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

[LtMatt]

I think you and others are not clearly understanding what goes on to make a game. Like I have said previous, someone at AMD "should" be ripping the GameWorks libraries to pieces and seeing what makes it tick (The very same thing that Nvidia will be doing with Mantle). Once they have done this, they will be able to implement optimizations for AMD hardware.

Because GameWorks is brand new, this isn't going to happen over night but these optimizations will be implimented from AMD devs in the game code and driver level. It isn't that hard to understand but people seem to miss this?

GameWorks is a closed Library Greg. Its not going to be ripped to pieces by devs or AMD. Nvidia are the ones responsible for it all. Only they can provide optimizations.

I urge you to take a read of the comments here. The author of the article explains the score to a couple of people posing questions at the bottom.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...surps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd

 

[LtMatt]

Batman as it should be

Lol fathers for justice.

It might be tempting to link them, but this isn't about Mantle vs. Gameworks. A game that supports Mantle does not penalize DX11 on any other solution. Nvidia retains full control over their own DX11 performance and can optimize the title in all the usual ways.

Here's what you're missing: If you write a game 'the normal way", partnering with AMD or NV means that one company has better, more optimized drivers ready for launch. Nothing prevents the other company from optimizing drivers post launch. So in the long run, games get optimized on both platforms.
Optimized through GameWorks, games are never optimized for AMD at all. That's a fundamental change from how we used to do things. Instead of working with a developer to add support for specific NV functions, Gameworks actively works against the implementation of any AMD-specific functions.
Nvidia can optimize their drivers. AMD can't. That's not an "Nvidia advantage" like PhysX, or TXAA, or G-Sync.

 

[LtMatt]

GameWorks library slide, taken from their event in Montreal where GameWorks was announced.

Spoiler

 

[LtMatt]

The gameworks tools set is not just some libraries to gimp performance on AMD cards

Flameworks, physx flex and GI works are all part of gameworks, the aim is to provide increased fidelity on nvidia hardware, is it optimised for AMD? No of course not, but is Mantle optimised for nvidia cards?

Does Mantle block Nvidia from providing performance optimizations on DX?

 

[LtMatt]

Captain obvious for the first part of your post , hence why I wrote someone needs to explain to me how this is any different . Also you haven't actually explained anything?

Currently Mantle locks Nvidia out at a hardware level (Requiring GCN)

Twimtbp titles lock AMD out at a software level.

Someone explain why Nvidia is the bad guy?

It might be tempting to link them, but this isn't about Mantle vs. Gameworks. A game that supports Mantle does not penalize DX11 on any other solution. Nvidia retains full control over their own DX11 performance and can optimize the title in all the usual ways.

Here's what you're missing: If you write a game 'the normal way", partnering with AMD or NV means that one company has better, more optimized drivers ready for launch. Nothing prevents the other company from optimizing drivers post launch. So in the long run, games get optimized on both platforms.

Optimized through GameWorks, games are never optimized for AMD at all. That's a fundamental change from how we used to do things. Instead of working with a developer to add support for specific NV functions, Gameworks actively works against the implementation of any AMD-specific functions.

Nvidia can optimize their drivers. AMD can't. That's not an "Nvidia advantage" like PhysX, or TXAA, or G-Sync.

 

[LtMatt]

Come on guys, give it a rest. Lets keep to the topic at hand rather than personal squabbles over what card you own or how much you paid for it.

 

[LtMatt]

I'm not interested getting into debates, 'but its fine it has X amount of fps' that's not the point im trying to make. It never sits well to me that using GameWorks AMD are unable to provide any optimization to the game regarding drivers, Tessellation, Multi Gpu Performance etc. Instead they must rely on Nvidia to do the work for them. Could explain why crossfire has never worked on one of the Assasin Creed IV games and the fact that crossfire never worked on Cod Ghosts for a long time yet SLI was working from day 1. To this day im not even sure if crossfire works on Ghosts. I do know from friends with AMD cards playing it its not a nice experience

My opinion on this is not going to change as it changes the way things have always been done. Previously AMD were responsible for performance in games, now it appears that lies with Nvidia, assuming the game in question uses Gameworks. This is the proprietary form of Mantle and i can only hope it never gets off the ground if it means i have to rely on Nvidia providing optimizations for my AMD gpu.

