Aren't making settings (in game slider) something implemented at the discretion of the game developer?
Aren't making settings (in game slider) something implemented at the discretion of the game developer?
This is why I say the Developer has the final choice,
Game works would die if developers don't use it.
As Silent Guy stated its been 6 years or 4 gens of hardware and AMD still hasn't really fixed its tessellation issues. This is pretty much the only place game works has hurt AMD hardware.
Now lets also talk about older hardware, just turn the features off, Gameworks is supposed to push the graphics up a notch not allow the same visuals with newer end graphics cards with older cards or even lower end cards of the latest gen.
There is no way anyone should expect nV to optimize code for another IHV, as long as it doesn't purposefully down grade performance on another IHV. Its their property and developers have the choice of using it or not.
Now Gameworks is comprised of many different products all of which can integrate with each other, through physics and graphics. This is what developers want, not a piece here and there that Tress Fx is providing.
All that work AMD did with Open Cl and physics, if they continued down that path, tress fx would have also become like gameworks as a whole, but short sightedness, lack of funds or what ever stopped that. ATi was the one with the 1800 series which started with physics on a GPU
. They can't keep complaining about things that they too would have done if they had the funds to do them the way that it was envisioned at the start of a project.
How many of us thought of how powerful physics on a gpu would be and how it would effect graphics? I did, I'm sure many of us all did too.
Game works would die if developers don't use it.
As Silent Guy stated its been 6 years or 4 gens of hardware and AMD still hasn't really fixed its tessellation issues. This is pretty much the only place game works has hurt AMD hardware.
Now lets also talk about older hardware, just turn the features off, Gameworks is supposed to push the graphics up a notch not allow the same visuals with newer end graphics cards with older cards or even lower end cards of the latest gen.
There is no way anyone should expect nV to optimize code for another IHV, as long as it doesn't purposefully down grade performance on another IHV. Its their property and developers have the choice of using it or not.
Now Gameworks is comprised of many different products all of which can integrate with each other, through physics and graphics. This is what developers want, not a piece here and there that Tress Fx is providing.
All that work AMD did with Open Cl and physics, if they continued down that path, tress fx would have also become like gameworks as a whole, but short sightedness, lack of funds or what ever stopped that. ATi was the one with the 1800 series which started with physics on a GPU
. They can't keep complaining about things that they too would have done if they had the funds to do them the way that it was envisioned at the start of a project.How many of us thought of how powerful physics on a gpu would be and how it would effect graphics? I did, I'm sure many of us all did too.
Last edited:
Okay, this is now the official non-technical GameWorks thread!
It's somewhat nebulous I know, but if you have ethics and a conscience you know the right path to take. If all you care about is money, then you will inevitably steer out into dubious territory.
Who forced them to create Gameworks in the first place? Who demanded they make it? Nobody. They did it of their own volition, to trap people in a snare of proprietarianess. Nvidia whined loudly over Glide, its closed nature and anti-competitive effect on the market when they were a smalltime competitor to 3dfx's big dog, but ever since they became the overwhelming market leader in discrete graphics they've relied more and more on proprietary shit to leverage their already big advantage; Cuda, PhysX and now Gameworks are all expressions of this.
You know, shit like this is why this world looks the way it does.
Selfishness and greed hand in hand deciding the course and viability of everything. Me? I wouldn't have created a proprietary set of libraries whose only genuine intent is to skew the market to my own advantage in the first place. I would have left it to third parties to create middleware like it should be, and spent my software development resources on maintaining and improving my own drivers. Like it should be.But that's me, I know. If you wanna grow big you have to grow big in today's marketplace you have to play ugly.
Business is war, when in war is there "fairness" or is there ethics in war, I guess you can have ethics don't abuse the enemy after defeat?
Propertarianess, is not in itself bad if it was forced on the developers to use it. Choice is still there, users can turn off gameworks if they want to.....
Cuda doesn't even matter to end consumers again developers can use it if they want to but if they want cross platform software Cuda is not an option anyways. PhysX is now open at least the CPU versions, so what does that have to do with this?
You know, shit like this is why this world looks the way it does.
Greed isn't good, but when its business, if you aren't greedy and you don't want to stomp on your competition, that will happen to you. No Company has any remorse to another company in the same field if they are failing by their own fault.
Its not ugly, its business.
Rurouni
Veteran
This kind of business practice is bad for the consumers in the long run. If everybody following what Nvidia do, then we will have even more fragmentation in the PC (Windows?) space. A game run good on Nvidia, another game run good on AMD, and who knows, maybe a game run good on Intel while running like sh*t on other GPU just because it leverage the superiority of iGPU close proximity with the CPU.
Of course that is probably have zero chance of happening, but what might happen is because Nvidia is probably the biggest in PC gaming space (not counting iGPU), if all vendor make their own library, either every game starts to include every vendor library (Nvidia hair and AMD hair, if it's permitted), or just choose one that have the biggest user base (Nvidia), assuming that AMD following the Nvidia route and producing a library that is closed and have a negative performance impact on Nvidia hardware.
I certainly understand the business point of view, but unfortunately, I'm just a consumer and I want what is best for mine.
Of course that is probably have zero chance of happening, but what might happen is because Nvidia is probably the biggest in PC gaming space (not counting iGPU), if all vendor make their own library, either every game starts to include every vendor library (Nvidia hair and AMD hair, if it's permitted), or just choose one that have the biggest user base (Nvidia), assuming that AMD following the Nvidia route and producing a library that is closed and have a negative performance impact on Nvidia hardware.
I certainly understand the business point of view, but unfortunately, I'm just a consumer and I want what is best for mine.
No its not, if the games are not playable one one IHV or another then yes, but if those features can be turned off then no it doesn't.
This isn't anything like the Intel AMD compiler situation.
The games so far none of these effects change anything in game play.
Edit, AMD hardware with the 9700, 9800 series had truform, was it fair that AMD helped implement Truform on some games for only their hardware? Yeah, they had something nV didn't have. Gameworks is similar in that it gives people with new nV hardware something more.
If nV just closes off Gameworks to their hardware, would that shut off the bad press? I don't think so, I think AMD would be saying the same stuff over and over again, its not fair, its fragmenting the industry, blah blah blah.
AMD did this with Cuda already http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/08/19/amd-proprietary-apis-are-bad-for-industry/1
Also there were TWIMTBP features ATi complained about when those features were only on nV hardware.
Fragmenting the industry only happens when you have equal marketable companies, choosing different sides, AMD is in no position to go up against, nV in the discrete market right now. When and if in the future possibly, but right now nope. If we want to incorporate IGP into this, doesn't really work, because they don't have the horsepower to run some of these effects.
This isn't anything like the Intel AMD compiler situation.
The games so far none of these effects change anything in game play.
Edit, AMD hardware with the 9700, 9800 series had truform, was it fair that AMD helped implement Truform on some games for only their hardware? Yeah, they had something nV didn't have. Gameworks is similar in that it gives people with new nV hardware something more.
If nV just closes off Gameworks to their hardware, would that shut off the bad press? I don't think so, I think AMD would be saying the same stuff over and over again, its not fair, its fragmenting the industry, blah blah blah.
AMD did this with Cuda already http://www.bit-tech.net/news/gaming/2011/08/19/amd-proprietary-apis-are-bad-for-industry/1
Also there were TWIMTBP features ATi complained about when those features were only on nV hardware.
Fragmenting the industry only happens when you have equal marketable companies, choosing different sides, AMD is in no position to go up against, nV in the discrete market right now. When and if in the future possibly, but right now nope. If we want to incorporate IGP into this, doesn't really work, because they don't have the horsepower to run some of these effects.
Last edited:
Rurouni
Veteran
I always says that I don't mind Nvidia providing these library. What I do mind is Nvidia making something that is harmful using their own hardware but they still do it because the impact is more severe for their competitor. If a dev make a game using tessellation for flat objects or objects hidden from view, that dev would be called incompetent. With Nvidia providing it, Nvidia supporter calling it leveraging their hardware.
Actually, I would prefer for Nvidia to make their enhancements proprietary and not accessible without Nvidia hardware so devs need to think more when using game works or other Nvidia stuff. It would probably be more optimized since they don't have to think about the performance of their code on other hardware. At least that way we could prevent game works from being an essential part of a game (like using hairworks for a game where grass is an essential gameplay element for hiding). Also preventing the possibility of Nvidia sabotaging AMD performance because it can run on AMD hardware in the first place.
Also, if an IHV have an exclusive hardware feature that they want to use, I'm really okay with them making an exclusive stuff using it. If AMD can't do tessellation and NV can and they want to show it, it's okay.
If AMD want to utilize TrueAudio stuff, I would really be happy.
Instead of this hardware stuff sitting idle, I would prefer for it to be utilized.
Although having said that, if the stuff that are proprietary actually can be run on other hardware with relatively similar or even better performance than on NV hardware, I would be really annoyed by that. For example, on Android, there are Tegra version of a game with better graphics than the non Tegra version that you can hack to run on other hardware and it run better than on Tegra. Or another game where if the game detects a Tegra SoC, it will display better effects (which again, if you hack it, other SoC can run it better).
You can see it as Nvidia actively trying to help making better games or you can see it as Nvidia actively blocking other IHV to reach their full potential.
Actually, I would prefer for Nvidia to make their enhancements proprietary and not accessible without Nvidia hardware so devs need to think more when using game works or other Nvidia stuff. It would probably be more optimized since they don't have to think about the performance of their code on other hardware. At least that way we could prevent game works from being an essential part of a game (like using hairworks for a game where grass is an essential gameplay element for hiding). Also preventing the possibility of Nvidia sabotaging AMD performance because it can run on AMD hardware in the first place.
Also, if an IHV have an exclusive hardware feature that they want to use, I'm really okay with them making an exclusive stuff using it. If AMD can't do tessellation and NV can and they want to show it, it's okay.
If AMD want to utilize TrueAudio stuff, I would really be happy.
Instead of this hardware stuff sitting idle, I would prefer for it to be utilized.
Although having said that, if the stuff that are proprietary actually can be run on other hardware with relatively similar or even better performance than on NV hardware, I would be really annoyed by that. For example, on Android, there are Tegra version of a game with better graphics than the non Tegra version that you can hack to run on other hardware and it run better than on Tegra. Or another game where if the game detects a Tegra SoC, it will display better effects (which again, if you hack it, other SoC can run it better).
You can see it as Nvidia actively trying to help making better games or you can see it as Nvidia actively blocking other IHV to reach their full potential.
I think it falls on deaf ears that every Gameworks feature can be turned off and still run on competitors hardware. Whether or not it can run on a current competitors hardware (due to architectural differences - geometry performance vs compute performance) is left entirely up to developers creating the games and consumers choosing preferred quality settings. With Pascal around the corner I doubt anyone will expect a decrease in usage of Gameworks, in fact things will just get better for the consumer.
Not to much of an off topic, but isn't Sony, MS, Google and Apple exhibiting similar behavior by pushing exclusive content for their platforms?
Not to much of an off topic, but isn't Sony, MS, Google and Apple exhibiting similar behavior by pushing exclusive content for their platforms?
Ok well lets take Crysis 2 for example, since AMD's Huddy complained about that recently, was the dev really incompetent or was it nV's try to exclude AMD hardware, when Huddy was stating that they used too much tessellation?
Ever since Cry Engine 1 that water plane is always visible under the terrain. The only way to remove the water terrain was to get the camera far enough away, same goes with Cry Engine 2..... Complaining about this is a moot point, the engine wasn't set up for anything else. Now lets take the objects, were they too tessellated? I agree some of those details will show up from the normal, ao maps, but the problem is the tessellation factor is for ALL objects for an entire scene, not individual objects in a scene.
So now this is the similar with Batman or any other game out there. Can't we see the differences with Witcher 3 in hairworks, with AMD's slider?
Pharma, yes ever company does these kinds of things even to much higher degree, when was the last time when you buy something on Itunes, can you easily get or port that music over to another device without itunes? Or if you buy an apple app can we get another app equivalent to it for free for Android, or vice versa?
These other companies are locking us into what phone hardware we use forever.
Ever since Cry Engine 1 that water plane is always visible under the terrain. The only way to remove the water terrain was to get the camera far enough away, same goes with Cry Engine 2..... Complaining about this is a moot point, the engine wasn't set up for anything else. Now lets take the objects, were they too tessellated? I agree some of those details will show up from the normal, ao maps, but the problem is the tessellation factor is for ALL objects for an entire scene, not individual objects in a scene.
So now this is the similar with Batman or any other game out there. Can't we see the differences with Witcher 3 in hairworks, with AMD's slider?
Pharma, yes ever company does these kinds of things even to much higher degree, when was the last time when you buy something on Itunes, can you easily get or port that music over to another device without itunes? Or if you buy an apple app can we get another app equivalent to it for free for Android, or vice versa?
These other companies are locking us into what phone hardware we use forever.
How about this: are those who are against Nvidia promoting features that benefits the Nvidia architecture also against AMD promoting theirs?
AMD has been pretty vocal about VR recently. We can only assume that have some advantage there. How dare they push that!
AMD has been pretty vocal about VR recently. We can only assume that have some advantage there. How dare they push that!
I personally think Nvidia does a disservice to their own customers when they don't provide the option to clamp the tessellation factors. AMD users can turn down the settings so the only issue for AMD is benchmarks. AMD customers have an option for this situation.
Nvidia has no obligation to help competitors but the focus should be on making effects run best on their hardware rather than hurting competitors. That's what consumers want. Of course Nvidia will ensure they benefit more than the competition. There's no way of really knowing what Nvidia's approach is.
What's concerning to me as a consumer is if they push an update to the developer that hurts a competitors performance after a game has shipped. I don't know if they can or have done this but closed source means we don't know what code is running. Also, it would be a big problem if it was ever found that different code got executed for other vendors.
It really comes down to how much you trust Nvidia.
Nvidia has no obligation to help competitors but the focus should be on making effects run best on their hardware rather than hurting competitors. That's what consumers want. Of course Nvidia will ensure they benefit more than the competition. There's no way of really knowing what Nvidia's approach is.
What's concerning to me as a consumer is if they push an update to the developer that hurts a competitors performance after a game has shipped. I don't know if they can or have done this but closed source means we don't know what code is running. Also, it would be a big problem if it was ever found that different code got executed for other vendors.
It really comes down to how much you trust Nvidia.
DavidGraham
Veteran
-Examples of locked proprietary tech in games:
Glide (3dfx): many games, locked only works on old Voodoo hardware, can be emulated to run on others.
TruForm (ATi): 20 games, locked, only works on old ATi hardware.
PixelSync (Intel): 2 games, locked, only works on new Intel iGPUs.
CUDA (NVIDIA): 4 games, locked, only works on NVIDIA hardware.
PhysX (NVIDIA): 40 games, locked, only works on NVIDIA hardware, some can run on the CPU with reduced fps.
TXAA (NVIDIA): 14 games, locked, only works on new NVIDIA hardware.
CSAA (NVIDIA) many games, locked, only works on old NVIDIA hardware.
Tegra (NVIDIA): many games, locked only works on NVIDIA SoCs, can be hacked to work on others.
Mantle (AMD): 7 games, locked, only works on certain AMD hardware.
TrueAudio (AMD): 2 games, locked, only works on some new AMD hardware.
-Examples of unlocked proprietary tech in games:
TressFX (AMD): 2 games, can run on any hardware.
GameWorks (NVIDIA): many games, can run on any hardware, includes HBAO+, PCSS, HairWorks.
EAX (Creative) Originally locked to Creative hardware, now opened to run on all CPUs using the OpenAL initiative.
Glide (3dfx): many games, locked only works on old Voodoo hardware, can be emulated to run on others.
TruForm (ATi): 20 games, locked, only works on old ATi hardware.
PixelSync (Intel): 2 games, locked, only works on new Intel iGPUs.
CUDA (NVIDIA): 4 games, locked, only works on NVIDIA hardware.
PhysX (NVIDIA): 40 games, locked, only works on NVIDIA hardware, some can run on the CPU with reduced fps.
TXAA (NVIDIA): 14 games, locked, only works on new NVIDIA hardware.
CSAA (NVIDIA) many games, locked, only works on old NVIDIA hardware.
Tegra (NVIDIA): many games, locked only works on NVIDIA SoCs, can be hacked to work on others.
Mantle (AMD): 7 games, locked, only works on certain AMD hardware.
TrueAudio (AMD): 2 games, locked, only works on some new AMD hardware.
-Examples of unlocked proprietary tech in games:
TressFX (AMD): 2 games, can run on any hardware.
GameWorks (NVIDIA): many games, can run on any hardware, includes HBAO+, PCSS, HairWorks.
EAX (Creative) Originally locked to Creative hardware, now opened to run on all CPUs using the OpenAL initiative.
Last edited:
Developers have access to the code if they have a license and make any decisions to include or exclude any update, not Nvidia.
AMD definitely is not without their crippling "compute" based enhancements that cripple Nvidia's cards. Dirt resulted in 50% performance degradation when using the advanced lighting system. However, like Gameworks they included an option to turn it off but no step-based slider to gradually decrease effects.
Trust is important. I wonder how people still believe in the "Overclockers Dream"?
DavidGraham
Veteran
I believe these are different, AMD's tampering with compute based Forward+ Rendering in games like Dirt and Hitman is no different than NVIDIA's tampering with Tessellation in games like HAWX and Metro.
Also some engines favor certain vendors and architectures more than others. For example, CryEngine currently leans heavily towards GCN (due to it's compute based approaches), while Unreal leans heavily towards NVIDIA.
It doesn't matter what AMD has done since this thread is about Nvidia, however Forward+ was an alternative rendering technique to deferred lighting. I don't think it was possible or would have made sense to include a slider.
Even if developers don't have access to the code it's their responsibility to test the game I just bet updates don't always get a comprehensive performance sweep. What would be really bad news for a game is if a 3rd party like Nvidia can update a library without the game releasing a new build. I doubt that happens though.
Infinisearch
Veteran
Was GameWorks always closed or was it open at some point? Either way how long has it been closed?
I also posted the following in the thread about the other gamework thread being closed when I should've posted it here.
Does Nvidia really have a choice in pushing Gameworks the way it does? In quite a few places I've seen people lean AMD with the basic reasoning that there are advantages going AMD because both consoles are AMD. Is Gameworks Nvidia's equal and opposite reaction? (I don't remember when they went from an open to closed source stance)
I was also going to post that if graphics card companies do graphical technique research, is it really wrong for them to try to monetize it in some way, after all it's not as if game companies have R&D budgets do they?
I also posted the following in the thread about the other gamework thread being closed when I should've posted it here.
Does Nvidia really have a choice in pushing Gameworks the way it does? In quite a few places I've seen people lean AMD with the basic reasoning that there are advantages going AMD because both consoles are AMD. Is Gameworks Nvidia's equal and opposite reaction? (I don't remember when they went from an open to closed source stance)
I was also going to post that if graphics card companies do graphical technique research, is it really wrong for them to try to monetize it in some way, after all it's not as if game companies have R&D budgets do they?
It's common for the lesser competitor to attack the market leader by undercutting on price. Nvidia has a history of trying to monetize as much as possible. AMD has a history of giving away everything in the store except for the silicon. (Think SLI, high-end features such as 10-bit output, DP FP, ...)
I don't know to what extent it's related but one is a steady money maker and the other is not.
I don't know to what extent it's related but one is a steady money maker and the other is not.
All Voodoos supported Glide natively afaik?
Matrox supported this, too, it was just ATi's name for N-patches
These need to be separated, as TressFX is open for anyone to view and optimize, while GameWorks is hidden from AMD/Intel and devs without licence they have to pay for, and even if they pay for it there's only so much they can do to optimize for AMD/Intel because they can't ask for their help when they can't show the code to them
edit:
and trueaudio is supported by at least 2 games, Thief and Lichdom: Battlemage
Last edited:
Similar threads
