PCGH asks Nvidia on Gameworks

[Silent_Scone]

All is fair in the corporate world.


Give it a rest you lot .


If it is such an issue then AMD should do something about it. All they've seen to have done is moan for the past year. Tell me I'm lying.

Needless to say though I don't think this needed posting

 

[oldestgregg]

@DM - Ubi made the game and come release choose to release it however they see fit. No surprise to see NVIDIA bashing from another of your posts and even though I enjoy reading a lot of the posts you make they almost always bash them in one form or another.

Unless theres new info out there lets keep it to the already open thread as its taken less than ten posts to get into the now expected mud slinging.

 

[Martini1991]

There is nothing new in there and this thread will only end the same as the last few.

But when it's another pro AMD/anti Nvidia thread that's alright ?

 

[humbug]

Give it a rest you lot .

Yes Mother, Sorry Mother

If it is such an issue then AMD should do something about it. All they've seen to have done is moan for the past year. Tell me I'm lying.

Needless to say though I don't think this needed posting

One might argue they are by exposing what they feel is wrong with all this, they are also not alone in the industry in feeling like this, some game developers lay the same accusation at Nvidia.

 

[TheRealDeal]

But when it's another pro AMD/anti Nvidia thread that's alright ?

This thread and all the others have been neither as bashing from either sides have occured. We had a Nvidia bashing AMD thread last night and guess what happened. Yep it's deleted as it was going no where new the same as this. I like and get involved in a lot of these threads but it's seriously been done to death. When is the next big Gameworks game arriving on the scene? That's probably when more talking points will arrive.

 

[LtMatt]

We had a Nvidia bashing AMD thread last night and guess what happened. Yep it's deleted as it was going no where new the same as this.

So it has. Didn't even notice it was missing until you mentioned it. I do agree though, there is nothing new mentioned in this interview that we didn't already know.

 

[James J]

I have actually seen Nvidia sabotaging AMD performance first hand!

Spoiler

A 7900GTO fell off a shelf and destroyed the HD7850 it landed on (ironically the 7900GTO still worked, I guess they made it out of Nokia).

Guilty laugh from me there

 

[gpuerrilla]

It's just further confirmation of what is already known, whether people choose to accept is another matter....

NVidia <insert pro statement>

AMD <insert negative slant>

Complete twaddle again, you can say it as often as you like but it's still not true.

This.

So it has. Didn't even notice it was missing until you mentioned it. I do agree though, there is nothing new mentioned in this interview that we didn't already know.

Sad but true. I remember why I used to stay out of looking the Graphics Card forum, it seems the recycling of the same retort just infects newer generations to keep the churn going.

 

[James J]

This.

You do understand is exactly the same when reversed right?

 

[LambChop]

AMD are such a shyster company. I love them trying to drag someone else to their level, they're gonna have to get up a little earlier in the morning to do that.

 

[Rusty0611]

Bloody hell I'm a massive pedant but it made sense what he said

what they said is exactly this, but they rephrased it differently, by telling that yes a product that requires a licence, have common pratice to forbid ppl who have the licence to share with external world, protected by NDA.
it's sad to see ppl being phased in to the truth step by step, without them noticing what's going on.
this is exactly what AMD is saying, and nvidia was denying, then slowly statement after statement you get closer to what AMD says , and further from the initial plain denial of Nvidia, now it's not even did they or not, but just how did they say it was.

No offence but I don't think you know what you're talking about.

 

[AlamoX]

Bloody hell I'm a massive pedant but it made sense what he said



No offence but I don't think you know what you're talking about.

i know sorry my post is confusing i should edit that.
but here nvidia's statement, and what it means, correct me if am wrong

Rev Lebaredian (Nvidia): Absolutely! We offer source licensing for GameWorks modules, and do not impose restrictions on what a developer can do with the source. Also, we often take their suggestions and integrate it back into our code, so they don't have to branch too far from our code base, and can take advantage of future updates.

meaning : yes developer who buy licence, can look at the code and make suggestions to us, then we decide if we will change them or not.
note : even though all the issue is about AMD, the focus is still on the developers who can have access and suggest, so that ppl think AMD can when in reality they can't.
conclusion : AMD is right.

Rev Lebaredian (Nvidia): Binary versions of our modules don't have any special encryption. The source code licensing has standard protections you would expect about sharing IP (e.g. not putting source code out into the public), but nothing out of the industry norms.

meaning : game developers can have access, but they cannot share or talk about anything in gameworks with outsiders, because it's a common practice for licences.
note : devs cannot share info about gameworks with them or talk to them, and AMD doesnt have the info to even suggest stuff, but nvidia would liek you to think that AMD is free to work with devs to optimize gameworks.
conclusion : AMD is right

my opinion : now take this statement and go back to when all of this started, with Nvidia denying everything, you will see that with each new statement Nvidia makes, you are being phased in slowly to the fact that yes, they are using gameworks to keep AMD in the dark and potentialy alienates AMD performance if possible, exactly the reason why all of this started.

 

[Sayso]

Lets face it there both as bad as each other but reading this forum you would think Mantle is the savior of PC gaming, when it quite clearly is just an attempt by a company to get an edge (and a marketing ploy). I just want my games to run well without being crippled or optimized to run on another manufacturers card.

 

[triss]

Lets face it there both as bad as each other but reading this forum you would think Mantle is the savior of PC gaming, when it quite clearly is just an attempt by a company to get an edge (and a marketing ploy). I just want my games to run well without being crippled or optimized to run on another manufacturers card.

Well said and at what point is someone optimizing vs crippling
Oh no my XVender cards doesnt do aswell as my Yvender card in this game But it does as good in other games, Is X crippled or is Y optimized?
Happens in all games on both sides and who is to say on games with a larger margin its not just optimized more ?
End of the day Both vendors want your hard earned money and will do what they can to get it while hopefully returning maxing income to their investors

 

[nashathedog]

+1

 

[Freddie1980]

Lol all the fanboys have bitched slapped by the mods.

I really don't get all the fuss the way I understand it Nvidia actually sells GW to developer's so they can incorprate into the game code without all the rigmarole of having to code the effects themselves. Sounds like a good idea in practice but imo most developers would have thier own ideas on what effects they want to include in thier games. You can liken it to buying a PC or building it yourself.

The bigger issue here is the fact Ubisoft lied to PC gamers about the graphics in Watchdogs and Nvidia GW will go the same way as Nvidia shield, Physx and Tegra and be a minority product used by a select few developers and even fewer end users.

 

[andybird123]

i know sorry my post is confusing i should edit that.
but here nvidia's statement, and what it means, correct me if am wrong

meaning : yes developer who buy licence, can look at the code and make suggestions to us, then we decide if we will change them or not.
note : even though all the issue is about AMD, the focus is still on the developers who can have access and suggest, so that ppl think AMD can when in reality they can't.
conclusion : AMD is right.



meaning : game developers can have access, but they cannot share or talk about anything in gameworks with outsiders, because it's a common practice for licences.
note : devs cannot share info about gameworks with them or talk to them, and AMD doesnt have the info to even suggest stuff, but nvidia would liek you to think that AMD is free to work with devs to optimize gameworks.
conclusion : AMD is right

my opinion : now take this statement and go back to when all of this started, with Nvidia denying everything, you will see that with each new statement Nvidia makes, you are being phased in slowly to the fact that yes, they are using gameworks to keep AMD in the dark and potentialy alienates AMD performance if possible, exactly the reason why all of this started.

You are wrong. Developers with the licence can have source code and make changes to it for their own game. Period. In some cases nvidia will look at these changes and incorporate them to the master dll, but there is nothing stopping game devs making changes as you suggest.

There is also nothing stopping amd optimising the game, or having the game's source code, they just cant have the dll's source code, which actually is common practice for third party libraries.

If you turn on/off a gameworks feature you get the same performance change, so no gameworks is not being used to harm amd performance

Conclusion: AMD are kicking up a fuss over nothing.

 

[Marine-RX179]

You are wrong. Developers with the licence can have source code and make changes to it for their own game. Period. In some cases nvidia will look at these changes and incorporate them to the master dll, but there is nothing stopping game devs making changes as you suggest.

There is also nothing stopping amd optimising the game, or having the game's source code, they just cant have the dll's source code, which actually is common practice for third party libraries.

If you turn on/off a gameworks feature you get the same performance change, so no gameworks is not being used to harm amd performance

Conclusion: AMD are kicking up a fuss over nothing.

You forgot to put IMO or "In my opinion"

People need to learn to separate their opinions from facts

 

[Sacrifice]

As in that interview with Richard Huddy said, from AMD's perspective, any reviewer who runs a game to bench an AMD card, as they most certainly should, means that they are running gameworks (read: Nvidias') code on an AMD device, which in one example has been proven to have line tessellation (COD: Ghosts dog hair) and other rendering techniques that hamper Nvidias' own performance just so it can hamper AMD performance by more.

And Mantle was mentioned:

Mantle: Is not forced to run on NV hardware, does not harm DX11 performance in any way.

Gameworks: Creates an uneven playing field by allowing a competitor to run its own code used for reviews on a competitor's hardware.

Even if AMD did have access, why should they put up with NV being allowed to make sure that their code, which has been proven to be deliberately performance intensive towards AMD, is how all of their cards are judged?

 

[whyscotty]

Even if AMD did have access, why should they put up with NV being allowed to make sure that their code, which has been proven to be deliberately performance intensive towards AMD, is how all of their cards are judged?