Not clear from that if it's talking about neural texture compression. Neural rendering might be something else.
Not clear from that if it's talking about neural texture compression. Neural rendering might be something else.Enabling Neural Rendering in DirectX: Cooperative Vector Support Coming Soon - DirectX Developer Blog
Neural Rendering: A New Paradigm in 3D Graphics Programming In the constantly advancing landscape of 3D graphics, neural rendering technology represents a significant evolution. Neural rendering broadly defines the suite of techniques that leverage AI/ML to dramatically transform traditional...devblogs.microsoft.com
Yes, but despite all of that reasoning against, DLSS works with some minor inconsistancies, which are most promininant with text alignment or movement.
In the same way Simpon's rule can estimate the area under a curve with greater and greater precision as delta x gets smaller, the same with frame prediction as delta t gets smaller. Again, the fundamental theorem of calculus is in fact correct and as these time slices approach zero so does the error. If the time slice is small enough and the AI prediction is good enough the error becomes exceedingly small. nVidia of course figured this out and decided it was worth pouring tens of millions or perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars into developing. I'm running some rough numbers, to get a feel for it. And yes, I do like to play with the numbers!
I'm not sure you're fully comprehending how short a time interval 3ms is in terms of human perception. For example, in the Olympics a false start is called if an athlete is shown to have a reaction time of less than 100ms. 10ms would be an order of magnitude faster than human reaction time. 3ms a third of that. As the time interval gets smaller the error between rendered and predicted frames becomes smaller.
The theory behind what nVidia is doing is solid. We may not like it but at the end of the day it does produce meaningful fps improvement with very little visual artifacts as Linus pointed out with this short demo of the 5090.
Neural rendering includes texture compression.Not clear from that if it's talking about neural texture compression. Neural rendering might be something else.
The applications of neural shading are vast, including radiance caching, texture compression, materials, radiance fields, and more.
That still doesn't explain what it's actually doing. Is it compression of the shader binaries, which will then need decompression at runtime? Or is this some sort of AI driven code optimization (in which case, good luck 😬)? Very vague.
EDIT: There's a paper on the texture compression, if anyone is interested in the details: https://research.nvidia.com/labs/rtr/neural_texture_compression/
Bingo! A fool is easily departed with his/her money. Research throughly from several independent sources before buying.but instead NVidia is mainly using it for deceptive marketing.
Interesting theory crafting, but that isn't what NVidia is doing. They are still holding the current frame and past frame, generating the in between frames and only after displaying the fake ones do they show you the now quite late "current" frame. The goal of this technology is smoothing. So they can't use predictions, that WILL get further off track, and need to snap back when they get a correct frame, that would actually introduce micro-stutter. Instead they use interpolation between two known frames, that way there is ALWAYS a smooth transition, and no abrupt corrections. Smoothing is paramount...
You need to stop taking the word of corporate mouth pieces at face value.
This is NOT an actual FPS booster, that part is fake. It's a screen smoothing feature - the same basic thing that many TVs do. As misleading as some of the TV sellers are (cough Samsung cough), the still didn't go as far as claiming it would double (now quadruple) your FPS, they called it what it is - smoothing.
I'd have ZERO issues if NVidia added this and called it motion smoothing. The problem is, they use it to mislead people about actual frame rate. Mislead isn't a strong enough word. They use it to lie to people.
When the released 40 series the bombarded YT with tons of extremely misleading (lying) ads show DLSS 3 doubling or tripling FPS with no explanation at all. Just pure deception.
Say you have a game running at 60 FPS and you turn on FG or MFG, to someone not playing, the action on screen just got smoother, to someone playing the lag time and response time, just increased to be nearly as bad as running at 30 FPS.
This could have just been another (marginally) useful tool in the toolbox, but instead NVidia is mainly using it for deceptive marketing.
I do, 5090 to replace one of my 4090s. Octane Render. I am bit "worried" by the speed-up in there though, seems most of the progress this time around went into software side, which will show-up mostly in games.Some questions for those of you with 4090's.
Are you considering upgrading to the 5090 or another GPU in the near future?
Why or why not?
It seems as though the 4090 can provide quite good frame rates at 4k in pretty much every game available today so I'm wondering what people with 4090's might be considering an upgrade?
I don't know a lot about gaming and GPU requirements so I'm curious to hear from actual owners of these super powerful GPU's.
The PS5 has been using Liquid Metal for 5 years now and no major issues occurred. But I get what the above poster is saying it’s annoying to repaste Liquid Metal, so
I think it’s matter of convenience for them rather than worrying about a future manufacturing defect.
My stock 4090 FE regularly hits 2720 or so. Even the advertised boost clocks can be misleading. I think they pick safe/pessimistic figures.FWIW the clocks for the 4090 were not 2.8ghz. Aftermarket. cards clocked higher, sure, but you can’t compare those since we have no info on clocks for 3rd party 5090s. The 4090’s official clock was 2.52ghz. The 5090 is 2.41 ghz (about a 5% difference). (numbers may be slightly off, pulled them from memory, but they are on NVIDIA’s site)
We don’t know how much OC headroom these parts have.
Like 4090 (c) Huang
| Fake Frames | 3 | 1 | 0.33X |
I think the technical term would be "Faux cadres."Missing the most important line from the feature table:
Fake Frames 3 1 0.33X
Alienware Alienware 18 Area-51 AA18250 - Geekbench
Benchmark results for an Alienware Alienware 18 Area-51 AA18250 with an Intel Core Ultra 9 275HX processor.browser.geekbench.com
Alienware laptop with a 5080 Laptop gets 190k in GB. Just slightly slower than the average 4070 Super. So that's 60 SMs vs 56 for the 4070S vs 58 for the 4080L (which gets 160k)
That makes it 18% faster.
Do we know the power limits of the tested devices?That makes it 18% faster.
Nope. That happens only in DLSS3 & FSR. Unlike DLSS3, DLSS4 uses transformer to predict future frames. There's no "holding" a rendered frame and then interpolating like in DLSS3. DLSS3 holding a already rendered frame and displaying it later causes a lag. DLSS4 lag should be less than DLSS3. And many here assume transformer input is limited to a few rendered frames like in a optical flow accelerator, but it's multimodal. It is continuously fed rendered frames and possibly even user input to predict future frames with high accuracy. Also, I keep seeing posts saying raw (raster) perf is more important. It's not. It is close to impossible and usually horrible to play recent games without RT/DLSS/FSR/XeSS.... They are still holding the current frame and past frame, generating the in between frames and only after displaying the fake ones do they show you the now quite late "current" frame. ...
Hasn't it been measured already and lo it was worse?DLSS4 lag should be less than DLSS3.
I don't think anyone has done precise measurements yet. I remember seeing a video where one reviewer was measuring frame times. But he did mention that its hard to say which exactly is the predicted frame and which one is rendered.Hasn't it been measured already and lo it was worse?
It seems hard to mesh what Jensen is saying and some videos I have seen. But maybe those are AI generated videos...
Nope. That happens only in DLSS3 & FSR. Unlike DLSS3, DLSS4 uses transformer to predict future frames. There's no "holding" a rendered frame and then interpolating like in DLSS3. DLSS3 holding a already rendered frame and displaying it later causes a lag. DLSS4 lag should be less than DLSS3. And many here assume transformer input is limited to a few rendered frames like in a optical flow accelerator, but it's multimodal. It is continuously fed rendered frames and possibly even user input to predict future frames with high accuracy. Also, I keep seeing posts saying raw (raster) perf is more important. It's not. It is close to impossible and usually horrible to play recent games without RT/DLSS/FSR/XeSS.
And when Jensen said 5070 (with DLSS4) will be very close to 4090 (with DLSS3 FG), he wasn't bluffing. DLSS4 is here to stay and it looks like it's better than DLSS3.
Note: Intel too is working on forward prediction with ExtraSS. And I'm sure AMD has something similar in pipeline. After all, MFG is no big secret. In the future, it's gonna be even more... what Jensen keeps referring to as Neural Rendering.