Be Quiet! Pure Power 12 M - 850W ATX 3.0 PSU review
Corsair H170i Elite Capellix XT review
Forspoken: PC performance graphics benchmarks
ASRock Z790 Taichi review
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
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...
Noisiv
Senior Member
Posts: 8192
Joined: 2010-11-16
Senior Member
Posts: 8192
Joined: 2010-11-16
#5891560 Posted on: 03/01/2021 03:07 AM
I get you and I feel for you. That thing you do not want to put here is:
8kHz
"
Not bandwidth limited signal. Does not exist in nature. Not even on oscilloscope.
Nothing that is truly well measured is non-smooth.
if you want to sample a non-smooth signal like that, you can do it on paper and you need infinite bandwidth, ie infinite number of frequencies.
I get you and I feel for you. That thing you do not want to put here is:
8kHz
triangle wave
"
Not bandwidth limited signal. Does not exist in nature. Not even on oscilloscope.
Nothing that is truly well measured is non-smooth.
if you want to sample a non-smooth signal like that, you can do it on paper and you need infinite bandwidth, ie infinite number of frequencies.
cucaulay malkin
Senior Member
Posts: 7219
Joined: 2020-08-03
Senior Member
Posts: 7219
Joined: 2020-08-03
#5891571 Posted on: 03/01/2021 07:14 AM
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 much difference does it make tho ?
and this is pretty useless when you're giving examples like 50 vs 200 fps difference even for 3060 vs 3090 and 2 fps vs 4 fps.
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 much difference does it make tho ?
and this is pretty useless when you're giving examples like 50 vs 200 fps difference even for 3060 vs 3090 and 2 fps vs 4 fps.
Fox2232
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
#5891579 Posted on: 03/01/2021 09:25 AM
Not bandwidth limited signal. Does not exist in nature. Not even on oscilloscope.
Nothing that is truly well measured is non-smooth.
if you want to sample a non-smooth signal like that, you can do it on paper and you need infinite bandwidth, ie infinite number of frequencies.
Yes, you are right. Information is lost. And just because some human does not necessarily perceive difference, does not mean information has not been lost.
There are those situations which lead to loss of information due to result of two waves meeting and mixing in mathematical system under wrong conditions. And as with sampling, mixing/processing (reverb or spatial audio) at different frequencies yields different results. And it may again result in audible differences.
And has not been entire argument about loss of information?
Did it really take Extreme use case which practically turns triangular wave into sine wave as everything that makes them different been cut-off due to sampling rate?
how much difference does it make tho ?
and this is pretty useless when you're giving examples like 50 vs 200 fps difference even for 3060 vs 3090 and 2 fps vs 4 fps.
You can answer yourself. How much did image change in between two frames?
How much you moved forward/zoomed? (Or how much did object moved towards you.)
How much you rotated view to side? (Or how much did object moved to side.)
How much you rotated view around object? (Or how much did object rotate inside view?)
But it remains that if you use lossless recording to capture game with same image quality settings and DLSS2.0.
Where one HW produces exactly 50fps and other exactly 100 fps and next 200fps.
And you take out corresponding images for comparison, there is going to be difference.
Not bandwidth limited signal. Does not exist in nature. Not even on oscilloscope.
Nothing that is truly well measured is non-smooth.
if you want to sample a non-smooth signal like that, you can do it on paper and you need infinite bandwidth, ie infinite number of frequencies.
Yes, you are right. Information is lost. And just because some human does not necessarily perceive difference, does not mean information has not been lost.
There are those situations which lead to loss of information due to result of two waves meeting and mixing in mathematical system under wrong conditions. And as with sampling, mixing/processing (reverb or spatial audio) at different frequencies yields different results. And it may again result in audible differences.
And has not been entire argument about loss of information?
Did it really take Extreme use case which practically turns triangular wave into sine wave as everything that makes them different been cut-off due to sampling rate?
how much difference does it make tho ?
and this is pretty useless when you're giving examples like 50 vs 200 fps difference even for 3060 vs 3090 and 2 fps vs 4 fps.
You can answer yourself. How much did image change in between two frames?
How much you moved forward/zoomed? (Or how much did object moved towards you.)
How much you rotated view to side? (Or how much did object moved to side.)
How much you rotated view around object? (Or how much did object rotate inside view?)
But it remains that if you use lossless recording to capture game with same image quality settings and DLSS2.0.
Where one HW produces exactly 50fps and other exactly 100 fps and next 200fps.
And you take out corresponding images for comparison, there is going to be difference.
PrMinisterGR
Senior Member
Posts: 8093
Joined: 2014-09-27
Senior Member
Posts: 8093
Joined: 2014-09-27
#5891586 Posted on: 03/01/2021 09:59 AM
And I'll repeat myself, extra for you. Your statement is analogy to claiming that:
FxAA at 1080p is better than "native" 4K with 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter.
That would be true, if you actually understood my statement, or how any of this works.
