AMD announces GPUOpen - Open Sourced Gaming Development

[GoogalyMoogaly]

not all the Devs are getting the money, the difference now is that if they are not getting the money they might as well use what's free.

Didn't a lot of these technologies, such as TressFX, exist before GPUOpen?

 

[tommybhoy]

Googaly, Insanities has put up a very strong case, you said earlier that you play devils advocate against pro AMD, are you thinking everyone that has the opinion that the fundamental point of GpuOpen is to keep these effects on a level playing field is pro AMD?

What if they are simply gamers and are of the opinion it's simply the better way to do things and keep it all fair for everyone using AMD/Nvidia regardless the gpu?

 

[Insanties_birth]

Well yeah, are you new here? Have you not read my posts? Everything IS bad...

Also, as stated, the argument always used to be that Nvidia paid developers to use GameWorks (because it was the only way to get them to use it). ASre we now saying Devs will start turning down the money so they can use GPUOpen? Or that Nvidia will stop offering it? Crystal Dynamics used TressFX in the last game, so it's not like this has turned them away from GameWorks, if anything with HBAO+ aren't they using MORE GameWorks than before? Doesn't GPUOpen offer an HBAO+ alternative?

I wonder if we'll see TressFX in any games?

New enough to not recognise you /joke

No, Nvidia will carry on trying to be Nvidia. I just hope people wake up and smell the coffee and don't support that kind of practice which can impact others. We're in a forum designed to be a community so why aren't we all just on Nvidia and AMD only boards if all we care about are our own side? The community matters more than AMD and Nvidia in my opinion and I feel it's just good to get people to be informed on what's going on and have a healthy discussion on it. People will choose how much that particular subject matters to them and they can then factor it into there own decision making but for me I prefer the industry stay clean of any potential gimping so I merely voice against it when appropriate. The devs choose what they do, Nvidia and AMD choose but also we choose. We're all in the same cycle and the devs use Nvidia effects more because Nvidia are empowered by the consumers, I merely discuss with people whether they are happy with that sort of thing as we have no control over what the devs do (short of banding together and flaming them but I'm not really promoting that).

We'll see how it goes. I'm pro industry, consumer and community so I merely voice what I feel is beneficial to those ends. If the devs choose to accept Nvidia's money then they do, it's not something to lose sleep over but it's always worth educating yourself to make informed purchases about what will be the future of our industry. An example would be renewables, some people just want energy and don't give two poo's about what it means, I'd be the kind of guy promoting renewable stuff because I know it'll be better for us all in the end. Not everyone informs themselves or cares to look past the immediate benefits though and that is there choice I suppose. It's kind of like the console wars, instead of people being rational and arguing what is best and what needs to change to benefit the industry you can get the other kind of people, busy with console wars so that there ego and purchasing decisions dictate what practices they defend and insult. As long as it's to promote there console of choice they can forgive bad and poor practice just to try and win arguments about which side is better, forgetting sides for a moment though it's far better to just acknowledge which changes are beneficial. I'm doing that with GPUopen so yeah, maybe it'll not catch on as much as we hope and maybe Nvidia's got too much cash to prevent them from making it a rocky road for some of the community for a few more years but I'll be hoping it catches on.

 

[AlamoX]

Didn't a lot of these technologies, such as TressFX, exist before GPUOpen?

can't really speculate as to why they wouldn't use them, am no Dev i dont know the criteria they would use to make their choice, but logicaly to me if a studio is aiming for a triple A game with a focus on visuals, on paper this seem pretty compelling to me, but im guessing there is more to it than that licence cost, probably implementation cost, and stability is taken into consideration, and probably other stuff.
anyhow i hope this takes off, and i hope AMD grab more market share and get more money to see a balanced competition on the GPU front.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Googaly, Insanities has put up a very strong case, you said earlier that you play devils advocate against pro AMD, are you thinking everyone that has the opinion that the fundamental point of GpuOpen is to keep these effects on a level playing field is pro AMD?

What if they are simply gamers and are of the opinion it's simply the better way to do things and keep it all fair for everyone using AMD/Nvidia regardless the gpu?

