Hm,maybe on exactly what he talks about in his post?This hunch you speak of. What is it based on exactly?
Hm,maybe on exactly what he talks about in his post?
Aots improved a lot on nvidia (or vice versa) and aots is the goldielocks formula for dx12 games,nice distributable compute workload, so if this game can have good improvements for nvidia than any game can.
This hunch you speak of. What is it based on exactly?
Improvement over time in AMD's poster-child DX12 AoTS. With current benchmarks, Nvidia gains more performance when moving to the DX12 render path. It's now proven that Nvidia can gain 25+% when moving to DX12, but it also took this long to do so.
It does not matter who is performing better. However, the thing only matter is that does anyone getting advantage from it, does developer gain anything from it, does game sales improve, does it perform better for majority of PC gamers. DX12 currently is a over head, extra resources, sales loss at the moment for developers. Any game related to DX12 is flopped badly in terms of reviews, quality port, and sales.Why don't any other sites show those gains and such poor AMD performance?
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08.../#diagramm-ashes-of-the-singularity-2560-1440
Fury X is tied with OC'd 1070.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/zotac_geforce_gtx_1080_arcticstorm_review,16.html
Again Fury / Fury X are above 980 TI and close to 1070.
Does this mean AOTS is a valid game now that Nvidia is performing better?
Yes 4 previous frames that are rendered at 720p and then upscaled to 1080p.
Although I do agree with you,doesn't look that bad.
(other then the faces that are really badly lit,at lest at lower qualities where I play it at)
Because without the higher resolution part in "rerconstructing into a higher resolution canvas" you would still end up with a very soft 720p image. You're free to call it temporal reconstruction, but at the end of the day it is used as an elaborate method of upscaling.No, if it was upscaling it wouldn't be called reconstruction. What would the point of keeping 4 frames around be if you weren't gonna use any of that data and just upscale?
You're free to call it temporal reconstruction, but at the end of the day it is used as an elaborate method of upscaling.
Yeah but it doesn't do that all that well. As soon as you have noisier textures a lot of shimmering shows through. It's quite visible on the concrete posts in the video I posted. The wooden ceiling a bit later is also rather irritating to the eyes during motion. I'd be hesitant to call this filter a good choice at native resolution.It might perhaps be slightly more accurate to say that it is an elaborate method which amongst other things* also includes an upscaling step.
*I imagine that their choice of a temporal solution may also have been guided by a desire to get rid of temporal aliasing.
Why don't any other sites show those gains and such poor AMD performance?
https://www.computerbase.de/2016-08.../#diagramm-ashes-of-the-singularity-2560-1440
Fury X is tied with OC'd 1070.
http://www.guru3d.com/articles_pages/zotac_geforce_gtx_1080_arcticstorm_review,16.html
Again Fury / Fury X are above 980 TI and close to 1070.
Does this mean AOTS is a valid game now that Nvidia is performing better?
. No one will judge you when you admit Nvidia is showing big gains in a DX12 game.
I guess I'm just missing where they need to upscale. They reproject the previous frames and use a subpixel jitter to produce the additional samples needed for the higher resolution.Because without the higher resolution part in "rerconstructing into a higher resolution canvas" you would still end up with a very soft 720p image. You're free to call it temporal reconstruction, but at the end of the day it is used as an elaborate method of upscaling.
Some example clips:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSg3opLozkw
I have to admit, I didn't know about the subpixel jitter. But a temporal subpixel jitter helps to create an image with a high spatial resolution as long as the movement vector between frames is zero. If it isn't zero then you lose, well, depending on how it's handled, spatial resolution and/or temporal accuracy which you have to interpolate. Either one is still its own form of upscaling/upsampling.I guess I'm just missing where they need to upscale. They reproject the previous frames and use a subpixel jitter to produce the additional samples needed for the higher resolution.
I don't know the entire process though..
Different graphics settings (4x MSAA, crazy preset) different drivers, and different CPUs.
Not only that, but according to the graph for AotS, NVidia is using the DX11 path and not the DX12 one. Might be a mistake, but I thought I should mention it.
I have to admit, I didn't know about the subpixel jitter. But a temporal subpixel jitter helps to create an image with a high spatial resolution as long as the movement vector between frames is zero. If it isn't zero then you lose, well, depending on how it's handled, spatial resolution and/or temporal accuracy which you have to interpolate. Either one is still its own form of upscaling/upsampling.
Yes very good optimization ,where AMD is missing lightning effects, and other effects."Optimizations"
love to see how this turns out. If they fix it with no perf loss, cool. if not, hmmmmm....
I don't understand the direction Remedy took in rendering technology and artistic approach.
Their so called "temporal reconstruction" (aka, upscaling) seems another way of saying we failed in optimization hence base resolution is 1280x720.
I bought a Steam version (DX11) on the weekend, I knew the game was a mess. But I wanted to check it out.
No matter upscaling is ON or OFF, the visual fidelity is blurry. Upscaling OFF actually does provide a cleaner look. Not much difference, however. (Unless you take a screenshot and do a ON/OFF comparison).
Upscaling on = blurry
Upscaling off = less blurry.
Lighting does look very impressive sometimes. Especially in time-laps scene with realtime lighting looks amazing.
Another thing I noticed was that this game showed one of the highest CPU utilization (hovers around 25~35% with 6950X overclocked to 4.4GHz) I've seen in games. Those visual quantum effects with objects much hit hard on the CPU. (or is the game running in XBOX One emulation mode. )
Probably. However, I think choosing MSAA which is one of the inefficient forms of AA with rendering techniques these days, to save GPU resources is beyond me. I mean they could also opt for more efficient form of AA such as SMAA rather than MSAA if their intention is to to save fillrate (& GPU resources) and increase quality in other areas.Well, their temporal reconstruction and anti-aliasing allow them to shade 50% less pixels, meaning they were able to massively increase quality in other areas.
It's not a failure of optimization, it's a trade off they chose to make. Reduced sharpness(and whatever other artifacts that come with their solution) in exchange for more headroom for other gpu heavy effects.