Normal Witcher 3 performance is possible on AMD GPUs

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

OS X is the desktop OS,iOS isn't. You cannot truely multi-task on either iOS or Android,which sets them apart from proper desktop OSes like Windows and OS X.

[Corky34]

http://forums.hexus.net/hexus-news/3...ml#post3472141

Sorry I'm not seeing it, if what you claim was correct why is the 750ti (Maxwell) getting lower frame rates than the 760 (Kepler), that's the reverse of what you say about Kepler doing worse than Maxwell.

Looking at it objectively, I really don't come to that conclusion? AMD have their own exclusive features, but I wouldn't choose them over Nvidia because of them; it works both ways before you accuse me of being biased.

Sorry if you think I accused you of being biased, but it does seem your ignoring the business reasons for wanting to keep certain features exclusive.
You say AMD have their own exclusive features, so why is it OK for AMD to have exclusive features but not Nvidia?

And that matters how exactly?
Edit: Didn't notice when I replied, but yeah CAT is correct. I was referring to iOS, the OS which runs on the iPhone/iPad and the competitor to Android, not OSX. For some reason I read it as something along the lines of 'Windows is desktop, Android is not'.

Apologise that was me confusing OSX and iOS.

The mobile space is very different, yes it may have the free Android OS versus iOS, but the one thing they both have in common is that they attempt to tie people into using one system or another via there apps stores, while one OS is proprietary versus a more open source approach their both attempting the same thing, something that Microsoft is trying to replicate, their all offering what amounts to a system intended to persuade people to choose them over their competitors, at initial purchase and every other purchase after.

For all intents and purpose Android and iOS may as well both be proprietary system, they both achieve the same result of making people more dependant on them than their competitor, that they have an invested interest.

That same proprietary system which is promising to run iOS and Android apps since there are so few on Windows?

And that just goes to show why it's more of a benefit to the underdog when it comes to sharing features.
If Microsoft was being altruistic why hasn't it offered the win32 binaries to iOS and Android so they can run Windows software?

[DanceswithUnix]

I notice on the second graph on http://wccftech.com/witcher-3-initial-benchmarks/ that switching on hairworks on the 285 (where geometry/tessellation was improved) gives it not much worse impact than the GTX 960 so they start and end roughly on par with each other.

So that says to me that GCN1.2 is OK here, just unfortunately they only have one card that uses it.

AMD need to get the 390 out the door.

[shaithis]

Emm,I have not met anyone who is a gamer in real life who actually cares about PhysX or TressFX or any of these effects apart from people like us on forums.

The biggest selling PC games,are not graphical powerhouses. They are games like LoL,DOTA2 and Minecraft. Even Blizzard games don't use any of that tech and are more CPU limited anyway.

I think you'd be surprised how many do want those features. I know several people (including myself) who shy away from AMD cards because of franchises like Batman, Borderlands and Metro. The difference in those titles between Physx and no-Physx can be quite significant.

Of course, a lot of people are going to put price and gameplay ahead of graphics fidelity and those of us who crave the bells and whistles can still enjoy games like SC2 and D3 (as you say, Blizzard are not the biggest users of gpus!) but when you can see the differences on offer and one of them is noticeably more enjoyable to look at, it can be hard to pick the blander one, even more so to choose a graphics card you know excludes you from even having the decision.

[watercooled]

Sorry I'm not seeing it, if what you claim was correct why is the 750ti (Maxwell) getting lower frame rates than the 760 (Kepler), that's the reverse of what you say about Kepler doing worse than Maxwell.

750Ti is a significantly smaller GPU than the 760. You think it's right that the 960 outperforms the 780, and a 290X matches 780Ti SLI?

Sorry if you think I accused you of being biased, but it does seem your ignoring the business reasons for wanting to keep certain features exclusive.
You say AMD have their own exclusive features, so why is it OK for AMD to have exclusive features but not Nvidia?

I was pre-empting it (correctly it seems). At no point have I said it's acceptable for one brand to do something, and another brand to not do it. However, AMD's 'exclusive' features tend to be open anyway, so there's nothing stopping them from running well on GPUs from other manufacturers. That option frequently doesn't exist with Nvidia.

The mobile space is very different, yes it may have the free Android OS versus iOS, but the one thing they both have in common is that they attempt to tie people into using one system or another via there apps stores, while one OS is proprietary versus a more open source approach their both attempting the same thing, something that Microsoft is trying to replicate, their all offering what amounts to a system intended to persuade people to choose them over their competitors, at initial purchase and every other purchase after.

For all intents and purpose Android and iOS may as well both be proprietary system, they both achieve the same result of making people more dependant on them than their competitor, that they have an invested interest.

This is beginning to sound straw-man-ish now. AOSP is open, there's nothing stopping Android-compatible apps being run on different systems, as shown by Blackberry, FireOS and now Windows. The point being that, having a closed system=better for business is a fallacy. It may correlate in some cases, but doesn't in others.

If Microsoft was being altruistic why hasn't it offered the win32 binaries to iOS and Android so they can run Windows software?

It depends on the sort of apps. x86 apps cannot run on ARM, while there are already Android/iOS versions of most of the .NET apps anyway so there's little point either way. And the app compatibility on Windows isn't what I'd consider altruistic, more like an effort to remove a barrier for switching to their OS since their own app marketplace is badly behind the others.

[watercooled]

I think you'd be surprised how many do want those features. I know several people (including myself) who shy away from AMD cards because of franchises like Batman, Borderlands and Metro. The difference in those titles between Physx and no-Physx can be quite significant.

Horses for courses I guess. I had an Nvidia GPU when I played the first Batman and played it with GPU PhysX off as it wasn't worth the performance impact IMO. I also found it more gimmicky than anything - having sparks falling randomly from the sky and stacks of paper flying around, in the words of Shania Twain, didn't impress me much. The smoke was pretty cool, but also seemed a bit excessively used.

I also seem to remember a config change for Borderlands would allow 'GPU PhysX' to run fine on a CPU without an Nvidia card installed.

[Corky34]

750Ti is a significantly smaller GPU than the 760. You think it's right that the 960 outperforms the 780, and a 290X matches 780Ti SLI?

Sorry you said about Kepler doing worse than Maxwell, something that doesn't appearer to be correct.
That's unless you know of other Kepler vs Maxwell comparisons, and not Maxwell vs Maxwell, or dual GPU vs dual GPU.

I was pre-empting it (correctly it seems). At no point have I said it's acceptable for one brand to do something, and another brand to not do it. However, AMD's 'exclusive' features tend to be open anyway, so there's nothing stopping them from running well on GPUs from other manufacturers. That option frequently doesn't exist with Nvidia.

And the only reason their open is because they have everything to gain from their tech being adopted by the market leaders, if AMD was market leader do you think they would still be so altruistic?

This is beginning to sound straw-man-ish now. AOSP is open, there's nothing stopping Android-compatible apps being run on different systems, as shown by Blackberry, FireOS and now Windows. The point being that, having a closed system=better for business is a fallacy. It may correlate in some cases, but doesn't in others.

I didn't say it best business practice in all situations, I said and still say sharing features is only a benefit when either the market is divided equally or you have the smallest market share.
If you have a dominant market share your basically spending time and money to give your competitors a leg up, an advantage, for free no less.

It depends on the sort of apps. x86 apps cannot run on ARM, while there are already Android/iOS versions of most of the .NET apps anyway so there's little point either way. And the app compatibility on Windows isn't what I'd consider altruistic, more like an effort to remove a barrier for switching to their OS since their own app marketplace is badly behind the others.

So exactly as I've laid out, the underdog Microsoft (in mobile) is attempting to provide people with the same secret sauce they find on iOS and Android on their OS, it's of benefit for Microsoft to enable people to run the technology of the market leaders.

[watercooled]

Sorry you said about Kepler doing worse than Maxwell, something that doesn't appearer to be correct.
That's unless you know of other Kepler vs Maxwell comparisons, and not Maxwell vs Maxwell, or dual GPU vs dual GPU.

Are you just being deliberately obtuse? Because Kepler's poor performance is blindingly obvious, seemingly even to the people who are happy to lay the blame solely at AMD's feet for poor performance of GW on AMD cards. And I bolded the SLI part for good reason; a SINGLE 290X matches TWO 780 in SLI. I.e. single GPU vs dual GPU. Crossfire is predictably non-functional so 295X is about the same as a 290X.

And the only reason their open is because they have everything to gain from their tech being adopted by the market leaders, if AMD was market leader do you think they would still be so altruistic?

I've no idea, and nor does it matter in this context. If the positions were swapped I'd be equally critical of AMD.

I said and still say sharing features is only a benefit when either the market is divided equally or you have the smallest market share.
If you have a dominant market share your basically spending time and money to give your competitors a leg up, an advantage, for free no less.

Which is true sometimes, untrue others, just as I said. If PhysX were more widely supported, more games would probably use it as devs wouldn't have to worry about locking features to certain users. As is stands, it's basically only used in about one TWIMTBP game per year.

So exactly as I've laid out, the underdog Microsoft (in mobile) is attempting to provide people with the same secret sauce they find on iOS and Android on their OS, it's of benefit for Microsoft to enable people to run the technology of the market leaders.

You've got it back to front - MS are the ones adopting someone else's technology, not 'being open'.

