There are additional features for having the dedicated Gsync module like Ultra Low Motion Blur mode back when it came out in 2014 that AdaptiveSync can't replicate, now newer Gsync monitors also have the reflex analyzer, these features are only worth it for Esport gamers (Gsync Ultimate Features).
The concept of how the ULMB works is something that could be effortlessly implemented by the panel and doesn't need to be part of the AdaptiveSync spec.
Reflex analyzer is nice but considering it revolves around 3rd party peripherals, that already suggests there was nothing about it that makes it locked to Nvidia.
If you think AMD is playing nice, how about the Smart Access Memory, did AMD release any source code for their tech? Nope, Nvidia and Intel figured it out on their own that it's Resizeable Bar that had existed in the PCIe spec. AMD only open-source their techs after Nvidia have introduced them first (like FSR). In the end all these decisions are for the good of their own respective companies.
Uh.... you know SAM is just some stupid marketing name for rBAR, right (same goes with FreeSync)? What is AMD supposed to release for a feature that was already part of the PCIe spec? What would Intel and Nvidia have to "figure out" when they most likely contributed toward the spec? Clearly, AMD isn't doing anything special with it seeing as Intel CPU platforms can support SAM, and nothing prevented Nvidia GPUs from using rBAR on AMD platforms.
So yeah, not really the best example.
Well for a propriety software, DLSS sure turned out popular enough that almost all new AAA games come with DLSS support. Surely devs must realized that the majority of their target audience have RTX GPUs.
There are also a lot of new titles that don't appear to support it.
As far as I understand (and maybe I'm mistaken), not just anyone can implement DLSS, because Nvidia does most of the work on their end with AI training. I assume they don't just freely give out that training to just anyone. That being said, it's relatively easy for studios to implement it since they don't have to do much themselves.
Also according to Steam surveys, RTX-capable GPUs make up about 30% of the PC market. Since you specified target audience, that still isn't true since consoles are part of the target audience and they don't support DLSS. Why do I say any of this? Because Nvidia probably approaches the studios to implement DLSS rather than the other way around. Which honestly, I'm in favor of - I see no problem with a vendor working with 3rd parties to make a better product. I'd rather it not be for a platform-exclusive feature but the practice in general is good.
cucaulay malkin:
meanwhile the free for all fsr 2.0 has most of the work is done by modders.
Indeed it is, which honestly I think is a good thing - it's getting wide adoption that way and we're not at the mercy of AMD's sub-par driver devs to make things work. I would rather have a feature that isn't quite as good but can work on just about anything than a feature that is great (but still has room for improvement) and limited to a select few titles. I guess the nice thing for Nvidia users is they technically can have both, should Nvidia adopt FSR (I'm not sure if they did).
The DLSS frame interpolation and the DLSS supersampling doesn't hold and dispatch otherwise fully nonexistent fixed data: both implementation require engine input for their output and neither can be considered trade-secret.
DLSS2 was ahead in term of optimization and NIVIDA did a wonderful job in blurring the line for the past 4 year but.. right now, both FSR2 and DLSS2 supersampling technique are on par.
XESS is also doing very well on generic 6.4 shader model hardware.
So, the point is;
NVIDIA unlike AMD and INTEL is the only one missing the generic implementation which is netting same quality and better performance alike the locked DLSS2.
See the bad value point yet?
What are you talking about, drivers are rock solid.
Maybe your OS needs a fresh install.
I first mean dlss bullshit, and drivers before the two last ones were also bullshit, they began to fix that after lot of people were complaining about it, also cards are made with bad components not as strong as old days, they were lasting 5 years and sometimes even more, now they last only 2-3 years to make people buy new cards quickly, and they are pushing cards too far with oc for the same purpose unfortunately for us.
There are additional features for having the dedicated Gsync module like Ultra Low Motion Blur mode back when it came out in 2014 that AdaptiveSync can't replicate, now newer Gsync monitors also have the reflex analyzer, these features are only worth it for Esport gamers (Gsync Ultimate Features).
