AMD announces GPUOpen - Open Sourced Gaming Development

[Dygaza]

Why does it need to be advertised? I bet every developer in the world already knows about GPUOpen. GPUOpen isn't a marketining thing to sell more graphics cards, it's a thing to provide devs better tools to be used any way they like. And I'm sure developers love the ability to anonymously use it, without telling anyone that they're using them.

If I would be a dev, I would hate using gameworks, because it adds way too media hazzle around it, taking the focus out of the game itself.

 

[bru]

So I suppose the question is, is pure hair open or closed sourced. maybe it is closed and that is why AMD haven't said much. They opened up the TressFX code, but surely they cannot stop developers adopting it, making changes and then calling it their own just like it appears Crystal Dynamics have done.

 

[Insanties_birth]

I've not actually read the licensing around GPUOpen but does it state that the code used in the game has to be freely available? Or can, for example, Crystal Dynamics keep the changes they made for PureHair a secret so only they can use it? Cuz then you can't see proof. Looking at what's in GitHub won't help if they've modified the code and are allowed to keep the modified code private.
People could get screwed over just as badly by altered GPUOpen code as they can by GameWorks code if there's no requirement to make the altered code available to everyone. How do you prove that what you've released to everyone is what's used in the game? Do you have to make the entire game's source code freely available so people can check?

Even if the end changes are not published it still leaves you with a software that was initially open (whereas game works is not and so makes it far harder for AMD to even start to find where the game works implementation would be going wrong). Conspiracy theories and strange assumptions aimed at AMD (which goes against everything we're seeing from them at the moment and lacks realism with there current level of sway in the industry) seems more like excuse chasing since we have no reason to suspect this whereas with Nvidia there clearly are indications they prefer closed formats that benefit themselves. Other than it not being realistic given there current position I still stand by the knowledge that not only is the software more open at the beginning but this should make it easier to identify what had changed as well. This sort of universal and open initial branch of code would also be inspected by Nvidia and improved where need be, not the same with game works however.

It's quite clear and obvious, if there was no benefit to this initiative and it was no more open than before then there would be no reason to market it as such. It merely is an improvement in having more transparent software that will allow the competition and others to tailor software quicker and easier when they hit performance issues. It's a good thing guys, even if Dec's do choose to gimp performance on Nvidia it would be easier to find, easier to fix and be developer specific buy again, it doesn't even seem realistic for that to happen at this point with AMD level of influence on devs.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Why does it need to be advertised? I bet every developer in the world already knows about GPUOpen. GPUOpen isn't a marketining thing to sell more graphics cards, it's a thing to provide devs better tools to be used any way they like. And I'm sure developers love the ability to anonymously use it, without telling anyone that they're using them.

If I would be a dev, I would hate using gameworks, because it adds way too media hazzle around it, taking the focus out of the game itself.

Because in the end its all about PR for said companies. Its in AMD's own advantage for devs to ditch Gameworks and use AMD solutions since it will work on their cards too and won't crater performance on them too.

Plus with AMD PR going on how bad Gameworks is,ie,black boxes,etc and how they promote more open standards where companies can optimise for it(even Nvidia),they then don't talk about the first instance of this happening in a major game like the newest TR.

Then,Nvidia not only sponsors the next TR game but also trolls AMD by making it sound like Purehair is an internal effort from CD.

So,average Joe or Jane sees Nvidia adding all these "effects" to games,AMD complaining its all bad and then apparently doing nothing about it.

This is the whole point of their PR and marketing people - AMD has spent their own funds on TressFX and then don't market it.

The reason why Nvidia keeps putting stuff on their website is to make sure they are:
1.)Always in the news.
2.)Giving the impression they are always working to "improve" games by working with devs.

Lots of gamers just seen Nvidia everything plastered on games,or reading some piece about how Nvidia works on some game,and then just buy Nvidia cards instead of AMD ones,even if they are worse.

Look at phones - Apple did the same for YEARS. It then took ages for competitors to realise they needed to be more proactive in their marketing.

Remember,we are hardware enthusiasts on a tech forum,so we will educate ourselves on these things,but most gamers and computer builders won't do more than a cursory glance at what is in the headlines.

