[GameGPU] ARK: Survival Evolved, GameWorks

Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
Here's another amazing contribution to the "GameWorks Effect*":

http://www.geforce.com/whats-new/ar...scusses-nvidia-gameworks-future-game-features



*Neutering AMD & Kepler.

970 ~23% faster than 780Ti, 980 ~48% faster!

Surely there cannot be constant "bugs" (Witcher 3 anyone?) in GameWorks titles that neuters Kepler so badly..

Now, that's just on Medium, the game looks visually crap but runs like ass/donkey, anything below 970 is basically unplayable (better upgrade Kepler owners!).

On High:


On Ultra (still looks meh):


1080p. Jesus.
 
Last edited:

Enigmoid

Platinum Member
Sep 27, 2012
2,907
31
91
The game is currently a piece of crap. Benchmarks are pretty much irrelevant given that the games visuals, when optimized should be at least twice those fps if not 3 or 4x higher.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
It's a very popular piece of crap though.

http://steamcharts.com/top

More than 10x (or some even more than 20x) the players than most of the games used in benchmarks.

I don't understand these devs... game runs like donkey already on crap settings, instead of focusing on OPTIMIZING it (time/$/manpower), they pile on more GameWorks & PhysX features..
 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,058
410
126
keep in mind it's an early access game, release date is almost a year away, and I think this will be heavily optimized for DX12.
 

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
968
395
136
Could be unoptimised shaders or incomplete LOD models and algos? It is an early access game after all..
 

chimaxi83

Diamond Member
May 18, 2003
5,649
61
101
Early access, early access, early access... repeating it won't take the GameWorks stink out of it.
 

Mondozei

Golden Member
Jul 7, 2013
1,043
41
86
It's a very popular piece of crap though.

http://steamcharts.com/top

More than 10x (or some even more than 20x) the players than most of the games used in benchmarks.

I don't understand these devs... game runs like donkey already on crap settings, instead of focusing on OPTIMIZING it (time/$/manpower), they pile on more GameWorks & PhysX features..


I'm sorry but that is very ignorant.
The ARK devs have spoken very clearly about the fact that optimisation is something they specifically excluded early on and instead are focusing on adding a lot of content. If you look at what they are doing now, it's adding new content(monsters, dinosaurs, weapons, new areas etc) as well as new mod support for Unreal Engine 4(check their recent livesteam with Epic on this topic), gameworks support and a whole bunch of new stuff. Gameworks in this scenario is part of the recent pattern. You'd knew this if you hadn't been ignorant about the state of the game, but of course, what is going to stop you from railing about GameWorks? Facts? Hah!

It's not an either/or proposition, it's about, in their words, focusing on what matters at what stage. They have only developed the game for 1 single year and the fact that they have added this much into the game already is impressive to say the least. Most games of this size needs 3 years.
I'd be surprised personally if they really do release the game to the general public in June of next year, that'd be an astounding feat of engineering if they do.

If you think that they are somehow "swapping" optimisations for GW/PhyX then you are frankly just threadcrapping/spreading FUD.

The game is in early access. Everyone who has bought into it understands that. The devs are open about the fact that they will save optimisation for last. This entire thread is another attack on GW and to go about it, you start doing unsubstantiated swipes against a developer you know little about, with priorities you are unfamillar with.
 
Last edited:
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
So basically they release Alpha Access to get a ton of sales (top of steam charts), but its unplayable for AMD & Kepler until years later when they finally get to optimizing it?

Rather, this is a sign of UE4 and its heavy incorporation of PhysX and devs who go with GameWorks then finding out "oops, we can't actually optimize these libraries, its all on NV" like the Witcher 3 devs, when players complaint about poor perf, P.Red devs said "just disable it".

Why not actually release an Alpha Access thats playable on more hardware besides Maxwell 2, then add content & pile on extra features like GameWorks? Wouldn't that be BETTER for gamers?

By the way in case your short term memory forgot about Project Cars, the SAME THING happened in that game during the YEARS of development. Early on, alpha backers reported crap performance on AMD GPUs & Kepler. It wasn't fixed TWO YEARS later when it launched. That's what they get when they pile on PhysX & GameWorks before optimizing their game.

