussion. Either way I'll bow out if you both have nothing to add as there's not really much worth replying to I suppose.

 

[Gregster]

To be fair switching it off and on is totally irrelevant to the points being raised that it has developers focus on Nvidia beneficial software which is then an argument about if it's fair and anti-competitive. That's a bit more of an educated discussion than whether you can switch it off or not like a light bulb so it's not quite as simple as that, I even pointed out that if it wasn't such a big deal then the link I gave you wouldn't have had AMD up in arms about the situation as it is somewhat anti-competitive and even when you switch those particular effects off it could still lead to a situation where in order to make sure the rest of the game integrates well with gameworks they are being pushed to make coding that is preferential to Nvidia. I can see it's difficult to get past the obvious switch off and switch on part but discussions of this sort can be more complex than that and so your point would get ignored if it's too simple or not really relevant. It was more a discussion on whether that kind of preferential position and access to the code can still lead to anti-competitive advantages even outside the effects themselves. I doubt you're much up for that kind of thing though as when it gets tough it seems a lot on these threads rely on posting small blanket statements they can try and get away with which are not always relevant and aim to sidetrack discussion. Either way I'll bow out if you both have nothing to add as there's not really much worth replying to I suppose.

It is fair though. It is something Nvidia developed for what can only be considered "its owners" but the majority of it works on its competitors hardware. And anti competitive doesn't come into it. This has been the same all the way back to when Nvidia purchased Ageia's PhysX. They even offered it to AMD but no response, so whilst not all of the GameWorks effects work on AMD, anything that does is a bonus no? I liked what AMD did with Mantle as well and fair play to them for helping out its own user base and not once did I feel it wasn't fair and only see it as a good selling point for its cards (the same as GameWorks is a good selling point for Nvidia cards).

If you remember a ways back, AMD and Nvidia spokesmen had a bit of a debate over GameWorks and independent developers gave their view as well and it was all a bit meh really with AMD demanding to see the source code and Nvidia telling them they don't need the source code to optimise and independent devs divided over it but I still go back to one of the first GameWorks games (Batman Origins) and back then it took a massively overclocked 780Ti to beat a 290X, so clearly they didn't need to see the code in that. Move on to TW3 and you have over tessellated hair, which AMD claim isn't fair because it doesn't need to be that highly tessellated and they don't deal very well with tessellation and lo and behold, there is an option added to drop tessellation so a win for AMD no?

Talking of tessellation, the Fury X dealt with it a lot better than previous cards because AMD improved on the architecture but it still isn't on par with the competition but AMD were the first to have tessellation capable cards with the 4 series (iirc) and Nvidia were behind the curve when it came to DX10 but should development stagnate because AMD are not very good at something (and they had a heads up with Crysis 2) or should they have improved on this basic use of triangles?

 

[Insanties_birth]

It is fair though. It is something Nvidia developed for what can only be considered "its owners" but the majority of it works on its competitors hardware. And anti competitive doesn't come into it. This has been the same all the way back to when Nvidia purchased Ageia's PhysX. They even offered it to AMD but no response, so whilst not all of the GameWorks effects work on AMD, anything that does is a bonus no? I liked what AMD did with Mantle as well and fair play to them for helping out its own user base and not once did I feel it wasn't fair and only see it as a good selling point for its cards (the same as GameWorks is a good selling point for Nvidia cards).

If you remember a ways back, AMD and Nvidia spokesmen had a bit of a debate over GameWorks and independent developers gave their view as well and it was all a bit meh really with AMD demanding to see the source code and Nvidia telling them they don't need the source code to optimise and independent devs divided over it but I still go back to one of the first GameWorks games (Batman Origins) and back then it took a massively overclocked 780Ti to beat a 290X, so clearly they didn't need to see the code in that. Move on to TW3 and you have over tessellated hair, which AMD claim isn't fair because it doesn't need to be that highly tessellated and they don't deal very well with tessellation and lo and behold, there is an option added to drop tessellation so a win for AMD no?

Talking of tessellation, the Fury X dealt with it a lot better than previous cards because AMD improved on the architecture but it still isn't on par with the competition but AMD were the first to have tessellation capable cards with the 4 series (iirc) and Nvidia were behind the curve when it came to DX10 but should development stagnate because AMD are not very good at something (and they had a heads up with Crysis 2) or should they have improved on this basic use of triangles?

