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

[Notional]

Like I said, I made a reply to you that I linked in my signature that you dismiss because it doesn't fit what you want the truth to be.

 

And I've answered your linked post here: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/472976-fallout-4-to-feature-nvidia-gameworks/page-4#entry6340441

The picture we're seeing even in your own post, is that Gaming Evolved games doesn't gimp performance on NVidia. What we are seeing is that the only GameWorks game in your post, does indeed gimp AMD quite a bit. Your own empirics disproves your point.

 

I've seen this a million times, and I'll keep saying the same thing: I just don't see it. I have a list of games disproving that. It doesn't fit your idea of the truth, so you dismiss it.

 

Well how do you define/understand black box then? We have several high positioned veteran game developers, who actually works with this stuff for a living saying these things. What knowledge/experience do you have, that disproves their point? The fact of the matter is that you cannot find a better source than twitter conversation.

 

Considering all that's being added (So far announced) is AA, shadows, and AO, people are SUPER butthurt over things that don't require any amount of power to run, just a different way to run the same thing with a slightly different outcome. 

 

Well according to the source, we don't know which VisualFX/PhysX effects are being implemented into the game. HBAO and soft shadows seems to be some of them, but that's all the source mentions. It does not change the fact that all of these effects run a little worse on AMD than NVidia. All of them will accumulate to larger performance decreases; maybe up to 10%. We all know how much AMD, their hardware and drivers will get shitposted about, if it performs 10% or so worse than NVidia. It all counts.

 

Hey look, a demo video.

 

A very nice looking demo, that is an actual gameplay video showing TressFX on a Playstation 4. That is damn impressive looking for a console tbh. And before the inevitable "it will be downgraded" comment, just remember that Eidos Montreal has not downgraded games like this (just see Tomb Raider, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Hitman and Thief for comparisons).

[don_svetlio]

And I've answered your linked post here: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/472976-fallout-4-to-feature-nvidia-gameworks/page-4#entry6340441

The picture we're seeing even in your own post, is that Gaming Evolved games doesn't gimp performance on NVidia. What we are seeing is that the only GameWorks game in your post, does indeed gimp AMD quite a bit. Your own empirics disproves your point.

 

 

Well how do you define/understand black box then? We have several high positioned veteran game developers, who actually works with this stuff for a living saying these things. What knowledge/experience do you have, that disproves their point? The fact of the matter is that you cannot find a better source than twitter conversation.

 

 

Well according to the source, we don't know which VisualFX/PhysX effects are being implemented into the game. HBAO and soft shadows seems to be some of them, but that's all the source mentions. It does not change the fact that all of these effects run a little worse on AMD than NVidia. All of them will accumulate to larger performance decreases; maybe up to 10%. We all know how much AMD, their hardware and drivers will get shitposted about, if it performs 10% or so worse than NVidia. It all counts.

 

 

A very nice looking demo, that is an actual gameplay video showing TressFX on a Playstation 4. That is damn impressive looking for a console tbh. And before the inevitable "it will be downgraded" comment, just remember that Eidos Montreal has not downgraded games like this (just see Tomb Raider, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Hitman and Thief for comparisons).

Funny you mention 10% causing a shitstorm of rage cause I remember that when Nvidia were doing 40% lower in DX12 (only GM200 been sorted, rest are still tosh in it), people just said "give them time, drivers will fix it" but as soon as AMD performs worse on release, it's immediately conclusion time. Fun stuff

[Elapo]

 

A very nice looking demo, that is an actual gameplay video showing TressFX on a Playstation 4. That is damn impressive looking for a console tbh. And before the inevitable "it will be downgraded" comment, just remember that Eidos Montreal has not downgraded games like this (just see Tomb Raider, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Hitman and Thief for comparisons).

 

Watch dogs also showed gameplay at E3 

[don_svetlio]

Watch dogs also showed gameplay at E3 

You're comparing Apples to Oranges friend

[Elapo]

You're comparing Apples to Oranges friend

 

I'm comparing 2 promotional videos for games. How's that different?

 

The point was that promotional videos ALWAYS look better than the actual game, regardless of them being gameplay or not. They're made in a controlled environment and afterwards edited and color graded as if they were a movie. Optimization takes its toll, too, requiring texture resolutions and mesh density to be lowered in the final game.

 

It's weird that people still trust those developer-released videos.

[don_svetlio]

I'm comparing 2 promotional videos for games. How's that different?

 

The point was that promotional videos ALWAYS look better than the actual game, regardless of them being gameplay or not. They're made in a controlled environment and afterwards edited and color graded as if they were a movie. Optimization takes its toll, too, requiring texture resolutions and mesh density to be lowered in the final game.

 

It's weird that people still trust those developer-released videos.

Half Life 2 ended up better than Promos

SC2 ended up better than promos

Black Mesa ended up better

Grimrock 2 ended up better

Not all game studios are the same

[Notional]

Watch dogs also showed gameplay at E3 

 

Like I said, Eidos doesn't show gameplay videos that are not representative of actual gameplay from the actual graphics we will get. I even listed their previous games proving that. I see no reason to doubt that what we saw were representative. They did make a tech demo that you ca see here:

​

That we will not see in playstation 4, but maybe on the PC version. It is a tech demo and that might not be representative. The gameplay videos are, I'm sure.

Also remember they are not GameWorks titles, so the effects can actually run properly.

[Guest Kloaked]

And I've answered your linked post here: http://linustechtips.com/main/topic/472976-fallout-4-to-feature-nvidia-gameworks/page-4#entry6340441

The picture we're seeing even in your own post, is that Gaming Evolved games doesn't gimp performance on NVidia. What we are seeing is that the only GameWorks game in your post, does indeed gimp AMD quite a bit. Your own empirics disproves your point.

 

 

Well how do you define/understand black box then? We have several high positioned veteran game developers, who actually works with this stuff for a living saying these things. What knowledge/experience do you have, that disproves their point? The fact of the matter is that you cannot find a better source than twitter conversation.

 

 

Well according to the source, we don't know which VisualFX/PhysX effects are being implemented into the game. HBAO and soft shadows seems to be some of them, but that's all the source mentions. It does not change the fact that all of these effects run a little worse on AMD than NVidia. All of them will accumulate to larger performance decreases; maybe up to 10%. We all know how much AMD, their hardware and drivers will get shitposted about, if it performs 10% or so worse than NVidia. It all counts.

 

 

A very nice looking demo, that is an actual gameplay video showing TressFX on a Playstation 4. That is damn impressive looking for a console tbh. And before the inevitable "it will be downgraded" comment, just remember that Eidos Montreal has not downgraded games like this (just see Tomb Raider, Deus Ex Human Revolution, Hitman and Thief for comparisons).

 

Do I really need to keep saying the same thing over and over? You're seeing one side to the story and not the other.

 

AMD is not and never has been gimped by Gameworks. Metro: Last Light, while not a "Gameworks" game, features effects from PhysX, a game where the 290x outperforms the 780, like it should.

 

Assassin's Creed: Unity: the 290x is a few frames less than the 780, but they always trade blows.

 

Crysis 3, a Gaming Evolved title showing a similar performance curve; a game not catered to Nvidia yet the performance curve remains about the same as usual.

 

The performance curve almost always stays the same once both vendors have had a chance to poop out drivers. However, as we've seen from the shitty PC versions we've been getting of recent games (Batman, for example since many people like to use that against Nvidia for whatever reason) sometimes drivers won't even help as the game just isn't a good PC version at all.

 

The problem isn't Gameworks, mate. The problem is the developers who are using the library and choose to be lazy.

 

Funny you mention 10% causing a shitstorm of rage cause I remember that when Nvidia were doing 40% lower in DX12 (only GM200 been sorted, rest are still tosh in it), people just said "give them time, drivers will fix it" but as soon as AMD performs worse on release, it's immediately conclusion time. Fun stuff

 

Show me a post besides zMeul who said It's okay to judge AMD outright when they're performing worse? I've even said myself to not pay attention to early benchmarks, even from AMD because it will likely be improved on.

 

The only bias I mainly see is from you group of cry babies who are adamant about Nvidia's "blackbox"; you in particular since you like to post dank maymays about me, accusing me of being some kind of Nvidia shill when I'm absolutely not; zMeul who knows what the fuck he's doing when he posts stuff that favor Nvidia.

 

You guys need to stop the circlejerk.

[zappian]

Game will probably run on a toaster anyways.

 

Not that I play these games for the graphics or anything but the graphics are really subpar for a title of this generation.

 

I dont really care about the vendor exclusive effects as long as the game runs decently , and if it doesnt well bethesda simply screwed up because much more better looking games 

than fo4 can be extremly well optimized for multiple hardware configs.

 

Case and point MGS V:

 

[Elapo]

Half Life 2 ended up better than Promos

SC2 ended up better than promos

Black Mesa ended up better

Grimrock 2 ended up better

Not all game studios are the same

 

 

Like I said, Eidos doesn't show gameplay videos that are not representative of actual gameplay from the actual graphics we will get. I even listed their previous games proving that. I see no reason to doubt that what we saw were representative. They did make a tech demo that you ca see here:

​

That we will not see in playstation 4, but maybe on the PC version. It is a tech demo and that might not be representative. The gameplay videos are, I'm sure.

Also remember they are not GameWorks titles, so the effects can actually run properly.

 

Yea, and Rocksteady's batman series usually have awesome PC ports. Until Arkham Knight, that is. It's been proven many times: it's not because it hasn't happened before that it can't happen.

 

If you want to trust them, that's on you. All I'm saying is that you're basing your opinion on an UNFINISHED PRODUCT. I don't think it should be part of the discussion.

[don_svetlio]

Yea, and Rocksteady's batman series usually have awesome PC ports. Until Arkham Knight, that is. It's been proven many times: it's not because it hasn't happened before that it can't happen.

 

If you want to trust them, that's on you. All I'm saying is that you're basing your opinion on an UNFINISHED PRODUCT. I don't think it should be part of the discussion.

I'm okay trusting in Deus Ex - they didn't fail the last 2 times, they're unlikely to fail now.

[Notional]

Do I really need to keep saying the same thing over and over? You're seeing one side to the story and not the other.

 

AMD is not and never has been gimped by Gameworks. Metro: Last Light, while not a "Gameworks" game, features effects from PhysX, a game where the 290x outperforms the 780, like it should.

 

Assassin's Creed: Unity: the 290x is a few frames less than the 780, but they always trade blows.

 

Crysis 3, a Gaming Evolved title showing a similar performance curve; a game not catered to Nvidia yet the performance curve remains about the same as usual.

 

The performance curve almost always stays the same once both vendors have had a chance to poop out drivers. However, as we've seen from the shitty PC versions we've been getting of recent games (Batman, for example since many people like to use that against Nvidia for whatever reason) sometimes drivers won't even help as the game just isn't a good PC version at all.

 

The problem isn't Gameworks, mate. The problem is the developers who are using the library and choose to be lazy.

 

 

Show me a post besides zMeul who said It's okay to judge AMD outright when they're performing worse? I've even said myself to not pay attention to early benchmarks, even from AMD because it will likely be improved on.

 

The only bias I mainly see is from you group of cry babies who are adamant about Nvidia's "blackbox"; you in particular since you like to post dank maymays about me, accusing me of being some kind of Nvidia shill when I'm absolutely not; zMeul who knows what the fuck he's doing when he posts stuff that favor Nvidia.

 

You guys need to stop the circlejerk.

 

Come on Kloaked. we both know a 290x is more powerful than a 780, so it should not perform worse than that. And I know that PhysX is technically GameWorks, but like I said in Metro they only use APEX, which is CUDA dependant. So I would not consider Metro to be a biased game, nor a GameWorks game.

 

The issue is not so much older games (again  Borderlands 2 uses some APEX features, but that runs fine on AMD too afaik). The problem is fairly recent after NVidia launched their GameWorks library, and the apparent subsequent contracts that comes along with it. Now it's not longer a single taxing effect exclusive to NVidia (which excludes AMD gamers from enjoying the full potential of the game, which I don't like. That goes both ways of course). But now we are talking a high number of effects, that is being advertised as the game itself. All Witcher, Watch Dogs and AC Unity pc demoes, used GameWorks effects.

 

The vast majority of these games suffer in performance on AMD cards, even without these effects. You can see for yourself with the list I posted further back. I have also posted developer comments about how NVidia works with game devs, and that when they are involved, they only care about optimizing specifically for their cards, with no care to the consequences of AMD performance. If they are outright game sponsors, as they would be with GameWorks, I think it's safe to assume that optimization specifically for NVidia is part of the package. It's not difficult to understand why GW games suck on AMD.

 

Now of course we don't know the content of the GW contracts, so no one can prove either way, but we can look at the benchmarks of several of these games, and they do show the same picture. Maybe not 100% of the time, but enough so it should make people be worried.

 

Fact of the matter is that a 780 should not beat a 290x in AC Unity, and a 770 should not be almost identical in performance as a 290x in Batman Origins. If you really want, we can go through the entire list, I listed of GW games, and get all the numbers we can find. But honestly we should both know the outcome of all that work.

 

As for GameWorks, I've said it plenty of times, if it was properly optimized and open for AMD to optimize too, then I would not see a problem with it (sans the APEX stuff of course).

 

Yea, and Rocksteady's batman series usually have awesome PC ports. Until Arkham Knight, that is. It's been proven many times: it's not because it hasn't happened before that it can't happen.

 

If you want to trust them, that's on you. All I'm saying is that you're basing your opinion on an UNFINISHED PRODUCT. I don't think it should be part of the discussion.

 

Being sceptical is completely acceptable, and I don't blame you. All I'm saying is that Eidos (and Nixxes for the PC port) has a history of being genuine when it comes to the advertised and final look of the game. I personally like the look of TressFX (tbh HairWorks can look good too, it's the performance penalty that is an issue). That goes for TressFX too advertised in the PC version and later on the PS4 version of Tomb Raider.

 

As for Batman, they have always been NVidia titles, and especially Origins ran horribly on AMD, due to the over tessellation of everything.

[Mr_Troll]

gameworks is still a thing? thought it was dead since the arkham knight fail.... well knowing how buggy bethesda games were as of late... NV should pray that it doesnt have the same issues as arkham knight had... otherwise they are in trouble again...

[don_svetlio]

gameworks is still a thing? thought it was dead since the arkham knight fail.... well knowing how buggy bethesda games were as of late... NV should pray that it doesnt have the same issues as arkham knight had... otherwise they are in trouble again...

You better not shout, you better not cry, you better not run, I'm telling you why! Gameworks is coming to town!

[Elapo]

Being sceptical is completely acceptable, and I don't blame you. All I'm saying is that Eidos (and Nixxes for the PC port) has a history of being genuine when it comes to the advertised and final look of the game. I personally like the look of TressFX (tbh HairWorks can look good too, it's the performance penalty that is an issue). That goes for TressFX too advertised in the PC version and later on the PS4 version of Tomb Raider.

 

As for Batman, they have always been NVidia titles, and especially Origins ran horribly on AMD, due to the over tessellation of everything.

 

Origins wasn't made by Rocksteady, just a sidenote. Only Arkham asylum, Arkham city and Arkham Knight are by Rocksteady.

 

I still think both solutions look like they're alpha - because they are. It's new tech: It runs like ass and looks like ass. This tech needs a few more years before it can be considered any good IMHO, on either side.

 

I'm okay trusting in Deus Ex - they didn't fail the last 2 times, they're unlikely to fail now.

 

As I said, Rocksteady didn't fail the first two times either. Asylum and City were great games in terms of performance. They were unlikely to fail, too. 

 

You can NEVER let your guard down.

[don_svetlio]

Origins wasn't made by Rocksteady, just a sidenote. Only Arkham asylum, Arkham city and Arkham Knight are by Rocksteady.

 

I still think both solutions look like they're alpha - because they are. It's new tech: It runs like ass and looks like ass. This tech needs a few more years before it can be considered any good IMHO, on either side.

 

 

As I said, Rocksteady didn't fail the first two times either. Asylum and City were great games in terms of performance. They were unlikely to fail, too. 

 

You can NEVER let your guard down.

True - I guess I'm just too trusting of the devs

[ApolloEleven]

Games that comes out with Gameworks always ends up very demanding to run or very unoptimised or has a lot of bugs.

Gaming Evolved titles are always consistent in their quality - looks good, runs well.

[Elapo]

Games that comes out with Gameworks always ends up very demanding to run or very unoptimised or has a lot of bugs.

Gaming Evolved titles are always consistent in their quality - looks good, runs well.

 

You're comparing apples to oranges. Gameworks != The Way It's Meant To Be Played (TWIMTBP)

 

Gaming evolved is more comparable to TWIMTBP, rather than Gameworks, which is just a library to add some special effects to games. Gameworks titles are not always TWIMTBP and vice versa.

 

But should we be looking at gameworks as being the culprit in those cases? I many cases gameworks isn't the issue - general optimization is.

 

AC: Unity wasn't shitty because it was a gameworks title, just because it was badly optimized. Same for Arkham knight. Other titles that feature gameworks are usually fine when gameworks settings are ignored.

[zMeul]

wccftech.com

guess what? Fallout 4 doesn't use GameWorks: http://wccftech.com/bethesda-reveals-graphics-tech-behind-fallout-4-confirms-nvidia-collaboration/

[Slinkey]

I am happy Gameworks is included

 

*Edit

Aww no Gameworks?

[bogus]

guess what? Fallout 4 doesn't use GameWorks: http://wccftech.com/bethesda-reveals-graphics-tech-behind-fallout-4-confirms-nvidia-collaboration/

Thank god.

[Yoinkerman]

Eh ill hold off on crucifixion for now, borderlands has gameworks (or is it physx?) and plays just fine on amd hardware. Maybe fallout 4 will be the same.

Maybe it'll be unoptimized garbage like every other game lately. Time will tell.

[Misanthrope]

A related post from overclockers3d saying it's tesselation heavy effects meaning it will probably perform horribly on everything except high end maxwell cards, indeed the gameworks performance kiss of death

http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/bethesda_explains_the_graphics_technology_of_fallout_4/1

[SkilledRebuilds]

"Enhance the Creation Engine’s graphical core by adding a physically based deferred renderer."

 

 

So no MSAA then?

Like most other deferred renderer games...

Not happy, I love my MSAA and temporal AA sucks and looks like ass in comparison.

[Humbug]

A related post from overclockers3d saying it's tesselation heavy effects meaning it will probably perform horribly on everything except high end maxwell cards, indeed the gameworks performance kiss of death

http://www.overclock3d.net/articles/gpu_displays/bethesda_explains_the_graphics_technology_of_fallout_4/1

while there is precedent for using over-tessellation (beyond the point of visual gains) as a de-optimization technique fortunately for AMD users it can to a large extent be limited in the catalyst control panel. NVIDIA kepler users may struggle though.