[watercooled]

http://www.3dmark.com/compare/fs/4740806/fs/2757339

When compared directly to each other, I guess? Note especially how much better the 960 is on the physics benches than the 780, which is relevant given this discussion is all about GameWorks

Missed this post earlier. FYI, the physics score is more CPU based, and the system with the 960 has an 8 core CPU whereas the 780 system has a 6 core.

[DanceswithUnix]

And the only reason their open is because they have everything to gain from their tech being adopted by the market leaders, if AMD was market leader do you think they would still be so altruistic?

They gave away Mantle, so yes I expect they would.

[GuidoLS]

They gave away Mantle, so yes I expect they would.

Is it irony that what's left of Mantle ended up at a consortium led by an executive from Nvidia?

Of course, the whole Mantle thing was never about competing with Nvidia - it was about competing with Microsoft and DX - a fight they would have never won, and unlike Khronos, a fight that probably wouldn't have even managed a stalemate. There's still no guarantee that Vulkan will ever be a real competitor, unfortunately. It's great that Valve is backporting part of their library to OpenGL, and promised support in Source2, but Gabe Newell definitely marches to the beat of his own drum, and a lot of devs may not be willing to join him, and that's the key to the success of Vulkan - dev support. And API is pointless if nobody uses it.

[watercooled]

Is it irony that what's left of Mantle ended up at a consortium led by an executive from Nvidia?

Of course, the whole Mantle thing was never about competing with Nvidia - it was about competing with Microsoft and DX - a fight they would have never won, and unlike Khronos, a fight that probably wouldn't have even managed a stalemate. There's still no guarantee that Vulkan will ever be a real competitor, unfortunately. It's great that Valve is backporting part of their library to OpenGL, and promised support in Source2, but Gabe Newell definitely marches to the beat of his own drum, and a lot of devs may not be willing to join him, and that's the key to the success of Vulkan - dev support. And API is pointless if nobody uses it.

Considering what DX12 offers, I'd say they pretty much got what they set out to achieve whatever way you look at it.

[GuidoLS]

Considering what DX12 offers, I'd say they pretty much got what they set out to achieve whatever way you look at it.

Some did, anyway. Gaben's fantasy of seeing every Microsoft exec ever with a hatchet in their forehead has yet to come to fruition, though.

Seriously, though - it would be nice to see some simultaneous releases of AAA software on both DX and OpenGL. While not a graphics using beast, Obsidian's Pillars of Eternity proved it could be done.

[watercooled]

Maybe we'll see it more with Mantle essentially being absorbed into the OpenGL successor. The move makes a lot of sense when you think about it, rather than competing with two APIs.

[Corky34]

Are you just being deliberately obtuse? Because Kepler's poor performance is blindingly obvious, seemingly even to the people who are happy to lay the blame solely at AMD's feet for poor performance of GW on AMD cards. And I bolded the SLI part for good reason; a SINGLE 290X matches TWO 780 in SLI. I.e. single GPU vs dual GPU. Crossfire is predictably non-functional so 295X is about the same as a 290X.

No but it would seem you're backtracking on what you've previously said, that being "And the reason for equally terrible Kepler performance?" and all the other posts complaining about the "relatively poor performance on Nvidia cards previous to Maxwell", perhaps if you move the goal posts far enough no one will notice.

I've no idea, and nor does it matter in this context. If the positions were swapped I'd be equally critical of AMD.

Of course it matters, the only reason people are up in arms is because company A is using it's market dominance to supposedly adversely effect company B, something that company B would happily do if the roles were reversed, it's called economics, like I said businesses job is to make money.

Which is true sometimes, untrue others, just as I said. If PhysX were more widely supported, more games would probably use it as devs wouldn't have to worry about locking features to certain users. As is stands, it's basically only used in about one TWIMTBP game per year.

And that's still one more game per year than their competitor, more so to choose a graphics card you know excludes you from even having the decision.

You've got it back to front - MS are the ones adopting someone else's technology, not 'being open'.

That's because they have to if they want to compete with the big boys, like I said it benefits the underdog to share with the market leaders not the other way around.

[watercooled]

No but it would seem you're backtracking on what you've previously said, that being "And the reason for equally terrible Kepler performance?" and all the other posts complaining about the "relatively poor performance on Nvidia cards previous to Maxwell", perhaps if you move the goal posts far enough no one will notice.

Would you care to explain where I've backtracked? Because I completely stand by what I said - performance is poor on Nvidia cards previous to Maxwell.

You do understand that the 780 is a Kepler card, right? The only 700 series Maxwell are the 750 cards. I really don't see what's so hard to understand unless you're confusing the model numbers?

However expecting a 750Ti to beat everything Kepler just because it's Maxwell is silly, and not what I implied at any point. Kepler performs comparatively far worse than Maxwell.