Does nvidia dictate what games can and cannot be benched?

[velias]

Preface: This is in NO WAY Related to this website, it is just a trend some have noticed across various reviews not including here. I am just curious, hear me out.

I find it odd that a lot of review sites initially benchmarked Sleeping Dogs, but some of them aren't anymore - same for Dirt: Showdown.

I get it. AMD specific optimizations. Whatever - that is a double edged sword though, we all know that there are titles that favor nvidia, sometimes ridiculously. I'm just really curious because a lot of websites pulling reviews that include Dirt Showdown or Sleeping Dogs. I have no idea if its true, so that's why i'm asking - some are suggesting nvidia are asking these results to be pulled. Sounds pretty stupid to me and I don't think nvidia would do this, but I did want to ask.

[SugarJ]

You'll have to wait for SKYMTL to respond, but I know he resists any outside pressure on what games he benchmarks or how to benchmark them. If you read his reviews, he NEVER uses an in-game canned benchmark as the GPU companies have been known to optimize specifically for these. He usually makes note of the most demanding area or level, and takes a sequence from that.

[supaflyx3]

Dirt Showdown is an AMD sponsored game, so if anything it would run better on AMD cards if that were the case.

[Soultribunal]

Originally Posted by velias

Preface: This is in NO WAY Related to this website, it is just a trend some have noticed across various reviews not including here. I am just curious, hear me out.

I find it odd that a lot of review sites initially benchmarked Sleeping Dogs, but some of them aren't anymore - same for Dirt: Showdown.

I get it. AMD specific optimizations. Whatever - that is a double edged sword though, we all know that there are titles that favor nvidia, sometimes ridiculously. I'm just really curious because a lot of websites pulling reviews that include Dirt Showdown or Sleeping Dogs. I have no idea if its true, so that's why i'm asking - some are suggesting nvidia are asking these results to be pulled. Sounds pretty stupid to me and I don't think nvidia would do this, but I did want to ask.

For all we know Sleeping dogs could have had issues benchmarking (accuracy , repeatability) given that it is a new game. My only thought on that. Otherwise I'll wait for SKY to chime in since he knows best on these things.

-ST

[Soullessone21]

Velias has a good point should reviews not include a larger mix? I think it would be kind of kewl to have 2 extra sections (Nvidia Bias Games) and (AMD Bias Games) as well as the norm. this way we can all have a good laugh when the oppositions card wins over pre configured competition friendly benchmark

[Galcobar]

A larger mix is nice, until you have to spend the additional time performing them without the companies providing the item earlier.

On the Dirt: Showdown front, that's a game which Sky won't use because -- in his words -- "it uses shading routines that skew results wildly in AMD's favor. It is a perfect example of the Gaming Evolved initiative pulling a fast one on performance charts."

[Soultribunal]

Originally Posted by Soullessone21

Velias has a good point should reviews not include a larger mix? I think it would be kind of kewl to have 2 extra sections (Nvidia Bias Games) and (AMD Bias Games) as well as the norm. this way we can all have a good laugh when the oppositions card wins over pre configured competition friendly benchmark

Given the amount of time it takes to do it right, its hard to have that much content on someone who doesn't get paid for his services. Sometimes I think people fail to appriciate the amount of time it takes going into a GPU Review (when you want it done right that is).

Though, it would be good for a sideline kinda thing outside of normal card launches.

-ST

[velias]

Originally Posted by Galcobar

A larger mix is nice, until you have to spend the additional time performing them without the companies providing the item earlier.

On the Dirt: Showdown front, that's a game which Sky won't use because -- in his words -- "it uses shading routines that skew results wildly in AMD's favor. It is a perfect example of the Gaming Evolved initiative pulling a fast one on performance charts."

Preface: Again, these statements are not directed to SKY or this website! Just an observation from other reviewers around the net.

Anyway, We all know certain games favor nvidia as well, like I stated. Pulling a fast one? What? I am not sure what that even means.

