AMD says Nvidia’s GameWorks “completely sabotaged” Witcher 3 performance

[patrickjp93]

Wow man you're such a fanboy for being logical!!!!!

/s

I wonder what else he will reach for in his next "argument". Or will he say "I've seen the supply lines and confidential info I know what's going on trust me". Or will he just call you a fanboy for not being a fanboy.

Tune in next time on the 3 Stooges of LTT.

Hehehe, Notional, Moose, and Opcode.

[TheProfosist]

@bogus did you already read my lengthy reply that goes over much of what you keep saying over and over? The reason I ask is that it seems to have been ignored.

http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/370790-amd-says-nvidia’s-gameworks-“completely-sabotaged”-witcher-3-performance/?p=5045852

EDIT: oh wait looks like yo udid reply. the least you could do it put it on your own reply or split up the quote. Putting your reply in my quote bolded is like the least obvious thing you could do. It also makes it impossible to properly quote.

[IceSentry]

But he is right thats exactly what happened,even my nvidia gpu runs bad,ruined game. Any gamer with half working brain should boycott nvidia's gameworks, even if it wont have much effect anyway.

Any game with gameworks has been pretty much ruined.

Dude just disable it. Here. Done. Fixed now. You can go back to playing the game. Gameworks isn't doing anything bad. It's pushing nice feature based on nvidia architechture. Do you honestly expect nvidia to design new stuff around their competitor hardware? Of course not. This would be ridiculous, they are a buisness not a charity. Nvidia wants to puch technology forward, but they can't if they have to adapt to other completely different architechture. The reason why it runs badly on AMD isn't because nvidia doesn't want it to. It's because they designed it with their hardware in mind not AMD's hardware. It would be cool if they open sourced it so AMD could make it work on their gpu aswell, but they have no actual reason to do this. At least not from a business perspective

[TheProfosist]

I addressed some of the points in your post, but mostly I agree with you.

Sadly in probably the worst way possible.

 

I agree 100%, but then again the developer should market it has an extra, and not as a main feature of the game else it is misleading to people who buy the game.

Have you ever played any other games with features like this or used hardware where features are marketed that the majority will never use? Its no different than any of that. Its kinda like GPU manufacturers want to have the best top card not because its will sell a bunch but because it will drive sale of their mid range and lower cards.

 

I agree 100% with you, yet I think the market adjusts itself, and we clearly see the adoption of such proprietary features - their traction over the years is just terrible. Like you said, it's fueled by marketing, nothing else. That's why I point out the developers to be the ones to blame - why would they use something that they cannot optimize for their own clients? Why would they leave their product optimization in the hands of IHV? Makes no sense to me, even with the financial boost they get.

It makes sense because they can add features and fancy ones at that with little to no effort. Then they also gain the marketing. Its kinda like quoting AdobeRGB support on anything but the highest end monitors and even then the vast majority will still use sRGB because of all the other needed stuff for AdobeRGB.

 

Well this comes to the PC experience... if the goal is to strip people out of options then we are merging into some "console-ish" enviornment, were people have no choice and they get what some think it's the best option for them. I'm not saying it's bad, or good. It is what it is. We have no information if this is a game development choice, or a feature of Gameworks itself.

Its code if they wanted someone somewhere could allow some sort of adjustment now whether or not it would do much of anything is the question. This is they are not stripping options as thats like saying it was there and they are removing it. Also its an additional option as it stands you always not have control of it at all. but as I said previously usually these special technologies for the most part just have a on or a off. This tends to be even for ones created by the developers.

 

I'm a product manager, and I've worked with alot of known brands. I would never let the quality of my product be in the hands of any third party - and trust me, I've dealt with my share of sponsorships, both in the client side and in agency side. If it's symbiotic, I surely would! If my product and my clients were the only partys who gained with it? I surely would! If I had clients with a subpar experience for the likes of a sponsor? Pardon my French, fuck no. In the end of the day, they are MY CLIENTS using MY PRODUCT, so it's our brand on the line of fire here when people spend their hard earned money. I don't work for share holders - those are the first ones to fuck off when the shit hits the fan.

