Nvidia Gameworks at Gamescom 2015

[D.P.]

I guess the company who's cards suffer performance due to Gameworks knows nothing but a random poster on a messageboard knows how driver programming works.

If it was a non-issue like you say then AMD would be better served by keeping quite instead of spreading the news that their cards perform badly due to Gameworks. If you were not good at something it would not make sense to keep bringing the issue up on news sites, interviews, etc.

The fact is that AMD obviously knows that the closed source code is the main reason why they can't optimise their drivers like the could if they had access to how Gameworks code works at a hardware level.
Since Stream processors are architecturally different to the Nvidia CUDA cores the method of performing Gameworks processing will be different.

The simply fact is if AMD are incapable of optimize DX draw calls of a close source project then they have absolutely no right to be in this business and they should do the morally correct thing and hand over the reigns to company with more brains cells than monkeys with downs syndrome.


It is the most ridiculous statement ever, I know it emanated from AMD themselves but it is utter FUD. AMD and Nvidia are constantly optimizing games without access to the source code. Pretty much every game that ships NVidia and AMD optimize the driver for the draw calls without ever setting eyes on the source code, ever. There is absolutely no reason to. The only thing AMD and Nvidia care about is the draw calls that comes form the game,they don't give 2 hoots what code was used to generate the draw calls, only that the game is asking the GPU to compute the given draw calls. AMD and Nvidia's jobs are too optimize those draw calls for the specific hardware.

 

[D.P.]

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 ..

Comments like this just prove how deluded you are:

gimping of older hardware

There is absolutely zero evidence of that. Just more FUD spread by fan boys who can't believe that Maxwell is indeed significantly ore efficient and faster than Kepler, despite the fact the architecture is faster and more efficient than Fiji.

 

[Martini1991]

Can you stop posting multiple times, for the love of God

 

[thebennyboy]

One thing i will say is that i personally don't use gameworks. Not because i don't like it but because it doesn't run particularly well on my hardware. The over-tessellation of hairworks is probably more of an oversight and anything malicious.

 

[oldestgregg]

One thing i will say is that i personally don't use gameworks. Not because i don't like it but because it doesn't run particularly well on my hardware. The over-tessellation of hairworks is probably more of an oversight and anything malicious.

It could well be. I also believe in some instances its a lot of advanced effects that people have trouble running and would rather blame it on poor optimisation.

 

[Silent_Scone]

The simply fact is if AMD are incapable of optimize DX draw calls of a close source project then they have absolutely no right to be in this business and they should do the morally correct thing and hand over the reigns to company with more brains cells than monkeys with downs syndrome.


It is the most ridiculous statement ever, I know it emanated from AMD themselves but it is utter FUD. AMD and Nvidia are constantly optimizing games without access to the source code. Pretty much every game that ships NVidia and AMD optimize the driver for the draw calls without ever setting eyes on the source code, ever. There is absolutely no reason to. The only thing AMD and Nvidia care about is the draw calls that comes form the game,they don't give 2 hoots what code was used to generate the draw calls, only that the game is asking the GPU to compute the given draw calls. AMD and Nvidia's jobs are too optimize those draw calls for the specific hardware.

Vendors can't optimise draw calls. This is a physical element DirectX has control of at the expense of performance. It's dictated by how many objects are on screen at a given time. A draw call limitation would be something the developer would have to address.

 

[humbug]

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?

Everything you just listed has been around for yonks, there are a large number of tools which will do it, and some of the things you listed aren't even a part of GW.

The misinformation here is that you can only do this with Nvidia, its misinformation you are still trying to spread.

I have done half of it myself in my own projects without the aid of anything Nvidia. The rest i'm all set to experiment with. i can do a Cloth Simulation Demo for you if you like? it will only take me a few hours to get it up and running.

PS: i am registered with the Nvidia Developers Program.

 

[fs123]

Can you stop posting multiple times, for the love of God

DP loves doing it multiple times

 

[D.P.]

Everything you just listed has been around for yonks, there are a large number of tools which will do it, and some of the things you listed aren't even a part of GW.

Everything I listed here comes straight form the Gameworks website, Gameworks offers all of that. And no, a lot of that stuff has not been around the yonks. You list all the middleware that can do HBAO or Global illumination.

The misinformation here is that you can only do this with Nvidia, its misinformation you are still trying to spread.

No one has said you can only do that with Nvidia. That is misinformation you are trying to spread. Nvidia offers a clean, modern, well optimized, well document, well supported set of libraries that do all these things making ti much easier for developers to incorporate.

I have done half of it myself in my own projects without the aid of anything Nvidia. The rest i'm all set to experiment with. i can do a Cloth Simulation Demo for you if you like? it will only take me a few hours to get it up and running.

You have done half of that with the help of middleware and a 3rd party game engine.
You write a cloth simulation, form scratch, not using anyone else' code. In fact, you start by showing me the physics equations. No Bullet library, No Cry Engine, no ODE. Open up Visual studio and start coding away.

PS: i am registered with the Nvidia Developers Program.

good for you,.. I'm surprised you are making so many elementary mistakes then.

 

[Martini1991]

I'm proud of you.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Neither are making much sense

 

[humbug]

Did i use Middle-Ware? Yes

Is Nvidia GW Middle-Ware? Yes.

Did i use Nvidia GW? No.

Are Hair Simulation, Facial Animation, Fluid Dynamics, Ocean/Wave Simulation, Global Illumination... unique to Nvidia Game Works? No.

