A "Perspective" on Nvidia's GameWorks

jwcalla said:
Why don't they just polish up their resumes and try to get in at nvidia? They're hiring, after all.
Click to expand...
Non-compete agreements, potentially. Or maybe AMD simply pays better. Who knows?

jbltecnicspro said:
Seems to me that the simple solution is for developers not to use Gameworks.
Click to expand...
The right solution is for developers to evaluate GameWorks stuff on a case-by-case basis, weighing the potential costs against the potential gains. Developers should be able to build some fairly rudimentary tests to determine where and how things are impacted on the AMD side before making any commitments.

There's nothing inherently harmful about proprietary libraries. They're used by almost every major software company. In this situation, though, they need to be looked at and evaluated carefully.

GoldenTiger said:
Can't optimize a modern 3d engine for a 286! :p
Click to expand...
No, you can, it's just not going to be a particularly good use of anyone's time :)

GORANKAR said:
Why are people still comparing DX to Mantle? It's like comparing DX to Cuda.
Click to expand...
Why are people still comparing two proprietary graphics APIs? I have no idea. It's clearly an absurd comparison.
 
xoleras said:
That is, essentially, AMD's entire marketing strategy. They're not shy about lying to the press and trying to make themselves seem like the "stand up good guys" and they have done this for years, they proclaimed that Mantle would be "open" for this very reason, to fit in with their "good guy" marketing strategy. However the truth of the matter is far different. AMD is very protective of Mantle and has not allowed other IHV's to use it, and they did in fact confirm that Mantle is closed as of yesterday. Now their explanation yesterday was because of the recent announcement of DX12, they decided to close it. Yeah, whatever they say. In the end this is nothing new.
Click to expand...

I think people might be confusing open code with open development. The code development is closed, they're not asking for input from anyone but developers when it comes to the code, so the development is closed, yes. But the end code that gets produced is, again "supposedly," going to be open, meaning everyone can use it and optimize for it. I don't see what they'd have to gain from making it so only AMD people can use it, there would be little point to it imo.

If it really does become an AMD only thing then I do hope it fails, all of this one-side-only performance garbage needs to stop.

People seem to keep distracting themselves from the point of the thread though; instead of talking about the gameworks a lot of people keep going on an on about mantle. The point is that the code should be open to be viewed. Opening the source code would show what kind of algorithms are used and could help with optimization. It's not about the game's complete open source code, it's about the source code that's used in engines, as, like always with code, it's generally the same code just copied and pasted as needed for different things.
 
Pylor said:
People seem to keep distracting themselves from the point of the thread though; instead of talking about the gameworks a lot of people keep going on an on about mantle. The point is that the code should be open to be viewed. Opening the source code would show what kind of algorithms are used and could help with optimization. It's not about the game's complete open source code, it's about the source code that's used in engines, as, like always with code, it's generally the same code just copied and pasted as needed for different things.
Click to expand...

And fortunately it has been clarified that GameWorks source code is available for those willing to pay a license fee. Which is a rather ordinary arrangement for middleware. And developers are free to modify such code for their own game use.
 
Pylor said:
I think people might be confusing open code with open development. The code development is closed, they're not asking for input from anyone but developers when it comes to the code, so the development is closed, yes. But the end code that gets produced is, again "supposedly," going to be open, meaning everyone can use it and optimize for it. I don't see what they'd have to gain from making it so only AMD people can use it, there would be little point to it imo.

If it really does become an AMD only thing then I do hope it fails, all of this one-side-only performance garbage needs to stop.

People seem to keep distracting themselves from the point of the thread though; instead of talking about the gameworks a lot of people keep going on an on about mantle. The point is that the code should be open to be viewed. Opening the source code would show what kind of algorithms are used and could help with optimization. It's not about the game's complete open source code, it's about the source code that's used in engines, as, like always with code, it's generally the same code just copied and pasted as needed for different things.
Click to expand...

Everything in gameworks except physx and TXAA (Which require CUDA) are in fact open with the source available. AMD can work with developers to optimize those gameworks features as well. Guess what AMD didn't do? They did zero collaboration with Ubi for any game until after the fact. But their marketing department sure will lie about the facts. Time to move on to your next argument.
 
