Witcher 3 Dev says Nvidia HairWorks unoptimizable for AMD GPUs

Nvidia HairWorks unoptimizable for AMD GPUs

Witcher 3 Dev calls Nvidia HairWorks unoptimizable for AMD GPUs

Witcher 3 Dev says Nvidia HairWorks unoptimizable for AMD GPUs

 

Nvidia's GameWorks Library has always been controversial, being called a "Black Box" by both devs and hardware vendors in the past and being seen by many of us on the PC hardware scene as a way for Nvidia to work in an anti-competitive manner if they wish.

While the GameWorks library does place into the hands of developers a great collection of graphical tools and can greatly simplify game development, however the fact that these libraries are closed to most of it's users makes it a difficult thing to optumise for if you are not using an Nvidia GPU. 

Here is a statement made by  CD Project's Marcin Momot, claiming that Nvidia's HairWorks code cannot be optimized to perform well on AMD GPUs;

 

"Many of you have asked us if AMD Radeon GPUs would be able to run NVIDIA’s HairWorks technology – the answer is yes! However, unsatisfactory performance may be experienced as the code of this feature cannot be optimized for AMD products. Radeon users are encouraged to disable NVIDIA HairWorks if the performance is below expectations."

 

 

Marcin Momot's statement is not regarding Nvidia's GameWorks "black Box" nature, as CD Project do have access to the libraries source code, however even with such access CD Project Red were unable to optimize HairWorks on order to play nicely with AMD GPUs, giving Nvidia a distinct advantage when playing the Witcher 3. The feature may be hard coded to not work well with AMD GPUs, rather than simply unoptimized.

There is a chance that AMD will release a driver update which will help AMD perform better when using HairWorks, but without access to the programs code it may take some time. 

Like many other titles which use GameWorks, Nvidia are the performance leaders, but this again raises the question of Nvidia artificially giving their GPUs an advantage over the competition. Nvidia need to promote fairness with their GameWork's Library for it to be truly beneficial to the gaming world, as right now it is doing a great job of promoting Nvidia over AMD, via questionable methods, rather than simpler game development.

 

You can join the discussion on Nvidia's HairWorks being unoptimizable on AMD products on the OC3D Forums.

 

 

Witcher 3 Dev says Nvidia HairWorks tech is unoptimizable for AMD GPUs, encouraging Radeon users to disable the feature...

Posted by OC3D on Friday, 15 May 2015
«Prev 1 Next»

Most Recent Comments

15-05-2015, 13:49:51

WYP
Witcher 3 Dev says Nvidia HairWorks tech is unoptimizable for AMD GPUs, encouraging Radeon users to disable the feature for higher performance. Is Nvidia's GameWorks Tech anti-competitive?

http://www.overclock3d.net/gfx/artic...132126332l.jpg

Read more on HairWorks being unoptimizable on AMD GPUs here.Quote

15-05-2015, 14:07:40

BoldarBlood
How is this anti-competitive? If nVidia created something that is desirable to a developer (ie. makes their product better), why should it be expected to be used to help nVidia's competition?

The solution to simply disable a feature if you don't have the hardware for it seems prefectly reasonable.Quote

15-05-2015, 14:27:14

Thelosouvlakia
Oh for f sake. AMD released TressFX and told everyone. "hey guys should you need it we can figure out how we can show you how to do it" NVIDIA: "F you"
This is all bad for the gaming comunityQuote

15-05-2015, 14:44:02

Dicehunter
Both sides need to have exclusives features to stay competitive with eachother, AMD need to learn from this so they become more competitive.Quote

15-05-2015, 15:06:32

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
Both sides need to have exclusives features to stay competitive with eachother, AMD need to learn from this so they become more competitive.
Ya lets start an AMD vs Nvidia exlusive gameworks. AMD titles that are gameworks only run well with AMD hardware. Nvidia titles will be the same.. all AAA jump onto the wagon simply because they are being paid. Meaning you can only get some games now because the other one you want won't run well. It will divide the consumer base and AMD will lose along with consumers getting the worst end of the stick. They aren't in a position to challenge them on that front. That's why they are open source and honestly is why I am more apt to go AMD than Nvidia ever again. I won't support their ways.. it's becoming similar to Apple tbh.Quote

