• 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

When talking about PhysX in Batman you have to be very careful to keep an eye on the CPU in use. From my own testing with intel Hexcores I found the following.

3930k + Titan with PhysX on the GPU - slowest option

3930k + Titan + second Titan for PhysX - about 30% faster

3970X + 290X with PhysX done on CPU - Fastest option

I don't think I would have done so well if I was using a 2500k as I don't think it would have coped with doing the PhysX with the 290X
 
Gregster said:
Sooooo, I had a look at the frames for the low end GPU's and I still don't see what the fuss is...

2effae416c6ccc8594c1409f55f6da1b.jpg


72fps average on a stock 7870 looks good to me. Of course Nvidia is way ahead but it is still massively playable and I bet most of the people who use less than a 660/7870 are still on a 60Hz monitor.
Click to expand...

humbug said:
Thats with 4x MSAA, the best settings are 8x MSAA.

Its also only 41 FPS at 1600P.

http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/MSI/R9_270X_Gaming/7.html
Click to expand...

humbug said:
I never said i wanted to play it a 1600P, your making that up as you go along, i said 1080P and 8x MSAA, with the correct optimization it can do that.

You keep missing the point, i don't know if keep doing that on purpose or if you have real problems grasping the most basic stuff.

Nvidia just can't handle the GPU compute in Sleeping dogs, same with Tomb Raider, Nvidia were given access to those games so they could optimise for them, the result is the performance is much better than it was.

AMD are being denied that. If this is under Nvidia's instructions then Nvidia Gimping performance is exactly whats going on here.
Click to expand...

I have told you that it is playable at 1080P and good frames IMO for this gorgeous game on a 7870. 1600P I would struggle, that was the point but you brought it up with saying you would only get 41 fps average @ 1600P on a 7870.

It seems we are going in circles now and I have shown you are not missing out on anything, so to save my own sanity I will leave it there.
 
humbug said:
Nvidia just can't handle the GPU compute in Sleeping dogs, same with Tomb Raider, Nvidia were given access to those games so they could optimise for them, the result is the performance is much better than it was.

AMD are being denied that. If this is under Nvidia's instructions then Nvidia Gimping performance is exactly whats going on here.
Click to expand...

My NVidia cards seem to do ok in both Tomb Raider and Sleeping dogs. IIRC my humble 2gb GTX 690s have got the highest score in the sleeping dogs bench.:D
 
arc@css said:
Isn't the 290x faster than the titan, though?
Click to expand...

There is very little in it but yes IIRC the 290X is very slightly faster.

The point of my previous post though was that with an intel Hexcore the PhysX can be done on the CPU without any loss of speed or quality in Batman. The runs on all the setups I listed earlier all looked identical, the pics are over in the batman bench thread.
 
Kaapstad said:
When talking about PhysX in Batman you have to be very careful to keep an eye on the CPU in use. From my own testing with intel Hexcores I found the following.

3930k + Titan with PhysX on the GPU - slowest option

3930k + Titan + second Titan for PhysX - about 30% faster

3970X + 290X with PhysX done on CPU - Fastest option

I don't think I would have done so well if I was using a 2500k as I don't think it would have coped with doing the PhysX with the 290X
Click to expand...

That's odd, given that PhysX is designed to be run through a GPU I find it strange that a CPU handles it better from your experience. Is this only the case with the extreme Intel CPUs (hexcores) or is it also similar with the slightly lower performance ones like the i7-4770K and i7-3770K etc?
 
The Bottom line is Warner Brothers are not giving me the same level of service because of their discrimination against the brand of GPU i'm using. as a result i'm getting sub par performance from the product.

Its really not that difficult to understand.

What I don't understand is why some try reason that as acceptable, and yet would not dare to answer if it would accessible for other developers to do it to Nvidia.

Its quiet surreal.

