Jawed
Legend
Looking through the slides here:
Financial Analyst Day
ir.amd.com
I can't find such a statement. Was this stated at some other presentation?
- Status
ir.amd.com
I can't find such a statement. Was this stated at some other presentation?
Subtlesnake
Regular
It's not in the slides.Looking through the slides here:
Financial Analyst Day
I can't find such a statement. Was this stated at some other presentation?
AMD Radeon RX 7000 Graphics Cards With Rearchitected RDNA 3 GPU Compute Units To Deliver Enhanced Ray Tracing Capabilities & Even Higher Clock Speeds
AMD has confirmed that RDNA 3 GPU powered Radeon RX 7000 delivers enhanced raytracing capabilities and even higher clock speeds than RDNA 2.
wccftech.com
Disagree. We could take Oculus Timewarp as an example of frame generation (predating Ada), which works without any ML aproach and is even cheap to calcualte.
If they are slower, then all other tasks are faster, becasue the chip area would be used for general compute power, not specialized HW which so far is only useful for one task which takes little time.
Don't you think your excitement about ML application is more a result of inflated marketing than actual demand on it for games?
Remember ML acceleration was not requested from game devs at all, nor do they use it now.
It's a bit like you go to the shop to buy a car, and they sell you this for twice the price becasue maybe one day you'll need the extra feature:
Now if AMD is waiting with adding ML cores until ther is actual demand for it, i can only thank them for keeping on point and ignoring pointless hypes.
If they add it, this does not necessarily confrim the demand, it may still only confirm the power of inflated marketing, making people think they would need it becasue everybody talks about it.
Personally i'm perfectly fine with AMDs upscaling. Used it in several games now on my old GPU, and it just works.
Regarding frame generation, this can be done without ML as well, if really needed. Which i hope is not the case. Texture space shading would give the same perf advantages without artifacts, RT coud be done at lower res and upscaled, etc.
Well, the problem is AMD does not give us the option to figure it out. We can't implement our own traversal, because intersection instructions are not exposed.
Which hints they do not plan to stick at that, and RDNA3/4 will get its traversal units.
Jawed
Legend
RDNA 2 Ray Tracing
I just thought about something else: They store all BVH in texture, so we could use virtual texturing feature to stream BLAS very easily. And with their support for large BVH there is no need to resolve indirection about pointers. I really think consoles go that route. Still requesting for PC...
forum.beyond3d.com
Doesn't timewarp work by internally rendering a larger FoV than what the player can see and then using the headset motion to change the player view within that already rendered frame to produce a new frame for the user based on their new head position?
If so that's very different to Nvidia's frame generation. DLSS 3 performance mode is already rendering only 1 out of 8 pixels with the rest being AI generated. Whle that may be possible using other methods, it's unlikely to be so with similar, or even acceptable image quality. What happens as AI improves and there's an even larger proportion of generated frames? We've already has nAo on here talking about that being the direction of the industry up to and including 100% AI generated frames. There's no way AMD is getting away with ignoring this paradigm shift.
Bondrewd
Veteran
Wait what, it uses a funny FF optical flow block for interpolation.
What ai.
GEMM cores in DLSS3 does exactly what they did in DLSS2.
What bugs are you talking about?
itsmydamnation
Veteran
L
But that's in direct contradiction to your previous position.
So your saying more then just process has something to do with performance ????
But that's in direct contradiction to your previous position.
Primitive shaders and the draw stream binning rasterizer I remember never being enabled or working. Later GPUs finally got them workable.
I never said process was the only factor, just a primary one.
Last edited:
Bondrewd
Veteran
Doubt.
ISA manual is still a go though.
Silly thing is, it never actually got any relevant technical deep dive anywhere, either.
Z3 CCD at least got a whole ISSCC paper (and a good one at that).
Seems they're going borderline Qualcomm with mysterymeating their GPU IP.
I guess so. But if you can change the camera position from a static image, and have way to deal with resulting disocclusion artifacts well enough,
you can just add in motion vectors to do the same to extropolate time, or interpolate and mix from two source frames.
Two sources would also help with disocclusion, as one source likely always has the information missing from the other.
I have no doubt a non ML solution is possible, and if devs take a hand on it this would also eliminate problems like figuring out what's HUD elements, for example.