Anti-competitive only doesn't come into it if you choose to be a consumer who ignores companies potentially hampering your experiences and choices, I'd have thought you was a smarter consumer and less inclined to be so easily played than that. Physx to be fair was ran solely on Nvidia cards and didn't seem to cause performance issues, AMD have notably stood up and called gameworks a shambles though so the question is if AMD find there to be a distinction then why don't you? If I find there to be a distinction when trying to come form a neutral perspective and from a perspective of completely no preference where a customer should be free to choose any product without potential performance hampering (which is suggested from the AMD link) then why is it something you don't see wilful ignorance or simply not caring about whether it can cause harm isn't the same as it not doing so. It is a bonus, the question is whether it's a bonus to all and fair play though as I'd rather see an approach where we don't have one side interfering for the other side rather than an arms race that relies on potential gimping of the other side. So as always stated by myself it is not a bad feature (I have Nvidia myself and intend to use it) but that it a separate issue to being vendor neutral and fair play (which you can turn it off as you state but that's not the point either) which then leads to the question I'm actually making as to whether it's right for Nvidia to be in that position and hamper support when another source would be more readily available to deliver these features without gimping the other side.

Sure if you have a Nvidia card and your main intent is to come onto the forums to put the middle finger to other card users and you really don't care about anything but yourself and your own Nvidia use then I could understand where you're coming from but it sounds like you just want to have your cake and eat it too, refusing to accept even the idea that it could be better delivered from another source while proclaiming being neutral to either side. You don't have to dislike it, I'm not trying to trick you into saying Nvidia are bad either so you can rest easy here but it's just a simple point that if it was implemented by another party then it'd be more vendor neutral and that is more appropriate for game designers who aren't wanting to ignore other parts of there audience so it clearly shows there is an issue with Nvidia delivering this stuff regardless of if you can bring up the courage to respectfully acknowledge some people can be hard done by deals that have benefits for one side or the other instead of open enjoyment of any game regardless of gpu vendor. Switch it off? Sounds more like an excuse to abandon the real issue of whether we'd be better off with the devs using other engines like cryengine that could just be more vendor neutral. I simply feel it's innapropriate for Nvidia to have that sort of deal and find it anti-competitive in some regard, if you disagree then that's the simple difference between us and no more need be said I guess. I'm pro industry and find it to be anti-consumer to have games deliberately and forcefully weaker on certain gpu's but if you don't then that's your choice. I prefer they run on the merit of the software coming from the gpu so fair competition can be had rather than interfering with the end result by being integrated into what is being tested / played.

I feel all companies in the tech sector should aim to improve but one thing I'd be cautious of is saying they have to improve instantly based on the whims of there competition taking advantage. It's one thing if Nvidia specifically had an advantage in tessellation but your post there only highlights another issue, it wasn't really down to the dev to give a fair and optimised experience for all but it was down to Nvidia and we openly acknowledge that they seem to have not done it very well until later on with the amount of tessellation offering near no improvement. This brings me to my earlier point, Nvidia are normally really good at software and it seems they only do a really bad job with gameworks which kind of shows the problem of having another vendor (who is interested in performance for THERE cards) instead of the developer themselves having the control. If this was the developer themselves who had made it high tessellation in order to achieve some particular goal it'd be neutral but it wasn't and it's always questionable as to why in that situation it was chosen to initially have this poor integration that even lost too much FPS on Nvidia cards as well. Makes me wonder if Nvidia are so reliable why they get a lot of gameworks features wrong early on.

 

[Gregster]

You are choosing to ignore what I say. When I had the Fury X, it coped just fine with GameWorks and coped far better with tessellation than I was expecting and you ignored what I said about B:AO in favour of citing what AMD said, albeit we have a thread that proves otherwise. I don't like fragmentation but it is there and has been since PhysX and possibly before but I can't recall that far back even though I am old enough to remember, my memory is getting bad

I also had to spend many years buying low to mid cards because my family came first and my hobby secondary but now I am in a situation where I can afford to buy this or that but back then, I never cared that I couldn't run with max details and accepted I had to lower settings for my limited game time but it seems that people think they have a right to buy mid tier cards and run with max details, which isn't happening I am afraid but if you can afford to buy something fromt he top tier, both AMD and Nvidia cope admirably with GameWorks from my own testing of a Fury X and a Titan X but I guess that doesn't count? When I was using the 970 and 290X, I had to lower some settings to get playable frames in some GameWorks games but I accepted that these cards are not aimed at 1440P with max settings and more suited to 1080P. I still have a 7950 and if I lost my job tomorrow, I would happily accept that as my gaming card.

Maybe AMD are the underdog but they have not helped themselves at times and were the dominant force once, so maybe they should be going back to basics and working from that? I do and will always buy my GPU on what it will do for me and I don't let politics get in the way of my decision. I shop local 90% of the time but that doesn't mean I don't like the big corporate shops.