15-05-2015, 15:11:48

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
Ya lets start an AMD vs Nvidia exlusive gameworks. AMD titles that are gameworks only run well with AMD hardware. Nvidia titles will be the same.. all AAA jump onto the wagon simply because they are being paid. Meaning you can only get some games now because the other one you want won't run well. It will divide the consumer base and AMD will lose along with consumers getting the worst end of the stick. They aren't in a position to challenge them on that front. That's why they are open source and honestly is why I am more apt to go AMD than Nvidia ever again. I won't support their ways.. it's becoming similar to Apple tbh.
I don't want this to turn into a you said he said BS but it's because AMD are open source that they are in the mess they are in, Open source is good but it can backfire.
Nvidia cards are more popular because they appeal to the "Gaming demographic" which is evident even if you just go by the Steam GPU stats.Quote

15-05-2015, 15:37:41

WYP
It is the fact that Nvidia do not supply AMD with source code for any of GameWorks' components, preventing them from being able to fix issues with their drivers.

Nvidia is really using their dominant position in an irresponsible way and are not promoting competition.

Say what you will about AMD branded games, but they always end up playing equally well on both sides. I can't think of any recent AMD branded game that can be labeled as a bad port. Remember that Tomb Raiders issues were fixed by Nvidia with new drivers, SINCE THEY HAD ACCESS TO SOURCE CODE!!!Quote

15-05-2015, 15:42:55

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsyerproblem View Post
It is the fact that Nvidia do not supply AMD with source code for any of GameWorks' components, preventing them from being able to fix issues with their drivers.

Nvidia is really using their dominant position in an irresponsible way and are not promoting competition.

Say what you will about AMD branded games, but they always end up playing equally well on both sides. I can't think of any recent AMD branded game that can be labeled as a bad port. Remember that Tomb Raiders issues were fixed by Nvidia with new drivers, SINCE THEY HAD ACCESS TO SOURCE CODE!!!
Very true but Nvidia are a business that want to stay ahead and you do not get ahead in business by being the nice guy, Unfortunately.Quote

15-05-2015, 16:09:59

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
Very true but Nvidia are a business that want to stay ahead and you do not get ahead in business by being the nice guy, Unfortunately.
Nvidia have already got enough of an advantage, they don't need to push it in such an underhanded fashion.

They already have G-Sync, Physx and the best GPUs on the market, both in terms of perf/watt and full on performance. At least until AMD launch something better.

Nvidia are no doubt winning right now, but they do not need try to maintain it by deliberately undermining the competition.

TBH after the GTX 970 antics I don't think I'll be buying an Nvidia GPU with my own money, at least for the next generation.Quote

15-05-2015, 16:12:01

BoldarBlood
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsyerproblem View Post
It is the fact that Nvidia do not supply AMD with source code for any of GameWorks' components, preventing them from being able to fix issues with their drivers.

Nvidia is really using their dominant position in an irresponsible way and are not promoting competition.

Say what you will about AMD branded games, but they always end up playing equally well on both sides. I can't think of any recent AMD branded game that can be labeled as a bad port. Remember that Tomb Raiders issues were fixed by Nvidia with new drivers, SINCE THEY HAD ACCESS TO SOURCE CODE!!!
Ok I kinda get it then. AMD wouldn't be taking nVidia's tech, they would jsut be adjusting their own drivers to work with the tech.

But isn't showing the code kind of like giving up the Colonel's secret herbs and spices? See how its done, do it yourself? Change it just enough to avoid a patent lawsuit?Quote

15-05-2015, 16:21:28

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Watsyerproblem View Post
Nvidia have already got enough of an advantage, they don't need to push it in such an underhanded fashion.

They already have G-Sync, Physx and the best GPUs on the market, both in terms of perf/watt and full on performance. At least until AMD launch something better.

Nvidia are no doubt winning right now, but they do not need try to maintain it by deliberately undermining the competition.

