Note to tech press: we don’t need permission to play a game, drivers or not.

Well, it's using Unreal engine 5 right? So what optimisation is this going to need that Hellblade 2, Robocop, and the various other games and tech demos that have been out for UE5 for a while wouldn't have benefitted from?

At some point there's either a bug in the drivers or the game engine / coding... I expect it's not up to the driver makers to fix the game and vice versa.

VinceroWell, it's using Unreal engine 5 right? So what optimisation is this going to need that Hellblade 2, Robocop, and the various other games and tech demos that have been out for UE5 for a while wouldn't have benefitted from?

At some point there's either a bug in the drivers or the game engine / coding... I expect it's not up to the driver makers to fix the game and vice versa.

You haven't been around long, eh? Game-specific fixes have been a common sight in video drivers for over 20 years.

Also, just because they are made on the same game engine, does NOT mean they use the same optimization. Not even close.

VinceroWell, it's using Unreal engine 5 right? So what optimisation is this going to need that Hellblade 2, Robocop, and the various other games and tech demos that have been out for UE5 for a while wouldn't have benefitted from?

At some point there's either a bug in the drivers or the game engine / coding... I expect it's not up to the driver makers to fix the game and vice versa.

I had a lot of stutter in Still Wakes the Deep, another UE5 games, until I remembered I was on pretty old drivers. I thought it was just a typical case of UE PSO or traversal stutter because that's how the stutter behaved but after I updated drivers it was gone.

WTH is Banana??? I had to look it up... people will play anything...

Question is - who cares? Optimized drivers are usually the sign that game needs some specific driver level optimizations to run best. Doesn't mean you can't play the game without game optimized driver (at least most of the time).

And yeah, if OP is the same person that posted on the same day about AMD optimized drivers being released I dunno what's the editorial process here:

ChomiqQuestion is - who cares? Optimized drivers are usually the sign that game needs some specific driver level optimizations to run best. Doesn't mean you can't play the game without game optimized driver (at least most of the time).

And yeah, if OP is the same person that posted on the same day about AMD optimized drivers being released I dunno what's the editorial process here:

the download link from AMD for the new driver goes to 24.7.1, last month's driver

www.amd.com/de/resources/support-articles/release-notes/RN-RAD-WIN-24-8-1.html
Hover over the download link, it says whql-amd-software-adrenalin-edition-24.7.1-win10-win11-july19-rdna.exe

ChomiqAnd yeah, if OP is the same person that posted on the same day about AMD optimized drivers being released I dunno what's the editorial process here:

l2read

The new driver of AMD isn’t officially available if you try to find it in the download section only the past driver will show up. I guess they unpublished it because there was a problem with the new game Wukong, as some people have written in Reddit, but it will at least be something similar, a critical problem.

TheinsanegamerNYou haven't been around long, eh? Game-specific fixes have been a common sight in video drivers for over 20 years.

Also, just because they are made on the same game engine, does NOT mean they use the same optimization. Not even close.

No, I've been around a while, and yes I am aware of this and it still amazes me we have this common cycle.
If we assume at some point that AMD/Nvidia tweak their drivers as best as possible to leverage the best performance from their cards for the DirectX/Vulkan/OpenGL APIs, the reality is these 'game optimisations' essentially patch over p!ss poor optimisation of the games use of the API itself, or more likely bypass/rework the operation of some part of the software/GPU hardware pipeline that doesn't suit a particular game as well.
It may just be that the new driver better recognises the UE5 engine in use and applies previously developed optimisations - who knows...

Yes I'm aware that the programmable shader architecture allows for a huge amount of potential optimisation in many different ways, and if there is a patch which fixes a defficiency exposed by a new game then great that they fixed the f***-up, but I don't see new CPU microcode being pushed out to re-optimise the ALU/FPU operations on existing products to squeeze a few more FPS out of games.

Whilst I acknowledge there will be some game developers that will work hard to work as best as possible within the API frameworks and get the best out of the standard driver releases out there - indeed indie game developers are gonna pretty much be on their own - some really do not and it would be interesting if the 'optimisations' that the drivers implement was actually explained. Otherwise as shown by people in this thread already, the game already worked (maybe there is a bug that hasn't presented itself for those), so in reality any optimisation is either short-cutting something or messing with the operation of the game in some way.

I get that this is probably coming across as a bit of a moaning old man - I just think that the worlds leading tech companies shouldn't be in a position where this needs to happen. Call me crazy but I'd rather newer drivers be mostly bug fixes for actual bugs and not "oh we figured out that for this game if we turn off this bit of the pixel pipeline things are quicker and 99% of you won't see a visual difference" crap.