I just want to know if nvidia are the ones behind this, I wouldn't think so but it would be completely disingenuous (on their part) if so. I could name a dozen TWIMTBP games that favor nvidia by a large margin. Nvidia has worked with devs, in fact they have a team of 30 or so people who can travel to consult with game developers and they do this frequently. From what I understand AMD just recently started gaming evolved and they're trying to have better dev relations. Praising nvidia for this while punishing AMD for the same reasons doesn't seem right. In fact, there are MANY websites that had these results pulled, I just want to know if nvidia is forcing their hands.

Case in point when the DX11 features of crysis 2 were worked on, nvidia had a team of people "assist" crytek in developing their features, obviously tailored for their hardware since it is a TWIMTBP title. Yes, nvidia flew their people out to crytek and they actually assisted in the programming. AMD has greatly increased tess performance since the cayman series, but this is not a different situation, and there are other games like this as well. Where do you draw the line where its okay to say "Yeah we'll remove this game since it favors the other side"

[Soultribunal]

Originally Posted by velias

Preface: Again, these statements are not directed to SKY or this website! Just an observation from other reviewers around the net.

Anyway, We all know certain games favor nvidia as well, like I stated. Pulling a fast one? What? I am not sure what that even means.

I just want to know if nvidia are the ones behind this, I wouldn't think so but it would be completely disingenuous (on their part) if so. I could name a dozen TWIMTBP games that favor nvidia by a large margin. Nvidia has worked with devs, in fact they have a team of 30 or so people who can travel to consult with game developers and they do this frequently. From what I understand AMD just recently started gaming evolved and they're trying to have better dev relations. Praising nvidia for this while punishing AMD for the same reasons doesn't seem right. In fact, there are MANY websites that had these results pulled, I just want to know if nvidia is forcing their hands.

Case in point when the DX11 features of crysis 2 were worked on, nvidia had a team of people "assist" crytek in developing their features, obviously tailored for their hardware since it is a TWIMTBP title. Yes, nvidia flew their people out to crytek and they actually assisted in the programming. AMD has greatly increased tess performance since the cayman series, but this is not a different situation, and there are other games like this as well. Where do you draw the line where its okay to say "Yeah we'll remove this game since it favors the other side"

I can't speak for everything you said here but I want to touch on something.
If a GPU company is going to invest its own dollars to make my gaming experience (be it AMD or nVidia) better, I am all for that. People like to witch hunt and cry wolf that one company does it more than another or does it for certain games, but at the end of this spy vs spy drama we get enthralled in , all I care about is that my game runs good, and without massive crashes glitches (AMD and EVE , or WoT, or WoW never worked right) I am happy.

Personally I think its about time that GPU companies do more hand in hand with game developers so that way patches are less intense and things just work better and more refined out of the box. Much better strategy than release now and patch later.

My thoughts.

Again, as for any one company putting pressure, I cannot say. I can say however that I've know SKY to refuse to do things the way some companies want if he feels it will skew results.

-ST

[velias]

Originally Posted by Soultribunal

I can't speak for everything you said here but I want to touch on something.
If a GPU company is going to invest its own dollars to make my gaming experience (be it AMD or nVidia) better, I am all for that. People like to witch hunt and cry wolf that one company does it more than another or does it for certain games, but at the end of this spy vs spy drama we get enthralled in , all I care about is that my game runs good, and without massive crashes glitches (AMD and EVE , or WoT, or WoW never worked right) I am happy.

Personally I think its about time that GPU companies do more hand in hand with game developers so that way patches are less intense and things just work better and more refined out of the box. Much better strategy than release now and patch later.

My thoughts.

Again, as for any one company putting pressure, I cannot say. I can say however that I've know SKY to refuse to do things the way some companies want if he feels it will skew results.

-ST

I agree with you, great post. I think its great for AMD - nvidia to fight for the consumer dollar, and if AMD is trying to work with devs (which they generally haven't in the past) I think that's great. NVidia have done this for years and its about time AMD realized why people generally prefer nvidia over AMD. I myself have greatly preferred nvidia for the past few years - frankly, because multi GPU profile support seems better (and that is imporant since I run SLI at 2560x1600) but generally can go either way. My entire question is to the principle, mostly.

Also I have no doubt that SKY does not succumb to any type of pressure - i've always enjoyed the reviews here.