PCGH asks Nvidia on Gameworks

Rroff · 29 Jun 2014 at 15:07

^^ GameWorks is certainly something that should be under scrutiny, but the way every possible smoking gun is being used as fact of nVidia wrong doing has got a bit ludicrous.

PhysicsMan94 · 29 Jun 2014 at 15:10

Rroff said:
GameWorks is certainly something that should be under scrutiny

Quite right, as should everything to an extent...

Rroff said:
but the way every possible smoking gun is being used as fact of nVidia wrong doing has got a bit ludicrous.

And therein lies the problem!

Silent_Scone · 29 Jun 2014 at 15:10

tommybhoy said:
There's a stark difference from failing and gimping.

A difference you know nothing about. No offence.

Imdur · 29 Jun 2014 at 15:20

I don't know if this has been posted before, but has everyone seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZGV5z8YFM8

As an Nvidia user, I find it quite difficult to "like" Nvidia. They have some nice stuff like Physx, Gameworks, 3D vision, etc. But when AMD develops something like TressFX, they share it. And what do Nvidia do? They make HairWorks...

Rroff · 29 Jun 2014 at 15:27

Imdur said:
I don't know if this has been posted before, but has everyone seen this? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZGV5z8YFM8

As an Nvidia user, I find it quite difficult to "like" Nvidia. They have some nice stuff like Physx, Gameworks, 3D vision, etc. But when AMD develops something like TressFX, they share it. And what do Nvidia do? They make HairWorks...

Technically HairWorks existed before TressFX as ApeX cloth, it was there for anyone to use via implementing the ApeX framework from PhysX, sure it isn't open source, HairWorks is actually nVidia taking that out of the ApeX framework and making it more accessible to developers and end users regardless of GPU by implementing it on DirectCompute without the need for PhysX or CUDA (which limited it ostensibly to nVidia users).

"CCP (Eve Online) integrated APEX Clothing into their engine and used it for both clothing and hair simulation. The results, as seen in the video below, provide incredible evidence of what can be achieved using APEX Clothing. "

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mrtwESnTOwY

tommybhoy · 29 Jun 2014 at 15:36

Doesn't matter, what existed when, it's vendor implementation that Imdur has a grievance.

Rroff · 29 Jun 2014 at 15:45

tommybhoy said:
Doesn't matter, what existed when, it's vendor implementation that Imdur has a grievance.

My post wasn't about what existed when, but about the progression.

Rusty0611 · 29 Jun 2014 at 15:58

Rroff said:
^^ GameWorks is certainly something that should be under scrutiny, but the way every possible smoking gun is being used as fact of nVidia wrong doing has got a bit ludicrous.

Indeed.

The funny thing about GW is that when enabling effects which call GW libraries the drop off in performance is the same for both AMD and nVidia cards. It's the raw performance for AMD which is off not GW itself.

As we seem to be in the domain of ludicrous theories I'll put another one out there: perhaps AMD have purposefully not optimised their drivers to make a point about GW as part of their PR war. In fact that's a lot less ludicrous than some of the other stuff I read

.

bru · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:24

Well this has been a real blast to read.

The only thing I can think to add to what has already been said is that seeing as neither none of the Red posse that have argued in this thread was working for either AMD or Nvidia during the time that Gameworks has been in development or use, then their comments should be ignored as they obviously have no bearing on the topic under discussion. :rolleyes:

tommybhoy · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:39

Then the NDF comments would have no bearing either and we should just brush it under the carpet and not be opinionated in the slightest.

LtMatt · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:41

Rroff said:
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.

Not really. The point was he was disagreeing with the Forbes article, that it was impossible for AMD to provide any optimizations, which is fair enough. However the Huddy interview revealed that Nvidia had clauses as part of a GameWorks contracted that forbid the developer from showing the source code to AMD or even working with AMD to make the code run better on AMD hardware. He also suggested that AMD are forced to use code that Nvidia themselves don't use and that code runs up to 9x worse on AMD hardware. The article in the OP confirmed some of those claims Huddy made are correct.

I posted the John McDonald info when Greg used his tweets as proof that GameWorks was not hindering AMD performance. If you actually read what John said, it has very little to do with what Huddy said, which was why this thread was made as a counter to the Huddy thread.

Stanners · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:49

Nvidia should just call it beta code and state that when it's finished everyone can see it

TheRealDeal · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:51

Stanners said:
Nvidia should just call it beta code and state that when it's finished everyone can see it

Stanners · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:52

TheRealDeal said:

No surprise that confuses you

TheRealDeal · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:55

Stanners said:
No surprise that confuses you

It's just the sheer stupidity that you think mantle an api in Beta is anything like this. It's a much bigger project end of story.

Silent_Scone · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:56

lol, spot on.

If you take a short history lesson and compare how many technologies Nvidia have adopted/invested in and brought to the table compared with AMD, you might as well be plopping on the hand that feeds you just like the AMD users in this thread have mostly done with DirectX all of a sudden.

It's laughable and nothing but. Stop the begrudging of either and enjoy gaming. The best thing AMD can do is just wait it out and stop berating Nvidia publicly. It's not a good image, and if GameWorks is as damaging as AMD are insinuating it is it cannot and won't be an active programme for very long, as they won't throw money at it forever.

Stanners · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:57

And you are so defensive your rage missed the smile at the end hinting it was a light hearted comment. But instead you try to go on the defensive.

Edit: not you frosty obviously, you posted to quick .

tommybhoy · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:57

MjFrosty said:
A difference you know nothing about. No offence.

No offence taken this time, can you explain how I know nothing about driver failings and another vendor in absolute control of certain code in a game that runs on competitors hardware that the developer is paid to use and cannot comment on implementation?

TheRealDeal · 29 Jun 2014 at 17:58

Stanners said:
And you are so defensive you your rage missed the smile at the end hinting it was a light hearted comment. But instead you try to go on the defensive.

There is no smile at the end on my screen. It's there now lol but it's still daft tbh. Smiley or no smiley the intent is there.

Silent_Scone · 29 Jun 2014 at 18:02

tommybhoy said:
No offence taken this time, can you explain how I know nothing about driver failings and another vendor in absolute control of certain code in a game that runs on competitors hardware that the developer is paid to use and cannot comment on implementation?

Where are you getting this absolute control thing from? I don't understand where that is coming from. Is that what you think this is? A vendor having complete control over a development studio?

I won't get involved in this at this stage. I've actually gone to some might say the horses mouth about this and I've had nothing in the way of a reply yet.