• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

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

I'll wait now and see if there are any further updates on this before posting more. This is basically the situation we find ourselves in at the moment.

LtMatt said:
This is what it boils down to when it comes to level of understanding of GameWorks and its implications. First look to see what gpu the poster has. Then apply the relevant picture. :p


Nvidia GPU
hfhkxFJ.jpg




AMD GPU
zx5rnGn.jpg
Click to expand...


May as well end on a joke.
 
Ian Evey said:
Exactly the same thing can be said about mantle, This game performs said % better on Amd, that wont harm nvidia sales at all will it.
Click to expand...
If AMD get more sales due to Mantle boosting the performance of their own cards, then of course they deserve it; whereas GameWork prevent AMD from fixing glitches/performance issues is "forced upon" or "manufactured" by GameWorks directly or indirectly, so I don't see why Nvidia should deserve the extra sales from people jumping from Red to Green because of that.

Also, stop comparing GameWorks to Mantle...they are completely different in nature...it's not about the performance, but about "how" the increase in the performance gaps is produced:

improving the performance of own products
vs
set up obstacles to make the rivals' products more difficult to perform to their full potential
 
Last edited:
but exactly the same can be said of TressFX - it is a library, AMD do not give out the source code of this library to devs or to competitors, Nvidia are in exactly the same position in regards being able to opitimise for it, this article claiming otherwise is just bad journalism

and mantle, AMD are not going to give Nvidia the source code for mantle, they get the interface specs from AMD and that is it, mantle itself is a closed black box that Nvidia can do nothing about changing the code of
 
I wouldn't even bother arguing Mantle as a deflection. Even if it is sensible. I mean what's unfair about a vendor specific programming interface as long as it's open. Want a list? lol :D.

Doesn't bother me as frankly if Mantle offers the gains we're all hoping for I'd be extremely game for trying it out.
 
Last edited:
Looks like quite a few people do not know the difference between open standard, and open source.

Or what an SDK actually is.
 
andybird123 said:
but exactly the same can be said of TressFX - it is a library, AMD do not give out the source code of this library to devs or to competitors, Nvidia are in exactly the same position in regards being able to opitimise for it, this article claiming otherwise is just bad journalism

and mantle, AMD are not going to give Nvidia the source code for mantle, they get the interface specs from AMD and that is it, mantle itself is a closed black box that Nvidia can do nothing about changing the code of
Click to expand...
TressFX is nothing but a optional feature and doesn't affect the core performance of Nvidia's card; had PhysX been able to be used on a primary AMD card and a secondary Nvidia card, I don't think people would complain too much about it even if performance was slightly worse than two Nvidia cards.

GameWorks on the other hand affect the core performance of AMD cards.

As for Mantle:
Marine-RX179 said:
You are over looking one VERY simple point. Regardless of if Mantle would improve performance for Nvidia cards (if Nvidia do decide to take advantage of it and incoorpate design to support in it their future gen cards) as much as it does on AMD cards...as long as it has ANY improvement over the performance of Nvidia cards on dx11, it would ALREADY be a benefit for Nvidia users as they will be getting MORE performance than they original would have had; GameWork's "locking up the bonnet" approach however certainly ain't gonna benefit AMD users in ANYWAY.
Click to expand...
 
Woden said:
Looks like quite a few people do not know the difference between open standard, and open source.

Or what an SDK actually is.
Click to expand...




well we know Mantle is not open source, for those wondering. AMD have been quoted numerous times saying it is built specifically for GCN architecture which again is something which totally flies over the head of people taking the OP article as gospel.


Open standard is another matter entirely as there isn't a single definition. But in the programming scene it normally implies it's free to use by all and can be amended without any implications. Now as far as NV using it goes I find that's probably not the case, and there would be some form of exchange of dollar involved :).