I thought the point of GPUOpen was that everyone contributes to it?
Have Crystal Dynamics contributed to GPUOpen?

I agree that it would be good to keep things fair, I've never argued against that. What I have said is that GPUOpen doesn't guarantee that if work derived from it isn't open-source. Even if it is it wouldn't guarantee it, it'd just be easier to spot.
If you can say here and now that nothing derived from GPUOpen will ever favour one vendor over the other (by using too much tessellation, ASync Compute, etc.) then great.
I think I said earlier that I think it would be nice if Nvidia created an Nvidia version based on this to replace some of the current GameWork effects that leave something to be desired.

At the end of the day I think Humbug was probably on to something when he said developers shouldn't use these things at all and should just write their own versions of the effects they need.
This is probably the next best thing with GameWorks 3rd and not having the effects at all in last.

I will say that I'm not a champion for GameWorks and I don't believe I own a single GameWorks game. Call that voting with my wallet if you like.
I also don't own any TressFX games, but that's because Tomb Raider isn't my thing. I do own Mantle games (3 I believe, so a sizeable percentage).

can't really speculate as to why they wouldn't use them, am no Dev i dont know the criteria they would use to make their choice, but logicaly to me if a studio is aiming for a triple A game with a focus on visuals, on paper this seem pretty compelling to me, but im guessing there is more to it than that licence cost, probably implementation cost, and stability is taken into consideration, and probably other stuff.
anyhow i hope this takes off, and i hope AMD grab more market share and get more money to see a balanced competition on the GPU front.

As I said, I thought the big draw of a lot of the GPUOpen tech is that it's on GitHub and can be contributed to by "developers", not that it's a bunch of new effects. Maybe there are some new ones, but I thought TressFX was around before. Possibly LiquidVR was a thing before GPUOpen too. I thought grouping them together and putting them on GitHub was more about getting the community involved than making developers aware of their existence so they could use them.

 

[tommybhoy]

That's not what I asked

 

[Insanties_birth]

I thought the point of GPUOpen was that everyone contributes to it?
Have Crystal Dynamics contributed to GPUOpen?

I agree that it would be good to keep things fair, I've never argued against that. What I have said is that GPUOpen doesn't guarantee that if work derived from it isn't open-source. Even if it is it wouldn't guarantee it, it'd just be easier to spot.
If you can say here and now that nothing derived from GPUOpen will ever favour one vendor over the other (by using too much tessellation, ASync Compute, etc.) then great.
I think I said earlier that I think it would be nice if Nvidia created an Nvidia version based on this to replace some of the current GameWork effects that leave something to be desired.

At the end of the day I think Humbug was probably on to something when he said developers shouldn't use these things at all and should just write their own versions of the effects they need.
This is probably the next best thing with GameWorks 3rd and not having the effects at all in last.

I will say that I'm not a champion for GameWorks and I don't believe I own a single GameWorks game. Call that voting with my wallet if you like.
I also don't own any TressFX games, but that's because Tomb Raider isn't my thing. I do own Mantle games (3 I believe, so a sizeable percentage).

As I said, I thought the big draw of a lot of the GPUOpen tech is that it's on GitHub and can be contributed to by "developers", not that it's a bunch of new effects. Maybe there are some new ones, but I thought TressFX was around before. Possibly LiquidVR was a thing before GPUOpen too. I thought grouping them together and putting them on GitHub was more about getting the community involved than making developers aware of their existence so they could use them.

GPUopen is a take it and leave it sort of thing, I imagine contribution is more voluntary and not forced.

To be fair, even if they had a stipulation in the license agreement saying that the source code had to be beneficial for everyone and not purposefully gimp one side then there'd still be no 100% fullproof guarantee that backdoor deals wouldn't occur but that would be separate from the way this is being delivered and AMD can't force companies to leave all there code open source. This is the issue in your mind but it's just a normal part of the industry, whereas the stuff they are giving out is open (free of charge with no strings attached I'll remind you) that doesn't mean they are going to force every company to make everything that they personally work on be shared. Most companies would be unhappy with that since at this point (like gameworks) helping companies with a few effects isn't really a big enough bargaining chip to force them to never have there own tech be private and be able to work on creating there own games without worry others can copy it. The point of GPUopen is to give people access to software that is impartial (countering gameworks) and can be easily improved for performance. It's no different to there freesynch approach, they wasn't looking to cash in or lock there customers / clients down with money making ideas, it was more about creating a fair playing field so they can compete off there own back.

