GART: Games and Applications using RayTracing

[Lurkmass]

I don't understand.. DLSS, nor FSR are requirements in any games.. so why does this mean anyone would be entrenched? In the future, you likely wont need to utilize DLSS or FSR to play these old games at reasonable framerates so why is this such a big deal?

And why shouldn't vendors who invest massive amounts of time and money be able to control certain aspects of the industry?

People still refuse to acknowledge the fact developers are not entitled to develop exclusive features for their hardware ...

FSR was a half baked reactionary counter to DLSS. It’s not part of some grand strategy to move the industry forward. Intel at least seems to be actually trying to compete.

It's not my objective to make you believe otherwise ...

That's exactly what AMD and Nvidia are doing...

AMD doesn't make developers integrate exclusive features so they have virtually no incentive (other than free code ) to give developers meanwhile their competition does have to present every opportunity possible ...

Ok IHV's are evil for driving technology forward to their own benefit. What do you think should happen instead? And why isn't it happening?

If it's too hard for the vendor to exercise control over the industry then maybe they should try harder (eliminate AMD/Intel/consoles) or heaven forbid just stop trying altogether ? Have you ever considered the thought why you're seeing so much resistance to DLSS by developers is because of the fact that Nvidia doesn't have the best interests of the industry in mind ?

By refusing to play devil's advocate, my post will be immediately be disregarded as nothing more than "blasphemy" by the likes thereof and nobody learns anything in the end so the cycle repeats until well after a conclusion is unilatterally reached ...

 

[Phantom88]

Are we seeing resistance to DLSS by developers though ? I don't have that sentiment. Near every game that comes out has it. And it's good that it does, as fsr 2 is profoundly inferior still, to the point that i'd rather not use upscalling if dlss is not available. I also agree that it's just the case of an amd labeled game blocking nvidia's stuff. There's nothing more to it, no subtlety or industry trend to get out of this.

 

[DegustatoR]

It's just an AMD sponsored title

I don't think it's that easy, anymore at least. A number of AMD sponsored titles have launched with DLSS support over the past year. The only thing which such "sponsorship" does is avoid pushing the developer to implement DLSS but if the developer want to then it's entirely up to them.

Now as for as why some developers don't want to implement DLSS is a different question, and I also very much doubt that it has anything in common with "drawing the lines" or any other grand industrial justification based on "openness" and such. It is very likely to be as simple as "we didn't have enough resources for out PC port".

 

[trinibwoy]

AMD doesn't make developers integrate exclusive features so they have virtually no incentive (other than free code ) to give developers meanwhile their competition does have to present every opportunity possible ...

AMD is no white knight. Their market position forces them to play nice. Also they don’t really have any exclusive features to push these days so it’s really a moot point.

If it's too hard for the vendor to exercise control over the industry then maybe they should try harder (eliminate AMD/Intel/consoles) or heaven forbid just stop trying altogether ? Have you ever considered the thought why you're seeing so much resistance to DLSS by developers is because of the fact that Nvidia doesn't have the best interests of the industry in mind ?

By refusing to play devil's advocate, my post will be immediately be disregarded as nothing more than "blasphemy" by the likes thereof and nobody learns anything in the end so the cycle repeats until well after a conclusion is unilatterally reached ...

Skipping DLSS in AMD sponsored games isn’t evidence of widespread developer resistance to DLSS.

You clearly have a problem with Nvidia pushing their tech as a way to “control the industry”. Yet you’re not proposing an alternative besides “do nothing”. How is doing nothing better for anyone? Do you think we would be better off today if Nvidia hadn’t dreamt up DLSS?

 

[Deleted member 2197]

Also very telling of the few users who didn't Like the post.

And those (minority) that did, though no surprises here! At best it's just another game to be played strictly at native resolution.

 

[techuse]

AMD is no white knight. Their market position forces them to play nice. Also they don’t really have any exclusive features to push these days so it’s really a moot point.



Skipping DLSS in AMD sponsored games isn’t evidence of widespread developer resistance to DLSS.

You clearly have a problem with Nvidia pushing their tech as a way to “control the industry”. Yet you’re not proposing an alternative besides “do nothing”. How is doing nothing better for anyone? Do you think we would be better off today if Nvidia hadn’t dreamt up DLSS?

When AMD did have the marketshare lead they never employed anti-consumer tactics unlike Nvidia who does so at every opportunity.

