Nvidia Gameworks at Gamescom 2015

[Gregster]

I know you are adamant AMD is discrediting Nvidia but I was referring to people on here who generally try to discredit AMD such as they are cheating in drivers, overheat, bad drivers, etc...

So you are defending AMD by accusing others of being Nvidia shills?

 

[Silent_Scone]

I know you are adamant AMD is discrediting Nvidia but I was referring to people on here who generally try to discredit AMD such as they are cheating in drivers, overheat, bad drivers, etc...

Doesn't really matter what I think personally. It's when people reiterate buzz words from AMD like 'denied access' to source and 'anti competitive' practices that need to be addressed.

What I think is AMD need to address concerns of their own instead of attacking NVIDIA for a programme that promotes their products, and which gives AMD users the option to turn these effects off. It's a convenient smoke screen for a financially challenging several months with wavering driver support for their own products.

That's bound to get a few lips quivering, but the reality is GW should definitely not be on top of AMD's agenda, and the only reason it is - is because it's a spineless hate campaign that has been going on for far too long and gained zero traction, because it's baseless and in some cases slanderous.


I and nobody else should want AMD to do badly, we just want them to do something. Preferably other than insinuate that Nvidia practices are bad and offer no solution other than to cry to you about it.

 

[David Bisset]

AMD & nVidia both create pre-made resources & libraries or maybe I only imagined both sides making their horrible hair/fur stuff etc. If a pre-made resource has heavy tessellation then it depends how the library or resource is supplied, the game developers may well have no control over this so it could be fair to 'blame' the creator of the library if it's very detrimental to performance.

If pointless levels of tessellation are added then that would be anti-competitive practise whatever some forum members feel about it - I'm not saying the levels added are pointless, I've never investigated and don't really care - but to suggest they can do whatever they like because it's only supporting their own brand is like saying Intel was right to pay people to not sell AMD CPUs cause that was in the interests of Intel - which took years for courts to do anything about but that never made it not anti-competitive.

 

[fs123]

If pointless levels of tessellation are added then that would be anti-competitive practise whatever some forum members feel about it - I'm not saying the levels added are pointless, I've never investigated and don't really care - but to suggest they can do whatever they like because it's only supporting their own brand is like saying Intel was right to pay people to not sell AMD CPUs cause that was in the interests of Intel - which took years for courts to do anything about but that never made it not anti-competitive.

This is essentially what could be happening with Gameworks. Nvidia paying devs to use it rather than other alternatives such as Bullet, Havok, etc.

Dirty tricks happen when it comes to making money and some companies do it more than others. If AMD was an unscrupulous company they would have got hold of the source code for Gameworks by any means possible.

 

[Gregster]

This is essentially what could be happening with Gameworks. Nvidia paying devs to use it rather than other alternatives such as Bullet, Havok, etc.

Dirty tricks happen when it comes to making money and some companies do it more than others. If AMD was an unscrupulous company they would have got hold of the source code for Gameworks by any means possible.

Can you explain to me why I can't use TressFX in Lichdom if AMD are so squeaky clean? I would say that AMD paid the devs to block Nvidia from using it, which is a shame really but I can't see the devs alienating 75%+ of the market off their own backs.

 

[oldestgregg]

So you are defending AMD by accusing others of being Nvidia shills?

Basically yes. "I dont love AMD but I get angry because people love Nvidia"?

I buy the GPU which best suits my needs and Im not bothered what other people choose to buy/defend. That dosnt make me a fanboy...it makes me an adult

 

[Gregster]

Basically yes. "I dont love AMD but I get angry because people love Nvidia"?

I buy the GPU which best suits my needs and Im not bothered what other people choose to buy/defend. That dosnt make me a fanboy...it makes me an adult

Same for me. I used GameWorks on my Fury X and Titan X and whilst it performed better on the Titan X, it didn't perform badly on the Fury X. All the games I played massively favoured the Nvidia card and so it should at the price range but I happily played TW3 with all of the GameWorks features on with no issues.

Would it be better if Nvidia blocked AMD cards from using any of the GW Libs? I know there would be some serious kick off if they did.

 

[JediFragger]

but I can't see the devs alienating 75%+ of the market off their own backs.

Probably more like 80%+ now

 

[TheRealDeal]

Can you explain to me why I can't use TressFX in Lichdom if AMD are so squeaky clean? I would say that AMD paid the devs to block Nvidia from using it, which is a shame really but I can't see the devs alienating 75%+ of the market off their own backs.

