[Twitch Video] AMD Technical Marketing's take on NVIDIA GameWorks / driver shenanigans & criticism f

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Well you have missed the point.
At launch is one thing but ever is a much bigger matter.

NV was not restricted after launch from working with the developer from looking at the TressFX source code which makes it easier to tune the drivers and altering the TressFX code specifically with the developer to improve performance for there cards, where as AMD can not.

The developer can not see the source code and even if he does get a licence to see the source code AMD is not allowed to see it, the Hairworks source code is not allowed to be altered or recompiled, the DLL's that NV have given is the ones you must use so any improvements to specifically Hairworks on other GPUs will be the resulted of workarounds and stabbing in the dark until you may get lucky.

And because of the restrictions AMD getting in involved before launch is nearly irrelevant because they cant alter Hairworks anyway where as TressFX can be.

But in the video I think they specified no TressFX issues on Nvidia cards at launch. So I don't think I'm missing the point. I think you're trying to start a different argument there.

Do you have a link for the whole not allowed to alter HairWorks thing?
Last I knew nobody really knew what the situation was with that, so interested if it's been resolved.

 

[Final8y]

But in the video I think they specified no TressFX issues on Nvidia cards at launch. So I don't think I'm missing the point. I think you're trying to start a different argument there.

Do you have a link for the whole not allowed to alter HairWorks thing?
Last I knew nobody really knew what the situation was with that, so interested if it's been resolved.

No he did not say that, he said Nvidia has no issues with TressFX, everyone knows that there was an issue at launch so he is implying in the context when it comes to optimizing they had no issues with doing it with the developer.

The terms of the licence have been posted enough times already, what makes it really funny is people making claims at to what's allowed when they clearly have not read the terms.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

No he did not say that, he said Nvidia has no issues with TressFX, everyone knows that there was an issue at launch so he is implying in the context when it comes to optimizing they had no issues with doing it with the developer.

The terms of the licence have been posted enough times already, what makes it really funny is people making claims at to what's allowed when they clearly have not read the terms.

13:10 they talk about when the title was issued.

Can you (or someone) link me to one of these posts then? Shouldn't be hard to find if there are that many. I don't know what I need to search for to find the definitive answer.

 

[mmj_uk]

The terms of the licence have been posted enough times already, what makes it really funny is people making claims at to what's allowed when they clearly have not read the terms.

Where? or are you referring to hearsay from AMD?

 

[LoadsaMoney]

And what about Lichdom? My understanding isthere are some issues wityth that on Nvidia cards too?

So that's 2 TressFX games that haven't worked fine on Nvidia games at launch, although in the video they said none.
How many TressFX games are there?

2 i think, Tomb Raider and Lichdom, the issue with Lichdom on Nvidia cards, is that the devs disabled TressFx for their cards in it, so they can't even use it.

 

[Final8y]

13:10 they talk about when the title was issued.

Can you (or someone) link me to one of these posts then? Shouldn't be hard to find if there are that many. I don't know what I need to search for to find the definitive answer.

Question John Taylor" Are you aware of any artificial penalty in AMD exclusive sponsored games towards Geforce users "

Answer Robert Hallock" Well once upon a time we created this feature call tressFX and to my recollection it runs just as well on NV card"

Artificial penalty meaning imposed Artificial restrictions which tressFX does not regardless if it optimized at launch or not, NV got the latest build at the last moment that's all, they had access to tressFX with the previous builds.

He did not ask Any performance issues at launch.

I do not expect AMD to optimize its IP out of the gate for other GPU brands just as i dont expect NV to optimize its IP for other brands, what i do expect that if the IP runs on other brands that the other brands should not be restricted from optimizing, restricted from optimizing is Artificial penalty.

 

[Final8y]

@mmj_uk no its not hearsay.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

Question John Taylor" Are you aware of any artificial penalty in AMD exclusive sponsored games towards Geforce users "

Answer Robert Hallock" Well once upon a time we created this feature call tressFX and to my recollection it runs just as well on NV card"

Artificial penalty meaning imposed Artificial restrictions which tressFX does not regardless if it optimized at launch or not, NV got the latest build at the last moment that's all, they had access to tressFX with the previous builds.

He did not ask Any performance issues at launch.

Surely it being disabled on Nvidia cards is an artificial penalty?
Or is all this HairWorks fuss because AMD can run it? Would it have been better if they couldn't, like with PhysX?
Was there any complaining about PhysX?

 

[RavenXXX2]

Good interview I agree with everything Robert Hallock said. Especially about nvidia pushing extreme levels of tessellation for no obvious benefit than to slow performance on AMD and kepler cards leaving maxwell with a big advantage due to its superior tessellation handling.

 

[Phixsator]

Surely it being disabled on Nvidia cards is an artificial penalty?
Or is all this HairWorks fuss because AMD can run it? Would it have been better if they couldn't, like with PhysX?
Was there any complaining about PhysX?

There has been a lot of complaining about PhysX not that AMD cards couldn't run it on their own gpu cores but because nvidia issues a driver lockout if any amd gpu hardware was detected(even APUs were affected at some point). Getting of topic however. In lichdom TressFX could not be activated through a menu option for nvidia users but they could actually still use it through a simple ini tweak (change 0 to 1) and from what i understand it runs perfectly fine then. So the lichdom battlemage issue is not about performance issues or gimping of performance for nvidia but about a Game dev that due to a partnership with AMD apparently choose to disable the menu control for TressFX on nVidia hardware. If that was part of an agreement with AMD to do so i have no idea.

 

[Final8y]

Surely it being disabled on Nvidia cards is an artificial penalty?
Or is all this HairWorks fuss because AMD can run it? Would it have been better if they couldn't, like with PhysX?
Was there any complaining about PhysX?

AMD has not asked for any developer to disable TressFX.

Because tressFX runs on both brands without restrictions and runs just as well on each brand which is not a possibility with hairworks so AMD not being able to run it would not stop hairworks getting criticised as AMD users can turn it off anyway, but they will feel that they should not have to and its nothing to do NV users had to turn off TressFX at launch its that they will not be able to realistically use it ever when that is not the case for TressFX.

 

[Rroff]

There has been a lot of complaining about PhysX not that AMD cards couldn't run it on their own gpu cores but because nvidia issues a driver lockout if any amd gpu hardware was detected(even APUs were affected at some point). Getting of topic however. In lichdom TressFX could not be activated through a menu option for nvidia users but they could actually still use it through a simple ini tweak (change 0 to 1) and from what i understand it runs perfectly fine then. So the lichdom battlemage issue is not about performance issues or gimping of performance for nvidia but about a Game dev that due to a partnership with AMD apparently choose to disable the menu control for TressFX on nVidia hardware. If that was part of an agreement with AMD to do so i have no idea.

Slightly pedantic but its an important distinction none the less... nVidia doesn't disable PhysX hardware acceleration if an AMD GPU is detected in the system and AMD doesn't disable TressFX in Lichdom if an nVidia card is detected.

nVidia disables PhysX if the primary renderer isn't an nVidia GPU "for QC reasons" (though thats BS they could still leave it working in beta drivers) and in Lichdom the TressFX option doesn't appear if the primary renderer isn't an AMD card.

The problem is AMD plays on this type of distinction for inflammatory reasons and plays a political game with their user base who largely don't comprehend the significance of the difference.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

AMD has not asked for any developer to disable TressFX.

Because tressFX runs on both brands without restrictions and runs just as well on each brand which is not a possibility with hairworks so AMD not being able to run it would not stop hairworks getting criticised as AMD users can turn it off anyway, but they will feel that they should not have to and its nothing to do NV users had to turn off TressFX at launch its that they will not be able to realistically use it ever when that is not the case for TressFX.

That wasn't the question though. The question did ask if AMD had done anything to artificially penalise GeForce users, just if there was an artificial penalty in an AMD sponsored game.

 

[Final8y]

Slightly pedantic but its an important distinction none the less... nVidia doesn't disable PhysX hardware acceleration if an AMD GPU is detected in the system and AMD doesn't disable TressFX in Lichdom if an nVidia card is detected.

nVidia disables PhysX if the primary renderer isn't an nVidia GPU "for QC reasons" (though thats BS they could still leave it working in beta drivers) and in Lichdom the TressFX option doesn't appear if the primary renderer isn't an AMD card.

The problem is AMD plays on this type of distinction for inflammatory reasons and plays a political game with their user base who largely don't comprehend the significance of the difference.

We comprehend the difference, but the difference is not how are are trying to imply it, It is nVidia choice to disable PhysX if the primary renderer card is not nVidia, not the developer..fact.

And the fact is because its only one game that TressFX option does not appear for NV users in Lichdom which most users didn't even know about in a non AAA title from an indie developer points to being a developer decision as the game is not important enough in anyway for AMD to gain anything by doing so.

 

[Final8y]

That wasn't the question though. The question did ask if AMD had done anything to artificially penalise GeForce users, just if there was an artificial penalty in an AMD sponsored game.

And the answer is still no.

 

[GoogalyMoogaly]

We comprehend the difference, but the difference. is not how are are trying to imply it, It is nVidia choice to disable PhysX if the primary renderer card is not nVidia, not the developer..fact.

And the fact is because its only one game that TressFX option does not appear for NV users in Lichdom which most users didn't even know about in a non AAA title from an indie developer points to being a developer decision as the game is not important enough in anyway for AMD to gain anything by doing so.

That is 50% of the games that use TressFX though isn't it?

 

[Phixsator]

Slightly pedantic but its an important distinction none the less... nVidia doesn't disable PhysX hardware acceleration if an AMD GPU is detected in the system and AMD doesn't disable TressFX in Lichdom if an nVidia card is detected.

nVidia disables PhysX if the primary renderer isn't an nVidia GPU "for QC reasons" (though thats BS they could still leave it working in beta drivers) and in Lichdom the TressFX option doesn't appear if the primary renderer isn't an AMD card.

The problem is AMD plays on this type of distinction for inflammatory reasons and plays a political game with their user base who largely don't comprehend the significance of the difference.

I distinctly remember at some point physx was disabled no matter if the nvidia card was primary renderer or not. Now i could be remembering wrong so i will just go find my old 5850 and pop that in the machine and we shall see if its still the case or not or if my memory is playing tricks on me, its not like i can play witcher anyway.

 

[Rroff]

We comprehend the difference, but the difference is not how are are trying to imply it, It is nVidia choice to disable PhysX if the primary renderer card is not nVidia, not the developer..fact.

And the fact is because its only one game that TressFX option does not appear for NV users in Lichdom which most users didn't even know about in a non AAA title from an indie developer points to being a developer decision as the game is not important enough in anyway for AMD to gain anything by doing so.

The inferences your picking up from my post are completely in your own head... in no way was I saying that the "lockout" (actually lockin) in Lichdom was in any way intentional, sinister and/or had (negative) implications for AMD.

I distinctly remember at some point physx was disabled no matter if the nvidia card was primary renderer or not. Now i could be remembering wrong so i will just go find my old 5850 and pop that in the machine and we shall see if its still the case or not or if my memory is playing tricks on me, its not like i can play witcher anyway.

I was actually going to add some comments/further qualification on that aspect but I can't remember the exact setup off the top of my head and is arbitrary to the main point I'm making though potentially something nVidia should get a kicking for.

 

[Minstadave]

I distinctly remember at some point physx was disabled no matter if the nvidia card was primary renderer or not. Now i could be remembering wrong so i will just go find my old 5850 and pop that in the machine and we shall see if its still the case or not or if my memory is playing tricks on me, its not like i can play witcher anyway.

That was the case, any AMD card in the system disabled physx. Maybe it's changed.

 

[Final8y]

That is 50% of the games that use TressFX though isn't it?

Which is irrelevant to the point.
And this is where the conversation ends with me and you because you are just saying things because its something you can say regardless of the main point and its importance.