 

[Dampf]

When AMD did have the marketshare lead they never employed anti-consumer tactics unlike Nvidia who does so at every opportunity.

Far in the past. What matters is the present.

Does Nvidia prevent FSR2 from being implemented into their games? No, not at all. Many of their sponsored games have FSR support.

Do their sponsored games run like crap on AMD hardware? No. Performance on AMD cards in most of their titles is roughly around what you would expect from them. Meanwhile we have games like AC Valhala and Dirt 5 that run far better on AMD hardware for no reason. (Like 5700XT outperforming a 2080Ti)

Most importantly, does the fact that games are Nvidia sponsored mean an inferior experience for the enduser? No. Nvidia sponsored games do not have an insane appetite for VRAM for no obvious reason (which also hurts AMD's entry level cards with 8 GB or less). Nvidia is also not actively trying to keep developers from implementing their true vision (dumbed down Raytracing or none at all), though that is speculation but it is pretty apparent with all of AMD's sponsored titles.

Sorry but from a current perspective, Nvidia is more consumer friendly right now compared to AMD. Yes Nvidia did a lot of BS in the past, but they did improve.

 

[Deleted member 2197]

When AMD did have the marketshare lead they never employed anti-consumer tactics unlike Nvidia who does so at every opportunity.

Apparently the majority of consumers (80 % +) don't view Nvidia's strategy as anti-consumer since market share upswing is continuing. Perhaps rivals need to concentrate on coming up with their own novel innovations since instead of imitating basically tech that's been out for a few years.

 

[trinibwoy]

When AMD did have the marketshare lead they never employed anti-consumer tactics unlike Nvidia who does so at every opportunity.

You mean that “one” time decades ago with the 9700 pro? Surely that’s not relevant today.

Btw, how is DLSS anti-consumer? it’s literally a free feature they never had before.

 

[Lurkmass]

AMD is no white knight. Their market position forces them to play nice. Also they don’t really have any exclusive features to push these days so it’s really a moot point.

So market position is somehow an excuse for Nvidia to work against the interests of the industry ?

By "playing nice", AMD can keep cooperation minimal from their side while most of the work stays with developers since they get to ship their products with feature parity ...

Skipping DLSS in AMD sponsored games isn’t evidence of widespread developer resistance to DLSS.

You clearly have a problem with Nvidia pushing their tech as a way to “control the industry”. Yet you’re not proposing an alternative besides “do nothing”. How is doing nothing better for anyone? Do you think we would be better off today if Nvidia hadn’t dreamt up DLSS?

You just simply don't want to accept current alternatives so it matters not what I propose since you keep refusing to listen at any turn. Regardless of the alternatives, the industry will inevitably free itself from any attempts of vendor control like it did with PhysX, GameWorks, and next will be DLSS whether you like it or not ...

The reality is that DLSS doesn't help developers ship their products faster elsewhere and is simply extra work to help out no one else but Nvidia. Nvidia can change this by giving up vendor control/sharing technology or by spending more resources fight against inertia. The industry doesn't have to fall in line with Nvidia's antics and can simply abandon their technology since technical merits alone won't be enough to gain acceptance. First it's some AMD sponsored titles, next it'll be non-sponsored titles and Nvidia themselves will follow along by cutting support/development for it ...

Nvidia deserves pushback from the rest of the industry. As far as I'm concerned the only long-term sustainable option is for Nvidia to "genuinely" cooperate with the industry like AMD or they keep continuing to kill off DLSS if past precedent (PhysX and GameWorks) is anything to go by ...

 

[Remij]

Nvidia deserves pushback from the rest of the industry. As far as I'm concerned the only long-term sustainable option is for Nvidia to "genuinely" cooperate with the industry like AMD or they keep continuing to kill of DLSS if past precedent (PhysX and GameWorks) is anything to go by ...

Nvidia will kill off DLSS... when they introduce something new that the rest of the industry will scramble to copy and "open source".

Until then, studios will continue to accept Nvidia's money and support their proprietary features... like they always have.

 

[DavidGraham]

kill of DLSS if past precedent (PhysX and GameWorks) is anything to go by ...

GameWorks is not dead, it's transformed, in the past it offered advanced AO (HBAO, VXAO), advanced shadows (PCSS, HFTS), advanced AA (TXAA), advanced GI (VXGI) .. etc. There is no need for any of that now, hence why GameWorks is simply focused on the trio of Ray Tracing, DLSS and Reflex (essentially the ultimate version of all of those previous tech).