If you think AMD is playing nice, how about the Smart Access Memory, did AMD release any source code for their tech? Nope, Nvidia and Intel figured it out on their own that it's Resizeable Bar that had existed in the PCIe spec. AMD only open-source their techs after Nvidia have introduced them first (like FSR). In the end all these decisions are for the good of their own respective companies.
Well for a propriety software, DLSS sure turned out popular enough that almost all new AAA games come with DLSS support. Surely devs must realized that the majority of their target audience have RTX GPUs.
Uh.... you know SAM is just some stupid marketing name for rBAR, right (same goes with FreeSync)? What is AMD supposed to release for a feature that was already part of the PCIe spec? What would Intel and Nvidia have to "figure out" when they most likely contributed toward the spec? Clearly, AMD isn't doing anything special with it seeing as Intel CPU platforms can support SAM, and nothing prevented Nvidia GPUs from using rBAR on AMD platforms.
So yeah, not really the best example.
Nah, rBAR is like a tickbox for Nvidia/Intel, they don't dedicate any resource to it, right now there are only 23 games whitelisted for rBAR in the latest driver. Same for Intel, their CPU support it but the older gens gain no performance benefit or even perf degradation (like my 9900K).
Like a horserace, Nvidia/RTG release some exclusive features and the other have to reverse engineer those features, that's the beauty of competition. I will give you another example, RTG released Radeon Anti-Lag, which was marginally better than Nvidia Null (0 queue depth), later Nvidia released Reflex which outdid Radeon Anti-Lag (but require devs integration).
W1zzard from TPU mention that all DLSS2 titles only need Reflex in order to support DLSS3, Reflex takes a day or two to implement
schmidtbag:
There are also a lot of new titles that don't appear to support it.
As far as I understand (and maybe I'm mistaken), not just anyone can implement DLSS, because Nvidia does most of the work on their end with AI training. I assume they don't just freely give out that training to just anyone. That being said, it's relatively easy for studios to implement it since they don't have to do much themselves.
Also according to Steam surveys, RTX-capable GPUs make up about 30% of the PC market. Since you specified target audience, that still isn't true since consoles are part of the target audience and they don't support DLSS. Why do I say any of this? Because Nvidia probably approaches the studios to implement DLSS rather than the other way around. Which honestly, I'm in favor of - I see no problem with a vendor working with 3rd parties to make a better product. I'd rather it not be for a platform-exclusive feature but the practice in general is good.
DLSS/FSR2.0/XeSS require motion vectors and other data from the game engine, devs must first learn how to program their engine to do so and Nvidia has done all the groundwork for FSR2.0/XeSS. That why you will see DLSS game supporting FSR2.0/XeSS, because they all work the same way.
Sony exclusive titles when ported to PC all come supporting DLSS: FF XV, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding, Tokyo:GhostWire, God of War, Spiderman Remastered, Uncharted, Returnal, etc...I guess Sony understand what their target audience is
Meanwhile Xbox titles can't even implement basic TAA (Forza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite), let alone some advance upscalers.
One thing that's interesting, just on the side of things, is how Nvidia successfully captured what made AMD the pick a few years ago: if you wanted to have something that "gets better in the long run, once drivers mature" and along such lines.
These days, it's actually DLSS that "keeps on getting better" with more games and longer time.
Or that's what impression their marketing has on me, anyway. Since DLSS3 is available in not a single game I'd like to play or do right now.
DLSS in my opinion, isn't getting any better, if it is going to be tied to a generational hardware limit, screw that.
There are additional features for having the dedicated Gsync module like Ultra Low Motion Blur mode back when it came out in 2014 that AdaptiveSync can't replicate, now newer Gsync monitors also have the reflex analyzer, these features are only worth it for Esport gamers (Gsync Ultimate Features).