TBH after the GTX 970 antics I don't think I'll be buying an Nvidia GPU with my own money, at least for the next generation.
Nvidia are undermining them because they can and because they want to get further ahead, It's just good business.Quote

16-05-2015, 16:11:07

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
Nvidia are undermining them because they can and because they want to get further ahead, It's just good business.
While yes in a business sense they are doing the correct thing, look at Intel. It could be said they were doing good business but we later found out that they were indeed undermining the competition which was AMD. This could turn into that in the future if any evidence arises.Quote

17-05-2015, 02:31:31

Dicehunter
A PS4-PC comparison video was taken down by CDPR as it made the PC version look pretty bad in comparison to the PS4.

Not sure if this is just early code on the PC side or yet another downgrade like with Watch_Dogs but I've learned never to trust developers.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/45188/...r-3/index.html

AND an "insider" leaked info stating the reason for the large list of downgrades is due to the consoles which to be honest I can see being the case considering they can't even hit 1080P 60FPS in 99% of all games.

RedGamingTech, These guys do some pretty in detail analysis of games etc... -

Quote

17-05-2015, 04:28:06

Tripp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
A PS4-PC comparison video was taken down by CDPR as it made the PC version look pretty bad in comparison to the PS4.

Not sure if this is just early code on the PC side or yet another downgrade like with Watch_Dogs but I've learned never to trust developers.

http://www.tweaktown.com/news/45188/...r-3/index.html

AND an "insider" leaked info stating the reason for the large list of downgrades is due to the consoles which to be honest I can see being the case considering they can't even hit 1080P 60FPS in 99% of all games.

RedGamingTech, These guys do some pretty in detail analysis of games etc... -

any links to the insider thing?Quote

17-05-2015, 04:51:08

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripp View Post
any links to the insider thing?
Only what's mentioned in the video.

Although thinking of it logically would you really want your name plastered across the net so the developers can sue the ass off you ? Or would you like to remain anonymous ? Personally I'd remain anonymous.Quote

17-05-2015, 05:29:00

Tripp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
Only what's mentioned in the video.

Although thinking of it logically would you really want your name plastered across the net so the developers can sue the ass off you ? Or would you like to remain anonymous ? Personally I'd remain anonymous.
Yeah agreed mateQuote

17-05-2015, 05:31:57

ShaunB-91
It better not be downgraded. It looks so friggin awesome. PLEASE don't be downgraded.Quote

17-05-2015, 06:58:38

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShaunB-91 View Post
It better not be downgraded. It looks so friggin awesome. PLEASE don't be downgraded.
The German publication GameStar did an in depth look at the original E3 in game trailer and the current PC build they have access to.

Sadly it does look like CDPR downgraded it slightly, Most notably downgraded/reduced was the following -

1. Real-Time Reflections in reflective surfaces such as water, Marble, Mirrors, Glass etc...

2. Level of Horizon Detail

3. Ambient Occlusion

4. Foliage/Tree Density

5. Flexible Water Simulation and water blood spatter

6. Ground/Building Tessellation

7. Forward Lit Soft Particles i.e fire, Smoke, Fog etc...

8. Crowd/Population sizes.


Still looks good but it's a shame game companies do this.


http://i.imgur.com/JmkYBxU.jpgQuote

17-05-2015, 11:13:18

Tripp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
The German publication GameStar did an in depth look at the original E3 in game trailer and the current PC build they have access to.

Sadly it does look like CDPR downgraded it slightly, Most notably downgraded/reduced was the following -

1. Real-Time Reflections in reflective surfaces such as water, Marble, Mirrors, Glass etc...

2. Level of Horizon Detail

3. Ambient Occlusion

4. Foliage/Tree Density

5. Flexible Water Simulation and water blood spatter

6. Ground/Building Tessellation

7. Forward Lit Soft Particles i.e fire, Smoke, Fog etc...

8. Crowd/Population sizes.


Still looks good but it's a shame game companies do this.


http://i.imgur.com/JmkYBxU.jpg
i hope to god this is just a roumor Quote

17-05-2015, 11:24:47

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripp View Post
i hope to god this is just a roumor
Well the above picture was done by GameStar so you can rule that out of the rumour category sadly Quote