This goes to the core of closed source libraries. Devs who use them forgo their control over a part of their game's optimization and rely on NVIDIA instead. Basically shifting the responsibility to ensure their game runs excellent to NV, and as we've seen, NV doesn't care about AMD or Kepler performance. They didn't even care about Kepler in Witcher 3 until it made it to the front page of Reddit, then they said it was "a bug".. after the years that game was developed, being an NV sponsored title, they weren't aware that it ran crap on Kepler? You must be stupid to believe that PR.

We even had NV apologists claim Kepler ran out of steam, its obsolete uarch can't keep up in modern games... until NV release an optimized driver, 20% extra performance for Kepler in Witcher 3, just like that!
 
Last edited:

greatnoob

Senior member
Jan 6, 2014
968
395
136
Also a key developer thing to note here: you optimise at the end, when the code base is finished or close to completion. I see nothing wrong with what they're doing, it's an early access game. They're adding content as they go along while removing and tweaking others. Expecting them to refine their not-100% code base this early on is willingly asking them to halt development and waste 90% of their time.
 

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
As an older Kepler user - I already upgraded

My GF who now has the Kepler already said no to "early access games"

By the time game is finalized, I'll have Pascal and she'll move on to Maxwell 2.

Maybe by 2017 this game will be playable for AMD users.
 

Good_fella

Member
Feb 12, 2015
113
0
0
AMD is slower in F1 2015 but you posted ARK: Survival Evolved because in F1 2015 you can't blame others for slow AMD's performance?



 

SPBHM

Diamond Member
Sep 12, 2012
5,058
410
126
Project Cars was very different, it started as a project where backers would get a share of the profit and have a lot of influence in development, it had builds available for this backers at a much earlier stage in development... ARK is typical early access on steam, like DayZ, but the ARK team seems to be a lot more competent doing frequent updates, using a top quality engine.

Also Project Cars is based on the Shift engine which was also more problematic for AMD... I think you should give some credit to the ARK guys until the game is out, see how their DX12 support is going to work and all of that.
 

geoxile

Senior member
Sep 23, 2014
327
25
91
AMD is slower in F1 2015 but you posted ARK: Survival Evolved because in F1 2015 you can't blame others for slow AMD's performance?


I must be misunderstanding something. The 290X is on par with or better than the 970 in these benches you're posting. It doesn't look particularly unusual, besides SLI being broken.
 

3DVagabond

Lifer
Aug 10, 2009
11,951
204
106
AMD is slower in F1 2015 but you posted ARK: Survival Evolved because in F1 2015 you can't blame others for slow AMD's performance?




Huh? Only if you think the 290X is supposed to be faster than the 980, which it's not. Those numbers are falling exactly where you would expect them to. Well, once you take into acct. nVidia's killing Kepler performance. Or Kepler just sucks now, depending on your take.
 

decoy11

Junior Member
Jan 4, 2014
8
0
16
I don't see what is the problem here. Unreal Engine 4 and Epic Games have had a strong relationship since the beginning.

Nvidia is doing a lot right now to work with devs to get GameWorks to work on Unreal Engine 4. Just check out this thread on the UE4 forums: https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?53735-NVIDIA-GameWorks-Integration

If you want to play an Unreal Engine 4 game you should buy a Nvidia card that was pretty clear when Nvidia revealed the TitanX at Epic Games conference at GDC.
 

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
1080p. Jesus.

This game is a total disaster from a technical standpoint at the moment. I don't know who is crazy enough to spend $ on this early access title, but already >1 million units have been sold. I guess people love dinosaurs that much?

It's truly sad when The Witcher 3 is only at 2.94 million across PC, Xbox One + PC (not including digital PC sales), but this game sold > 1 million on the PC alone and it's not even a finished game. Honestly, WTF! is this just hype because of the Jurassic Park movie?

As far as GameWorks, even 980Ti SLI struggles in games like Batman AK = GW games should really be called Games Don't Work features.

GW easily has the worst track record out of any major corporate party sponsored games, whether it's games sponsored by ATI, Microsoft, Sony. NV's sponsored games have a track record of the most broken games on any platform, consoles or PCs, hands down. [NV even advertised GW features by running Batman AK at 60 fps, while knowing that the game would be locked to 30 fps in the retail version - NV marketing scamming again]. If NV made a game console with 10X the power of PS4 but gamers just looked at the track record of all the broken GW titles, no one would buy an NV console. A publisher/developer is honestly shooting themselves in the foot most of the time (GTA V is an exception) when they are partnering with NV on FailWorks. It's almost an automatic $5 bargain basement game at that point just having GW attached to the game. Even though it's hard to separate how much is it the developer's fault vs. NV's driver code but since we can't separate the two, we are treating these aspects hand-in-hand and probably a good 90% of GW titles run like garbage indeed.