 

[tommybhoy]

You just confirmed Insanties_birth's post, classic.

 

[Final8y]

You just confirmed Insanties_birth's post, classic.

indeed.

 

[Insanties_birth]

You are choosing to ignore what I say. When I had the Fury X, it coped just fine with GameWorks and coped far better with tessellation than I was expecting and you ignored what I said about B:AO in favour of citing what AMD said, albeit we have a thread that proves otherwise. I don't like fragmentation but it is there and has been since PhysX and possibly before but I can't recall that far back even though I am old enough to remember, my memory is getting bad

I also had to spend many years buying low to mid cards because my family came first and my hobby secondary but now I am in a situation where I can afford to buy this or that but back then, I never cared that I couldn't run with max details and accepted I had to lower settings for my limited game time but it seems that people think they have a right to buy mid tier cards and run with max details, which isn't happening I am afraid but if you can afford to buy something fromt he top tier, both AMD and Nvidia cope admirably with GameWorks from my own testing of a Fury X and a Titan X but I guess that doesn't count? When I was using the 970 and 290X, I had to lower some settings to get playable frames in some GameWorks games but I accepted that these cards are not aimed at 1440P with max settings and more suited to 1080P. I still have a 7950 and if I lost my job tomorrow, I would happily accept that as my gaming card.

Maybe AMD are the underdog but they have not helped themselves at times and were the dominant force once, so maybe they should be going back to basics and working from that? I do and will always buy my GPU on what it will do for me and I don't let politics get in the way of my decision. I shop local 90% of the time but that doesn't mean I don't like the big corporate shops.

I didn't intend to ignore parts but if I replied to every single point it'd be me droning on for hours which I'm sure not everyone wanted a wall of text of that size. I responded to the fury x remark (notably without naming it in specific) by stating I feel they should improve (referencing your remark they needed to improve on tessalation) but this was just not necessarily in a way dictated by there opposition. While BA:O is an example of there not necessarily being a problem with every single game it in itself is not proof of there still being no issue so while I respect they haven't obliterated performance every single time that still does not negate issues with the Witcher 3 or other titles as per the point that AMD had to speak out against it. If you have a problem 50% of the time then it's not exactly a none issue just because you're not always having a problem. If a car company had 50% of cars break down I wouldn't cite a single good model as evidence that there is no problems. Fair enough I'll draw that line in the sand, I'm happy you've acknowledged fragmentation is bad but as you said it is probably here to stay and I'm not here to try and kick a fuss about this issue any further than acknowledging it CAN be an issue (but isn't necessarily always an issue) so I think I'm finally done.

To be fair this isn't about mid range or gpu cost but rather the playing field being open for either side but yeah I know what you mean. I've only just started to get enough money to start moving to more expensive GPU's (and still can't do it as regular as some of you guys) so I'm waiting to see a good polaris / pascal showing. There's no way I'm saying what you've said there doesn't count but we'll just have to see if Nvidia can improve on those performance drops, I'd like to see this stuff readily available to everyone as stated so mid-range should have access ideally too (as you said, a slider was done for the witcher which gave more control and this could be an easy solution for anyone). So GPU price, gpu vendor doesn't bother me but good performance is nice and sometimes not everyone can run everything but I'd like to see the point where as many people as possible can enjoy there games without hindrance

What is going back to basics in the realm of developers giving preferential performance? It's more like requiring they constantly adapt at a heart beat without knowledge of the demands that will be implemented and without access to the source code either (which I assume isn't all important as I acknowledge your previous point that some devs weighed in to say it wasn't needed but even if it is not all important it could still be beneficial). Still I'm happy with our discussion and thank you for re-engaging the subject. I'm happy to leave it at that unless you felt there was more need be said but all in all I think we covered the bases As I stated from the beginning it's not anti-nvidia so I'm not intending to kick this any further than acknowledging fragmentation can at times cause a concern and that was it and you put some fair points in too that it hasn't always been the case so could be simply the odd game requiring some catch up in some areas too.

 

[Insanties_birth]

You just confirmed Insanties_birth's post, classic.

Surely there's nothing wrong with two gentleman discussing something and being happy to acknowledge some points the others present. I appreciate gregsters honesty and willingness to listen. I feel others such as lamb chop will be a far more difficult person to get to listen to me for example

I've been in these boards and made mistakes before, we're all here to learn and discuss so nothing wrong with gregster acknowledging my view and it only makes me respect his views more.

 

[tommybhoy]

Nothing wrong at all, my remark was in regards with not answering anything asked from a well worded post that asks an awful lot of the hard questions that never ever get addressed because of user affinity to the brand.