So does that guarantee 100% that gpuopen would never cause harm to others? As we've said, anything can be corrupted but this still reduces the likelihood to the absolute minimum. They remove leverage in the argument because the devs can get the code anyway.

 

[D.P.]

GPUopen is a take it and leave it sort of thing, I imagine contribution is more voluntary and not forced.

To be fair, even if they had a stipulation in the license agreement saying that the source code had to be beneficial for everyone and not purposefully gimp one side then there'd still be no 100% fullproof guarantee that backdoor deals wouldn't occur but that would be separate from the way this is being delivered and AMD can't force companies to leave all there code open source. This is the issue in your mind but it's just a normal part of the industry, whereas the stuff they are giving out is open (free of charge with no strings attached I'll remind you) that doesn't mean they are going to force every company to make everything that they personally work on be shared. Most companies would be unhappy with that since at this point (like gameworks) helping companies with a few effects isn't really a big enough bargaining chip to force them to never have there own tech be private and be able to work on creating there own games without worry others can copy it. The point of GPUopen is to give people access to software that is impartial (countering gameworks) and can be easily improved for performance. It's no different to there freesynch approach, they wasn't looking to cash in or lock there customers / clients down with money making ideas, it was more about creating a fair playing field so they can compete off there own back.

So does that guarantee 100% that gpuopen would never cause harm to others? As we've said, anything can be corrupted but this still reduces the likelihood to the absolute minimum. They remove leverage in the argument because the devs can get the code anyway.

The standard open-source approach is you force anyone using the code to publish and share any changes and modifications, thus ensuring the community benefits from everyone's work.

AMD did t go with that license, they just provide source code, and likely for good reason because almost no develop will want to publish significant IP for free.

GPUOpen is really not that different to games works, you can get the source code to both. The difference is Nvidia likes to control who sees the source code so you first have to request it and then sign a contract, which is fairly standard.
But the real difference is Gamesworks is designed for developers that don't have time to go deep in to source code, they want a viable solution under minimization resources. Nvidia builds a much more powerful relationship with developers. If a developer wants a new feature or modification the nvidia will code that for the developer freeing up the developer's time. nvidia can then share those changes with all the other Developers in the GW program.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

That's not what I asked

No, but I disagreed with your basis for the question, making the irrelevant.

GPUopen is a take it and leave it sort of thing, I imagine contribution is more voluntary and not forced.

To be fair, even if they had a stipulation in the license agreement saying that the source code had to be beneficial for everyone and not purposefully gimp one side then there'd still be no 100% fullproof guarantee that backdoor deals wouldn't occur but that would be separate from the way this is being delivered and AMD can't force companies to leave all there code open source. This is the issue in your mind but it's just a normal part of the industry, whereas the stuff they are giving out is open (free of charge with no strings attached I'll remind you) that doesn't mean they are going to force every company to make everything that they personally work on be shared. Most companies would be unhappy with that since at this point (like gameworks) helping companies with a few effects isn't really a big enough bargaining chip to force them to never have there own tech be private and be able to work on creating there own games without worry others can copy it. The point of GPUopen is to give people access to software that is impartial (countering gameworks) and can be easily improved for performance. It's no different to there freesynch approach, they wasn't looking to cash in or lock there customers / clients down with money making ideas, it was more about creating a fair playing field so they can compete off there own back.

So does that guarantee 100% that gpuopen would never cause harm to others? As we've said, anything can be corrupted but this still reduces the likelihood to the absolute minimum. They remove leverage in the argument because the devs can get the code anyway.

