Nvidia's solution is universal, they don't need to retrain per title. Developers just need to make adjustments to their rendering path to support DLSS. AMD can be there, if MS isn't already the one working on it.
Nvidia DLSS 1 and 2 antialiasing discussion *spawn*
- Thread starter DavidGraham
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nvidia
Microsoft since they're pushing it on Xbox anyway?
One of digital foundries recent DLSS articles quoted Nvidia stating that there were feature limitations of DLSS 1.9 (shader based) vs DLSS 2.0 (tensor based) and that the quality on shaders basically couldn't scale upwards beyond 1.9 limits. May have just been marketing speak of course.
On a phone now so can't search for the quote but it may have been in the Control article.
yea AMD can leverage MS and the xbox / ps5 to get their solution in as many titles as possible. Thats if they have a solution. Hopefully FidelityFx as it stands isn't the best they have in RDNA2
Well, if this solution will use NN for reconstruction it will likely run faster on GPUs with TCs - which AMD lack at the moment. So why should they push this into as many titles as possible?
Because there could still be sufficient benefit from it.
That's entirely possible.
Presumably if MS come up with their own models they'll be restricted to the Xbox and if AMD are lucky, to DX on the PC. Sony will have to sort themselves out and may be at a disadvantage in that respect.
I could also see them using a trained upscale in the cloud to deliver games. If you can get better performance from the hardware in the cloud through upscaling you might be able to save on energy and heat, stretch the hardware further etc. Video compression may hide some artifacts produced from upscaling.
Because not having it vs having a slower implementation of it are diffrent ball games.
We don't know what AMD has in RDNA 2 for ML resolution scaling. It could be 20% as good as NVidia's or 80% or maybe even 120% better. But if I'm amd i would take any of them vs 0% . Because at the end of the day Nvidiais going to push for more support from more devs anyway.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
That's somewhat surprising, this is maybe the first DLSS 2.0 comparison I've seen where TAA actually looks sharper.
Yah, taa looks sharper here, but I'd gladly trade it for the performance improvement.
For starters they wouldn't restrict it to xbox, the DX ML implementation would work on all DX12U cards.
It would be more performant on tensor cores, but that doesn't negate the benefits on amd or xbox.
Could even be part of playfab (not sure if that's the name).
Not supporting something means that there can be no direct comparison. You benchmark in the common environment. If some card support AI upscaling and the other doesn't then there can be no direct comparison between them in AI upscaling - only upscaling vs native where the IQ is different and the results are up to a personal taste mostly.
When you support something which your competition also support you will get into direct comparison territory. And being still slower there won't make you much good, even if your GPUs will provide some performance benefits in the same mode - just for example a smaller one than that of your competition.
I dunno, I don't see much reason for AMD to push for something which will mostly benefit NV h/w to be integrated into all console games.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Probably, but I'd be interested to see how it looks compared to the rendered res needed to get that performance improvement. This isn't doubling performance by any means, if you can get similar quality/performance by say, dropping 4k down to 1800p, then DLSS doesn't serve that much of a purpose in this title.
I mean the main reason DLSS 2.0 is so lauded is that while it can produce some noticeable artifacts, on the whole it looks better than native res with TAA (at the worst you could say it's roughly equal), while also delivering a big performance boost. Tests like Hardware Unboxed undertook with DLSS 1.0/1.9 by comparing it to just a lower res with standard scaling + sharpening filter were relevant at the time, as early DLSS versions were obviously inferior to native res, so you would want to see how much you're actually losing/gaining with respect to the scaling that any game will do. That type of comparison hasn't been necessary with DLSS 2.0 as you can clearly see in all titles so far that for the most part, it's superior to TAA - sometimes significantly.
This implementation has neither a huge performance boost, nor any quality improvements over TAA, at least judging from those shots. Maybe others should show a difference.
except that doesn't happen. DF will do a segment with DLSS and show the diffrences in performance and claim IQ is almost as good or in some instances better than native res. Other sites will have benchmarks and show the diffrences and say hey maybe this game isn't playable on either card at 4k 60fps native but on nvidia you can turn on DLSS and make it look just as good and now its playable !
So the comparison wont be equal at any point for AMD.
One ComputerBase forum user stated that dlss looked slightly 'muddier" if not using the latest driver. Once they installed the latest driver 452.06 there was a definite improvement.
They still noticed slight artifacts at times (halo), though more detailed information on this should be forthcoming from review site's analysis.
@Flappy Pannus Yah, a comparison to a lower res with sharpening might be interesting. Btw, can you add sharpening on top of dlss through the driver control panel?
Sure, why not. You can even inject AMD CAS with Reshade.
Wouldn't that just make the scaling+sharpening artifacts already present even worse?