17-05-2015, 11:35:33

Feronix
Tbh though, every game looks better in the trailer...Quote

17-05-2015, 11:40:15

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Feronix View Post
Tbh though, every game looks better in the trailer...
It was an ingame trailer, As in it wasn't pre-rendered, As in live gameplay................Quote

17-05-2015, 11:45:05

Tripp
yeah was that at max setting an stuff though? as there has been nothing said on what setting where usedQuote

17-05-2015, 11:46:54

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripp View Post
yeah was that at max setting an stuff though? as there has been nothing said on what setting where used
GameStar used max settings, They even did a 4K video to show it off, Still looked inferior to the original ingame demonstration.Quote

17-05-2015, 11:58:59

Tripp
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
GameStar used max settings, They even did a 4K video to show it off, Still looked inferior to the original ingame demonstration.
well .....why would they even do that, sure it would make more sense to just turn things down on the consolesQuote

17-05-2015, 12:01:00

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tripp View Post
well .....why would they even do that, sure it would make more sense to just turn things down on the consoles
Probably the same reason why Ubisoft were made to make all platforms look the same with Watch_Dogs, Parity.

They don't want any 1 platform to look better.

The only studios left now that aren't bending over for the consoles are those of Star Citizen, Elite Dangerous etc...Quote

17-05-2015, 12:13:03

Dark NighT
Having better trailer/gameplay quality before release is a nice way to generate a ton of hype, which the witcher 3 has by now.

I think its a bad way to present games but im also suprised people still fall for the old goat called hype, in this day it is hard to trust a developer based on bad game after bad game. Aliens Colonial marines was in my eye the pinnicle of how not to do things and then watch dogs came along and everyone believed it at the time, by now it is a forgotten game and no one cares about it anymore.

I think the only difference here is that the gameplay will probably be quite good, in comparison to watch dog's, it was just a open world game in a city that felt dead and the hacking was more of a chore then actual fun.

Still CDPR should know better, put another delay in and get it right.Quote

17-05-2015, 13:14:41

ShaunB-91
Well I reckon both of the side-by-side images looked bad so I can't go off that. :\Quote

17-05-2015, 14:13:38

Tripp
Well we will know know soon enoughQuote

17-05-2015, 14:31:01

NeverBackDown
They never downgraded the graphics.. people just overblow these things and the fact YouTube compression doesn't help. I'llleave this here.. this was why I never worried. http://www.neoseeker.com/news/26837-...ameplay-demos/Quote

17-05-2015, 14:37:50

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
They never downgraded the graphics.. people just overblow these things and the fact YouTube compression doesn't help. I'llleave this here.. this was why I never worried. http://www.neoseeker.com/news/26837-...ameplay-demos/
Pointless.

Compared to earlier in game demos the graphics are lesser, Not as rich.

Unless you are blind it's easy to see.Quote

17-05-2015, 14:49:57

Thelosouvlakia
Royally ed off to be honest with the graphics game. Everyone should agree on standards and make everything open source and let the best silicon win the war...

[Games are still far from 'real' at least with the current harware and APIs. Good to some APIs try to bring more lifelike graphics to us, but I don't like the "closed" and all. (as a consumer and an enthusiast)]Quote

17-05-2015, 22:08:14

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
Pointless.

Compared to earlier in game demos the graphics are lesser, Not as rich.

Unless you are blind it's easy to see.
Pointless if you don't read the article and the fact no one here knows how game development works. SPS is really the only qualified one to talk about this.. along with the person interviewed in the article. If you read it-

"They look totally different because at the time we were using a very old shader system. It wasn't this physically based shader with all the reflections and the shining metals and everything. It was very -- it was a little bit flatter. Some things were very sharp, or too sharp even. We had some problems with the vegetation that they had a sharpening filter that didn't work. After a while it was uncomfortable for the eyes. It's very hard to describe. When walking through the forest very sharp vegetation was terrible. So we changed the whole shader system, we put in the PBR (he did not clarify what it was) system. Then one year later we did this 35-minute demo in Novigrad.. (muffled) demo and so on walking through the forest. And it just keeps getting nicer and nicer. It's one of the most beautiful games ever made, probably."