My point was that people are making it sound like open source is good and closed source is bad.
I think this is just them finding things about GameWorks they dislike and making it into an issue. PureHair can and may be closed source but that doesn't make it bad.
Also the point that because the vanilla code, current, doesn't favour one side of the other doesn't mean that closed source versions won't. What if Oxide implemented a version of one of the technologies that used ASync Compute and thus performed better on AMD than Nvidia? Would that be criticised as badly? What if it was also closed source so nobody knew why there was a performance difference, it just looks like one of AMD partners (?) developed a version that hinders Nvidia performance compared to AMD? Do people really dislike the fact there's a performance difference with some GameWorks effects or do they just dislike that it's in favour of Nvidia?
How would a closed source library based on GPUOpen that favours AMD over Nvidia be better than GameWorks?

 

[eddyr]

How would a closed source library based on GPUOpen that favours AMD over Nvidia be better than GameWorks?

On the relevant issue of impeding performance when it need not, it clearly wouldn't be better, but that has not occurred. That would require an additional activity, and could be done already by a third party should it so wish without needing GPUOpen to exist. It would be reasonable to think that it would be unlikely to occur (re: impeding performance) and be caused by GPUOpen.The other in the hypothetical comparison already exists.

I know you said you like to play devil's advocate, but it is a bit of a meaningless tangent

 

[AlamoX]

My point was that people are making it sound like open source is good and closed source is bad.

not necessarily true, but in this very specific instance (gpuopen & gameworks), yes open source solution is better.

I think this is just them finding things about GameWorks they dislike and making it into an issue. PureHair can and may be closed source but that doesn't make it bad.

again no one ever blamed disliked gameworks for it's content, but for the performance hit the competitor suffers from it, without the ability to optimise the code.

Also the point that because the vanilla code, current, doesn't favour one side of the other doesn't mean that closed source versions won't. What if Oxide implemented a version of one of the technologies that used ASync Compute and thus performed better on AMD than Nvidia? Would that be criticised as badly? What if it was also closed source so nobody knew why there was a performance difference, it just looks like one of AMD partners (?) developed a version that hinders Nvidia performance compared to AMD? Do people really dislike the fact there's a performance difference with some GameWorks effects or do they just dislike that it's in favour of Nvidia?

i could come up with a lot of "what if", but would any of them be relevant?

How would a closed source library based on GPUOpen that favours AMD over Nvidia be better than GameWorks?

having access to the source code...to optimise what a vendor might see lacking, and again it's not realistic at all for a studio to close a library like pure hair to a hardware vendor like Nvidia , they would close it to other game developers yes, beside if a studio wants to temper with Nvidia's performance they dont need pure hair to do that, they can do it with a hundred other ways less obvious than pure hair.

a genuine question for programmers, isnt having the code source allow low level optimisation, so the optimisation trumps what ever higher level modification made afterward, since nvidia would still have the root code and low level access from tressfx 3.0
i have no idea what am talking about thats why, if there is any expert opinion to expand on the matter i would be very interested.

 

[Gregster]

This GPUopen thing is good as long as it gets taken up by developers. It would be a shame for it to just sit by the wayside and never get used.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

not necessarily true, but in this very specific instance (gpuopen & gameworks), yes open source solution is better.

And yet PureHair is closed source isn't it? So it's bad and not helping us as gamers or the industry?

again no one ever blamed disliked gameworks for it's content, but for the performance hit the competitor suffers from it, without the ability to optimise the code.

I'm pretty sure people have disliked the effects in GameWorks and the very concept of having 3rd party libraries.
I remember it being said that vendors shouldn't do graphics libraries, that should be left to the developers. Although I don't see that being mentioned in the GPUOpen threads (other than by me, here).

i could come up with a lot of "what if", but would any of them be relevant?

We won't know until you try...

having access to the source code...to optimise what a vendor might see lacking, and again it's not realistic at all for a studio to close a library like pure hair to a hardware vendor like Nvidia , they would close it to other game developers yes, beside if a studio wants to temper with Nvidia's performance they dont need pure hair to do that, they can do it with a hundred other ways less obvious than pure hair.

