Isn't DLSS a way for Nvidia to lock customers to their GPUs like Gsync is ? Well at least Gsync is working as intended.
IHVs locking competitors out of technologies *spawn
- Thread starter Globalisateur
- Start date
Isn't DLSS a way for Nvidia to lock customers to their GPUs like Gsync is ? Well at least Gsync is working as intended.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Isn't that how IP works?
Yes and no. PC graphics world has been relatively open since Direct3D took over. Or were until NVIDIA started the vendor lock -game again, this time it just wasn't API but anything from graphical effects (Vendor locked effects/features which others could use without said lock) to hardware (G-Sync)
Ike Turner
Veteran
Nvidia..the same company who made a business out of bitching & moaning about 3dfx's Glide from 1996 until 2002..and then unleashed its own proprietary API (CUDA) 5 years later.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
I guess AMD had their own vendor lock in tech at a point (AMD TrueAudio and Mantle technologies). The same way AMD came out with VSR to counter Nvidia's DSR, I sure AMD will come up with their own interpretation of how they envision DLSS should work.
Vendor specific content isn't an issue as long as the drivers handle it instead of the devs. The moment devs need to do work to include something, you run the risk of zero adoption and gamers buying into useless features. A tech that isn't vendor specific is far more likely to be adopted eventually once the base tech level is widespread enough to make it economical which is where DX/OGL are the real drivers.
So in the case of DLSS, if devs have to include it in the rendering engine, and the market for it is 0.5% of the market, why bother? Whereas if it's something universal (ML on compute) or it's effortless to include (post process effect sat between game output and display run on the driver) then it'll get included as a cheap value-add and RTX card owners will benefit.
Gamers should always be against vendor lock-in of tech like this. It's a little different on consoles because the whole platform is locked down so it'll get used, as long as it's meaningful (see lack of motion controls or touch-pad controls on PS4). But even then, cross-platform games are far less likely to use a platform specific tech, like the ID buffer in PS4+, due to economics. Instead of arguing which technologies nVidia and AMD have tried to leverage to sell hardware, gamers should be universally fronted against all such proprietary techs and pushing for tech to be progressed in an inclusive, economical (supporting the developers efforts) way.
DLSS at this point will give way to DirectML solutions eventually.
So in the case of DLSS, if devs have to include it in the rendering engine, and the market for it is 0.5% of the market, why bother? Whereas if it's something universal (ML on compute) or it's effortless to include (post process effect sat between game output and display run on the driver) then it'll get included as a cheap value-add and RTX card owners will benefit.
Gamers should always be against vendor lock-in of tech like this. It's a little different on consoles because the whole platform is locked down so it'll get used, as long as it's meaningful (see lack of motion controls or touch-pad controls on PS4). But even then, cross-platform games are far less likely to use a platform specific tech, like the ID buffer in PS4+, due to economics. Instead of arguing which technologies nVidia and AMD have tried to leverage to sell hardware, gamers should be universally fronted against all such proprietary techs and pushing for tech to be progressed in an inclusive, economical (supporting the developers efforts) way.
DLSS at this point will give way to DirectML solutions eventually.
Mantle wasn't vendor locked. TrueAudio might have been proprietary or it might have just required compatible hardware, not sure.
Just because some feature is only available on one vendor doesn't mean it's vendor locked. The way term "vendor locked" is used (at least in the sense I used it) means certain feature is available for only one vendor even when other vendors are capable of the same feature.
Good example of this would be the infamous Batman: AA case, where MSAA was available only for NVIDIA even when AMD (and Intel for that matter) were perfectly capable of using the very same MSAA method without the vendor lock (there were other shenanigans in the Batman-case too, like doing some steps required by MSAA on all cards even if they couldn't use it). This was later remedied by the GOTY release, which had MSAA working on all vendors, but those who bought the original were out of luck, it was never patched to support MSAA on everyone because NVIDIA "owned" the code on the original release and didn't allow it to run on anyone else despite the fact that it was the standard, suggested method for implementing MSAA on Unreal Engine
Ike Turner
Veteran
We are deep into off-topic discussion here but there are tons of ridiculous situtaions similar to the Batman AA shit fest..
- Far Cry 4: God Ray's only available on Nvidia HW even though they were present on the PS4 & Xbox One versions..
- Far Cry 4: God Ray's only available on Nvidia HW even though they were present on the PS4 & Xbox One versions..
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Don't want to get too OT though seems to be quite a bit of history regarding that.
Seems similar to having either CSAA (Nvidia) or CFAA (Ati) options, but here seems was supplied as a proprietary adaptive MSAA that worked only on their cards.
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...a-hardware-on-pcs.104868/page-13#post-1577509
https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...a-hardware-on-pcs.104868/page-13#post-1577509
Except that it wasn't proprietary adaptive MSAA, it was the suggested MSAA implementation for Unreal Engine games at the time and very same that AMD tried to offer - except AMD didn't include vendor checks. It could also be circumvented on the original version by faking NVIDIA Vendor ID on AMD card
DavidGraham
Veteran
All FC4 NVIDIA options were available on all cards, including HairWorks, God Rays, HBAO+ and PCSS+
https://www.hardocp.com/article/2015/01/07/far_cry_4_video_card_performance_review/5
The volumetric lighting on consoles was actually a different technique ^^
Ike Turner
Veteran
My mistake. There are 2 "God Ray" solutions on the PC version: Volumetric Fog (similar to the Xbox/PS4 versions which disappeared from those versions for a short while after patch 1.02) & Nvidia GodRays (which was totally useable on ADMD GPUs which is totally expected as with all Gameworks implementation)
