Rootax
Veteran
That's the part I don't get. How can dlss work correctly without a learning phase ?
Nvidia DLSS 1 and 2 antialiasing discussion *spawn*
- Thread starter DavidGraham
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nvidia
That's the part I don't get. How can dlss work correctly without a learning phase ?
The short answer is that neural networks can be pre-trained.
It is now a temporal supersample AA + upscaling method in which ML is used in phase where samples are selected/rejected from history frames.
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
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
DegustatoR
Legend
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.
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.
DavidGraham
Veteran
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.
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.
DavidGraham
Veteran
That is no longer the case, the majority of games gets DLSS and RTX support at launch, and that's before the native integration into Unreal and Unity.
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 ?
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
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:
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:
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.
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.
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 ...
