Nvidia’s GameWorks: A double-edged sword for Witcher 3

[BethesdaWare]

I think it's fair to point out that CDPR wants to make the absolute best game they can, in every way possible. When it comes to graphical fidelity, physics, and other additional features, Nvidia is the way to go. Nvidia also provides better support for studios and really works to make PC the superior platform in comparison to the console ports. I can't fault CDPR for trying to give PC gamers the best experience they can. As others have pointed out, just because you won't be able to take advantage of features such as HairWorks and PhysX does not mean the game will not have quality performance on an AMD GPU.

The two are mutually exclusive and do not impact the other. Even if you find that the top tier AMD card is only receiving the same performance as a quality Nvidia card of a lower caliber, then perhaps you should just consider switching to Nvidia in the future? Why refuse to buy a great game because it receives better performance on one brand over another? I find that silly and really doing yourself a disservice more than anything else. Either way, this is really being blown out of proportion and once the game is released people will move on and just enjoy the game, regardless of whether they have an Nvidia or AMD GPU.

 

[Vigilance.492]

Even if you find that the top tier AMD card is only receiving the same performance as a quality Nvidia card of a lower caliber, then perhaps you should just consider switching to Nvidia in the future?

Oh C'mon... I had a really bad experience with multiple AMD GPU's over the course of a couple of years, and this was back in a time when their drivers were absolute shit as well, so my opinion on AMD isn't high but telling people they should just up and switch to Nvidia? Little extreme, and frankly that's exactly what Nvidia wants.

Putting aside the possibility that Gameworks is skewed in Nvidia's favor (Well exclusive features it outright is), Gameworks is still a marketing tool, plain and simple. They show off all this fancy technology and put out a video showing off all the Gameworks features that are going into whatever game it's being advertised for, and I'm sure many people out there think that Nvidia is simply THE best because of that advertising. They won't put a little tagline at the end of the video saying, "X Y & Z features in the game are actually fully compatible with AMD GPU's", they just straight up use it as a marketing tool.
Ultimately there's nothing wrong with that, they do a good job and that's probably why they have 60% of the market share on GPU's.

People have their reasons for liking/preferring AMD. Their cards generally have a much better Price/Performance ratio, some people (as evidenced in this thread) don't like Nvidia because their propriety software and the nature of their business conflicts with their principles... Whatever it may be, you can't just say, "Switch to Nvidia", because for some people that's just not an option and it's quite frankly very ignorant.

I think people have every right to be skeptical about The Witcher 3 and its Gameworks implementation, however the solution is simple, hold off on that day 1 buy, that pre-order and see how the benchmarks go. There's been lots of blame thrown around this thread (oddly enough a fair bit at CDPR for implementing Gameworks) and someone can make all the assumptions they want, nobody but the Dev team currently knows how the game runs on different manufacturers GPU's. Wait for the game to release, and then everybody can go blame CDPR or Nvidia, whoever the hell people want, if the game is very obviously skewed in Nvidia's favor and it's because of bad Gameworks implementation.

 

[Merc616]

Where? All AMD has said is that Nvidia does not allow them to optimize for GameWorks libraries which is well within their right, this has nothing to do any games themselves.

That is a different claim to what you're claiming. You're claiming GameWorks somehow cripples the performance of the game only on AMD hardware even when not enabled.

That's not what I meant. When I said "Turning off the effects doesn't solve the problem" that was in relation to solving the competitive problem GameWorks has created. I never meant for it to be understood as "turning off game effects will yield no results". Running a game with stripped down effects isn't going to be appealing to many especially when it doesn't have to be that way. It's easy to dismiss when it something you won't have to deal with.

The benchmarks posted by me and others are consistent in showing the performance differences AMD users can expect in an Nvidia GameWorks title. Since the problem is out of the hands of game developers the only way it can be fixed is by Nvidia making the code available or AMD figuring out effective ways of handling the effects. The benchmarks are a reasonable indication of what can be expected in future GameWorks titles. Therefore, my posts have been completely relevant and on topic with the discussions in this thread.

 

[sidspyker]

especially when it doesn't have to be that way.

Is anyone else offering these additional effects and support for them? There's TressFX yes but we've seen that in 1 game and it tanked the framerate hard for hair on just one single character. Is there a 3rd party offering anything comparable to either of them?

What about everything else?
Nvidia's offering TXAA, the only quality Temporal anti-aliasing solution we have so far.
They're offering PhysX SDK and we have nothing comparable here again Havok? Bullet? They need to step it up. It also runs entirely on CPU, not GPU.
Clothing & Destruction modules which again have nothing to do with the GPU.
What do we have comparable to HBAO+? Normal HBAO? But that uses much lesser samples and costs higher. HDAO from AMD? Not any different. SSAO from 2008? It's nothing more than low-quality ray-tracing between a few objects

It's easy to dismiss when it something you won't have to deal with.

Unfair and wrong projection because I've used AMD ATI for atleast 5-6 years now and switched to Nvidia just a few months ago.

The benchmarks are a reasonable indication of what can be expected in future GameWorks titles. Therefore, my posts have been completely relevant and on topic with the discussions in this thread.

Which was never in question.

(Unrelated to above)
Bottom line is we can either have pretty one one side of the GPUs or none at all. Even then a few of Nvidia's effects work on AMD just fine(HBAO+ for example).

I'm not trying to dismiss that the effects might perform worse on AMD's side but rather saying that this does not affect the performance of the base game for anyone claiming so. It's Nvidia's proprietary tech, it's their rules, they have every right to make sure their tech does not work on the competition at all(this is the essence of how you have COMPETITION), you can feel that is very scummy but that doesn't change anything.

 

[Lieste]

Isn't Hairworks Direct Compute (rather than Nvidia only PhysX) already? Not too sure how that works alongside AMD can't play because NVIDIA won't let them?

Maybe it comes from Nvidia optimised origins, and ATI has some work to catch up, but complaining because you are using open source middleware and can't optimise against it? Sounds a little bit odd.

Personally it seems not a bad idea to have a common API for all cards for development streamlining (W3 is noted as being much more streamlined as console and PC architecture are similar and have similar APIs... W2 was a more difficult development for the XB360 as the architecture was more different, and W1 ports... didn't do so well at all).

Having to develop for both ATI and Nvidia's completely different APIs is a waste of resources and leads to both being less (or costing more) than developing for one target would be. Let ATI and Nvidia deal with the performance of their cards against the common interface.

As it is, it seems Nvidia have moved much of their physics simulation off GPU and back to the CPU... which should leave both similar in performance for all of these tasks. Hairworks is CPU/software based, but can be optionally accelerated on GPU on Nvidia architecture. Not unsurprisingly for such a 'heavy' module it performs better and with less latency on a high-end (and unstressed or dedicated) GPU than it does running in software on the main CPU. As it is an open API it shouldn't be impossible to implement some acceleration on ATI cards in the future however.

 

[sidspyker]

Yes it's DirectCompute as opposed to CUDA.

 

[samplerico]

Im cmpletely agree with the discussion im nvidia user but i disagree their dirty game. Its unfair for AMD and for AMD users that nvidia pay developers to optimize exlusively for them and un-optimize for AMD. Thats dirty garbage and i dnt care if nvidia has more money to buy developers if that continues im going to buy cheaper AMD cards no matter the ultra fancy nvidia whore graphic shits they can put in to kill performance im sick of users complaints. Release after release more and more users are completely angry with these poor optimized games even Nvidia owners... Thats just enough.

Users need to do smoething about that. Its no tolerable that a less than 1 year old 500-600$ graphic card canot run a new game with all the f***** graphic options maxed. Its just a SCAM simply as that. A fucking hardware and videogame industry big SCAM.

We have to tell loud and clear stop that FRAUD.

 

[freakie1one]

We have to tell loud and clear stop that FRAUD.

Except it's not fraud. Different products offer different advantages. It's the same for every brand in almost every category of consumer products. Do you complain that a less expensive Toyota isn't as fast as more expensive Ferrari? They're both vehicles that will get you from point A to B so why does a more expensive Ferrari have a speed advantage? It must be a scam!? Wait, the less expensive Toyota is better for a family car since it has more interior room than a Ferrari. Another scam! The reality is that products will always offer different advantages and disadvantages. It is up to the consumer to research before buying a product in order to discover which one best meets their requirements.

Nvidia spent time and money researching and developing technology for their video cards. If the competition's video card doesn't support the Nvidia technology as well an Nvidia card would... isn't this obvious? If you want to utilize the Nvidia technology at the fastest possible speeds then it makes sense to buy an Nvidia product instead of complaining about the competition not being able to keep up. If you don't care about running the Nvidia technology as fast (or even at all) then save a few pennies and buy an AMD/ATi card. It's quite simple.

 

[samplerico]

Except it's not fraud. Different products offer different advantages. It's the same for every brand in almost every category of consumer products. Do you complain that a less expensive Toyota isn't as fast as more expensive Ferrari? They're both vehicles that will get you from point A to B so why does a more expensive Ferrari have a speed advantage? It must be a scam!? Wait, the less expensive Toyota is better for a family car since it has more interior room than a Ferrari. Another scam! The reality is that products will always offer different advantages and disadvantages. It is up to the consumer to research before buying a product in order to discover which one best meets their requirements.

Nvidia spent time and money researching and developing technology for their video cards. If the competition's video card doesn't support the Nvidia technology as well an Nvidia card would... isn't this obvious? If you want to utilize the Nvidia technology at the fastest possible speeds then it makes sense to buy an Nvidia product instead of complaining about the competition not being able to keep up. If you don't care about running the Nvidia technology as fast (or even at all) then save a few pennies and buy an AMD/ATi card. It's quite simple.

Oh yes sure, sorry im a brick. Cmon man how do you explain then with your theory that a sub 400$ hardware runs a game close in performance to a 300$-400$ dedicated (NVIDIA) grapchic card (700-800-$system hardware). Theres an explanation with the Ferrari theory here? how you explain the fiat seiscento runing faster? man that theory...im not a kid yow. Its not about product advantage or disadvantage or ferrari power agains toyota power. Im talking about development decisions influenciated by hardware manufacturers. Thers a thing called oligopoly idk if ur aware of that...for me its clearly and obvious. SCAM its a little word for this mess.

 

[GuyNwah]

There is no scam. This is pure and simple competition. Right now, nVidia has the middleware, and AMD has no working capital. By next year, Mantle may have caught on, and it will be the opposite. Or AMD may have been bought by a company with deep pockets, and they will be supplying competitive middleware and services.

As a developer, you use the tools that get the job done. Producing the most visually stunning game possible is the job. Right now in this world, when the developer has to have them, not tomorrow and in some fictitious fair world, nVidia has the tools to get it done.

 

[freakie1one]

Oh yes sure, sorry im a brick. Cmon man how do you explain then with your theory that a sub 400$ hardware runs a game close in performance to a 300$-400$ dedicated (NVIDIA) grapchic card (700-800-$system hardware). Theres an explanation with the Ferrari theory here? how you explain the fiat seiscento runing faster? man that theory...im not a kid yow. Its not about product advantage or disadvantage or ferrari power agains toyota power. Im talking about development decisions influenciated by hardware manufacturers. Thers a thing called oligopoly idk if ur aware of that...for me its clearly and obvious. SCAM its a little word for this mess.

I already explained that Nvidia cards will run their own technology better, regardless of how much money you spent on the card. You're expecting a more expensive AMD video card to outperform a less expensive Nvidia card while running Nvidia technology, which is an unrealistic expectation. All throughout gaming history some games have ran better while using AMD/ATi cards while other games ran better using Nvidia cards.

As far as development decisions being influenced by hardware manufacturers... this includes pretty much every game in existence. A software developer must take into consideration what hardware is currently capable of in order to determine what they can and can't do. If hardware manufacturers design their product to take advantage of certain technologies then of course it is going to be beneficial for software developers to take advantage of said technologies. Again, not a scam.

EDIT: Guy already said what I was trying to say. Refer to his post above.

 

[Doctalen]

Does Far cry 4 use gameworks? I think it does. I was watching a stream and the guy had a 770 and i5 and on ultra with no AA he got like 27FPS. Lowering every setting to high or lower, turning HBAO+ to SSAO, and removing any AA, think some other options he then got a constant 60. The game didn't look amazing at ultra either. If you have AMD and are getting Far Cry 4 don't immediately blame Gameworks because this game seemingly runs like shit maxed out on Nvidia too

 

[samplerico]

I already explained that Nvidia cards will run their own technology better, regardless of how much money you spent on the card. You're expecting a more expensive AMD video card to outperform a less expensive Nvidia card while running Nvidia technology, which is an unrealistic expectation. All throughout gaming history some games have ran better while using AMD/ATi cards while other games ran better using Nvidia cards.

As far as development decisions being influenced by hardware manufacturers... this includes pretty much every game in existence. A software developer must take into consideration what hardware is currently capable of in order to determine what they can and can't do. If hardware manufacturers design their product to take advantage of certain technologies then of course it is going to be beneficial for software developers to take advantage of said technologies. Again, not a scam.

EDIT: Guy already said what I was trying to say. Refer to his post above.

Youre not understanding me man, im not talking about nvidia or amd im talking about poor decisitions in game development. Making all the process of this beautiful job (making games) only the pursuit of the supreme objective: MAKE MONEY. All is about money, but not only about making games financially profitable but making all the maximum profit posible with less effort posible. All is about that shit. Consoles have AMD midrange graphic cards and run "nvidia its meant to be played" games better than nvidia 300$ cards. How do you explain this genius? Is more simple than all this gameworks, and marketing bullshit. Market range. Consoles have a big market range you think developer do bother about the logo of the graphic card? the only important here is to make happy console manufacturers and graphic cards manufacturers, how do you get that? making games in consoles that runs crappy in PC high-end hardware (now also run crappy in consoles, is the new fashion).

Do you remember Crysis of 2007? in 2010 they ported Crysis to consoles and well, the graphic quality of this port was light years away from the one a GTX8800 of 2007 could easily handle. But hey Crysis was only a mistake from a company (Crytek) who thought they could make tecnichally good games in PC avoiding hardware manufactureres influence. That was only an anomaly. After 5 years Crysis could keep him as a graphic standard. And you know what? GTX8800 has a theorical procesing power of 500GFlops. You know which is the theorical processing power of the GTX780 Ti? 5000GFlops. And, im sorry but i dnt see ANYWHERE this x10 of horsepower in any any any game released to date. I dnt see that 1000% of horse power capability in any shit of these releases that industry is making today. I only see a machine of making money that since 2007 the only thing shes more sophisticated at, is to make money with less effort. Thats where is the 1000% of process evolution that we got the consumers. 1000% more tons of marketing and brainwash. Where is the optimization? Where is the the directX new capabilitys and eficency? Where is the tecnology? now developers not only are un-optimizating games for PC but also for consoles, ask to PS4 ACU purchasers.

Im sorry if im repeating myself but we have to say loud and clear this is a big SCAM, console manufacturers are making huge profit, big game dsitributors are making huge profit, and PC hardware are making huge profits. You just need to make some maths, and statistics. A fact: in EE.UU. Videogame industry is growing 5X times faster than EE.UU. PIB, where the hell is going all that money? you think this is a freaky show? or a nerfs or geeks business that wears star wars shirts in lan partys? This is a big cake and we are the chocolate my friend. If u cant see that if anybody in this forum cant see that, well, were done as a consumers, were sold. You see the face of that boby kotick cookie monster, you see the face of that Ubisoft CEO, or EA CEO your think theyr more worried about consumers opinion and wallet than investors interests? oh my friend...

Please someone explain me where the hell is going 5000GFlops of grapchic processing power in the same games that 1800GFlops (PS4) can run in similar ways. We are talking here about 270% more of pure brute force, this is not simply lazy developers, this is on purpose, i dnt think thers another explanation sincerely.

 

[freakie1one]

snip...

Well, like you said I am a genius. And as a genius I realize this is getting quite off topic so I'll take this opportunity to get the thread back on topic.

I believe TW3 will run well regardless of whether or not someone is using an AMD or Nvidia card. Nvidia cards might have a slight advantage but the game should still be quite playable when using an AMD card. This is only an educated guess based upon several determining factors.

 

[samplerico]

Well, like you said I am a genius. And as a genius I realize this is getting quite off topic so I'll take this opportunity to get the thread back on topic.

I believe TW3 will run well regardless of whether or not someone is using an AMD or Nvidia card. Nvidia cards might have a slight advantage but the game should still be quite playable when using an AMD card. This is only an educated guess based upon several determining factors.

Yep, thats i call a good argument.

 

[sidspyker]

What's going on here...

 

[freakie1one]

What's going on here...

I think this is one of those situations where ignorance is bliss

 

[samplerico]

I think this is one of those situations where ignorance is bliss

thats for sure, that picture as an argument tells everything. No need to talk anymore.

 

[sidspyker]

Riiiight

Now if everyone is done stroking their ego, it would be nice if we can return to the topic instead of summoning all sorts of "geniuses" and strawmanning or throwing off conspiracy theories and accusations.

 

[BethesdaWare]

Well, like you said I am a genius. And as a genius I realize this is getting quite off topic so I'll take this opportunity to get the thread back on topic.

I believe TW3 will run well regardless of whether or not someone is using an AMD or Nvidia card. Nvidia cards might have a slight advantage but the game should still be quite playable when using an AMD card. This is only an educated guess based upon several determining factors.

This is really the only thing people should take away from this discussion until TW3 actually releases. Performance could be better on Nvidia, but that doesn't mean it will be terrible on AMD. Also, GameWorks is purely additional benefits and has nothing to do with overall performance. You will miss out on TXAA, HairWorks, PhysX, etc., but it won't ruin the experience as it's merely extra gloss on an already amazing game.