Digital Foundry Article Technical Discussion [2020]
- Thread starter BRiT
- Start date
- Status
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Reading through that and thinking about how MS can improve the quality of back compatibility titles without developer interaction made me think of what things MS could do.
And it struck me that since MS has control of the hardware, can't they (at a minimum) do things similar to what AMD/ATI and NV were and continue to do with display drivers? For example,
- Various forms of AA.
- AO in the past could be forced through display drivers.
- NV infamously did shader replacement through the display drivers.
- Anistropic filtering in the drivers. I wonder if maybe MS is doing something similar with the forced 16x AF in older games?
- AMD once tried checkerboard rendering for multi-GPU rendering.
- Likely quite a few other things I'm not remembering (I haven't messed with driver forced rendering settings in years) as well as things that neither AMD nor NV tried.
SB
The ones I quoted I expect them to stay clear of. Messing about with studios games in this way is a no no. And is bordering on why they get permission to do the BC games.
The other stuff I could see them doing. It's a fine line.
Good viewpoints that are being considered here. Sounds like Richard knows more but isn't willing to share just yet.
side note: John looking like he's been consistent with some sort of dieting or gym stuff here; definitely looking a lot younger here. kudos man, keep going.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
Oh yeah, I don't expect those things to be utilized. There's no real reason to. XBSX isn't going to have multiple GPUs and pretty much everyone frowns on shader replacement. That was just a list of things that have been done though the driver because the driver sits between the game and GPU. Basically showing that if you control the hardware, you can theoretically do a lot of things outside of a game that directly impacts a game's IQ and performance.
Regards,
SB
Lol you’re a young guy unlike us Alex!Oh I will forward this
I keep getting older and more dishevelled then. hahaha
Oh I will forward this
I keep getting older and more dishevelled then. hahaha
You have been noticed sat in a cosy chair next to a fire...
Isn't RT in Series X and PS5 expected to be significantly less performant than current high-end Turing cards? It doesn't seem reasonable given the known sizes of these chips for there to be much room for RT cores. And why I think both companies have been touting the audio use cases since that would require significantly fewer rays in the scene.
No one knows yet. I guess it depends on how naive the Turing implementation is. Looking back, initial implementations of radically new features on GPUs have not always been done in the most efficient manner. This will be AMDs first shot so im not expecting miracles.
Console ray tracing doesn't have to match PC implementations to make an impressive visual improvement. Console consumers have proven that they accept 30FPS as a performance baseline where in the PC space, at least in terms of reviews and public facing opinion, that's unplayable. I think if you look at the shader performance Series X, and the fact that a 2060 Super can do 4k30 with RT on with a bit of tweaking, I think most people are expecting performance along those lines. Maybe a bit better, actually, because I'm not sure RT is the limiting factor on a 2060 Super at 4k. It's performance is usually in the 40-50 range there in most games on higher settings.
Ray-tracing fundamentally relies on de-noising right now, so ray counts can be kept low. I have my doubts about how well it'll work at 30fps, but maybe there are some good videos of Metro or something with a 30fps cap. But you're right. Console users accept terrible image quality, so it may not matter.
What does this mean? Plenty of console games have great IQ.
It's an inside joke on a previous user.
Silent_Buddha
Legend
One thing I haven't seen brought up yet, is that it's also possible that AMD has licensed IP from another company WRT RT. I seriously doubt something like this has happened, but who knows at this point.
As well, while unlikely for AMD's first attempt to be significantly more performance than NV's first attempt, there is historical precedent for it. ATI's first attempt at DX 9.0 features was significantly more performant than NV's. Likewise, NV's first hardware tessellation implementation was more performant than AMD/ATI's despite AMD/ATI having had multiple iterations of hardware tessellation over the years.
What I would expect is something of roughly similar performance but differing in implementation.
Regards,
SB
This is what I expect I guess too, but the one thing that is throwing a wrench in it is the idea of them handling incoherent rays with a different performance profile. Or, the in32fp32 split in turing giving it a different performance characteristic in some RT titles than RDNA 2.0 has.
Something along those lines.
- Status
Similar threads