If you think AMD is playing nice, how about the Smart Access Memory, did AMD release any source code for their tech? Nope, Nvidia and Intel figured it out on their own that it's Resizeable Bar that had existed in the PCIe spec. AMD only open-source their techs after Nvidia have introduced them first (like FSR). In the end all these decisions are for the good of their own respective companies.
Well for a propriety software, DLSS sure turned out popular enough that almost all new AAA games come with DLSS support. Surely devs must realized that the majority of their target audience have RTX GPUs.
Now AAA is only using FSR, Overwatch 2 only uses FSR. I expect more to follow. Since all cards can use FSR why build just for Nvidia? FSR is just going to keep getting better and used more then DLSS due to it being Open Source.
I love DLSS as I do have an Nvidia card, however, a lot of games now have adopted FSR and it looks just as good as DLSS.
Now AAA is only using FSR, Overwatch 2 only uses FSR. I expect more to follow. Since all cards can use FSR why build just for Nvidia? FSR is just going to keep getting better and used more then DLSS due to it being Open Source.
I love DLSS as I do have an Nvidia card, however, a lot of games now have adopted FSR and it looks just as good as DLSS.
Wow so compelling, you really are making me think I should just have your single word that it's just trash. You really should go tell that AAA company called Blizzard and tell them they are trash and all the other ones who are adapting it over just DLSS.
You for sure do smell like an Nvidia FANBOY. Did you buy your overpriced 4090 yet? Still plenty in stock. 😀
OMG Look how TRASH FSR 2.0 is... I hope you do know Nvidia just takes Open Source projects and modifies them and calls them their own right? Most big companies do this, Amazon AWS is another big one that takes OS projects and slaps its own label on them. Like the new codec, Nvidia has for their 4000 cards, that's open source. Intel has it as well and so will AMD's new cards...
GET OUT OF HERE FANNYBOY
Wow so compelling, you really are making me think I should just have your single word that it's just trash. You really should go tell that AAA company called Blizzard and tell them they are trash and all the other ones who are adapting it over just DLSS.
You for sure do smell like an Nvidia FANBOY. Did you buy your overpriced 4090 yet? Still plenty in stock. 😀
OMG Look how TRASH FSR 2.0 is... I hope you do know Nvidia just takes Open Source projects and modifies them and calls them their own right? Most big companies do this, Amazon AWS is another big one that takes OS projects and slaps its own label on them. Like the new codec, Nvidia has for their 4000 cards, that's open source. Intel has it as well and so will AMD's new cards...
GET OUT OF HERE FANNYBOY
Dear mr trash bot,
FSR1.0 is not FSR2.0, learn the difference
OW2 has FSR1.0, which is just pure trash
Very talkative for 1-month-old acc eh bot
Dear mr trash bot,
FSR1.0 is not FSR2.0, learn the difference
OW2 has FSR1.0, which is just pure trash
Very talkative for 1-month-old acc eh bot
FSR 1.0 still looks great on a game called Grounded. Open Source tech getting as good as DLSS, what a surprise. FSR 2.0 will be as good as DLSS and its open source.
DLSS 3.0 is magic bullshit putting in fake frames to make it look like it's a higher fps... here comes the latency... BOT, BOT, BOT
Frame generation has the potential to become something very important in the future, although i have mixed feelings about it.
Nvidia should have just named it NGX DL / NGX SS / NGX FI / NGX RTX ETC ETC
Personally I don't like very much either the deep learning resolve of DLSS 1 and the frame interpolation of DLSS 3
Nah, rBAR is like a tickbox for Nvidia/Intel, they don't dedicate any resource to it, right now there are only 23 games whitelisted for rBAR in the latest driver. Same for Intel, their CPU support it but the older gens gain no performance benefit or even perf degradation (like my 9900K).
What do you mean by "dedicate any resource to it"? rBAR is a rather passive feature; either a game benefits from it being on or it doesn't. Considering what it does, Nvidia is smart to be cautious about it since even though it should never deteriorate performance, there could be unseen stability issues with it, hence the whitelist. As for Intel, seems to me they enable it across the board and it makes a big difference for their GPUs.
Like a horserace, Nvidia/RTG release some exclusive features and the other have to reverse engineer those features, that's the beauty of competition. I will give you another example, RTG released Radeon Anti-Lag, which was marginally better than Nvidia Null (0 queue depth), later Nvidia released Reflex which outdid Radeon Anti-Lag (but require devs integration).
Right but rBAR isn't something Nvidia would have to reverse engineer. I would be shocked if Nvidia did not partake in the spec for it. AMD was just antsy to get it out first because they're desperate for wins.
I highly doubt Nvidia reverse engineered anything for Reflex. The concept is simple enough that they could easily implement it themselves without copying AMD's homework.
In most cases where one vendor tries to match the features of another, reverse engineering isn't a viable option, because:
A. There isn't enough time to do that. We're not in the 90s anymore where drivers were only a couple MB and architectures were simple enough that you could probably map them out in a matter of weeks.
B. The architectures are so drastically different that the competitor won't get much out of it. That's like finding an ancient recipe written in a long dead language using an ingredient that went extinct - it's not that you couldn't potentially do it, but you won't get the same results so there isn't much value in the effort.
C. The competitor's architecture might not be well optimized. For example, Nvidia has dedicated RT cores - AMD wouldn't really benefit much from reverse engineering something they have no time or interest to implement themselves, which is why they didn't.
Sony exclusive titles when ported to PC all come supporting DLSS: FF XV, Horizon Zero Dawn, Death Stranding, Tokyo:GhostWire, God of War, Spiderman Remastered, Uncharted, Returnal, etc...I guess Sony understand what their target audience is
Meanwhile Xbox titles can't even implement basic TAA (Forza Horizon 5, Halo Infinite), let alone some advance upscalers.
Yeah I do find that a bit backwards haha. But traditionally, Sony makes more money from the games than from the system. Regardless of the exclusive tech, their PC releases seem to tap into more potential, so looks like Sony's approach is "if we're gonna have PC support, might as well make the most of it".
What do you mean by "dedicate any resource to it"? rBAR is a rather passive feature; either a game benefits from it being on or it doesn't. Considering what it does, Nvidia is smart to be cautious about it since even though it should never deteriorate performance, there could be unseen stability issues with it, hence the whitelist. As for Intel, seems to me they enable it across the board and it makes a big difference for their GPUs.
Right but rBAR isn't something Nvidia would have to reverse engineer. I would be shocked if Nvidia did not partake in the spec for it. AMD was just antsy to get it out first because they're desperate for wins.
I highly doubt Nvidia reverse engineered anything for Reflex. The concept is simple enough that they could easily implement it themselves without copying AMD's homework.
In most cases where one vendor tries to match the features of another, reverse engineering isn't a viable option, because:
A. There isn't enough time to do that. We're not in the 90s anymore where drivers were only a couple MB and architectures were simple enough that you could probably map them out in a matter of weeks.
B. The architectures are so drastically different that the competitor won't get much out of it. That's like finding an ancient recipe written in a long dead language using an ingredient that went extinct - it's not that you couldn't potentially do it, but you won't get the same results so there isn't much value in the effort.
C. The competitor's architecture might not be well optimized. For example, Nvidia has dedicated RT cores - AMD wouldn't really benefit much from reverse engineering something they have no time or interest to implement themselves, which is why they didn't.
Yeah I do find that a bit backwards haha. But traditionally, Sony makes more money from the games than from the system. Regardless of the exclusive tech, their PC releases seem to tap into more potential, so looks like Sony's approach is "if we're gonna have PC support, might as well make the most of it".
rBAR do deteriorate performance by default, but it's offsetted when games benefited from it. On older platform like my 9900K, having rBAR enabled in the BIOS reduce performance in non-whitelisted games, overall rBAR is a mess on older Intel CPU + rtx3000, not sure about rtx4000. AMD said that their Ryzen+ rx6000 are optimized for SAM, there's probably some truth to it. You can check out HUB video about rBAR.
