Nvidia’s GameWorks program usurps power from developers, end-users, and AMD

[Silent_Scone]

Ok lets try this again. Lets take your vram argument out of things. So a basic 660 2gb card 3.5% faster than a 7950 boost at 1080P with FXAA and the GameWorks effect. How this is possible, ive no idea. Its a god damn 660, low spec.

Slap on some AA and what do we have? 7950 boost now 36% faster. 36%, not far off the 35% AA boost, eh?



Whilst also ensuring AMD cannot provide 'complete' optimization for their users. Great for the gaming industry hey.



Lol you're getting desperate aren't you. So now you're telling me that Nvidia are better than AMD at providing FXAA which normally costs 1-2fps MAX in more demanding games? I rest my case Frosty.

35% on what card Matt? 290? That new card? So putting stupid amounts of MS which is where the memory bus on the 290 would be faster anyway prove there is something a miss?

7950 performance or any Tahitti card in that list kind of defeats your arguement in a way doesn't it?

4x mssa would make much, much more sense

 

[andybird123]

So let me try again...

AMD owners are fed up, as they are locked out of FlameWorks/Flex/TXAA/PhysX/FaceWorks/And what ever else nVidia come up with?

Yes.

They hold up Mantle as being "open", along with getting up on their high horses about TressFX, which was released to drive adoption of directcompute at a time where the leading NV card - the 680 - was well known to have a much harder time dealing with intensive DirectCompute tasks and pushed the 680 to be level with a 7870 in tombraider (level with a 7970 without tressfx running).

Shoe, foot, other one, tears before bed time.

 

[LtMatt]

35% on what card Matt? 290? That new card? So putting stupid amounts of MS which is where the memory bus on the 290 would be faster anyway prove there is something a miss?

7950 performance or any Tahitti card in that list kind of defeats your arguement in a way doesn't it?

4x mssa would make much, much more sense

35% on a 660 vs a 7950 yet somehow a 660 is faster than a 7950 boost card without AA and the amd performance optimizations. Crazy eh? 580 faster than a 7950 yet 19% slower with AA applied. How either of those cards are faster than a 7950 with fxaa only comes down to GameWorks.

4xmsaa would not change things much, if at all. Its not a very demanding game as already proved.

Yes.

They hold up Mantle as being "open", along with getting up on their high horses about TressFX, which was released to drive adoption of directcompute at a time where the leading NV card - the 680 - was well known to have a much harder time dealing with intensive DirectCompute tasks and pushed the 680 to be level with a 7870 in tombraider (level with a 7970 without tressfx running).

Shoe, foot, other one, tears before bed time.

Mantle will be open once its finished. Its the only way it will become successful. Its up to Nvidia to support it. I don't think they will.

Regarding the 680 wasn't it Nvidia's idea to remove the DirectCompute abilities from mid range Kepler cards? That was an interesting move considering DirectCompute is part of Directx 11 API, don't you think? I like how you have a theory that AMD use part of Dx11 because certain Nvidia cards are weak at it though. Its an interesting angle to take to try and base part of your argument on.

 

[Uncle Petey]

So let me try again...

AMD owners are fed up, as they are locked out of FlameWorks/Flex/TXAA/PhysX/FaceWorks/And what ever else nVidia come up with?

Come on Greg, you're better than that mate

 

[Silent_Scone]

35% on a 660 vs a 7950 yet somehow a 660 is faster than a 7950 boost card without AA and the amd performance optimizations. Crazy eh? 580 faster than a 7950 yet 19% slower with AA applied. How either of those cards are faster than a 7950 with fxaa only comes down to GameWorks.

4xmsaa would not change things much, if at all. Its not a very demanding game as already proved.



Mantle will be open once its finished. Its the only way it will become successful. Its up to Nvidia to support it. I don't think they will.

Regarding the 680 wasn't it Nvidia's idea to remove the DirectCompute abilities from mid range Kepler cards? That was an interesting move considering DirectCompute is part of Directx 11 API, don't you think? I like how you have a theory that AMD use part of Dx11 because certain Nvidia cards are weak at it though. Its an interesting angle to take to try and base part of your argument on.

8x MSAA on fermi at 1.5gb. If you cant see the pproblem there...no hope. You've deflected my point by rejecting something fundamentaly obvious.

 

[LtMatt]

8x MSAA on fermi at 1.5gb. If you cant see the pproblem there...no hope. You've deflected my point by rejecting something fundamentaly obvious.