Yes, PhysX died, but what replaced it? Nothing. PC games are devoid of any advanced physics for over a decade and a half now. This goes to show how empty the promise of openness really is, and how little the industry gets done when nothing pushes it into a certain direction.

 

[Dampf]

Kind of a mixed bag. Sometimes the differences are obvious, but sometimes it's not that apparent. It doesn't appear like its worth the performance hit.

Still its cool that we have path tracing in such a recent game (at what cost though...?)

 

[Lurkmass]

Nvidia will kill off DLSS... when they introduce something new that the rest of the industry will scramble to copy and "open source".

Until then, studios will continue to accept Nvidia's money and support their proprietary features... like they always have.

If Nvidia wants to throw as much money as possible into the money pit without a clear endgame (no acceptance/monopoly) in sight then more power to them but otherwise it won't change how developers fundamentally feel underneath by refusing to welcome technology that removes control from them and they'll gladly get rid of it as soon as the earliest opportunity presents itself ...

I have a feeling that Nvidia will eventually regain sanity like they did with PhysX, GameWorks, and will eventually leave DLSS out to the dry just like they did with their other previous proprietary technologies ...

 

[Deleted member 2197]

If Nvidia wants to throw as much money as possible into the money pit without a clear endgame (no acceptance/monopoly) in sight then more power to them

It's far better than throwing money in the developers money pit to exclude superior technology. Thankfully we are talking about a handful whose morals match those of the donor.

 

[Remij]

If Nvidia wants to throw as much money as possible into the money pit without a clear endgame (no acceptance/monopoly) in sight then more power to them but otherwise it won't change how developers fundamentally feel underneath by refusing to welcome technology that removes control from them and they'll gladly get rid of it as soon as the earliest opportunity presents itself ...

I have a feeling that Nvidia will eventually regain sanity like they did with PhysX, GameWorks, and will eventually leave DLSS out to the dry just like they did with their other previous proprietary technologies ...

When something better comes along, or DLSS no longer has the marketability that it once had, then they'll drop it. As for now, most devs already have this stuff implemented into their engines.. it can't be THAT big of a pain it the butt anymore.. can it? Unreal and Unity both have support via a plug-in.. and most developers who don't want to do their own thing, can already implement it easily enough.. or at least that's the idea.

Hardware Unboxed just put out a video comparing DLSS and FSR across a bunch of games.. and well, the results speak for themselves...

 

[DavidGraham]

In 26 games, DLSS2 completely demolishes FSR2 in image quality across 26 recent games in all resolutions. FSR2 is not really usable in anything below 4K Quality.

Why would anyone want to get rid of the superior upscaler is beyond me.

 

[Lurkmass]

It's far better than throwing money in the developers money pit to exclude superior technology. Thankfully we are talking about a handful whose morals match those of the donor.

AMD didn't really have to throw any money into any pit since they had enough foresight to work in the industry's interests and not stand in their way. The industry prefers the fact that AMD doesn't gain any more control by handing out freebies that can be shared with anyone and they even let their own sponsored partners implement DLSS as well if they choose so there's no ulterior motive if they decide not to ...

If Nvidia thinks it's too much to work against the interests of the industry then they can simply opt out by stopping/changing/quitting what they're doing because the industry is all too happy to pass up on whatever they're offering ...

 

[DavidGraham]

There is no industry here to speak of, if not for NVIDIA's constant push, most PC developers would do exactly nill to advance the platform, and AMD is happy serving console ports with barebones features to PC gamers. Calling this the industry way is misleading at best, it's real name is the lowest common denominator, and it doesn't really advance tech fast or well enough.

This industry grandiose talk needs to be dropped, because people are no representative of it, the so called industry, happily chose the PSO path in DX12/Vulkan, which ended up hurting PC consumers in almost all cases and did little to advance the platform for almost a decade, that we now need a surgical scalpel to reverse it's harmful effects. So clearly this way is not conducive to proper tech evolution, and is not the obviosuly superior way to handle it, on contrary it's far from it, it's just the cheap way out.

 

[Lurkmass]

The industry chose D3D12 because they wanted to share code between PC and Xbox. Nvidia can push developers as much as they want but if they can't realize that the trend is to share share share and share some more then their technology deserves to be obsoleted because of their own selfishness ...

If the others here can't grasp that political merits comes first before technical merits then it doesn't matter how good their technology is if it gets ignored ...