Do you need Nvidia Game Works for those things? No.

D.P what is your argument? do you even know yourself, are you just arguing for the sake of a hobby?

 

[N19h7m4r3]

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?

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.

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

I've tried enabling TressFX in the config and it doesn't run for me.
Some folks on the steam community have reported the same as well.

I can't get skeleton warriors with amazing heads of hair, or other nasties.

 

[D.P.]

Did i use Middle-Ware? Yes

Is Nvidia GW Middle-Ware? Yes.

Did i use Nvidia GW? No.

Are Hair Simulation, Facial Animation, Fluid Dynamics, Ocean/Wave Simulation, Global Illumination... unique to Nvidia Game Works? No.

Do you need Nvidia Game Works for those things? No.

D.P what is your argument? do you even know yourself, are you just arguing for the sake of a hobby?

What is your argument?

Game works is middleware and game developers use it so what. What the heck are you trying to argue, now?
As I said earlier, sit down, take your time, and try to formulate your argument in a coherent way. As it stands you just have a jumbled mess of nonsense.

You started by claiming game developers shouldn't need to use middleware because you can do these effects without middleware, you then go on to show what you have done using middleware. There is really absolutely no logic to your babbling mess. All up have shown is exactly why game developer use game works.


Are you just trolling, drunk, or taking drugs? I really can't follow your argument. "Developers don't need to use middleware, here look what I can do with middleware"

 

[humbug]

What is your argument?

Game works is middleware and game developers use it so what. What the heck are you trying to argue, now?
As I said earlier, sit down, take your time, and try to formulate your argument in a coherent way. As it stands you just have a jumbled mess of nonsense.

You started by claiming game developers shouldn't need to use middleware because you can do these effects without middleware, you then go on to show what you have done using middleware. There is really absolutely no logic to your babbling mess. All up have shown is exactly why game developer use game works.


Are you just trolling, drunk, or taking drugs? I really can't follow your argument. "Developers don't need to use middleware, here look what I can do with middleware"

Now i see where your confusion is.

I said Developers didn't need to use Game Works, your the one banging on about 'middle-ware', middle-ware in this context is a collective of Physics libraries, i'm saying Developers can use other 'middle-ware', they don't have to use Game Works.

 

[Martini1991]

Now i see where your confusion is.

I said Developers didn't need to use Game Works, your the one banging on about 'middle-ware', middle-ware in this context is a collective of Physics libraries, i'm saying Developers can use other 'middle-ware', they don't have to use Game Works.

That wasn't your original point at all, because you didn't know what you were talking about (Not that I think D.P's the epitome of absolution)

 

[humbug]

That wasn't your original point at all, because you didn't know what you were talking about (Not that I think D.P's the epitome of absolution)

You got lost along with D.P.

All that is really nice but the thing is nothing there is anything that can't be done by Developers with the tools they already have, independently of Nvidia or AMD.

I'm just not keen on Hardware vendors doing what Game Developers should be doing, its a skill set that gets lost as they become far too dependant on those vendors to do everything for them, this is aside from other arguments that have been had many times.

 

[Martini1991]

You got lost along with D.P.

Yeah, I'm not going to continue this, I know what you're like.
You're not keen on developers using hardware vendors middleware, as they should be doing it themselves.. By using erm what? More middleware? That's not doing it themselves.
Anyone can read your posts and see where you've tripped yourself up with a lack of understanding.

"They can do it themselves" is a quote you made, while pimping out Cryengine which is the opposite of doing it themselves.

Then you've tried to backtrack and jump onto "BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE GAMEWORKS" which isn't a point anyone was trying to make, although D.P gave rationale reasoning as to why one would opt for gameworks over another.

Don't bother replying Humbug, it's not going to be worth your time.

 

[humbug]

Yeah, I'm not going to continue this, I know what you're like.
Anyone can read your posts and see where you've tripped yourself up with a lack of understanding.

"They can do it themselves" is a quote you made, while pimping out Cryengine which is the opposite of doing it themselves.

Then you've tried to backtrack and jump onto "BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE GAMEWORKS" which isn't a point anyone was trying to make, although D.P gave rationale reasoning as to why one would opt for gameworks over another.

I just quoted myself saying "it doesn't need to be Games Works" it was my first post in this thread, its the point i'm making, if you and D.P. are making a different point then why are you spitting your boiled blood at me? post #6 on the first page, that's what started this bizarre nonsense. it was not aimed at anyone or brand, i was simply making a general point about preserving a skill set in game development, nothing at all to do with Nvidia.

Edit, Meh... its late.

This sub-forum is bonkers

 

[mmj_uk]

Now i see where your confusion is.

I said Developers didn't need to use Game Works, your the one banging on about 'middle-ware', middle-ware in this context is a collective of Physics libraries, i'm saying Developers can use other 'middle-ware', they don't have to use Game Works.

GameWorks is likely much better for a developer than other middleware, not only will they get all of the libraries they need from a single source but it'll likely be far cheaper (if not free?) and they will get assistance from NVidia engineers who it's fair to say know a lot more about modern graphics hardware than your average game engine programmer, it also saves them the hassle of optimising for NVidia themselves. With other middleware they will license it and then be on their own.

It's no coincidence that developers are queuing up for GameWorks, if it wasn't beneficial to them then they would simply avoid it like they did Mantle. NVidia are providing developers with a service as well as their software technologies.