EDIT: Wiki,

There are those in the open-source software community who hold that an "open standard" is only open if it can be freely adopted, implemented and extended.[1] While open standards or architectures are considered non-proprietary in the sense that the standard is either un-owned or owned by a collective body it can still be publicly shared and not tightly guarded
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
LtMatt said:
Guilty as charged. :o

Feel free to educate us though. :)
Click to expand...

seeing as it's the entire basis of the article and your support of it you had better learn quick :D

here's the big clue
Can this be traced directly back to GameWorks? Technically, no it can’t — all of our feature-specific tests showed the GTX 770 and the R9 290X taking near-identical performance hits with GameWorks features set to various detail levels. If DX11 Enhanced Ambient Occlusion costs the GTX 770 10% of its performance, it cost the R9 290X 10% of its performance.
Click to expand...

so turning on or off each of the gameworks features - the ones that actually call these libraries, the performance hit or improvement is the same on each set of hardware
if you turn off all of the gameworks features, so the libraries are not being called at all, and the game still favours NVidia, then clearly the fault is with the game, not with gameworks

if it's the FXAA implementation they've used then use SweetFX to enable SMAA (which is a non-vendor specific version of FXAA basically)
 
Last edited:
Basics:

Open Standard said:
Freely and publicly available – They are available free of charge and unencumbered by patents and other intellectual property.
Non discriminatory – They are available to anyone, any organization, any time, anywhere with no restrictions.
No license fees - There are no charges at any time for their use.
Vendor neutral - They are vendor neutral in terms of their content and implementation concept and do not favor any vendor over another.
Data neutral – The standards are independent of any data storage model or format.
Defined, documented, and approved by a formal, member driven consensus process. The consensus group remains in charge of changes and no single entity controls the standard
Click to expand...

Open Source said:
Free Redistribution. The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.
Source Code. The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.
Derived Works. The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.
Integrity of The Author's Source Code. The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.
No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups. The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor. The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.
Distribution of License. The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
License Must Not Be Specific to a Product. The rights attached to the program must not depend on the program's being part of a particular software distribution. If the program is extracted from that distribution and used or distributed within the terms of the program's license, all parties to whom the program is redistributed should have the same rights as those that are granted in conjunction with the original software distribution.
License Must Not Restrict Other Software. The license must not place restrictions on other software that is distributed along with the licensed software. For example, the license must not insist that all other programs distributed on the same medium must be open-source software.
License Must Be Technology-Neutral. No provision of the license may be predicated on any individual technology or style of interface.
Click to expand...
 
in addition to the bits you've highlighted;

Defined, documented, and approved by a formal, member driven consensus process. The consensus group remains in charge of changes and no single entity controls the standard

neither tressfx nor mantle are party to this either
 
LtMatt said:
Johann Andersson, the dice dev who has close ties to AMD and Nvidia says Mantle can work fine with other vendors, ie Nvidia. Considering he helped AMD create Mantle, id say his opinion holds considerable weight.
Click to expand...

You have any source for that? it's just Thracks stated Mantle required GCN architecture and he usually knows his stuff.
 
andybird123 said:
so turning on or off each of the gameworks features - the ones that actually call these libraries, the performance hit or improvement is the same on each set of hardware
if you turn off all of the gameworks features, so the libraries are not being called at all, and the game still favours NVidia, then clearly the fault is with the game, not with gameworks
Click to expand...

How do you turn off the GameWorks 'feature' that sees a 660 beating a 7950 boost? Or a 290X losing to a 770? I'm pretty sure you can't as only Nvidia can optimise for that part, unlike amd or the dev.

ubersonic said:
You have any source for that? it's just Thracks stated Mantle required GCN architecture and he usually knows his stuff.
Click to expand...

Yes i watched the Mantle Keynotes delivered by Johann Andersson at APU13.

1CjuPjZ.jpg


During AMD’s Developer Summit, Johan Andersson confirmed that Mantle is not tied to AMD’s GCN architecture, meaning that there isn’t such requirement.

This also means that other vendors will be able to support Mantle by not altering the architecture of their GPUs.
Click to expand...

Source
http://www.slideshare.net/DevCentralAMD/keynote-johan-andersson
http://www.dsogaming.com/news/amds-mantle-does-not-require-gpus-with-gcn-architecture/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom