PCGH asks Nvidia on Gameworks

[Rusty0611]

Greg, basically the argument goes: nVidia have done bad stuff in the past therefore the fact somebody makes an article saying so again means it must be true SOMEWHERE down the line even though there's no proof in actual game performance figures (when specifically running through GW libraries).

Guilty until proven innocent applies. I wouldn't waste your time.

 

[tommybhoy]

Good for you, the fact my 670 can push the same fps as my 290X in 3D sbs(doesn't remotely happen in any other title), makes my opinion rock hard, I don't need any articles.

 

[Gregster]

Greg, basically the argument goes: nVidia have done bad stuff in the past therefore the fact somebody makes an article saying so again means it must be true SOMEWHERE down the line even though there's no proof in actual game performance figures (when specifically running through GW libraries).

Guilty until proven innocent applies. I wouldn't waste your time.

I am trying to see where the performance hit is to agree with the people who feel AMD are getting a rough time in GameWorks titles but I am not seeing it. So far I have put up benches, Statements from a well respected game developer as well but nobody I have not seen any proof that nVidia have gimped performance on AMD hardware.

This was from the forbes article.

AMD, Driver Optimization, And GameWorks Agreements
One of the more damning statements made by AMD was this:

“Participation in the Gameworks program often precludes the developer from accepting AMD suggestions that would improve performance directly in the game code—the most desirable form of optimization.”

Nvidia’s Cebenoyan responded directly to this during our conversation: “I’ve heard that before from AMD and it’s a little mysterious to me. We don’t and we never have restricted anyone from getting access as part of our agreements. Not with Watch Dogs and not with any other titles. Our agreements focus on interesting things we’re going to do together to improve the experience for all PC gamers and of course for Nvidia customers. We don’t have anything in there restricting anyone from accessing source code or binaries. Developers are free to give builds out to whoever they want. It’s their product.”

Sure he works for nVidia but if he was telling lies, then AMD would have a case for Libel but nothing, nada, zip. It just seems a lot of hot air about nothing to me.

I am out of this thread.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

That's spot on matt, 'can you show me?' round and round we go again and again and again...

It's not an argument when plenty non AMD people(you know web sites that put the boot into both camps without batting an eyelid, they aren't all **** lickers you know) create articles from way back, it's happened too many times now.

How do you know they're non-AMD people, is there any proof?
Maybe if they show us detailed bank account statements for every bank account they own for the last decade or 2 we can see they're not getting paid off. If they won't show us that then I think that amounts to them having something to hide so they must be guilty of receiving pay-offs from AMD...
Maybe they do some anti-AMD as a clever ploy to make people believe the anti-Nvidia stories as it makes them seem unbiased. They just pick lesser things about AMD to complain about when they do, maybe after AMD have told them they have a fix for it or something.

I like this wild speculation with no proof thing...

 

[Martini1991]

Greg, basically the argument goes: nVidia have done bad stuff in the past therefore the fact somebody makes an article saying so again means it must be true SOMEWHERE down the line even though there's no proof in actual game performance figures (when specifically running through GW libraries).

Guilty until proven innocent applies. I wouldn't waste your time.

The funny thing is, AMD has publicly lied before in their marketing, by that logic it could be argued AMD is lying again.

I'm going by the AMD marketing of Bulldozer (Ignoring Bulldozers performance for a second) they had a "980X" in Cinebench getting beaten by the FX8150. The CPU they'd benched wasn't a 980X, it was a 2500k. This was on a video they'd published and distributed.

The gameworks stuff IMO tends to be BS, the effects harm AMD and no more than Nvidia, but I do think there's merit in other things (Like the over tessellation, but that's not to do with GW)

 

[tommybhoy]

I am trying to see where the performance hit is to agree with the people who feel AMD are getting a rough time in GameWorks titles but I am not seeing it.

Are you saying there isn't anything amiss in FXAA(3D doesn't use MSAA) between a 770 and 290X in BAO?

Are the figures fabricated when pgi and myself tested BAO FXAA/MSAA comparisons in the original GW's thread?

BAO High FXAA

290X@1000/5000MHz([email protected]) -17% min/-23% avg/-22% max, slower than a 780@1000/6000MHz([email protected])

BAO 8XMSAA

290X +9% min/+12% avg/-18% max compared to the 780.

