[MENTION=271931]adityak469[/MENTION] I will shut this down once and for all,
[MENTION=60024]NVIDIAGeek[/MENTION] I thought you knew facts
Its about damn time I bring my keyboard close.
Couple of facts first up:
-GameWorks in Watch_Dogs is only doing the HBAO and HBAO+ implementations and nothing else at all. So if you want to turn gameworks features off in WD you can 100% do that.
-AMD's (robert hallock) claims about some of the documentation and examples missing were 100% false. They just couldn't be bothered to find them on NV's site.
Next i am going to Quote this PCper object
NVIDIA has properly opened up the GameWorks program for developers to accelerate and optimize specific features for AMD hardware should they choose to do so. Only NVIDIA-only features like PhysX and TXAA remained in the "black box" form.
NVIDIA and AMD Fight over NVIDIA GameWorks Program: Devil in the Details | PC Perspective
So right out of the gate there are three blatant inaccuracies with AMD's statements
All the articles on this subject are just bullcrap, unjustified and without any substantial proof. I'm sure most of you are already aware of the AMD side of the argument since it's the only one getting actual publicity with this subject and also because of the tendency to wave the pitch fork for NOTHING against nvidia.
However here are some opinions from people who aren't actually PR employees of either AMD or Nvidia but people who have experience with gameworks and dealing with AMD and Nvidia: so time to open your both eyes and check what they have, because these are serious guys you better start believing in.
First up John McDonal, ex-nvidia employee, worked on watch dogs and on the gameworks implementation. No longer an Nvidia employee:
Excerpts from his tweets
he said that it was utterly frustrating to see an article criticizing work one did at former employer and not able to comment on the one person who they were quoting from is full of unsubstantiated bullshite, he also thanked forbes for that. John actually had never spoken for nvidia, and he was in the dev tech for 6 years and he says that "never, not a single time it was asked to a developer to deny title access to AMD or remove things that were beneficial to AMD. He directly refuted that fact that GW locked out AMd from optimization saying that "everything visible goes thry the GPU and everything goes thru the GPU goes thru the driver , so yes i dispute it"
Because the article was about what "he" did because HE was engineer in ubisoft montreal for watch_dgos. the fact that amd doesnt get source code DOES NOT preclude the ability to optimize or analyze. Drivers still sees complete call sequence and shader which were enough for optimization. moral is You DO NOT need source code to optimize.
Next up is Intel's Graphics Lead Andrew Lauritzen:
AMD isn't quite the white knight you make them out to be here. For instance while they seem to unofficially "say" that game devs are allowed to modify the TressFX code (although they have no license to say as much), they will not allow other IHVs to post optimized versions. Mantle is similar... to the press they say that they want it to be portable and would discuss standardizing it but have so far refused to even share specs with other IHVs let alone have a discussion. Really not that different from GW in practice, they've just managed to avoid getting press attention about it so far.
Anyways enough said really. As I noted none of this is new at all... folks who think this hasn't been the situation since day one are just fooling themselves. Pretty much all IHVs are entirely self-serving and their actions are mostly equivalent... the only thing that varies is the PR spin.
No it doesn't... Gameworks is just a library that happens to use DirectX. It's not some nefarious "engine layer" or something that you have to sign over your soul to use and henceforth all of your code gets sent to NVIDIA for inspection before being run on any piece of hardware
Quote:
If you think IHVs require access to C++ source code to see how an application is using the GPU - in detail - I've got some news for you How would driver optimizations even be possible if this was the case?
NVIDIA Game Works, good or bad? - Page 8 - Beyond3D Forum
Lauritzen on AMD not being interested in talking about giving intel or Nvidia access to mantle despite publicly stating otherwise:
Quote:
We have asked them for specs several times (which would be step one) and they have refused.
referring there to specs in order to get an idea how to possibly make drivers for it [mantle]
NVIDIA Game Works, good or bad? - Page 8 - Beyond3D Forum
In the end the whole argument about Gameworks being terrible and evil comes from the fact that the libraries are proprietary (they btw are open for devs who license them). And because they are (or were, considering that only the libraries for the NV only features are closed from devs) people have for some reason collectively decided that there must be some AMD crippling happening. Without any actual proof.
In fact if it was not for GW, you guys would be infuriated to see WORSE optimized games for PC as games are always primarily aimed at console and the ported, there's a good chance games developed primarily for consoles like Watch_Dogs , Far Cry 3, Crysis series, etc. would have even WORSE optimizations than they already have.
- How does aiding a developer port a game they may not have the resources to bring to PC "hurt the PC gaming community"? Arguably, without the resources and time NVIDIA pour into GameWorks / the PC gaming industry wouldn't be where it is today. Same goes for Gaming Evolved from AMD.
So anyone still want make a claim against GW as how it crippled AMDs capabilities, its high time to get the facts right and get rid of the blindness that prevails.
COURTESY -- oc.NET, beyond3d, pcper, tweeter