That isn't true. There's quite a lot of stuff in GameWorks that isn't open-source. There's the VisualFX stuff, like FaceWorks, WaveWorks, FlameWorks and so forth, and there's also OptiX.
 
That would contradict what was stated on PCPer's podcast. They mentioned all gameworks except physx and TXAA have source available to developers, and they can implement any AMD optimizations they wish. Any game using those features, AMD has the option to collaborate with the developer to optimize for those features.

A "black box" would imply a DLL or library that the developer simply compiles in the game without being able to see the innards of at any point. All of the features sans physx and TXAA do in fact have the source available to all developers who use them, from what I understood on that podcast. And as mentioned, developers + AMD have the option to optimize for those features on Radeons, which makes sense because there is no developer who wants to exclude 35% of their buyer base. Think about that. No sane dev would do that.
 
Licensees can sometimes get access to the source, but cannot share those sources with non-licensees. Read: AMD.

Given the sources, licensees can do whatever they're able to do in terms of cross-vendor optimizations. But they can't hand those blocks of code over to AMD for optimization assistance. Similarly, the closed-source nature makes AMD's optimization tasks somewhat more difficult, as it inhibits AMD's ability to see beyond calls into GameWorks.
 
xoleras said:
That would contradict what was stated on PCPer's podcast. They mentioned all gameworks except physx and TXAA have source available to developers, and they can implement any AMD optimizations they wish. Any game using those features, AMD has the option to collaborate with the developer to optimize for those features.

A "black box" would imply a DLL or library that the developer simply compiles in the game without being able to see the innards of at any point. All of the features sans physx and TXAA do in fact have the source available to all developers who use them, from what I understood on that podcast. And as mentioned, developers + AMD have the option to optimize for those features on Radeons, which makes sense because there is no developer who wants to exclude 35% of their buyer base. Think about that. No sane dev would do that.
Click to expand...

They cannot share the code with AMD, so AMD cannot write optimised drivers. It being a blackbox serves no purpose other then to harm the performance of non-NVDIA GPUs.
 
wonderfield said:
That isn't true. There's quite a lot of stuff in GameWorks that isn't open-source. There's the VisualFX stuff, like FaceWorks, WaveWorks, FlameWorks and so forth, and there's also OptiX.
Click to expand...

Open source != open.
 
that depends on your business model really.

Your responsibility is to maximize shareholder wealth.

For some, that means locked ecosystems and walled gardens, to others it means buidling open systems to leverage your hardware, to still others it means a combination of both.

Throw PR in there, and you have a real mess.

lol
 
It's only been a few days and I am already getting tired of this.

What in front flipping HELL does Mantle have to do with anything? Mantle is an API specifically designed to reduce draw call overhead by only being coded for one GPU architecture and it's small variations. It doesn't work on nvidia because it CANNOT work on nvidia untill their gpus are designed with CGN-type cores.

The reason why this is bad is not comparable to the reason why game works is bad. It's bad because it MIGHT trigger an API war where some games are API-exclusive and can only run on one vendor's hardware. Even if you disregard that this is now very unlikely, given that there is a direct x version in the works that's set to make this kind of proprietary API obsolete, the fact is that every game coded for mantle is also on direct x or opengl, and they are not affected by mantle in the least, nor can they ever be.

On the other hand, game works DOES affect performance on AMD hardware if certain game libraries are closed source and barred from the competition's view - they cannot optimize their drivers, can't you people see that this is nvidia stacking the deck in their favor?

THEIR. FAVOR.

Not yours, exclusively theirs. You cannot possibly gain anything from this - even if you only buy nvidia hardware, even if you can easily afford any price, it's still in your detriment, because when competition fades, product quality also fades, and there is no amount of money you could pay to change that, should such an event occur.
 
-Slacker- said:
On the other hand, game works DOES affect performance on AMD hardware if certain game libraries are closed source and barred from the competition's view - they cannot optimize their drivers, can't you people see that this is nvidia stacking the deck in their favor?
Click to expand...

You and others have lost sight of the fact that, much like with Mantle and DX, the developer is free to implement rendering paths with and without GameWorks. There is no condition that I'm aware of that says the developer must use the GameWorks middleware for all vendors, or that they can't use alternative middleware from other vendors. Therefore it stands to reason that just as DICE can make two versions of their game, one with Mantle and one with DX, then Ubisoft can likewise make two versions, one with GameWorks middleware and one without. With the primary difference being that having two separate rendering APIs is going to be much, much, much, much more work than swapping out middleware on the same DX standard.
 
Actually, several developers have already debunked that myth.

The render path for mantle takes very little additional resources to implement.

Debugging gameworks dx api extensions without access to the code on the otherhand...

There really is no comparison between mantle and gameworks because mantle doent touch any dx functionality at all.

Gameworks on the other hand does. It directly effects the dx render path.
 
jwcalla said:
You and others have lost sight of the fact that, much like with Mantle and DX, the developer is free to implement rendering paths with and without GameWorks. There is no condition that I'm aware of that says the developer must use the GameWorks middleware for all vendors, or that they can't use alternative middleware from other vendors. Therefore it stands to reason that just as DICE can make two versions of their game, one with Mantle and one with DX, then Ubisoft can likewise make two versions, one with GameWorks middleware and one without. With the primary difference being that having two separate rendering APIs is going to be much, much, much, much more work than swapping out middleware on the same DX standard.
Click to expand...

Do you believe nvidia would still offer their services to ubisoft if amd users would have access to a second version of the game that works properly? What incentive would they have to affiliate with a publisher if they can't pay for an exclusive edge over their competitors?
 
^What the FUCK are you talking about dude? The only common denominator gameworks feature used in Watch Dogs is HBAO+.

THAT'S IT. HBAO+.

and it runs at the same speeds on comparable NV and AMD hardware. What edge are you talking about? What lockout are you talking about? Did you fall for Robert Hallocks marketing nonsense too? Oh okay. AMD is good, Nvidia bad, intel bad. That's AMD's marketing in a nutshell. And their fanbase, as we're witnessing, eat that shit up. Their fanbase will come up with all kinds of goddamn conspiracy theories about how AMD is out to save the world and how nvidia and intel are evil empires out to destroy mankind. Massive eye-roll there.

There is no merit to AMD's claims of the game being sabotaged. The game engine is Ubi's. Everything is Ubi's. The only gameworks feature is HBAO+ which works at similar speeds on comparable GPU hardware. Ubisoft presumably optimized it for both sets of GPUs. Funny how that works. Although the game is a goddamn mess overall with memory leaks and texture popin everywhere, that is undeniable. Even 6GB VRAM GPUs get texture popin.

As far as gameworks in Watch dogs, the only gameworks feature is HBAO+ and that is IT, and it runs at parity on both AMD and nvidia hardware in terms of performance hit. Maybe you should understand that before you go crazy with conspiracy theories, although AMD's marketing helps perpetuate those conspiracy theories. Because AMD is of course out to save the world one CPU / GPU at a time, while intel and nvidia are the epitome of evil.

You know, despite all this, AMD really has great cards with the 290 series. I have to admit it, they really do. Initially I grit my teeth over the reference cooler but now that the issue is resolved (with custom cards) and prices are normal. They have some great GPUs there priced very fairly. My only qualm remaining is their software which isn't quite up to par yet, but that said......the hardware is great. I just wish their marketing would shut up. Let the hardware do the talking. It really is insufferable to hear their marketing keep this conspiracy train going, and it fuels their fanbase to do the same thing. Because it is based about half in truth and half in nonsense. It's just annoying to read that stuff. Literally this entire thing was brought on about by ONE FEATURE which runs at the SAME SPEED on AMD hardware. HBAO+. Really Robert Hallock? Really?


And apparently, because of this gameworks HBAO+ feature that runs at the same speed, that doesn't prevent Hallock from kickstarting this marketing war of words designed to make nvidia look like the bad guys. The evil corporation. It really is insufferable because AMD has done this to intel and nvidia for years, and it's annoying to see it. Because there is no good and evil, there is only for-profit corporations which AMD is very much wanting everyone's hard earned dollar. Make no mistake. AMD is trying to get your money just like intel and nvidia are. That is their duty to shareholders. Again, there are no good guys, no evil guys, just for-profit which AMD is very much a part of.
 
Last edited:
i seriously don't see the controversy here. If this was the other way around and it was AMD's program I would simply say that NVIDIA needs to step up their game and start working closer with developers. Why shouldn't it be the same with AMD in this case?

And why is it that whenever there is a deficiency in AMD's world it's always somebody else's fault? I see this in the CPU arguments too.
 
Which developers can easily keep in check by doing rudimentary performance analysis on their own test systems.
 
jwcalla said:
i seriously don't see the controversy here. If this was the other way around and it was AMD's program I would simply say that NVIDIA needs to step up their game and start working closer with developers. Why shouldn't it be the same with AMD in this case?

And why is it that whenever there is a deficiency in AMD's world it's always somebody else's fault? I see this in the CPU arguments too.
Click to expand...

This isn't about working with developers more, this was an nvidia partnered game (I hate it when either company "partners" but it seems exceedingly common anymore) that used proprietary licensed code that was created by a graphics card manufacturer. As the previous user said, mantle is a non-issue, it's a different API than directx, it won't directly affect directx.

When mantle was implemented in BF4 it didn't impact the directx api path whatsoever, it's a non issue and non comparable. The point is that closed source code from either company prevents the other from properly optimizing for it and should not be done, be it nvidia or AMD.
 
There is all sorts of closed source code in a game that developers might not have access to -- middleware or engine code. But the developer has to balance that against the benefits.

There's no guarantee that DICE didn't make their DX path a pile of steaming turds just to make Mantle look better. And we have about as much evidence for that as we do AMD being harmed by GameWorks.
 
xoleras said:
^What the FUCK are you talking about dude? The only common denominator gameworks feature used in Watch Dogs is HBAO+.

THAT'S IT. HBAO+.

and it runs at the same speeds on comparable NV and AMD hardware. What edge are you talking about? What lockout are you talking about? Did you fall for Robert Hallocks marketing nonsense too? Oh okay. AMD is good, Nvidia bad, intel bad. That's AMD's marketing in a nutshell. And their fanbase, as we're witnessing, eat that shit up. Their fanbase will come up with all kinds of goddamn conspiracy theories about how AMD is out to save the world and how nvidia and intel are evil empires out to destroy mankind. Massive eye-roll there.
Click to expand...

Amd performance is inexplicably lower than on nvidia gpus of the same class, and at the heart of the problem lies the fact that they can't see the necessary code and optimize their drivers properly. It doesn't mater if they can see some code, or even most of it, if the part that they can't will affect performance on their end significantly. You can't know if hbao+ is the only thing they have to worry about and, considering that an r9 290x is slower than a gtx 770, it probably isn't.

There is no merit to AMD's claims of the game being sabotaged. The game engine is Ubi's. Everything is Ubi's. The only gameworks feature is HBAO+ which works at similar speeds on comparable GPU hardware.
Click to expand...

But it doesn't work at similar speeds, does it?

Ubisoft presumably optimized it for both sets of GPUs. Funny how that works. Although the game is a goddamn mess overall with memory leaks and texture popin everywhere, that is undeniable. Even 6GB VRAM GPUs get texture popin.
Click to expand...

Presumably. ... Presumably?

As far as gameworks in Watch dogs, the only gameworks feature is HBAO+ and that is IT, and it runs at parity on both AMD and nvidia hardware in terms of performance hit. Maybe you should understand that before you go crazy with conspiracy theories, although AMD's marketing helps perpetuate those conspiracy theories. Because AMD is of course out to save the world one CPU / GPU at a time, while intel and nvidia are the epitome of evil.

You know, despite all this, AMD really has great cards with the 290 series. I have to admit it, they really do. Initially I grit my teeth over the reference cooler but now that the issue is resolved (with custom cards) and prices are normal. They have some great GPUs there priced very fairly. My only qualm remaining is their software which isn't quite up to par yet, but that said......the hardware is great. I just wish their marketing would shut up. Let the hardware do the talking. It really is insufferable to hear their marketing keep this conspiracy train going, and it fuels their fanbase to do the same thing. Because it is based about half in truth and half in nonsense. It's just annoying to read that stuff. Literally this entire thing was brought on about by ONE FEATURE which runs at the SAME SPEED on AMD hardware. HBAO+. Really Robert Hallock? Really?


And apparently, because of this gameworks HBAO+ feature that runs at the same speed, that doesn't prevent Hallock from kickstarting this marketing war of words designed to make nvidia look like the bad guys. The evil corporation. It really is insufferable because AMD has done this to intel and nvidia for years, and it's annoying to see it. Because there is no good and evil, there is only for-profit corporations which AMD is very much wanting everyone's hard earned dollar. Make no mistake. AMD is trying to get your money just like intel and nvidia are. That is their duty to shareholders. Again, there are no good guys, no evil guys, just for-profit which AMD is very much a part of.
Click to expand...

Yeah I can't ... Are you accusing me of pushing a conspiracy because you have a good reason to do it, or because you think it sounds cool while trying to discredit strangers on an internet forum? Because nobody here, as far as I can see, is suggesting anything beyond what has been said in the press. This shit is right up nvidia's alley.

Anyway, I can't ... do this with you. It's clear that pretty soon I'm going to go 12 rounds with somebody else who can't or won't grasp a simple notion, and then another 12 rounds ad god damn infinitum. So I'm out.
 
-Slacker- said:
Amd performance is inexplicably lower than on nvidia gpus of the same class, and at the heart of the problem lies the fact that they can't see the necessary code and optimize their drivers properly.
Click to expand...

Just for the sake of clarity, you don't need to see game code to optimize drivers. You need the game code to optimize the game code.

Most driver optimizations involve finding the hot spots (in driver code) and making those more efficient. It's also about finding ways to cut corners in the drivers: all vendors do this and it's one of the reasons they won't open source their drivers.
 
-Slacker- said:
But it doesn't work at similar speeds, does it?
Click to expand...

Read VERY CAREFULLY since reading comprehension may or may not be your strong suit. Ready?

HBAO+ is the ONLY COMMON gameworks used in Watch Dogs. The performance penalty for HBAO+ on AMD hardware is not greater than it is for NV hardware. In fact, you can view HBAO+ benchmarks on this very website and HBAO+ is NOT CRIPPLED on radeons.

So let's answer your question. It DOES WORK at similar speeds. Pretty hilarious huh? If nvidia set out to cripple radeons, they sure did a shitty job. Outside of HBAO+ there is NO nvidia influence in Watch Dogs. The rest of the game is Ubisoft's.

But by all means. If you want to fall for AMD's marketing hook line and sinker and believe that nvidia is the evil corporation out to cripple radeons, you go right ahead and do that. Since AMD can't spend enough money on their software development, they're spread thin and they spend money on marketing instead of software development. So the end result is, they do the good/evil marketing nonsense with that money instead of doing something USEFUL with their money such as.............developer relations and software engineering. The software end would be useful. The marketing apparently doesn't help them since they've done this marketing spin for years and it hasn't helped their market share. Which is stupid because their current graphics hardware is very strong, I don't even understand why they do what they do. But whatever. Anyway, you can make your watch dogs game completely nvidia free by disabling HBAO+. But if you do enable it, the performance penalty is 100% IDENTICAL to what the performance penalty is for NV hardware.

Did you read that slow enough? Do you understand now? I'd guess the answer is no, but just in case you're reading carefully, understand that HBAO+ is the only gameworks feature and it is not crippled on Radeons as AMD's deceptive marketing would have everyone believe. Their entire marketing campaign for watch dogs was based on a false premise.
 
-Slacker- said:
But it doesn't work at similar speeds, does it?
Click to expand...
NVIDIA claims AMD is only somewhat slower. That doesn't necessarily mean NVIDIA is deliberately crippling perf on AMD: it could just mean the technique itself, and its specific implementation, is better-suited to NVIDIA's own hardware. That stands to reason, given it's NVIDIA's own implementation and was most likely tuned more heavily for their own hardware.

Watch Dogs lets you pick between several AO methods, so I don't see what could possibly be the problem. If you find it's too slow on AMD hardware, choose from another method.
 
So xoleras is calling people out for "falling for AMD's marketing hook, line and sinker" but uses the exact phrasing and talking points from Nvidia's marketing team...
 
LordEC911 said:
So xoleras is calling people out for "falling for AMD's marketing hook, line and sinker" but uses the exact phrasing and talking points from Nvidia's marketing team...
Click to expand...

Personal attack to deflect away from facts huh? I think even you understand that the war of words over Watch Dogs from AMD's marketing was complete nonsense.

Anyway, My information came mostly from PCPer's podcast and coverage. You can believe that if you want, or don't. I do not care. I wasn't aware that NV's marketing even said anything about this, outside of setting facts straight with various websites (including PCPer). But *blinks* is this coming from YOU? Really? I won't even say anything about your 100% AMD tilted posts. Anyway, facts are facts. HBAO+ is it, it is the only gameworks feature used by GPUs in Watch Dogs, and if you turn it off you remove all NV influence from your gameplay. But. Why would you do that when it isn't crippled on Radeons?

The performance penalty for HBAO+ gameworks on AMD and NV is 100% exactly the same. It runs at parity on NV and AMD. All the while, Hallock's claims were entirely unsubstantiated. You go ahead with the personal attacks to avoid discussing that issue. The war of words from Hallock were an outright lie perhaps if not a half truth at best. Period. It does fit RIGHT IN with AMD's good guy/bad guy marketing strategy though, doesn't it. They've done that to intel and nvidia for years. Like I said, they don't need to do that stupid shit because their graphics hardware is fine. Obviously they won't ever catch intel, but this marketing tact they're taking is just in poor taste.
 
Last edited:
wonderfield said:
NVIDIA claims AMD is only somewhat slower. That doesn't necessarily mean NVIDIA is deliberately crippling perf on AMD: it could just mean the technique itself, and its specific implementation, is better-suited to NVIDIA's own hardware. That stands to reason, given it's NVIDIA's own implementation and was most likely tuned more heavily for their own hardware.

Watch Dogs lets you pick between several AO methods, so I don't see what could possibly be the problem. If you find it's too slow on AMD hardware, choose from another method.
Click to expand...

AMD somewhat slower? The MHBO / HBAO+ benchmarks done in the HardOCP article indicates complete parity. There are other HBAO+ benchmarks by other websites as well, IIRC, the performance penalty is not different for AMD or NV.

In any case, you are correct. If you have an issue with HBAO+, use an alternate AO method. But it doesn't run slower in terms of performance hit on radeons as compared to geforce, regardless of the narrative that AMD's marketing is trying push for their agenda.
 
NVIDIA's claim, not mine. If you have a problem with their claim, I suggest you take it up with them.
 
wonderfield said:
NVIDIA's claim, not mine. If you have a problem with their claim, I suggest you take it up with them.
Click to expand...

I see. Well, I only read the article on PCPer where they stated that HBAO+ runs "within milliseconds" in terms of frametimes and framerates between comparable AMD / NV GPUs. I didn't see any such language indicating "somewhat slower". But perhaps they did state that elsewhere. The majority of the coverage I've seen was from there, and there are benchmarks substantiating HBAO+ performance parity in terms of framerate hit, including benchmarks on this very site. In fact, the XFX DD 290X took less of a performance hit than the 780ti, but the 780ti was a reference so perhaps not an apples to apples comparison.

So I suppose, essentially, we're reading coverage from different websites. Shrug.
 
So we are now believing that Ubisoft is using GameWorks solely for HBAO+?
There is a lot more to Gameworks than just graphical effects...

@Xoleras- Sorry for pointing out your hypocrisy. I think what is more telling is your near word for word recreation of Nvidia's PR slander that you supposedly know nothing about.
 
We're only certain that it implements HBAO+ and TXAA. Beyond that, we don't know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top