And yet GameWorks is closed. If Nvidia will do it why not someone else? Maybe not AMD, maybe a partner of AMD. Or even Nvidia again if they write an Nvidia-GPUOpen library (which would be closed-source obviousl;y as it's Nvidia).

a genuine question for programmers, isnt having the code source allow low level optimisation, so the optimisation trumps what ever higher level modification made afterward, since nvidia would still have the root code and low level access from tressfx 3.0
i have no idea what am talking about thats why, if there is any expert opinion to expand on the matter i would be very interested.

What if the new library only share 50% of it's code base with Nvidia and they don't have the source for the new library. AMD have said it's completely impossibly to optimise drivers without access to source code.


But we're going round and around in circles here so I'm gonna stop. Although obviously as soon as a game with one of these libraries in performs better on AMD than Nvidia I'll join the AMD nerfing performance on Nvidia cards with GPUOpen protest line

 

[tommybhoy]

You not dizzy yet?

This GPUopen thing is good as long as it gets taken up by developers. It would be a shame for it to just sit by the wayside and never get used.

Double edged as per, but on this occasion got to agree.

 

[AlamoX]

We won't know until you try...

alright

#WhatIf life's a game, and déjà vus are when you loose a life and return to your last checkpoint?

#WhatIf Princess Peach wants to be with Bowser, but Mario keeps kidnapping her?

#WhatIf computer viruses are really made by the anti-virus software companies to make money?

to sum up...#WhatIf 'what if' is what really is?

there is a whole twitter account for what ifs

 

[Insanties_birth]

My point was that people are making it sound like open source is good and closed source is bad.
I think this is just them finding things about GameWorks they dislike and making it into an issue. PureHair can and may be closed source but that doesn't make it bad.
Also the point that because the vanilla code, current, doesn't favour one side of the other doesn't mean that closed source versions won't. What if Oxide implemented a version of one of the technologies that used ASync Compute and thus performed better on AMD than Nvidia? Would that be criticised as badly? What if it was also closed source so nobody knew why there was a performance difference, it just looks like one of AMD partners (?) developed a version that hinders Nvidia performance compared to AMD? Do people really dislike the fact there's a performance difference with some GameWorks effects or do they just dislike that it's in favour of Nvidia?
How would a closed source library based on GPUOpen that favours AMD over Nvidia be better than GameWorks?

Closed source isn't bad, it's completely normal. The difference is when closed source isn't being handled in an independent and impartial way (i.e. Nvidia themselves having control of the closed source code that is being used and can potentially hamper performance for there rival). There's nothing wrong with closed source, 9 out of 10 software programs will be closed source but the difference is when you have consumers buying a choice of 2 products and one side is (in my opinion) potentially having unfair performance advantage merely due to potential anti-competitive practice (we've seen tons of examples where performance could have been hampered due to Nvidia involvement or forced out AMD from having a chance to optimise ahead of time). I'm not even accusing them of it right now but it's a possibility when you consider the how often it's been poorly optimised.

No one is accusing closed source of being bad as that is stupid (as explained, most software is that way) but when you have two sides that should be competing on equal ground to show who can deliver the best cards and one is being potentially kicked out of even having a fair chance to do that? That in my mind is anti-competitive. Cards perform as they do, it's childish to run the assumption that devs are forced to perform one way or the other so it's simple really, if a developer CHOSE to use asynch compute because they felt it was beneficial then that is there choice. When they are then in a relationship with one of the card developers and rely on there tech (not just rely on it but are being forced into a contract as gameworks does) then that is where there is room for scrutiny as to whether the decisions being made are being done at Nvidia's request or not. I have no issues with any dev deciding what they implement in there game so asking if a dev using asynch compute too much is a bad thing is a stupid question because it's there choice how to programme there game but it just becomes potentially dangerous when that is being influenced by one of the parties who has something to gain. Your questions are asking redundant points because we have to trust devs to apply new features, we have to respect most software is closed so of course that wouldn't be bad but the issue is when one side has a big influence on how the tech is being implemented in a potentially anti-competitive way. And again you seem to imply AMD partners as if the current gpuopen program has some large potential sway when it's open source, free and no strings attached license. AMD could potentially try and sway people (as we've already discussed though, anything can be corrupted so it's a waste of argument time to sit around accusing everyone blindly) but the difference is that Nvidia's implementation is closed but bound to be biased to the way they want the game to be coded and beneficial to them. AMD's is open source and can be modified freely so this prevents that problem.

