The Callisto Protocol: PC graphics benchmarks
G.Skill TridentZ 5 RGB 6800 MHz CL34 DDR5 review
Be Quiet! Dark Power 13 - 1000W PSU Review
Palit GeForce RTX 4080 GamingPRO OC review
Core i9 13900K DDR5 7200 MHz (+memory scaling) review
Seasonic Prime Titanium TX-1300 (1300W PSU) review
F1 2022: PC graphics performance benchmark review
MSI Clutch GM31 Lightweight (+Wireless) mice review
AMD Ryzen 9 7900 processor review
AMD Ryzen 7 7700 processor review
NVIDIA: Rainbow Six Siege Players Test NVIDIA Reflex and Two new DLSS Titles
Rainbow Six Siege players can check out NVIDIA Reflex, and a pair of new games are shipping with NVIDIA DLSS technology, it is now easier for Unreal Engine developers to add DLSS and Reflex to their games, and creative applications are using DLSS to boost performance.
GeForce Gamers Playing Rainbow Six Siege Are Getting an Aiming Upgrade
In nearly all sports the right gear can help competitors achieve their full potential. Competitive games are no exception, where better GPUs, displays, peripherals, and good software can lead to split second improvements in targeting which can be the difference between digital life or death. Rainbow Six Siege players with a GeForce 10 Series GPU and newer can now download the public test server, run the Vulkan version, and try out NVIDIA Reflex before it comes to the main game. Just go to the display options menu and enable NVIDIA Reflex Low Latency. Being a fraction of a second late on the trigger is the difference between winning or losing the engagement, so reducing system latency can be a huge boon for Rainbow Six Siege players. With NVIDIA Reflex, system latency is significantly reduced, making it easier to target enemies and improve your pc’s responsiveness.
To help competitive gamers measure and optimize end to end system latency, we created the NVIDIA Reflex Latency Analyzer. Using hardware and software built into monitors and mice, system latency can now easily be measured, allowing you to optimize your setup for the best responsiveness. NVIDIA also announced that the ASUS ROG SWIFT 360Hz PG259QNR display is now available and the MSI Clutch GM41 Gaming Mouse has joined the Reflex Latency Analyzer product family.
Nioh 2: The Complete Edition and Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord Just Got Faster!
Nioh 2: The Complete Edition and Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord join the list of games that support NVIDIA DLSS. Enabling DLSS in Nioh 2 can accelerate frame rates by up to 58%, enabling all GeForce RTX gamers to enjoy Nioh 2 at over 60 FPS at all times. In Mount & Blade II: Bannerlord NVIDIA DLSS can accelerate performance by up to 50% at 4K, allowing gamers to hit 60+ FPS across all GeForce RTX GPUs.
NVIDIA DLSS and Reflex Just Got Easier for UE4 Developers to Add to Their Games
Developer’s ability to level up their games with the same cutting-edge technologies found in the biggest blockbusters got a lot simpler. Unreal Engine 4 (UE4) developers can now access DLSS as a plugin for Unreal Engine 4.26. Additionally, NVIDIA Reflex is now available as a feature in UE4 mainline. Developers building the engine from source will now be able to easily add the Reflex low latency mode to their game. Now all Unreal Engine developers can easily use these same technologies in games, thanks to UE4 integration.
Related Links:
NVIDIA DLSS Plugin and Reflex Now Available for Unreal Engine on the NVIDIA Developer blog.
Creative Powerhouses Adopt NVIDIA DLSS For AI-Accelerated Performance Boost
Gamers are not the only ones benefiting from DLSS. Now, the content creation industry is deploying this technology to enhance all kinds of workflows including virtual production, architectural visualization, animated films, product design, simulations and data generation. Leading creative developers including 51 World, Goodbye Kansas Studios, Hyundai Motors, Lucasfilm’s Industrial Light & Magic (ILM), Orca Studios, Surreal Film Productions, and more are taking advantage of DLSS to boost performance and realize their creative visions. Read their success stories on the NVIDIA blog.
NVIDIA: GeForce RTX 3060 Hash rate Limiter is enforced through both driver and BIOS - 02/19/2021 10:00 AM
Yesterday NVIDIA issued a press release in which it is making a first step against and for miners. While that line sounds dualistic, it's the truth. The good news is that NVIDIA for the RTX 3060 re...
NVIDIA: V-Sync OFF Not Recommended as a Global Setting Starting - 02/12/2021 10:01 AM
This communique slipped through the mazes, but apparently NVIDIA V-Sync OFF is no longer recommended as a Global Setting Starting with Driver Version 461.09....
NVIDIA: Ampere RTX 30 Stock Issues Is not only based on GPU shortages - 12/03/2020 06:54 PM
Nvidia's CFO Colette Kress was present at a technology conference hosted by Swiss financial services company Credit Suisse; she spoke about the ongoing stock shortages. Nvidia understands that the R...
NVIDIA: 8-pin PCIE connector on contest photo was a concept render - 11/30/2020 04:55 PM
Funny this one, if you look at the photo below the fold, you're going to notice a standard PCIe PEG 8-pin power header on a founder edition GeForce RTX 3070. Read it again, 8-pin power header....
NVIDIA: A Dozen More Games will have Ray Tracing and DLSS This Year - 10/21/2020 09:11 AM
RTX ON: A Dozen More Games will have Ray Tracing and DLSS This Year The rest of October and November will be busy for GeForce Gamers. The holidays are coming, and with them comes a dozen games that su...
MonstroMart
Senior Member
Posts: 1288
Joined: 2006-07-06
Senior Member
Posts: 1288
Joined: 2006-07-06
#5891521 Posted on: 02/28/2021 10:42 PM
Speaking about throwing entire sections of science into garbage, it's clear you don't understand how this type of NN works. The temporal information is only a part of the puzzle. In fact, the more frames it has, the better it works. Video streams are also lossy, this processing is not. You are not seeing the result of a video stream, in fact you are seeing what is closer to a shader than anything else.
Bitrate is completely irrelevant in this scenario. I actually wonder how you can participate in this conversation at all, and we take you seriously when talking about "bitrate" in this situation (in any context).
Also you are ignoring reports of people who have actually seen how DLSS does what it does. Bitrate would only be relevant in video comparisons. You are basically disputing every person who has seen this, and expert reviewers on top.
I will post this video in case someone else following this thread wants to learn anything, as it is 100% certain you will not see it, yet you will keep talking as if you had.
Check around 7:18
DLSS 2.0 is awesome but honestly that TAA implementation in Control is awful and should not be called native.
Speaking about throwing entire sections of science into garbage, it's clear you don't understand how this type of NN works. The temporal information is only a part of the puzzle. In fact, the more frames it has, the better it works. Video streams are also lossy, this processing is not. You are not seeing the result of a video stream, in fact you are seeing what is closer to a shader than anything else.
Bitrate is completely irrelevant in this scenario. I actually wonder how you can participate in this conversation at all, and we take you seriously when talking about "bitrate" in this situation (in any context).
Also you are ignoring reports of people who have actually seen how DLSS does what it does. Bitrate would only be relevant in video comparisons. You are basically disputing every person who has seen this, and expert reviewers on top.
I will post this video in case someone else following this thread wants to learn anything, as it is 100% certain you will not see it, yet you will keep talking as if you had.
Check around 7:18
DLSS 2.0 is awesome but honestly that TAA implementation in Control is awful and should not be called native.
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 8192
Joined: 2010-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 8192
Joined: 2010-11-16
#5891523 Posted on: 02/28/2021 10:52 PM
That paper did 2 things.
1st, It took 1kHz, 2kHz and 3kHz repetitive stable sine-like signals in 22.05kHz space. Which demonstrates what you wanted to demonstrate, except it did not touch bandwidth problem with non-sine (random) sound samples and sampling rate. With simple sine signals, you can get away with frequencies up to 1/2 of sampling rate. And from samples obtained nearly under or at 1/2 of, you need to know that original was sine wave.
Do you know why? Because Triangle wave would have in such situation practically same sampled values.
Then on page #9 of your document, they told you:
That's saw signal, not white noise, not speech, no multiple sine-like frequency effects changing frequency over time. (What text says is that to get perfect saw, you need infinite sampling frequency.)
Then study goes into aliasing, where they kind of go with:
"Removal of any frequency that's above 1/2 of sampling rate to prevent aliasing."
And that's was my entire point. Shown on taking 2 identical signals and shifting them by smaller amount of time that takes one period.
If signals already have frequency equal 1/2 of sampling rate, you are no longer capable to capture them properly because signal is no longer one sine wave, but has multiple peaks and its actual frequency of peaks doubled within one period.
= = = =
And article is about capturing audio, not mixing multiple audio sampled digital sounds.
"The danger here is that people who hear something they like may associate better sound with faster sampling, wider bandwidth, and higher accuracy. This indirectly implies that lower rates are inferior. Whatever one hears on a 192KHz system can be introduced into a 96KHz system, and much of it into lower sampling rates. That includes any distortions associated with 192KHz gear, much of which is due to insufficient time to achieve the level of accuracy of slower sampling. "
It does not tell you that because you can't hear frequencies above 22kHz, sampling is fine at 44kHz. It tells you that use of 96kHz sampling is better than use of 192kHz, because 192kHz sampling devices introduce their own errors to sampled data. (Mind, state of available sampling devices in 2004.)
- - - -
What does it really says? That with given technology state, optimal sampling rate would be somewhere around 64kHz. But it is not saying anywhere that it is due to no need (or usefulness of) for more. It says such thing due to fact that devices themselves did not deal with such signals properly in their analog to digital converters.
Aaaaand off you go... into any direction you felt like, following any random thought that popped up in your head.
Course: unknown. Goal: none. Nothing.
Not even a hint of what you're arguing against. Zero discipline. Just a sheer will to persevere.
That paper did 2 things.
1st, It took 1kHz, 2kHz and 3kHz repetitive stable sine-like signals in 22.05kHz space. Which demonstrates what you wanted to demonstrate, except it did not touch bandwidth problem with non-sine (random) sound samples and sampling rate. With simple sine signals, you can get away with frequencies up to 1/2 of sampling rate. And from samples obtained nearly under or at 1/2 of, you need to know that original was sine wave.
Do you know why? Because Triangle wave would have in such situation practically same sampled values.
Then on page #9 of your document, they told you:
That's saw signal, not white noise, not speech, no multiple sine-like frequency effects changing frequency over time. (What text says is that to get perfect saw, you need infinite sampling frequency.)
Then study goes into aliasing, where they kind of go with:
"Removal of any frequency that's above 1/2 of sampling rate to prevent aliasing."
And that's was my entire point. Shown on taking 2 identical signals and shifting them by smaller amount of time that takes one period.
If signals already have frequency equal 1/2 of sampling rate, you are no longer capable to capture them properly because signal is no longer one sine wave, but has multiple peaks and its actual frequency of peaks doubled within one period.
= = = =
And article is about capturing audio, not mixing multiple audio sampled digital sounds.
"The danger here is that people who hear something they like may associate better sound with faster sampling, wider bandwidth, and higher accuracy. This indirectly implies that lower rates are inferior. Whatever one hears on a 192KHz system can be introduced into a 96KHz system, and much of it into lower sampling rates. That includes any distortions associated with 192KHz gear, much of which is due to insufficient time to achieve the level of accuracy of slower sampling. "
It does not tell you that because you can't hear frequencies above 22kHz, sampling is fine at 44kHz. It tells you that use of 96kHz sampling is better than use of 192kHz, because 192kHz sampling devices introduce their own errors to sampled data. (Mind, state of available sampling devices in 2004.)
- - - -
What does it really says? That with given technology state, optimal sampling rate would be somewhere around 64kHz. But it is not saying anywhere that it is due to no need (or usefulness of) for more. It says such thing due to fact that devices themselves did not deal with such signals properly in their analog to digital converters.
Aaaaand off you go... into any direction you felt like, following any random thought that popped up in your head.
Course: unknown. Goal: none. Nothing.
Not even a hint of what you're arguing against. Zero discipline. Just a sheer will to persevere.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5891526 Posted on: 02/28/2021 11:22 PM
how ?
you thought dlss works better on 2080ti than 2070 cause it has more tensor cores,which is simply not true
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-12/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3060-ti-asus-msi-test/2/#abschnitt-benchmarks-mit-raytracing-und-dlss-sowie-reflex
now with another theory no one has heard of
Not because it has more tensor cores. But because there is smaller temporal change in between frames. (Due to higher performance, card gives higher fps with same settings which means lower time in between frames.)
