4 ms·

The RTX limitation was always a sham, and editing some config files allowed the feature to work on any CUDA-capable GPU from the start. Removing this arbitrary

The RTX limitation was always a sham, and editing some config files allowed the feature to work on any CUDA-capable GPU from the start. Removing this arbitrary limitation is a good thing, but they should have done this earlier.

sto_hristo 6y ago
If there was strong competition, none of that circus would be possible.
- willis936 6y ago
  Arguably nvidia has been innovating while on top to prevent the competition that does exist to catch up. They have such a dominant market share because they make more compute for less dollar. When the day comes that isn’t the case, they’ve already made well established hardware features and adopted APIs people want: raytracing and machine learning.
  - kevingadd 6y ago
    Beyond that they're doing some truly spectacular stuff with their hardware. DLSS is amazing quality-wise and lets you run games at acceptable quality with much weaker hardware than it would take to run at native resolution, and because it's primarily implemented using the dedicated ML hardware, for most games it doesn't eat into valuable rasterization/compute resources. AMD simply does not have the hardware to do this right now and they also don't have the years of research and development that went into modern DLSS (like the generally crappy 1.x versions of DLSS) While true quality fanatics are going to want to run things at native resolution, the average person will be quite happy with DLSS 4k instead of native 4k, and they'll be able to get much higher framerates in that mode than on equivalently priced AMD hardware.
  - 10000truths 6y ago
    > They have such a dominant market share because they make more compute for less dollar. Is that really the case? I looked at getting an accelerator card for personal use. AMD’s Radeon Instinct MI25 will run me $900 - $1000. A similarly specced NVidia Tesla P100 is in the $3000 range.
  - rowanG077 6y ago
    They don't make more compute for less. They just win via cuda. AMD is an afterthought. Well I guess NVIDIA is not the only one to blame. The ML world basically sold their soul to the level they decided to use cuda.
BuildTheRobots 6y ago
I'm not sure where the limitation actually was. I've been running RTX Voice on a GTX-970 for a number of months and didn't have to configure anything special other than being told to install "RTX Voice" for non RTX cards and "Nvidia Broadcast" on the newer RTX cards. The noise cancelling itself is dark magic though - and I especially like the fact it'll work with both input and output - eg it'll clean up your microphone but also do noise reduction on incoming streams too. For me, it's been great in voice chat when other people have rubbish microphones, and has made a number of inaudible youtube videos easy and clear to understand.
- delfinom 6y ago
  >I'm not sure where the limitation actually was. Simple, the sales and marketing department.
  - BuildTheRobots 6y ago
    > Simple, the sales and marketing department. Sure, though I think the point I was trying to make is more "I've heard about this limitation, but it's not something I've actually encountered even with lots of usage".
kevingadd 6y ago
That's not quite true. Having tensor cores available makes ML algorithms like this more efficient which means lower GPU utilization and lower power draw. Ultimately even a 9xx is going to have plenty of headroom for an algorithm like this, so it doesn't make sense to lock it off - but there is a difference. I understand the decision to lock it off for a combination of market segmentation (convince people to upgrade) + ensuring the people who use it get the best experience (0 degradation in framerate, near-0 increase in power draw)
tengbretson 6y ago
I assumed the limit had more to do with testing surface area than product segmentation. I can't imagine a significant number of people made the jump to RTX based solely on the voice features.

sto_hristo 6y ago

If there was strong competition, none of that circus would be possible.

willis936 6y ago
Arguably nvidia has been innovating while on top to prevent the competition that does exist to catch up. They have such a dominant market share because they make more compute for less dollar. When the day comes that isn’t the case, they’ve already made well established hardware features and adopted APIs people want: raytracing and machine learning.
- kevingadd 6y ago
  Beyond that they're doing some truly spectacular stuff with their hardware. DLSS is amazing quality-wise and lets you run games at acceptable quality with much weaker hardware than it would take to run at native resolution, and because it's primarily implemented using the dedicated ML hardware, for most games it doesn't eat into valuable rasterization/compute resources. AMD simply does not have the hardware to do this right now and they also don't have the years of research and development that went into modern DLSS (like the generally crappy 1.x versions of DLSS) While true quality fanatics are going to want to run things at native resolution, the average person will be quite happy with DLSS 4k instead of native 4k, and they'll be able to get much higher framerates in that mode than on equivalently priced AMD hardware.
- 10000truths 6y ago
  > They have such a dominant market share because they make more compute for less dollar. Is that really the case? I looked at getting an accelerator card for personal use. AMD’s Radeon Instinct MI25 will run me $900 - $1000. A similarly specced NVidia Tesla P100 is in the $3000 range.
- rowanG077 6y ago
  They don't make more compute for less. They just win via cuda. AMD is an afterthought. Well I guess NVIDIA is not the only one to blame. The ML world basically sold their soul to the level they decided to use cuda.

BuildTheRobots 6y ago

I'm not sure where the limitation actually was. I've been running RTX Voice on a GTX-970 for a number of months and didn't have to configure anything special other than being told to install "RTX Voice" for non RTX cards and "Nvidia Broadcast" on the newer RTX cards. The noise cancelling itself is dark magic though - and I especially like the fact it'll work with both input and output - eg it'll clean up your microphone but also do noise reduction on incoming streams too. For me, it's been great in voice chat when other people have rubbish microphones, and has made a number of inaudible youtube videos easy and clear to understand.

delfinom 6y ago
>I'm not sure where the limitation actually was. Simple, the sales and marketing department.
- BuildTheRobots 6y ago
  > Simple, the sales and marketing department. Sure, though I think the point I was trying to make is more "I've heard about this limitation, but it's not something I've actually encountered even with lots of usage".

kevingadd 6y ago

That's not quite true. Having tensor cores available makes ML algorithms like this more efficient which means lower GPU utilization and lower power draw. Ultimately even a 9xx is going to have plenty of headroom for an algorithm like this, so it doesn't make sense to lock it off - but there is a difference. I understand the decision to lock it off for a combination of market segmentation (convince people to upgrade) + ensuring the people who use it get the best experience (0 degradation in framerate, near-0 increase in power draw)

tengbretson 6y ago

I assumed the limit had more to do with testing surface area than product segmentation. I can't imagine a significant number of people made the jump to RTX based solely on the voice features.