Its imperative AMD becomes more proactive in selling itself as a company. Too many people currently just buy Nvidia as a default option - in fact loads of gamers I know just stick with Nvidia and go on how they have better dev relations(even when in some years AMD has probably sponsored MORE major games) and then all the standard things like PhysX,etc.

The people I know who might consider AMD all tend to be more people who are a hardware enthusiast in some way and might do some research first or know somebody that way who will help them.

 

[N19h7m4r3]

Because in the end its all about PR for said companies. Its in AMD's own advantage for devs to ditch Gameworks and use AMD solutions since it will work on their cards too and won't crater performance on them too.

Then,Nvidia not only sponsors the next TR game but also trolls AMD by making it sound like Purehair is an internal effort from CD.

So,average Joe or Jane sees Nvidia adding all these "effects" to games,AMD complaining its all bad and then apparently doing nothing about it.

This is the whole point of their PR and marketing people - AMD has spent their own funds on TressFX and then don't market it.

I 100% agree here. The much much needed PR isn't for the developers, they know about OpenGPU; it's needed for the consumers.

AMD's tech here is amazing, and runs so darn well. It makes TressFX 1 & ", along with Hairworks look like a bad modder's attempt at hair effects.
It's good, and the performance penalty is essentially non-existent.

AMD needs to point out this is their underlying tech used in the game, so people know that buying AMD helps fund better tech for their games that not only looks really well but won't even have a noticeable performance impact when maxed out.

The amount of people on even tech forums that think Tomb Raider is a terrible game purely because it has NVIDIA logos is insane, when the real significantly influencing tech is from AMD instead.

Come on AMD PR, get your acts together. In the past they hyped the hell out of Lichdom Battlemage for TressFX2.0 and that game was miniscule blip on the gaming scene. Tomb Raider is not.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

AMD/Nv will produce proof of dodgy tricks, that's the whole point of it, but you know that really and just doing what you do, anything AMD-negative, negative, negative.

I don't have a problem with that as it's your prerogative, but alas, I don't think we'll ever get a decent convo going, as I don't think Iv'e ever seen anything AMD positive come from you in all my time here due to you disdain of pro AMD posters(considering it goes both ways), it's a pity really as I think you could bring way, way more to the table in here.

They can produce the same evidence with GameWorks, so it doesn't really change things from that. If PureHair is closed source and GameWorks is closed source it'd be just as easy/hard to find proof of dodgy tricks. So from that point of view this adds nothing over GameWorks.

I think the issue is that I tend to prefer Nvidia and you tend to prefer AMD, so we have fundamentally different starting points. Expecting to find common ground where we agree is unlikely (although not impossible).

Even if the end changes are not published it still leaves you with a software that was initially open (whereas game works is not and so makes it far harder for AMD to even start to find where the game works implementation would be going wrong). Conspiracy theories and strange assumptions aimed at AMD (which goes against everything we're seeing from them at the moment and lacks realism with there current level of sway in the industry) seems more like excuse chasing since we have no reason to suspect this whereas with Nvidia there clearly are indications they prefer closed formats that benefit themselves. Other than it not being realistic given there current position I still stand by the knowledge that not only is the software more open at the beginning but this should make it easier to identify what had changed as well. This sort of universal and open initial branch of code would also be inspected by Nvidia and improved where need be, not the same with game works however.

It's quite clear and obvious, if there was no benefit to this initiative and it was no more open than before then there would be no reason to market it as such. It merely is an improvement in having more transparent software that will allow the competition and others to tailor software quicker and easier when they hit performance issues. It's a good thing guys, even if Dec's do choose to gimp performance on Nvidia it would be easier to find, easier to fix and be developer specific buy again, it doesn't even seem realistic for that to happen at this point with AMD level of influence on devs.

Again, if the implementation of the effect is closed source anything could have been changed. They could bare almost no resemblance to the TressFX code in GitHub. I don't see how this would be any easier to to spot dodgy tactics with than GameWorks.

I'm not suggesting that it is likely to happen and if it were it'd probably be more likely that Nvidia provide an 'enhanced' version than AMD (due to the fact it'd take effort and AMD are allergic to that).
I'm just saying that because the initial source code is open it doesn't mean that what is implemented in the game will be or that devs will use the source code unchanged.
Then if a developer did have a modified version it seems reasonable that the developer would keep a private version of the code with their changes in that they could use in all their games.