You can and there's video's showing it running on NV cards. Why the developer chose to disable the option in game is unknown. A simple Cfg tweak allows you to enable it from reading around. Still it makes no sense to me.

 

[Gregster]

Probably more like 80%+ now

I think the last count had Nvidia at 77.5% and AMD at 22.5% market share in the discrete GPU segment. Why would a company decide to **** off 77.5% by blocking them from using something that is supposedly "Open" if they wasn't paid to?

You can and there's video's showing it running on NV cards. Why the developer chose to disable the option in game is unknown. A simple Cfg tweak allows you to enable it from reading around. Still it makes no sense to me.

Of course I can and the same way AMD users could run PhysX in the olden days before it got blocked but that doesn't make it any righter when it is blocked and needs some cfg tweaking to get working. The majority of gamers won't know this either.

 

[TheRealDeal]

I think if Amd paid them it would not be possible to enable it full stop. They would be due there money back as it can be enabled no matter how it's done. I think by now the developers would have had to make sure it couldn't be enabled if money was involved or that was what Amd wanted.

 

[oldestgregg]

I think if Amd paid them it would not be possible to enable it full stop. They would be due there money back as it can be enabled no matter how it's done. I think by now the developers would have had to make sure it couldn't be enabled if money was involved or that was what Amd wanted.

This. could have been a gentlemans handshake so to speak where its turned off by default for most users but not locked out but if they were going to pay them I would make sure there was no way of enabling it in any way

 

[Gregster]

It just seems crazy to me to block the majority of gamers from using something that is open. GameWorks can be turned on or off, so it shouldn't really matter that much. AC:U for all its slating is probably my most played game of recent times as well as Batman Arkham Knight and both of these ran well on AMD and Nvidia, so I don't see an issue.

 

[mmj_uk]

Simple question, if GameWorks is as bad as AMD constantly claim via the media then why aren't AMD suing NVidia for millions/billions like they did with Intel? it's not like they aren't desperate for the money.

AMD just want people to believe that programmes like GameWorks are bad because they have nothing like it beyond 1-2 sponsored titles (Battlefield/Tomb Raider) or AAA's (GTA V) every blue moon, where they actually decide to get out of bed and improve their customers gaming experience like NVidia are doing across the board.

 

[Martini1991]

I'm no AMD shill and don't care about respect/disrespect on a forum. All I see is some sad individuals who make it their sole purpose in life to defend Nvidia and try to always discredit their competitor for some obscure reason.
Why? I don't know, but what they fail to see is that if we only have one GPU manufacturer we will all be at the mercy of price hikes, gimping of older hardware, etc. I have no desire for the gpu market to end up like this and don't like it when shills/fanboys spread misinformation to put people of a competitor that is already weak.

Buy what gpu you want but don't spread Bull** to suck off you chosen company ..

In the short time I've noticed you posting. You've came across as a massive AMD Fanboy, I find it incredibly funny that you are so quick to brand people.

 

[oldestgregg]

In the short time I've noticed you posting. You've came across as a massive AMD Fanboy, I find it incredibly funny that you are so quick to brand people.

Thats what I thought Martini and what I meant by saying ****ging off people who like Nvidia make you an AMD fanboy if you realise it or not or why would it bother you so much. I suspect if I browsed his older posts they would all be much of a muchness.

I'll say it again,if you are a grown man/woman getting worked up because someone has a different brand of component in their computer than you...take a step back,go outside and try talking like that to someone random. That look they give you? Yes you deserve it

 

[D.P.]

I see we are not talking about the same thing, you know what. answer this question.

No, I really don't understand what point you are trying to make.

You are claiming that game developers don't have to use middleware and then demonstrate videos you made using middlware. You need to have a think about what you are actually trying trying to put across.


You also seem to be suggesting that Bullet Physics library is an alternative to PhysX library, but is some how not a library. I just don't understand what your point is.


Of course game developers could use alternatives to PhysX but there are good reasons why game developers choose a midleware library. Bullet is nice but like most open source projects documentation is dire, support non-existent and the API somewhat inconsistent. For a game developer using an open source library doesn't necessarily have a big advantage. PhysX is free so there is no actual cost . The biggest advantage to using a commercial library like PhysX or Havok is you get industry quality documentation and you get official support. If physX is missing a feature or you find a big then you can tell Nvidia, with Bullet you are a bit stuck unless you want to spend a load of resources yourself.



