Well... same as with DLSS: make it work, dear driver teams / devs. Before we see it working, this is nice to know but... not much more besides that.

It's Gsync and Freesync scenario all over again.

Thanks for posting this Hilbert and especially for that hires die shot! Can I offer a suggestion? Can you embed the guru3d.com watermark like an embossed engraving in your future pictures? I think it would look much classier since I do use your pictures as wallpaper.

Valken:

Thanks for posting this Hilbert and especially for that hires die shot! Can I offer a suggestion? Can you embed the guru3d.com watermark like an embossed engraving in your future pictures? I think it would look much classier since I do use your pictures as wallpaper.

That picture in the article even has a watermark 😀

problem with this tech is you have to bake it so procedurally generated graphics may not work. I do think its a step backwards not forwards because of its limitations .

Valken:

Thanks for posting this Hilbert and especially for that hires die shot! Can I offer a suggestion? Can you embed the guru3d.com watermark like an embossed engraving in your future pictures? I think it would look much classier since I do use your pictures as wallpaper.

I can look into that sure, btw for some high-res VII wallpaper, click here.

Nvidia be like: "You need our PhysX chip, CUDA cores, tensor cores, Gsync module for those things!" AMD be like: "Hold my beer..."

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

I can look into that sure, btw for some high-res VII wallpaper, click here.

Thanks Hilbert! That nerd pr0n just made my day! :P

999Anticlock9wiSe:

problem with this tech is you have to bake it so procedurally generated graphics may not work. I do think its a step backwards not forwards because of its limitations .

I'm not sure I can follow you, what do you mean by "bake" it?

labidas:

Nvidia be like: "You need our PhysX chip, CUDA cores, tensor cores, Gsync module for those things!" AMD be like: "Hold my beer..."

AMD can do it with brute force, Nvidia tries to be "smarter" here and run it via specialised hardware. If you read Hilbert's article, it might do just the same on AMD's hardware, just might need more horsepower to do so.

Hilbert Hagedoorn:

I can look into that sure, btw for some high-res VII wallpaper, click here.

Those are some great news, and that's a sexy shot right there. "whistles" 😉 Thank you for sharing @Hilbert Hagedoorn

labidas:

Nvidia be like: "You need our PhysX chip, CUDA cores, tensor cores, Gsync module for those things!" AMD be like: "Hold my beer..."

Lol! That’s a good one.

fantaskarsef:

IAMD can do it with brute force, Nvidia tries to be "smarter" here and run it via specialised hardware. If you read Hilbert's article, it might do just the same on AMD's hardware, just might need more horsepower to do so.

Which Vega (both 10 & 20) has that horsepower to do DirectML it via GPGPU as per AMD when asked about this. Also on the same answer AMD said that RVII is 62-65% faster than the RTX2080 in Luxmark ray tracing benchmark, Which is using OpenCL based ray tracing. (Vega 64 is also 3% faster than RTX2080 on this benchmark).

Vega (10/20) Cards support Double the GFLOPS on FP16 so they gonna perform much better with DirectML (it can use FP16 when released)- See more info on my comment on other thread: https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/amd-announces-radeon-vii-7nm.424782/page-11#post-5628107 I also think that it's is the same like it was with Gsync/FreeSync, NV just made users to be first Beta Testers for this tech before it gonna be Free.

HWgeek:

Vega (10/20) Cards support Double the GFLOPS on FP16 so they gonna perform much better with DirectML (it can use FP16 when released)- See more info on my comment on other thread: https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/amd-announces-radeon-vii-7nm.424782/page-11#post-5628107 I also think that it's is the same like it was with Gsync/FreeSync, NV just made users to be first Beta Testers for this tech before it gonna be Free.

DLSS is free. Turing still has an advantage because of the tensors, which DirectML can leverage.

DirectML is an API. DLSS can work via DirectML as well once it will actually be available. The bulk of effort however is in developing DLSS itself, not in choosing an API which is will run through. DLSS running via NV's own NGX right now doesn't cost anything to end user. What AMD will actually need though to make something like DLSS work are tensor cores. Which none of their GPUs have right now.

HWgeek:

Vega (10/20) Cards support Double the GFLOPS on FP16

All Turing cards support double rate FP16 on main SIMDs.

Fediuld:

Which Vega (both 10 & 20) has that horsepower to do DirectML it via GPGPU as per AMD when asked about this. Also on the same answer AMD said that RVII is 62-65% faster than the RTX2080 in Luxmark ray tracing benchmark, Which is using OpenCL based ray tracing. (Vega 64 is also 3% faster than RTX2080 on this benchmark).

None of what you wrote is wrong. Only that it's not what it's about... especially not in this thread. We're talking about AI algorythm execution, DLSS has nothing to do with ray tracing, so your benchmark shows little in terms of comparable performance or anything in general about DLSS. Also, why should any 2080 user run OpenCL ray tracing in games when they have DXR / RTX... that simply doesn't make any sense as of now. Sure, if at some point OpenCL RT is the thing, Nvidia will have a problem (as it has happened with some things in the past between red and green too), but right now, this benchmark is useless besides being able to brag about it, or in professional environments (where I guess it will be more of a matchup between Nvidia's and AMD's professional cards, in which you'd have to compare Vega2's daddy to a Titan, not the 2080). Like @dr_rus said, AMD has to "invent" a way to do DLSS first, this probably takes quite some time, then hast to work together with the game devs to test it, then hast the gamedevs to submit their game, they push it through it's AI training parcours on the big computers, then AMD is where Nvidia says they're right now. So... like I said, right now, nice to know, but this news article probably only shows it's significance in half a year from now or later.

Denial:

DLSS is free. Turing still has an advantage because of the tensors, which DirectML can leverage.

DLSS is free, Tensor cores however are not 😛

Denial:

DLSS is free. Turing still has an advantage because of the tensors, which DirectML can leverage.

That's questionable... because when not using DLSS or RTX, RT cores are worthless but at same time taking A LOT of space on die. There are not many ways to test DLSS so far but from what GN tested in FF XV, to be honest DLSS looked considerably worse than native 4k with TAA.

xrodney:

That's questionable... because when not using DLSS or RTX, RT cores are worthless but at same time taking A LOT of space on die. There are not many ways to test DLSS so far but from what GN tested in FF XV, to be honest DLSS looked considerably worse than native 4k with TAA.

I keep seeing this idea that RT/Tensor cores take "a lot of space up" but I really don't see any evidence of that at all. Turing has the same CUDA/mm2 as GP100 but it does it with Tensor, RT, double the cache and twice as many dispatch units and a process that's the same density. They take up space sure - they definitely don't take up "a lot of space". Regardless, I'm responding to people comparing this to Freesync vs Gsync - RPM has a fixed die cost as well that's been idle with the exception of Farcry 5 - so looking at it your way they both cost die space for a feature used in relatively little titles. As far as quality, DLSS utilizes an autoencoder which is basically the same implementation that Microsoft demonstrated for their upscaler on DirectML early last year and will most likely be the same that AMD uses. You can tweak the weights, train longer, etc to improve quality. With only one example on a game that seems to be somewhat abandoned it's hard to say what DLSS or any AI upscaler will be like.

xrodney:

RT cores are worthless but at same time taking A LOT of space on die

Source on that please.