You’re getting downvoted but this will be correct. DLSSFG looks dubious enough on dedicated hardware, doing this on shader cores means it will be competing with the 3D rendering so will need to be extremely lightweight to actually offer any advantage.
I wouldnt say compete as the whole concept of frame generation is that it generates more frames when gpu resouces are idle/low due to another part of the chain is holding back the gpu from generating more frames. Its sorta like how I view hyperthreads on a cpu. They arent a full core, but its a thread that gets utilized when there are poonts in a cpu calculation that leaves a resouce unused (e.g if a core is using the AVX2 accerator to do some math, a hyperthread can for example, use the ALU that might not be in use to do something else because its free.)
It would only compete if the time it takes to generate one additional frame is longer than the time a gpu is free due to some bottleneck in the chain.
You guys are talking about this as if it’s some new super expensive tech. It’s not. The chips they throw inside tvs that are massively cost reduced do a pretty damn good job these days (albit, laggy still) and there is software you can run on your computer that does compute based motion interpolation and it works just fine even on super old gpus with terrible compute.
Yeah, it does, which is something tv tech has to try and derive themselves. Tv tech has to figure that stuff out. It’s actually less complicated in a fun kind of way. But please do continue to explain how it’s more compute heavy
Also just to be very clear, tv tech also encompasses motion vectors into the interpolation, that’s the whole point. It just has to compute them with frame comparisons. Games have that information encoded into various gbuffers so it’s already available.
People made the same claim about DLSS 3. But those generated frames are barely perceptible and certainly less noticeable than frame stutter. As long as FSR 3 works half-decently, it should be fine.
And the fact that it works on older GPUs include those from nVidia really shows that nVidia was just blocking the feature in order to sell more 4000 series GPUs.
You aren't going to use these features on extremely old GPUs anyways. Most newer GPUs will have spare shader compute capacity that can be used for this purpose.
Also, all performance is based on compromise. It is often better to render at a lower resolution with all of the rendering features turned on, then use upscaling & frame generation to get back to the same resolution and FPS, than it is to render natively at the intended resolution and FPS. This is often a better use of existing resources even if you don't have extra power to spare.
because I think the post assumes that the GPU is always using all of its resources during computation when it isn’t. There’s a reason why benchmarks can make a GPU hotter than a game can, as well as the fact that not all games pin the gpu performance at 100%. If a GPU is not pinned at 100%, there is a bottleneck in the presentation chain somewhere. (which means unused resources on the GPU)
I still think it’s a matter of waiting for the results to show up later. AMD for RDNA3 does have an AI engine on it, and the gains it might have in FSR3 might be different in the same way XeSS does with branching logic. Too early to tell given that all the test suite tests are RDNA3, and that it doesn’t officially launch til 2 weeks from now.
Frame generation is limited to 40 series GPUs because Nvidias solution is dependant on their latest hardware. The improvements to DLSS itself and the new raytracing stuff work on 20/30 series GPUs. That said FSR 3 is fantastic news, competition benefits us all and I’d love to see it compete with DLSS itself on Nvidia GPUs.
Given that it will eventually be open-source: I hope somebody hooks this to a capture card, to have relatively lag-less motion smoothing for console games locked to 30.
They’ve also stated fsr3 will continue to be open source, and previous versions have been compatible with Vulkan on the developer end at least. I can’t find though if this new hyper rx application running it agnostic to any developer integration is supporting Vulkan though. Guess we’ll find out when it’s released shortly here.
It can probably be integrated into anything like FSR 1 and 2. Valve can just update their Gamescope compositor to use it instead of FSR 1. I wonder though, how the image quality is going to be like when upscaling/generating frames based on such small input image resolutions. Previous versions of FSR really only mase sense for around-1080p upwards.
I hope this works out and becomes a viable competitor to DLSS3, especially with this most recent generation of games getting so demanding spec wise. I also appreciate that they make it available for any graphics card from any company. Nvidia certainly has some edge in propiatary features that AMD is having trouble matching at the moment, but Nvidia becoming even more dominant is bad news. Lack of competition will only encourage them to stagnate in the future and increase prices even higher. I’ll probably be looking to upgrade my own gpu soon so am very interested in how the just announced amd 7800xt compares against the Nvidia 4070.
AMD has features in yesteryears that it had before Nvidia, its just less people paid attention to them till it became a hot topic after nvidia implemented it.
An example was anti lag, which AMD and Intel implemented before Nvidia
But people didnt care about it till ULL mode turned into Reflex.
AMD still holds onto Radeon Chill. Which basically keeps the gpu running slower when idling in game when not a lot is happening on the screen…the end result is lower power consumption when AFK, as well as reletivelly lower fan speeds/better acoustics because the gpu doesnt constantly work as hard.
I’m not saying reflex is bad and not used by esports pros. Its just the use of theoretical is not the best choice of word for the situation, as it does make a change, its just much harder to detect, similar to the difference between similar but not the same framerate on latency, or the experience of having refresh rates that are close to each other, especially on the high end as you stop getting into the realm of framerate input properties, but become bottlenecked by acreen characteristics (why oleds are better than traditional ips, but can be beat by high refresh rate ips/tn with BFI)
Regardless, the point is less on the tech, but the idea that AMD doesnt innovate. It does, but it takes longer for people to see t because they either choose not to use a specific feature, or are completely unaware of it, either because they dont use AMD, or they have a fixed channel on where they get their news.
Lets not forget over a decade ago, AMDs mantle was what brought Vulkan/DX12 performance to pc.
Because AMD gpu division is a much smaller division in an overall larger company. They physically cant push out as much features because of that. When they decide to make a drastic change to its hardware, its rarely seen till its considered old news. Take for example maxwell and pascal. You dont see a performance loss at the start because games would be designed for hardware at the time, in particular whatevers the most popular.
Maxwell and Pascal had a notible trait allowing it to have lower power consumption, the lack of a hardware scheduler as Nvidia moved the scheduler onto the driver. This allowed Nvidia to manually have more control of the gpu pipeline allowing for their gpus to handle smaller pipelines better, compared to AMD which had a hardware based one with multuple pipelines that needed an application to use properly to maximize its performance. It led to Maxwell/Pascal cards to have better performance… Til it didnt, as devs started to thead games better, and what used to be a good change for power consumption evolved into a cpu overhead problem (something Nvidia still has to this day reletive to AMS). AMDs innovations tend to be more on the hardware side of things which is pretty hard to market because of it.
It was like AMDs marketing for Smart Access Memory (again a feature AMD got to first, and till this day, works slightly better on AMD systems than other ones). It was a feature that was hard to market because there isnt much of a wow factor to them, but is an innovation.
Which then comes with the question of price/perf. Its not that its a bad idea that DLSS is better than FSR, but when you factor in price, some price tiers start to get funny, especially in the low end.
For the LONGEST time, the RX 6600, which by default, was about 15% faster than the 3050, amd was significantly cheaper, still was outsold by the 3050. Using DLSS to cover the performance of another GPU does natively (meaning objectively better, no artifacts, no added latency) is when that argument of never buying a gpu without DLSS becomes weak, as the issue for some price brackets is what you could get at the same price or similar might be significantly better.
In terms of modern gpus, the 4060ti is the one card everyone for the most part, should avoid (unless your a business china that needs gpus for AI due to the U.S government limiting chip sales)
Sort of the same idea im RT performance too. Some people make it like AMD cant RT at all. Usually their performamce is a gen behind, so in situations like the 7900 xtx vs the 4080, could swing towards the 4080 for value, butnfor situations like the 7900xt, which was at some point, being sold for 700$, ots value, RT included was significantly better than the 4070ti as an overall package.
Which is what.im.sayong, the condition of course that the gpus are priced close enough (e.g 4060 vs 7600). But when theres a deficiency in a cards spec (e.g 8gb gpus) or a large discrepancy in price, it would favor the AMD usually .
Its why the 3050 was a terribly priced gpu for the longest time, and currently, the 4060ti is the butt of the joke, and someone shouldnt use those over the AMD in the said price range due to both performamce, and hardware deficiency(vram in the case of the cheaper 4060ti)
In the case of the 4060ti 8gb, turning on RT puts them past the 8gb threshold killing performance, hence hardware deficiency does matter in some cases.
yeah if you’re severely gpu bottlenecked the difference is IMMEDIATELY OBVIOUS, especially in menus with custom cursors. (mouse smoothness while navigating menus is night and day difference), in-game it’s barely noticeable until you start dropping to ~30fps, then again: a huge difference.
Hallucinated frames like DLSS3. Completely unnecessary, just like the hallucinated pixels of DLSS2/FSR2. Dialling a couple of settings down to medium looks much better.
We are reaching the limits of render technology with our current architectures. You’ll find that most established practices for computer hardware/software/firmware started as a “cheat” or weird innovation that began with using something in an ass backwards way. Reducing the amount of data a GPU needs to render is a good way to get more out of old and new hardware. It’s not perfected yet but the future of these features is very promising.
good thing the rendering engineers are willing to try different ways instead of stuck at this “real pixel” shit that some youtuber started. Even freaking Pixar that is grand daddy of CG tech also doing ML global illumination and temporal denoiser. some of our current gen realtime graphics literally took hours to render 10 years ago, hardware aren’t improving that fast, it’s the new algorithms and render method make it possible.
Sounds impossible but it’s not. Check out some of Digital Foundry’s on DLSS 2; more detail was pulled out of the lower base resolution than even native.
The upscaler is trained on higher resolution data and so it can more accurately depict subpixel and temporal information which is lost at native. DLSS can produce more detail than native in those cases.
I don’t think the term applies here. Hallucination, when it comes to AI models, is when they make up random data with no basis. This, on other hand, is interpolation. It compares two frames and predicts the intermediate frame using motion vectors. And FSR3 isn’t even using machine learning, it’s a bespoke algorithm that they have written.
Approximation would be a fitting term here, just like many things in rendering technology are.
AI models are universal approximators f such that y=f(x,w) with optimizable weights w that minimize some metric L(y). You can come up with a hand tuned approximator yourself that matches/beats an AI model. Does not change the fact that any approximator attempts to guess (i.e. “hallucinate”) the output y based on the prior x.
Well, I just found out this games grades you after every mission like Devil May Cry or Bayonetta. I was interested, but this alone makes it a hard pass for me
I can see it being loved by the certain communities, like deep rock and such, but come on, you have the biggest and most popular fantasy world ever made and this is what you get out of it?
The company that owns the licensing to lotr is currently in a phase of will license the ip out to anyone mode. So whilst you might think there’s someone out there making decisions on what to do with the property, it’s more that a bunch of low budget companies are asking for the license and getting it for cheap
I bought NMS on release, even got a new PC for it and man was I disappointed by the missing content. Worse, after every time I tried to get back into it with some update my last efforts were broken. My base was broken or my home planet changed in a bad way or suddenly I had to manage a colony which I did not enjoy or my ship got lost due to a glitchy starbase. Every new patch I’m reminded of that and now I don’t bother to start it any more. I hope y’all have so much more fun with it than I had.
Glad they included such an expansive space combat update in this release. For a while it seemed like ship combat was an afterthought, but this update really does add depth to it.
For the three of us who bought a PSVR2, the foveated rendering they finally added with this update is fantastic. Still not as good as playing it on a TV, but so much better than the blurry mess it used to be.
youtube.com
Gorące