But you also think its normal for a 660 to be faster than a 7950 boost at 1080P because Nvidia handle FXAA better.

 

[eyetrip]

Amd say mantle is 'open'. We believe you! Praise Amd!

Nvidia say games or something is 'open'. Lies, lies, lies. They will cripple Amd! Die nvidia!

I'd get upset is this wasn't all so laughable.

 

[Gregster]

Come on Greg, you're better than that mate

Seriously?

I am struggling to see what the issue is, as with all the trimmings, frames are better on AMD's 290X compared to my Titan. I want to use SSAO and MLAA but I can't see these options in any of my games....

Also, I want to play Gran Turismo 5 on my PC, as well as Forza

 

[LtMatt]

Amd say mantle is 'open'. We believe you! Praise Amd!

Nvidia say games or something is 'open'. Lies, lies, lies. They will cripple Amd! Die nvidia!

I'd get upset is this wasn't all so laughable.

What you fail to realise is, regardless of whether Mantle becomes open or not, is that it will not block Nvidia performance optimizations in any way. It will not harm Nvidia performance in any way shape or form, regardless of which API is used. It really is that simple.

 

[Silent_Scone]

But you also think its normal for a 660 to be faster than a 7950 boost at 1080P because Nvidia handle FXAA better.

660 is pretty on par with a 7950 you do know that right?

 

[triss]

What you fail to realise is, regardless of whether Mantle becomes open or not, is that it will not block Nvidia performance optimizations in any way

So mantles closed,, Nvidia want to optomize for mantle,, like you say AMD want to do for crossfire etc..

oh snap, really you cant have it both ways
End of the day way i see it so far , You annoyed Nvidia spent $$ on investing for there consumers. Amd choose not to do this and as such ur behind in a few games ( which tbh most the reviews of the 290x vs titan/708 dont seem to have a huge difference)
some games as always favour amd some favour nvidia same with benchs deal with it and move on

 

[Silent_Scone]

What you fail to realise is, regardless of whether Mantle becomes open or not, is that it will not block Nvidia performance optimizations in any way. It will not harm Nvidia performance in any way shape or form, regardless of which API is used. It really is that simple.

Have you played bf4.

 

[Uncle Petey]

Seriously?

I am struggling to see what the issue is, as with all the trimmings, frames are better on AMD's 290X compared to my Titan. I want to use SSAO and MLAA but I can't see these options in any of my games....

Also, I want to play Gran Turismo 5 on my PC, as well as Forza

Yes, seriously.
Making a post that basically claims that this is all down to AMD owners being jealous of Nvidia features is nothing more than trolling. Strawman at best.

I'd rather play GT6 on my PC. GT5 was awful, apart from the driving itself

 

[eyetrip]

What you fail to realise is, regardless of whether Mantle becomes open or not, is that it will not block Nvidia performance optimizations in any way. It will not harm Nvidia performance in any way shape or form, regardless of which API is used. It really is that simple.

And what everyone on camp antinvidia fails to grasp is... If these particular feature sets were gimped on Amd hardware, either devs wouldn't use them, or they would provide an alternate method of doing something.

Any dev company wants a piece of the console pie. Nobody can afford to cut them out.

I don't think it's in nvidias interests in any way to gimp this for Amd. Or they won't see adoption to any great degree.

 

[Rusty0611]

@rusty,

To be clear on what I was pointing out in regards to AMD 290X performance, is-it's the easy way to dismiss the underlying point of this thread.

As mentioned earlier, iirc, 560/7850 performance levels is what the majority are playing with, that hardware is probably taking a hit where as the brute force of the 290X is pulling it through-BAO is a very undemanding title for the 290-it shows with the lack of advancement in better/higher IQ.

Yeah I know I get that point - I was just using your post to further my own thoughts on the process. Well as the Titan and 290X are pretty comparable on most games, you'd assume that as the AMD drivers now have the 290X performing round about in the right place in Batman, that this would translate to the lower end as well.

If the 290X is performing where it should be then it's safe to assume the other cards in the hierarchy are as well.

 

[Gregster]

Yes, seriously.
Making a post that basically claims that this is all down to AMD owners being jealous of Nvidia features is nothing more than trolling. Strawman at best.

I'd rather play GT6 on my PC. GT5 was awful, apart from the driving itself

That, I was asking and not saying, as I am failing to see the issue. I thought it was performance but clearly AMD have the upper hand and multiple pages longer, I still don't see what the problem is.

