HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Controversy is brewing on the internet over NVIDIA's Gameworks program again. First it was Project CARS performance, now it is The Witcher 3. Head on over to Blue's for all the news.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
More NVIDIA Gameworks Controversy
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 41,974
It's just AMD users upset that Hairworks doesn't run on their hardware. Unlike Project CARS, you have the option to turn off all the Gameworks features in The Witcher 3.
I love how NVIDIA apologists keep pretending that its mere coincidence that on non-NVIDIA sponsored shillworks games, that AMD performance typically considerably exceeds NVIDIA counterparts dollar-for-dollar, yet mysteriously when NVIDIA effectively pays part of the development cost for developers all of a sudden non-NVIDIA graphics solutions are crippled. Funny how that keeps happening, and they dismiss all the mounting evidence of intentional sabotage by NVIDIA in order to promote their own cards.
Must be aliens.
Must be aliens.
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Hairworks sucks anyway, I got a 15-20FPS hit with it on, disabled that shit immediately. Vanilla hair looks just as good anyway.
DarkAngel_ZERO
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2006
- Messages
- 350
I don't really know what to make of all this. On one hand, yeah, I've heard people bitch and moan about Gameworks being exclusive "black box" tech, or gimping performance on AMD cards intentionally, but every time someone starts to try to explain the technology behind the decrease in performance, it sounds more and more like a developer fuck-up.
Like the Crysis 2 thing from a few years back...an entire sheet of tessellated water under the city that wasn't even visible but hurt the performance of AMD cards because of their poor tessellation performance. Is it really intentional, or was it a developer who forgot to remove it from the skybox? I mean, hell, they tessellated concrete barriers and flat surfaces...does that really sound like a good move by someone who knows what they're doing? Especially after they went full console pleb at the start, and had to introduce DX11 as an afterthought.
Now we have this problem with PhysX being implemented poorly in a game, yet again. I remember this happening with Borderlands 2 and Assassin's Creed 4. Again, implemented PhysX with Gameworks, but the devs half-assed it so hard that it wound up adversely affecting performance. Nvidia tried to get in touch with them when they found what was causing the problem, but by then both studios already had their money and had moved on to DLC and sequels.
On top of that, an architecture change from Kepler to Maxwell had a big impact on some of these features. PhysX had to be rewritten for the newer cards (which was why AC4 couldn't recognize PhysX as being an option on the 750Ti and 9-Series), and they're able to handle certain tasks with more efficiency. Now people are noticing that The Witcher 3 has somewhat better performance on a 960 vs a 780Ti. Is that a problem? Yes. Is it something that can be fixed? Yes. Are people still going to bitch because it wasn't fixed on day one? You better believe your ass.
And yet, for all the bitching, people seem to completely ignore how some games just perform poorly on certain systems, and yet can perform well on a console which uses AMD-based hardware, so how is Gameworks not having a direct effect on that? Hell, right in the link at the top here, the reddit post "explaining" the things wrong with PhysX and Project Cars, the person talking makes a direct mention at how DX12 seems to resolve most of these issues. What a shocker, low-level hardware access to a GPU with more raw compute power than it's competitor makes for a better performing game.
Or who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong.
Like the Crysis 2 thing from a few years back...an entire sheet of tessellated water under the city that wasn't even visible but hurt the performance of AMD cards because of their poor tessellation performance. Is it really intentional, or was it a developer who forgot to remove it from the skybox? I mean, hell, they tessellated concrete barriers and flat surfaces...does that really sound like a good move by someone who knows what they're doing? Especially after they went full console pleb at the start, and had to introduce DX11 as an afterthought.
Now we have this problem with PhysX being implemented poorly in a game, yet again. I remember this happening with Borderlands 2 and Assassin's Creed 4. Again, implemented PhysX with Gameworks, but the devs half-assed it so hard that it wound up adversely affecting performance. Nvidia tried to get in touch with them when they found what was causing the problem, but by then both studios already had their money and had moved on to DLC and sequels.
On top of that, an architecture change from Kepler to Maxwell had a big impact on some of these features. PhysX had to be rewritten for the newer cards (which was why AC4 couldn't recognize PhysX as being an option on the 750Ti and 9-Series), and they're able to handle certain tasks with more efficiency. Now people are noticing that The Witcher 3 has somewhat better performance on a 960 vs a 780Ti. Is that a problem? Yes. Is it something that can be fixed? Yes. Are people still going to bitch because it wasn't fixed on day one? You better believe your ass.
And yet, for all the bitching, people seem to completely ignore how some games just perform poorly on certain systems, and yet can perform well on a console which uses AMD-based hardware, so how is Gameworks not having a direct effect on that? Hell, right in the link at the top here, the reddit post "explaining" the things wrong with PhysX and Project Cars, the person talking makes a direct mention at how DX12 seems to resolve most of these issues. What a shocker, low-level hardware access to a GPU with more raw compute power than it's competitor makes for a better performing game.
Or who knows, maybe I'm completely wrong.
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Makes sense, one of the reason I hate Nvidia, if I didn't get these 780s on price error I would be sitting on on 2 290x's right now. The hairworks is just a ridiculous performance hit on so little visual change for me.
Well the top ranked comment on this thread shares my sentiments: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterra...my_word_if_we_dont_stop_the_nvidia_gameworks/Prove it in court, buddy.
We need to take NVIDIA to court, before AMD gives up and adopts the same business practice, then we'll effectively end up with AMD and NVIDIA exclusive titles, the way there are PS4 and XBOX exclusives.
Twisted Kidney
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 18, 2013
- Messages
- 4,094
Meh, nVidia doesn't just have customers, nVidia has legions of fans. It doesn't matter what they do, there will always be someone looking to prove how much better your life is if Apple, I MEAN NVIDIA, bends you over the desk and throws a party between your cheeks.
grifter_66
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,276
Get over it.
You buy a card from a company that hasn't been able to make a solid driver for their product in over 20 years and barely supports their product in other ways and then proceed to throw a tantrum because, shockingly, yet again their competitor is kicking their ass by not only providing functional drivers but supporting the developers and helping them to make the game look even better. Hell, even when Nvidia makes a shitty card that has more in common with a cheap blow dryer than a premium PC component it's still more reliable than AMD because of their ridiculous inability to write a solid driver or support developers in any meaningful way.
It's not Nvidia's job to wipe AMDs ass for them. Why should a company worry about a competitor's client base when that client base spends more time crying about performance than playing games all while continuing to support the product that is continually letting them down... Sometimes I think the only reason some of you continue to buy AMD products is so you'll always have an excuse to cry and throw tantrums.
You're probably one of those guys who thinks people should get trophies just for showing up...
grifter_66
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 2, 2005
- Messages
- 1,276
To be clear, it's not about being a "fanboy" it's about supporting the product that gives me the best all round performance AND experience. I couldn't give less of a shit about the brand of the card as long as it gives me the best reliable performance. When AMD manages this I'll buy AMD.
Explain to me like I'm five why these "driver problems" are only occurring in NVIDIA sponsored shillworks games.
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Don't bother, arguing with an Nvidia fan is like trying to yell at a dog to stop shitting in the house.
shad0w4life
Gawd
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2008
- Messages
- 689
Wow just wow nVidia
Project Cars Titan performance 2 Fps ahead of 960? REALLY? Fix your god damn GW BS.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1000-project-cars-benchmarks/page2.html
Project Cars Titan performance 2 Fps ahead of 960? REALLY? Fix your god damn GW BS.
http://www.techspot.com/review/1000-project-cars-benchmarks/page2.html
Well the top ranked comment on this thread shares my sentiments: https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterra...my_word_if_we_dont_stop_the_nvidia_gameworks/
We need to take NVIDIA to court, before AMD gives up and adopts the same business practice, then we'll effectively end up with AMD and NVIDIA exclusive titles, the way there are PS4 and XBOX exclusives.
While we're at it, can we sue Intel because my AMD K6-2 350 wasn't as fast as an Intel P2-300? I'm sure that's all due to Intel sabotaging code to run slower on AMD processors. Also, lets all start running AMD processors because of Intel's shady business practices.
You should provide a source if you want to argue the validity of your graphs.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
This is what a fanboi looks like.
That being said I have had both AMD and Nvidia cards in the past.. even both in a system at the same time.
When Nvidia kept locking out being able to use Physx in a machine with both an Nvidia and AMD card in the same machine, it kinda turned me more off to them.
I have 2x 7970s in my main machine and get great performance in everything I play.
The drivers for the most part do not have any more bugs in them than the Nvidia drivers do.
I think AMd fanbois are more prone to be whiners though, and Nvidia fanbois are more like Apple sheeple.
Maxwell has better tessellation performance than Kepler. AMD has poor tessellation performance overall.
New tech > old tech.
Intel was doing that, I don't know about those old processors, but Intel was doing illegal anti-competitive practices, was caught, and sued.
Software compiled on Intel's compiler would run like crap on non-Intel processors, and Intel threatened OEM with cutting supply if they didn't stop selling AMD products, in order to drive their only real x86 competitor out of business and establish a monopoly.
Intel was found guilty and forced to pay $1.45 billion in Europe and $1.25 billion IIRC in the US in an anti-trust case.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
Gameworks is just bad practice.
Even leading high profile developers who can afford to say so, do say how bad gameworks is for the industry.
Even leading high profile developers who can afford to say so, do say how bad gameworks is for the industry.
RanceJustice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2003
- Messages
- 6,620
Nvidia Gameworks is the latest in a long line of slimy behaviors of this sort and I'm glad to see outrage in the community; its long overdue.
Nvidia is not the only company that has engaged in this sort of practice, but over the last several years they have gotten a reputation as being one of the more pernicious. They are responsible for the creation and implementation of the most vehemently exclusionary technologies, changing the game experience dramatically between "haves and have nots" in partner titles. I They seem to purposefully choose proprietary IP and workflows for this reason, even when there are perfectly viable alternatives. PhysX is one of the most notorious; if you don't have a PhyX compatible card, you're not going to be able to enjoy advanced physics simulation in partner game. GameWorks are little better, but we even see this paradigm applied to hardware with the likes of G-Sync and 3D Vision. Thus, it isn't simply a case of competing hardware lacking performance, or even differing optimizations, but a rather drastic limitation of play experience enforced by Nvidia's proprietary technologies. Worst of all, is the fact that GameWorks, PhysX and other proprietary technologies pushed by Nvidia and lauded as groundbreaking aren't some sort of amazingly advanced magic borne down by deities for which there is no alternative!
This brings an even more stark comparison when one refers to the recent behavior of AMD, who has in general championed openness when possible; OpenCL for physics, as opposed to NV's PhysX. TressFx vs NV HairWorks .FreeSync as a VESA standard for DisplayPort inclusion compared to the encumbered G-Sync. Mantle/Vulkan. The recent change to AMD GPU drivers on Linux, where as 75% of the driver will be open source and share code completely, where the proprietary Catalyst binary element will only be a "plug in" of sorts, optional.
Now, some may mention that AMD has done their own optimizations and used their own tech in partner games; this is true. However, it has been my experience that even when this happens, it rarely if ever provides a massively different game/graphics experience, unlike Nvidia. Playing Civilization: Beyond Earth with Mantle isn't a markedly different graphical or gameplay experience, for instance; if you have an Nvidia card of sufficient power, you'll enjoy graphical parity using the DX11 client instead. This is a significant difference from say, PhysX (or perhaps even HairWorks), where you can be running a top of the line AMD GPU and you're never going to be able to use your hardware for physics simulation and thus enjoy various simulated graphical events, in a PhysX title. While I'd still oppose it on ethical grounds, it would be a much less pathogenic issue if both companies used proprietary workflows to get to the same features (admittedly, I can remember a recent game though I forget which one exactly, that had ambient occlusion tech both for special Nvidia Gameworks implementations, as well as an AMD option that was comparable. This was a rarity which is why it stuck in my mind), but this is not what happens in most cases, especially with Nvidia's technologies.
While Nvidia seems to have many of the most egregious examples, its time that the community strikes back against this entire practice. Especially with VR on the horizon and a huge potential for similar fractures in the marketplace to arise, consumers should call for an end to these practices now. We must remember that game developers also share some of the blame in this regard. Making the Faustian bargain for that "The Way Its Meant To Be Played" animation at startup may seem alluring as some PR rep spins tales of how great your game will look using middleware, but it is the developer's ultimate choice to agree.
I've owned both Nvidia and AMD GPUs, and it doesn't matter who's doing it, its time to put an end to this. Consumers should show those involved that allowing your title to be hobbled on just about half of your user's GPUs isn't going to be accepted. Both ethically and as a matter of practicality, its time for these proprietary practices to end.
Nvidia is not the only company that has engaged in this sort of practice, but over the last several years they have gotten a reputation as being one of the more pernicious. They are responsible for the creation and implementation of the most vehemently exclusionary technologies, changing the game experience dramatically between "haves and have nots" in partner titles. I They seem to purposefully choose proprietary IP and workflows for this reason, even when there are perfectly viable alternatives. PhysX is one of the most notorious; if you don't have a PhyX compatible card, you're not going to be able to enjoy advanced physics simulation in partner game. GameWorks are little better, but we even see this paradigm applied to hardware with the likes of G-Sync and 3D Vision. Thus, it isn't simply a case of competing hardware lacking performance, or even differing optimizations, but a rather drastic limitation of play experience enforced by Nvidia's proprietary technologies. Worst of all, is the fact that GameWorks, PhysX and other proprietary technologies pushed by Nvidia and lauded as groundbreaking aren't some sort of amazingly advanced magic borne down by deities for which there is no alternative!
This brings an even more stark comparison when one refers to the recent behavior of AMD, who has in general championed openness when possible; OpenCL for physics, as opposed to NV's PhysX. TressFx vs NV HairWorks .FreeSync as a VESA standard for DisplayPort inclusion compared to the encumbered G-Sync. Mantle/Vulkan. The recent change to AMD GPU drivers on Linux, where as 75% of the driver will be open source and share code completely, where the proprietary Catalyst binary element will only be a "plug in" of sorts, optional.
Now, some may mention that AMD has done their own optimizations and used their own tech in partner games; this is true. However, it has been my experience that even when this happens, it rarely if ever provides a massively different game/graphics experience, unlike Nvidia. Playing Civilization: Beyond Earth with Mantle isn't a markedly different graphical or gameplay experience, for instance; if you have an Nvidia card of sufficient power, you'll enjoy graphical parity using the DX11 client instead. This is a significant difference from say, PhysX (or perhaps even HairWorks), where you can be running a top of the line AMD GPU and you're never going to be able to use your hardware for physics simulation and thus enjoy various simulated graphical events, in a PhysX title. While I'd still oppose it on ethical grounds, it would be a much less pathogenic issue if both companies used proprietary workflows to get to the same features (admittedly, I can remember a recent game though I forget which one exactly, that had ambient occlusion tech both for special Nvidia Gameworks implementations, as well as an AMD option that was comparable. This was a rarity which is why it stuck in my mind), but this is not what happens in most cases, especially with Nvidia's technologies.
While Nvidia seems to have many of the most egregious examples, its time that the community strikes back against this entire practice. Especially with VR on the horizon and a huge potential for similar fractures in the marketplace to arise, consumers should call for an end to these practices now. We must remember that game developers also share some of the blame in this regard. Making the Faustian bargain for that "The Way Its Meant To Be Played" animation at startup may seem alluring as some PR rep spins tales of how great your game will look using middleware, but it is the developer's ultimate choice to agree.
I've owned both Nvidia and AMD GPUs, and it doesn't matter who's doing it, its time to put an end to this. Consumers should show those involved that allowing your title to be hobbled on just about half of your user's GPUs isn't going to be accepted. Both ethically and as a matter of practicality, its time for these proprietary practices to end.
Armenius
Extremely [H]
- Joined
- Jan 28, 2014
- Messages
- 41,974
One could turn the argument around using these graphs and say that AMD is purposefully harming performance on NVIDIA hardware in the AMD Gaming Evolved titles these graphs represent.Explain to me like I'm five why these "driver problems" are only occurring in NVIDIA sponsored shillworks games.
invinciblegod
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
- Messages
- 81
Yeah! Except the ones to blame is not nVidia, of course they would try to make a proprietary ecosystem. The ones to blame are the game companies using this tech.
Based on all the posts here, they probably all hate Apple because they make some proprietary stuff. News for you: every company is trying to make a platform or ecosystem of products that is proprietary or at least works best on their platform. Google stuff works best on android and chromebooks. Does not work have modern windows 8 apps. Apple stuff works with apple stuff and offers only rudimentary features to windows. Intel created centrino to take all the chipset and wireless card revenue away from third parties. And I am only talking about the legal stuff. Only the underdogs try to push standards because they are the ones who have to convince people with high switching costs to go to their platform. You can't equate an optional nvidia program with no market power to Intel's monopolistic business practices with their overwhelming market power.
invinciblegod
Weaksauce
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2006
- Messages
- 81
Oops, I quoted the wrong comment.
I wasn't aware that developers were using an AMD engine for those titles (I was only aware of mantle, which mimics DX12 but doesn't put any roadblocks on DX11 NVidia performance), but hypothetically lets say it is the case... isn't this the exact thing I'm so worried about, where you have AMD/NVIDIA exclusive titles that run like shit on competitor's games?
You and I both don't want that right?
TheOneKnownAsMe
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2011
- Messages
- 1,730
I've been running this 6950 for a while now without a single driver-related issue. And that included a short stint of about 6 months where I had CrossFire. The simple fact of the matter is this: AMD's drivers are usually pretty good, you just hear the vocal minority claiming that they're terrible. Nvidia has had a history of terrible drivers as well, but all of the Nvidia fanboys seem to forget that.
FWIW, my GTX 285s had more issues than my 6950s have had.
Hornet
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 6,624
As I've posted elsewhere, developers adopting proprietary tools is nothing new. A majority of the industry has been using DirectX exclusively for a long time, a proprietary API that only works on certain Microsoft's OS, hence locking out the users of any other OS. Why is the ability to run on Linux such as special feature worth advertising? Because many games out there do not run on Linux. Many dev out there do not adopt OpenGL despite it's ability to work everywhere as opposed to DirectX.
Now of course I suspect no one ever gets mad about this because we all uses Windows anyway, so who cares. But that doesn't change the fact that many dev have developed exclusively for Windows OS only due to their games using DX API exclusively. This is nothing new.
ps: Just to clarify, I am not accusing the gaming industry of being evil or colluding with Microsoft. I believe it's simply the case of DirectX being the better API that serve their needs, perhaps in terms of ease of use, features and capabilities, etc. The industry goes to the best option for them at the end of the day.
