Does GameWorks influences AMD's Cards game performance?

[Gikaseixas]

Nvidia's GameWorks has been a hot topic since it's introduction, even a nuisance for some as they believe it purposely penalizes Radeons, giving Geforces positive exposure in game reviews around the net.
But we also have those who believe it simply adds value to a user's experiences while gaming.

Hopefully i've made the right questions in the poll but if not let's please discuss in a civil manner.

So, what are everyone's thoughts on this?

EDIT to add links requested by other users (if you have any others to share just let me know)

http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/...surps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd

 

[96Firebird]

Game dependant.

 

[Techhog]

Compare Trine 3 to Project Cars. There's your answer.

 

[chimaxi83]

Game dependant.

Can you show which GW games have not proven to be problematic for AMD on release?

 

[Headfoot]

"Game Evolved does just the same"

Is irrelevant. That answers a separate question. Acting like it is an answer is encouraging a blatant straw man.

There are two questions: Does Gameworks penalize AMD? Does Gaming Evolved penalize nVidia? A yes answer to EITHER question is bad. Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

[xthetenth]

Also, saying it's AMD's fault due to dev relations does nothing to say whether or not it happens or whether it's bad.

 

[Techhog]

"Game Evolved does just the same"

Is irrelevant. That answers a separate question. Acting like it is an answer is encouraging a blatant straw man.

There are two questions: Does Gameworks penalize AMD? Does Gaming Evolved penalize nVidia? A yes answer to EITHER question is bad. Two wrongs don't make a right.

Except that GE titles tend to give AMD a 10% advantage at best for about a month sometimes, but GW titles cause AMD cards to drop an entire performance bracket every single time. Again, compare Project Cars to Trine 3, and tell me that's normal. In fact, doesn't BF4 actually run better on Nvidia hardware now? Meanwhile, the 290X still struggles against the 780 in Batman Arkham Origins.

 

[xthetenth]

Except that GE titles tend to give AMD a 10% advantage at best for about a month sometimes, but GW titles cause AMD cards to drop an entire performance bracket every single time. Again, compare Project Cars to Trine 3, and tell me that's normal. In fact, doesn't BF4 actually run better on Nvidia hardware now? Meanwhile, the 290X still struggles against the 780 in Batman Arkham Origins.

This is also true, but it doesn't change that he does it too isn't much of an answer to the question of whether nVidia does it. In fact it's basically a tu quoque.

 

[cbrunny]

I don't understand the question. GameWorks does for Nvidia what Gaming Evolved does for AMD, does it not?

 

[RussianSensation]

I don't understand the question. GameWorks does for Nvidia what Gaming Evolved does for AMD, does it not?

See, that's why we need someone to do a more in-depth write-up of what Gameworks does. GW and AMD's GE are not the same at all. They are fundamentally different actually.

AMD GE or the old NV TWIMTPB meant that AMD/NV worked directly with the developer to optimize their driver for the developer's game code and/or provided their own graphical enhancements/codes that worked better than the developers version, such as GCN using DirectCompute for Global Illumination or SSAA or say NV adding TXAA filters, etc. The developer was allowed to modify, alter, optimize this game code in their own game and share it with anyone. Whatever AMD adds as part of the GE program, it's all open source which means NV's driver team is able to optimize their driver for this code. Alternatively, the developer has full transparency of what is happening and can work with NV to help them optimize any AMD GE code inserted in the title. This is why almost all AMD GE titles run so well on NV's hardware - transparency.

GW is not like this at all. The first aspect about GWs that makes it different from AMD's GE is that GW's code is proprietary.

1.""NVIDIA GameWorks SDK" means the set of instructions for computers, in executable form only and in any media (which may include diskette, CD-ROM, downloadable internet, hardware, or firmware) comprising NVIDIA's proprietary Software Development Kit and related media and printed materials, including reference guides, documentation, and other manuals, installation routines and support files, libraries, sample art files and assets, tools, support utilities and any subsequent updates or adaptations provided by NVIDIA, whether with this installation or as separately downloaded (unless containing their own separate license terms and conditions)."

The second aspect is even more critical:

2. "In addition, you may not and shall not permit others to:

I. modify, reproduce, de-compile, reverse engineer or translate the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK; or
II. distribute or transfer the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK other than as part of the NVIDIA GameWorks Application.

Any redistribution of the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK (in accordance with Section 2 above) or portions thereof must be subject to an end user license agreement including language that

a) prohibits the end user from modifying, reproducing, de-compiling, reverse engineering or translating the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK;
b) prohibits the end user from distributing or transferring the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK other than as part of the NVIDIA GameWorks Application;"


-----

By definition that means any Nvidia GW code inserted into the game cannot be modified, altered, optimized by the developer without NV's written permission. That means if the developer uses a particular GW SDK for some effect such as tessellation or HBAO+ and the game runs poorly after, they either have to accept the performance hit or remove the SDK. It's take it or leave it.

Essentially what this means is a Black Box source code from NV inside the game engine itself. Based on the EULA, that also means Intel or AMD cannot optimize the driver around NV's GW code since it's closed and proprietary.

https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-sdk-eula

"Game Evolved does just the same"

Is irrelevant. That answers a separate question. Acting like it is an answer is encouraging a blatant straw man.

This option in the poll doesn't even make sense for 2 reasons:

1. GE is open source which means NV or Intel are free to optimize their drivers in any GE title.
2. What GE game penalizes NV/Intel GPUs where AMD has a 'magical' 30-100% performance advantage that can't be easily explained? What AMD GE title is out there for which NV actually attempted to optimize the drivers post launch where HD7870/7950 is faster than a GTX970/980? There is no such title!

Besides GTA V which has very little GW influence, it seems that nearly every single GW title runs poorly on AMD's hardware, no exceptions. CF performance is shot at launch in almost all GW games and requires a developer patch to work, months after release. What AMD GE game title required a developer patch for SLI to work?

 

[Jaydip]

See, that's why we need someone to do a more in-depth write-up of what Gameworks does. GW and AMD's GE are not the same at all. They are fundamentally different actually.

AMD GE or the old NV TWIMTPB meant that AMD/NV worked directly with the developer to optimize their driver for the developer's game code and/or provided their own graphical enhancements/codes that worked better than the developers such as GCN using DirectCompute for Global Illumination or SSAA or say NV adding TXAA filters, etc. The developer was allowed to modify, alter, optimize this game code in their own game and share it with anyone. Whatever AMD adds as part of the GE program, it's all open source which means NV's driver team is able to optimize their driver for this code. Alternatively, the developer has full transparency of what is happening and can work with NV to help them optimize any AMD GE code inserted in the title. This is why almost all AMD GE titles run so well on NV's hardware - transparency.

GW is not like this at all. The first aspect about GWs that makes it different from AMD's GE is that GW's code is proprietary.

1.""NVIDIA GameWorks SDK" means the set of instructions for computers, in executable form only and in any media (which may include diskette, CD-ROM, downloadable internet, hardware, or firmware) comprising NVIDIA's proprietary Software Development Kit and related media and printed materials, including reference guides, documentation, and other manuals, installation routines and support files, libraries, sample art files and assets, tools, support utilities and any subsequent updates or adaptations provided by NVIDIA, whether with this installation or as separately downloaded (unless containing their own separate license terms and conditions)."

The second aspect is even more critical:

2. "In addition, you may not and shall not permit others to:

I. modify, reproduce, de-compile, reverse engineer or translate the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK; or
II. distribute or transfer the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK other than as part of the NVIDIA GameWorks Application.

Any redistribution of the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK (in accordance with Section 2 above) or portions thereof must be subject to an end user license agreement including language that

a) prohibits the end user from modifying, reproducing, de-compiling, reverse engineering or translating the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK;
b) prohibits the end user from distributing or transferring the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK other than as part of the NVIDIA GameWorks Application;"


-----

By definition that means any Nvidia GW code inserted into the game cannot be modified, altered, optimized by the developer without NV's written permission. That means if the developer uses a particular GW SDK for some effect such as tessellation or HBAO+ and the game runs poorly after, they either have to accept the performance hit or remove the SDK. It's take it or leave it.

Essentially what this means is a Black Box source code from NV inside the game engine itself. Based on the EULA, that also means Intel or AMD cannot optimize the driver around NV's GW code since it's closed and proprietary.

https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-sdk-eula



This option in the poll doesn't even make sense for 2 reasons:

1. GE is open source which means NV or Intel are free to optimize their drivers in any GE title.
2. What GE game penalizes NV/Intel GPUs where AMD has a 'magical' 30-100% performance advantage that can't be easily explained? What AMD GE title is out there for which NV actually attempted to optimize the drivers post launch where HD7870/7950 is faster than a GTX970/980? There is no such title!

Besides GTA V which has very little GW influence, it seems that nearly every single GE title runs poorly on AMD's hardware, no exceptions. CF performance is shot at launch in almost all GW games and requires a developer patch to work, months after release. What AMD GE game title required a developer patch for SLI to work?

1.Dirt Showdown,TR,DA2 where AMD was leading by a huge margin and NV released drivers later to fix their performance gap.

2.Did AMD pay NV to develop GW? nope and then why should NV allow them to optimize for it? AMD is free to optimize non gw portions anyways.

3.In FC4 SLI was broken period.

 

[FatherMurphy]

Another example: it took NV a while to get optimized drivers for TressFx in Tomb Raider, I believe. Didn't NV say that they got final game code right before the launch? Pretty sure there was a huge disadvantage (though I think that has since disappeared).

 

[Jaydip]

Another example: it took NV a while to get optimized drivers for TressFx in Tomb Raider, I believe. Didn't NV say that they got final game code right before the launch? Pretty sure there was a huge disadvantage (though I think that has since disappeared).

Yup pretty much.

 

[iiiankiii]

Another example: it took NV a while to get optimized drivers for TressFx in Tomb Raider, I believe. Didn't NV say that they got final game code right before the launch? Pretty sure there was a huge disadvantage (though I think that has since disappeared).

Atleast they were given the code to optimize for it. That's the difference. GameWorks is CLOSED.

 

[Azix]

GE games giving AMD a minor advantage is not the same as crippling the competitor. You would expect some level of better optimization if a developer works with a manufacturer, but not really reduced performance on the competitor. with nvidias GW, you get reduced performance. This is likely straight down to the code they give devs to use. You could work with a dev without that kind of code and just help them get the most out of graphics hardware with some features that work on both brands.

 

[Azix]

1.Dirt Showdown,TR,DA2 where AMD was leading by a huge margin and NV released drivers later to fix their performance gap.

2.Did AMD pay NV to develop GW? nope and then why should NV allow them to optimize for it? AMD is free to optimize non gw portions anyways.

3.In FC4 SLI was broken period.

If you want to see PC gaming get really bad, keep preaching that line of thought. Eventually we'll have games that can't work if you have amd or nvidia. That is essentially what you are advocating and should gameworks become a bigger part of the game, that would happen.

and nvidia would think nothing of it (unless they were the underdog). They don't care about gamers as much as they should, otherwise they would not give the finger to a huge portion of us just because we don't use their hardware.

What some don't realize I guess is that this is not just AMD, ITS US. we are the ones nvidia is doing this to.

 

[Flapdrol1337]

I don't know what to think.

On one hand I don't like nvidia being so overprotective of their precious middleware. But then amd comes along, makes 3 effects, opens them up and claims moral victory. Not exactly put the same effort in. Not by a long shot.

Also, all the gameworks stuff that runs on gpu's is optional. There is nothing preventing good performance on the base game with standard features on amd cards.

 

[Gikaseixas]

"Game Evolved does just the same"

Is irrelevant. That answers a separate question.

IMO, not that irrelevant to many. We've seen many debates around that comparison that's why i added that option. There are people who believe GE also penalizes Nvidia.

 

[Gikaseixas]

But then amd comes along, makes 3 effects, opens them up and claims moral victory

In addition to claim that moral victory they actually open it up to everyone. Less evil in my book.

 

[cbrunny]

See, that's why we need someone to do a more in-depth write-up of what Gameworks does. GW and AMD's GE are not the same at all. They are fundamentally different actually.

AMD GE or the old NV TWIMTPB meant that AMD/NV worked directly with the developer to optimize their driver for the developer's game code and/or provided their own graphical enhancements/codes that worked better than the developers such as GCN using DirectCompute for Global Illumination or SSAA or say NV adding TXAA filters, etc. The developer was allowed to modify, alter, optimize this game code in their own game and share it with anyone. Whatever AMD adds as part of the GE program, it's all open source which means NV's driver team is able to optimize their driver for this code. Alternatively, the developer has full transparency of what is happening and can work with NV to help them optimize any AMD GE code inserted in the title. This is why almost all AMD GE titles run so well on NV's hardware - transparency.

GW is not like this at all. The first aspect about GWs that makes it different from AMD's GE is that GW's code is proprietary.

1.""NVIDIA GameWorks SDK" means the set of instructions for computers, in executable form only and in any media (which may include diskette, CD-ROM, downloadable internet, hardware, or firmware) comprising NVIDIA's proprietary Software Development Kit and related media and printed materials, including reference guides, documentation, and other manuals, installation routines and support files, libraries, sample art files and assets, tools, support utilities and any subsequent updates or adaptations provided by NVIDIA, whether with this installation or as separately downloaded (unless containing their own separate license terms and conditions)."

The second aspect is even more critical:

2. "In addition, you may not and shall not permit others to:

I. modify, reproduce, de-compile, reverse engineer or translate the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK; or
II. distribute or transfer the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK other than as part of the NVIDIA GameWorks Application.

Any redistribution of the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK (in accordance with Section 2 above) or portions thereof must be subject to an end user license agreement including language that

a) prohibits the end user from modifying, reproducing, de-compiling, reverse engineering or translating the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK;
b) prohibits the end user from distributing or transferring the NVIDIA GameWorks SDK other than as part of the NVIDIA GameWorks Application;"


-----

By definition that means any Nvidia GW code inserted into the game cannot be modified, altered, optimized by the developer without NV's written permission. That means if the developer uses a particular GW SDK for some effect such as tessellation or HBAO+ and the game runs poorly after, they either have to accept the performance hit or remove the SDK. It's take it or leave it.

Essentially what this means is a Black Box source code from NV inside the game engine itself. Based on the EULA, that also means Intel or AMD cannot optimize the driver around NV's GW code since it's closed and proprietary.

https://developer.nvidia.com/gameworks-sdk-eula



This option in the poll doesn't even make sense for 2 reasons:

1. GE is open source which means NV or Intel are free to optimize their drivers in any GE title.
2. What GE game penalizes NV/Intel GPUs where AMD has a 'magical' 30-100% performance advantage that can't be easily explained? What AMD GE title is out there for which NV actually attempted to optimize the drivers post launch where HD7870/7950 is faster than a GTX970/980? There is no such title!

Besides GTA V which has very little GW influence, it seems that nearly every single GE title runs poorly on AMD's hardware, no exceptions. CF performance is shot at launch in almost all GW games and requires a developer patch to work, months after release. What AMD GE game title required a developer patch for SLI to work?

Jaw...floor.

Really?

Thank you for this detail. I was thinking about nvidia for my next card because i know they have better drivers and most games are GW, but this is pretty bad for the industry. I'll definitely be very strongly reconsidering.

EDIT: just want to clarify, you said

Besides GTA V which has very little GW influence, it seems that nearly every single GE title runs poorly on AMD's hardware

but I think you mean

Besides GTA V which has very little GW influence, it seems that nearly every single GW title runs poorly on AMD's hardware

yes?

 

[Azix]

I don't know what to think.

On one hand I don't like nvidia being so overprotective of their precious middleware. But then amd comes along, makes 3 effects, opens them up and claims moral victory. Not exactly put the same effort in.

Also, all the gameworks stuff that runs on gpu's is optional. There is nothing preventing good performance on the base game with standard features on amd cards.

Nvidia gameworks is mostly minor stuff people can do some other way. It's really like unreal engine I think. Engine sucks, games look like crap, but its convenient and available.

I was so underwhelmed when I have the 970 and was looking at features being promoted by nvidia. I was there thinking amd has mantle, freesync, trueaudio... and i get things like some alternatives to aa and physx I can run fine on my CPU...

Its entirely unnecessary

 

[monstercameron]

Nvidia gameworks is mostly minor stuff people can do some other way. It's really like unreal engine I think. Engine sucks, games look like crap, but its convenient and available.



I was so underwhelmed when I have the 970 and was looking at features being promoted by nvidia. I was there thinking amd has mantle, freesync, trueaudio... and i get things like some alternatives to aa and physx I can run fine on my CPU...



Its entirely unnecessary

To be fair nvidia has equivalent features compared to amd, mantle-dx12, freesync-gsync etc.

 

[Azix]

To be fair nvidia has equivalent features compared to amd, mantle-dx12, freesync-gsync etc.

dx12 is not nvidia and wasn't around back then. G-sync is foolishness. A look at g-sync and freesync and u see the difference between the two companies.

 

[Jaydip]

If you want to see PC gaming get really bad, keep preaching that line of thought. Eventually we'll have games that can't work if you have amd or nvidia. That is essentially what you are advocating and should gameworks become a bigger part of the game, that would happen.

and nvidia would think nothing of it (unless they were the underdog). They don't care about gamers as much as they should, otherwise they would not give the finger to a huge portion of us just because we don't use their hardware.

What some don't realize I guess is that this is not just AMD, ITS US. we are the ones nvidia is doing this to.

PC gaming is in already bad position and if neither NV/AMD invested money we would see even more shoddy ports.The thing is as a AAA gaming platform PC is irrelevant except for MOBA/MMOS, optimizing pc games is the last priority of a developer.

 

[Azix]

PC gaming is in already bad position and if neither NV/AMD invested money we would see even more shoddy ports.The thing is as a AAA gaming platform PC is irrelevant except for MOBA/MMOS, optimizing pc games is the last priority of a developer.

Money can be invested without harming consumers.

I don't understand why so many devs are willing to take the reputation hit that can come with using gameworks. And the financial loss from AMD users (massive portion of the market) avoiding your games.

http://www.dualshockers.com/2014/10...ected-to-sell-6-million-copies-in-first-year/

those numbers have PCs contribution to Ubisoft at least being significant.