Yes, they are. I see that I am wrong here, and that Nvidia cards are indeed far more powerfull. But I have to ask, why doesn't this major differnce in tessalation prowess make them far better in general, rather than only in gameworks? If the difference is this large, shouldn't a 970 way outperform a 290, in all applications? It also seem weird that both cards can run near equally well in the witcher 3 when hairworks is off, but have a 15 fps difference with hairworks on! I'm a bit deluded by all this, but I probably know to little about it. It's not hidden from the devs and they're allowed to do what they want with it. Why the hell would Nvidia share their proprietary technology with AMD? What logical reason is there for them to do so? Based on what Richard Huddy says in this interview, I would believe that Nvidia indeed acts like I explained in my original post, providing their partners with a DLL or a black box. The developer can't interact with it, and AMD can't optomize it. The issue with Gameworks is not that Nvidia isn't carrying AMD, but that they seem to support PC exclusivity. When AMD performance is cripled to the extent we saw in project cars, the game basicly becomes an Nvidia exclusive. When developers see so many AMD customers slip out of their hand, they either dismiss Gameworks, thus loosing everyone the technology, or stand by, ruining everything that makes PC gaming the best platform out there. Gameworks is also worrying based on what it offers the Nvidia user. If you look at this image, you see that turning hairworks on gives you the 16x tessallation image, but the 8x image looks downright identical, with a far smaller hit on performance. This picture also proves what Richard says about Nvidia using tessallation to excess, rather than to improve actual graphics. Ofcourse Richard is not the best source of all this stuff, but some of what he says is definently traceble, like that image.