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

andybird123 · 1 Jan 2014 at 22:55

LtMatt said:
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.

I've already told you why - devs were not using DC and "the market" was very critical of fermi for having strong CUDA/DC support when games were not using it

now that more games are using it they release the 780 which adds it back in

pretty simple market economics, not sure what you are struggling with

regardless of whether one side tries to prevent the other from optimising or not, the bench results show that neither side is getting a massive advantage over the other when you look at a range of cards and settings, it is the same situation as always, certain games and settings favour one set of cards or the other, this is all nothing new and it's totally not news or 16 page thread worthy

as gamers we can play with settings in different games to find something that works, if a game turns up that has a problem with the card we own then don't buy that game, it will hurt the dev and they'll be forced to sort it out one way or the other

LtMatt · 1 Jan 2014 at 22:57

andybird123 said:
I've already told you why - devs were not using DC and "the market" was very critical of fermi for having strong CUDA/DC support when games were not using it

now that more games are using it they release the 780 which adds it back in

pretty simple market economics, not sure what you are struggling with

Well then that's their fault and not some master plan by AMD to create a DX11 standard API that they can magically start using the second Nvidia launch Direct Compute crippled Kepler cards. Tomb Raider launched a few weeks before Kepler cards. Are you telling me they managed to tack on TressFX to a finished game in a few weeks, specifically to hurt Nvidia performance?

andybird123 · 1 Jan 2014 at 23:01

LtMatt said:
Well then that's their fault and not some master plan by AMD to create a DX11 standard API that they can magically start using the second Nvidia launch Direct Compute crippled Kepler cards. Tomb Raider launched a few weeks before Kepler cards. Are you telling me they managed to tack on TressFX to a finished game in a few weeks, specifically to hurt Nvidia performance?

excuse me? a game released in 2013 was released before a graphics card from 2012?
they had a whole year to come up with tressfx and find a game to get it added to specifically to hurt nvidia performance

it is well known that AMD had been going around trying to get devs to support DC instead of CUDA

Rusty0611 · 1 Jan 2014 at 23:03

LtMatt said:
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.

Way to ignore what I said.

The 660 isn't that far behind the 660Ti which itself - in non-memory bandwidth intense scenarios - will roughly match a 7950. If they benched a fancy custom cooled 660 against a bog standard 7950 then again, you can see how they could be even.

Which was why I said when you consider the FXAA implementation it isn't really that unrealistic that the two mentioned cards were benched even. You keep saying it's GW but I don't think that's the case. You're letting your agenda cloud your better judgement.

Gregster · 1 Jan 2014 at 23:18

Tomb Raider was released on the 5th March 2013 and Kepler cards were first released on March 22nd 2012. Come on now Matt, AMD knew exactly what they were doing with TressFX and you know it.

humbug · 1 Jan 2014 at 23:29

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

A 660 is miles behind a 7950, a 660 is miles behind my GPU which is also miles behind a 7950.

The GTX 660 sits between a 7850 and a 7870.

660 vs 7950

660 vs 7870

660 vs 7850

How far does one need to get down the AMD GPU ladder to get it just less than even with the 660? an underclocked salvage binned Pitcairn

LtMatt · 1 Jan 2014 at 23:50

andybird123 said:
excuse me? a game released in 2013 was released before a graphics card from 2012?
they had a whole year to come up with tressfx and find a game to get it added to specifically to hurt nvidia performance

it is well known that AMD had been going around trying to get devs to support DC instead of CUDA

My mistake im getting confused with the titan launch, prior to the Tomb Raider launch. Regardless Nvidia were able to optimize for tressfx, the way it should be. Something amd are unable to do for GameWorks, so it changes nothing. IF AMD wanted to hurt Nvidia performance they would not use a DX11 API standard like Direct Compute which is open and can be optimized for.

Rusty0611 said:
Way to ignore what I said.
SNIP

I will say it again. There is no way a 660 should be faster than a 7950 at any setting. See the post below.

humbug said:
A 660 is miles behind a 7950, a 660 is miles behind my GPU which is also miles behind a 7950.

The GTX 660 sits between a 7850 and a 7870.

