Probably depends on the driver and if any Witcher 3 patches were installed. The latest drivers and patches have solved most of the performance issues with hairworks.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
What Is NVIDIA GameWorks?
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
Probably depends on the driver and if any Witcher 3 patches were installed. The latest drivers and patches have solved most of the performance issues with hairworks.
You apparently get almost twice the framerate as everyone else, so I'd say you have an amazing system!
they avg 24fps with gameworks on, and 32 with it off
Last edited:
Do you have a source for the bolded?
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
Further research shows that many people have no clue what it actually is, and form baseless conspiracy theories out of ignorance, boredom, or perhaps some as yet unnamed motivation. 
Also, what possible motivation could Nvidia have for handing over their source code to AMD? That's just asinine. They developed it, provide it to use or not as the dev sees fit. AMD does the same thing, occasionally releasing things a bit more freely to play the benevolent company. Both are corporate entities, both compete, one just happens to do it a lot better. I don't know why people can't just buy the one they like, and use it in good health.
Also, what possible motivation could Nvidia have for handing over their source code to AMD? That's just asinine. They developed it, provide it to use or not as the dev sees fit. AMD does the same thing, occasionally releasing things a bit more freely to play the benevolent company. Both are corporate entities, both compete, one just happens to do it a lot better. I don't know why people can't just buy the one they like, and use it in good health.Updated thanks
GameWorks has been criticized for its proprietary and closed nature. Competitors such as AMD, which do not offer a similar middleware, are unable to properly optimize Nvidia's libraries for their hardware. Users of AMD cards report drastically lower performance than their Nvidia equivalents for games that use the GameWorks API. AMD Chief Gaming Scientist, Richard Huddy, has claimed that developers who use GameWorks are contractually forbidden to work with AMD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameWorks_(API)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fZGV5z8YFM8&feature=youtu.be&t=30m10s
http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...surps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd
http://gamingbolt.com/amd-nvidia-ga...ty-of-the-developers-gamers-who-run-amd-cards
Well the original Physx does run on Amd cpu so likely they could offload the work to their gpu, but that would require they build their own version of the sdk. Nvidia paid a good deal of money for physx when everyone was laughing at it back in 2008. Here it is in 2015 and it is being used to do in videogames what a shave and haircut is used in non real time rendering does... pixar is a multi billion dollar company that integrated "a shave and hair cut" because they could not get good looking hair from their own private render. Think about this for a second pixar who everyone looks to for animated films was using something similar to what physx does now, and people wonder why they do not want to share the code?
So both of the links below are public domain at this point but you really want to double check the readme on the second before looking at it just in case.
ok this is kinda bending the tos but http://physxinfo.com/wiki/PhysX_plug-in_for_Maya
this shows what it is used for...
and this is where it used to be...
http://sourceforge.net/p/nimaplugin/code/HEAD/tree/release/v1.0.1/
well actually you can run physx on amd hardware but you have to run a recompiled version of the ageia sdk. It is major pita and does not support the more recent rendering code and things like converting hairworks to fast code in your game engine.
So both of the links below are public domain at this point but you really want to double check the readme on the second before looking at it just in case.
ok this is kinda bending the tos but http://physxinfo.com/wiki/PhysX_plug-in_for_Maya
this shows what it is used for...
and this is where it used to be...
http://sourceforge.net/p/nimaplugin/code/HEAD/tree/release/v1.0.1/
well actually you can run physx on amd hardware but you have to run a recompiled version of the ageia sdk. It is major pita and does not support the more recent rendering code and things like converting hairworks to fast code in your game engine.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
False, both AMD and Intel can see the code running in their drivers.
This myth about "black box" really needs to die fast.
Name me a game that shipped sourcecode, not binaries for optimization...I think we both know the answer to that one right?
Last edited:
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
I bet you he dosn't...but he dosn't seem to care to much about facts looking at his posts.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
Everyone else is posting extensive evidence to proove their point, where's yours? It's not even necessary for them to do so because it's an obvious point to make. If multiple links and the wiki disagree with you, what credibility do you have on this claim?
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
Quotes from the "Chief Gaming Scientist" from the competing company are hardly evidence. Also, just because some random sites are linked, this is also not evidence. I'm not saying there isn't evidence out there, and maybe somebody who actually has REAL, hard evidence can chime in. However, I don't see much in the way of "evidence" from either side of this argument, so I'm going to go with common sense on this one until it's proven otherwise. Which is, the nutjobs can keep on theorizing conspiracies while the rest of us enjoy our hardware. Nothing to see.
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Nvidia user for 10 years here. Gamework is literally video game cancer.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
Common sense is not grasping basic business 101? Education system is failing us again. Evidence is centuries of business history. This is not some alien concept, it's practiced for centuries in many industries to various degrees of success (Monsanto says hi):
nVidia's simply following the Sony/Creative labs business model, pushing for closed standards - Betamax, EAX etc - in an attempt to achieve market capture, it's a valid business approach, just not good for consumers/market in the rare instances where it succeeds, we usually end up with stagnation and high prices.
Luckily for consumers the market usually overcomes such models in the relatively fast moving technology-based industries:
http://www.fastcompany.com/1290466/sonys-long-list-format-failure-betamax-memorystick-micro
Apparently nutjob is code for basic college electives.
Same here, nVidia user AND against closed standards and black boxes, for my own sake really, it's not hard to see the big picture, I don't want a repeat of the 20 years post-Aureal in the sound card market happening to video cards.
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
They are differentiating the features of their product line, and providing OPTIONAL features. We do not live in a society of truly open standards in the consumer market. However, these features still work on other hardware, and if you don't like them, or can't handle the performance hit, you can TURN THEM OFF. If developers are choosing to implement the features, that says something. People are buying NV hardware which also says something.
You don't think AMD would push something like this as a closed standard if they thought they could? The reason they push their tech more openly is that's the only way they can and still keep some share of the market. Don't think for one second that they're doing it for the betterment of humanity.
Both companies will take any advantage that they can, and just because they're approaching it in ways that make sense to them or that make sense to their position does not mean either is done benevolently. Gameworks isn't a gift, but it's optional, and the developer can implement it or not, and the user can enable it or not. It's a choice, and as long as it remains as such, then it's not hurting anyone. The same goes for picking the brand you want. It's a choice. Choice A, offers this level of performance, includes these features, and has support for X. Choice B offers another level of performance, offers a different set of features, and has support for Y. That sounds like a fairly balanced capitalist approach to me. Why choose a Playstation over an XBoxOne? Why choose one brand of car over another? Choices, tastes, perceived value, quality of product, etc. This is no different. Pick the one you like and enjoy it.
Once again, I'd need to see some REAL proof to even accept the black box thing.
Also, as far as education goes... (you should spell weirdo correctly if you want me to take that statement seriously...)
You don't think AMD would push something like this as a closed standard if they thought they could? The reason they push their tech more openly is that's the only way they can and still keep some share of the market. Don't think for one second that they're doing it for the betterment of humanity.
Both companies will take any advantage that they can, and just because they're approaching it in ways that make sense to them or that make sense to their position does not mean either is done benevolently. Gameworks isn't a gift, but it's optional, and the developer can implement it or not, and the user can enable it or not. It's a choice, and as long as it remains as such, then it's not hurting anyone. The same goes for picking the brand you want. It's a choice. Choice A, offers this level of performance, includes these features, and has support for X. Choice B offers another level of performance, offers a different set of features, and has support for Y. That sounds like a fairly balanced capitalist approach to me. Why choose a Playstation over an XBoxOne? Why choose one brand of car over another? Choices, tastes, perceived value, quality of product, etc. This is no different. Pick the one you like and enjoy it.
Once again, I'd need to see some REAL proof to even accept the black box thing.
Also, as far as education goes... (you should spell weirdo correctly if you want me to take that statement seriously...)
Last edited by a moderator:
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
Could you stop repeating PR FUD and actually answer the questions?
1. Where in the license contract does it stipulate that you cannot optimize your game for/work with AMD?
2. What games ships source code, not binaries for optimizations?
2 simple questions...but sadly I bet that you can answer neither...but that will not stop your crusade of ignorance on the forum, correct?
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
1) Get me a copy of the contract and lets look. Nvidia already acknowledged it in my post you quoted
Can you see it now?
2) Show me games that don't ship/show their source code to Nvidia/AMD. Why would they not want their input for optimizations and have drivers ready?
Here is Nvidia talking about Tomb Raider Source code:
So Nvidia admits that developers and source code are required to make fixes and can not be resolved solely from drivers, yet now they deny AMD that same ability through Gameworks integrations and you think thats ok?
Also as I posted this already in the thread, look at Ashes of the Singularity which ships to Intel, Microsoft, Nvidia and AMD all the time to get their feedback, fixes, and allow them to make sure their hardware/software is working well on it.
The only one ignorant here is you, since these links have been posted dozens of times already yet you still can't understand it.
Wierdo
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2011
- Messages
- 1,817
AMD's corporate culture is usually about open standards, it's possible that if they were a major player in a market then they'd adopt the Sony model as well, but that doesn't change the fact that open standards are pretty much always the best for consumers and the free market.
So was internet explorer.
That's what the issue is, I may be currently using an nVidia card but I'd like to keep my future choices open. If this black box approach takes off by chance then in the future I wouldn't be really "choosing" the next video card would I? It'll be back to choosing between Sound Blaster and "generic" for the next 20 years allover again after Creative sued Aureal out of business.
Of course, J3RK.
