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?