4 ms·

> The issue here isn't that at all. The issue is a turn-key hair rendering solution. That is incorrect. The issue here is hair rendering which AMD has a turn-

> The issue here isn't that at all. The issue is a turn-key hair rendering solution. That is incorrect. The issue here is hair rendering which AMD has a turn-key solution for it: TressFX.

zamalek 11y ago
Right, I stand corrected. However, do keep in mind that NVIDIA had similar performance issues during the Tomb Raider launch - and instead of complaining about it NVIDIA stepped in and, as I've been saying, helped the game developer improve TessFx compatibility with their cards.
- the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
  Note that the source of TressFX is fully available in the DX samples. This cannot be said about whatever Nvidia does which cannot be disclosed to IHVs.
  - zamalek 11y ago
    > Note that the source of TressFX is fully available in the DX samples What does that have to do with my core point of AMD sitting back and complaining? > This cannot be said about whatever Nvidia does which cannot be disclosed to IHVs. NVIDIA provides restricted source to everything but TXAA, PhysX and beta libraries.[1] I'll re-iterate my point: AMD would have access to the code if they walked in the door. [1]: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-over-NVIDIA-GameWorks-Program-Devil-Details/NVIDIAs-Response http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-...
    - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
      > What does that have to do with my core point of AMD sitting back and complaining? AMD: here is the code, optimize it. NVidia: there is the binary blob (you can't look at the code), feel free to make your card exhibit the same performance characteristics as our geforce reference cards without infringing on our patents. No, you can't change the code. You could hot patch game executables though. AMD is not allowed to look at the source.
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
      - deleted 11y ago
        [deleted]
    - Narishma 11y ago
      I think the issue is that the licensing of GameWorks, which HairWorks is part of, prevents the game developer from sharing it's source code with anyone other than other licensees. That means AMD has to reverse engineer it if they want to optimize their drivers for it. That isn't the case for TressFX, which is freely available to anyone and allowed Nvidia to quickly add support for it after Tomb Raider released.
      - zamalek 11y ago
        Right, that makes sense. It may not be an issue depending on which conflicting piece of information you go with.[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9582304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9582304
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- chronid 11y ago
  Do keep in mind that NVIDIA received the code for the game so they could optimize their driver for it [1]. There is no chance of the same happening with AMD and TW3, since at least at the beginning of 2014: 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. See [2] for the source of that statement. The situation is really that different. [1] http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-07-nvidia-apologises-to-tomb-raider-pc-players-plagued-by-geforce-issues http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-07-nvidia-apologis... [2] http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-program-usurps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-...
  - zamalek 11y ago
    It seems as though that might have changed[1] (dated 1 year after yours). In truth those in the AAA industry might only be privy to what is actually going on, as I'm seeing a lot of PR bullshit/he-says-she-says from both sides. If NVIDIA is actively restricting access to the code for HairWorks that is indeed very scummy, however, they would technically still be within their rights. [1]: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-over-NVIDIA-GameWorks-Program-Devil-Details/NVIDIAs-Response http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-...
    - chronid 11y ago
      Yes, the FUD seems to be everywhere, I concur. And we'll never know the truth unless a GameWorks contract gets leaked in full, aka never. Business as usual. :) Intel was still within their right (technically) when it forced their own compiler to compile non-optimized code for AMD CPUs. That does not make it right for us, the customers, this is the point I wanted to make.
      - zamalek 11y ago
        > That does not make it right for us, the customers, this is the point I wanted to make. That's an discussion that's likely to never come to a sensible conclusion :). The AMD/NVIDIA situation is definitely one of the negative outcomes of an open/competitive marketplace.

> The issue here isn't that at all. The issue is a turn-key hair rendering solution. That is incorrect. The issue here is hair rendering which AMD has a turn-key solution for it: TressFX.

zamalek 11y ago

Right, I stand corrected. However, do keep in mind that NVIDIA had similar performance issues during the Tomb Raider launch - and instead of complaining about it NVIDIA stepped in and, as I've been saying, helped the game developer improve TessFx compatibility with their cards.

the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
Note that the source of TressFX is fully available in the DX samples. This cannot be said about whatever Nvidia does which cannot be disclosed to IHVs.
- zamalek 11y ago
  > Note that the source of TressFX is fully available in the DX samples What does that have to do with my core point of AMD sitting back and complaining? > This cannot be said about whatever Nvidia does which cannot be disclosed to IHVs. NVIDIA provides restricted source to everything but TXAA, PhysX and beta libraries.[1] I'll re-iterate my point: AMD would have access to the code if they walked in the door. [1]: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-over-NVIDIA-GameWorks-Program-Devil-Details/NVIDIAs-Response http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-...
  - the_mitsuhiko 11y ago
    > What does that have to do with my core point of AMD sitting back and complaining? AMD: here is the code, optimize it. NVidia: there is the binary blob (you can't look at the code), feel free to make your card exhibit the same performance characteristics as our geforce reference cards without infringing on our patents. No, you can't change the code. You could hot patch game executables though. AMD is not allowed to look at the source.
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
    - deleted 11y ago
      [deleted]
  - Narishma 11y ago
    I think the issue is that the licensing of GameWorks, which HairWorks is part of, prevents the game developer from sharing it's source code with anyone other than other licensees. That means AMD has to reverse engineer it if they want to optimize their drivers for it. That isn't the case for TressFX, which is freely available to anyone and allowed Nvidia to quickly add support for it after Tomb Raider released.
    - zamalek 11y ago
      Right, that makes sense. It may not be an issue depending on which conflicting piece of information you go with.[1] [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9582304 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9582304
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]
chronid 11y ago
Do keep in mind that NVIDIA received the code for the game so they could optimize their driver for it [1]. There is no chance of the same happening with AMD and TW3, since at least at the beginning of 2014: 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. See [2] for the source of that statement. The situation is really that different. [1] http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-07-nvidia-apologises-to-tomb-raider-pc-players-plagued-by-geforce-issues http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2013-03-07-nvidia-apologis... [2] http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-program-usurps-power-from-developers-end-users-and-amd http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/173511-nvidias-gameworks-...
- zamalek 11y ago
  It seems as though that might have changed[1] (dated 1 year after yours). In truth those in the AAA industry might only be privy to what is actually going on, as I'm seeing a lot of PR bullshit/he-says-she-says from both sides. If NVIDIA is actively restricting access to the code for HairWorks that is indeed very scummy, however, they would technically still be within their rights. [1]: http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-over-NVIDIA-GameWorks-Program-Devil-Details/NVIDIAs-Response http://www.pcper.com/reviews/Editorial/NVIDIA-and-AMD-Fight-...
  - chronid 11y ago
    Yes, the FUD seems to be everywhere, I concur. And we'll never know the truth unless a GameWorks contract gets leaked in full, aka never. Business as usual. :) Intel was still within their right (technically) when it forced their own compiler to compile non-optimized code for AMD CPUs. That does not make it right for us, the customers, this is the point I wanted to make.
    - zamalek 11y ago
      > That does not make it right for us, the customers, this is the point I wanted to make. That's an discussion that's likely to never come to a sensible conclusion :). The AMD/NVIDIA situation is definitely one of the negative outcomes of an open/competitive marketplace.