I pulled out some quotes from the author that set the alarm bells ringing for me.

If you write a game 'the normal way", partnering with AMD or NV means that one company has better, more optimized drivers ready for launch. Nothing prevents the other company from optimizing drivers post launch. So in the long run, games get optimized on both platforms.

Optimized through GameWorks, games are never optimized for AMD at all. That's a fundamental change from how we used to do things. Instead of working with a developer to add support for specific NV functions, Gameworks actively works against the implementation of any AMD-specific functions.

Nvidia can optimize their drivers. AMD can't. That's not an "Nvidia advantage" like PhysX, or TXAA, or G-Sync.

The fundamental difference between Mantle and GW, to the best of my knowledge, is this: mantle does not hurt NVs ability to optimize games in DX11. Developers who agree to use Mantle can still optimize for NV. There are no new hurdles.

GW creates near-impossible hurdles for AMD. I seriously doubt a GW title can support Mantle without developers committing to enormous additional work.

Now, we have a situation where AMD's performance cannot be optimized for these DX11 functions. Writing new libraries may be technically possible, just as it was technically possible for AMD to write its own compiler, but the costs are prohibitive. Again, AMD's performance is resting in the hands of a company other than AMD.

The reason this situation isn't as bad as Intel's compilers is because AMD hasn't paid Nvidia for the right to use GameWorks. Nevertheless, I believe it creates a similar impact. People look at DX11 or the poor performance of Crossfire in Arkham Origins, and they blame AMD's drivers without realizing that AMD *cannot* optimize the drivers for those functions without access to libraries and support from the developer.

And having given WBM a month to reply, and multiple emails, plus talked to AMD about the situation, I think any statement will be CYA.

But since you want more info.

When AMD contacted WBM in October and offered to contribute code to improve tessellation and multi-GPU scaling, they were given three days to do so. AMD sent the code for both fixes over and was subsequently informed that the code would not be included.

That was early November. WBM has gone radio silent since.

You could call that hearsay, and you'd be right. That's why I don't lean on it. I present two statements I can personally verify and a third I have no reason to distrust:

1). WBM did not return my emails.
2). WBM couldn't optimize the GW libraries, even if it wanted to. (Meaning the greater issue exists and is problematic regardless of developer friendliness to AMD).
3). AMDs ability to improve Crossfire or tessellation without WBM's assistance is limited.

Edited to add: I spent a month on this story. It's easily one of the longer efforts I made this year as far as time invested. I investigated multiple titles and performed a great deal of performance testing to arrive at the conclusion that overt sabotage was not, in fact , occurring.

What about IHV optimization a from Vendor 1 that lockout IHV optimization a from Vendor 2? The only way AMD can match this is if the developer agrees to work with them from Day 1 to include AMD optimizations. By the time the game launches, it's too late.

I can't speculate on whether or not NV has baked restrictions into the GW contract because I haven't seen one and don't have visibility on that issue. But I think the central topic -- that GW locks in optimizations for NV but leaves AMD out in the cold -- is a valid one. I'd feel the same way if this was Intel holding the keys to control NV's DX11 performance, or if AMD had created a system that gave them control over Nvidia. Specific optimization for one side or the other is not the same as *preventing* optimization for one side or the other.

Remember, it's publishers making this call more than developers. And that matters for the devs that aren't big enough to call their own shots.

Supporting Mantle does not hurt DX11 performance on NV or AMD hardware. It does not prevent Nv from optimizing DX11.

Gameworks does prevent AMD from optimizing its own performance.

I apologise if people find these opinions offensive, or me posting this article in bad taste. I suggest you make use of the ignore feature rather than attacking me though, thanks.

This post was sponsored by drunkemasters ramblings. Filling your screen like no other.

 

[LtMatt]

So should we should hold Nvidia responsible For AMD bug fixes and xFire support in those games?

As it stands with GameWorks, yes. There is very little AMD can do if what im hearing and seeing is true.

But Gregster posted where AMD's driver improved performance?

Did you actually read the comments in the link Greg provided? AMD can only do so much with driver tweaks. Most of them won't work with GameWorks it seems.

Regardless its not so much about performance in this particular title, more the fact that using GameWorks AMD are no longer responsible for Optimization or performance. This is what worries me.

 

[LtMatt]

Me to, if there is a problem we can Tweet Roy or Thracks and they get right onto it, now what? Tweet Nvidia?

Have we just moved into a two tier PC Gaming model? where you have to have an Nvidia GPU to get serving for some games.

Hopefully it doesn't gain too much traction. As long as it sticks with games like Batman, COD and Ubisoft titles im not too worried. If it starts becoming common place with other AAA games then its certainly causes for concern for AMD users.

People are making it sound that they flat out can't do jack, which obviously isn't true.

You can't really do much with a closed library. So we have something where Nvidia can optimize for but AMD can't. That's never a good thing, not now but certainly not in the future with other games.

 

[LtMatt]

People people were flat out with blanket statements of "AMD can't optimise drivers".

If you didn't already, have a read of the article, including page 2 and comments section. The author deals with a number of questions and even replies to a pessimistic Greg. It also explains that AMD submitted code to improve tessellation performance and multi gpu scaling which was rejected. Even if the Dev was willing to help, it would not have been able to because of GameWorks.

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...surps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd

 

[LtMatt]

If you are a games developer and you find that your games start running poorly on half the graphics cards available, you are not going to just accept it, you are going to do something about it.

You'd think that wouldn't you? Depends how much the developer got paid though, right?

WB Montreal refused to comment on the situation. If I knew that NV had ordered WBM to refuse to work with AMD, than the article would say so. If I knew that developers everywhere were refusing to work with AMD, I would say so.

What you call conspiracy is, in fact, a carefully considered approach to a potentially incendiary topic. This article points out that no overt smoking gun has been detected, but that the inability to optimize is itself a fundamental difference from game development in the past. It does not speculate on why the WBM team has refused to work with AMD, but notes the team's noncommunication. It's more important to realize that WBM couldn't help AMD optimize the GW functions even if it was falling-down willing to do so.

And having given WBM a month to reply, and multiple emails, plus talked to AMD about the situation, I think any statement will be CYA.

But since you want more info.

When AMD contacted WBM in October and offered to contribute code to improve tessellation and multi-GPU scaling, they were given three days to do so. AMD sent the code for both fixes over and was subsequently informed that the code would not be included.

That was early November. WBM has gone radio silent since.

You could call that hearsay, and you'd be right. That's why I don't lean on it. I present two statements I can personally verify and a third I have no reason to distrust:

1). WBM did not return my emails.
2). WBM couldn't optimize the GW libraries, even if it wanted to. (Meaning the greater issue exists and is problematic regardless of developer friendliness to AMD).
3). AMDs ability to improve Crossfire or tessellation without WBM's assistance is limited.

Edited to add: I spent a month on this story. It's easily one of the longer efforts I made this year as far as time invested. I investigated multiple titles and performed a great deal of performance testing to arrive at the conclusion that overt sabotage was not, in fact , occurring.

 

[LtMatt]

AMD improved AA performance in Batman with that driver. GCN is more powerful than Kepler with AA activated so they can overpower the gameworks advantage and pull ahead with that feature activated. MSAA is something you don't need game code/dev cooperation for. Extreme tech are factually 100% correct.

I'll say it again for the 18th time. The part what concerns me is AMD unable to optimize for their own gpu's like you would traditionally. Having to leav Tessellation and mutli gpu scaling and performance in the hands of their rival is something which is concerning. Especially given Nvidias track record for using large amounts of unnecessary tessellation to harm amd performance as well as their own.

 

[LtMatt]

Ok, so you now admit that AMD did fix the game with drivers and you can see that it plays far better on GCN than GK110 but you are still unhappy because AMD can't optimize it for AMD hardware at driver level?

