PDA

View Full Version : Nividia GameWorks a bad thing for the Industry.



AbundantCores
05-26-2014, 11:34 PM
Nvidia's control over the performance of competing GPU Vendors has been doing the rounds since its inception. Its still very much a hot topic.

I'm not impressed having to depend on my GPU vendors rival to optimise performance in this game for my GPU, of course Nvidia will make this game run as bad as they possibly can on AMD GPU's.

An R9 290X runs this game worse than a GTX 770, what will a much lower end AMD GPU run this game like, it will be unplayable, i am not wasting money on a game that cannot be played, this game should come with a warning about this.

I'm not going to be buying watch Dogs,


"Why 'Watch Dogs' Is Bad News For AMD Users -- And Potentially The Entire PC Gaming Ecosystem"


Gameworks represents a clear and present threat to gamers by deliberately crippling performance on AMD products (40% of the market) to widen the margin in favor of NVIDIA products,” Hallock told me in an email conversation over the weekend. But wait, it stands to reason that AMD would be miffed over a competitor having the edge when it comes to graphical fidelity and features, right? Hallock explains that the core problem is deeper: “Participation in the Gameworks program often precludes the developer from accepting AMD suggestions that would improve performance directly in the game code—the most desirable form of optimization.”

So a partner studio like Ubisoft can suggest or write enhancements to the GameWorks libraries, but AMD isn’t allowed to see those changes or suggest their own.

“The code obfuscation makes it difficult to perform our own after-the-fact driver optimizations, as the characteristics of the game are hidden behind many layers of circuitous and non-obvious routines,” Hallock continues. “This change coincides with NVIDIA’s decision to remove all public Direct3D code samples from their site in favor of a ‘contact us for licensing’ page. AMD does not engage in, support, or condone such activities.”


I asked Robert Hallock about this specifically, and he explains that they had “very limited time with the title and [we've] been able to implement some respectable performance improvements thanks to the skill of our driver engineers. Careful performance analysis with a variety of internal tools have allowed us to profile this title, despite deliberate obfuscation attempts, to improve the experience for users.”

AMD will release a new driver to the public this week which reflects those improvements. (It’s the same driver I conducted my testing with.) Unfortunately my conversation with Hallock didn’t end with a silver lining: “I am uncertain if we will be able to achieve additional gains due to the unfortunate practices of the Gameworks program,” he remarked.

Tech journalist Joel Hruska of ExtremeTech summarized why Nvidia’s GameWorks could end up providing a poor experience for consumers and potentially dangerous long-term obstacles for developers, in a stellar investigative piece he wrote last year:

“AMD is no longer in control of its own performance. While GameWorks doesn’t technically lock vendors into Nvidia solutions, a developer that wanted to support both companies equally would have to work with AMD and Nvidia from the beginning of the development cycle to create a vendor-specific code path. It’s impossible for AMD to provide a quick after-launch fix. This kind of maneuver ultimately hurts developers in the guise of helping them.”

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jasonevangelho/2014/05/26/why-watch-dogs-is-bad-news-for-amd-users-and-potentially-the-entire-pc-gaming-ecosystem/

http://i1278.photobucket.com/albums/y513/abundantcores/8oGSVHE_zps9f5f5cf9.png (http://s1278.photobucket.com/user/abundantcores/media/8oGSVHE_zps9f5f5cf9.png.html)

Aver
05-27-2014, 12:37 AM
As I said in the other topic, I'm also really disappointed with Ubisoft. They should keep in mind that consumers buy their games, not Nvidia executives.

I'm ok with adding some cosmetic stuff like HBAO, TXAA to the game or whatever, but leave performance out of your partnership deals.

AbundantCores
05-27-2014, 01:15 AM
As I said in the other topic, I'm also really disappointed with Ubisoft. They should keep in mind that consumers buy their games, not Nvidia executives.

I'm ok with adding some cosmetic stuff like HBAO, TXAA to the game or whatever, but leave performance out of your partnership deals.

There is a certain level of performance that you get from a specific GPU, in this game that performance is 40% less than it should be because Ubisoft have decided to take money from Nvidia? 'or whatever other reason' to stick two fingers up at half the market.

A lot of people are going to buy this game thinking their GPU can play it, only to find that the performance is horrible or unplayable.

Something like an R9 280 is a good solid 1080P GPU, just as the GTX 760 is, they both play some of the most demanding Games on the higher settings just fine. and thats what GTX 760 owners will find.

But not R9 280 owners, what they will find is really bad performance and only because Ubisoft have decided to go down this rout.

Will they get their money back? Hell No! they just got ripped off by Ubisoft.

Its criminal.

I know what my advice is to anyone thinking about buying this game, there are plenty of other games you can spend you time playing, none of them from Ubisoft.

LoGAReTM
05-27-2014, 01:19 AM
just saddens me, that's whats wrong in PC gaming, not being able to help each other out in delivering the best possible experience for all users, just what does Ubisoft care about most? NVIDIA users or PC users? who matters in the end? Hint: the latter being almost double of the first.

good for nvidia users, have fun guys no hard feelings, but it's bad for PC gaming.

Rubble The Dj1
05-27-2014, 01:24 AM
just saddens me, that's whats wrong in PC gaming, not being able to help each other out in delivering the best possible experience for all users, just what does Ubisoft care about most? NVIDIA users or PC users? who matters in the end? Hint: the latter being almost double of the first.

good for nvidia users, have fun guys no hard feelings, but it's bad for PC gaming.

well to be fair, they have done well to even get this game loosely out at the same time as the consoles, because i know for a fact through experience when playing AC3 on xbox 360, pc gamers got left a good few months behind, only to be faced with a bug riddled totally broken game for a good few months after that.

im sceptical about how this game will be when i play it in roughly 10 minutes

MIGHTY778629
05-27-2014, 01:43 AM
There is a certain level of performance that you get from a specific GPU, in this game that performance is 40% less than it should be because Ubisoft have decided to take money from Nvidia? 'or whatever other reason' to stick two fingers up at half the market.

That's completely incorrect and the problem with PC gaming isn't GameWorks, it's people like you who spew nonsense like that.

Watch Dogs utilizes two NVIDIA GameWorks features, TXAA and HBAO+. Those are additional bonus options for NVIDIA users; they don't hurt AMD users. If performance while using other AA and AO techniques are crap on AMD cards, that has nothing to do with NVIDIA and everything to do with AMD. AMD has a history of horrible driver support, and while it's gotten better in recent years, it still pales in comparison to NVIDIA. There is nothing stopping AMD from optimizing performance.

If you want to complain that NVIDIA isn't allowing AMD cards to run TXAA (or other tech, like PhysX), that's valid. What you're complaining about is not.

PS. HBAO+ is technically supported on AMD, but its architecture can't handle it as well as NVIDIA, so AMD users shouldn't even bother with it.

LoGAReTM
05-27-2014, 02:06 AM
well to be fair, they have done well to even get this game loosely out at the same time as the consoles, because i know for a fact through experience when playing AC3 on xbox 360, pc gamers got left a good few months behind, only to be faced with a bug riddled totally broken game for a good few months after that.

im sceptical about how this game will be when i play it in roughly 10 minutes

I managed to play it thanks to my xbox360 (sadly I had to sell it), PC gaming needs much more than this, for instance: mantle is open source, why doesn't nvidia sit down with AMD and work mantle out for both of them, AMD isn't against it for a fact, same goes for everything AMD did, it was a welcoming open source companionship, opening doors as the article at forbes says, only to be closed by nvidia, why not just even the odds, and let the better hardware win.

and why developers comply to those requests (shutting a major hardware provider out like that), it's ok add gameworks it's fine, it's okay to add few graphical options as exclusives, but deny them the time or the proper means to fix the game for their products? that's just plain aggressive, and bad in the long term for ubisoft, since AMD users will be extra careful when considering buying another game from ubisoft, especially if they have to put up with uplay compared to steam.

let's talk business, in ideal situation: All PC gamers bought the game, almost half (40%) are AMD hardware owners, if faced with too many glitches and stutters and a really bad performance compared to equally powerful cards from the green camp, they would request their money back, or they won't just buy any ubisoft-gameWorks title, so the question I'm laying over here is ... Did NVIDIA pay ubisoft enough to justify the loss of AMD users? are they paying for each and everyone in that 40% population? I think not. (I might be wrong).

