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

[harrynowl]

Well it would be in AMDs best interest to blame someone other than themselves...

 

Although I do wonder why there wasn't a function that detected if AMD video hardware was present and either disabled it by default (I assume it is ON by default right? Otherwise what the heck is all this hoo-ha about?!).

 

Either that or turned the tessellation effect down to something GCN can manage. With such a simple fix as demonstrated in another post (change a 3d driver setting) I don't think NVidia really bothered to cripple AMD.

[Notional]

All posts where you claim something.

 

Yup, everything I ever say is wrong, and everything you say is fact #CEOlogic.

 

Not a very constructive post bob.

[Notional]

I'm not assuming anything. It's on Nvidia's webpage. They are showing off HairWorks on a Witcher 3.

Where did I say I'm mad? I'm not mad at all. I said I have a problem with Kepler's performance, because these are still very capable GPUs, but I do hope these issues are going to be resolved.

Well, as far as graphics goes, it's pretty much identical on both GPU vendors. Effects would be on the same level for both vendors if developers would be capable enough to code them into their engine. Nvidia obviously didn't think that and they offered help. I mean they have engineers and programmers dedicated just to these kind of stuff. Pretty sure AMD can do the same, instead of blaming Nvidia in the press.

 

True, but CDPR says they received final code later. Ok not mad, but still; why is it not a problem to exclude a large part of gamers?

 

They did with TressFx, but  I think you are making it too simple. Who says CDPR are allowed to implement something else, when they use GameWorks? These contracts are usually quite exclusive. Either way, it's double the work for the dev, for no reason.

[LAwLz]

Yup, everything I ever say is wrong, and everything you say is fact #CEOlogic.

 

Not a very constructive post bob.

When you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Everything you have said might be wrong, or it might be right. Without evidence to support you claims we don't know.

[Notional]

When you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Everything you have said might be wrong, or it might be right. Without evidence to support you claims we don't know.

 

Which is why I asked, what statements, he meant. I use sources for most claims I make, unless I say assume or other objective terms.

[DaRk0]

True, but CDPR says they received final code later. Ok not mad, but still; why is it not a problem to exclude a large part of gamers?

 

They did with TressFx, but  I think you are making it too simple. Who says CDPR are allowed to implement something else, when they use GameWorks? These contracts are usually quite exclusive. Either way, it's double the work for the dev, for no reason.

 

I'm not sure I've read somewhere that CDPR claims they received final code two months before release. Do you have their official statement regarding this?

 

I don't know where did you get the idea that these contract are exclusive. If you have a sample of this kind of contract, I would like to have a look at it. In the article linked in the OP, there's stated that developers from Rockstar successfully included technologies from both Nvidia and AMD in GTA:V, so I don't think there's some kind of exclusive contract.

[HalGameGuru]

This is all basically assumption.  We have no idea what the offer details are except what was publicly announced.  To try and make claims regarding contractual protections (or the lack of) is hearsay.  AMD already told us their reason for not taking up CUDA was because they thought openCL was the future and the reason they didn't take up Physx was because they thought Havok was better.  It is very unlikely, given AMD take every opportunity they can to attack nvidia, that they would shy away from making a bigger deal out of this if there was any legitimate foundation to do so.

 

 

I can only go by what I have read, what little info I have been shown showed no license or contract, nor mention of one. It was solely access and driver capability. The presumptive legal aspect isn't hearsay, it's hypothetical, we have no information either way, and I doubt any will ever come to light.

 

Their public responses are accepted, but we all know PR and press releases are never the whole story, although I would believe the underlying hard economic reasoning their platitudes and rationalizations connotate in the investment of time and resources for the supposed gains over time or possible pitfalls tell a larger part of the story than the headlines.

 

Saying AMD would air the beef between them if there was legit beef to air is presumptive from the get go as well. None of these players is locked to a single representative, none of them have any reason to lay the real sordid details down in front of their consumer base, but all of them tip toe around issues of legality, especially if its out in the open for all to see from the get go.

 

All I am saying is, no matter what the publicly doled out reason they give, I cannot hold against them not trying to make use of closed or proprietary systems where no guarantee of protection or assurance of the investment's fruition are publicly known. A company that is going to spend time and money dealing with poorly programmed games in their driver is not going to put some time opening a huge share of the market to their consumer base's chosen hardware? Unless and until information comes out connecting such protections to the offers from nVidia for AMD to attempt to make use of their IP I will not consider it AMD turning down a boon, but, if it comes to pass that such protections were, are, or could be available to them in order to make use of nVidia tech on their own hardware and they refuse; in that case I will hold that against them 100%. Allowing the people who bought your hardware to make use of multiple standards or systems does not cheapen your product, and I would like to think AMD realizes this. THey don't build GPUs JUST for DX11 and to heck with OGL or Mantle, they aren't going to pick and choose between Vulkan and DX12. In the face of market share and added value to their product line I could see the underdog playing timid before playing petty.

[Notional]

I'm not sure I've read somewhere that CDPR claims they received final code two months before release. Do you have their official statement regarding this?

 

I don't know where did you get the idea that these contract are exclusive. If you have a sample of this kind of contract, I would like to have a look at it. In the article linked in the OP, there's stated that developers from Rockstar successfully included technologies from both Nvidia and AMD in GTA:V, so I don't think there's some kind of exclusive contract.

 

I made a mistake, it was Richard Huddy who stated this:

 

I asked AMD's chief gaming scientist Richard Huddy, a vocal critic of Nvidia's GameWorks technology, about AMD's involvement with CD Projekt Red, and the support it had reportedly failed to provide to the developer: "That's an unfortunate view, but that doesn't follow from what we're seeing," said Huddy. "We've been working with CD Projeckt Red from the beginning. We've been giving them detailed feedback all the way through. Around two months before release, or thereabouts, the GameWorks code arrived with HairWorks, and it completely sabotaged our performance as far as we're concerned. We were running well before that...it's wrecked our performance, almost as if it was put in to achieve that goal."

http://arstechnica.co.uk/gaming/2015/05/amd-says-nvidias-gameworks-completely-sabotaged-witcher-3-performance/

 

As for the contracts, they are under heavy NDA, so they will never be disclosed in public. All we can do is take Huddy's word for it. So that's up to the individual.

 

As for exclusivity, NVidia has apparently stated, they do not prevent devs, from using other tech, so that is good. Really wish, we could get a TressFX 3 patch, but that is not going to happen. EIther way, changing the tessellation multiplier, pretty much solves the issue with HairWorks, smashing performance.

[niofalpha]

AMD's marketing seems really childish, and they always try and capitalize on every issue Nvidia has.
(I.e. Fixer series, 4GB is 4GB, e.t.c.) 

 

Inb4 AMD Defense Force Rages at how AMD is soo mature, and this is justified.

 

Wait, I didn't edit this in Fast enough, it's already happened.

[Opcode]

AMD's marketing seems really childish, and they always try and capitalize on every issue Nvidia has.

(I.e. Fixer series, 4GB is 4GB, e.t.c.) 

If they did they would have a new video up every week.

[Victorious Secret]

AMD's marketing seems really childish, and they always try and capitalize on every issue Nvidia has.

(I.e. Fixer series, 4GB is 4GB, e.t.c.) 

 

Can't win the hardware war, might as well win the PR war. 

 

I wish Intel just crushed them already and then gave their x86 patent to Samsung or some other competitor (Samsung seems like an interesting one). 

[Dabombinable]

Yup, everything I ever say is wrong, and everything you say is fact #CEOlogic.

 

Not a very constructive post bob.

I never said you were wrong did I? Don't put words in my mouth. If your going to say something try to back it up with sources, and BTW, you aren't using any where near as many as you think you are.

 

When you make a claim the burden of proof is on you. Everything you have said might be wrong, or it might be right. Without evidence to support you claims we don't know.

Which is why I asked for sources. Which were never given.

[pbenologa]

An issue between AMD hardware and Nvidia software does not automatically make it an intentional action on nvidia's part, it could simply be a driver/hardware issue on AMD's.

 

Or it could simply be the nature of the beast, as Nvidia wants to provide the best experience they can for their hardware which might come at a cost to on AMD hardware simply due to the fact it is different.  There is still no evidence this is intentional.    Kudos to AMD if they can fix it with drivers, because either way it doesn't sound like an easy task.

Drivers and hairworks aside, Im running the game perfectly fine at Ultra 1080p 60fps. Using the GTA V Beta drivers. But wouldnt it be awesome if AMD gpus can use hairworks without a large loss on FPS. I remember playing Tomb Raider with tressFx using a 650 ti, it runs great. I do hope nvidia give AMD permission to optimize hairworks for AMD

[Razzaa]

 Nvidia should stop spewing at the mouth and invest more time into actually working. AMD has made HBM available for Nvidia who which will use it with Pascal the same way Nvidia obtained GDDR3 and GDDR5.  :rolleyes:

Nvidia can back up what they spew. They are not the ones tanking. If AMD made great products they wouldn't be in the financial situation they are in. If you are so confident in their products, why don't you invest in some stock?  :lol:

[Victorious Secret]

Nvidia can back up what they spew. They are not the ones tanking. If AMD made great products they wouldn't be in the financial situation they are in. If you are so confident in their products, why don't you invest in some stock? :lol:

You know he is delusional when he says nonsense like "AMD made HBM available". Wtf does that mean? HBM is on nearly everyone's roadmap going back a long ways. AMD doesn't own HBM. They didn't make available anything.

Same old rhetoric of how AMD makes everything and gives it away. Next he's gonna tell us that AMD invented adaptive sync and gave it away.

[Razzaa]

You know he is delusional when he says nonsense like "AMD made HBM available". Wtf does that mean? HBM is on nearly everyone's roadmap going back a long ways. AMD doesn't own HBM. They didn't make available anything.

Same old rhetoric of how AMD makes everything and gives it away. Next he's gonna tell us that AMD invented adaptive sync and gave it away.

This is the norm for him though. He cant help it. He works for AMD.

[Opcode]

Nvidia can back up what they spew. They are not the ones tanking. If AMD made great products they wouldn't be in the financial situation they are in. If you are so confident in their products, why don't you invest in some stock?  :lol:

AMD isn't tanking and they're not in the financial situation that they are because of bad products. That has got to be the most biased statement I've read all day. A former CEO dropping buyout bombs on businesses left and right is what left the company financially broke. Some being long term investments (the purchase of ATI was a smart move) meanwhile others (SeaMicro) were just money pits. Right now would actually be the opportune time to invest while shares are cheap. If I had the money to invest right now I honestly would before AMD shares start going up later next year. AMD has a pallet to return to profitability with Zen, K12, GCN 2.0 and striking even more console deals (two of which landed them a 1 billion dollar contract). GloFo is working on a 22nm SOI process in partner with Samsung that will offer 14nm FF performance at 28nm cost (cheap high performance console APU's anyone?). There's a lot going on behind closed doors meanwhile the company is making moves to quickly get profitable products into the marketplace (pushed K12 to 2017 to ramp Zen production). Things are going to look bleak over the next year although after that AMD could very well feel like MC Hammer if their products deliver.

 

You know he is delusional when he says nonsense like "AMD made HBM available". Wtf does that mean? HBM is on nearly everyone's roadmap going back a long ways. AMD doesn't own HBM. They didn't make available anything.

Same old rhetoric of how AMD makes everything and gives it away. Next he's gonna tell us that AMD invented adaptive sync and gave it away.

FYI if you didn't know the original TITAN was intended to use HBM and did we see it? Nvidia didn't know how to work around the issues with the memory technology so they decided to ditch them plans. AMD doesn't own HBM but they are responsible for several open standards for the technology to work with GPU's some of which Nvidia will more than likely adopt silently. This is how AMD has always worked solving problems other companies don't have interest in and then open it up to the industry for the greater good. I'm surprised of how little you few members who we all see on the daily know of what's really going on behind the scenes. Let's all stop and hail Nvidia because they're the best there is right? The true innovators and supah powah of the industry? Let's see what happens with Pascal and how much shit Nvidia will give us again of how "unworkable" HBM is like they did with GDDR5.

 

/class dismissed

[Razzaa]

 AMD could very well feel like MC Hammer if their products deliver.

They already do feel like MC Hammer. A career that tanked. 

[Opcode]

They already do feel like MC Hammer. A career that tanked. 

Is this the best collaboration you have on the subject is to just troll about a company?

[mr moose]

I can only go by what I have read, what little info I have been shown showed no license or contract, nor mention of one. It was solely access and driver capability. The presumptive legal aspect isn't hearsay, it's hypothetical, we have no information either way, and I doubt any will ever come to light.

 

Their public responses are accepted, but we all know PR and press releases are never the whole story, although I would believe the underlying hard economic reasoning their platitudes and rationalizations connotate in the investment of time and resources for the supposed gains over time or possible pitfalls tell a larger part of the story than the headlines.

 

Saying AMD would air the beef between them if there was legit beef to air is presumptive from the get go as well. None of these players is locked to a single representative, none of them have any reason to lay the real sordid details down in front of their consumer base, but all of them tip toe around issues of legality, especially if its out in the open for all to see from the get go.

 

All I am saying is, no matter what the publicly doled out reason they give, I cannot hold against them not trying to make use of closed or proprietary systems where no guarantee of protection or assurance of the investment's fruition are publicly known. A company that is going to spend time and money dealing with poorly programmed games in their driver is not going to put some time opening a huge share of the market to their consumer base's chosen hardware? Unless and until information comes out connecting such protections to the offers from nVidia for AMD to attempt to make use of their IP I will not consider it AMD turning down a boon, but, if it comes to pass that such protections were, are, or could be available to them in order to make use of nVidia tech on their own hardware and they refuse; in that case I will hold that against them 100%. Allowing the people who bought your hardware to make use of multiple standards or systems does not cheapen your product, and I would like to think AMD realizes this. THey don't build GPUs JUST for DX11 and to heck with OGL or Mantle, they aren't going to pick and choose between Vulkan and DX12. In the face of market share and added value to their product line I could see the underdog playing timid before playing petty.

 

You did read where AMD used the words "completely sabotaged"?  if that isn't petty and an example of how they would make any claim they thought they could get away with then there is no such thing.   

 

We can only go on what they are saying and what claims the industry is making.  Given this information it is more probable that AMD just made a poor choice when they turned down CUDA and physx.

[mr moose]

Drivers and hairworks aside, Im running the game perfectly fine at Ultra 1080p 60fps. Using the GTA V Beta drivers. But wouldnt it be awesome if AMD gpus can use hairworks without a large loss on FPS. I remember playing Tomb Raider with tressFx using a 650 ti, it runs great. I do hope nvidia give AMD permission to optimize hairworks for AMD

 

Absolutely it would be awesome.  I just don't think it's wise to  fall for all the hype from AMD about their issues being the result of nvidia foul play. To date we have seen no evidence it is nvidias doing,  people keep shifting the blame from one part of gameworks to another, first it was Gameworks in full, yet only hairworks seems to be an issue in W3, It was supposed to be physx in PC but the dev, Nvidia and a few people on this forum have run tests showing there is no disadvantage to AMD GPU's due to physx (it is offloaded to the cpu in all cases). 

 

We will just have to wait and see what these drivers from AMD do.  

[GamerDude]

I thought this had been discussed before, in a manner, that Gameworks was nVidia's way of gaining an advantage. The codes to optimize the game is held by nVidia, even the game developers have no control over it. This was gleaned from previous debates on it, has that scenario changed? I don't particularly like The Witcher series, though I have 1 and 2, not gonna bother with this game for two reason, one...I don't like it (well duh!), two...Gameworks is another reason. 

[Dabombinable]

Absolutely it would be awesome.  I just don't think it's wise to  fall for all the hype from AMD about their issues being the result of nvidia foul play. To date we have seen no evidence it is nvidias doing,  people keep shifting the blame from one part of gameworks to another, first it was Gameworks in full, yet only hairworks seems to be an issue in W3, It was supposed to be physx in PC but the dev, Nvidia and a few people on this forum have run tests showing there is no disadvantage to AMD GPU's due to physx (it is offloaded to the cpu in all cases). 

 

We will just have to wait and see what these drivers from AMD do.  

People need to realise the difference between standard and advanced PhysX (software and hardware accelerated).

[mr moose]

AMD isn't tanking and they're not in the financial situation that they are because of bad products. That has got to be the most biased statement I've read all day. A former CEO dropping buyout bombs on businesses left and right is what left the company financially broke. Some being long term investments (the purchase of ATI was a smart move) meanwhile others (SeaMicro) were just money pits. Right now would actually be the opportune time to invest while shares are cheap. If I had the money to invest right now I honestly would before AMD shares start going up later next year. AMD has a pallet to return to profitability with Zen, K12, GCN 2.0 and striking even more console deals (two of which landed them a 1 billion dollar contract). GloFo is working on a 22nm SOI process in partner with Samsung that will offer 14nm FF performance at 28nm cost (cheap high performance console APU's anyone?). There's a lot going on behind closed doors meanwhile the company is making moves to quickly get profitable products into the marketplace (pushed K12 to 2017 to ramp Zen production). Things are going to look bleak over the next year although after that AMD could very well feel like MC Hammer if their products deliver.

 

 

FYI if you didn't know the original TITAN was intended to use HBM and did we see it? Nvidia didn't know how to work around the issues with the memory technology so they decided to ditch them plans. AMD doesn't own HBM but they are responsible for several open standards for the technology to work with GPU's some of which Nvidia will more than likely adopt silently. This is how AMD has always worked solving problems other companies don't have interest in and then open it up to the industry for the greater good. I'm surprised of how little you few members who we all see on the daily know of what's really going on behind the scenes. Let's all stop and hail Nvidia because they're the best there is right? The true innovators and supah powah of the industry? Let's see what happens with Pascal and how much shit Nvidia will give us again of how "unworkable" HBM is like they did with GDDR5.

 

/class dismissed

 

That doesn't even make sense.  You keep telling everyone how wonderful AMD is in their inventions of ram and HBM etc.  except you conveniently keep forgetting about Hynix'a involvement, you seem to forget that AMD did not invent nor perfect gddr5 it was developed and showcased by German company quimonda. Hynix got involved and made it on a smaller 60nm chip.  Just because AMD  was the first to put it onto a GPU doesn't make it their tech or their innovation.

 

Seriously you can't dismiss a class from a soap box.

 

 

I thought this had been discussed before, in a manner, that Gameworks was nVidia's way of gaining an advantage. The codes to optimize the game is held by nVidia, even the game developers have no control over it. This was gleaned from previous debates on it, has that scenario changed? I don't particularly like The Witcher series, though I have 1 and 2, not gonna bother with this game for two reason, one...I don't like it (well duh!), two...Gameworks is another reason. 

 

It's been discussed flat out, no conclusion have been drawn because so far only hairworks is demonstrating an issue for AMD, yet people are conveniently forgetting that it is also proving to be an issue for older Nvidia cards too, which is pointing to something more than simple game code optimization.  

[Dabombinable]

That doesn't even make sense.  You keep telling everyone how wonderful AMD is in their inventions of ram and HBM etc.  except you conveniently keep forgetting about Hynix'a involvement, you seem to forget that AMD did not invent nor perfect gddr5 it was developed and showcased by German company quimonda. Hynix got involved and made it on a smaller 60nm chip.  Just because AMD  was the first to put it onto a GPU doesn't make it their tech or their innovation.

 

Seriously you can't dismiss a class from a soap box.

 

 

 

It's been discussed flat out, no conclusion have been drawn because so far only hairworks is demonstrating an issue for AMD, yet people are conveniently forgetting that it is also proving to be an issue for older Nvidia cards too, which is pointing to something more than simple game code optimization.  

Its pointing out the poor tessellation performance of older Nvidia cards and AMD's current ones.