660 vs 7950

660 vs 7870

660 vs 7850

How far does one need to get down the AMD GPU ladder to get it just less than even with the 660? an underclocked salvage binned Pitcairn

Rusty0611 · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:17

LtMatt said:
I will say it again. There is no way a 660 should be faster than a 7950 at any setting. See the post below.

And I will say it again because you still haven't read it, when you consider the FXAA implementation and the fact the biggest weak point of the 660 isn't in play (the memory bandwidth due to being 1080p/FXAA) it isn't far off what you'd consider to be the case.

Most of those games Humbug's put were benched with MSAA which means they aren't relevant to the point being made. I don't disagree that the 7950 should be ahead even considering that but I don't think it would be miles ahead.

Silent_Scone · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:17

Double

Silent_Scone · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:20

Come again? Matches a 7950 in Farcry 3 and Bf3 but they're leagues apart. Or is that GameWorks again? It must be huh guys? Oh wait no that doesn't fit your criteria. Much like the fact Unreal Tech 3 games normally favour NV anyway. Guess that's irrelevant too.

Gregster · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:26

I knew we had been on this argument before

http://forums.overclockers.co.uk/showpost.php?p=24477196&postcount=68

All Frostbite 3 titles will be optimised exclusively for AMD

The shoe was looking like it was on the other foot

etched Chaos · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:29

MjFrosty said:
Come again? Matches a 7950 in Farcry 3 and Bf3 but they're leagues apart. Or is that GameWorks again? It must be huh guys? Oh wait no that doesn't fit your criteria. Much like the fact Unreal Tech 3 games normally favour NV anyway. Guess that's irrelevant too.

One single game it's close to a 7950, are you going to reference the plethora of games that the 7950 crushes the 660? Didn't think so.

The 7950 is far superior to the 660 and you pay for that superiority, anyone arguing otherwise is blind. You might get 1 or 2 instances where it can compete but that's it, it is not enough to support your claims.

Silent_Scone · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:31

Single? Named two on that list alone. Three if you count Arkham Origins but ok if you're saying that it's still implausible for it to perform on the same level in that particular game you go right ahead. Not that it makes sense but I won't stop you.

arc@css · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:33

The 7950 is considerably faster than the GTX660 in some games, while moderately ahead in others.

Rusty0611 · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:36

arc@css said:
The 7950 is considerably faster than the GTX660 in some games, and moderately ahead in others.

Indeed. It really depends on the settings as well. Any kind of MSAA the 660 will get crippled but without it, it holds up well.

etched Chaos · 2 Jan 2014 at 00:37

MjFrosty said:
Single? Named two on that list alone. Three if you count Arkham Origins but ok if you're saying that it's still implausible for it to perform on the same level in that particular game you go right ahead. Not that it makes sense but I won't stop you.

Origins is being excluded because of the argument, it's the differences between FXAA and MSAA benchmarks that we're talking about. Citing that game as a supporting example is ridiculous.

But hey, two games, why that's only half as pointless as it was before. You seriously believe the 660 is equal to a 7950?

humbug · 2 Jan 2014 at 01:02

Rusty0611 said:
Indeed. It really depends on the settings as well. Any kind of MSAA the 660 will get crippled but without it, it holds up well.

Against a 7870, yeah.

Rusty0611 · 2 Jan 2014 at 01:09

humbug said:
Against a 7870, yeah.

In a normal game but we're talking a TWIMTBP game so against a 7950 isn't beyond the realms of possibility.

Gregster · 2 Jan 2014 at 01:10

Anyways, I knew we had been here before.

http://www.brightsideofnews.com/new...-nvidia-vs-eidos-fight-analyzed.aspx?pageid=3

Joel (The author of the original article) ignores all the relevant questions and facts and then goes on to say "Why is AMD concerned about these results", so to me, he has been put up to this, pretty much how nVidia paid for that sites 290X's and said "Bench them".

It does go to show that they are both as bad as each other. Anyways, it is getting late and my brain can't cope with this. I will comment again if we get a reply from nVidia or AMD.

MrMarvelous · 2 Jan 2014 at 01:30

Keep on their case Gregster, you biblical beast.