Nvidia DLSS 1 and 2 antialiasing discussion *spawn*

You can now(I think) enable it as a check box feature in Unreal Engine because it handles the motion vectors for you. DLSS doesn't need to be trained for each game anymore. You just turn it on and go. Pretty cool!

That's the part I don't get. How can dlss work correctly without a learning phase ?
 
Doesn't the pre-training create a danger of DLSS working well only in typical scenarios? What if somebody starts to use, for example, a camera in a very different way. Can it produce more DLSS artifacts?
 
Doesn't the pre-training create a danger of DLSS working well only in typical scenarios? What if somebody starts to use, for example, a camera in a very different way. Can it produce more DLSS artifacts?

I think the discussion went a bit off by this point, since we've introduced terms like " pre-training" which don't exist in ( general ) machine learning, to my knowledge, at least

The whole point of training is to provide a sufficient coverage of inputs so that the neural network can now generalise and be able to handle the whole imput space sufficiently accurate.
Neural networks are very, very good at handling rotations, translations and similar geometrical transformations that you seem to be worried about
 
One should consider that if one generic algorithmic approach like UE4's TAA is good enough for everything - a similar in its idea ML inference based approach would be just as good for everything if not better - which is basically what we see between UE4 TAA and DLSS.
And both have edge cases which require tweaking to produce optimal results.
 
I imagine AMD is concerned about this should developers start basing their performance targets on the availability of upscaling. It’s already happening with checkerboarding on consoles.
AMD is quite concerned already, they belittled DLSS in the beginning, citing weak game support and weak potential, now they are scrambling to make an alternative 3 or 4 years later.
 
I imagine AMD is concerned about this should developers start basing their performance targets on the availability of upscaling. It’s already happening with checkerboarding on consoles.

There's no concern since DLSS will never widely proliferate throughout the industry. Developers are largely unable to maintain this solution because very few people have expertise in machine learning. If the model is producing unreliable results then developers practically have to wait for Nvidia to make these edits since the developers are incapable of doing this by themselves. This is frequently the case since DLSS support comes after the game's initial release and don't think for one moment that the job is ever 'finished' if you think just integrating the solution in one game/engine is enough. DLSS needs constant revisions to work well against new content in the future so it's practically a never-ending project that Nvidia has to undertake ...

AMD has very good reasons to not introduce a comparable solution because most developers don't have the necessary expertise to sustain it by themselves and aren't actually interested in taking up these responsibilities either. More power to Nvidia if they want to keep up the work with no visible ending in sight to maintain their own solution ...
 
There's no concern since DLSS will never widely proliferate throughout the industry. Developers are largely unable to maintain this solution because very few people have expertise in machine learning. If the model is producing unreliable results then developers practically have to wait for Nvidia to make these edits since the developers are incapable of doing this by themselves. This is frequently the case since DLSS support comes after the game's initial release and don't think for one moment that the job is ever 'finished' if you think just integrating the solution in one game/engine is enough. DLSS needs constant revisions to work well against new content in the future so it's practically a never-ending project that Nvidia has to undertake ...

AMD has very good reasons to not introduce a comparable solution because most developers don't have the necessary expertise to sustain it by themselves and aren't actually interested in taking up these responsibilities either. More power to Nvidia if they want to keep up the work with no visible ending in sight to maintain their own solution ...
DLSS is here to stay. We are nearly at the end of node shrinks with no road forward beyond that to increase performance for the foreseeable future.
 
DLSS is here to stay. We are nearly at the end of node shrinks with no road forward beyond that to increase performance for the foreseeable future.

It'll stay for as long as Nvidia wants it to keep existing but it's hardly 'sustainable' in that sense because no other parties are willing to take on this burden and don't expect developers to ever take this responsibility ...

The long-term problem with DLSS or other similar technology isn't going to be the technical knowledge, it's going to be maintenance. Can DLSS realistically succeed where other experiments with a lone maintainer like PhysX (deprecated in UE4 and Unity DOTS) or G-Sync failed ?
 
It'll stay for as long as Nvidia wants it to keep existing but it's hardly 'sustainable' in that sense because no other parties are willing to take on this burden and don't expect developers to ever take this responsibility ...
What burden? To implement the current implementation is basically a no brainer for developers. They are implementing it with minimal exposure and little or no help from Nvidia in less than half a day.
 
What burden? To implement the current implementation is basically a no brainer for developers. They are implementing it with minimal exposure and little or no help from Nvidia in less than half a day.

DLSS is a continuous project that can never be 'completed' in the true sense of the word so if Nvidia badly wants to permanently assign dozens of employees to work on it forever then good for them and they're is pretty much doing all of the work with no sign that developers will ever do the same in the future ...

If DLSS was as simple to implement as you say then there'd be far more support in general and at launch. Not even Crysis remastered or Nioh 2 launched initially with DLSS and then we have others like Hitman 2 or PUBG which never got DLSS like they promised ... (there are games out there that don't even have motion vectors so DLSS is virtually impossible to implement in those cases)
 
Last edited:
It'll stay for as long as Nvidia wants it to keep existing but it's hardly 'sustainable' in that sense because no other parties are willing to take on this burden and don't expect developers to ever take this responsibility ...

The long-term problem with DLSS or other similar technology isn't going to be the technical knowledge, it's going to be maintenance. Can DLSS realistically succeed where other experiments with a lone maintainer like PhysX (deprecated in UE4 and Unity DOTS) or G-Sync failed ?

If it helps sell hardware then there is plenty motivation. Nvidia with DLSS can have the same motivation as MS with DirectX. DX doesn’t generate revenue or profits directly but it keeps gamers tied to windows which is motivation enough for MS to continue to support its API.

Given that RT is a performance hog and DLSS helps alleviate the impact of RT, I imagine AMD will continue to struggle even if they are able to match Nvidia in general gpu and RT performance but lack a competitor to DLSS.

In a world of high resolution gaming, no one wants to spend 100s to 1000s of dollars on mid to high end GPUs to be stuck at resolutions of yesteryear. While DLSS is far from perfect, it attempts to provide performance where the high cost of silicon makes brute force too costly.
 
Last edited:
DLSS is a continuous project that can never be 'completed' in the true sense of the word so if Nvidia badly wants to permanently assign dozens of employees to work it forever then then good for them and they're is pretty much doing all of the work with no sign that developers will ever do the same in the future ...

If DLSS was as simple to implement as you say then there'd be far more support in general and at launch. Not even Crysis remastered or Nioh 2 launched initially with DLSS and then we others like Hitman 2 or PUBG which never got DLSS like they promised ... (there are games out there that don't even have motion vectors so DLSS is virtually impossible to implement in those cases)
there are other ways to monetize DLSS however. Just sell/license their models to other platform holders.
It's clear it works on other hardware, that's where the majority of that IP lies, not the hardware.
 
It'll stay for as long as Nvidia wants it to keep existing but it's hardly 'sustainable' in that sense because no other parties are willing to take on this burden and don't expect developers to ever take this responsibility ...

The long-term problem with DLSS or other similar technology isn't going to be the technical knowledge, it's going to be maintenance. Can DLSS realistically succeed where other experiments with a lone maintainer like PhysX (deprecated in UE4 and Unity DOTS) or G-Sync failed ?
I don’t think Nvidia has a choice. They brought RT before HW was fast enough to make it useful. DLSS is the only thing making even these very nominal implementations usable. Performance scaling will hit the wall long before DLSS becomes unnecessary.
 
If it helps sell hardware then there is plenty motivation.

Given that RT is a performance hog and DLSS helps alleviate the impact of RT, I imagine will AMD will continue struggle even if they are able to match Nvidia in general gpu performance but lack a competitors to DLSS.

Then Nvidia should be prepared to take on the long-term burden of sustaining DLSS forever without developers ever returning the favour in the future ...

The best AMD is going to do is release a demo, open source the code, and what happens to them afterwards is the developers problem since AMD practically never updates their github samples. Do people actually think AMD are interested in endlessly chasing down as much developers as possible and offering free support indefinitely on a regular basis ? I'm pretty sure this description doesn't match their profile at all since they don't want to take on long-term commitments outside of their hardware projects or drivers ...
 
Back
Top