I hope eventually this article over at forbes and our complains here will make an end for this "plague" of PC gaming industry.



That's completely incorrect and the problem with PC gaming isn't GameWorks, it's people like you who spew nonsense like that.

Watch Dogs utilizes two NVIDIA GameWorks features, TXAA and HBAO+. Those are additional bonus options for NVIDIA users; they don't hurt AMD users. If performance while using other AA and AO techniques are crap on AMD cards, that has nothing to do with NVIDIA and everything to do with AMD. AMD has a history of horrible driver support, and while it's gotten better in recent years, it still pales in comparison to NVIDIA. There is nothing stopping AMD from optimizing performance.

If you want to complain that NVIDIA isn't allowing AMD cards to run TXAA (or other tech, like PhysX), that's valid. What you're complaining about is not.

PS. HBAO+ is technically supported on AMD, but its architecture can't handle it as well as NVIDIA, so AMD users shouldn't even bother with it.

it's ture, we aren't mad about TXAA and HBAO+, it's okay no problem, what I think is the issue here is the first quoted paragraph of the OP's post, it's not about amd fans going sour about this, they never did in other Gameworks enabled game, because the variance of the performance wasn't large enough to spark complains, this, however is legit reason to complain, drivers are going to improve the game, no doubt about it, I heard about 25% improvement is to be expected.

amd drivers are like what you exactly said, but it's clear from the article, that the issue is not how efficient the driver team are, but how much time and proper means to look at the code in order to fix it, some games get improved by a hardware provider patch, and some get improved by a publisher patch, a great example would be Metro Last Light, the game was horrible for AMD users at the begining, but AMD worked with 4A games to deliever a better performance, and they did, a metro patch increased performance by a huge margin, the game was really different from my first walkthrough, since it's not a driver patch, then AMD was allowed to change coding troubles (It's safe to assume that), so what's wrong with allowing them to help code the game to fit both of the companies hardware at launch? Gameworks ... that's your answer.

P.S: all what I said (sorry it's long) is based on my humble knowledge, I can be wrong, and if so let's keep it gentle when you correct me :).

chankills
05-27-2014, 02:07 AM
ya its really sad that my 290x won't be able to get the same features that a 770 nvidia user is getting even though we are paying for the same exact product.

xt6wagon
05-27-2014, 02:37 AM
Yet, you don't visit the point that AMD does the exact same thing.

Nvidia spends its money developing code to sell/give out to developers who wish to join whatever the "game with nvidia" marketing thing is called this week. Of course people who work for Nvidia is going to optimize that code for the hardware they sell. Yet its often overlooked that when Nvidia DOESN'T cripple AMD cards with this code. They just don't polish for a hardware they don't support. It gets even better when they released a patch for a 3rd party game that had broken code AMD owners cried to the internet that they were cheating and just wanted to boost benchmarks. Only problem with that was that ATi cards at the time saw a higher % jump in performance with the fix.

And if you want to see what happens when a company uses AMD's program without enough handholding, go look at sleeping dogs. That uses way way too much video card for the output results. God help you if you have a Nvidia card. Course thats not the worst sin of the PC version. Did the UI designer have 3 hands? Did he have a random number of fingers on each of them? Is this the first time he ever saw a computer, much less a keyboard or PC game?

Back to the topic, Nvidia has long been bashed for pushing its marketing/optimization program as being a cancer on the industry. The real answer is its been one of the key factors in keeping PC gaming alive regardless of video card maker. AMD is starting to embrace the idea, and while its still a nasty nearly useless mess, the potential is there to make ALL games better, also regardless of the card used. Just give it the years NV had to build a proper code base with polish.

JTyran
05-27-2014, 02:51 AM
Blame AMD not Ubisoft or Nvidia, when AMD get access to a games development like they did with games like BF4 Nvidia bust a nut afterwards to optimise the drivers. If AMD are not doing that... well thats something AMD need to get on top of.

AbundantCores
05-27-2014, 03:36 AM
You guys are not making any sense, did you read the article?

How are AMD going to optimise this game if they and Ubisoft don't have access to the Nvidia Compilers?

