Nvidia Responds to Witcher 3 HairWorks Controversy

WYP

News Guru
Nvidia Responds to Witcher 3 HairWorks Controversy, saying that AMD's Tessellation Performance is to blame, not Nvidia.

15132126332l.jpg


Read more on Nvidia's Response here.
 
Last edited:
According to Nvidia, developers can, under certain licensing circumstances, gain access to (and optimize) the GameWorks code, but cannot share that code with AMD for optimization purposes.
nwPBbZP.png


I'm sure AMD cards could run it better if they were allowed access to the code. But no, as usual both companies are gonna flat out refuse to work together. Understandable but so f*cking annoying.
 
Literally don't get what the issue is.

Nvidia provide an FX SDK for devs that runs fast on their own cards - where's the harm in that?
If you don't have an Nvidia card then disable it - it's the same thing with Physx - there's literally no point trying to run it without an Nvidia card. There's no reason why the devs couldn't have also integrated TressFX for dual options. It's all about the time and cost to support both options.
 
Literally don't get what the issue is.

Nvidia provide an FX SDK for devs that runs fast on their own cards - where's the harm in that?
If you don't have an Nvidia card then disable it - it's the same thing with Physx - there's literally no point trying to run it without an Nvidia card. There's no reason why the devs couldn't have also integrated TressFX for dual options. It's all about the time and cost to support both options.

Yeah, be honest about it as AMD was with TressFX, like "Listen, TressFX is proprietary technology" If NVIDIA said the same about their HairWorks all would be fine and good, but don't blame AMD for bad tessalation because they don't have access to the code anyway
 
They could technically implement TressFX in a patch for the people on AMD.

Who cares, this isn't an issue. The issue is HAS THE GAME BEEN GRAPHICALLY DOWNGRADED? :O

The game hasn't be "downgraded" as such but it does not look as good as the E3 ingame demo they showed off previously.
 
They could technically implement TressFX in a patch for the people on AMD.
Sure, if they optimized it properly. Their original TressFX from Tomb Raider took about 20 fps right off and it exists only on Lara. Far Cry 4 with fur runs a lot better on AMD than Tomb Raider with TressFX.
 
nwPBbZP.png


I'm sure AMD cards could run it better if they were allowed access to the code. But no, as usual both companies are gonna flat out refuse to work together. Understandable but so f*cking annoying.


well its one thing to have access to the ip/code..
And its another thing to have copys of the game that they can then look at and tweak drivers for performance to said game..

the harsh fact of it really is. NVIDIA do put a lot of effort in when it comes to optimizing games.
if a game dev sends nvida game keys nvidia uses them and sees what they can do to get more out of the hardware.
When the same game dev sends the same ammount of keys to amd, amd say thanks. then sit on them and dont do anything..
they dont fix issues or drivers untill after the fact usually.. (its like amd want to see how many games sell before they put any effort in to it)
i dont see how it is underhanded not to give amd the code to stuff because they really should not need it.
I have no doubt that the code IS designed to favour nvidia by targeting the parts that nvidia know they do better than amd, but that is just what a competitor would do. if amd did more with game devs during development "which they can" then im sure 1/2 these controversies would not exist..
i swapped to amd cards years ago so you could say i am a amd fan if you are that way inclined. but honestly 1/2 the issue is amd's lack of interest for optimizing.

I agree that it would be a much better world for gamers if all things were Open source.
But then we can argue that about direct x. which should be targeted above and beyond any nvidia/amd code.
And honestly even if they did get the code "which they wont" you would still see the nvida card performing better because as i said they will be targeting aspects of the card they know they do better than amd like tessellation..
So it would still be the same controversies, but you wopuld no longer have the "if we had the code" excuses.
 
they dont fix issues or drivers untill after the fact usually.. (its like amd want to see how many games sell before they put any effort in to it)
i dont see how it is underhanded not to give amd the code to stuff because they really should not need it.

I don't know about you, but the only games AMD have issues with tend to be the ones with Gameworks. If they don't have access to certain parts of the game's code, then they aren't exactly going to be able to do the best they can do with the drivers. Look at major releases that don't have gameworks and see how fine AMD do. GTA V is a good example.

You can draw a clear line between gameworks and AMD cards struggling. Seriously, I've only ever had issues with gameworks games on my 7870 and 280X rigs. Heck, it was never really the case with games that used PhysX and not the full works.


You seem to think that AMD are super lazy due to what the devs of Pcars said.
I'd not call AMD any lazier than Nvidia. They're both s*it in their own special ways.
 
not true..
its not just PCars, almost every game that comes out i have to download the beta drivers to play at good frame rates.
If amd had been working on the games during development then the drivers wouldn't be beta when the games were released..

now its hard to argue against issues with games that are using game works. because a LOT of AAA games do use it. but i cant see any way you could argue there would not be performance issues if they did not.
I do hope that Dx 12 will level out the playing field a bit and make game works less of an issue for these arguments.
But really if all game works does is add features that nvidia cards have the power to exploit and amd cards just dont have the grunt in that particular department then i dont see how it can be argued that the code needs to be shared.
even with the code nvidia would still out perform amd simply due to doing those things that they are targeting better..
and the only other option would be to prevent devs using dream works. which is a bit unfair and even a communistic approach. "if this man cant use this feature, then no one should be allowed too"
and from then on you can argue that every one has to code for dx 9c only because some where out there some guy is gaming with a dx9 card on a windows xp system. or even only use open gl because of the people who do not have a windows system..
It may be a better more unified world in some ways. but we would not have the depths of games we have.

now somethings i think you can argue about is.
nvidia making it so you cant use a nvidia card as a dedicated physx card and a amd card as your main display. That is something that is pretty crappy, and you should be able to chose that as an option if you wanted too.
Historically you were always able to do things like that. you could have a voodoo card + a maxtor or something. so THAT is something that should not be allowed..
But this game works argument is just a bit redundant in my eyes.
If amd had the grunt to do the work then it would not be an issue and amd users could also have the same effects at a similar performance level even without having access to the code.

now as for gta v.. i dont know what you mean by that because i am pretty sure GTAV does use game works. and i did have to download beta drivers to make it playable..
So do you mean GTA v is an example of how game works is an issue because the game was unplayable on the standard drivers, or are you saying that game does not use game works so it does not have issues???

because i dont see the argument either way. even if i am wrong about it using game works. i still had to download beta drivers to make it playable.
And if it does use game works which was the reason it was unplayable on my standard drivers. the beta drivers fixed the issue up straight away, and those were made after release which again proves that if you just work on the game when you have access to it you dont need the code.
 
Last edited:
nwPBbZP.png


I'm sure AMD cards could run it better if they were allowed access to the code. But no, as usual both companies are gonna flat out refuse to work together. Understandable but so f*cking annoying.

No Nvidia want AMD to license it so they can get a paycheck and then allow AMD to optimize for it. If it was open source, say like Mantle was, it wouldn't be an issue.

Literally don't get what the issue is.

Nvidia provide an FX SDK for devs that runs fast on their own cards - where's the harm in that?
If you don't have an Nvidia card then disable it - it's the same thing with Physx - there's literally no point trying to run it without an Nvidia card. There's no reason why the devs couldn't have also integrated TressFX for dual options. It's all about the time and cost to support both options.

That's not the issue. The issue is the fact they want AMD to pay them to make the game perform better on AMD cards. It's also the fact that the devs didn't add any competing tech from AMD so AMD users can experience the game like it should have been. It's catering to one company. So just because I bought something else means my experience of the game should be less than someone else who bought a different card but the same game? The excuse can be "disable it", but then the game looks worse just because I own something else. Why? It's just Nvidia trying to get full control on the market. Yet again Nvidia do something shady, people let it go. AMD did this people would blow up about it.

well its one thing to have access to the ip/code..
And its another thing to have copys of the game that they can then look at and tweak drivers for performance to said game..

