> But GameWorks' capabilities are necessarily Nvidia-optimized; such code may perform poorly on AMD GPUs. From the arstechnica article about Witcher 3. How da

> But GameWorks' capabilities are necessarily Nvidia-optimized; such code may perform poorly on AMD GPUs. From the arstechnica article about Witcher 3. How dare Nvidia optimize their game enhancing effects for Nvidia hardware and forget to do it for their competitors hardware as well! And as for a lot of these complaints, could it be that a lot of companies only optimize for hardware that has the largest market share? According to the steam hardware survey in July of 2023, Nvidia accounts for 75% of the GPUs[0]. Nvidia and Amd have a lot of incompatibilities, and it can be hard to make the same code performant on both. It makes sense, as a game company, to prioritize optimizations for the largest market. No collusion and evil corporate mega lord scheming needed for this. Edit: Also, Nvidia does put out a lot of research efforts for free. Path rendering on the GPU for example (PhysX being another). You can find research papers and videos published by Nvidia for these things. I would consider that practical work. You can hate on Nvidia for lots of things, but this is one thing I find weird to be combative over. Second Edit: Also, why do you find the statements Nvidia said about the PhysX improvements funny? They’re right. Most games 13 years ago left a lot of idle time on the GPU while the CPU worked overtime to do logic, physics, sound, culling, etc. Lots of that stuff has also been moved to the GPU to minimize the amount of idle time on either the CPU or GPU. Nothing funny about what they said there. [0]: https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/ https://store.steampowered.com/hwsurvey/