Dynamic Super Resolution = Fancy name for downsampling
MFAA = Multi-Frame AA = same as ATI's old Temporal AA + combining the alternating samples from the frames so each frame has it's own samples + the last frames samples
AFAIK, Maxwell is not dual issue.How is that different in Maxwell, since both architectures are dual-issue?
Yeah, they do that a lot. It makes sense: most people don't upgrade every year. And what a nice upgrade it is.Jen-Hsun is using GTX 680 / GK104 as a comparison with Maxwell and the target audience for upgrading.
Riddle me this: in the Anandtech review, for most games, the delta between the GTX980 and the 290X for 4K, supposedly the strong point for the latter, is larger than for smaller resolutions.
Riddle me this: in the Anandtech review, for most games, the delta between the GTX980 and the 290X for 4K, supposedly the strong point for the latter, is larger than for smaller resolutions.
I give up...
They seem to be using the reference cards, maybe at 4k the cards are downclocking more.Riddle me this: in the Anandtech review, for most games, the delta between the GTX980 and the 290X for 4K, supposedly the strong point for the latter, is larger than for smaller resolutions.
I give up...
Dynamic Super Resolution = Fancy name for downsampling
MFAA = Multi-Frame AA = same as ATI's old Temporal AA + combining the alternating samples from the frames so each frame has it's own samples + the last frames samples
Why is the "safer side" answer not also random. Or just plain wrong.
If the Maxwell's contain some extra features that the Keplers don't then mixing them together is going to be a problem for end users.
I have read articles that Nvidia skipped over the 800 series and went to the 900 series to avoid that issue.
NVIDIA to skip GeForce 800 series
http://videocardz.com/51426/nvidia-...ies-geforce-gtx-980-and-gtx-970-mid-september
So when a poster states the the 900 series might also contain Keplers I would really like to know if that is true.
Well you could say that, but it is a bit more sophisticated in implementation than you think. From Tech Report:
"DSR brings supersampling back by letting users select higher resolutions, via in-game menus, than their monitors can natively support. For instance, a gamer with a 1080p display could choose the most popular 4K resolution of 3840x2160, which is exactly four times the size of his display. The graphics card will then render the game at a full 3840x2160 internally and scale the output down to 1920x1080 in order to match the display. In doing so, every single pixel on the screen will have been sampled four times, producing a smoother, higher-quality result than what's possible with any form of multisampling."
"DSR goes beyond traditional supersampling, though. Rather than just sample multiple times from within a pixel, it uses a 13-tap gaussian downsizing filter to produce a nice, soft result. The images it produces are likely to be a little softer and more cinematic-feeling. This filter has the advantage of being able to resize from intermediate resolutions. For instance, the user could select 2560x1440, and DSR would downsize to 1080p even though it's not a perfect 2:1 or 4:1 fit."
Again, MFAA is more sophisticated in implementation than you think. From Tech Report:
"MFAA seeks to achieve the quality of 4X multisampling at the performance cost of 2X multisampling. To do so, it combines several elements. The subpixel sample points vary from one pixel to the next in interleaved, screen-door fashion, and they swap every other frame. The algorithm then "borrows" samples from past frames and combines them with current samples to produce higher-quality results—that is, smoother edges."
"More interesting than MFAA itself is the fact that Maxwell has much more flexibility with regard to AA sampling points than Kepler. On Maxwell, each pixel in a 4x4 quad can have its own unique set of subpixel sample points, and the GPU can vary those points from one frame to the next. That means Maxwell could allow for much more sophisticated pseudo-stochastic sampling methods once it's been in the hands of Nvidia's software engineers for more than a few weeks."
We do test with the reference card, but this is why we also include the "uber mode" tests, to demonstrate how 290X performs without any throttling whatsoever.They seem to be using the reference cards, maybe at 4k the cards are downclocking more.
Well you could say that, but it is a bit more sophisticated in implementation than you think. From Tech Report: [...]
Some reviews indeed mention it's a bit blurry though luckily the filter is easily tunable. Don't know though if it's really any different to a standard bilinear filter if you tune smoothness to 0% thus indeed making this 100% equivalent into a very standard downsampling without a fancy name ;-)For the above unless I see it in real time, the sound of the gaussian filter alone gives me already shivers...meaning nothing else but "we'll see".
Not a surprise considering 48 Kb L1 data cache, a separate 96 Kb shared memory and added hardware shared mem atomicsCompute seems „fixed“ with Maxwell (not that it was ever broken in the first place).
http://www.pcgameshardware.de/Gefor...-Geforce-GTX-980-970-GM204-Maxwell-1136157/6/
But recent drivers seem to play into the hands of Maxwell, making it shine a little bit more than if the competition would be utilizing their utmost potential.
Some reviews indeed mention it's a bit blurry though luckily the filter is easily tunable. Don't know though if it's really any different to a standard bilinear filter if you tune smoothness to 0% thus indeed making this 100% equivalent into a very standard downsampling without a fancy name ;-)