You can't be asking that last question without having learned nothing from these past arguments or respecting how a developer would reach that point There's really nothing wrong at ALL with a game favouring one side over another as that is a developers choice as to how they choose to code there game. If a developer wants to use asynch compute then what in your right mind would make you think people would randomly judge this aggressively? Some devs want big textures, some want new features but the difference is when AMD let a developer design something starting FROM an open source and more optimised code path (there would be no real need for it to be open source if it wasn't designed to be beneficial for all) then that is a big improvement to have something like gameworks which for all intents and purposes is closed and difficult for others like AMD to get performance back from. If 80% of the code is a known factor (as lets say the developer adds another 20% on there) it would still be much easier for Nvidia to find a solution as they understand large parts of what is being implemented and so can rectify this sooner. Not only that but lets have a REAL simple scenario here to try and make you understand a bit better.
dev takes AMD open source software, this has an issue, Nvidia need a quick fix as it's effecting there performance. They do NOT need to question how much they can help because unlike a gameworks implementation the tech is open source and given freely so they don't have to be cagey with details and scared of giving away info. With gameworks however they could potentially give away private information that Nvidia won't want AMD to have based on there programming because it is a closed source solution.

That was a real simple example of how it's far more efficient and equal for fixing an issue that arises, not only that though the other example that a large part of the code is a known factor is another contributor. If you can't see that Nvidia's intervention and being involved in a games design / coding in a closed source environment is harmful this way then you really aren't even trying. It would prevent AMD from even being able to fix the issue as they aren't allowed to know some of the code that is going on, they have to simply do guess work at the last minute when the game hits retail and customers start complaining. There's nothing wrong with a developer implementing features independently and the two card manufacturers competing off there own backs to get performance right on equal footing but with gameworks it's not equal. Forcing AMD out of knowledge of some of the coding (which any normal dev could provide but they are now partnered with a competitor who would not allow that info to be shared) is basically just forcing them to wait for a PR disaster every time. And I think for a lot of gameworks games that was an issue before we even started on any discussion as to whether Nvidia would purposefully use this to there advantage. To make it simple and point it out again, no one is saying gameworks is bad either. It's just not appropriate to be delivered from Nvidia as it's anti-competitive in how it forces AMD out of being able to optimise the game and if it went open source then I'd have no qualms whatsoever in that regard so my position isn't anti-nvidia it's just against potentially anti-competitive practice. As you're probably aware it's not always down to the developer alone, sometimes new drivers from AMD and Nvidia are needed to optimise performance specifically for a game so if AMD aren't allowed info to optimise on there end and are forced to rely on the developer (who could even be a dev who is slow to respond to customer issues) then there's not much AMD can do. With an open source solution it would be stupid (even if they choose to leave it as closed in the end) for a developer to ignore Nvidia's request to optimise a game. Of course they wouldn't give there closed source code to another random developer but 9 out of 10 devs surely are willing to help AMD and Nvidia when they can. Gameworks is one of those situations where they probably can't in some regards though. Maybe you're just not looking at it form a development perspective but these examples are quite clear, that is how it can be harmful for AMD with gameworks whereas gpuopen would never have that issue (as the developer wouldn't choose to opt out of assisting Nvidia because GPUopen does not have any forced contractual agreement towards keeping that coding private so yes they could close it for other developers but there would be no chance they'd do it to Nvidia without it becoming a PR nightmare).

 

[Dygaza]

And yet PureHair is closed source isn't it? So it's bad and not helping us as gamers or the industry?

I think you're looking too much into modified outcome (PUREHair) instead of original source (Tress FX). There is no guarantees that their modified version is any better for everyone compared to original source, as we don't know what has been changed. Maybe they modified it to fit in their engine specially, which would make default source better starting point for other companies to start their work with.

As I see, it's the original source, that gives developers that starting boost, to start workign with already working sample.

However, your concern that GPUOpen doesn't get updated code when one has been update, is very valid concern indeed. This really depends how open developers will be.

 

[D.P.]

Closed source isn't bad, it's completely normal. The difference is when closed source isn't being handled in an independent and impartial way (i.e. Nvidia themselves having control of the closed source code that is being used and can potentially hamper performance for there rival). There's nothing wrong with closed source, 9 out of 10 software programs will be closed source but the difference is when you have consumers buying a choice of 2 products and one side is (in my opinion) potentially having unfair performance advantage merely due to potential anti-competitive practice (we've seen tons of examples where performance could have been hampered due to Nvidia involvement or forced out AMD from having a chance to optimise ahead of time). I'm not even accusing them of it right now but it's a possibility when you consider the how often it's been poorly optimised.

The thing is Nvidia can easily just stipulate that Gameworks cannot run on non-Nvidia (i.e. AMD) hardware and Nvidia will simply concentrate on optimizing GW for their own architecture.

That strait away nullifies your concern. Nvidia is then not guilty of doing anything that hampers AMD's performance and are free to do what they like with GW.

This way Nvidia is providing an incentive to buy Nvidia hardware without
any question of purposeful performance sabotage. Would the AMD fanboys be happy with that solution? It seems like they might. The thing is to date all the GWs features have been optional, so AMD users already have this, but they also have the option of running GW if they want to.


And frankly, if AMD and their loyal fanbase really kick up enough fuss over this that is the exact route Nvidia will take., like they have done with GPU PhysX. Nvidia will work with developers to incorporate GWs features that only run on Nvidia hardware. That is completely fair game,you pay for a Nvidia GPU and Nvidia helps its customers with added fancy effects.

AMD is then free to work with developers on adding their own version.

And the developers are free to pick and choose what they want.

 

[AlamoX]

The thing is Nvidia can easily just stipulate that Gameworks cannot run on non-Nvidia (i.e. AMD) hardware and Nvidia will simply concentrate on optimizing GW for their own architecture.

That strait away nullifies your concern. Nvidia is then not guilty of doing anything that hampers AMD's performance and are free to do what they like with GW.

This way Nvidia is providing an incentive to buy Nvidia hardware without
any question of purposeful performance sabotage. Would the AMD fanboys be happy with that solution? It seems like they might. The thing is to date all the GWs features have been optional, so AMD users already have this, but they also have the option of running GW if they want to.


And frankly, if AMD and their loyal fanbase really kick up enough fuss over this that is the exact route Nvidia will take., like they have done with GPU PhysX. Nvidia will work with developers to incorporate GWs features that only run on Nvidia hardware. That is completely fair game,you pay for a Nvidia GPU and Nvidia helps its customers with added fancy effects.

AMD is then free to work with developers on adding their own version.

And the developers are free to pick and choose what they want.

personally i would love to see GW taking the same route as Physx, be Nvidia specific, nobody will blame them for having a better looking and slower games, it's their IP their R&D they deserve their eco-system, that way devs will implement alternatives, or AMD offers the same option.
that would be fair, no benchmark tempering, no head scratching everytime a new game with GW come out, GPU will be benched on their compute power, not altered one, thats what everyone wants.
and i would even agree for nvidia to send a letter to every reviewer, asking GW games to be exclusively benched with GameWorks features enabled, you know they should just really own it.

 

[D.P.]

personally i would love to see GW taking the same route as Physx, be Nvidia specific, nobody will blame them for having a better looking and slower games, it's their IP their R&D they deserve their eco-system, that way devs will implement alternatives, or AMD offers the same option.
that would be fair, no benchmark tempering, no head scratching everytime a new game with GW come out, GPU will be benched on their compute power, not altered one, thats what everyone wants.
and i would even agree for nvidia to send a letter to every reviewer, asking GW games to be exclusively benched with GameWorks features enabled, you know they should just really own it.

Well if that is what you really want so much then you basically already have because GW features are already optional, so if you don't like it then you can turn it off. Most of the review sites already do some tests with GW and without.