You have just made yourself look a right plonker Rodders

Have another read. I specifically mentioned Tessellation and Multi Gpu scaling, not to mention HBAO.

AA is something that is not included in the above, as i said. I was informed that AA does not require game code/dev coop to be implemented, in all cases at least.

 

[LtMatt]

I do really like the fact that the original article clearly states



and one of Lt Matt's posts clearly states



Bottom line WB are being idiots, but I still fail to see how this is Nvidia's fault, all they do is supply the Gameworks library to the developer, if the developer then decides to ignore AMD and not let them present code to sort out issues, just how is that Nvidia's fault.

You missed the point Bru. Even if the developer was PRO AMD it changes nothing. Even if the developer wanted to suppport and help and AMD and provide optimization, improved tessellation performance and multi gpu scaling they CANNOT because of GameWorks. In fact if you'd just read a bit more of the quote you pulled out...

It's more important to realize that WBM couldn't help AMD optimize the GW functions even if it was falling-down willing to do so.

This has nothing to do with customer support. NV has created a system in which developers have no insight into their own code base. That's vendor lock-in.

Mantle: Optimized for AMD. Does not prevent Nvidia from optimizing its drivers for DX11 games.

GameWorks: Optimized for Nvidia. Prevents AMD from optimizing its drivers for DX11 games.

If you do not understand how these things are different when it's broken down in that fashion, I do not know how to explain it to you. GameWorks prevents AMD from ensuring games run well on AMD hardware. Mantle does NOT prevent NV from optimizing games for NV hardware.

What about IHV optimization a from Vendor 1 that lockout IHV optimization a from Vendor 2? The only way AMD can match this is if the developer agrees to work with them from Day 1 to include AMD optimizations. By the time the game launches, it's too late.

I can't speculate on whether or not NV has baked restrictions into the GW contract because I haven't seen one and don't have visibility on that issue. But I think the central topic -- that GW locks in optimizations for NV but leaves AMD out in the cold -- is a valid one. I'd feel the same way if this was Intel holding the keys to control NV's DX11 performance, or if AMD had created a system that gave them control over Nvidia. Specific optimization for one side or the other is not the same as *preventing* optimization for one side or the other.

Remember, it's publishers making this call more than developers. And that matters for the devs that aren't big enough to call their own shots.

@Rusty ever wondered why Crossfire does not work at all on one of the Assassins IV games? Or why there was no crossfire when Ghosts launched yet it works fine for SLI? You need to look outside the box. If you still had an AMD card you'd realise why GameWorks is currently a bad thing for AMD users. All GameWorks titles.

EDIT

Let us not forget, another GameWorks title Splinter Cell 4 that we have to reply on Nvidia for optimizations for AMD cards...

End result from Nvidias optimization? A 660TI beats out a 7970ghz edition. If people still can't see a problem here, then they must be blinded by brand loyalty.

 

[LtMatt]

Regardless whether mantle is open and fully utilised by nvidia , It will still perform better and probably look nicer on amd as that's what it's being designed to use, No one is really kicking up a fuss about it though.

Just woken, so not clear-headed yet, but discovered this thread was still going........

I need to go back and read some stuff, but isn't game works a set of libraries designed for specific features? So flame works is there for people who want awesome flames. Use it or don't, is up to you.

Is this any different from the likes of speed tree? Neither Amd or nvidia will get access to source, but devs can use it to make one particular aspect of what they are doing easier?

No one gets assess to the source. Not the devs, not amd just Nvidia. This is the bottom line.

Mantle: Optimized for AMD. Does not prevent Nvidia from optimizing its drivers for DX11 games.

GameWorks: Optimized for Nvidia. Prevents AMD from optimizing its drivers for DX11 games.

If you do not understand how these things are different when it's broken down in that fashion, I do not know how to explain it to you. GameWorks prevents AMD from ensuring games run well on AMD hardware. Mantle does NOT prevent NV from optimizing games for NV hardware.

 

[LtMatt]

Oh no.... Nvidia on top in game works title...

http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/Gigabyte/R9_280X_OC/19.html

Oh no.... Amd go title Amd way ahead...

http:// http://www.techpowerup.com/mobile/reviews/Gigabyte/R9_280X_OC/16.html

Still.... Failing to see problem....

Can you still not see the difference? Man i don't know how else to explain it. Have people lost the ability to read or something? Hitman Absolution is a gaming evolved title sure, but have AMD blocked Nvidia from optimizing their drivers for it? No. Nvidia don't have to rely on AMD from providing optimizations for it, they can do it themselves.

 

[LtMatt]

And when mantle comes out mantle games will show the same bias towards AMD cards

The "mantle could work on nvidia" defence is pretty thin, like when? Any dates announced for that yet?

You're missing the point though. Mantle is not going to affect Nvidia's DX11 performance. Its not going to interfere or block them from providing performance optimizations for DX or Mantle. Its not a closed library. Theres a big difference there.

You didn't really answer my question. I understand that.

Most companies with awesome libraries would not open them up.

Is my comparison with speed tree valid?

Like said, need to go read some of this stuff I more detail.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean, but no i don't believe its accurate. Devs are locked out from providing optimizations as well. So even if a Dev was PRO AMD and wanted to help amd improve things they cannot because of GameWorks.

 

[LtMatt]

GameWorks is not an API its stuff that sits on top of DX11 and there is no separate path

No, what am failing to see right now is where nvidia are the evil overlords.

As far as I can see game works is a set of libraries for specific tasks. It doesn't replace dx11, hence either company can still do optimisations.

Can nvidia or Amd get access to speed tree code? Or other 3rd party apis that day implement?

Just looks to me like wb were morons, or Amd failed to do something in what they submitted.

That's the thing, AMD can't do optimizations. Even at driver level they're severely limited in what they can do because of GameWorks library. As a result amd performance, tessellation optimization, multi gpu scaling lies in the hands of Nvidia. As Assassins IV and Ghosts will show, things like crossfire won't work and because of that AMD get the blame. Infact its because of GameWorks. Only Nvidia can access and optimize for GameWorks, it blocks AMD from doing so at Game Code or Driver level.

Regarding WB and AMD, i guess you missed this quote from the Author, which ive posted several times already.

WB Montreal refused game code updates and improvements when AMD attempted to contribute them. The actions of the studio, however , are secondary to the shape of the program and it's impact.

It's more important to realize that WBM couldn't help AMD optimize the GW functions even if it was falling-down willing to do so.

And having given WBM a month to reply, and multiple emails, plus talked to AMD about the situation, I think any statement will be CYA.

But since you want more info.

When AMD contacted WBM in October and offered to contribute code to improve tessellation and multi-GPU scaling, they were given three days to do so. AMD sent the code for both fixes over and was subsequently informed that the code would not be included.

That was early November. WBM has gone radio silent since.

You could call that hearsay, and you'd be right. That's why I don't lean on it. I present two statements I can personally verify and a third I have no reason to distrust:

1). WBM did not return my emails.
2). WBM couldn't optimize the GW libraries, even if it wanted to. (Meaning the greater issue exists and is problematic regardless of developer friendliness to AMD).
3). AMDs ability to improve Crossfire or tessellation without WBM's assistance is limited.

 

[LtMatt]

B, b, b, but mantle....

 

[LtMatt]

nothing prevents users from turning down the NVidia specific features, as Kaap showed very early in this thread a 290X still gets higher frame rates than a Titan on like for like settings

gameworks is a set of tools developed by NVidia to add eyecandy for NVidia users, it does not prevent AMD users from running the game or getting good frame rates

the day that mantle supports NVidia cards is the day that it becomes a valid point, until then it's an entirely empty promise

Yeah i don't think you really understand Andy. Mantle will never block Nvidia from optimizing its drivers or features. Mantle will not affect Nvidia's performance in DX at all, whilst GameWorks blocks any AMD performance optimizations on DX.