----

At the same time NV can't be solely taking the blame as the publisher and developer are the ones responsible for final quality assurance/testing and deciding if the game is ready for prime time release. As it stands in 2015, the general state of AAA PC gaming is a total disaster. It's unbelievable that GPUs cost $650 and AAA PC games are $60 + DLC and are broken for months from release. :whiste: It's crazy to think there are still millions of gamers who still pre-order games. That just sends a message to developers that releasing broken optimized games (esp. AAA PC games) is OK!

Meh. I just went out and bought an Xbox 360 S 250GB with 19 games for $60 and will load up on a bunch of racing games and skip the entire 28nm GPU generation on the PC. I'll wait until all these poorly unoptimized/broken AAA (including most GW titles) games drop to $5 cuz that's all they are worth, tops. Hopefully PC developers start paying attention cuz I am not going to spend even $1 on a broken AAA game. Nope. GPU sales will suffer too. I just went out and bought Senns HD700s instead of a 980Ti cuz the state of AAA PC gaming is broken and I see no reason to buy $650 GPUs to play broken $60 + DLC games on release.

AMD is slower in F1 2015 but you posted ARK: Survival Evolved because in F1 2015 you can't blame others for slow AMD's performance?

In your attempt to discredit the OP, you failed hard.

Same gen vs. same gen:

290X > 780Ti
290 > Titan
and in this title 780Ti isn't crippled vs. 970/980.

If anything the F1 2015 looks like a very well optimized game on a new engine, minus lack of CF/SLI profiles at the moment. Performance at 2560x1600 on 290X/780Ti is in the 60s.

Compare that to < 30 fps at 1080P in ARK Survival. Not sure how you managed to miss all the key areas of comparison here when clearly F1 2015 is a game that's hitting 60 fps at 1600P on a $280 R9 290X but 980Ti is getting 26 fps at 1080P in the OP's title? :thumbsup:

I don't see what is the problem here. Unreal Engine 4 and Epic Games have had a strong relationship since the beginning.

Nvidia is doing a lot right now to work with devs to get GameWorks to work on Unreal Engine 4. Just check out this thread on the UE4 forums: https://forums.unrealengine.com/showthread.php?53735-NVIDIA-GameWorks-Integration

If you want to play an Unreal Engine 4 game you should buy a Nvidia card that was pretty clear when Nvidia revealed the TitanX at Epic Games conference at GDC.

You don't see a problem here? LOL! OK so I actually have $1300 to spend on 980Ti but I won't cuz I see performance in UE4 games and GW games as completely terrible to warrant such an investment. How was SLI/CF working in Far Cry 4, how is SLI working in Batman AK, how was the performance in AC Unity or The Witcher 3 with Hairworks? And now we see 26 fps at 1080P on a 980Ti in ARK SE? You think there is nothing wrong with that. Not sure if serious.

UE4 + GW is already shaping up to be the combination of the worst of all worlds as some of us feared --- a game engine made specifically for NV in mind (who wants to support that in the PC gaming industry?!) and GW that's basically broken and unoptimized NV features via closed-source proprietary game code that cannot be optimized or modified by the PC game developer. I know a lot of PC gamers will put the foot down and will not buy broken games with horrible performance even if they do have $1300 of 980Ti SLI. It's a matter of principle.

I know what I am going to do - split my money across console gaming + PC brand agnostic titles and spend the rest on other hobbies. No way I am buying $1300+ of NV GPUs every 2 years to support GW marketing. UE4 is also a fail of an engine since it doesn't support multi-GPU. How do you design a next generation PC game engine that is more demanding than any preceding PC game engine that doesn't support multi-GPUs? That's akin to making future PC games on the world's gimped game engine....fail.

It's too bad Crytek has run into so much trouble. In terms of technical advancements and game engine optimization, they obliterate EPIC.
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
It's pretty sad because AMD can't keep up in frostbite or gw games. But might as well blame those failures on nvidia, right?

Is that why Fury X CF ~ 980Ti SLI in BF4 and Fury X Trifire >>> 980Ti Tri-SLI in BF4?

is that why Fury X is just 1% slower than a 980TI in a wide variety of games, including GW and Frostbite games is 'failing to keep up'? Everyone knows the main reason NV wins is because of overclocking. Stock vs. stock, AMD is right in the game.