 

[Dave2150]

Anti-competitive only doesn't come into it if you choose to be a consumer who ignores companies potentially hampering your experiences and choices, I'd have thought you was a smarter consumer and less inclined to be so easily played than that. Physx to be fair was ran solely on Nvidia cards and didn't seem to cause performance issues, AMD have notably stood up and called gameworks a shambles though so the question is if AMD find there to be a distinction then why don't you? If I find there to be a distinction when trying to come form a neutral perspective and from a perspective of completely no preference where a customer should be free to choose any product without potential performance hampering (which is suggested from the AMD link) then why is it something you don't see wilful ignorance or simply not caring about whether it can cause harm isn't the same as it not doing so. It is a bonus, the question is whether it's a bonus to all and fair play though as I'd rather see an approach where we don't have one side interfering for the other side rather than an arms race that relies on potential gimping of the other side. So as always stated by myself it is not a bad feature (I have Nvidia myself and intend to use it) but that it a separate issue to being vendor neutral and fair play (which you can turn it off as you state but that's not the point either) which then leads to the question I'm actually making as to whether it's right for Nvidia to be in that position and hamper support when another source would be more readily available to deliver these features without gimping the other side.

Sure if you have a Nvidia card and your main intent is to come onto the forums to put the middle finger to other card users and you really don't care about anything but yourself and your own Nvidia use then I could understand where you're coming from but it sounds like you just want to have your cake and eat it too, refusing to accept even the idea that it could be better delivered from another source while proclaiming being neutral to either side. You don't have to dislike it, I'm not trying to trick you into saying Nvidia are bad either so you can rest easy here but it's just a simple point that if it was implemented by another party then it'd be more vendor neutral and that is more appropriate for game designers who aren't wanting to ignore other parts of there audience so it clearly shows there is an issue with Nvidia delivering this stuff regardless of if you can bring up the courage to respectfully acknowledge some people can be hard done by deals that have benefits for one side or the other instead of open enjoyment of any game regardless of gpu vendor. Switch it off? Sounds more like an excuse to abandon the real issue of whether we'd be better off with the devs using other engines like cryengine that could just be more vendor neutral. I simply feel it's innapropriate for Nvidia to have that sort of deal and find it anti-competitive in some regard, if you disagree then that's the simple difference between us and no more need be said I guess. I'm pro industry and find it to be anti-consumer to have games deliberately and forcefully weaker on certain gpu's but if you don't then that's your choice. I prefer they run on the merit of the software coming from the gpu so fair competition can be had rather than interfering with the end result by being integrated into what is being tested / played.

I feel all companies in the tech sector should aim to improve but one thing I'd be cautious of is saying they have to improve instantly based on the whims of there competition taking advantage. It's one thing if Nvidia specifically had an advantage in tessellation but your post there only highlights another issue, it wasn't really down to the dev to give a fair and optimised experience for all but it was down to Nvidia and we openly acknowledge that they seem to have not done it very well until later on with the amount of tessellation offering near no improvement. This brings me to my earlier point, Nvidia are normally really good at software and it seems they only do a really bad job with gameworks which kind of shows the problem of having another vendor (who is interested in performance for THERE cards) instead of the developer themselves having the control. If this was the developer themselves who had made it high tessellation in order to achieve some particular goal it'd be neutral but it wasn't and it's always questionable as to why in that situation it was chosen to initially have this poor integration that even lost too much FPS on Nvidia cards as well. Makes me wonder if Nvidia are so reliable why they get a lot of gameworks features wrong early on.

Great post, really sums up some people's true intentions.

 

[Gregster]

You just confirmed Insanties_birth's post, classic.

indeed.

I enjoyed our last discussion and it was men chatting and putting their thoughts across. Insanties put some very good points across and I agreed with a lot of them. I always enjoy a debate that doesn't have playground chat thrown in and respect that person a lot more.

Sadly, these 2 posts don't add anything to the discussion and a shame really as the discussion was good

Some good and fair points Insanties

 

[tommybhoy]

Slurs and self proclaiming maturity, neat.

 

[Gregster]

Slurs and self proclaiming maturity, neat.

This is why I hardly ever reply to you because it just ends up as cheap sniping. Either put into the discussion or stay out.

 

[Final8y]

Sadly, these 2 posts don't add anything to the discussion and a shame really as the discussion was good

Some good and fair points Insanties

That's because they have gone right over your head.

The 2 posts are expressing an agreement of opinion and acknowledgement in regards to Insanties_birth posts, that's contributing whether you like it or not.