So what we might end up with is instead of GameWorks gimping performance we could have GameWorks and 17 private forks of GPUOpen all gimping performance for one side or another. Finding these things out and doing any sort of driver optimising will be even harder.

 

[eddyr]

For the hair tech, a slightly 'passive form' of still proactive would work well. Mention on a web page or 2 whre it can get seen, is picked up on a few sites for a short article or a simple sentence in numerous Tomb raider articles along the lines of " with Crystal Dynamics Purehair technology built on AMD's GPUopen/TressFX".

They don't need hype, it looks bad long term, AMD should avoid loudly bawling about everything both big and small.

Keep themselves in the public eye and manage expectations (in a non-explicit manner) so they do not come back to bite you. Look busy making technological progress on numerous fronts rather than the impression of 1 limited tech as the glorious pinnacle. It needs to be proportional and consistent.

 

[fs123]

Maybe we need to post some tweets to tell these guys about marketing. Quite clueless to let CD rename TressFX. It benefited Nvidia more than AMD since it essentially eliminated the well known TressFX brand name.

https://twitter.com/Thracks/status/693123852839182336

 

[tommybhoy]

Maybe we need to post some tweets to tell these guys about marketing. Quite clueless to let CD rename TressFX. It benefited Nvidia more than AMD since it essentially eliminated the well known TressFX brand name.

https://twitter.com/Thracks/status/693123852839182336

They can produce the same evidence with GameWorks, so it doesn't really change things from that. If PureHair is closed source and GameWorks is closed source it'd be just as easy/hard to find proof of dodgy tricks. So from that point of view this adds nothing over GameWorks.

Again, if the implementation of the effect is closed source anything could have been changed. They could bare almost no resemblance to the TressFX code in GitHub. I don't see how this would be any easier to to spot dodgy tactics with than GameWorks.

I'm not suggesting that it is likely to happen and if it were it'd probably be more likely that Nvidia provide an 'enhanced' version than AMD (due to the fact it'd take effort and AMD are allergic to that).
I'm just saying that because the initial source code is open it doesn't mean that what is implemented in the game will be or that devs will use the source code unchanged.
Then if a developer did have a modified version it seems reasonable that the developer would keep a private version of the code with their changes in that they could use in all their games.

So what we might end up with is instead of GameWorks gimping performance we could have GameWorks and 17 private forks of GPUOpen all gimping performance for one side or another. Finding these things out and doing any sort of driver optimising will be even harder.

Well if the above tweet is anything to go by and that's all you hear on the matter of Realhair/TFX(lack of AMD branding) from AMD, then it looks to me like AMD don't have a leg to stand on due to the original co-development agreement leaving CD free to do what they want with TFX and entirely possible that they can/have closed their RH libraries GW's style.

BUT until/if anyone else outwith CD/Eidos? uses Gpuopen we won't know.

However my views on G/W's implementation and more importantly Nv's control over (every GW's capable gpu)performance is that it's 'dangerous' for PC gaming and can't grasp peoples reluctance to acknowledge chastising industry harming practice.

Don't get me wrong I'm all for the core element of GW's-added IQ, but I'm old enough in the tooth that the alarm bells are ringing for what the future holds due to GW'S implementation.

I think the issue is that I tend to prefer Nvidia and you tend to prefer AMD, so we have fundamentally different starting points. Expecting to find common ground where we agree is unlikely (although not impossible).

Did tend to prefer AMD-it's not as if I was one of those that dip their toes in to claim something they aren't and quickly revert back to their preference to excuse/obscure bias, but can understand anyones opinion of myself due to being very AMD vocal in the past.

But that was when AMD were superior vfm with faster tech with great driver support, yes they got my full backing but they certainly don't now as they keep getting pumped by themselves now never mind others and have plummeted to the point they are irrelevant now for my gaming enjoyment after a year of pathetic game profile driver support.

Which takes me back round to Gpuopen-don't think it's going to go anywhere due to AMD being AMD.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Did tend to prefer AMD-it's not as if I was one of those that dip their toes in to claim something they aren't and quickly revert back to their preference to excuse/obscure bias, but can understand anyones opinion of myself due to being very AMD vocal in the past.

