I am not sure that I can agree with that. They expanded PhysX to FlexWorks for example and now they are working on GrassWorks. Not to mention other physics based things like water. Nvidia is also working on GI solution and other advanced effect and technology.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
AMD vs. Nvidia GameWorks in Witcher 3
- Thread starter dex3108
- Start date
I am not sure that I can agree with that. They expanded PhysX to FlexWorks for example and now they are working on GrassWorks. Not to mention other physics based things like water. Nvidia is also working on GI solution and other advanced effect and technology.
How can you say that's not true, though?
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
That followup Forbes article is brutal.
If their Beta drivers are good and stable, they have no excuse for not just releasing new official drivers from time to time. Beta drivers, once ready for mass consumption, are supposed to leave beta, not just get replaced by a new beta ad infinitum.
If their Beta drivers are good and stable, they have no excuse for not just releasing new official drivers from time to time. Beta drivers, once ready for mass consumption, are supposed to leave beta, not just get replaced by a new beta ad infinitum.
RenegadeXV8
Banned
You know Nvidia stated the exact same thing with Tomb Raider, right? It took weeks to get a proper performance driver.
Because back when they did release monthly WHQL drivers, people complained they were far too frequent, so now they're just gonna roll up all the changes from the past 5-6 beta drivers into the next WHQL.
Maybe WHQL certification costs too much and AMD doesn't want to spend money on monthly base for that?
OnionPowder
Member
Why are none of those beta drivers ready for WHQL release?
It costs like $1000
ThoseDeafMutes
Member
Is the process not largely automated as with Nvidia now? Feels like a rather weak excuse. Six months is a long time if you want to stick on the stable branch.
AMD's overall finances are in the toilet but I doubt it's a cost saving measure.
CambriaRising
Member
"We're being cheap" is a pretty lousy excuse.
It seems that cost would be well worth it instead of labeling their drivers as beta and as is.
If someone bought a pre-built gaming PC but doesn't know too much about the software and hardware sides of things are they more likely to download the official drivers or the as is beta driver?
People that typically run a stable branch don't care about absolute performance. And people that care about absolute performance are willing to compromise on stability.
I doubt nvidias drivers roll all updates into the drivers on a monthly basis. Performance regressions still exist from time to time.
curiouscharles
Member
hrmmm, looks like 780Ti users are reporting awful numbers compared to my 980 in the performance thread - which really shouldn't be the case.
SpecialAgentZ
Member
If any of that was true, AMD would not be all talk and barking, they would look into legal actions against Nvidia. The just want to thrown some dirt over Nvidia image and use their fanboys to do the dirty work.
And
http://www.gamesindustry.biz/articles/2014-05-29-nvidia-responds-to-amds-watch-dogs-claims
And AMD has historic issues with their driver support and lazyness, despite their great hardware (in GPU space at least), Who to believe?
I see a lot of folks mentioning PCars and their hate for Nvidia because their AMD cards performance suck at that game, but I think it's not a Gameworks game... Plus:
http://www.mweb.co.za/games/ViewNew...ia-respond-Gameworks-AMD-GPU-Controversy.aspx
http://www.vg247.com/2015/05/19/project-cars-devs-forced-to-issue-statement-on-amd-gpus/
AMD (and people) should just stop with this shit. People should complain about the real issue we have here... you know, this big elephant in the middle of the room.
You don't think this has anything to do with it? 1440p doesn't run much better on my 970.
I agree with the first. It seems worth it to bite the bullet and get WHQL, as the enthusiast gamers are quite cognizant of this.
For the 2nd, they don't even know if their gpus are AMD or Nvidia, like both my brothers lol. It is up to the vendor (like Alienware) to decide the easiest path for people like them.
Wow at the WHQL issue. So overblown. Look at the latest WHQL Game Ready driver from NVidia. CTDs galore, recommends of rolling back, Chrome incompatibility, better performance in other games with previous drivers.
Despite all this, the "161" day old driver, or more accurately the latest beta from less than a month ago ... drives the 290x to be comparable to 970 and beating the 780Ti in the Gameworks game called Witcher 3 that had a game ready day one driver.
Game Ready drivers are nothing but PR.
Despite all this, the "161" day old driver, or more accurately the latest beta from less than a month ago ... drives the 290x to be comparable to 970 and beating the 780Ti in the Gameworks game called Witcher 3 that had a game ready day one driver.
Game Ready drivers are nothing but PR.
The 780Ti should be faster than a 970.
Seriously? All the whining because some AMD can't handle some future tech? Guess what, Hairworks is a piece of crap.
My test yesterday on 970:
All graphics low, ~130fps.
Only hair on, ~ 85-90 fps. Shooting with crossbow zoom ~50fps.
It is clearly not for 99% of the current PC's with a 60fps mindset.
My test yesterday on 970:
All graphics low, ~130fps.
Only hair on, ~ 85-90 fps. Shooting with crossbow zoom ~50fps.
It is clearly not for 99% of the current PC's with a 60fps mindset.
How often is AMD even approaching developers about TressFX? I can't recall when TressFX was first available but it has been awhile hasn't it? How many games have used it since then?
RenegadeXV8
Banned
They have more than just TressFX: HDAO+, Forward+ Rendering, CHS, DirectCompute particle physics... and the funny thing is they sometimes run better on Nvidia than AMD.
But I'm willing to bet Nvidia's libraries are far easier to implement for the developer.
It's going to be used in the new Deus Ex.
How many before then? How many used TressFX 2.0? Did AMD only approach the developers of Deus Ex because they are releasing TressFX 3.0 or are they serious this time about pushing their tech?
TressFX 2.0 is only used in TR for PS4 and X1.
NeOak
Member
Please stop trying to pass a turd as something that is ok. Enable hairworks and then see what is really the deal here: You're still getting fucked.
RazorbackDB
Member
AMD seems fully focused on the W10 drivers, all W8.1/7 driver updates have been pretty much just application profiles and freesync since omega (maybe why they haven't bothered getting WHQL) I hope they merge all the driver branches soon. Also if you wanna be a smartass, all the W10 drivers have WHQL and the last one came like yesterday.
While some of it is just petty competition that both go through, they do have valid points and it's not that they "can't compete". They can't optimize hairworks properly because NVidia won't release the source code. Basically, NVidia is trying to create a choke hold on PC gaming with the exclusivity deals and forcing customers into using their cards because of it, even though PC gaming isn't SUPPOSED to be exclusive like that. When AMD came out with new features in the past, they made that source code publicly available and yes, NVidia used that code to optomize drivers on their end to make the game AMD had a contract with run just as smooth on their hardware.
This is the BIG difference between NVidia and AMD. They both go for game contracts, but AMD doesn't "cut off" gamers who use NVidia hardware with exclusive features for their cards only. They may create new features, but htey make it possible for the competition to have those features too. NVidia meanwhile creates new features for their hardware, but then boards off AMD from getting to see it. Their code isn't publicly available. They deny requests to see said code so they can optimize their drivers.
This isn't about what card does what - for all we know, the 390x or whatever it is coming out could theoretically be the best performing card in the gaming industry, pushing ahead of NVidia - especially due to the new stacking technique - but it will STILL have issues with Hairworks not because it can't run it, but because it can't get optimized because AMD can't see the source code.
THIS is the fundamental issue here. It's not about which card is better, or which company is ahead of the game (AMD has come ahead in the past and will likely do so again), it's about one company trying to create exclusive feature sets that are really possible on all cards, but hard to get them to work equally because NVidia gets to create exclusive code for it that works via gameworks, while AMD doesn't get to see that code and when they get in a similar situation, they refuse to prevent NVidia from optimizing their drivers.