No it's the fact that the majority of it is Gameworks. It was Gameworks from the start. Ya they can tweak from what they can see, still doesn't change the fact that they can't make the game look better and improve the expierence when gameworks is enabled. Nothing else matters at that point. You're getting something less than what you should be getting due to not buying some different companies card. It should not support either and rely on optimization for both with the best possible graphics they could pump out. CDPR have pretty much always had Nvidia closer than AMD, which explains this.
 
Last edited:
That's not the issue. The issue is the fact they want AMD to pay them to make the game perform better on AMD cards. It's also the fact that the devs didn't add any competing tech from AMD so AMD users can experience the game like it should have been. It's catering to one company. So just because I bought something else means my experience of the game should be less than someone else who bought a different card but the same game? The excuse can be "disable it", but then the game looks worse just because I own something else. Why? It's just Nvidia trying to get full control on the market. Yet again Nvidia do something shady, people let it go. AMD did this people would blow up about it.

They want AMD to pay them, what?

This has always been the case with IHV IP. See PhysX.
 
They want AMD to pay them, what?

This has always been the case with IHV IP. See PhysX.

Obviously because it's IP and needs to be licensed. You missed the point entirely, did you even read anything else? In order for AMD to make the game look and have the same experience as people with Nvidia cards, they have to pay Nvidia to do so. How is that fair to consumers? Because some people buy AMD cards they automatically get a slightly worse product and maybe even performance issues? How does that benefit anyone but Nvidia? Nvidia are doing more and more gameworks titles.. soon many AAA releases will be Nvidia Gameworks supported. That will make no one buy AMD and hurt the market. Don't see how it's good business. No one ever gives Nvidia shit.. or not nearly enough. AMD always gets it worse. Barnsely would agree on that too.
 
Obviously because it's IP and needs to be licensed. You missed the point entirely, did you even read anything else? In order for AMD to make the game look and have the same experience as people with Nvidia cards, they have to pay Nvidia to do so. How is that fair to consumers? Because some people buy AMD cards they automatically get a slightly worse product and maybe even performance issues? How does that benefit anyone but Nvidia? Nvidia are doing more and more gameworks titles.. soon many AAA releases will be Nvidia Gameworks supported. That will make no one buy AMD and hurt the market. Don't see how it's good business. No one ever gives Nvidia shit.. or not nearly enough. AMD always gets it worse. Barnsely would agree on that too.

No, devs are choosing to use GameWorks.
Why? Because they get great visuals that run well on a large user base of hardware.
Nvidia are simply releasing licensed tech that they've created to work well on their hardware - and they are completely in their right to do this if they want.

Just because Nvidia release new tech under GameWorks doesn't mean that a developer must integrate it into their title to run on Nvidia hardware, it's up to the developer.

And yes of course this benefits Nvidia, this is why they spend so much on R&D. It's their business strategy.

Also, I personally don't like it when a developer chooses to heavily invest in only one solution as it doesn't benefit everyone, but I also understand that it can be heavy on resources to support both and not always a viable development option. Equally writing your own solution for both IHVs that looks great and performs well is just not achievable for every developer.
 
No, devs are choosing to use GameWorks.
Why? Because they get great visuals that run well on a large user base of hardware.
Nvidia are simply releasing licensed tech that they've created to work well on their hardware - and they are completely in their right to do this if they want.

Just because Nvidia release new tech under GameWorks doesn't mean that a developer must integrate it into their title to run on Nvidia hardware, it's up to the developer.

And yes of course this benefits Nvidia, this is why they spend so much on R&D. It's their business strategy.

Also, I personally don't like it when a developer chooses to heavily invest in only one solution as it doesn't benefit everyone, but I also understand that it can be heavy on resources to support both and not always a viable development option. Equally writing your own solution for both IHVs that looks great and performs well is just not achievable for every developer.

Like I said, more games are coming with gameworks. It's going to end up hurting the consumers and AMD. I know Nvidia can do this, it's just the fact they came up with this and are using their marketing power over AMD to get more support.
 
Back
Top