That explains it really, along with the fact that he says this- which people overlook.
"There also something that people probably have to understand, is that it's very unfair to compare trailers and gameplay demos. A trailer is a beautiful shot. A trailer is this prepared -- you take one location, you put the perfect lights and the perfect camera angle and the perfect set-up. It looks set-up so it is beautiful and it is captured at super high definition and you post-process it and -- it's a trailer. It's a trailer and we pick beautiful shots." A demo is not a trailer. Cannot be compared, yet everyone is anyways. Even if you compare gameplay demo's, just the first quote alone explains everything.

I'm not blind. I already knew they changed something to do with the lightning system, it was clearly different. The only blind people are the ones who know nothing of game development and just rage at something and accuse of making it worse when they really just changed something. Even if the kept the "better version" he implies it would not have been very optimised, as they changed render techniques to make it better(to them it's better, i won't argue, they know more than i do) and better optimization. Would you rather have ty optimization or slightly "worse" visuals? Ya not a hard thing to choose on.Quote

17-05-2015, 23:09:58

shambles1980
well lets be fair to the nay sayers.
They always have a reason why it looks worse at release than when they showed you what you would be pre ordering..
and they wont say
"well we didnt want to do that much work so we just cranked it down a level so we didn't have to optimize the code much more."
Im not saying that is what they did do.. But if it was what they did they wouldnt just say that..
they would say something like..
"Well it was too sharp and some things that no one else ever saw looked bad. so we changed every thing. and now it looks better, honestly.."Quote

17-05-2015, 23:45:59

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by shambles1980 View Post
well lets be fair to the nay sayers.
They always have a reason why it looks worse at release than when they showed you what you would be pre ordering..
and they wont say
"well we didnt want to do that much work so we just cranked it down a level so we didn't have to optimize the code much more."
Im not saying that is what they did do.. But if it was what they did they wouldnt just say that..
they would say something like..
"Well it was too sharp and some things that no one else ever saw looked bad. so we changed every thing. and now it looks better, honestly.."
No that's what negative people think. Only other game in recent memory that has done this was Watch Dogs. But look at who was backing it, Ubisoft. They don't exactly have an amazing track record. CDPR on the other hand do. I'd be more apt to let it go with them than Ubisoft as would any other sane person. CDPR promised free dlc(all of them) and they are honoring that, only other company I know of currently that does that is Eugen Systems(makes the Wargame series). They aren't shady like other AAA studios are. Know who is making the DRM free GOG galaxy? CDPR. I'd say thats a very good start for that track record of theirs along with free dlc. Only reason why people find something to point the finger at is because they probably so over hyped it in their heads that the actual game itself didn't meet it and they got mad and pointed out some slight graphical changes. It's honestly being way overblown due to it's popularity. If this game didn't have as much popularity nobody would have cared. But Media for the win.Quote

18-05-2015, 01:36:42

Dicehunter
Pointless yet again.

Ubisoft came up with similar claims saying pretty much the same thing about Watch_Dogs.

This is just the devs saying "We had to leave out certain graphical elements that we originally showed you all because it was too much work".

Taking a dev at their word is like trusting a politician, You just don't do it.Quote

18-05-2015, 01:51:21

NeverBackDown
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dicehunter View Post
Pointless yet again.

Ubisoft came up with similar claims saying pretty much the same thing about Watch_Dogs.

This is just the devs saying "We had to leave out certain graphical elements that we originally showed you all because it was too much work".

Taking a dev at their word is like trusting a politician, You just don't do it.
They aren't Ubisoft. No sense in continuing this. I mean it's pointless right? You've already formed an opinion and nothing I say will matter to you. Won't waste my time any further thenQuote

18-05-2015, 01:57:52

Dicehunter
Quote:
Originally Posted by NeverBackDown View Post
They aren't Ubisoft. No sense in continuing this. I mean it's pointless right? You've already formed an opinion and nothing I say will matter to you. Won't waste my time any further then
You mean devs don't lie and you have to believe everything they say ? Shocker... Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.