Project CARS Devs Address AMD Performance Issues

[Ebernanut]

Ah, yes. Another gameworks game is released so it must by time for another round of "Let's blame AMD for performance issues caused by Nvidia".

The complaint that AMD wasn't involved enough would carry a lot more weight if it wasn't a gameworks/physx game. Physx automatically gives Nvidia a performance advantage which seems to be the main cause of problems in this game, and with gameworks being used AMD would have been locked out of key parts of the code no matter how involved they were. The fact that the devs stressed that they gave AMD 10 keys also tells me just how willing they were to work with AMD. Raw code is what they need to tailor drivers to the game not keys, then again with gameworks included reverse engineering is about the only way to tell what's going on.

I did get a kick out of the comments about AMD only being good at marketing, that's the one thing that Nvidia is infinitely better at. Well that and getting devs to include proprietary tech that cripples performance for their competitor, or maybe it's just coincidence that AMD sponsored titles don't have that problem.

Both companies make good hardware and have decent drivers but neither are perfect in either regard. I just wish Nvidia would invest in making games better rather than trying to push proprietary tech that offers no real advantage over non-proprietary solutions.

 

[mope54]

You didn't address the issue.

Neutral games = AMD performs fine, R290X is close to 980.

NV game = R290X is 25-50% behind 980. In Project Cars, the latest NV game to be released, a GTX660 is faster than R290X.

If AMD drivers are bad and they can't provide support, why is their performance great in NON NV SPONSORED? Really, try to find a neutral game where AMD is behind by that much, you cannot, it does not exist.

Can you even for a tiny bit, accept that NV sponsorship, whether it be via hardware, software engineers, or funds for marketing the game (NV game Ubisoft $2M to market Assassin's Creed for example).. that they do it with a string attached for the developers, to not optimize for AMD. Or is that beyond your ability to accept because you love NV so much you see no fallibility in their actions.

a "neutral" game simply means zero support from *either* vendor...as in, the developers have to do all the heavy lifting

you are asking people to accept:

zero support from AMD *and* nVidia
or
zero support from AMD but immense support from nVidia

there is no third option: immense support from AMD, <any> level of support from nVidia because that option doesn't exist

the real question you should be asking others and yourself is where are the games heavily supported by AMD that have zero support form nVidia. You can't find that scenario because that has not been the case for decades and I can't remember it's ever been the situation.

nVidia *still* lends its immense support infrastructure to games that are "AMD sponsored" and AMD geared gamers interpret that as AMD doing the heavy lifting.

The fact of the matter is the reason AMD is able to price their hardware cheaper than nVidia's for "equal or better" performance is only because they do not provide support infrastructure for developers on the same level as nVidia--it's an expensive endeavor.

AMD tries to ride free on the developments that nVidia brings to the table and over the years have convinced their consumer base that this is a-ok and that the "villian" is nVidia for not allowing this free riding. It's an interesting case study but nothing more.

I'm happy to pay a premium for physx and g-sync (only the two latest "non-advancements" nVidia "hasn't" brought to the table--but by no means an exhaustive list). The best response AMD geared gamers have come up with is that those two features don't matter.

If physx is as useless as you all have been claiming for years then tell your devs to stop emulating it on the cpu and dropping your performance. That's how this shit works in a capitalist society--not you get to complain until you feel justified to free ride on nVidia's coat tails.

 

[Final8ty]

So i have been reading from many sources and it seems that its the CPU Physx that is bring AMD to its knees, NV asked the developers to add more Physx at a later date which the consoles versions dont have and just to show its not all well it must be all AMD drivers fault.

2 x GTX 980 SLI, 25fps and usage GPU only 40%???
4K, everything ultra
no AA

MY PC
i5 4.8, 16GB RAM, SSD

kacperflak [has Project CARS] 11 hours ago
problem solved
Nividia Panel -> PhysX - > CPU = 25fps 40% GPU
Nividia Panel -> PhysX - > Defult = 60fps 100% GPU

http://steamcommunity.com/app/234630/discussions/0/613957600537550716/

So even with the highest realistically affordable NV setup the fps will tank if the PhysX runs on the CPU which AMD has no choice in.

Also a Physx poll running here and some good info.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2430693&page=12

 

[Final8ty]

Need for Speed: Shift Patch 2 accelerates Radeon graphics cards

Same developers.

Need for Speed: Shift Patch 2 - Background
When Need for Speed: Shift was released, we criticized the surprisingly low performance of AMD's Radeon cards. Especially in scenes with many vehicles the framerate was bad - no matter if the resolution was set to 800 x 600, 1920 x 1200 or any other resolution. The first time the racing game was updated, the problem was not solved, but the second patch for Need for Speed: Shift delivers more frames per second - according to the readme because of "Improved ATI graphics card support”. The reason for the up to now poor performance of Radeon cards has not been unveiled although rumors say that certain Shader routines had not been optimized. Honi soit qui mal y pense - Shift is part of Nvidia's TWIMTBP program.

Need for Speed: Shift - Benchmarks
In order to show the huge performance benefit for Radeon cards delivered by the patch, we race against 15 computer opponents on "Brands Hatch GP” in broad daylight. We record the framerate for 30 seconds. Without the patch a Radeon HD 5850 wasn't able to exceed 45 fps on average at 1280 x 1024 or 1680 x 1050 (each with 4x MSAA and 16:1 AF), but the update to version 1.02 the performance is increased by 60 respectively 44 percent. At 2560 x 1600 the performance advantage of "only” 19 percent is, as expected, a little smaller. The Radeon HD 4000 cards also get a benefit from the patch. In our benchmarks a Radeon HD 4870 runs between 11 and 34 percent faster (depending on the settings). In matter of performance Geforce owners on the other hand don't necessarily need the patch since the game runs "only” 2 to 4 percent faster.

http://www.pcgameshardware.com/aid,...-2-accelerates-Radeon-graphics-cards/Reviews/

 

[mope54]

there's no good info on that link, just more bellyaching from free riders who are either too young to remember the facts or tearfully misting up their rose colored glasses

1. gaming has *never* been brand agnostic. really interesting to see the most vocal talking about "gaming for 15 years" as if gaming started in 2000.

2. corporations, and gaming companies are no exception, have never been about maximizing something for the greater good. what kind of bullshit statement is it to whine about nVidia not being about the general gamer and not caring about gaming, in general. nVidia cares about it's profit margin and it cares about its customer base--and that's all anyone should reasonably expect from them.

it's as if these guys are too young to remember where PhysX came from in the first place...or SLI for that matter: proprietary systems that withered on the vine and were *bought* by nVidia. that's how the cookie crumbles in a capitalist economy. sorry if that's not your cup of tea, but there are plenty of open source non-starters for you to tool around with in your garage.

3. early computing, and gaming, was *dominated* by proprietary systems. If anything, it's become less so. Do you think Atari cartridges were compatible with Coleco? Are you even old enough to understand that reference without wiki? Were Atari cartridges compatible across Atari consoles? What about peripherals? Nintendo, Sega, every single console, every single company...why does Intel force complete upgrades on tick/tock cycles? In the beginning of home computing IBM true blues were the only game in town. Then the explosion of Jr's and clones but it wasn't some panacea of everything just happened to plug into everything else all cumbaya style. My first floppy drive cost me something like 349.99 from radio shack and it didn't plug into anything other than my CoCoII.

The first computers that started to look like what we use now, self-built, still cost in a range from 3K to 8K. And kids wonder why older people don't balk at paying Apple 2K for laptop...because it's peanuts historically. I can log into Amazon right now and click Buy and gigs of RAM for pennies on the dollar that will arrive in my home in 2 days. That's nothing short of amazing given when I was in my 20's I had to pay hundreds of dollars for *megs* of RAM...single digits. and before that it was k's of ram. You had to be pretty damn rich to have a rig with K's of RAM in it, not M's, not G's, freaking K's.

It's bizarre that anyone in that thread is claiming they "remember" some golden age of gaming where everyone was in it for the greater good. Companies even ate their own. If you legitimately weren't alive in the early 80's and gaming and you really think you're interested in this kind of stuff, read up on the Amiga. There's simply no possible way you could have been alive during those early decades and post the nonsense in that anandtech thread. I don't see how anyway. Unless I was simply existing in an alternate universe every one of my early computing experiences directly contradicts what they claim were central tenets of the gaming industry.

 

[Bahanime]

@mope54
Good post. I don't have a problem with NV pushing GameWorks or PhysX to cripple AMD. I have a problem with actual developers who post on Steam forums to blame it on poor AMD drivers, then finally the truth comes out on their official forum, it's PhysX that's causing the problem for AMD. They didn't even apologize after they bagged AMD publicly on Steam.

 

[Wierdo]

But Mantle. /sarcasm

Yes very relevant to this issue.

 

[Wierdo]

Then let AMD make their own version of Gameworks that developers can use. I don't know how it behooves us to coddle this company that has been clearly phoning it in for years now.

I don't understand this mentality, are we discussing the problem or is this some team thing? The problem is not using open standards, even as an nVidia user I disapprove of developers using proprietary development tools of this nature because I would like to keep my options as a consumer open in the future, if this takes off then next time my purchase wont be by choice.

 

[Nenu]

Yep very good post Mope, on the nail.

Building clone PCs in the early days was sometimes chaotic.
You could order an I/O (serial/parallel) card for ISA slot and have no guarantee it would work in your motherboards or with other components.
We had one that killed certain motherboards but worked ok in others.
386 motherboards were over £1000 at that time, we lost 2.
Very expensive game when it went wrong and the round time for replacements from Taiwan was months to a year!
By which time what you got back was often superseded and was worth a fraction of the initial payment.
And it could have been updated to fix known issues which cause other new ones you cant work with.
There were a lot of total losses when selecting new parts.

BIOS updates came on floppy disk.
We had to remove the BIOS chips, erase the EEPROMs with UV light (or get a new EPROM chip) and blow the new firmware with an Eprom blower.
Then fit the chip back correctly without bending pins, some slots didnt take the pins very well.
Quite time consuming sometimes and not something a junior engineer could be trusted with.

There was no plug and play either, you had to manually configure all the components.
Motherboards often had banks of jumpers to configure theml.
Make a mistake and a very expensive processor could be toast!

There were so few interrupts that we often ran out of them when putting together CAD workstations.
Especially when the software was dongle protected and the dongle needed to use its own card.

Hard drives were sketchy as hell.
Power failures could hose a drive if it was in mid write!
Our saving grace was when Norton released tools to repair write failures and bad formats.
To compete on price many PC makers were taking the smaller capacity MFM drives and using RLL controllers to format a 50% larger space.
But many drives would later develop data failures because the surface wasnt good enough to retain the smaller magnetic flux of the smaller write area per bit.
I tried this and had to give the customer the option, explaining exactly what could happen.
Better to provide the option than lose the customer, but good aftercare was needed as a bad word spread fast and was nearly impossible to correct.

And everything cost so much.
Thats a small part of what it was like.
Its sooooo easy these days!

 

[mope54]

I don't understand this mentality, are we discussing the problem or is this some team thing? The problem is not using open standards, even as an nVidia user I disapprove of developers using proprietary development tools of this nature because I would like to keep my options as a consumer open in the future, if this takes off then next time my purchase wont be by choice.

What do you mean if this takes off?

AMD, nVidia, and Microsoft have been using proprietary development tools for decades now.

 

[Dayaks]

If you buy AMD then you won't get some of nVidia's Gameworks technologies to work as well ESPECIALLY PHYSX. I didn't think this was new... there are reviews with Metro LL that show the same.

Most Gameworks techs work just as well on either GPU, it's Physx that's pretty favorable to nVidia and always has been. Turn off Physx. It's eye candy. You should be happy 95% of nVidia tech works on either card since AMD user's aren't paying for the development.

 

[Nenu]

If you buy AMD then you won't get some of nVidia's Gameworks technologies to work as well ESPECIALLY PHYSX. I didn't think this was new... there are reviews with Metro LL that show the same.

Most Gameworks techs work just as well on either GPU, it's Physx that's pretty favorable to nVidia and always has been. Turn off Physx. It's eye candy. You should be happy 95% of nVidia tech works on either card since AMD user's aren't paying for the development.

Its not this simple.

Metro for example uses CPU and GPU PhysX.
You could disable the GPU PhysX and leave the game otherwise unaffected.
From what has been posted so far, the workload in Project Cars is too great for a CPU alone.
The features which run on the NVidia GPU cannot be disabled when using an AMD GPU so are forced to run on the CPU giving bad performance issues.

Perhaps the game devs wanted to implement some of the PhysX routines on AMD GPUs, perhaps with a wrapper or perhaps directly with OpenCL code not PhysX and they needed help with this.
I'm trying to understand why the engineer posted what he did.
Unless it was to stab AMD so NVidia got a leg up, there must be some substance to his statements.

 

[ManofGod]

If you buy AMD then you won't get some of nVidia's Gameworks technologies to work as well ESPECIALLY PHYSX. I didn't think this was new... there are reviews with Metro LL that show the same.

Most Gameworks techs work just as well on either GPU, it's Physx that's pretty favorable to nVidia and always has been. Turn off Physx. It's eye candy. You should be happy 95% of nVidia tech works on either card since AMD user's aren't paying for the development.

Which would be logical except for the fact that you cannot turn off PhysX and other Game works features in this game. Logically, this is clearly a case of wrong doing. But emotionally, people here are unable to think clearly.

After all, where is the [H] response in all this and why are they strangely silent?

 

[Ducman69]

So i have been reading from many sources and it seems that its the CPU Physx that is bring AMD to its knees, NV asked the developers to add more Physx at a later date which the consoles versions dont have and just to show its not all well it must be all AMD drivers fault.

http://steamcommunity.com/app/234630/discussions/0/613957600537550716/

So even with the highest realistically affordable NV setup the fps will tank if the PhysX runs on the CPU which AMD has no choice in.

Also a Physx poll running here and some good info.
http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=2430693&page=12

Well, there's the smoking gun confirmed then... but the fanbois are still having a laugh, so let them have their day. But as was said, when developers allow NVidia to pull this crap, intentionally crippling a competitor, everyone loses.

 

[PRIME1]

The amount of damage control in this thread is unprecedented.

Everyone knows AMD cards don't support Physx or Gameworks. So don't buy AMD cards. It's a very simple solution.

AMD fans were happy to push Mantle until it was killed off. Did that work on NVIDIA cards?

Of course this has now exposed the issue of AMD's exceedingly high CPU overhead in DX11 games. When it rains, it pours.

 

[Ducman69]

Everyone knows AMD cards don't support Physx or Gameworks. So don't buy AMD cards. It's a very simple solution.

Or don't buy games the force the use of Physx and gameworks to intentionally cripple non-Nvidia devices. Buying more AMD cards will ensure publishers shoot themselves in the foot even more than they already are, and will stop such practices, even if they are rather rare to begin with.

AMD fans were happy to push Mantle until it was killed off. Did that work on NVIDIA cards?

There were no games that required mantle, or else the game was crippled and virtually unplayable.

Of course this has now exposed the issue of AMD's exceedingly high CPU overhead in DX11 games. When it rains, it pours.

Except that no such thing is occurring in other games that aren't sponsored by NVidia and forcing the use of proprietary technologies. 99% of DX11 games see AMD cards on par or more often than not exceeding NVidia cards on a dollar for dollar basis, where AMD offers superior performance with more powerful hardware and NVidia offering smaller more power efficient albeit lower performance (or more expensive) cards.

Otherwise, please explain to me like I'm 5 why AMD offers superior performance on Crysis 3, Far Cry 4, Ryse: Son of Rome, Shadow of Mordor, Civilization Beyond Earth, Star Citizen, Battlefield 4, GRID,Metro Last Night, Sniper Elite 3, etc?