@Rusty,

When a known crime lord can't be put away because there is no evidence because he's more than capable of covering every avenue of guilt, does that make him an innocent law abiding citizen or is he still a murdering human/drug trafficer?

 

[Stanners]

The funny thing is, AMD has publicly lied before in their marketing, by that logic it could be argued AMD is lying again.

I'm going by the AMD marketing of Bulldozer (Ignoring Bulldozers performance for a second) they had a "980X" in Cinebench getting beaten by the FX8150. The CPU they'd benched wasn't a 980X, it was a 2500k. This was on a video they'd published and distributed.

The gameworks stuff IMO tends to be BS, the effects harm AMD and no more than Nvidia, but I do think there's merit in other things (Like the over tessellation, but that's not to do with GW)

I don't know, you come in here speaking sense. What ever next

 

[Silent_Scone]

You have been shown countless times, your not going to change your opinion but that's cool, it's just the way things are, some agree, some disagree.

lol

 

[mmj_uk]

So your argument is that you don't need actual proof, the fact that AMD people say so should be enough?

That's basically how the church of AMD works, cult members can't bring themselves to accept that AMD have done anything wrong or NVidia anything right.

 

[Silent_Scone]

The longer there are people sticking up for either for them the less likely they are to ever improve in the gaming sector. There are a lot of people that tend to either not know or have chosen to forget more than the odd affliction from both sides. It's frustrating to read people paint AMD as the saviour of gaming when there are so many areas where they need to up their game, and stop pointing blame elsewhere.

 

[tommybhoy]

There's a stark difference from failing and gimping.

 

[LtMatt]

Good enough evidence that shows that GameWorks wasn't hindering performance on AMD hardware for me.

Interesting fact. GameWorks did not exist during John McDonald's time working at Nvidia.

 

[humbug]

Interesting fact. GameWorks did not exist during John McDonald's time working at Nvidia.

lol....

 

[Rroff]

Interesting fact. GameWorks did not exist during John McDonald's time working at Nvidia.

From what I can see hes not commenting on the gameworks stuff directly but in regard to the accusations nvidia hindered AMD involvement in a game and/or nVidia asking devs to remove or otherwise hinder AMD optimisations.

EDIT: Seen his reply to your comment he does refute both aspects, his comment is from an angle that doesn't require him to have been part of the current gameworks development to be valid however:

"everything visible goes thru the GPU. Everything thru the GPU goes thru the driver. So yes, I dispute it."

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Interesting fact. GameWorks did not exist during John McDonald's time working at Nvidia.

So did it exist while Richard Huddy was working at Nvidia or can we dismiss his comments regarding GameWorks too?

 

[Rroff]

So did it exist while Richard Huddy was working at Nvidia or can we dismiss his comments regarding GameWorks too?

I find LtMatt's attempt to discredit him there somewhat distasteful when he already replied to LtMatt (which seems to have been conveniently ignored) clarifying his position in a manner which shows he doesn't need to be part of the current development of GameWorks for his comments to still be valid.

 

[opethdisciple]

Watchdogs is terrible even on the Nvidia side of the fence. I shudder to think what a mess the game is for AMD.

Not a pop at AMD, more at Ubisoft for a shoddy game. Not touching it untill next patch/driver.

 

[Rroff]

Watchdogs is terrible even on the Nvidia side of the fence. I shudder to think what a mess the game is for AMD.

Not a pop at AMD, more at Ubisoft for a shoddy game. Not touching it untill ext patch/driver.

I refuse to touch Ubisoft games fullstop these days and the amount of hassle I've had trying to sort out the issues other (less technically capable) people I know have when trying to play their latest titles doesn't tempt me to revisit that decision.

 

[ubersonic]

Over the past month I have found a pretty foolproof way of determining facts from fiction in the GPU mess: If Jason Evangelho writes it then it's it's probably fiction ^^

 

[PhysicsMan94]

So, finally, we have reached the point where it can be confirmed that, thus far, there is no solid evidence for any sort of wrong-doing on Nvidia's part. There is still no evidence for GameWorks being purposely programmed to adversely affect AMD hardware.

And, perhaps most significantly, we have reached the point where the AMD proponents whom were spreading these accusatory claims against Nvidia are now saying that they do not need evidence anymore. Please, none of you ever even consider a career in anything scientific based, you'd be laughed out the door with an attitude like that.

Well, if nothing else, this whole debacle has been rather amusing to watch and partake in.