Such as the MSAA improvements at driver level factoring into the large performance jumps. You're saying that the performance increase is brute force levelling, but driver optimisation for the 290x is still very much in its infancy.[/quo A 35% performance improvement to multi sampling alone with driver optimisation suggests there were a lot of optimisations missing outside of these alleged vender controlled libraries.
GameWorks is not a monolithic program. If you agree to use NV's HBAO+ library, you use that library. You don't use the library for soft shadows. If you use six GW libraries, than those functions are the functions and libraries AMD can't optimize.
MSAA is not included in any of the GW libraries, which means AMD can still optimize for it. Tessellation is not included in the GW libraries, which means AMD can still optimize for *that* provided the developer is willing to work with the company.
Blacklist, as far as I can tell, only uses the HBAO+ library. Arkham Origins uses multiple libraries. Assassin's Creed IV uses some GW libraries that AO doesn't.
So on this basis there would be no optimisations at all within gameworks for AMD hardware. Do you not think that is a little far fetched?
Nvidia is playing smart with this at introduction. They are not overtly penalizing AMD hardware beyond general removal of AMD's ability to optimize code in the usual fashion. Furthermore, optimization != won't run. NV isn't going to create a GW library that won't run DX11 code on AMD hardware, because that flings the door wide for lawsuits.
Also brings into question what WB refused to implement from AMD... I think given the situation regarding other GW titles it makes more sense to conclude it is probably an internal squabble between WB and AMD. [snip] So basically you're suggesting WB simply said "no." Not sure if you've worked for a sizeable firm before, but that sort of manner isn't really advisable. Feeding people here say is bad practice also... Being frank I think the way you've written parts of the article are deliberately misleading which is why I find it difficult to take seriously.
Before you conclude that I've been deliberately misleading, ask yourself this: Which would've been easier? A hatchet piece that relied on published benchmarks from other websites done using early versions of software that clearly showed massive disparities, or a story that wove together the danger of the GW program in principle, using a clearly identified game as an example of how vendor optimizations can be used to create unfair situations?
If I wanted to do a hatchet job on Nvidia, the answer is: "The first." And as for taking my word on certain things, here's what I can tell you. I've been writing professionally since 2001. This isn't my hobby, it's my job. I don't have my own site; I'm not Anand, but I take my responsibilities to convey accurate, factual information to readers just as seriously as any major site owner.
You are free to disagree with my interpretation of the data, or my weighting of the facts. You are free to conclude that you don't know me, and hey, this is all just hearsay.
So just watch the playing field. Watch and see what happens with future game releases. If I'm wrong, and everything is Business As Usual, then nothing will ever happen. But wrong or right, you have my word -- everything I've written reflects my absolute best understanding of the situation. Nothing has been cherry-picked to create a misleading interpretation of the data.