Now of course I suspect no one ever gets mad about this because we all uses Windows anyway, so who cares. But that doesn't change the fact that many dev have developed exclusively for Windows OS only due to their games using DX API exclusively. This is nothing new.
ps: Just to clarify, I am not accusing the gaming industry of being evil or colluding with Microsoft. I believe it's simply the case of DirectX being the better API that serve their needs, perhaps in terms of ease of use, features and capabilities, etc. The industry goes to the best option for them at the end of the day.
Fair enough, but the 17 people that game on Linux aren't really an industry game breaker, compared to say probably half of users on NVIDIA products and half of users on AMD products (if you include consoles).
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
I think this calls for an anti-trust investigation ala Intel. It's becoming alarmingly common, and it's very bad for consumers if it keeps going this way.
TheMadHatterXxX
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2004
- Messages
- 3,022
Do not worry - AMD 300 series in a few weeks guys!
hehuehueheuheueheeuhueheuehuhe
hehuehueheuheueheeuhueheuehuhe
Hornet
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2005
- Messages
- 6,624
I agree that Linux's market share in the gaming segment isn't that big, but at the end of the day it's up to the dev to weight in all the pros and cons and decide what tools to use. There are some dev who make the games work on Linux while others don't. But the important point is that they are not obligated to use open source tools if they do not wish to do so.
nVidia is just doing what Microsoft has been doing, nothing new or surprising there. Similarly, they are not obligated to ensure their tools work for their competitors too.
While CPD is doing what the industry has been doing all along as well, picking tools that best serve their aim. In this case, I think the benchmark have shown that Witcher 3 isn't handicapped on AMD hardware, it's just the fur simulation that is taxing on hardware in general as we saw how nVidia hardwares struggle as well. But if indeed their game runs bad on AMD hardware, then they will simply lose potential sales among AMD users, that's how it works. But no one is obligated to do anything.
Well, as consumers, and in particular usually higher profile gaming enthusiasts, we are obligated to spread awareness of any anti-competitive practices we come across that can negatively affect the industry we enjoy.
Witcher 3 is a buggy, unoptimized piece of shit. Just once, I wish game studios would hire competent developers.
No occlusion culling on foliage? Check (That's why you get a 30-50% framerate drop with foliage view distance even when indoors).
Ridiculously unoptimized shader code? Check (And yes, I ran the game through a profiler).
Ridiculously unoptimized tessellation (a 40 fucking percent performance drop for some hair!$#$)? Check
People need to stop measuring the graphical fidelity of a game on how shitty it runs. Just because you need a Cray supercomputer to get an acceptable framerate does not mean the game has "good graphics", it simply means that more competent programmers are needed.
Sorry but, in this case, NVidia crossed the line. I don't have a problem with Gameworks, I don't have a problem with them giving out free harder or helping programmers with optimization.
What I do have a problem with is that downgrading the driver's from the official "Witcher 3" drivers to the last release gives a 20%+ performance boost for Kepler GPUs. The FPS issues aren't a result of tessellation performance, they are a result of a deliberate attempt to cripple the game.
Cr4ckm0nk3y
Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2009
- Messages
- 847
Its not anti-competitive practices!
One company has better tech, that runs better on their hardware, shocker I know, and developers choose to use that tech. It also happens that that tech runs on 75% of discrete GPU's. So as a dev what would you do?
NV is not holding a gun to the developers heads or threatening to cut off any developers who don't use Gameworks. That would be anti-competitive. The minute NV tells a dev who refuses to use Gameworks that it will not release a driver for their game you can go ahead and complain. NV is not forcing this "black box" on anyone. Devs are using it at an increasing rate for whatever reason. Most likely it adds visuals they want.
Refusing to give your source code to a competitor who has not invested a dime in the technology is not anti-competitive. AMD can make their own version of Gameworks, remember the vaporware Freeworks, and convince devs to adopt it. Gameworks issues are solely on AMD and further proves AMD is lacking in resources to remain competitive.
Yakk
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 5,810
What you are describing is the end of PC Gaming, and the start of closed systems gaming.