nVidia obfuscating code to sabotage AMD optimisation.

[Edge]

Lets be fair, Nvidia only allowed developers access to the source code last month. Not exactly much time to optimize Watch Dogs, and no time to optimize any other current GameWorks titles (given they are already released).

Gameworks as it was was exactly as reported, now however with developer access to source code optimization can be made for all sorts of hardware and AMD can actually make driver optimizations. So from now on there should be no issues, provided the devs are willing to work with the source code.

What about access to the game source code? That's where AMD & nVidia want to do their optimising. That's where the best gains are achieved. I'm still finding it hard to believe AMD have had that opportunity.

 

[WYP]

What about access to the game source code? That's where AMD & nVidia want to do their optimising. That's where the best gains are achieved. I'm still finding it hard to believe AMD have had that opportunity.

A quote from a pcper article;

NVIDIA was very blunt in stating that AMD’s claim that GameWorks was a “black box” is incorrect by telling me that developers can absolutely get a license for the libraries that includes source code. With that, they are free to make any change to improve performance or stability on NVIDIA or other hardware platforms. NVIDIA offers this option for exactly these reasons, though not all licensors choose to get the “with source code” option. The other difference between the binary-only and source code options of GameWorks is cost, though NVIDIA declined to say by how much.

I kinda mis remembered this thinking that all devs can now access the source code, but it seems only the devs that are willing to pay for it can, which could be problematic.

Larger devs should be able to optimize, but smaller devs..... probably not.

Whether or not AMD can see it, I don't know. Sorry about my previous post, it seems i SLIed. Devs could have to pay a high premium for the access.

 

[Chewme]

“We offer game developers source licensing, and it varies whether or not game developers are interested in that. Now, like any other middleware on earth, if you grant someone a source license, you grant it to them. We don’t preclude them from changing anything and making it run better on AMD.”

I don't know if any of that is true or what kind of license he is talking about, it might just be ubisoft being nvidia fanboys and Epic actually writing their own code.

 

[barnsley]

I don't know if any of that is true or what kind of license he is talking about, it might just be ubisoft being nvidia fanboys and Epic actually writing their own code.

Epic aren't planning to use gameworks. They use PhysX currently and thats about it. They claim they don't want to use gameworks unless they can workout how to make it effectively multi platform. PhysX is effectively multi platform as it uses the cpu if it doesn't have an appropriate gpu to use.

 

[Edge]

I don't know if any of that is true or what kind of license he is talking about, it might just be ubisoft being nvidia fanboys and Epic actually writing their own code.

There's no such thing as fanboyism on a company level. Only business. And money.

 

[Chewme]

Yeah sorry, i completely missed the Epic response in the post.
I'm more worried about how Witcher 3 will run for my AMD brethren, since it uses gameworks if i'm not mistaken.

 

[MacLeod]

Another reason I don't buy nvidia cards. They are a horrible company. Almost everything they do is anti-competitive, monopoly, proprietary, closed etc.

Respectfully disagree brother.

No different than Intel over the years and people still line up for their stuff. All companies are anti-competitive really. They do everything in their power to give themselves the edge with no consideration of their competition. They're obviously not a monopoly because they've only got a little over half the GPU market. Proprietary maybe but it never seems to matter because AMD seems to usually always be beating Nvidia in almost all price points. And most games these days seem to be "optimized" for AMD card according to the msrketing. That's a big change from around 2008 when it seemed like every game had that "Nvidia, the way it's meant to be played" start up screen.

Not really saying I think there is no problem with this but I think it's being overblown a little because it doesn't look to be hindering AMD performance at all when you can get the same performance with an AMD card that costs $150 less!

 

[NeverBackDown]

Respectfully disagree brother.

No different than Intel over the years and people still line up for their stuff. All companies are anti-competitive really. They do everything in their power to give themselves the edge with no consideration of their competition. They're obviously not a monopoly because they've only got a little over half the GPU market. Proprietary maybe but it never seems to matter because AMD seems to usually always be beating Nvidia in almost all price points. And most games these days seem to be "optimized" for AMD card according to the msrketing. That's a big change from around 2008 when it seemed like every game had that "Nvidia, the way it's meant to be played" start up screen.

Not really saying I think there is no problem with this but I think it's being overblown a little because it doesn't look to be hindering AMD performance at all when you can get the same performance with an AMD card that costs $150 less!

I undestand your argument but its not really logical, you can't really use the Intel Vs AMD as a comparison. The difference is Intel has the performance (except on the gpu side, though any serious gamer will buy a dedicated card anyway) but charges more because AMD can't really compete(and cuz they spend more on R&D). They haven't even released any proper FX CPUs and it seems like they aren't even trying. Now on the GPU side in comparison, Nvidia and AMD are releasing new cards all the time that can compete and the only way they can gain edges is by using software to help out the hardware. See the difference? In one market competition is close to nonexistent compared to the other the only way they can gain edges is by attacking the market with different fronts(hardware, software, dev support, etc.)

AMD use Mantle as their edge; however, its open source and Nvidia can make drivers that help it out but they won't since it only helps AMD( as in Mantle will get more popular). Nvidia turns around and uses gameworks which is open source, if you are willing to pay a huge premium. It also locks AMD out and forces them to sort of not really compete what so ever. Not fair competition as they are attempting to completely push them out, it just looks better because they allow devs to better support AMD but Nvidia wants a huge chunk of cash for it that they probably know the dev won't be able to afford.

Though i do disagree i do however still agree AMD still have the price to performance ratio crown. Probably won't change for a long time either as it has been this way for a couple years already with no signs of changing.

 

[MacLeod]

Yeah Intel has the better performing CPU's but they have a long history of doing things that are unethical and even illegal in keeping AMD at a disadvantage. They've been way dirtier than Nvidia has but they seem to get a pass for the most part while it seems everybody is looking to string Nvidia up for this which is pretty minor IMO.

 

[Zoot]

Yeah a lot of companies will try and unfairly tip the balance in their favor if they can do so. It doesn't justify what they're doing. But in essence, you could make the same argument of AMD's Mantle.

I undestand your argument but its not really logical, you can't really use the Intel Vs AMD as a comparison. The difference is Intel has the performance (except on the gpu side, though any serious gamer will buy a dedicated card anyway) but charges more because AMD can't really compete(and cuz they spend more on R&D).

Yeah Intel has the better performing CPU's but they have a long history of doing things that are unethical and even illegal in keeping AMD at a disadvantage.

Intel may have higher performing CPUs, but they have a lot of optimizations/distortions in Windows through their ICC compiler that doesn't carry over to AMD. Cinebench is a prime example.
http://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/documents/cases/091216intelcmpt.pdf [warning - PDF]

The picture changes seriously when you take the ICC compiler out of the picture. In fact if you look at the FX-8350 and i7/i5 when they're both running Linux, the FX is actually seriously competitive with the i7. In Windows it's pitched more at the i5.
http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=amd_fx8350_visherabdver2&num=1

 

[iiBetrayforAR]

What assholes, AMD goes full-on open source, and they treat AMD by kicking them out.