Its like; a game is made in a way using Nvidia software that locks out AMD and Ubisoft from optimising the performance on AMD GPU's, and having to depend on Nvidia do that optimisation for them. No wait, that is exactly what it is....

Of course they will use it to gimp AMD as much as they can, they are rivals and that is the reason for Gameworks.

So who gets screwed by Ubisoft, anyone not using Nvidia.

Pekmez-Pita
05-27-2014, 03:58 AM
Don't worry. The game runs like crap on Nvidia cards too. My specs: Win7x64, i7 920 @ 3.8GHz, GTX 660 SC, 6 Gigs of DDR3 ram.
Anybody denying the presence of memory leaks and the constant stuttering in this is full of ****.


If you're going to vent out your frustration at some, direct at Ubisoft and their never ending ******** with these PC releases.
No driver in the world is going to rectify ****ty coding.

MIGHTY778629
05-27-2014, 04:00 AM
Don't worry. The game runs like crap on Nvidia cards too. My specs: Win7x64, i7 920 @ 3.8GHz, GTX 660 SC, 6 Gigs of DDR3 ram.
Anybody denying the presence memory leaks and constant stuttering in this is full of ****.


If you're going to vent out your frustration at some, direct at Ubisoft and their never ending ******** with these PC releases.
No driver in the world is going to rectify ****ty coding.

You do realize that 6GB is the minimum spec, right?

RTSS shows over 8GB usage for me, so maybe that's why it's running like crap for you.

Pekmez-Pita
05-27-2014, 04:13 AM
You do realize that 6GB is the minimum spec, right?

RTSS shows over 8GB usage for me, so maybe that's why it's running like crap for you.

Mhmm. Then explain why users with Titan cards and upwards to 16 gigs of ram are experiencing the same issues?
The random stuttering, especially during driving sequences, has been well documented by several players over these past few days.

If i can run behemoth like Planetside 2 on its highest settings during the busiest of Alerts without any ****ing hiccups, i should be able to run this glorified GTA clone at its lowest settings at least.

Conclusion: ****ty port is ****ty.

Rubble The Dj1
05-27-2014, 04:13 AM
Don't worry. The game runs like crap on Nvidia cards too. My specs: Win7x64, i7 920 @ 3.8GHz, GTX 660 SC, 6 Gigs of DDR3 ram.
Anybody denying the presence of memory leaks and the constant stuttering in this is full of ****.


If you're going to vent out your frustration at some, direct at Ubisoft and their never ending ******** with these PC releases.
No driver in the world is going to rectify ****ty coding.

someone beat me to it, but yeah your rams the bare minimum needed, your gpu isnt bad but also older than a good few years now and i cant comment on ur cpu as iv never used one

im on i5 2500k clocked up to 4.6ghz by myself, a gtx 760 gigabyte OC 2 gig card, and 8 gig of g.skillz ripjaw ram, got my settings on all high ultra on water and level of detail along with either txaa x4 or something and the hbao+ setting to high. game runs much better than i was expeting BEFORE i read the drivel in here about how crap it is while waiting to finish downloading. in free market capitalist reality we find our selves in, 2 rival gfx xard companies using their economic and engineering prowess to best each other is just fair game. unlike the huge rise in extremely right wing political parties world wide and the rise of fascism in places like ukraine uk and usa...


first world problems :/

Rubble The Dj1
05-27-2014, 04:16 AM
Mhmm. Then explain why users with Titan cards and upwards to 16 gigs of ram are experiencing the same issues?
The random stuttering, especially during driving sequences, has been well documented by several players over these past few days.

If i can run behemoth like Planetside 2 on its highest settings during the busiest of Alerts without any ****ing hiccups, i should be able to run this glorified GTA clone at its lowest settings at least.

Conclusion: ****ty port is ****ty.

could be any reason to be fair, could be that they are silly enough to sli in the first place and be so die hard they have it on in watch dogs even though it seems to be fairly obvious the game isnt dealing with sli all that well yet. maybe you ca nexplain why my much less uber rig with only a lowly single 2gig card runs the game flat out on almost ultra at great frames with no stutter whatsoever :/

jeffies04
05-27-2014, 04:25 AM
...maybe you ca nexplain why my much less uber rig with only a lowly single 2gig card runs the game flat out on almost ultra at great frames with no stutter whatsoever :/

This is what I expected to see. Every PC is like a human body... the best of the best and worst of the worst is going to perform differently on each. From user-installed software to the silicon lottery there are a million reasons one thing runs different here than there. Trick is finding out why, if it's a user fix, a patch fix, or what. We're not even into day 1 hold tight folks.