Contracting out is not uncommon and budgets in the gaming industry are stupid tight. Most companies will tale any reasonable help they can get withing reason. Heres the thing that many people dont seem to get. Hairworks is an additional feature meaning you dont loose anything by not having it on as much as you might think. These features are many times known to cause more trouble than their worth when it comes to the consumer. generally its like oh hey look ive got dual GPUs and can max the game out lets give this additional thing a try. I would also like to note that TressFX looked stupid in Tomb Raider and felt way outa place. Im sorry but Laura Croft doesnt need hair from Final Fantasy. These features are however used to market the hell out of the game since its special new tech. This sorta stuff goes way way back in PC gaming and is also in other industries. Its by no means anything uncommon.

 

Another story, for another topic

This does however bled into this quite a bit especially with the rather rapidly expanding PC gaming community.

With this in the end I guess it comes down to would you rather have witcher 3 without hairworks from the beginning because im sure they could have done that. If hairworks makes or beaks the game for you idk what to say really except dot buy it/ Based on being in this community ad industry for as long as I have this doesnt seem out of place at all. Just as and example on the software front Adobe software prior to CC was only optimized for CUDA so other GPUs wouldnt help at all.

[Razzaa]

This thread should be renamed to The Witch Hunt........

[mr moose]

It would be cool if they open sourced it so AMD could make it work on their gpu aswell, but they have no actual reason to do this. At least not from a business perspective

 

From most reports they don't need to make it open source to AMD in order to for AMD to get it running better on their cards.  It seems all AMD have to do is produce cards that handle tessellation better and done, no need for further tinkering to avoid performance issues.

 

But who knows what he future holds with regard to features like this, they might find a better way to implement hairworks that doesn't even require specific hardware abilities.

[Victorious Secret]

This thread should be renamed to The Witch Hunt........

It certainly has as much evidence from the one side as the real witch hunts did, at least we've got that going for us.

Every argument I make going forward in LTT will simply say "trust me, I work in the industry but can't talk about it, just take my word I know what's up". Cause screw facts, eh?

[Guest Kloaked]

From most reports they don't need to make it open source to AMD in order to for AMD to get it running better on their cards.  It seems all AMD have to do is produce cards that handle tessellation better and done, no need for further tinkering to avoid performance issues.

 

But who knows what he future holds with regard to features like this, they might find a better way to implement hairworks that doesn't even require specific hardware abilities.

 

Yep. I even had a friend run the game with HairWorks on when he moved the tessellation factor to x8 (I think it was) with the game maxed out; said he was getting 45fps on average. 

[han_han08]

sour graping.lol

[deviant88]

Dude just disable it. Here. Done. Fixed now. You can go back to playing the game. Gameworks isn't doing anything bad. It's pushing nice feature based on nvidia architechture. Do you honestly expect nvidia to design new stuff around their competitor hardware? Of course not. This would be ridiculous, they are a buisness not a charity. Nvidia wants to puch technology forward, but they can't if they have to adapt to other completely different architechture. The reason why it runs badly on AMD isn't because nvidia doesn't want it to. It's because they designed it with their hardware in mind not AMD's hardware. It would be cool if they open sourced it so AMD could make it work on their gpu aswell, but they have no actual reason to do this. At least not from a business perspective

Nvidia apologist much?You are tripping.

Who said anything aabout AMD,it runs like shit on nvidia too,and i didnt use hairworks ,any game using gameworks features is ruined, nvidia gpu or not,get over it,i run nvidia gpu's too.

[Agent181]

OK serious question here to everyone in this thread......

 

Who actually cares to see that their character's hair fly's in the wind with every strand or do you prefer the game is actually good and not just looks good?

 

Please answer.

 

For me, I prefer a good game even if it affects how it looks.  

[Victorious Secret]

OK serious question here to everyone in this thread......

Who actually cares to see that their character's hair fly's in the wind with every strand or do you prefer the game is actually good and not just looks good?

Please answer.

For me, I prefer a good game even if it affects how it looks.

I turned off Hairworks because it is demanding on all my hardware. I'm okay with not having flowing hair.

Only AMD fanboys seem to think it's a crime that Hairworks exists and can be turned off entirely. FFS, I won't use it with my 290 since performance still gets abused. I don't have the kind of hardware to truly push this game, isn't that the point? Get better hardware to get the best experience. Only one side is complaining about the reality of PC gaming. The other side is simply playing their game.

[Agent181]

I turned off Hairworks because it is demanding on all my hardware. I'm okay with not having flowing hair.

Only AMD fanboys seem to think it's a crime that Hairworks exists and can be turned off entirely. FFS, I won't use it with my 290 since performance still gets abused. I don't have the kind of hardware to truly push this game, isn't that the point? Get better hardware to get the best experience. Only one side is complaining about the reality of PC gaming. The other side is simply playing their game.

Sadly this is true some prefer to cry out rather than turn off the setting  

 

I'm just seeing that so many game devs are trying to make their games look as best as they can but they are killing the game experience 

[Opcode]

Hehehe, Notional, Moose, and Opcode.

patrickjp93, Victorious Secret, Mr Moose, Razzaa, Dabobminable, Kloaked, Faa

 

Keep your eyes peeled to how often only them individuals like farm each others posts. :rolleyes:

[patrickjp93]

patrickjp93, Victorious Secret, Mr Moose, Razzaa, Dabobminable, Kloaked, Faa

Keep your eyes peeled to how often only them individuals like farm each others posts. :rolleyes:

I don't like comments most of the time. Victorious does like most of mine.

[Notional]

patrickjp93, Victorious Secret, Mr Moose, Razzaa, Dabobminable, Kloaked, Colonel_Gerdauf, Faa

 

Keep your eyes peeled to how often only them individuals like farm each others posts. :rolleyes:

 

Indeed. Don't forget Rohith_Kumar_Sp who went full mcIntosh on my PSU for some reason.

 

I don't get why consumers and gamers defend companies to such an extent. Especially when the behaviour is anti consumer.

[Opcode]

I don't like comments most of the time. Victorious does like most of mine.

I've only given two likes during my time here, pretty much everything I see I don't genuinely agree with (worthy of a "like").

[Guest Kloaked]

patrickjp93, Victorious Secret, Mr Moose, Razzaa, Dabobminable, Kloaked, Faa

 

Keep your eyes peeled to how often only them individuals like farm each others posts. :rolleyes:

 

 

We don't farm likes. I wish they'd just get rid of the feature for various reasons.

 

 

Indeed. Don't forget Rohith_Kumar_Sp who went full mcIntosh on my PSU for some reason.

 

I don't get why consumers and gamers defend companies to such an extent. Especially when the behaviour is anti consumer.

 

I don't defend them, contrary to my member title. Nvidia doesn't even know my name. To explain this again, I think with a rational perspective instead of rolling with the hate-train that never stops.

 

I've only given two likes during my time here, pretty much everything I see I don't genuinely agree with (worthy of a "like").

 

Bravo. 

[Opcode]

[mr moose]

It seems the AMD fanboys are annoyed because it turned out Nvidia didn't do anything wrong (again) and that Huddy is just making AMD look bad with his petulant tirade trying to shift the blame again.

 

 

Grow up, we Like each others post because we actually agree with them.  Because they are basically correct in what they are saying.  You guys jumping so far sideways and turning this into a trivial attack (like farming?  <_< right.)  only goes to prove your motivation for posting is based on personal misgivings and not a rational understanding of the industry.

[bogus]

Wow, you make some very lateral leaps to make an argument out of nothing.

 

It seems according to you that having a feature you can turn of is proof nvidia did this on purpose to cripple AMD even thought AMD have cards that perform better than nvidia's. You seem to forget that a loss is a  loss, and while AMD are posting losses it means they have no money to invest further. you can't put more into something if you don't have more to give.  Why they are posting losses is quite frankly moot. until they have the resources to spend on the level that Nvidia do, they are not going to be able to keep up with the development and investment that nvidia have. This is basic business 101, and for someone who claims to be a manager, a marketer, an NDA expert, etc etc, you should know that.

 

What an immense argument you stack upon us.  We Are not questioning AMD's response, we are outright calling it what it is, I.E BS.

 

Hah, a gun that automatically shoots, this is pretty simple, you are adding more lateral complexity to it than it deserves.  Nvidia created hairworks, you can turn it off, Developers them selves say it does not in and of itself cripple AMD cards unless you use it specifically for that purpose.  That is exactly like a gun, it does not shoot people in and of itself unless the person using it wants it to.  You are blaming nvidia because you perceive the devs to be assassinating AMD, even though the only people purporting this to be true are you and your AMD fanboy friends and Richard Huddy.

What I said is that it's the way NVIDIA protects Gameworks - if they decided to not allow Gameworks to be optmized for AMD then of course they are doing it on purpous LOL. And that's OK by me. 

 

AMD is posting losses? What the hell does that has to do with this? Are you their financial analyst?

 

Keeping up with what? With effects? With TDP? With API development? With memory development? With GPUs/CPUs/APUs? With ARM solutions? I don't know where you are trying to go with this, but I really doubt you can back it up.

 

AMD could also make it impossible to NVIDIA optimize their drivers to TressFX in the only game who uses it... yet they didn't. So I don't see the correlation between developing features and some competitive behavior. Or by your logic AMD wouldn't be able to bring HBM, or Mantle into DX12 and Vulkan... yet they did and it's being used, and will be used. So again, I don't see where you are trying to go.

 

What I see is NVIDIA going after new markets, and AMD focusing on their current assets. The first requires way more R&D then the last.

 

On topic:

You can say AMD is the BSer, it's your oppinion. I say NVIDIA is the BSer.

 

You say AMD is the bullshitter because there is a Off option for the feature. And I say NVIDIA/Developers are the bullshitters because there is a On option then it should be able to be optimized no matter the hardware of customer.

 

You say the solution would be just turn it off, so AMD is a bullshiter. I say the solution would be to either let it be optimizable, or just remove the ON option for any other hardware to cut the bullshit and change the perception of poorly informed customers.

You guys defended NVIDIA with the 970 VRAM false advertisment.

 

I defended Huddy when he claimed Microsoft asked AMD to bring Mantle to DX12 and Khronos to Vulkan, mainly because it made sense to me for all partys... not because it was AMD. The only time I support the man - but you guys hold on tight to that, at least you proved me right and you guys got all salty about it lol

 

See the difference?

[mr moose]

What I said is that it's the way NVIDIA protects Gameworks - if they decided to not allow Gameworks to be optmized for AMD then of course they are doing it on purpous LOL. And that's OK by me. 

 

AMD is posting losses? What the hell does that has to do with this? Are you their financial analyst?

 

Keeping up with what? With effects? With TDP? With API development? With memory development? With GPUs/CPUs/APUs? With ARM solutions? I don't know where you are trying to go with this, but I really doubt you can back it up.

 

AMD could also make it impossible to NVIDIA optimize their drivers to TressFX in the only game who uses it... yet they didn't. So I don't see the correlation between posting losses and some competitive behavior. Or by your logic AMD wouldn't be able to bring HBM, or Mantle into DX12 and Vulkan... yet they did and it's being used, and will be used. So again, I don't see where you are trying to go.

 

What I see is NVIDIA going after new markets, and AMD focusing on their current assets. The first requires way more R&D then the last.