Last edited:
D
Deleted member 83233
Guest
I'm not asking anyone to go out of business, or limit choices. I don't have anything against AMD, but it looks like they're having no trouble putting themselves out of the market all on their own. I don't even care or use Gameworks features in anything I play right now either. However, I just don't see it as this big looming issue like some people who I think are being over-sensitive about it. (especially when nobody seems to actually KNOW the specifics behind it)
Anyway...
Also, I was mostly teasing about your username. Mine's technically spelled correctly with the 3 being a play on E. Yours is just plain misspelled.
Anyway...
Also, I was mostly teasing about your username. Mine's technically spelled correctly with the 3 being a play on E. Yours is just plain misspelled.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
So you don't have a clue and just parrot AMD marketing like a good little drone, understood.
So you don't have a clue and just parrot AMD marketing like a good little drone, understood.
So you don't have a clue and just parrot AMD marketing like a good little drone, understood.
Claiming that you cannot optimize drivers for a game without the source-code only does one thing.
It shows you are talking (Read: repating) PR.
If you were technical (coder, engineer) you wouldn't be talking PR....because PR and reailty seldom match.
You be talking about how shader code can been seen compiling in the drivers (source or no source) eg.
But that you for confirming my suspicions that you are clueless about OpenGL/DirectX/Mantle code and only have PR FUD to spread, I hope you get paid to spread FUD....the alternative would present some rather distrubing mental facts...
I'm not even going to quote your post because it was once again full of garbage, and you can't bother to read any of the quotes from my post, including those from Nvidia claiming they need source code and can't fix all problems with drivers alone. How the hell is that spouting AMD PR when I'm quoting Nvidia?
"We are aware of performance and stability issues with GeForce GPUs running Tomb Raider with maximum settings. Unfortunately, NVIDIA didn’t receive final game code until this past weekend which substantially decreased stability, image quality and performance over a build we were previously provided. We are working closely with Crystal Dynamics to address and resolve all game issues as quickly as possible," read a Nvidia statement.
"Please be advised that these issues cannot be completely resolved by an NVIDIA driver. The developer will need to make code changes on their end to fix the issues on GeForce GPUs as well. As a result, we recommend you do not test Tomb Raider until all of the above issues have been resolved."
"In the meantime, we would like to apologize to GeForce users that are not able to have a great experience playing Tomb Raider, as they have come to expect with all of their favorite PC games.”
- See more at: http://www.gamewatcher.com/news/201...-raider-stability-issues#sthash.yBaPEoQO.dpuf
"Please be advised that these issues cannot be completely resolved by an NVIDIA driver. The developer will need to make code changes on their end to fix the issues on GeForce GPUs as well. As a result, we recommend you do not test Tomb Raider until all of the above issues have been resolved."
"In the meantime, we would like to apologize to GeForce users that are not able to have a great experience playing Tomb Raider, as they have come to expect with all of their favorite PC games.”
- See more at: http://www.gamewatcher.com/news/201...-raider-stability-issues#sthash.yBaPEoQO.dpuf
NickJames
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2009
- Messages
- 6,698
Nvidia has the power to influence the weak minded in many ways.
OK new guy whats this say:
"We are aware of performance and stability issues with GeForce GPUs running Tomb Raider with maximum settings. Unfortunately, NVIDIA didnt receive final game code until this past weekend which substantially decreased stability, image quality and performance over a build we were previously provided. We are working closely with Crystal Dynamics to address and resolve all game issues as quickly as possible," read a Nvidia statement.
"Please be advised that these issues cannot be completely resolved by an NVIDIA driver. The developer will need to make code changes on their end to fix the issues on GeForce GPUs as well. As a result, we recommend you do not test Tomb Raider until all of the above issues have been resolved."
"In the meantime, we would like to apologize to GeForce users that are not able to have a great experience playing Tomb Raider, as they have come to expect with all of their favorite PC games.
It says AMD's drivers are bad.
Factum
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2014
- Messages
- 2,455
So you found evidence of a game-bug, not a driver bug...sure you want to keep posting?
Hello - OpenAL, anyone? OpenAL was designed and built from the bottom up as an open-source replacement for EAX (by Creative Labs and Intel, among others) - it is supported by every Linux distribution that is used for desktops, most Linux distributions support it (including Valve's own SteamOS), most game developers support it (and not just in Windows, either) ; the problem is in Windows versions older than 7 (specifically, Vista and XP) as OpenAL support is normally missing - this is especially true with Creative hardware OLDER than Audigy 2 ZS. Creative's ALchemy was a software converter that was included with the original X-Fi (and later added to the Audigy 2 - including ZS) to handle conversion of EAX calls in software and replace those calls with OpenAL calls. Naturally, a conversion utility will induce lag - which is why the need for it was heavily protested against. Creative didn't exactly have a choice, as the entire audio stack in Windows got changed as part of the move from XP to Server 200x code with Vista - that move broke EAX. Between that lag and other issues, Vista adoption barely got off the ground; therefore, rather than deal with it, a LOT of gamers stayed put with XP.