Current Events > Another generation, another AMD GPU disappointment

(+) Yeah! (+)

Team Red is still the way to go though.

monkmith posted...

2 years later, when they realize their proprietary version isn't getting any love...

They're usually a little faster for the most popular titles. It doesn't always work out though. G-Sync is dead in the water.

---

@ 1440p, Control loses ~38.532% average FPS by turning on RTX


@ 4k, Wolfenstien: Youngblood loses ~39.869% average FPS by turning on RTX


@4K, Fortnite with ALL RT effects on, loses ~74.725% average FPS, and no amount of DLSS can get the average FPS past the 60 FPS min bar.


@ 1440p, Fortnite with ALL RT effects on, loses ~72.941% average FPS, but only with DLSS does it eek past the 60 average FPS min bar.

RayTracing is a nice to have, but it's questionable how useful it is in many scenarios, especially competitive online gaming.

In single player games, it's whatever, if you don't mind the performance hit, then sure, turn it on for prettier graphics.

Who here likes MASSIVE drops in their average FPS to get extra pretty lighting & shadow effects. Please raise your hand?

Nothing is "Free", and RTX 3070 performance is right in line with 2080 Ti in performance, off by 1-2%.

The only reason the 3080/3090 has better RT performance is beause they have more compute power than their lower tier sibling cards.

But you pay quite the premium by going from 3080 -> 3090.

---

Tyranthraxus posted...

They're usually a little faster for the most popular titles. It doesn't always work out though. G-Sync is dead in the water.

I think that can often be the thing with NVIDIA. Remember when PhysX was gonna be the big thing? Old games that use that are just a headache now.

---

Why would I be in the $700 GPU range if I wasn't looking for pretty graphics? Serious question from a budget GPU buyer


---

Also I hope super resolution is good af. Ideally with comparable results in image quality, even if less in terms of performance gain from native resolution.

---

Jabodie posted...

Why would I be in the $700 GPU range if I wasn't looking for pretty graphics? Serious question from a budget GPU buyer

I think if you weren't going for crazy graphics, you can build some like 600-700 bucks computer that can run everything in 1080p 60fps

Honestly I think 3090 and the 6900xt and shit are all excessive for non-professionals.

---

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/agp6a5/how_does_a_game_get_dlss_support/

Let me first answer the technical part if how it gets the DLSS support.
First Nvidia and the developer train Nvidia's AI super-cluster with images and renders of the game, taken at both 1440p and 4K (you can ideally do it for any 2 resolutions but right now it is just this). Super-cluster AI comes up with a pipeline for how to upscale images from 1440p to 4K with minimal loss in quality, longer you train the AI, smaller the quality loss will be. Next, Nvidia puts that pipeline to their drivers and cards with dedicated tensor cores use that pipeline to upscale the game from 1440p to 4K. It is not something that requires particularly high developer involvement as Nvidia does most of the work.

More detail is given here;
https://news.developer.nvidia.com/dlss-what-does-it-mean-for-game-developers/
DLSS is the first time a deep learning model has been placed directly into a 3D rendering pipeline. This is made possible through heavy use of the Turing TensorCores. But the developer need not worry about the difficulties of getting the DLSS model to run in only a few milliseconds. NVIDIA has had many teams that span NVIDIA Research, our Hardware & Architecture groups as well as many in Developer Technologies working on both image quality and performance and we will continue to improve both over time.
At this time, in order to use DLSS to its full potential, developers need to provide data to NVIDIA to continue to train the DLSS model. The process is fairly straightforward with NVIDIA handling the heavy lifting via its Saturn V supercomputing cluster.

In terms of who needs to contact who, I assume the developer needs to approach Nvidia. Nvidia might suggest it to some big AAA tittles of its long term partners (like EA and BFV and anthem). But for most developers, they would need to approach Nvidia. It is not clear if this will cost anything to the developer. I have read several different opinions ;
Developer would need to rent the compute time on Nvidia's super cluster.
Developer needs to pay a fixed "nvidia game works" fee, which will cover DLSS and other nvidia options developer wants.
Developer needs to put nvidia badge on their game and actively promote nvidia with the game.
Developer will not pay anything as the cost of DLSS is paid by the DLSS compatible card owners during purchase of the card.

Developers need to "Pay nVIDIA" just to get DLSS, it ain't even free to the developers.

<sarcasm>Adding a fee to DLSS, that's going to help feature adoption for sure! </sarcasm>

This is the first time in GPU history that I've heard Game Developers need to pay the GPU manufacturer to use a feature.

Talk about DLC / Nickle & Diming; I never would've thought they would have the stones to put a feature behind a paywall.

---

Jabodie posted...

Also I hope super resolution is good af. Ideally with comparable results in image quality, even if less in terms of performance gain from native resolution.

I was reading another thread and apparently an AMD insider/leaker who has been 100% right so far on everything RDNA2 says Super Resolution preforms better than DLSS but slightly weaker quality. Super Resolution will be open source though, so it's basically Gsync vs Freesync all over again.
---

voldothegr8 posted...

I was reading another thread and apparently an AMD insider/leaker who has been 100% right so far on everything RDNA2 says Super Resolution preforms better than DLSS but slightly weaker quality. Super Resolution will be open source though, so it's basically Gsync vs Freesync all over again.

Meh, DLSS does a great job. If super resolution is a bit more lossy who gives af lol. Still good.

I guess it'll come down to how much I care about RT features. It's not like I'll be buying a card super soon, but I'm liking that people are hyped about AMD.

---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

This is the first time in GPU history that I've heard Game Developers need to pay the GPU manufacturer to use a feature.

I think they've always had a fee for Nvidia Gameworks. It covers all of that proprietary nvida stuff like PhysX and shit. It's been a thing for years now, if I recall correctly.

---

Mr_Rian posted...

I think they've always had a fee for Nvidia Gameworks. It covers all of that proprietary nvida stuff like PhysX and shit. It's been a thing for years now, if I recall correctly.

You mean, none of those features were "Free" to the developers?

---

KamenRiderBlade posted...

You mean, none of those features were "Free" to the developers?

Nope. You paid for them and also had to promote them. That's why they were slapped all over the boxes of the games that used them.

---

omg now I have to sell my 3080s and buy amd80s?

---

The Trent posted...

omg now I have to sell my 3080s and buy amd80s?

Only if you can sell them for a profit. It would be almost a lateral shift.

---

Who wanna buy dat tuf or fe

---

Mr_Rian posted...

Only if you can sell them for a profit. It would be almost a lateral shift.

The RTX is a planet and the DLSS is a room outside

---

I'm not thinking of getting any of these cards soon, but I like that it shows AMD is heading in the right direction with their GPU side of things.