W1zzardthe download link from AMD for the new driver goes to 24.7.1, last month's driver

www.amd.com/de/resources/support-articles/release-notes/RN-RAD-WIN-24-8-1.html
Hover over the download link, it says whql-amd-software-adrenalin-edition-24.7.1-win10-win11-july19-rdna.exe


l2read

i will say it. (W1zzard is polite) learn to read. RTFA. (to the poster, not W1zzard!)

I'm only about 45 minutes into the game. Really wondering what kind of improvement I'll get on my desktop. AMD also released drivers, so I'll be updating the Legion Go's drivers too to see what kind of performance gains there are, if any.

VinceroIf we assume at some point that AMD/Nvidia tweak their drivers

You assume wrong. This is about lazy devs being inconsistent and essentially the bigger companies with more money (AMD / Nvidia) make up for their mistakes and suboptimal programming by optimising their drivers as good as possible to counter it. Depending on how bad or good the game is programmed this only goes so far and the game remains suboptimal with the usage of resources like GPUs etc.

_________, but at what cost? ：笑：

VinceroNo, I've been around a while, and yes I am aware of this and it still amazes me we have this common cycle.
If we assume at some point that AMD/Nvidia tweak their drivers as best as possible to leverage the best performance from their cards for the DirectX/Vulkan/OpenGL APIs, the reality is these 'game optimisations' essentially patch over p!ss poor optimisation of the games use of the API itself, or more likely bypass/rework the operation of some part of the software/GPU hardware pipeline that doesn't suit a particular game as well.
It may just be that the new driver better recognises the UE5 engine in use and applies previously developed optimisations - who knows...

Yes I'm aware that the programmable shader architecture allows for a huge amount of potential optimisation in many different ways, and if there is a patch which fixes a defficiency exposed by a new game then great that they fixed the f***-up, but I don't see new CPU microcode being pushed out to re-optimise the ALU/FPU operations on existing products to squeeze a few more FPS out of games.

Whilst I acknowledge there will be some game developers that will work hard to work as best as possible within the API frameworks and get the best out of the standard driver releases out there - indeed indie game developers are gonna pretty much be on their own - some really do not and it would be interesting if the 'optimisations' that the drivers implement was actually explained. Otherwise as shown by people in this thread already, the game already worked (maybe there is a bug that hasn't presented itself for those), so in reality any optimisation is either short-cutting something or messing with the operation of the game in some way.

I get that this is probably coming across as a bit of a moaning old man - I just think that the worlds leading tech companies shouldn't be in a position where this needs to happen. Call me crazy but I'd rather newer drivers be mostly bug fixes for actual bugs and not "oh we figured out that for this game if we turn off this bit of the pixel pipeline things are quicker and 99% of you won't see a visual difference" crap.

My experience with these 'game ready' drivers is that most of the time, it was Nvidia telling us we needed them, but despite owning Nvidia cards for over 14 years, I've been running old driver versions on them more often than not. All the while playing new games. And not just one version behind. I usually just downloaded the main branche releases, and skipped anything 'Game Ready'. For years.

The tweaks are small optimizations, very rarely a glaring bug or crashing behaviour; and in the case of small optimizations, you can simply skip these updates. I consider the game ready nonsense to be the same type of Nvidia marketing as them pushing every game they provide with DLSS. The world before and after those announcements remains identical, but Nvidia (or: 'insert stakeholder', one of which is TPU itself...) did get its daily attention from you.

A big factor in the 'necessity' for game ready drivers comes from two things: gamers that buy on launch + gamers that drool over everything that happens around their overpriced graphics card. These people are highly susceptible to placebo nonsense, too. They just did a thing, so now a thing must have changed, and then they start carefully watching FPS meters and comparing scenes and youtube video side-by-sides to figure it out. Its hilarious in all of its sadness, honestly, and it has grown to epic proportions, case in point this topic where we attribute supposed value to 'game ready' drivers on launch of any odd game.

Me, I just click a shortcut and play a game.

ViperXZYou assume wrong. This is about lazy devs being inconsistent and essentially the bigger companies with more money (AMD / Nvidia) make up for their mistakes and suboptimal programming by optimising their drivers as good as possible to counter it. Depending on how bad or good the game is programmed this only goes so far and the game remains suboptimal with the usage of resources like GPUs etc.

Nope, most of the time the driver teams are busy trying to extract maximum performance from the way the driver handles certain games because it sells their GPUs better. In the end, any relatively well known game can end up being part of a benchmark suite on tech sites. And then we can discuss how team green or red just kills everything else in game XYZ. Some games/engines are more tailored to a certain architecture too, or the way the driver handles certain graphical elements it uses more of, so 'optimizations' (Often quality reductions at little visual impact) are made to match competitive products.

This is nothing other than Nvidia and AMD trying to sell GPUs. Why do you think Cyberpunk got all that TLC from Nvidia? It was a poster child. Not because its such a fantastic game or because there's so much to be gained in terms of performance. Cyberpunk sold RTX.

Now compare Cyberpunk to Wukong: the latter uses in-engine features that 'just work' without driver TLC. Where's the Nvidia marketing offensive? Ah, ofc, AMD cards can do this just the same, there's no segmentation to be had here. ;) Nvidia's update will include a heavy DLSS push to tell the world all those cool nanite things can run on DLSS3 without feeling and looking like shit as they seem to do now.

Vayra86Nope, most of the time the driver teams are busy trying to extract maximum performance from the way the driver handles certain games because it sells their GPUs better.

Source: trust me bro. Sorry if i dont believe this without proof (quality source). You certainly start this the wrong way with a plain "nope", doesn't make me trust you at all.

Vayra86This is nothing other than Nvidia and AMD trying to sell GPUs. Why do you think Cyberpunk got all that TLC from Nvidia? It was a poster child. Not because its such a fantastic game or because there's so much to be gained in terms of performance. Cyberpunk sold RTX.

They used CP, sure but it IS a good game and it did NOT sell Geforce, it helped sell Geforce maybe 0.1% more, what sells Geforce is tradition + mindshare + performance, not tiny things like these. In the end Nvidia is also just human, they sometimes support games because they LIKE to do so, imagine. Not everyone or everything is evil. If Nvidia weren't interested in video games for personal reasons (because they like them) they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are now.

Vayra86Now compare Cyberpunk to Wukong: the latter uses in-engine features that 'just work' without driver TLC. Where's the Nvidia marketing offensive? Ah, ofc, AMD cards can do this just the same, there's no segmentation to be had here.

it's the exact same thing and worse: the game is a clear and 100% Nvidia game, you can see that by how much worse 7900 XTX is to 4080 compared to the average (+2% faster than 4080). CP on the other hand runs great on Radeon until you activate RT, which is more AMDs fault than anyone elses and yea, Nvidia pushed for RT and heavier RT, but it's not Nvidias fault that AMDs implementation (up until now) is half assed (allegedly that will change with RDNA 3.5 or 4 at the latest). However, RT is pretty much hype and mostly not worth the cost. It's pretty rare it makes a significant difference, but CP2077 is one of those exceptions.

Vayra86Nvidia's update will include a heavy DLSS push to tell the world all those cool nanite things can run on DLSS3 without feeling and looking like shit as they seem to do now.

As long as games aren't programmed well or are wasteful there's an easy opening Nvidia can abuse with DLSS (and Unreal Engine 5 games are the best example for that), but so can AMD with FSR 3.1 (3.1 not 3.0 etc as it's simply not consistently good enough). Then again AMD Frame Gen works better than Nvidias and brings more FPS.

ViperXZSource: trust me bro. Sorry if i dont believe this without proof (quality source). You certainly start this the wrong way with a plain "nope", doesn't make me trust you at all.

They used CP, sure but it IS a good game and it did NOT sell Geforce, it helped sell Geforce maybe 0.1% more, what sells Geforce is tradition + mindshare + performance, not tiny things like these. In the end Nvidia is also just human, they sometimes support games because they LIKE to do so, imagine. Not everyone or everything is evil. If Nvidia weren't interested in video games for personal reasons (because they like them) they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are now.

it's the exact same thing and worse: the game is a clear and 100% Nvidia game, you can see that by how much worse 7900 XTX is to 4080 compared to the average (+2% faster than 4080). CP on the other hand runs great on Radeon until you activate RT, which is more AMDs fault than anyone elses and yea, Nvidia pushed for RT and heavier RT, but it's not Nvidias fault that AMDs implementation (up until now) is half assed (allegedly that will change with RDNA 3.5 or 4 at the latest). However, RT is pretty much hype and mostly not worth the cost. It's pretty rare it makes a significant difference, but CP2077 is one of those exceptions.

As long as games aren't programmed well or are wasteful there's an easy opening Nvidia can abuse with DLSS (and Unreal Engine 5 games are the best example for that), but so can AMD with FSR 3.1 (3.1 not 3.0 etc as it's simply not consistently good enough). Then again AMD Frame Gen works better than Nvidias and brings more FPS.

Read some job descriptions over at Nvidia itself. It just about says what I just told you in a nutshell. Its also just common sense. Nvidia does everything it does for customer engagement (devs are customers too), branding and marketing its products. Much like every other company. Personal projects don't generally work well with shareholders. Everything needs to generate value.



www.nvidia.com/en-us/about-nvidia/careers/teams-in-action/

ViperXZThey used CP, sure but it IS a good game and it did NOT sell Geforce, it helped sell Geforce maybe 0.1% more, what sells Geforce is tradition + mindshare + performance, not tiny things like these. In the end Nvidia is also just human, they sometimes support games because they LIKE to do so, imagine. Not everyone or everything is evil. If Nvidia weren't interested in video games for personal reasons (because they like them) they wouldn't be nearly as successful as they are now.

Cyberpunk had an abysmal launch. And even now it still isn't exactly what the teasers promised. Cyberpunk is a popular game, its not the same as 'complete', or 'great' in my book. Even today its a graphics showcase first, a story driven linear RPG second, and an 'open world Cyber dystopia' somewhere in the far distance if you squint hard and forget the half-dead city where even today whole areas just have no content whatsoever.

Cyberpunk most certainly sold Geforce and pushed RTX... if we have to debate that fact we're very far off reality and we might as well stop. You are telling me this is not marketing, but Nvidia just having fun for personal reasons? :sleep:

www.cyberpunk.net/en/news/47875/patch-1-62-ray-tracing-overdrive-mode
www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/cyberpunk-2077-ray-tracing-overdrive-update-launches-april-11/

www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/cyberpunk-2077-phantom-liberty-dlss-3-5-ray-reconstruction-game-ready-driver/

www.nvidia.com/en-gb/geforce/campaigns/cyberpunk-2077/

www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/cyberpunk-2077-rtx-dlss-out-now/

I could go on for I reckon a whole thread page here. 'Just personal reasons'... yeah I'm sure this is what Jensen is playing every night, that MUST be the reason for all of this.

ViperXZit's the exact same thing and worse: the game is a clear and 100% Nvidia game, you can see that by how much worse 7900 XTX is to 4080 compared to the average (+2% faster than 4080). CP on the other hand runs great on Radeon until you activate RT, which is more AMDs fault than anyone elses and yea, Nvidia pushed for RT and heavier RT, but it's not Nvidias fault that AMDs implementation (up until now) is half assed (allegedly that will change with RDNA 3.5 or 4 at the latest). However, RT is pretty much hype and mostly not worth the cost. It's pretty rare it makes a significant difference, but CP2077 is one of those exceptions.

So then, does it make sense for Nvidia to push that game heavily to market RTX? I think it does, no? And since the visual differences in Wukong right here are minimal because everyone can enjoy the Nanite goodness, what need is there for Nvidia to distinctively market their better featureset? They already have the performance win if one enables Path Tracing, or even without it. Moreover, it goes to show that games can release just fine without a Game Ready driver, which was the initial point and supports the statement I made those drivers are marketing first, and occasionally fixing a real issue second.

Beyond that, you can believe whatever you like I really don't care..., but you're sounding brutally naive above anything else I'm afraid. Live and learn...

Vayra86Read some job descriptions over at Nvidia itself. It just about says what I just told you in a nutshell. Its also just common sense. Nvidia does everything it does for customer engagement

Then you have a wrong view of "common sense" and a one dimensional view of life on top. No, people usually get very good at things (like Nvidia) if they love it, this is the american way of life and the success story of it. Gaming companies are about gaming foremost (who would've thought) and of course money second, which is easily high enough on that list of priorities. Nowadays Nvidia is maybe more about AI though.

Vayra86Cyberpunk had an abysmal launch. And even now it still isn't exactly what the teasers promised. Cyberpunk is a popular game, its not the same as 'complete', or 'great' in my book. Even today its a graphics showcase first, a story driven linear RPG second, and an 'open world Cyber dystopia' somewhere in the far distance if you squint hard and forget the half-dead city where even today whole areas just have no content whatsoever.

Just reads like some guy who never played the game and just likes hating on it, i'm not gonna waste much time here. Average hater opinion, and kinda boring on top.

Vayra86Cyberpunk most certainly sold Geforce and pushed RTX... if we have to debate that fact we're very far off reality and we might as well stop.

I live in reality, as I dont believe that 1 game sold Nvidia products that always sell anyway and you live in Lalaland or your own bubble, whatever that is called.

Vayra86So then, does it make sense for Nvidia to push that game heavily to market RTX? I think it does, no?

It's still just one ad, one ad doesn't decide if a huge company like Nvidia is successful or not. If you believe that, again, you're living in your own bubble. They pushed RT through 100 games, not 1 game, that's your mistake. Then there is DLSS and then there is raw performance and then there is stuff like Frame Gen and creator tools etc. A lot of things and not just "CP + RT" like your opinion seems to be. A lot of people buy Nvidia stuff and care 0% about RT, they couldn't care less in fact. Most people just don't care about other brands or don't know them, they will automatically buy Geforce, Nvidia doesn't need CP to sell products, again, it's 0.1% or less of their bottomline, the game is irrelevant for them to sell games, it's just 1 of 1000 ads or 1000 avenues they push to sell their products, it's a drip in the ocean, in other words.

ViperXZThen you have a wrong view of "common sense" and a one dimensional view of life on top. No, people usually get very good at things (like Nvidia) if they love it, this is the american way of life and the success story of it. Gaming companies are about gaming foremost (who would've thought) and of course money second, which is easily high enough on that list of priorities. Nowadays Nvidia is maybe more about AI though.

Just reads like some guy who never played the game and just likes hating on it, i'm not gonna waste much time here. Average hater opinion, and kinda boring on top.

I live in reality, as I dont believe that 1 game sold Nvidia products that always sell anyway and you live in Lalaland or your own bubble, whatever that is called.

It's still just one ad, one ad doesn't decide if a huge company like Nvidia is successful or not. If you believe that, again, you're living in your own bubble. They pushed RT through 100 games, not 1 game, that's your mistake. Then there is DLSS and then there is raw performance and then there is stuff like Frame Gen and creator tools etc. A lot of things and not just "CP + RT" like your opinion seems to be. A lot of people buy Nvidia stuff and care 0% about RT, they couldn't care less in fact. Most people just don't care about other brands or don't know them, they will automatically buy Geforce, Nvidia doesn't need CP to sell products, again, it's 0.1% or less of their bottomline, the game is irrelevant for them to sell games, it's just 1 of 1000 ads or 1000 avenues they push to sell their products, it's a drip in the ocean, in other words.

I never said that Cyberpunk was the only thing, that's you making your own story out of mine.

I said, Cyberpunk was used in Nvidia marketing and therefore a tool to sell RTX. You're practically saying the same thing, if you haven't noticed. Way to disagree by agreeing ;) You even said yourself Cyberpunk is a rare exception (in your view!) of a game where RT made a substantial impact. Its not one ad either, as you have been able to see in my post above. Nvidia has been on top of that game, and even The Witcher 3 was revisited for the sole purpose of marketing RTX. I do think you're right when you say that 'get good at things' is a way to sell product. Sure. But if you don't market how good you are at things, nobody's gonna know, so we've come full circle haven't we? This also ties in to your last comment on that, its certainly not the only thing Nvidia 'does right'. Nvidia is a master at painting itself in the best light towards the gaming community, and a big part of that is indeed because they just got things well under control, well managed and under constant review and optimization. So we agree on that, too.

Does Nvidia need CP to sell products? Of course not, at least not exclusively. But it was damn useful - useful enough even to spend several millions worth of dev time and perhaps even cash to help CDPR adding their featureset to it. As has been the M.O. for Nvidia for over a decade, its the whole reason for other things like GameWorks, too. Collaboration, per-game optimization, and pushing their proprietary featuresets into games is a huge component of Nvidia's consumer Geforce strategy, always has been, because they know optimization is cheaper than building bigger GPUs than your competitor all the time. Surely you aren't denying that...? Again, this story has come full circle here. Its marketing... or are you saying we're seeing the fantastic benefits of a feature like, say, GPU PhysX everywhere, even in Nvidia GPUs? Hardly... ;) And what about Hairworks? TurfFX? I have an exhaustive list... Absolutely NONE of these features were 'projects just for fun'. They're experiments to see what catches on with the market and what's worth pushing further, while also being great marketing for the brand Nvidia, while also giving Nvidia a way in with developers and the industry, its a win-win-win scenario for them, and it is one that makes them money on the bottom line.