You can say it's BS, it's your oppinion. I say NVIDIA is BSer.

 

You say AMD is the bullshitter because there is a Off option for the feature. And I say NVIDIA/Developers are the bullshitters because there is a On option then it should be able to be optimized no matter the hardware of customer.

 

You say the solution would be just turn it off, so AMD is a bullshiter. I say the solution would be to either let it be optimizable, or just remove the ON option for any other hardware to cut the bullshit.

You guys defended NVIDIA with the 970 VRAM false advertisment.

 

I defended Huddy when he claimed Microsoft asked AMD to bring Mantle to DX12 and Khronos to Vulkan. The only time I support the man - but you guys hold on tight to that, at least you proved me right and you guys got all salty about it lol

 

See the difference?

 

Merry go round arguments that border on trolling,  I was quite clear in explaining why I said what I said, but you either didn't read my post or don't understand. Your just adding irrelevant mumbo jumbo to make it sound like you have a legitimate argument.

[Victorious Secret]

-snip-

Lol you are truly daft. I own double the AMD gear than I have Nvidia, so calling us green fanboys is so misguided it's appalling.

Prove that Mantle is in DX12. Huddy saying it means nothing. That's not a defensible statement to make.

Why don't you go back to claiming you're a product manager with insider knowledge and bullshitting your way through these forums. Maybe LTT needs to institute a rule like NeoGAF where "insiders" have to verify their authenticity before they're allowed to utter a single word.

We've got enough nonsense without shills polluting the waters.

[mr moose]

Merry go round arguments that border on trolling,  I was quite clear in explaining why I said what I said, but you either didn't read my post or don't understand. Your just adding irrelevant mumbo jumbo to make it sound like you have a legitimate argument.

 

case in point:

 

-snip-

How about your very first sentence in this thread:

 

Well that's the typical narrow vision of a fanboy who point's the problem at the party who has no power... you know Intel hardware is also affected by this and they are rich enough to buy AMD & NVIDIA, while supporting game development and juggling with fire balls, so no, it's not about being rich enough.

No one criticizes NVIDIA for their optimizations, just like AMD does. No one criticizes NVIDIA for helping game developers, just like AMD does. No one criticizes NVIDIA for their differentiation through this kind of software, just like AMD does.

What is criticized is the penalty a game takes on a huge segment of the market, NVIDIA cards included, for nothing other then over tesselation that can be, or not, used with mallicious intent. This is arguable since it's NVIDIA product, and they will always say "Well it has the level of tesselation we think it's necessary for the expected effect - even if it takes a tall on our own older hardware", and we will never know because everything is locked under NDA contracts, one thing we know - NVIDIA isn't interested in optimizing the code, or even let players choose the level of tesselation required, or even use dynamic tesselation (close vs far distances) - but again it's their black boxed code wrapped under a tight NDA contract, so they don't have to shit.

What is a shame is that game developers accept such conditions.

Now imagine if AMD was a bit more closed sourced, and well funded and decided to swing dicks away... and Intel would join the party as well... yay for shitty experiences for everyone! "Who gives a fuck! If everyone were rich enough to support ... oh wait... they are... hu..."

The shit fanboys say... their logic is just... wow...

 

You started in this thread as an insulting troll, you still are posting like one and you can't seem to accept that nearly the whole industry doesn't see it the way you do.

[Dabombinable]

Nah, it means to victorious fore sure, else he wouldn't have mentioned it - i just said, if it was a rule I was fine with it because he wouldn't be getting his objective of "shutting me up" lol

FYI I buy the parts that perform best while fitting my budget. Eg, if the FX 8350 was actually better in games (note-games) than my i5 4440, I'd have bought it. If the R9 290X performed significantly better than a GTX 970 at 1080p (it cost an extra $20 over my 970-$565 vs $585), I'd have bought it. How about you stop throwing the word fanboy around as it doesn't describe who you are talking about at all.