 

[Dayaks]

Which would be logical except for the fact that you cannot turn off PhysX and other Game works features in this game. Logically, this is clearly a case of wrong doing. But emotionally, people here are unable to think clearly.

After all, where is the [H] response in all this and why are they strangely silent?

Can't turn it off? Sorry then, this is a huge problem. I assumed you could.... wtf were they thinking?

 

[Ducman69]

Can't turn it off? Sorry then, this is a huge problem. I assumed you could.... wtf were they thinking?

They were probably thinking, "NVidia, you rub my back and I'll rub yours, and we can blame this all on AMD drivers". Such back-handed tactics aren't anything new in many industries, and in particular not new for this developer.

They have a right to partner with NVidia and make their games unplayable on non-NVidia devices.

They DO NOT have a right to lie and play stupid and pretend that there's fault in AMD drivers.

 

[Wierdo]

What do you mean if this takes off?

AMD, nVidia, and Microsoft have been using proprietary development tools for decades now.

MS can get away with it because they own the desktop, DX control the windows gaming market and it's all fine because it's a level playing field despite the closed nature of it. Everyone has to optimize for the same thing, DX. That said, I would've preferred if OpenGL was the standard of choice, then a game written for Windows would've been more easily portable to MacOS or Linux.

The same cannot be said for nVidia or AMD, if one of them controls the middleware and controls the path between DirectX and the drivers with a blackbox then it can potentially lock the market, you can put all sorts of things in there and no one could do anything about it.

I can't support such a thing regardless of my card of choice, I'd be shooting myself in the foot down the road from a consumer perspective.

 

[Nenu]

Why arent NVidia being pulled up for anti competitive practices?
Surely GW deserves it.
Is there no body responsible for over seeing this from a software perspective, or is there a loop hole?

 

[PRIME1]

Or don't buy games the force the use of Physx and gameworks to intentionally cripple non-Nvidia devices.

They don't intentionally cripple anything. They add features to a game that you otherwise would not get using AMD.

Once AMD is gone, we will hopefully get more feature filled games that no longer have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

There's an old saying that goes: "Lead, follow or get out of the way". It's time for AMD to get out of the way.

 

[Nenu]

AMD need to step up their game.
It would not benefit gamers or game devs to lose competition and the cheaper option.
Prices would rise, choice would drop, progress would slow, features would reduce and the number of PC gamers would decrease.

 

[semitope]

People trying to put this on AMD should realize how unfair that is. The problem is physx, nvidias tech. AMDs additions do not cause this kind of a problem for nvidia because of how amd operates. So to address this problem amd has to go above and beyond what nvidia does, and it gets no credit for it at all.

 

[semitope]

They don't intentionally cripple anything. They add features to a game that you otherwise would not get using AMD.

Once AMD is gone, we will hopefully get more feature filled games that no longer have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

There's an old saying that goes: "Lead, follow or get out of the way". It's time for AMD to get out of the way.

Man are you guys russian trained shills or what?

AMD has a more robust architecture, offers features that push the industry forward.

Just think about your point for a second. Because if we did have another company and they happened to be like nvidia, this would just get worse. The problem would still remain because nvidia is not going to give that company access to physx, and that company will just do something similar with tech that nvidia will be closed off too and get worse performance with. In the end we end up with a situation where PCs have console limitations. Nvidia systems become one thing, the other company's system another thing.

Nvidia and their way of going about this is the problem and will always be. AMD can try all they want to keep pushing the industry forward and thinking about whats best for gamers all they want, at the end of the day they are going to have to keep jumping over nvidia's hurdles till nvidia is charged with anti-competitive practices suit.

I'm guessing the EU will go after them first.

 

[reaper12]

The amount of damage control in this thread is unprecedented.

Everyone knows AMD cards don't support Physx or Gameworks. So don't buy AMD cards. It's a very simple solution.

AMD fans were happy to push Mantle until it was killed off. Did that work on NVIDIA cards?

Of course this has now exposed the issue of AMD's exceedingly high CPU overhead in DX11 games. When it rains, it pours.

They don't intentionally cripple anything. They add features to a game that you otherwise would not get using AMD.

Once AMD is gone, we will hopefully get more feature filled games that no longer have to cater to the lowest common denominator.

There's an old saying that goes: "Lead, follow or get out of the way". It's time for AMD to get out of the way.

Posts like these make me laugh You are working hard for Nvidia today Prime1. Must be near your yearly review or something, you are putting in a lot more effort lately.

Serious question. Does Nvidia pay you by the number of posts you write? Or is it by the number of Anti AMD things you can say in one post?

Is there a pension scheme? with health benefits? Might apply myself if there is.

Or is this volunteer work?

 

[haste.]

That's nice since I am sure you were first in line for complaining about Mantle and how it was going to fracture the market, yada, yada, yada. Do not come bitching here when your precious 970 is $699 if there is no more competition.

Must be a fanboy for pointing out the obvious, that NVidia bought out this game. Hey, no biggie, enjoy your proprietary stuff being shoved down your throat.

Never once complained about Mantle. If AMD can produce and market their own API more power to them. It appears they failed. If AMD could produce a winning product I would have no problem purchasing it - I actually just replaced the 7870 in my itx with a GTX 960 - AMD didn't have a card to compete with the 960 in a small form factor low power environment... I looked...

If you read the second sentence of my post you would know that I do not want AMD to go away. Marketplace competition is important. You are wearing your rose (red) colored glasses and not accepting reality though. AMD did not provide proper drivers to play the game. The tears, excuses and blame game always makes me chuckle.

 

[semitope]

Oh man this post is so delusional. With everything AMD has been putting out that has significant impact on the gaming industry, you really want to say they aren't doing anything?

The point that is made about AMD sponsored games is that they work on nvidia as they should. Thee claim about lack of support has no basis because amd keeps trying to fix all these broken gameworks games. The claim they provided no support for this PCars game seems to also be false with the main issue simply being the inclusion of a software technology that is proprietary to nvidia.

I don't even know if its worth replying to people like you. I could say just wait and see how wonderful your gaming is when nvidia properly screws us all, but I doubt you have the awareness to know when that happens.

Honestly, this stuff is not complicated. you really need to get checked for fanboyism. Even if someone does not like AMD its a very obvious fact that this situation is undesirable for gamers in general.

a "neutral" game simply means zero support from *either* vendor...as in, the developers have to do all the heavy lifting

you are asking people to accept:

zero support from AMD *and* nVidia
or
zero support from AMD but immense support from nVidia

there is no third option: immense support from AMD, <any> level of support from nVidia because that option doesn't exist

the real question you should be asking others and yourself is where are the games heavily supported by AMD that have zero support form nVidia. You can't find that scenario because that has not been the case for decades and I can't remember it's ever been the situation.

nVidia *still* lends its immense support infrastructure to games that are "AMD sponsored" and AMD geared gamers interpret that as AMD doing the heavy lifting.

The fact of the matter is the reason AMD is able to price their hardware cheaper than nVidia's for "equal or better" performance is only because they do not provide support infrastructure for developers on the same level as nVidia--it's an expensive endeavor.

AMD tries to ride free on the developments that nVidia brings to the table and over the years have convinced their consumer base that this is a-ok and that the "villian" is nVidia for not allowing this free riding. It's an interesting case study but nothing more.

I'm happy to pay a premium for physx and g-sync (only the two latest "non-advancements" nVidia "hasn't" brought to the table--but by no means an exhaustive list). The best response AMD geared gamers have come up with is that those two features don't matter.

If physx is as useless as you all have been claiming for years then tell your devs to stop emulating it on the cpu and dropping your performance. That's how this shit works in a capitalist society--not you get to complain until you feel justified to free ride on nVidia's coat tails.

 

[semitope]

I guess for amd's contributions and work to matter they have to become like nvidia and make it all closed. For what I have seen from nvidia, they aren't doing much. Their biggest things are physx and g-sync. G-sync went about it all wrong and tried to lock in gamers in nvidia fashion. Physx is closed and not even all that.

Why aren't people bashing nvidia to produce more CPU optimized physx code? Even those who recognize that physx is the problem was AMD to be the one to fix it? Come on. What do you think are the odds that physx simply isn't running well on CPU as it could? No matter what amd does in that case, they likely won't be able to get much performance out of the game. They sure as hell won't be allowed to optimize physx for nvidia, which they probably would gladly do for the sake of the gamers.

 

[Ducman69]

People trying to put this on AMD should realize how unfair that is. The problem is physx, nvidias tech. AMDs additions do not cause this kind of a problem for nvidia because of how amd operates. So to address this problem amd has to go above and beyond what nvidia does, and it gets no credit for it at all.

I don't get this either... how the hell is AMD supposed to fix problems with PhysX inability to be turned off or to run well on CPUs? Its not their product!

And this is not the first time we've seen this problem:
http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2010/...ts-cpu-gaming-physics-library-to-spite-intel/

A new investigation by David Kanter at Realworldtech adds to the pile of circumstantial evidence that NVIDIA has apparently crippled the performance of CPUs on its popular, cross-platform physics acceleration library, PhysX. If it's true that PhysX has been hobbled on x86 CPUs, then this move is part of a larger campaign to make the CPU—and Intel in specific—look weak and outdated.

The sad part is that instead of people recognizing the NVidia is the problem child here, they think that its Intels and AMD's fault.... *facepalm*

 

[Bowman15]

Posts like these make me laugh You are working hard for Nvidia today Prime1. Must be near your yearly review or something, you are putting in a lot more effort lately.

Serious question. Does Nvidia pay you by the number of posts you write? Or is it by the number of Anti AMD things you can say in one post?

Is there a pension scheme? with health benefits? Might apply myself if there is.

Or is this volunteer work?

What he posts is not in the least amusing. Its disrespectful and anti-competitive. Anybody who suggests that by one company going out of business while leaving only one real competitor is good for consumers, is not only delusional but down right uneducated. I wish the forum moderators would doing something about the poster and a couple others. Hard to read through AMD threads while being spammed with anti-AMD trash posts.

 

[Ranulfo]

It amazes me that anyone can defend the game dev or nvidia in this case. It has become obvious what is going on with all the issues over the past couple of years with Gameworks games.

 

[Nenu]

This doesnt look to be a gameworks problem though.
Its the lack of an API for physics that runs on the GPU from AMD.
Although DX11 running on DX12 has been reported to help a lot which suggests better threaded support is needed. If DX12 actually fixes the problem entirely, we need to know exactly how.

AMD are producing a driver revision to handle this game, I wonder how they will solve the performance problems, assuming they can achieve a decent result.
Will they reduce the processing requirement / accuracy of physics effects?
Will they provide a PhysX wrapper or alternative code to allow some Physics effects to run on their GPUs?
Will they remove some physics code?
Will they improve CPU processing on multi cores to perform similar to DX12?
...

 

[mope54]

Can't turn it off? Sorry then, this is a huge problem. I assumed you could.... wtf were they thinking?

Of course you can turn it off. Listen to these guys whining about how nVidia's GPU acceleration bought, developed, and supported should just be free-ridden by AMD.

you know how cpu physx exists? those greedy bastards at nVidia posted the source to github

Just as I predicted, the typical response from AMD consumers is that:
a) they want physx and g-sync

when they can't have them for free
b) physx and gsync aren't value added features

and round and round their logic goes

 

[mope54]

I guess for amd's contributions and work to matter they have to become like nvidia and make it all closed. For what I have seen from nvidia, they aren't doing much. Their biggest things are physx and g-sync. G-sync went about it all wrong and tried to lock in gamers in nvidia fashion. Physx is closed and not even all that.

Why aren't people bashing nvidia to produce more CPU optimized physx code? Even those who recognize that physx is the problem was AMD to be the one to fix it? Come on. What do you think are the odds that physx simply isn't running well on CPU as it could? No matter what amd does in that case, they likely won't be able to get much performance out of the game. They sure as hell won't be allowed to optimize physx for nvidia, which they probably would gladly do for the sake of the gamers.

if you think gpu accelerated physics aren't all that then turn the settings down and enjoy your game...this really shouldn't be as difficult to understand as you martyrs make it out to be

I'll take you up on your bet that cpu physx isn't running on cpu's as well as it could
why should it? nVidia believes that physics should run on the GPU and has focused research and develop toward that goal

they released the source code for physx on cpu. it's right there on github. AMD is welcome to optimize it to their hearts content. if you're an AMD customer then tell them to focus on that instead of their own implementation. don't expect another company to optimize their code for your benefit when you aren't their customer. nVidia doesn't care about you, they care about me because I buy their products. they aren't a charity.

 

[Ducman69]

I'll take you up on your bet that cpu physx isn't running on cpu's as well as it could why should it? nVidia believes that physics should run on the GPU and has focused research and develop toward that goal

Read the article I linked; it indicates there is quite a bit of evidence that NVidia intentionally crippled Physx performance on CPUs in order to make it appear that Intel and AMD competitors have inferior products, since it will only run well on NVidia GPUs.

Big difference between crippling a product and getting in bed with developers to force the adoption of your tech and then blame it on Intel/AMD inefficiency, and offering something optional that just isn't as well optimized for non-Nvidia cards.

The former is just downright anti-competitive BS that I'm dumbfounded to understand is not illegal. It would be like if GM got in bed with some tire manufacturers so that if you don't use Ford wheels, the tires go flat on Chrysler and Ford products for no good reason.

 

[mope54]

Read the article I linked; it indicates there is quite a bit of evidence that NVidia intentionally crippled Physx performance on CPUs in order to make it appear that Intel and AMD competitors have inferior products, since it will only run well on NVidia GPUs.

Big difference between crippling a product and getting in bed with developers to force the adoption of your tech and then blame it on Intel/AMD inefficiency, and offering something optional that just isn't as well optimized for non-Nvidia cards.

The former is just downright anti-competitive BS that I'm dumbfounded to understand is not illegal. It would be like if GM got in bed with some tire manufacturers so that if you don't use Ford wheels, the tires go flat on Chrysler and Ford products for no good reason.

You don't even understand the issue.

You are citing an article from 2010.

nVidia open sourced CPU physx this year.

 

[PRIME1]

It amazes me that anyone can defend the game dev or nvidia in this case. It has become obvious what is going on with all the issues over the past couple of years with Gameworks games.

Look at Batman Arkham Asylum or Starcraft 2. How come it took AMD so long to get something as simple as anti-aliasing working. How come they don't have a release driver for GTAV? How come Freesync does not work with crossfire? The list is near endless and goes back years, even before Gameworks.

AMD claims they can fix this problem with Project cars. Which means they clearly neglected it. Like so many other games.

Vote with your dollar, don't buy their crap until they provide a finished product out of the box. Having to rely on half baked beta drivers and false promises of "coming soon" features is simply unacceptable.

 

[socK]

You don't even understand the issue.

You are citing an article from 2010.

nVidia open sourced CPU physx this year.

Unless they changed the licensing, it's not really open source. More like open to browse, sort of. You agree that they own every change you make and you must go to them for a license to distribute any change.

 

[Ducman69]

You don't even understand the issue.

You are citing an article from 2010.

nVidia open sourced CPU physx this year.

I'm demonstrating a history from both NVidia and from this developer, and so are you really trying to convince us that Physx provides even quasi-reasonable framerates from the CPU, when we have absolute proof positive evidence of the opposite here?

 

[Dayaks]

As mope indicated if Physx can be disabled I see no issue here. Didn't pay the premium for nVidia, no Physx for you. It's like wanting Ford to make their interactive software tech open source. They're hurting the industry not doing it.