Imagine simple 3d tunnel to infinity. Or 2D projection plane into which you zoom. (Like fractal.)
You move/zoom towards it at constant speed in way that central area covering 1/4 of total pixels of screen will cover entire screen in 0.5 seconds.
Now imagine that you have:
2fps = 500ms frame time => complete new frame has 4 times as much information as usable temporal central part of previous frame. (Which covered previously 25% of frame.)
at 4 fps = 250ms frame time => complete new frame has 1.78 times as much information as usable temporal central part of previous frame. (Which covered previously 56.25% of frame.)
With very high fps, frame time is very small. And so is amount of missing information in previous frame required to enhance new frame.
Opposite to that extreme would be fps so small (or speed so high), that nothing on next frame is based on previous frame.
Simply put, when one HW puts out 200fps and HW next to it puts out only 50fps, slower HW has proportionally higher change in data per frame missing. (In motion situations. When scene in view is static, there is practically no change over time and therefore no loss.)
how ?
you thought dlss works better on 2080ti than 2070 cause it has more tensor cores,which is simply not true
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-12/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3060-ti-asus-msi-test/2/#abschnitt-benchmarks-mit-raytracing-und-dlss-sowie-reflex
now with another theory no one has heard of
Not because it has more tensor cores. But because there is smaller temporal change in between frames. (Due to higher performance, card gives higher fps with same settings which means lower time in between frames.)
Imagine simple 3d tunnel to infinity. Or 2D projection plane into which you zoom. (Like fractal.)
You move/zoom towards it at constant speed in way that central area covering 1/4 of total pixels of screen will cover entire screen in 0.5 seconds.
Now imagine that you have:
2fps = 500ms frame time => complete new frame has 4 times as much information as usable temporal central part of previous frame. (Which covered previously 25% of frame.)
at 4 fps = 250ms frame time => complete new frame has 1.78 times as much information as usable temporal central part of previous frame. (Which covered previously 56.25% of frame.)
With very high fps, frame time is very small. And so is amount of missing information in previous frame required to enhance new frame.
Opposite to that extreme would be fps so small (or speed so high), that nothing on next frame is based on previous frame.
Simply put, when one HW puts out 200fps and HW next to it puts out only 50fps, slower HW has proportionally higher change in data per frame missing. (In motion situations. When scene in view is static, there is practically no change over time and therefore no loss.)
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5891528 Posted on: 02/28/2021 11:34 PM
No kind of post-processing is native. It is just post processing.
One could as well render native 4K, run over it 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter and state: "Native 4K is worse than TAA 1080p."
Sure, 4K with use of 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter would look worse than 1080p with any TAA. Yet, statement would be wrong as it does not compare native resolution rendering, but post-processing methods.
And as can be seen, I stated that DLSS 2.0 is often better than TAA run at native resolution. (But not better than native resolution rendering itself. There is simply too big loss of information for both TAA and DLSS.)
And as I wrote many times before. nVidia should have enabled use of DLSS for processing of native resolution images. Its frametime impact is not high and would justify its results.
DLSS 2.0 is awesome but honestly that TAA implementation in Control is awful and should not be called native.
No kind of post-processing is native. It is just post processing.
One could as well render native 4K, run over it 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter and state: "Native 4K is worse than TAA 1080p."
Sure, 4K with use of 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter would look worse than 1080p with any TAA. Yet, statement would be wrong as it does not compare native resolution rendering, but post-processing methods.
And as can be seen, I stated that DLSS 2.0 is often better than TAA run at native resolution. (But not better than native resolution rendering itself. There is simply too big loss of information for both TAA and DLSS.)
And as I wrote many times before. nVidia should have enabled use of DLSS for processing of native resolution images. Its frametime impact is not high and would justify its results.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 7188
Joined: 2020-08-03
Then you misunderstand how temporal part of DLSS works. Image quality is different between 3060 and 3090.
how ?
you thought dlss works better on 2080ti than 2070 cause it has more tensor cores,which is simply not true
https://www.computerbase.de/2020-12/nvidia-geforce-rtx-3060-ti-asus-msi-test/2/#abschnitt-benchmarks-mit-raytracing-und-dlss-sowie-reflex
now with another theory no one has heard of