Yes, but the argument of improved IQ does not hold if we look at it from another angle: Raytracing, which exactly is the primary reason those solutions exist at all.
To get IQ from RT, we need many samples. DLSS reduces those samples to 1/8th, and it does not 'invent' this information with ML to compensate the lack.
Thus, to me that's all a taylored marketing campaign in the first place, with contradictions hard to spot even for experts.
Basically you could reduce RT resoultion and sample it using traditional (rep)rojection methods to the frame rendered at (allmost) native resolution and FPS.
Quality would be the same or better, but then you have no selling point for proprietary features.
I'm not sure if a NV researcher claiming neural rendering is the future for games is an objective proof this will indeed happen anytime soon.
But just saying. No disrespect from my side. I just think we need to be careful if a single company claims ownership over gfx innovation of another industry.
We need to remain critical and objective. Currently, DLSS solves a problem which does not really exist, as 1080p is still the most widely used resolution, upscaling to 1440p is fine even with trivial filters, and it's not clear if a 22fps game blown up to look smooth is indeed better than a native 60fps game with some less gfx effects.
But again: No disrespect. And it's not that i'm against neural rendering. I'm happy i do not have to work on upscaling on my side.
As said before, personally i'd love to see ML motion blur, for example. Maybe that's one of the next features.
And i'd like some other AI applications even more, e.g. dynamic AI conversation with NPCs. Or it might give us practical large scene fluid simulations, etc. All of that is in the works, with promising results already shown.
It's just that, to convince me, we still need more than just DLSS, and it has to come from more sources than just a single company (which currently sells at too high prices), to proof the actual and real demand.
And then HW acceleration is welcome.
itsmydamnation
Veteran
yes you did , i asked you what where your reasons to say AMD couldnt improve RT performance by more the 2x and you said process and nothing else.
see
AMD: RDNA 3 Speculation, Rumours and Discussion
The hardware would have to be broken for it to reach only 3090Ti for ray tracing... Why do you say that? That would still be a 2x improvement over a 6900xt in RT performance. Expecting more than that is extremely unrealistic.
forum.beyond3d.com
AMD: RDNA 3 Speculation, Rumours and Discussion
The hardware would have to be broken for it to reach only 3090Ti for ray tracing... Why do you say that? That would still be a 2x improvement over a 6900xt in RT performance. Expecting more than that is extremely unrealistic.
forum.beyond3d.com
So now we come back around , why cant given a ~2x transistor budget can't AMD improve RT performance by more then 2x.
No clue. I keep hearing RT performance in the 7xxx series will be closer to a factor of 3x improvement.
Henry swagger
Newcomer
Its crazy rdna 3 has no timespy leaks nothing.. amd is either gonna surprise us with big performance gains beating a 4090 by 15% ?
Proper multitest synthetic benchmarks would be awesome to find answer for these.
Pure RT tests.
Then combine with pure rasterization, texturing, shading, compute etc.
Neither of those posts state or even imply that manufacturing node is responsible for 100% of GPU improvements. My argument was based primarily on historical precedent while using what Nvidia was able to achieve with a bigger improvement to manufacturing as an additional data point.yes you did , i asked you what where your reasons to say AMD couldnt improve RT performance by more the 2x and you said process and nothing else.
see
AMD: RDNA 3 Speculation, Rumours and Discussion
The hardware would have to be broken for it to reach only 3090Ti for ray tracing... Why do you say that? That would still be a 2x improvement over a 6900xt in RT performance. Expecting more than that is extremely unrealistic.AMD: RDNA 3 Speculation, Rumours and Discussion
The hardware would have to be broken for it to reach only 3090Ti for ray tracing... Why do you say that? That would still be a 2x improvement over a 6900xt in RT performance. Expecting more than that is extremely unrealistic.
So now we come back around , why cant given a ~2x transistor budget can't AMD improve RT performance by more then 2x.
Last edited:
Subtlesnake
Regular
The 9700 Pro and 6800 Ultra less than doubled transistors over the 8500/FX 5900, yet were much more powerful in shader bound applications. The 6800 Ultra could see a 4X or greater improvement in DX9 games.
- Status
