If GameWorks features were just something you could turn off completely and get on with it there wouldn’t be a problem. GameWorks is like a cancer in most games that feature it, you can’t get rid of its performance robbing properties entirely.
I pray you're not talking about Crysis 2.
You can't turn Gameworks features off? That's funny because you seemed to have been successful in doing so in your Arkham Knight Performance review. A review I was surprised to see in light of the recall I might add. It seems you have a vendetta, because every Gameworks Performance Review has a dedicated section for your rants.
If Nvidia’s primary goal was to make games look better, be more fun to play and of course play better than GameWorks would be amazing. The goal of GameWorks seems to be to introduce patented features that can only be optimized for by Nvidia and those said features are designed to be as taxing as possible.
Ah that's what I was waiting for. So you just called Gameworks a cancer, and then you do a 180 and want it optimized for AMD hardware?! Maybe, just maybe AMD should come up with its own solution like they did with Raptr, FreeSync and closed betas like Mantle that locked out anyone from using it entirely. If nVIDIA were to spend their money just to give it away to AMD, what would be the point of buying nVIDIA cards when AMD cards are cheaper? What would drive nVIDIA to innovate if they were to just give it away? Should Mercedes give BMW access to their AMG engines? Maybe energy drink companies should share their recipes with Coca Cola because soft drink sales are down.
Fact: AMD does best with source code access and using standards. nVIDIA can do a majority of its optimizations via their drivers and some devs prefer using libraries because that means less work for them. AMD is at a disadvantage, but that has nothing to do with nVIDIA, but their own [lack of] resources. Asking nVIDIA to "go easy" on AMD is foolish talk. If the playing field was even heck yea gamers would benefit, but if nVIDIA gives everything away, again, what would be the point of nVIDIA continuing to put money into R&D to improve visuals? And if nVIDIA doesn't do it, who will? AMD? Ha! AMD doesn't have the resources, money, time, or the R&D to do so. We're talking about the same AMD that still doesn't have Crossfire support on games that have been out for months. They still don't have Crossfire support for FreeSync that they said was coming in APRIL, and that's really sad considering FreeSync's high minimum refresh. The same AMD that has one WHQL driver in 2015 vs eight from nVIDIA.
nVIDIA owning 76% of the dGPU market didn't just happen by accident, so they are doing something right. Something AMD could learn from rather than looking for free rides simply because they are having a tough time staying out of the red. It seems the word competition is thrown around so much people have forgot its meaning. Next up is the word monopoly and fear-mongers claiming cards will rise to $1000 overnight as a result of a deceased AMD. So show me on the doll where nVIDIA touched you. It's okay, no one else is around.
I guess while I'm here I should strongly suggest if you're going to continue to list the GTX 970 as having two memory pools (you're the only site I know of that does this - shocker!), then maybe you should include memory usage in your performance reviews. Just a thought.