I have no idea what to expect tomorrow, myself, but I am planning on some level of tweaking to be done.

Pekmez-Pita
05-27-2014, 04:28 AM
maybe you ca nexplain why my much less uber rig with only a lowly single 2gig card runs the game flat out on almost ultra at great frames with no stutter whatsoever :/

Umm, you're lying/deluded? Take a pick.

Also, i said nothing about SLI. This **** doesn't even support it properly, anyway.

D_cover
05-27-2014, 05:11 AM
The game has just been released in my experience AMD has always had drivers that were not up to par with Nvidia even when AMD was promoted on the game. My friend had a ROG that struggled to play Saints Row the third due to poor drivers.

So I really question if Nvidia is giving perk to Ubisoft to cripple AMD drivers. Is it down to AMD to develop the drivers for the game anyway?

Rubble The Dj1
05-27-2014, 05:15 AM
for calling me a liar im going to enable desktop capture in shadowplay, just so i can "prove" my games legit, and then show you the game running fine

Xengre
05-27-2014, 05:20 AM
Ignore that article. Is it bad, arguably in some aspects YES and no in others. AMD is free to optimize the game for standard techniques and obviously not for Nvidia related technologies. AMD does similar stuff with TressFX and past technologies. The article is mostly BS and the main culprit here may be lack of time AMD spent optimizing the game to work on their GPUs for PC. Note that PS4/Xbox One GPUs are AMD. Yeah...


Mhmm. Then explain why users with Titan cards and upwards to 16 gigs of ram are experiencing the same issues?
The random stuttering, especially during driving sequences, has been well documented by several players over these past few days.

If i can run behemoth like Planetside 2 on its highest settings during the busiest of Alerts without any ****ing hiccups, i should be able to run this glorified GTA clone at its lowest settings at least.

Conclusion: ****ty port is ****ty.

With the latest nvidia drivers for the Watch Dogs release I am not having issues. Btw Planetside 2 is absolutely NOT a behemoth of any sort. Hitman Absolution and Crysis 3 are. If you or anyone else is curious as to what kind of rig and FPS I have then check my performance thread. http://forums.ubi.com/showthread.php/881907-Performance-(FPS)-for-the-curious

D_cover
05-27-2014, 06:07 AM
Mhmm. Then explain why users with Titan cards and upwards to 16 gigs of ram are experiencing the same issues?
The random stuttering, especially during driving sequences, has been well documented by several players over these past few days.

If i can run behemoth like Planetside 2 on its highest settings during the busiest of Alerts without any ****ing hiccups, i should be able to run this glorified GTA clone at its lowest settings at least.

Conclusion: ****ty port is ****ty.

It's day one release give the guys a break. Lets not forget the issues Planetside 2 had on release as well and how much patching that took to fix.

Rubble The Dj1
05-27-2014, 06:53 AM
Umm, you're lying/deluded? Take a pick.

Also, i said nothing about SLI. This **** doesn't even support it properly, anyway.

http://youtu.be/yAkCRo_UC9M clearly lying AND deluded. my rig is no monster, i havent ha d a single crash and the only time iv had any framey weirdness was when i fired up shadowplay recording at fairly high bitrate just to capture the graphics as well as i could to show you im not actually full of it.

AbundantCores
05-30-2014, 02:52 PM
Look at the state of this stuttering mess, AMD need to be given proper access.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oxtel5strVs

Panicx2014
05-30-2014, 03:25 PM
Quit blaming nvidia already.
Nvidia has the best GPUs.

AMD users are just butthurt because people with cheaper nvidia cards get better performances.

DennisZ83
05-30-2014, 03:49 PM
pc gaming is growing the last 5+ years and now you try to break it out? do we need 2 pc in 10 years to play all games on the pc? just like xbox one and ps4? (nvidia games and amd games ...)
sad future coming