And even if we go and say that we are comparing postprocessing filters. Which I did before, my statements remains true:
TAA is bad in most of implementations and even fact that when DLSS 2.0 competes with poor TAA, DLSS is not exactly good.
It does similarly poor job as TAA at better performance.
It doesn't simply do it at "better performance". It works with half, or even a quarter of the raw pixel input that TAA has to work with.
Now to the reading. Could not you just say that even 10 years ago, games used quarter resolution shadow buffers? Article has nothing new.
The whole meaning of the article is that the term "native" is stupid. It doesn't mean anything for a long time now, except the rendering resolution of triangles. What that resolution has to do with the resolution of all the other engine features or effects, is completely arbitrary. You are praising "native" but what does "native" even mean? You are certain that DLSS or anything similar cannot look better than "native", while its job is to take something with half the pixel density of native, and make it look like it. So yeah, it will look better than native if you give it more pixels. That threshold is less pixels than native.
Even Young Blood used blatantly lazy approach where some things were rendered in grid of 2x1 pixels. So those things were rendered at half resolution, .. instead of using VRS and keeping actual geometry at native resolution.
Why was that stupid? Can you actually tell if it does that? Do you have a profiler to see which approach would be faster?
(That was another game where DLSS shined, right?) DLSS shines in visually gimped games.
Would nVidia had proper settings for it, it would shine in all games.
"Visually gimped games"? Is this another arbitrary name for things? If anything, most games using DLSS look great.
To the point:
What are you trying to say? You want DLSS to have more resolution options? Is that it? 2.1 does have them.
And I'll repeat myself, extra for you. Your statement is analogy to claiming that:
FxAA at 1080p is better than "native" 4K with 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter.
That would be true, if you actually understood my statement, or how any of this works.
And even if we go and say that we are comparing postprocessing filters. Which I did before, my statements remains true:
TAA is bad in most of implementations and even fact that when DLSS 2.0 competes with poor TAA, DLSS is not exactly good.
It does similarly poor job as TAA at better performance.
It doesn't simply do it at "better performance". It works with half, or even a quarter of the raw pixel input that TAA has to work with.
Now to the reading. Could not you just say that even 10 years ago, games used quarter resolution shadow buffers? Article has nothing new.
The whole meaning of the article is that the term "native" is stupid. It doesn't mean anything for a long time now, except the rendering resolution of triangles. What that resolution has to do with the resolution of all the other engine features or effects, is completely arbitrary. You are praising "native" but what does "native" even mean? You are certain that DLSS or anything similar cannot look better than "native", while its job is to take something with half the pixel density of native, and make it look like it. So yeah, it will look better than native if you give it more pixels. That threshold is less pixels than native.
Even Young Blood used blatantly lazy approach where some things were rendered in grid of 2x1 pixels. So those things were rendered at half resolution, .. instead of using VRS and keeping actual geometry at native resolution.
Why was that stupid? Can you actually tell if it does that? Do you have a profiler to see which approach would be faster?
(That was another game where DLSS shined, right?) DLSS shines in visually gimped games.
Would nVidia had proper settings for it, it would shine in all games.
"Visually gimped games"? Is this another arbitrary name for things? If anything, most games using DLSS look great.
To the point:
What are you trying to say? You want DLSS to have more resolution options? Is that it? 2.1 does have them.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 11808
Joined: 2012-07-20
There is no "native" and no post processing distinction, not the way you imagine it.
A single game (at any given native resolution), is a composition of effects, filters and calculations done at usually a fraction of the"native" resolution.
I know you will ignore this and say whatever, but if anyone else is interested in how things actually are, this is s great read:
https://simoncoenen.com/blog/programming/graphics/DoomEternalStudy.html
And I'll repeat myself, extra for you. Your statement is analogy to claiming that:
FxAA at 1080p is better than "native" 4K with 10 pixel wide Gaussian filter.
And even if we go and say that we are comparing postprocessing filters. Which I did before, my statements remains true:
TAA is bad in most of implementations and even fact that when DLSS 2.0 competes with poor TAA, DLSS is not exactly good.
It does similarly poor job as TAA at better performance.
Instead it should (and it can) do great job at minor increase of performance cost over TAA.
- - - -
Now to the reading. Could not you just say that even 10 years ago, games used quarter resolution shadow buffers? Article has nothing new.
Even Young Blood used blatantly lazy approach where some things were rendered in grid of 2x1 pixels. So those things were rendered at half resolution, .. instead of using VRS and keeping actual geometry at native resolution.
(That was another game where DLSS shined, right?) DLSS shines in visually gimped games.
Would nVidia had proper settings for it, it would shine in all games.
And that's why I wrote in this very thread:
If anything, they should have implemented DLSS into R6:Siege as option.
In times I was playing it, game used toxic levels of of blur with TAA and even DLSS 1.x would have shot there to be perceived as improving image quality.