But that was when AMD were superior vfm with faster tech with great driver support, yes they got my full backing but they certainly don't now as they keep getting pumped by themselves now never mind others and have plummeted to the point they are irrelevant now for my gaming enjoyment after a year of pathetic game profile driver support.

Which takes me back round to Gpuopen-don't think it's going to go anywhere due to AMD being AMD.

I think the highlighted part is actually quite an important thing that probably applies to a lot of us on this forum but that we all often forget.
You can't necessarily judge someone's preferences by how they post on a forum. It may be the impression they give but may not be the whole story.

For example, I tend to take a devil's advocate approach to things, which often get me labelled as a troll, but I don't do it for the sake of an argument but for balance (or at least this is how I see it, obviously the people calling me a troll will disagree). It's jsut because I tend to side with the minority.
For example, 99% of my friends are Nvidia fans because they've had frustrating experiences with AMD that leave them wanting to move to Nvidia so they can just plug and play. In these scenarios you'll find me defending AMD when my friends criticise the drivers or performance or whatever.
On these forums the majority seem to have an AMD preference and criticise Nvidia. So I naturally tend to defend Nvidia.
If you notice I don't start AMD bashing threads and I rarely praise Nvidia other than in defence of claims against them. Which is why I'd say I'm more anti-pro-AMD rather than anti-AMD.

If PureHair isn't open-source then that surely makes it as bad a GW? Most of the complaints and arguments seem to be around the closed-source/propriety nature of GW. If PureHair (and other software derived from GPUOpen) is closed source then surely people should have the same problem with them as with GW. Uneven performance is one thing, but a lot of arguments weren't about that and were about the benefits of open-source software, which PureHair may not be. If it's not, very few people will know how much code it still actually shares with TressFX. It may have been a starting point, but once they got into it Crystal Dynamics may have stripped out and replaced large percentages of it.

 

[tommybhoy]

I think the highlighted part is actually quite an important thing that probably applies to a lot of us on this forum but that we all often forget.
You can't necessarily judge someone's preferences by how they post on a forum. It may be the impression they give but may not be the whole story.

For example, I tend to take a devil's advocate approach to things, which often get me labelled as a troll, but I don't do it for the sake of an argument but for balance (or at least this is how I see it, obviously the people calling me a troll will disagree). It's jsut because I tend to side with the minority.
For example, 99% of my friends are Nvidia fans because they've had frustrating experiences with AMD that leave them wanting to move to Nvidia so they can just plug and play. In these scenarios you'll find me defending AMD when my friends criticise the drivers or performance or whatever.
On these forums the majority seem to have an AMD preference and criticise Nvidia. So I naturally tend to defend Nvidia.
If you notice I don't start AMD bashing threads and I rarely praise Nvidia other than in defence of claims against them. Which is why I'd say I'm more anti-pro-AMD rather than anti-AMD.

Fair enough, but personally reading your posts as an altruistic approach that looks more like ripping anything AMD to bits, considering the mass migration to Nvidia, maybe you'll swing the other way, who knows, as I said before, would love to see the big Nvidia hitters getting asked some of your questions and see them squirm like the AMD ones do.

I might not be the best communicator but I'm sure yo know where I'm coming from.

If PureHair isn't open-source then that surely makes it as bad a GW? Most of the complaints and arguments seem to be around the closed-source/propriety nature of GW. If PureHair (and other software derived from GPUOpen) is closed source then surely people should have the same problem with them as with GW. Uneven performance is one thing, but a lot of arguments weren't about that and were about the benefits of open-source software, which PureHair may not be. If it's not, very few people will know how much code it still actually shares with TressFX. It may have been a starting point, but once they got into it Crystal Dynamics may have stripped out and replaced large percentages of it.

IMO no, as a dev can't control anyone else's IQ hit, they can only control their own audiences destiny, plus in this instance, (as it's clear as day)it's non agnostic, there is a minimal hit that is nowhere near GW's sometimes sledgehammer performance impact regardless the vendor.

Who knows out with this one GPUO instance what is going to happen, it remains to be seen what transpires.

 

[ltron]

If PureHair isn't open-source then that surely makes it as bad a GW? Most of the complaints and arguments seem to be around the closed-source/propriety nature of GW. If PureHair (and other software derived from GPUOpen) is closed source then surely people should have the same problem with them as with GW. Uneven performance is one thing, but a lot of arguments weren't about that and were about the benefits of open-source software, which PureHair may not be. If it's not, very few people will know how much code it still actually shares with TressFX. It may have been a starting point, but once they got into it Crystal Dynamics may have stripped out and replaced large percentages of it.

I hope that PureHair is open-source because AMD's goal is for developers to improve core technologies and share these improvements so that they all benefit. This article says that PureHair has been modified so that Async compute will accelerate it, which would be a very good improvement: http://n4g.com/news/1774986/deus-ex...async-compute-to-enhance-pure-hair-simulation

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I hope that PureHair is open-source because AMD's goal is for developers to improve core technologies and share these improvements so that they all benefit. This article says that PureHair has been modified so that Async compute will accelerate it, which would be a very good improvement: http://n4g.com/news/1774986/deus-ex...async-compute-to-enhance-pure-hair-simulation

Don't worry AMD will sit in stunned silence with that too,and probably forget they have sponsored it.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

I hope that PureHair is open-source because AMD's goal is for developers to improve core technologies and share these improvements so that they all benefit. This article says that PureHair has been modified so that Async compute will accelerate it, which would be a very good improvement: http://n4g.com/news/1774986/deus-ex...async-compute-to-enhance-pure-hair-simulation

Yeah, that's the aim, does involve the developers giving away the code they paid to produce though.
Also, if Async compute boost AMD performance more than Nvidia performance so it's uneven...

Cuz everything has to be unbiased and open-source...

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Yeah, that's the aim, does involve the developers giving away the code they paid to produce though.
Also, if Async compute boost AMD performance more than Nvidia performance so it's uneven...

Cuz everything has to be unbiased and open-source...

It means nought if nobody knows if they are doing anything though.

 

[TheRealDeal]

It means nought if nobody knows if they are doing anything though.

Don't worry mate, Nvidia are the big mouthed Bullies, they always get knocked out in the end. In this case its looking pretty doubtful though

I agree though AMD should be making more of a big deal about this. it's a success and shows hairworks to be a performance hog in comparison. Maybe there is something behind the Nvidia deal or politics that does not permit AMD to advertise to much. A Gameworks game using GpuOpen is pretty weird.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Don't worry mate Nvidia are the big mouthed Bullies they always get knocked out in the end. In this case its looking pretty doubtful though

It's more likely AMD will punch itself in the face at this rate. Nvidia PR must have been ****ing themselves laughing when they wrote their article on Purehair on their website.

It's almost like anti-marketing.

 

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I agree though AMD should be making more of a big deal about this. it's a success and shows hairworks to be a performance hog in comparison. Maybe there is something behind the Nvidia deal or politics that does not permit AMD to advertise to much. A Gameworks game using GpuOpen is pretty weird.

Then AMD needs to get out of consumer graphics and do only custom and commercial stuff.

Marketing is important and if they can't learn that now,they might as well just give up. It does not matter whether Polaris is even six months ahead of Pascal and better than Maxwell by a factor of two,Nvidia will still win.

Even ATI were not this poor.

Edit!!

The last three AMD graphics launches outside the rebrands were disasters.

Nvidia even trolled them at the R9 290 series launch.

 

[maonayze]

On these forums the majority seem to have an AMD preference and criticise Nvidia.

Really?

Are we reading the same forums? Surely with Nvidia's 80/20 dominance that cannot be even remotely true.

These forums are so Nvidia biased it is beyond belief. Hence why the few AMD users need to be more vocal.

Just completely surprised how you came to that conclusion.

 

[maonayze]

Don't worry mate, Nvidia are the big mouthed Bullies, they always get knocked out in the end. In this case its looking pretty doubtful though

I agree though AMD should be making more of a big deal about this. it's a success and shows hairworks to be a performance hog in comparison. Maybe there is something behind the Nvidia deal or politics that does not permit AMD to advertise to much. A Gameworks game using GpuOpen is pretty weird.

This is the crux of the problem for RTG/AMD. Even if Polaris is better than Pascal then Nvidia will still win because of the PR, the smoke and mirrors and the sheer amount of money they have to literally buy into every game they want to and cripple it with GW.

On top of this you have AMD continually shooting themselves in the foot at every turn and no attempt to promote what they do even when they are doing something good.