It's funny how you didn't even discuss the game in the OP and how it's running at < 30 fps at 1080P on a 980Ti but immediately shifted the discussion to AMD vs. NV.

Broken/unoptimized game. No way should a game in 2015 run at < 30 fps on a 980Ti unless it's miles better looking than anything we have out today.

There is one problem -- the graphics are mediocre. But in a typical fashion, you didn't even bother checking.






This game should be running at 60 fps on a GTX680 given the graphics.
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
It's pretty sad because AMD can't keep up in frostbite or gw games. But might as well blame those failures on nvidia, right?

Keeps up more than fine in Frostbite games, BF4, Hardline, Dragon Age etc. But you people don't care for facts right?
 
Feb 19, 2009
10,457
10
76
As an older Kepler user - I already upgraded

My GF who now has the Kepler already said no to "early access games"

By the time game is finalized, I'll have Pascal and she'll move on to Maxwell 2.

Maybe by 2017 this game will be playable for AMD users.

NV is very lucky to have such customers. Keep on upgrading everytime they release something new, even when it isn't much faster like the 970/980 vs 780Ti, but they just neuter it in GW titles to make people upgrade anyway.

I mean if GW titles perform like neutral games:



780Ti owners could actually skip this gen and not buy NV's latest just because.
 
Last edited:

RussianSensation

Elite Member
Sep 5, 2003
19,458
765
126
Keeps up more than fine in Frostbite games, BF4, Hardline, Dragon Age etc. But you people don't care for facts right?

He is more interested in bashing AMD as per usual instead of discussing the main game in the OP. If we removed all AMD graphics cards from testing and just focused on the game, it becomes clearly abundant that this game is a giant turd in its current state.

The graphics are honestly mediocre for a 2015 game - vegetation is 100% static, a completely joke compared to Crysis 1. Water and grass are on a completely different level in a game like Crysis 3.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQeWyceds0s

vs.

Ark Survival
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qt09Kvf6Xio

Look at the max graphics the game can manage on a 7970 => Looks like Far Cry 1, and no I am not joking, definitely worse than HD7970 could manage in Crysis 1, 2 or 3 or Metro games. Now look at all the clipping of dinosaur tail through trees, pop in of rocks, etc. Horrendous level of optimization.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVWizWIPbcI

Silver, you forgot to include the CPU "optimization" in this game:

i3 4330 > i7 3970X or i7 2600K or i5 2500K



But let's look deeper into the scaling on a per core basis:





Awful CPU multi-core optimization on top of even worse GPU optimization.
 
Last edited:

Erenhardt

Diamond Member
Dec 1, 2012
3,251
105
101
This game looks like ps3 game XD

^Just for comparison with previously mentioned F1 game:




Still, not perfect, but world apart from ark
 
Last edited:

railven

Diamond Member
Mar 25, 2010
6,604
561
126
NV is very lucky to have such customers. Keep on upgrading everytime they release something new, even when it isn't much faster like the 970/980 vs 780Ti, but they just neuter it in GW titles to make people upgrade anyway.

Odd, because I was an AMD customer and they basically said they didn't want my money . Thanks to an agreement with the GF (who doesn't care as much about performance EDIT: and the reason why she agreed to this was because I wanted a Fury X, ha the irony), I'm back to a yearly upgrade. I got this money in my pocket itching to be spent. I waited for Fury X and was underwhelmed so I bought what felt better for my needs. I'm not gonna wait any more, I waited basically 6 months hoping to get a decently priced custom 290X and where did that get me? In Nvidia land.

It's also very discouraging to have RS call me an idiot because I bought 7970 at launch and didn't wait (like he would have, seems AMD fans love to wait) 6-8 months before buying.

I mean if GW titles perform like neutral games:



780Ti owners could actually skip this gen and not buy NV's latest just because.

And that's what AMD is left with. Fans that would rather WAIT than upgrade. And their market share and sales plummet. And their new CEO comes out saying "we're going to start milking our fan base like Nvidia does" but releases a half-cooked Fury X after bragging about it.

This is how I see it now. I got money to spend. if Nvidia is gonna snag games I WANT to play (MGS5/FFXIV/WOW) well and AMD is not gonna respond, I can have best of both worlds. Which I'm okay with. Went from buying an AMD card almost every 9-12 months to buying whatever is available and best for me, if Nvidia gets my money it's only AMD faults.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |