Are AMD users left high and dry?

[sidspyker]

Stop with the misinformation.

Is the physics and hairworks not being handled by the CPU?

HairWorks is GPU - uses DirectCompute which is a GPU API. That has nothing to do with handling the game's own physics middleware(PhysX in this case).

Far Cry 4 had HairWorks, it gave a similar performance hit on both brands of GPUs.

 

[val.mitev]

Then you people need to be clear in this thread. This thread is about AMD, hairworks, physics. If you using AMD then hairworks and physics will be handled by the CPU. If you using AMD make sure your CPU is really good.

HairWorks uses DirectCompute, which is a GPU tech, so at least that should not burden the CPU and would work on both AMD and Nvidia.

 

[Riven-Twain]

Three in a row. Well done.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Far Cry 4 had HairWorks, it gave a similar performance hit on both brands of GPUs.

Yeah, but IIRC the performance on Radeon cards was worse in general, at least in the weeks after release.

And that's AMD's point of view:

View attachment 13014

 

[Persei8]

All i'm saying is be more straight without all the tech details and include the tech details, to put the minds of the AMD users at ease. Perception with all the Nvidia tech and Nvidia advertising, is that AMD is being ignored hence the thread.

A simple, physics will be handled on CPU and hairworks will be handled on AMD GPU's, goes along way to put AMD users at ease. Well AMD being locked out of the code and can't optimize the game properly before launch, doesn't help.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

Well, as AMD correctly pointed out, it's AT LEAST a conflict of interest if a developer implements nvidia-written DLLs (and Gameworks is just that) into a game and the game is then used as benchmark for both Geforce and Radeon GPUs. Economic and psychological theory tells us that there is a big incentive for nvidia to cripple performance on AMD GPUs on purpose. And the closed box aproach of Gameworks DLLs prevents both AMD and the game developer from actually knowing how the code works in detail and at every given time.

I guess AMD users can be glad if the stuff runs well and comparable to nvidia cards on their AMD cards at release. I wouldn't bet on it though.

 

[sidspyker]

Yeah, but IIRC the performance on Radeon cards was worse in general, at least in the weeks after release.

And that's AMD's point of view:

I read that AMD blog post, that's also for CoD Ghosts not Far Cry 4. In NV's own words the HairWorks used on CoD Ghosts is different from the one used in TW3. CoD Ghosts also had multiple 'levels' of HairWorks, FC4 had 1 single mode for HairWorks and 1 for their own fur rendering solution. I think it would be a fair assumption to say something has changed or there were some differences since now it's the same performance hit.

I'm not sure I understand this graph to be honest, would like if someone could interpret it properly( @GuyNwah ). Frametime in milliseconds is what translates into fps they're not decoupled things, if you want 60fps, you need to rendering everything in 16.6ms. According to this graph, HairWorks alone is taking 45ms to render, that would mean only 22fps by just having HairWorks on alone, that's impossible so what am I missing?

For people who don't want to get into this whole mess:
As linked by someone earlier the hit HairWorks gives in FC4 is the same for both GTX and Radeon - roughly 10fps. I think we should base our assumptions off that since that's the latest implementation

 

[Lieste]

DirectCompute is useless outside Windows, so Hairworks won't work with GPU acceleration for Nvidia users on Linux anyway. So AMD users aren't alone

Direct Compute is for "windows only", but the technologies built on it are being developed also for the AMD powered XB1 and PS4. This does suggest that a version for Linux should also be possible. The APEX code is now (sort of) open and the source code can be modified as needed to run with other applications.

---------- Updated at 10:02 AM ----------

Hairworks is computed on the GPU in both cases, not only on Nvidia GPUs. It's a part of the DX12 renderer and DirectCompute. Actually it's "just" an advanced tesselation technique.


https://developer.nvidia.com/content/nvidia-hairworks-tools-released

We have to see how it runs on AMD tech. The obvious problem - according to AMD - is that the code isn't available (like every other Gameworks library) to AMD so they can't optimize their hardware and drivers to make optimal use of the technique in the respective game.



You can read about AMD's view on the topic here: http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/amd-gaming/blog/2014/09/23/tressfx-hair-cross-platform-and-v20


So no, Hairworks isn't running on your CPU if you have an AMD GPU. Only Physx is doing so and Hairworks isn't part of Physx.

That is an article describing 'the recent past' in Sept 2014. There have been numerous announcements and changes (including open APEX code base) since.
While some of the issues may still be valid it also may not describe today's or tomorrow's situation at all well.

NVIDIA are pushing APEX/Physx onto consoles aggressively and these use AMD hardware.

 

[Scholdarr.452]

That is an article describing 'the recent past' in Sept 2014. There have been numerous announcements and changes (including open APEX code base) since.
While some of the issues may still be valid it also may not describe today's or tomorrow's situation at all well.

NVIDIA are pushing APEX/Physx onto consoles aggressively and these use AMD hardware.

Do you have sources for these announcements and changes?

 

[GuyNwah]

I read that AMD blog post, that's also for CoD Ghosts not Far Cry 4. In NV's own words the HairWorks used on CoD Ghosts is different from the one used in TW3. CoD Ghosts also had multiple 'levels' of HairWorks, FC4 had 1 single mode for HairWorks and 1 for their own fur rendering solution. I think it would be a fair assumption to say something has changed or there were some differences since now it's the same performance hit.

I'm not sure I understand this graph to be honest, would like if someone could interpret it properly( @GuyNwah ). Frametime in milliseconds is what translates into fps they're not decoupled things, if you want 60fps, you need to rendering everything in 16.6ms. According to this graph, HairWorks alone is taking 45ms to render, that would mean only 22fps by just having HairWorks on alone, that's impossible so what am I missing?

For people who don't want to get into this whole mess:
As linked by someone earlier the hit HairWorks gives in FC4 is the same for both GTX and Radeon - roughly 10fps. I think we should base our assumptions off that since that's the latest implementation

If the source of the graph is AMD, then FUD is a plausible explanation. You're right. 45ms either limits your frame rate to 22 or demands multiple parallel workers. The graph has no bearing on reality.

AMD has to quit claiming unfair competition and compete.

 

[sidspyker]

If the source of the graph is AMD, then FUD is a plausible explanation. You're right. 45ms either limits your frame rate to 22 or demands multiple parallel workers. The graph has no bearing on reality.

AMD has to quit claiming unfair competition and compete.

It's definitely AMD's graph, source is this:
http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/amd-gaming/blog/2014/09/23/tressfx-hair-cross-platform-and-v20

I'm surprised how they got away with claiming this. It's downright nonsense 45ms is.

 

[Gilrond-i-Virdan]

Direct Compute is for "windows only", but the technologies built on it are being developed also for the AMD powered XB1 and PS4. This does suggest that a version for Linux should also be possible. The APEX code is now (sort of) open and the source code can be modified as needed to run with other applications.

Nvidia probably wants to make their full Gameworks stack cross platform (and as such, usage of DirectCompute is a weird choice). But I don't think they are there yet. Their PhysX got full GPU acceleration on Linux only very recently.

 

[Talabriga]

It is unfortunate but I can live with it. If the game works in AMD devices and does not crash with horrible performance, I am game. My main concern is that really, I just hope it is well optimized for both.

 

[flyingsaucers]

It is unfortunate but I can live with it. If the game works in AMD devices and does not crash with horrible performance, I am game. My main concern is that really, I just hope it is well optimized for both.

Personally I'm expecting a lot more than a game that doesn't crash/perform horribly. CDPR are who they are today because of PC gamers, and it's a bit worrisome to me that they're talking up NV tech so heavily this round because that potentially leaves a large percentage of their core base in the lurch. I appreciate those who say that Hairworks can work on an AMD machine but if it's a 30% drop in framerate just for Geralt's hair, then for all intents and purposes, AMD users are going to be left high and dry.

 

[tahirahmed]

It's definitely AMD's graph, source is this:
http://community.amd.com/community/amd-blogs/amd-gaming/blog/2014/09/23/tressfx-hair-cross-platform-and-v20

I'm surprised how they got away with claiming this. It's downright nonsense 45ms is.

That graph is indeed a bad excuse from AMD to denounce HairWorks and it goes against AMD itself, we know that these techs were quite immature in the start so just like Tomb Raider performed worse on Nvidia hardware, Call of Duty Ghosts performed worse on AMD hardware and since then both brands have improved their drivers as well as the techs, now Tomb Raider with TressFX works fine on Nvidia and games like FarCry 4 with HairWorks works fine on AMD. Both techs are still demanding in general but performance hit gap is coming close for both brands.

Personally I'm expecting a lot more than a game that doesn't crash/perform horribly. CDPR are who they are today because of PC gamers, and it's a bit worrisome to me that they're talking up NV tech so heavily this round because that potentially leaves a large percentage of their core base in the lurch. I appreciate those who say that Hairworks can work on an AMD machine but if it's a 30% drop in framerate just for Geralt's hair, then for all intents and purposes, AMD users are going to be left high and dry.

And how are you assuming that it's a 30% drop in frame rate ? if your assumption is based on that graph above then it's wrong. I have tried HairWorks on my 290 and another user (forgot his name) on his GTX 970, we both faced similar performance hits and the game started to crawl down to 27 - 29 fps when there is a pack of 4 - 5 wolves in distance with HairWorks enabled. It was same for both cards.

Additionally both brands are releasing new drivers for big titles near release (ex. CoD AW, ACU, FC4, DAI and now GTA5) so it's very likely that this will happen again for TW3 as it's the most anticipated title of 2015.

As for choice of technology, after looking the game in action I cannot blame CDPR's decision. Previously I was worried myself but if you compare TW3 with TW2 then you can see that Nvidia technologies like APEX Destruction/Clothing, PhysX and HairWorks are much more superior than what they achieved with Havok, it's the matter of what's available and who's supporting them in better way just like AMD is supporting Square Enix with games like Tomb Raider, Rise of Tomb Raider and Duex Ex Mankind Divided.

 

[flyingsaucers]

...



And how are you assuming that it's a 30% drop in frame rate ? if your assumption is based on that graph above then it's wrong. I have tried HairWorks on my 290 and another user (forgot his name) on his GTX 970, we both faced similar performance hits and the game started to crawl down to 27 - 29 fps when there is a pack of 4 - 5 wolves in distance with HairWorks enabled. It was same for both cards.

Additionally both brands are releasing new drivers for big titles near release (ex. CoD AW, ACU, FC4, DAI and now GTA5) so it's very likely that this will happen again for TW3 as it's the most anticipated title of 2015.

As for choice of technology, after looking the game in action I cannot blame CDPR's decision. Previously I was worried myself but if you compare TW3 with TW2 then you can see that Nvidia technologies like APEX Destruction/Clothing, PhysX and HairWorks are much more superior than what they achieved with Havok, it's the matter of what's available and who's supporting them in better way just like AMD is supporting Square Enix with games like Tomb Raider, Rise of Tomb Raider and Duex Ex Mankind Divided.

Were you around for the debut of TressFX? It was a debacle for nV. Cut TR's framerates in half, until it was patched weeks later. Frankly it'll be an upset if we have optimized drivers for launch, and I don't relish the idea of pre-ordering TW3 only to be forced to play it on console settings for 3 weeks until a driver refresh because it relies so heavily on nV proprietaries that AMD cards are left playing second fiddle. I'm a pessimist, but I've been a PC gamer for far too long to be looking at this through rose coloured glasses. I get that proprietary tech is in vogue right now but honestly it's a terrible practice and, being an AMD user, I'd just as soon either throw out both TressFX and Hairworks together, or see them both implemented. Segmenting an already niche group of gamers even further is bad practice.

 

[Vixraine]

Were you around for the debut of TressFX? It was a debacle for nV. Cut TR's framerates in half, until it was patched weeks later. Frankly it'll be an upset if we have optimized drivers for launch, and I don't relish the idea of pre-ordering TW3 only to be forced to play it on console settings for 3 weeks until a driver refresh because it relies so heavily on nV proprietaries that AMD cards are left playing second fiddle. I'm a pessimist, but I've been a PC gamer for far too long to be looking at this through rose coloured glasses. I get that proprietary tech is in vogue right now but honestly it's a terrible practice and, being an AMD user, I'd just as soon either throw out both TressFX and Hairworks together, or see them both implemented. Segmenting an already niche group of gamers even further is bad practice.

Maybe you missed the fact that Hairworks is it's own toggle, and that the game (In fact virtually all of the footage we've seen so far has Hairworks disabled) looks incredible with or without Hairworks.

So in the unlikely scenario that drivers are simply unoptimized and complete and utter shit (Hairworks APIs have been integrated into both GPU manufacturer's drivers for about 3-4 high profile games now), you can always just disable Hairworks and play on High/Ultra.

 

[Sardukhar]

Oh, thank NURGLE we're back to fighting over how Geralt's hair is going to look. I was worried we'd all, I don't know, gained perspective or something.

Towards the original question - yes, there will be issues with your GPU. Nvidia or AMD, possibly both. Given the closeness of CDPR and Nvidia, bet on AMD issues.

But, BUT, you're going to see lots of issues regardless. Maybe less than with Witcher 2 because they've been polishing, but simple fact is: complex software meets complex hardware, issues arise.

Also be assured that CDPR want you to enjoy the game regardless of your preferred GPU and will be working hard to minimize these issues, as will your loyal forumgoers.

Will you get 5 fps less than an equivalent Nvidia card? Sure. Possibly. Maybe. If that 5 fps is -that- important to you, I feel you've mistaken this AAA CRPG for some kind of graphics card benchmarking software. Which it is not. Will you see plastic hair? I doubt it a lot. Have you seen plastic hair? Looks like Barbie.

CDPR has never left me, as an AMD user, feeling "high and dry". Ever. That phrase denotes a betrayal and abandonment. Or that you weren't watching the tide. I've actually been left high and dry before. Sucked. Had to wait hours before we could get the boat off the beach. Probably faster than you'll see a patch release, though...

 

[tahirahmed]

Were you around for the debut of TressFX? It was a debacle for nV. Cut TR's framerates in half, until it was patched weeks later. Frankly it'll be an upset if we have optimized drivers for launch, and I don't relish the idea of pre-ordering TW3 only to be forced to play it on console settings for 3 weeks until a driver refresh because it relies so heavily on nV proprietaries that AMD cards are left playing second fiddle. I'm a pessimist, but I've been a PC gamer for far too long to be looking at this through rose coloured glasses. I get that proprietary tech is in vogue right now but honestly it's a terrible practice and, being an AMD user, I'd just as soon either throw out both TressFX and Hairworks together, or see them both implemented. Segmenting an already niche group of gamers even further is bad practice.

Yes I was around when TressFX made it's debut, I had HD 6970 at that time and it was a debacle for me as well (dropping fps by 25 - 30) until it was patched but even that didn't improved it a lot and then I learned that HD 5000 and 6000 are not very good in compute so users of HD 7000 (aka GCN) are going to run it well which really disappointed me even after I was an AMD user so should I blame Square Enix for that ? no I guess not.

I also think that proprietary tech is not good but business model doesn't run on our ideas, they went Nvidia path because Nvidia offered the complete solution for their needs, PhysX, Destruction/Clothing, HBAO+ and HairWorks and to be honest it improved the game a lot. As for implementing both TressFX and HairWorks, you and I both know that it's difficult and time consuming for devs, they aim to cut time and development costs not fulfilling everyone's desires.

But to be on positive side, some GameWorks titles work actually better on AMD, WatchDogs being a clear example of that. It runs more smooth on AMD than Nvidia and has better XDMA Crossfire scaling than SLI. Also CDPR is only using features that are available to users of both brands, if you have a good CPU then you'll have no issues running PhysX/Desctruction/Clothing. HBAO+ these days doesn't hit performance that much and HairWorks, well from my recent experience it's going to be similar for both brands.

 

[Cathulhu81]

It seems to me that some people avoid most important fact stated couple of times by devs - NV gave them every tools they've needed and NV was very forthcoming with technological support that CDPR was lacking - be realists - W3 is over the top ambicious project and ppl from NV actually helped a lot. I have my issues with NV policy and not very brilliant in terms of morality history, but I won't let my personal opinions an grievances to overshadow a fact, that in the case of W3 development, they've really helped a lot. Yes - i would love to have games using OGL/Vulkan anything not connected/bound to specific GPU developer, since i'm a strong believer in a power of open sourced software but i can put aside my actually quite strong [negative] feelings about NV if in that instance they've actually managed to act reasonably.

edit: I've bought my first AMD GPU last year. I've started with Voodoo 3DFX and nvidia all the way since last november, so i'm not a fanboy - i just have some strong principles when it comes to bussiness practices and consumer-provider relations.