And it not like you can't get the PhysX source code, it is right here:
https://developer.nvidia.com/physx-source-github


And in the end PhysX is just a single component of gamesworks. How many middleware choices are there for hair simulation, facial animation, fluid dynamics and turbulence, ocean/wave simulation, global illumination, HBAO, ray tracing, cloth simulation, post processing effect like DoF?

 

[Geeman1979]

Thats what I thought Martini and what I meant by saying ****ging off people who like Nvidia make you an AMD fanboy if you realise it or not or why would it bother you so much. I suspect if I browsed his older posts they would all be much of a muchness.

I'll say it again,if you are a grown man/woman getting worked up because someone has a different brand of component in their computer than you...take a step back,go outside and try talking like that to someone random. That look they give you? Yes you deserve it

True^

Some are way too emotional when it come's to favoured brands around here.

 

[D.P.]

Simple question, if GameWorks is as bad as AMD constantly claim via the media then why aren't AMD suing NVidia for millions/billions like they did with Intel? it's not like they aren't desperate for the money.

AMD just want people to believe that programmes like GameWorks are bad because they have nothing like it beyond 1-2 sponsored titles (Battlefield/Tomb Raider) or AAA's (GTA V) every blue moon, where they actually decide to get out of bed and improve their customers gaming experience like NVidia are doing across the board.

I've made this point before. if MAD think what Nvidia is doing is anti-competitive or is purposely degrading performance on AMD hardware then they have a rock solid legal case and we would be hearing a thing about this, it would all be behind closed doors with lawyers trying to rip Nvidia's trousers down.

The fact is it is baseless accusations easily disproved, and have been time and time again, look at Project C.A.R.S for exampel, everything AMD said turned out to be lies:

Project Cars

Slightly Mad Studios issued an official statement:

"For the past few days, erroneous information posted on Reddit and other websites has spread misinformation with regards to Project CARS’ performance on systems using AMD GPUs.

To correct the wrongful assumptions regarding Project CARS’ performance on AMD GPUs, the MADNESS engine and the degree of involvement from our third-party technical partners, Slightly Mad Studios feel compelled to point out the following facts:

Project CARS is not a GameWorks product. We have a good working relationship with nVidia, as we do with AMD, but we have our own render technology which covers everything we need.
NVidia are not "sponsors" of the project. The company has not received, and would not expect, financial assistance from third party hardware companies.
The MADNESS engine runs PhysX at only 50Hz and not at 600Hz as mentioned in several articles.
The MADNESS engine uses PhysX for collision detection and dynamic objects, which is a small part of the overall physics systems.
The MADNESS engine does not use PhysX for the SETA tyre model or for the chassis constraint solver (our two most expensive physics sub-systems).
The MADNESS engine does not use PhysX for the AI systems or for raycasting, we use a bespoke optimised solution for those.
The physics systems run completely independently of the rendering and main game threads and utilises 2 cores at 600Hz.
The physics threading does not interact with the rendering, it is a push system sending updated positional information to the render bridge at 600Hz.
Any performance difference with PhysX would not be reflected with differences in comparing rendering frame rates. There is no interaction between PhysX and the rendering.
Overall, PhysX uses less than 10% of all physics thread CPU on PC. It is a very small part of the physics system so would not make a visual difference if run on the CPU or GPU.
Direct involvement with both nVidia and AMD has been fruitful in assisting with the game performance at various stages of development. Both AMD and nVidia have had access to working builds of the game throughout development, and they have both tested builds and reported their results and offered suggestions for performance improvements.
Testing of the game with different driver versions has produced a variety of performance results on both nVidia and AMD hardware. This is entirely to be expected as driver changes cannot always be tested on every game and every card, and this is the reason why both companies produce game-specific driver profiles, to ensure that they can get the best out of the game.
Project CARS does not use nVidia specific particle technology - the system we use is a modified version of the same technology we used on the Need for Speed : Shift and Shift Unleashed games, and was entirely developed in-house. The reason the performance drops when there are a lot of particles on screen is simply because processing a large number of particles is very expensive."

If there is going to be any legal action it will be nvidia suing AMD for libel. AMD really need to shut Huddy up before he gets AMD into big legal issues.

 

[thebennyboy]

This is thoroughly entertaining so far. People arguing over something stupid.