Nvidia Turing Architecture [2018]

Yes, there´s no API, to my knowledge AMD never released any SDK regarding to Primitive Shaders and last but not least it´s not working on GFX9 hardware anyway, so why bother ?

Nvidia version seems quite more complex than AMD version and I think it need very certain software support and on top of that new version of API support. I think both companies working hard on that with MS and Khronos as well.

 

I'm not surprised that it's been finalized so fast. Remember, it takes *years* to go from initial design to final production for a GPU, so Nvidia would have been working on the API long before now. In fact, RTX/DXR is pretty much a clone of Nvidia's own Optix API, which has been around for close to a decade now. It's probably best to consider "experimental" as Nvidia's way of asking if anyone wants tweaks to be made before the final version, particularly since whatever they decide now will probably shape APIs for many years to come - they need to get it right now.

 

It's called Optix.

 

Did you read the next sentence?

 

I did at least, and I'm wondering why would you say "RTX/DXR"? To my understanding they're quite a different thing, one being NV's 'middleware' between their cards and DXR, and DXR isn't a clone of Optix (or any other competing API for that matter) any more than DX12 is a clone of Mantle (which obviously it isn't, even if it did loan a lot of ideas and even implementations).

 

Uh, tunnel-vision. Mechanically yes, mentally no. Sorry.
RTX _is_ Optix's lower layer, not a reimplementation or something farther away.

 

Wolfenstein 2 will receive a patch later this month to enable Adaptive Shading on Turing GPUs, further increasing fps.

https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforc...-fantasy-xv-dlss-benchmark-wolfenstein-2-nas/

 

Wolfenstein II - Patch for November 19, 2018: NVIDIA Adaptive Shading: https://steamcommunity.com/app/650500/discussions/0/3020122487788426656/

 

Techreport tested the Adaptive Shading patch .. the game now has an option called NVIDIA Adaptive Shading, it has several presets: Performance, Balanced and Quality. And there are no visual differences between any of them.



https://techreport.com/review/34269...hading-with-wolfenstein-ii-the-new-colossus/3

 

https://github.com/nvpro-samples/gl_vk_meshlet_cadscene

 

Correction: The reviewer didn't notice "practically any difference", which means pretty much "there's a difference but you probably won't notice it"

 

Actually no, if you continue reading, he clearly states: "If there's a catch to having CAS on at this resolution, I didn't see one".
The developer and NVIDIA also state the tech doesn't affect visual fidelity:

https://steamcommunity.com/app/612880/discussions/0/3104564981118189993/?ctp=2

 

That quote doesn't actually say there isn't a difference (which his earlier statement in the same review says there is), just that for him the diffrences are so minute they don't affect the experience.
PR-speak is PR-speak, there's a difference regardless if one notices it or not, unless you're suggesting the devs actually hand pick pixel by pixel shading fidelity so it actually doesn't change a thing on the screen, but if that would be the case, why would there be several different options to choose from?

 

The setting must control the instruction counts; the higher options execute more NOPs.

 

Again, no. If there was a difference he would have shown it in screenshots, or talked about it in detail. You are literally changing the meaning of his words and putting new words in his mouth. The guy unequivocally denies spotting any difference.

I would trust the developer to know more about their tech than anyone else.

Maybe there could be subtle differences in other scenes and under certain conditions (lower resolution for example), just not in the one review @4K that we have now.

 

Riddle me this: why does a reviewer say "I saw practically no difference in image quality" if he means "I saw no difference in image quality" or "there is no difference in image quality"? I don't think I'm the one twisting his words here, that's the only direct quote on image quality from him.

The fact is, if there was no quality loss there wouldn't be different quality settings, heck, there wouldn't be any settings at all, it would just be always on.

 

You definitely are taking his words out of context, he had two quotes on the matter:

He literally double confirms the absence of any difference. Add to that the developer confirmation about maintaining fidelity and you have a pretty solid case of: NO there isn't a difference.

Again, there could be differences under specific conditions and under lower resolutions or detail, they could easily be contingencies for running the game at less than max settings, and or low fps. Without input from the developer, you can't jump to conclusions about this, especially when there is a mountain of statements denying the presence of a difference.

 

Nope. Words have meanings. In particular, "practically".