It's virtually two sides of the coin on handeling business. AMD wants a bigger market share, but they also don't want to cut off gamers based on hardware choices. They care about the consumer at the base level. NVidia only cares about the NVidia user - and they are doing what they can to cut off the users who use other hardware to force them into theirs. It's a terrible practice.
AMD has had every right to be upset the last couple of years because of how NVidia is treating PC gamers. Have they gone a bit far in their accusations? Sure, but they are pretty fed up with the whole ordeal. I mean, fans are literally asking AMD to start doing the same thing, and that would just be such a detrement to gaming, where now you have to start choosing what PC game you buy based on what GPU/CPU you own, regardless of having the top end one from either side, or intel. That's just stupid. PC is supposed to be that one area that isn't like consoles - it's not about "xbox one vs. ps4" with different hardware/specs - it's supposed to be universal - but NVidia is trying to make that not the case anymore.
I have a 970m in my laptop - but I've always preferred AMD and when I get the graphics amplifier for my laptop, I plan to get the new 390x if it is supported. Not only have I preferred them due to their awesome costumer support, but their overall company stance. I gave in the intel processors as I use to prefer the other guys, but admittedly, they just can't keep up - and intel isn't being huge dicks about source code stuff.
That being said, AMD's 290x card is pretty much just as good as the 980 in most ways, but The Witcher is noticeably worse on it and that sucks and shouldn't be the case as both cards are equally capable.
FunkyLounge
Member
I don't see a sabotage, that's looking to make a sensation with a artice title.
Nvidia made a tech for their cards, developer took advantage of it, of course it would run poorly on competitor's cards, that's the VERY NATURE of market competition. What are you even talking about??
You don't need to use it, it's an optional feature made for one kind of GPUs. The game rusn fine without it. There is no conspiracy and sabotage, you just look for it and want it. And of course you find it.
Full disclosure: I rock an AMD card, no NV fanboyism here, this is absolutely normal, what are you even talking about
Nvidia made a tech for their cards, developer took advantage of it, of course it would run poorly on competitor's cards, that's the VERY NATURE of market competition. What are you even talking about??
You don't need to use it, it's an optional feature made for one kind of GPUs. The game rusn fine without it. There is no conspiracy and sabotage, you just look for it and want it. And of course you find it.
Full disclosure: I rock an AMD card, no NV fanboyism here, this is absolutely normal, what are you even talking about
Katzenjammer
Member
Worth adding to the discussion since some here are misinformed:
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/201...s-completely-sabotaged-witcher-3-performance/
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/201...s-completely-sabotaged-witcher-3-performance/
Exactly. It's not about being petty. TressFX from their end has source code I can go grab right now. It's just two fundamentally different company stances.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Why would Nvidia share their proprietary technology with a competitor? Does anyone at AMD know how competition works?
Why would you switch? I mean I get if it's on principle but if anything, it should make AMD users think twice about buying AMD again and just going NVIDIA. This is just the dirty nature of competition.
Shining Sunshine
Banned
A market?
Nvidia sells G-Sync for a premium price of adding more than $200. Makes it exclusive to their cards.
AMD finds a cheaper solution, Freesync, that any tech company can use. Also will become standard to every monitor.
Is Nvidia's tech really exclusive to their cards? Or are they just playing some monopoly strategy "partnering" with developers and screwing consumers?
That doesn't make any sense in this market. If AMD starts making their setting proprietary too this will only harm consumers. Next thing you know we need GPUs from both vendors to play the games we want.
Also knock it off with the "AMD drivers sux" shtick, this hasn't been true in years.
Jen-Hsun has said many times he admires Apple and the way they operate and that is clearly shown in their products nowadays. All the way down to sabotaging their older products to promote new ones (RIP Kepler).
NeOak
Member
Then what do they tell their customers? "we don't want to do it" or "source is not available, which is why performance sucks atm" aka the truth?
General Lee
Member
Let's get this straight. Hairworks is done using extreme tessellation and quite a bit differently from TressFX. Why was it done this way? Because Maxwell is by far the best at silly levels of tessellation. This means the new fancy effect will perform ok on Maxwell, and poorly on AMD and Nvidia's old GPUs. This pushes people to buy Nvidia's new cards. GameWorks has got nothing to do with offering new great optimized features, and everything to do with creating a need for something only Nvidia's newest products can offer and where their competition is weak.
No amount of driver optimization will help AMD to improve their gpus tessellation performance. If they wanted good hair in Witcher 3, they should've contacted CDPR and made a deal to add in TressFX. It would've probably been a much better solution, though I wonder if Nvidia does have a clause in their agreement preventing such things. Because It'd look really bad if Hairworks could be directly compared and it would prove to be nothing but a performance hog. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if TressFX worked better on Nvidia than Hairworks does.
I wouldn't expect Nvidia to cater to AMD by providing source access, but creating these proprietary Works really split up the user base and make it hard for a consumer to get a decent experience in games when one works great for green cards, and the other for red cards. Ultimately it's the devs/publishers fault if they only optimize for half the cards. They'll eventually lose sales if their game works like crap for 50% of potential customers.
No amount of driver optimization will help AMD to improve their gpus tessellation performance. If they wanted good hair in Witcher 3, they should've contacted CDPR and made a deal to add in TressFX. It would've probably been a much better solution, though I wonder if Nvidia does have a clause in their agreement preventing such things. Because It'd look really bad if Hairworks could be directly compared and it would prove to be nothing but a performance hog. At this point I wouldn't be surprised if TressFX worked better on Nvidia than Hairworks does.
I wouldn't expect Nvidia to cater to AMD by providing source access, but creating these proprietary Works really split up the user base and make it hard for a consumer to get a decent experience in games when one works great for green cards, and the other for red cards. Ultimately it's the devs/publishers fault if they only optimize for half the cards. They'll eventually lose sales if their game works like crap for 50% of potential customers.
Unknown Soldier
Member
Fortunately AMD are pretty incompetent in getting developers to use their tech, this is why they make it "open" to begin with. If they made it proprietary like Nvidia does literally no one would use it. As it is, there's 1 game that uses TressFX, Tomb Raider (2012) and it's 3 years later now. Meanwhile Nvidia introduces GameWorks and instantly there are multiple games supporting it coming out. The stance of AMD fans is baffling, Nvidia is introducing technology that developers actually use in actual games to actually improve the game, why does this make them angry?
I haven't said a word about AMD's drivers here, perhaps you're replying to someone else?
This.
AMD open sources their stuff not out of the goodness of their heart, but because it's the only way any developer is going to use it. It's not up to Nvidia to "be nice" and let AMD use their technology.
I think TressFX does work better on Nividia's own hardware than Hairworks does, but that's only because man, Hairworks is such a HUGE resource hog, and I've witnessed TressFX doing much of hte same thing without affecting my resource usage nearly as much, and this is with both AMD and NVidia cards.
It will be interesting to see what happens when the 390x hits, because that's using and even newer type of build that no one else is, but should theoretically massively increase performance. The real question is if they are just trying to match NVidia's top cards in performance with this new method, or if they are trying to go to the next level.
There isn't
General Lee
Member
Was there a direct confirmation of this somewhere? Sources pls.
Gameworks is not proprietary, it just sucks on AMD hardware. No one would use Gameworks if it was really proprietary like PhysX. What are we averaging with PhysX nowadays? 1 game per year?
Vincent Alexander
Member
I must be damn lucky reading some posts in here, because my R9 290 is running great on Ultra settings without a hitch with Witcher 3. Not a single crash or game freeze yet, and smooth FPS.
CDPR said it in an interview
or AMD did
http://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/201...completely-sabotaged-witcher-3-performance/2/
NeOak
Member
It sucks on Kepler hardware too.