There is no need for reverse engineering when you have a bunch of talented software developers, all Nvidia/AMD need are ideas. You can see that AMD can match any Nvidia exclusive features like Gsync/DLSS just fine. So yeah, the decision to make something open-source are not for the good of consumers, it's for the good of their own company.
I do believe that Nvidia saw Radeon anti-lag slide and though to themselves that they could develop further on it, Reflex came out a few months after (but first Nvidia had to lie about Radeon Anti-Lag being the same as NuLL 🙄)
schmidtbag:
Yeah I do find that a bit backwards haha. But traditionally, Sony makes more money from the games than from the system. Regardless of the exclusive tech, their PC releases seem to tap into more potential, so looks like Sony's approach is "if we're gonna have PC support, might as well make the most of it".
Game companies would love for gamers to buy their games at full prices, not months later and 50% discount. The true target audience would be gamers with high end PC who buy games at launch.
Don't believe me? Days Gone dev said so.
So yeah, the niche market with high-end PCs is actually the money pot for game companies. If you think DLSS2/3 is irrelevant because it's niche, might want to think again
So yeah, the niche market with high-end PCs is actually the money pot for game companies. If you think DLSS2/3 is irrelevant because it's niche, might want to think again
Shows how little you actually listen. I've already stated DLSS isn't niche. I didn't say it was irrelevant either.
Agonist may be a belligerent fanboy he's right to call you one if you think I interpret DLSS as irrelevant and niche.
Off to a bit of a rough start with DLSS 3. In general, it doesn't matter what the potential is for the technology if it requires developers to put in extra work to implement it, especially if it only applies to a single vendor's hardware. I'd say the only truly successful Nvidia-specific technology was CUDA, and that's because they made it sooo much better than the alternative that it became the only obvious choice for most developers. So long as Nvidia locks technologies to their platform, we're never going to see a lot of use-cases for them.
You implied DLSS being locked to Nvidia hardwares making it niche and irrelevant and I called you out for it LOL.
Contradictory to your belief, game companies will ask their devs to include DLSS2/3, when doing so make them more money.
Well if stating the obvious trend (that anti-Nvidia can't see) make me a fanboy, so be it.
Oh here come another Sony game come out with DLSS3, I wonder why devs put in so much effort to include single vendor techs
[youtube=FLop8vMHfcE]
You implied DLSS being locked to Nvidia hardwares making it niche and irrelevant and I called you out for it LOL.
Contradictory to your belief, game companies will ask their devs to include DLSS2/3, when doing so make them more money.
Well if stating the obvious trend (that anti-Nvidia can't see) make me a fanboy, so be it.
No actually, I didn't, but your biases and ability to read a dictionary let you think that way because I insulted your precious Nvidia.
I said DLSS 3.0 is off to a rough start with titles that support it, which is definitely true. My only point was that because DLSS is vendor locked and not all that simple to implement, it won't see wide-spread adoption. This is a tend with Nvidia's technologies. DLSS is a widely desirable feature. I have already stated that, probably more than once already. For something to be desirable is the opposite of niche or irrelevant.
If stating the reality of the situation makes you butthurt, so be it, but don't words into my mouth that I never said or implied. Don't skip over the parts that make your argument inconvenient or over-zealous.
My only point was that because DLSS is vendor locked and not all that simple to implement, it won't see wide-spread adoption. This is a tend with Nvidia's technologies.
Lol, entirely false, new AAA games come out with DLSS left and right, you are just pretending it isn't.
Game companies would love for gamers to buy their games at full prices, not months later and 50% discount. The true target audience would be gamers with high end PC who buy games at launch. Don't believe me? Days Gone dev said so. So yeah, the niche market with high-end PCs is actually the money pot for game companies. If you think DLSS2/3 is irrelevant because it's niche, might want to think again