[Updated 11/4/15] Fallout 4 to NOT feature Nvidia Gameworks, but Nvidia is still working with Bethesda on the game.

[Jerakl]

D I S G U S T I N G

 

 

Not like I would touch it anyways. 

[Nineshadow]

Why does everyone hate Gameworks so much?

[Monarch]

 

Not entirely true, because pretty much all GameWorks games run worse on AMD than NVidia with GameWorks effects turned off. 

 

Which proves that GW has nothing to do with performance issues on AMD hardware. You don't make any sense. If AMD performance suffers even with GW off, then why are you blaming GW?

 

We know from devs that if they buy into the GameWorks bs, they cannot actively harm the performance on NVidia cards. We also know that NVidia implements their own devs directly into the studio of these large devs, and that NVidia's devs only focuses on NVidia performance with no interest or care in the consequences of AMD performance. As the actual dev probably won't understand NVidia's dev work, or are contractually obliged to not fiddle with it (like in GameWorks), it is not unreasonable to assume that GameWorks games inherently will suffer on AMD even without the effects activated. After all that is exactly what we see every time.

Where there's smoke, there's usually a fire right?

 

Why would Nvidia care how their effects, that they spent money on, perform on competition's hardware? They've been fair enough to let the effects work on AMD hardware. And please stop with the optimization crap. It's been proven over and over again that AMD performance suffers because their GPUs suck at tessellation, and their DX11 driver overhead is significantly higher than Nvidia's. 

[Dabombinable]

For those who want some sort of middle ground that allows AMD's graphics cards to run the effects better or at all, they blew that chance by refusing the chance to be able to use CUDA with their GPU.

 

Lets hope that Bethesda doesn't screw it up. If they implement it properly and actually fix bugs it should run well.

[Jerakl]

For those who want some sort of middle ground that allows AMD's graphics cards to run the effects better or at all, they blew that chance by refusing the chance to be able to use CUDA with their GPU.

 

Lets hope that Bethesda doesn't screw it up. If they implement it properly and actually fix bugs it should run well.

 

Does Bethesda ever do that?

[Hunched]

Lets hope that Bethesda doesn't screw it up. If they implement it properly and actually fix bugs it should run well.

If not the community will fix everything as usual.

[Guest Kloaked]

 

 

You're misinterpreting the point of it. Those Gaming Evolved games are vendor agnostic, yes; they run fine on both vendors. Those Gameworks games? Every single card (minus the Titan and the 780 Ti IIRC as they trade blows (probably another couple I'm forgetting about)) is in the same curve as they are in every other benchmark that I linked. The game is just a shitty PC version. Half of those games I can confirm to run like absolute ass for what they are even on my 980.

 

I did include Ass Creed: Unity in that link. Go look. All of the cards are where they would normally be tier-wise, except they all just run worse than they should performance-wise.

 

What you should also understand is that all those are also more than likely PC ports. Ghosts especially, lol.

 

The effects, when implemented properly will run fine. Metro: Last Light, Warframe (when it still had PhysX, apparently they took it out and put in their own effects and I applaud them for it) and GTA:5 come to mind.

 

The other ones? Almost all of them have issues. TXAA runs fine in Watch Dogs for example (on my machine), but when I use TXAA on Splinter Cell: Blacklist, my fps tanks.

 

 

 

 

Like I said somewhere on this very thread, they do need to do better quality control. How they think these (Ubisoft titles specifically being the biggest letdowns recently) coming out and run like ass with Nvidia's name on it is somehow okay, is beyond me. I don't get it. They have brilliant minds over there yet they can't get a handle on these titles when they come to market. They need to kick some asses in gear.

 

I don't like Nvidia as a company, just like I don't like Intel as a company. I use both of their products, however. They both royally fuck up on these things that are obvious to anyone and they don't do anything about it beforehand. I get it. I agree. I've said I agreed to that before yet I'm being made out like I'm some Nvidia shill.

[Notional]

Which proves that GW has nothing to do with performance issues on AMD hardware. You don't make any sense. If AMD performance suffers even with GW off, then why are you blaming GW?

 

Why would Nvidia care how their effects, that they spent money on, perform on competition's hardware? They've been fair enough to let the effects work on AMD hardware. And please stop with the optimization crap. It's been proven over and over again that AMD performance suffers because their GPUs suck at tessellation, and their DX11 driver overhead is significantly higher than Nvidia's. 

 

Actually it just proves the point of then Valve's OpenGL programmer when he said:

 

 

This vendor is extremely savvy and strategic about embedding its devs directly into key game teams to make things happen. This is a double edged sword, because these devs will refuse to debug issues on other vendor's drivers, and they view GL only through the lens of how it's implemented by their driver. These embedded devs will purposely do things that they know are performant on their driver, with no idea how these things impact other drivers.

http://richg42.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-truth-on-opengl-driver-quality.html

 

Sure this is OpenGL specific, but we see the same thing in ALL GameWorks games. It is not unreasonable to assume that NVidia devs are included with a GameWorks contract, as these devs not only have to help the game dev with implementing said GameWorks effects, but also ensure the game runs properly on NVidia hardware as a whole. After all these NVidia devs works directly with NVidia's driver team.

 

Don't you find it odd that these GameWorks games are the only DirectX games that runs like crap on AMD? Even with the GameWorks effects turned off? I wonder why that is.

 

For those who want some sort of middle ground that allows AMD's graphics cards to run the effects better or at all, they blew that chance by refusing the chance to be able to use CUDA with their GPU.

 

Lets hope that Bethesda doesn't screw it up. If they implement it properly and actually fix bugs it should run well.

 

But why would AMD implement a technology that would require them to completely redesign all of their graphics architectures? Architectures that has shown to be a lot more future proof when it comes to DX12, concurrent async compute, and paved the way for the new consoles too. Who knows what strings were attached with NVidia's "offer"? AMD has also given NVidia access to TressFX, so why doesn't Nvidia just use TressFX and ask devs to use that too? After all the performance on TressFX is vastly superior to HairWorks at the same graphics fidelity.

 

You're misinterpreting the point of it. Those Gaming Evolved games are vendor agnostic, yes; they run fine on both vendors. Those Gameworks games? Every single card (minus the Titan and the 780 Ti IIRC as they trade blows (probably another couple I'm forgetting about)) is in the same curve as they are in every other benchmark that I linked. The game is just a shitty PC version. Half of those games I can confirm to run like absolute ass for what they are even on my 980.

 

I did include Ass Creed: Unity in that link. Go look. All of the cards are where they would normally be tier-wise, except they all just run worse than they should performance-wise.

 

What you should also understand is that all those are also more than likely PC ports. Ghosts especially, lol.

 

The effects, when implemented properly will run fine. Metro: Last Light, Warframe (when it still had PhysX, apparently they took it out and put in their own effects and I applaud them for it) and GTA:5 come to mind.

 

The other ones? Almost all of them have issues. TXAA runs fine in Watch Dogs for example (on my machine), but when I use TXAA on Splinter Cell: Blacklist, my fps tanks.

 

Like I said somewhere on this very thread, they do need to do better quality control. How they think these (Ubisoft titles specifically being the biggest letdowns recently) coming out and run like ass with Nvidia's name on it is somehow okay, is beyond me. I don't get it. They have brilliant minds over there yet they can't get a handle on these titles when they come to market. They need to kick some asses in gear.

 

I don't like Nvidia as a company, just like I don't like Intel as a company. I use both of their products, however. They both royally fuck up on these things that are obvious to anyone and they don't do anything about it beforehand. I get it. I agree. I've said I agreed to that before yet I'm being made out like I'm some Nvidia shill.

 

That is exactly what we are NOT seeing in the only GameWorks title you have in your link. What we see is a 780 being ~7-8% faster than a 290x. Something we don't see in any other non GameWorks DX titles. Your own empirics disproves your point. Again check the list in my previous post of GameWorks branded titles and tell me which one of those aren't running vastly inferior on AMD.

 

No GameWorks effect has ever run fine on anything including all of NVidia's architectures. Just look at Kepler getting screwed big time compared to Maxwell today. The effects are poorly optimized on everything, and generally set to level 11, so people will buy new high end NVidia cards. I mean a tessellation level of 64x in HairWorks in Witcher 3 is insane. Especially since CDPR only seems to have the basic GameWorks contracts that doesn't allow them to view/change any code in GameWorks. CDPR said themselves that they could not change/optimize these things.

 

As for advanced PhysX effects (aka APEX), they are dependant on CUDA, so they have no effect on AMD in general. Be careful not to mistake GameWorks branded games with games that uses PhysX + some APEX effects (like Borderlands 2 and Metro LL). Those are not GameWorks effects games and does not use VisualFX like HairWorks, HBAO+, WaveWorks, etc.

 

All companies fuck up. AMD do as well, and they should all be called out for it. But as things are right now, I truly believe NVidia is the biggest problem for PC gaming, and are doing nothing but creating a segregated PC gaming market, similar to XBOX and PlayStation, and I hate everything about it. If they did as AMD, and created industry standards, that benefit everyone, then NVidia could do so much good for the gaming industry. But they chose to be what is known as the "Graphics Mafia" instead.

[spartaman64]

lets hope you can actually disable gameworks unlike in project cars which is built around the physx engine

[Prysin]

nvidia didnt make the game, its the developers choice not amd or nvidia

EXACTLY

 

Bethesda: Known for making outright broken games. Because they know their community will fix it.

Gameworks: Known to be broken to quite an extent.

 

 

Broken + Broken = VERY broken.

 

This is why PC cannot have nice stuff

[Dabombinable]

Does Bethesda ever do that?

From what I've seen, they unfortunately don't. That's why I said if.

[ivan134]

Am I late to the party?

[Texhnlyze]

Am I late to the party?

 

It's never too late to join a shit-storm.

[ivan134]

It's never too late to join a shit-storm.

I came with my windbreaker.

[ivan134]

I'm not sure why a company that thinks it's okay to release broken games because the community will fix it is adding on another layer of tech that has a not so stellar track record. Of course, we should wait till the game comes out and judge it on it's own (Far Cry is an example of a GameWorks game that not only runs well, but actually runs better on AMD), but it's understandable why alarm bells go off in people's heads when they see GameWorks. Even in the games where the incompetence of the devs is to blame instead of GameWorks itself, Nvidia doesn't seem to care that they're associating themselves with so many games that give PC gamers headaches on launch. AMD would get a lot of shit if it was them.

[Anult]

Looks like Bethesda have an outlet to blame this time for when the inevitable 'buggy launch' complaints come in like many of their games in recent times.

 

But seriously, some of the criticism regarding Gameworks is really overblown.

 

If you don't want the effects, just turn them off, it's that simple.

 

Don't bitch or whine to Nvidia simply because you are too lazy to fiddle with some settings.

[CapricaBuccaneers]

The effects, when implemented properly will run fine. Metro: Last Light, Warframe (when it still had PhysX, apparently they took it out and put in their own effects and I applaud them for it)

Warframe looks like shit now, for both card manufacturers. It used to look fairly decent even on my AMD GPU setup, but DE keep changing stuff for the sake of it and in the end it benefits no one.

[Dabombinable]

I'm not sure why a company that thinks it's okay to release broken games because the community will fix it is adding on another layer of tech that has a not so stellar track record. Of course, we should wait till the game comes out and judge it on it's own (Far Cry is an example of a GameWorks game that not only runs well, but actually runs better on AMD), but it's understandable why alarm bells go off in people's heads when they see GameWorks. Even in the games where the incompetence of the devs is to blame instead of GameWorks itself, Nvidia doesn't seem to care that they're associating themselves with so many games that give PC gamers headaches on launch. AMD would get a lot of shit if it was them.

TBH, Nvidia really has nothing to do with the games other than allowing devs to use Gameworks.

[ErickS89]

In other words, sh** performance for AMD?  I prefer Nvidia to AMD and own an Nvidia card so I don't see me having an issue but I don't expect smooth gameplay for amd users which sucks...  But this is also Fallout, never had issues on DAY 1 from a fallout game.

 

Of course I'm not getting it day 1. 

[Texhnlyze]

Finally some logical posts. 

[Hunched]

TBH, Nvidia really has nothing to do with the games other than allowing devs to use Gameworks.

Except for the part where they are developing the PC port of the disaster Arkham Knight which everyone keeps conveniently forgetting/overlooking.

It's really cute.

[Kinda Bottlenecked]

If it turns out to be shit, it'll be removed anyway. By force.

[Dabombinable]

 

Except for the part where they are developing the PC port of the disaster Arkham Knight which everyone keeps conveniently forgetting/overlooking.

It's really cute.

 

Do you really think that Nvidia were developing Arkham Knight? That mess falls solely on the studio in charge of porting it to PC-the studio who had no experience with PC.

[Hunched]

Do you really think that Nvidia were developing Arkham Knight? That mess falls solely on the studio in charge of porting it to PC-the studio who had no experience with PC.

Not were, they are, and they said it themselves. 

"I look at [Arkham Knight] as an example of where Nvidia can help a developer get to market with a quality game," Peterson said. "Warner Bros. ... made a few mistakes getting the game out. It wasn't fully performance optimized for PC. So now we're deploying our QA resources and our engineers to make that game as good as it possibly can be."

[Dabombinable]

Not were, they are, and they said it themselves. 

""I look at [Arkham Knight] as an example of where Nvidia can help a developer get to market with a quality game," Peterson said. "Warner Bros. ... made a few mistakes getting the game out. It wasn't fully performance optimized for PC. So now we're deploying our QA resources and our engineers to make that game as good as it possibly can be.""

That doesn't mean that Nvidia were developing it. Note how they said "Nvidia can help"