I really do wander sometimes if loyalty to a brand is more important to some than industry cohesion, i would ask, perhaps they would be happy with a split with games in some way tied to hardware vendors, just as long as its Nvidia who win.

There seems to be a mentality difference between hardware brand in both the users and the vendors.
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
The Bottom line is Warner Brothers are not giving me the same level of service because of their discrimination against the brand of GPU i'm using. as a result i'm getting sub par performance from the product.

Its really not that difficult to understand.

What I don't understand is why some try reason that as acceptable, and yet would not dare to answer if it would accessible for other developers to do it to Nvidia.

Its quiet surreal.

I really do wander sometimes if loyalty to a brand is more important to some than industry cohesion, i would ask, perhaps they would be happy with a split in games in some way tied to hardware vendors, just as long as its Nvidia who win.
Click to expand...

But Greg has already given you FPS charts which clearly show that with your GPU (and other lower level AMD GPUs) the performance is fine (above 60fps) - so what's the problem? Why is that "sub par performance"?

I could understand if the AMD cards were obtaining ridiculously low frame rates, but they're not. It's just that this particular game is optimised more for Nvidia graphics cards - some games are optimised more for AMD GPUs and I'm fine with that, that's the way it is; so why kick up a big fuss about this?

Edit - And if you mean you get low frame rates at 1600p, ultra settings, then that can only be expected with a 7870 really
 
PhysicsMan94 said:
But Greg has already given you FPS charts which clearly show that with your GPU (and other lower level AMD GPUs) the performance is fine (above 60fps) - so what's the problem? Why is that "sub par performance"?

I could understand if the AMD cards were obtaining ridiculously low frame rates, but they're not. It's just that this particular game is optimised more for Nvidia graphics cards - some games are optimised more for AMD GPUs and I'm fine with that, that's the way it is; so why kick up a big fuss about this?
Click to expand...

As i explained to him, what about lesser GPU owners who are not getting great performance but would if AMD had access.

That among others has yet to be answered, perhaps you could answer it?
 
Last edited:
humbug said:
As i explained to him, what about lesser GPU owners who are not getting great performance but would if AMD had access?

That among others has yet to be answered, perhaps you could answer it?
Click to expand...

That's just the choice of WB in this case - they chose to allow for Nvidia optimisation and shut AMD out, that is in no way Nvidia's fault. So are WB in the wrong here? Well, it probably wasn't a great thing for them to do - but they shipped their product and that's that, perhaps AMD were too late to the table with offering optimisations for this game with their graphics cards, who knows?

All I'm saying is that this is not worth such a big fuss over as it's one game and the performance "issues" with AMD cards used for this game are not Nvidia's fault like some people here are implying.
 
humbug said:
As i explained to him, what about lesser GPU owners who are not getting great performance but would if AMD had access.

That among others has yet to be answered, perhaps you could answer it?
Click to expand...

Everything you've said has been answered. You either aren't reading it or you don't like the answer and are ignoring it :D.
 
PhysicsMan94 said:
That's just the choice of WB in this case - they chose to allow for Nvidia optimisation and shut AMD out, that is in no way Nvidia's fault. So are WB in the wrong here? Well, it probably wasn't a great thing for them to do - but they shipped their product and that's that, perhaps AMD were too late to the table with offering optimisations for this game with their graphics cards, who knows?

All I'm saying is that this is not worth such a big fuss over as it's one game and the performance "issues" with AMD cards used for this game are not Nvidia's fault like some people here are implying.
Click to expand...

AMD have already said they submitted optimizations before the deadline.

Nvidia's fault here is debatable, depends on what if anything they have to do with it.

Right now WB are not accepting anything from AMD, they are shut out and game servicing from WB does not exist for AMD owners, this with the game in a sub par state.

They have taken my money and then denied my hardware vendor the service they set out to provide.

Its unacceptable, if it was DICE denying Nvidia optimizations for BF4 i would feel exactly the same way. wouldn't you?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom