Nvidia GameWorks - Game Over for You

[JustReason]

you have to see it motion and x8 tessellation factor is enough to start seeing performance advantages for nV hardware. Factor amounts will only get worse as games start using more base polygon counts to begin with.

Edit this is easily seen when you start changing options for the vegetation in witcher 3's menu. The grass has a similar affect to performance as with tessellation factor changes through the driver.

It wasn't just tessellation it was the MSAA on top of the hair as well. Most pics it would be nearly impossible in game at common resolutions to tell a great deal of difference from 16x to 64x. 8x to 16x could be argued but negligible for the most part. But that MSAA 8x on top of the tessellation was ridiculous and a huge frame rate killer more so than the tessellation (well in my experience).

 

[razor1]

I wouldn't bet on it. It is being discussed most places that the benches are all over the place... I knew someone here would post the very graphs you did when these here are present as well.
http://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Rise_of_the_Tomb_Raider/4.html

Now Kepler is missing from the graphs but looking at the performance of the rest of the cards I wouldn't give much stock to any particular graph just yet as undeniable proof.

The only cards that didn't match up in guru's benchmarks were Fiji, most likely a driver bug and something they screwed up, everything else looked fine.

http://www.computerbase.de/2016-01/...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

 

[razor1]

It wasn't just tessellation it was the MSAA on top of the hair as well. Most pics it would be nearly impossible in game at common resolutions to tell a great deal of difference from 16x to 64x. 8x to 16x could be argued but negligible for the most part. But that MSAA 8x on top of the tessellation was ridiculous and a huge frame rate killer more so than the tessellation (well in my experience).

With more polygons MSAA takes more hit that is normal.

 

[JustReason]

The only cards that didn't match up in guru's benchmarks were Fiji, most likely a driver bug and something they screwed up, everything else looked fine.

http://www.computerbase.de/2016-01/...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

That's why I don't put too much stock in Benchmarks as a way to give clear winners and losers. Too many variables to be certain. I read the link I posted and it gives good info on Vram usage as well but at the same time saying anything over 2 seems fine. Seems very high textures can be the limiting factor, taking it down one notch seemed to benefit gameplay more than IQ loss.

 

[Dayaks]

Pictures are nearly useless for comparing image IQ.

 

[Nauseous]

you get what you pay for, and right now if you pay for an nvidia card you get all the goodies that go along with it.

 

[n=1]

The only cards that didn't match up in guru's benchmarks were Fiji, most likely a driver bug and something they screwed up, everything else looked fine.

http://www.computerbase.de/2016-01/...abschnitt_benchmarks_von_full_hd_bis_ultra_hd

To be fair to Hilbert, he did say this in this RoTR benchmark review:

The game is VERY WEIRD in the sense that in gameplay scenes your FPS can be 30 on average and then when you look to the right all of the sudden it jumps up to 65 FPS. This happens throughout the game, we'll focus a bit more on the stringent segments in-game and that reflects and results into somewhat lower average FPS.

 

[razor1]

mostly likely then its an engine bug then.

 

[bildad]

Go team green!

 

[Omegas]

I don't really care what that guy says, it was awesome to just listen to him .

Listen to him? Hell I've read this whole thread in his voice in my head. It's actually starting to get annoying because I'm reading in my head what I'm typing using his voice, too...

 

[pandora's box]

*shrug*

I think most of us are locked in to the Nvidia Ecosystem at this point. G-Sync monitor + Nvidia GPU = not going AMD anytime soon.

I personally just bought a XB271HU monitor (1440P 165hz, gsync). I don't plan on replacing it for at least 3-4 years at the very earliest. That means for the entire time I plan on owning this monitor, my graphic card will always be Nvidia.

 

[Relayer]

*shrug*

I think most of us are locked in to the Nvidia Ecosystem at this point. G-Sync monitor + Nvidia GPU = not going AMD anytime soon.

I personally just bought a XB271HU monitor (1440P 165hz, gsync). I don't plan on replacing it for at least 3-4 years at the very earliest. That means for the entire time I plan on owning this monitor, my graphic card will always be Nvidia.

Assuming there's Gsync support for that long.

 

[pandora's box]

Assuming there's Gsync support for that long.

What?

G-Sync isn't going anywhere.

 

[Relayer]

What?

G-Sync isn't going anywhere.

It's only nVidia that supports it. As long as it's profitable for them, I'm sure they will continue.

 

[pandora's box]

It's only nVidia that supports it. As long as it's profitable for them, I'm sure they will continue.

So you're speaking out of your ass and not backing it up with anything solid? OK.

 

[Nenu]

It's only nVidia that supports it. As long as it's profitable for them, I'm sure they will continue.

How much do you think it costs to keep support in the driver?

 

[Ocellaris]

*shrug*

I think most of us are locked in to the Nvidia Ecosystem at this point. G-Sync monitor + Nvidia GPU = not going AMD anytime soon.

I personally just bought a XB271HU monitor (1440P 165hz, gsync). I don't plan on replacing it for at least 3-4 years at the very earliest. That means for the entire time I plan on owning this monitor, my graphic card will always be Nvidia.

Then again the people buying a monitor that pricey are the same people that would buy a much better monitor in 4 years as well...

 

[KazeoHin]

*shrug*

I think most of us are locked in to the Nvidia Ecosystem at this point. G-Sync monitor + Nvidia GPU = not going AMD anytime soon.

I personally just bought a XB271HU monitor (1440P 165hz, gsync). I don't plan on replacing it for at least 3-4 years at the very earliest. That means for the entire time I plan on owning this monitor, my graphic card will always be Nvidia.

You almost seem happy about that situation...

 

[pandora's box]

You almost seem happy about that situation...

I would say I am indifferent on the situation. One could easily turn around and blame AMD for their lackluster Freesync implementation.

 

[KazeoHin]

I would say I am indifferent on the situation. One could easily turn around and blame AMD for their lackluster Freesync implementation.

From what I understand, Nvidia could implement the ASync spec into their cards freely, and make it so that when you grab a FreeSync screen, you can use either chip vendor. But they wouldn't do that because their plan is to put as many people in the same situation described above.

Essentially, Nvidia have chosen to split the market, to lock things down. I look at this as unhealthy for the market, but thats my opinion.

As for GameWorks, I'm indifferent. mostly because it runs on either vendor and for the most part just kills performance on either vendor's products, so it really does not split the market.

 

[Relayer]

How much do you think it costs to keep support in the driver?

They dropped quad SLI support for most cards. That's just drivers too. They don't seem to want to optimize drivers for Kepler anymore.

Anyone who wants to count on nVidia support down the road, that's fine with me. I'm just mentioning it because they don't always do it.

 

[n=1]

*shrug*

I think most of us are locked in to the Nvidia Ecosystem at this point. G-Sync monitor + Nvidia GPU = not going AMD anytime soon.

I personally just bought a XB271HU monitor (1440P 165hz, gsync). I don't plan on replacing it for at least 3-4 years at the very earliest. That means for the entire time I plan on owning this monitor, my graphic card will always be Nvidia.

Why do people act like G-Sync is the best thing since sliced bread? Yeah sure it gets rid of screen tearing without the input lag, but that's it. 40 FPS does NOT feel like 60 FPS, and gaming at 40 FPS still blows harder than a crackwhore on well, crack. And for games where you know there are frame drops in inevitable spots, G-Sync does fuck all to make that a better experience. Seriously AnandTech's review made me think G-Sync was going to "revolutionize" my gaming experience, it did not, and I'm now completely convinced that "review" was a sponsored piece.

Eurogamers review seems to align pretty well with my own experience FWIW.

 

[atom]

Now a way to get around this is if the hair was modeled with more polys to begin with, .

Thank you, every time I pop into one of these debates this is the point I try to make. Devs want to take advantage of the extra horsepower of the PC so they use Gameworks as a cheap bolt-on way of doing this. Don't get me wrong, that AMD Tress-FX BS was just as bad. The first thing I do when I am setting up a game is I disable all tessellation since it makes little visual difference.

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Why do people act like G-Sync is the best thing since sliced bread? Yeah sure it gets rid of screen tearing without the input lag, but that's it. 40 FPS does NOT feel like 60 FPS, and gaming at 40 FPS still blows harder than a crackwhore on well, crack. And for games where you know there are frame drops in inevitable spots, G-Sync does fuck all to make that a better experience. Seriously AnandTech's review made me think G-Sync was going to "revolutionize" my gaming experience, it did not, and I'm now completely convinced that "review" was a sponsored piece.

Eurogamers review seems to align pretty well with my own experience FWIW.

Maybe reviews can not be trusted so much that you get a good feel for it, but if you know enough about computers software and hardware you can make your own assumptions without having to rely on other peoples opinion (or sponsored opinion).

It fixes sub par framerate (which there are cheaper solutions to fix):
Adjust graphics settings
Buy hardware that is capable

Between those solutions it makes little to no sense to buy extra hardware which does not fix the issue but finds a software work around (implemented in hardware) to fool your brain that you have smooth game play, that has to be the most ridicule way to spend your money...

Rather wait for HDR stuff to come out

 

[Tgrove]

Why do people act like G-Sync is the best thing since sliced bread? Yeah sure it gets rid of screen tearing without the input lag, but that's it. 40 FPS does NOT feel like 60 FPS, and gaming at 40 FPS still blows harder than a crackwhore on well, crack. And for games where you know there are frame drops in inevitable spots, G-Sync does fuck all to make that a better experience. Seriously AnandTech's review made me think G-Sync was going to "revolutionize" my gaming experience, it did not, and I'm now completely convinced that "review" was a sponsored piece.

Eurogamers review seems to align pretty well with my own experience FWIW.

I've used g sync and freesync. Along with the screen tearing there is a dramatic increase in smoothness I notice. This is not placebo either. It's fairly obvious to me in gameplay and the windmill/pendulum demo. I don't see how you could expect 40 FPS to feel like 60 fps, I never expected that amd I don't see that either

 

[Nenu]

I've used g sync and freesync. Along with the screen tearing there is a dramatic increase in smoothness I notice. This is not placebo either. It's fairly obvious to me in gameplay and the windmill/pendulum demo

They dont alleviate variable frame timing because it is a consequence of why you end up using gsync/fsync.
In that article they state that the smoothest experience was at constant 60fps or constant 30fps, this speaks volumes.

There are a few reasons why I dont use freesync/gsync.
1) support inconsistency between gpu mfrs
2) it doesnt cure frame timing issues, it allows them.
3) it is only useful at lower than synced fps which still doesnt look as good as 60fps.
4) cost of gsync is stupid when I can upgrade my gpu and get a better per frame experience and brings other benefits.

I decided on a 980ti at 1080p, it has done everything I needed.

 

[Tgrove]

They dont alleviate variable frame timing because it is a consequence of why you end up using gsync/fsync.
In that article they state that the smoothest experience was at constant 60fps or constant 30fps, this speaks volumes.

There are a few reasons why I dont use freesync/gsync.
1) support inconsistency between gpu mfrs
2) it doesnt cure frame timing issues, it allows them.
3) it is only useful at lower than synced fps which still doesnt look as good as 60fps.
4) cost of gsync is stupid when I can upgrade my gpu and get a better per frame experience and brings other benefits.

I decided on a 980ti at 1080p, it has done everything I needed.

I didn't read the review but this not what I've experienced. As long as freesync or g sync is engaged it has the same effect for me throughout.

 

[Creig]

I think most of us are locked in to the Nvidia Ecosystem at this point.

Most of who? I highly doubt that the majority of Nvidia video card owners out there also plunked down the cash for a G-sync monitor.

I would say I am indifferent on the situation. One could easily turn around and blame AMD for their lackluster Freesync implementation.

There are already more FreeSync capable monitors on the market than G-sync despite the fact that G-sync came out a year earlier than FreeSync. Up until recently, G-sync monitors have had all their inputs ripped out except for a single Displayport. Adaptive-Sync monitors still have their full range of inputs available, are less expensive since they don't need to pay royalties to Nvidia and don't need an aftermarket scaler. AMD has recently shown that they can support FreeSync over HDMI. There are also larger Adaptive-Sync monitors available than G-sync. And now Intel has indicated that they plan to support Adaptive-Sync in future hardware.

If anything seems to be lackluster, it's G-sync.

 

[n=1]

I've used g sync and freesync. Along with the screen tearing there is a dramatic increase in smoothness I notice. This is not placebo either. It's fairly obvious to me in gameplay and the windmill/pendulum demo. I don't see how you could expect 40 FPS to feel like 60 fps, I never expected that amd I don't see that either

Have you read the AnandTech review? Some choice snippets:

Next was to enable v-sync with the refresh rate left at 60Hz. Lots of AC4 renders at 60 fps, although in some scenes both outdoors and indoors I saw frame rates drop down into the 40 - 51 fps range. Here with v-sync enabled I started noticing stuttering, especially as I moved the camera around and the difficulty of what was being rendered varied. In some scenes the stuttering was pretty noticeable. I played through a bunch of rounds with v-sync enabled before enabling G-Sync.

I enabled G-Sync, once again leaving the refresh rate at 60Hz and dove back into the game. I was shocked; virtually all stuttering vanished. I had to keep FRAPS running to remind me of areas where I should be seeing stuttering. The combination of fast enough hardware to keep the frame rate in the G-Sync sweet spot of 40 - 60 fps and the G-Sync display itself produced a level of smoothness that I hadn’t seen before.

...

Next up was v-sync on, once again at 60Hz. Here I noticed sharp variations in frame rate resulting in tons of stutter. The stutter was pretty consistent both outdoors (panning across the city) and indoors (while fighting large groups of enemies). I remember seeing the stutter and noting that it was just something I’m used to expecting.

The improvement to Batman was insane. I kept expecting it to somehow not work, but G-Sync really did smooth out the vast majority of stuttering I encountered in the game - all without touching a single quality setting. You can still see some hiccups, but they are the result of other things (CPU limitations, streaming textures, etc&#8230.

Those are some pretty substantial claims, using phrases like I was shocked/the improvement was insane. Now granted I don't have those two games so I can't verify the claims for myself, but you can see how this review can be easily misleading.

Maybe reviews can not be trusted so much that you get a good feel for it, but if you know enough about computers software and hardware you can make your own assumptions without having to rely on other peoples opinion (or sponsored opinion).

It fixes sub par framerate (which there are cheaper solutions to fix):
Adjust graphics settings
Buy hardware that is capable

Between those solutions it makes little to no sense to buy extra hardware which does not fix the issue but finds a software work around (implemented in hardware) to fool your brain that you have smooth game play, that has to be the most ridicule way to spend your money...

Rather wait for HDR stuff to come out

Unfortunately all 144Hz 1440p monitors come bundled with some kind of sync technology. You literally cannot buy a 144Hz 1440p monitor without G/Freesync.

 

[Sikkyu]

I'm a big fan of open source software and hate the idea of locking out/crippling customers because of the bottom line.

In this case Nvidia is crippling AMD+Intel users, even though they are customers of the same games.

I am not considering Nvidia until they change their policies.

 

[ERipley]

I wouldnt be surprised if Nvidia was crippling things for competitors. They did it with physx when they purchased it. New driveres blocked physx from working with an Ati card in the system. Roll back to early drives and it would work fine...

 

[Pieter3dnow]

Unfortunately all 144Hz 1440p monitors come bundled with some kind of sync technology. You literally cannot buy a 144Hz 1440p monitor without G/Freesync.

Hence my last statement I'll wait for the HDR capable monitors to come out. I'm sure that there are older versions without those features.

 

[Yakk]

Hence my last statement I'll wait for the HDR capable monitors to come out. I'm sure that there are older versions without those features.

HDR capable monitors are looking real good, a BIG step up I have to say. Glad I sat out this gen of monitors, definitely upgrading to these!

I'm a big fan of open source software and hate the idea of locking out/crippling customers because of the bottom line.

In this case Nvidia is crippling AMD+Intel users, even though they are customers of the same games.

I am not considering Nvidia until they change their policies.

I'm with you on this. It's really too bad there aren't more companies competing in graphics anymore.

 

[Semantics]

They dont alleviate variable frame timing because it is a consequence of why you end up using gsync/fsync.
In that article they state that the smoothest experience was at constant 60fps or constant 30fps, this speaks volumes.

There are a few reasons why I dont use freesync/gsync.
1) support inconsistency between gpu mfrs
2) it doesnt cure frame timing issues, it allows them.
3) it is only useful at lower than synced fps which still doesnt look as good as 60fps.
4) cost of gsync is stupid when I can upgrade my gpu and get a better per frame experience and brings other benefits.

I decided on a 980ti at 1080p, it has done everything I needed.

Gsync removes screen tearing which most commonly occurs at lower fps without a buffer that would give noticeable lag or stutter.

G-sync is a high end product, the point of it is to better the experience in which more gpu power isn't as feasible. You don't buy mainstream gpu and pair it with g-sync unless you have a very specific need to remove screen tearing for.

 

[n=1]

Hence my last statement I'll wait for the HDR capable monitors to come out. I'm sure that there are older versions without those features.

That's fine. to each his own.

For me since the XB270HU was the first and only 144Hz 1440p IPS panel on the market for quite a while, that was the main selling point for me, not the G-Sync. I'm only sharing my experience because people gush praise about it, but it did very little for me.

 

[doublejack]

I see the comments that this is old news, but it is new news to me. I'm glad the OP created this thread. This makes the decision as to which camp I'm going with when I buy my next card a no-brainer. Screw Nvidia.

 

[pandora's box]

I see the comments that this is old news, but it is new news to me. I'm glad the OP created this thread. This makes the decision as to which camp I'm going with when I buy my next card a no-brainer. Screw Nvidia.

Crysis 2 Tesselation thing was debunked and you can turn off Gameworks features....People need to do their own research instead of believing everything posted on youtube.

 

[JustReason]

Crysis 2 Tesselation thing was debunked and you can turn off Gameworks features....People need to do their own research instead of believing everything posted on youtube.

It isn't about outcome for everyone but intent. I flat out refuse to have Intel anything for as long as I can mange it. I didn't care for their immoral behavior and so choose to not support them at all. It is my choice. I don't condemn those that do and I do advise the use of their processors for those that don't care or need their processing power. But to turn a blind eye to such actions is a disservice to the community as a whole.

The Nvidia 3.5Gb Vram issue was never completely about performance. That was how it was found out. But in real world use, initially 10% of the user base may have had performance issues. With driver updates we may see 0%. The ISSUE was the lies. Now maybe not enough time has passed, but I am very disappointed that nothing has come of it. Automobile manufacturers get fines quite yearly for such things. Had AMD done it we would never hear the end of it. But because it was Nvidia it apparently can be excused and forgotten.

So you see performance isn't the only metric. Sometimes it is the intent or the skewing of the truth that most have a problem with.

 

[razor1]

It isn't about outcome for everyone but intent. I flat out refuse to have Intel anything for as long as I can mange it. I didn't care for their immoral behavior and so choose to not support them at all. It is my choice. I don't condemn those that do and I do advise the use of their processors for those that don't care or need their processing power. But to turn a blind eye to such actions is a disservice to the community as a whole.

The Nvidia 3.5Gb Vram issue was never completely about performance. That was how it was found out. But in real world use, initially 10% of the user base may have had performance issues. With driver updates we may see 0%. The ISSUE was the lies. Now maybe not enough time has passed, but I am very disappointed that nothing has come of it. Automobile manufacturers get fines quite yearly for such things. Had AMD done it we would never hear the end of it. But because it was Nvidia it apparently can be excused and forgotten.

So you see performance isn't the only metric. Sometimes it is the intent or the skewing of the truth that most have a problem with.

There are two problems with this statement, again you didn't do your research and posting about something you don't know about. There are multiple class action lawsuits in different stated against nV for the 3.5 gb screwup, so they aren't forgotten about.

Reviews were done with the 3.5 gb +.5 gb issue anyways the cards performance isn't going to change because the problem is now known.....

And yes I did sign the up for the class action lawsuit for the gtx 970.

 

[Creig]

Reviews were done with the 3.5 gb +.5 gb issue anyways the cards performance isn't going to change because the problem is now known.....

Which doesn't change the fact that Nvidia flat-out lied about the specs of the card (ROPs and L2 cache) for over four months. They didn't come clean until it was conclusively proven by gamers that there was something seriously wrong with the memory on the 970.

And if I remember correctly, the 970 has to have per-game driver tweaks in order to keep frequently accessed data out of the slow 0.5GB portion of memory. Once the 970 no longer becomes relevant to Nvidia, they'll stop devoting programmers to it and performance could easily tank. The 970 might just become Nvidia's next Kepler.