I expect on release that games sponsored by AMD/Nvidia to work off the bat better for the sponsor and this was the case with Batman but now it seems that AMD optimized the drivers and the game runs better on AMD hardware, so I assume it must be because of the proprietary tech? Or am I still missing something?

 

[Rusty0611]

But you also think its normal for a 660 to be faster than a 7950 boost at 1080P because Nvidia handle FXAA better.

To be honest with you it's not that unthinkable. Yes a 660 is a worse card in every way to a 7950 but stock 7950s aren't really that fast and when you factor in the following:

• FXAA bonus the 660 will have
  
• The fact the 192 bit bus won't be taxed at all at 1080p/FXAA settings

Then to me the results look about right. Then of course when you apply 4x MSAA the performance of the 192 bit bus card drops off completely due to the increased demand on the memory bandwidth. I think you're being too quick to blame GW without thinking about the results and what they show.

I interpret the results as doing what you would expect in the situation. You might expect the 7950 to nudge ahead of the 660 a bit to be fair at 1080p/FXAA but we're talking FPS well above 90 on stock cards so it becomes almost a little bit irrelevant.

 

[Silent_Scone]

Bravo. Watching Sherlock and was losing interest

 

[andybird123]

Regarding the 680 wasn't it Nvidia's idea to remove the DirectCompute abilities from mid range Kepler cards? That was an interesting move considering DirectCompute is part of Directx 11 API, don't you think? I like how you have a theory that AMD use part of Dx11 because certain Nvidia cards are weak at it though. Its an interesting angle to take to try and base part of your argument on.

oh come on matt, you seriously think that AMD didn't run this in house, realise that it made a 680 look like a 7870 and realise what a marketing coup that would be?
if tressfx hurt 7970 performance as much as it did 680 performance they wouldn't have released it, simple as

and yes, Nvidia dropped part of fermi because no one wanted it and it added cost and heat to fermi cards, people were very critical of fermi for this reason, so with kepler they deliberately made the chip leaner for running games, AMD late to the party added DC performance to the 7 series and then suddenly started trying to convince developers to use more of it knowing that kepler was weaker at it by comparison - there are still very few games that are compute heavy, has tress fx even been used in another game since TR?

both firms do it, they are in the game to market their own products and make money, AMD manage to do it with an air of "we have the gamers interests at heart" but it's bull, they have money at heart

you're just really clutching now and the troll thread is revealed for what it is, any chance to get the pitchfork out and have a pop at nvidia, even when numerous benches across numerous games show that it probably isn't GW specifically that is to blame so much as just games on both sides being developed with the help of the sponsoring hardware vendor

 

[LtMatt]

To be honest with you it's not that unthinkable. Yes a 660 is a worse card in every way to a 7950 but stock 7950s aren't really that fast and when you factor in the following:

• FXAA bonus the 660 will have
  
• The fact the 192 bit bus won't be taxed at all at 1080p/FXAA settings

Then to me the results look about right. Then of course when you apply 4x MSAA the performance of the 192 bit bus card drops off completely due to the increased demand on the memory bandwidth. I think you're being too quick to blame GW without thinking about the results and what they show.

I interpret the results as doing what you would expect in the situation. You might expect the 7950 to nudge ahead of the 660 a bit to be fair at 1080p/FXAA but we're talking FPS well above 90 on stock cards so it becomes almost a little bit irrelevant.

When a card costing £130 is faster than a card costing £230-£250 you know GameWorks is taking effect. The 660 is not in the same league as a 7950 . You know something is up when its faster. There is no debate to be had on this matter. It should not be faster in any situation.

EDIT

It would be like saying why is a 7790 faster than a 770. You will never find a a situation where a 7790 is faster than a 770, unless there is foul play going on.

oh come on matt, you seriously think that AMD didn't run this in house, realise that it made a 680 look like a 7870 and realise what a marketing coup that would be?

and yes, Nvidia dropped part of fermi because no one wanted it and it added cost and heat to fermi cards, people were very critical of fermi for this reason, so with kepler they deliberately made the chip leaner for running games, AMD late to the party added DC performance to the 7 series and then suddenly started trying to convince developers to use more of it knowing that kepler was weaker at it by comparison

both firms do it, they are in the game to market their own products and make money, AMD manage to do it with an air of "we have the gamers interests at heart" but it's bull, they have money at heart

Regardless of whether AMD did it to add a cool feature to a game or only did it to hurt Nvidia performance they did not block them from optimizing for it so its irrelevant. The only thing we should be asking is why Kepler cards are lacking capable support for a DX11 standard API.