5 ms·
This is not true at all. AMD GPUs have been constantly delivering better bang-for-buck for a while now. Edit: of course I am talking about gaming here since yo
by EtienneK 3y ago
This is not true at all. AMD GPUs have been constantly delivering better bang-for-buck for a while now.
Edit: of course I am talking about gaming here since you mentioned consoles
- Iulioh 3y agoEh. For me the problem is technology and not raw performance DLSS and RT are massive for someone with a 4k screen but now 4k gaming hardware outside league of legends lol
- esperent 3y agoDLSS is only marginally better then FSR 2.0. Sure, you can see the difference if you're carefully looking for it in comparison videos. But when you're actually playing it's usually not noticeable to any meaningful degree. You're gonna get occasional artefacts with both. As for ray tracing - to be honest, playing at 4k with an RTX 3070 there's very few games where I can turn it on without the game running unacceptably slow even with DLSS. Ray traced shadows and AO are nice but hardly a deal breaker. I think it's more the desire to have the latest and greatest tech that makes Nvidia cards desirable, rather than any material difference that you'll actually notice while gaming. Some good comparison shots of DLSS 2 and FSR 2 in this video. https://youtu.be/1WM_w7TBbj0 https://youtu.be/1WM_w7TBbj0
- izacus 3y agoI mean, you talk about "comparison videos", when in reality the issue is that significant amount of games support DLSS and pretty much noone supports FSR 2.0. You can do any comparison you want, but it won't help you when your software won't make use of the library your GPU supports. (Also, we're at DLSS 3.0 now with frame generation which moves the bar higher.)
- ekianjo 3y agoFsr 2 is supported out of tje box on Gamescope in Linux for all games
- BoorishBears 3y agoHardware Unboxed's viewership draw is placating "Team Red", or the the people who treat hardware like a sports competition, so when they say: - the overwhelming conclusion is DLSS is the superior upscaling technology with near universally better results - it was a brutal result for AMD - DLSS gives NVIDIA a clear selling point I'm not sure if it backs your suggestion...
- zirgs 3y agoSeems like it's still better to buy Nvidia then. Nvidia cards support both DLSS and FSR so you can choose the tech that works best with the particular game. Meanwhile AMD only supports FSR and if the game looks better with DLSS then there's nothing you can do. AMD cards also aren't that much cheaper so it doesn't make much sense to buy worse tech that you'll be using for years every day to save a few euros.
- grujicd 3y agoIt's not as if Nvidia is always a better choice. Things turned around a bit when new crop of games (The Last of Us, Hogwarts Legacy, etc) came out, requiring more than 8GB of VRAM. They do work with 8GB, but with lot more stutterging as textures have to be constantly transfered from main RAM. For these games amount of VRAM made a huge difference. At that point in time, AMD had more mid level cards with 12GB (6700) and 16GB (6800) and for considerably less money than equivalent Nvidia, at least in Europe. Nvidia cheapened and stuck to 8GB even for 3070 which was more expensive than 16GB 6080 around here.. This became a big issue and pushed Nvidia to put more VRAM in next generation.
- BoorishBears 3y agoIf you actually try and find proof of the 8GB fiasco, there's mostly one source that put together an artificial scenario where they pushed a bottom end card to 4k on newly launched console ports which then got optimized. NVIDIA said as much, released a 16GB version, and lo-and-behold it's absolutely pointless, even performing worse than the 8GB at times: https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060-ti-16gb-review/10 https://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/nvidia-geforce-rtx-4060... Most graphics cards are still under 8GB of VRAM, and raw numbers of memory storage mean nothing for performance in isolation.
- ChoGGi 3y agoI believe it's the 128-bit interface hindering performance more than the amount of VRAM.
- 3y ago
- NBJack 3y agoHave you tried DLSS 3 with frame generation yet? Ray tracing performance hits are mitigated substantially, 4K included. What is more shocking to me is how low they got the latency on it; I have yet to notice perceptible lag when turned on (contrasting this of course with TVs that attempt to increase frames to achieve the 'soap opera effect', where lag becomes substantial). I just hope more games support it one day. FSR may one day get much better, but in my personal preferences and tastes, I greatly prefer DLSS for upscaling. It tends to be sharper, better at fine details at long distances, and tends to do better with certain (literal) edge cases.
- esperent 3y agoI haven't, like most people I guess it'll be at least half a decade until I upgrade to a 40 series card. > What is more shocking to me is how low they got the latency on it Most games are perfectly playable at a stable 30fps (33.3ms latency at least). The frame generation is hopefully giving you 90-120fps. So you're getting latency sub 16.6ms, equivalent to stable 45-60fps. That will usually only be noticeable in drawing apps or twitchy FPS games. Maybe they're doing some other tricks like decoupling input latency from frame latency, I haven't looked into it. It's common to do this with physics, in the opposite direction (e.g. run physics at a fixed 33.3ms interval while generating frames as fast as possible, aiming for 60fps).
- hugh4life 3y agoWeird you didn't post the comparison he made a couple weeks later where he says that sometimes DLSS beats native rendering: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5B_dqi_Syc https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5B_dqi_Syc
- PeterStuer 3y agoFor mid-tier gaming they are very competitive, but for consumer AI they were not even a player until very recently and still marginal at best.
- mjan22640 3y agoWhat is the root cause of AMD not being good for AI?
- arcanemachiner 3y ago“Nvidia's SDK, CUDA, is the industry standard and they have built a huge range of tools on top of that for training large models, inference-serving, optimization, transfer learning, infrastructure management and operations automation, and a lot of vertical-specific applications.” https://www.google.com/search?q=why%20is%20nvidia%20better%20for%20ai https://www.google.com/search?q=why%20is%20nvidia%20better%2...
- mjan22640 3y agoSo its not the hw, but an API issue? Is it not possible to port the tools to the AMD API? Or does the AMD API not allow to properly utilize the compute power of the hw?
- ekianjo 3y agoNo CUDA is heavily integrated with how Nvidia hardware operates
- dagw 3y agoAMDs APIs have historically been way behind CUDA, both in features and ease of use, making it much harder to reach feature and performance parity with CUDA. The second big problem is that AMD has a history of abandoning APIs. While Nvidia has been focusing on CUDA from the start, AMD is on its third or fourth API. A lot of developers got burned early on by putting in a lot of effort into supporting AMD cards, only to have their work become useless as AMD dropped old API. So if you wanted to support AMD today you have to choose between using their latest API which is currently only supported on a handful of their latest top end cards, or using their previous API, which is much worse and may or may not be supported in 2 years time.
- anshukg 3y agoI don't know , I think it is still plenty of time before nvidia could have a serious competitor for value : https://medium.com/@1kg/nvidias-cuda-monopoly-6446f4ef7375 https://medium.com/@1kg/nvidias-cuda-monopoly-6446f4ef7375
- ekianjo 3y agoGaming is only a very small part of what you expect from GPUs these days
- sva_ 3y agoI wouldn't be so sure about that. There are hundreds of millions, if not billions of gamers, many of which use GPUs.
- ekianjo 3y agoIts a stable market. Its not growing like the AI market is and Nvidia makes much higher margins by selling GPUs to the enterprise market. Gaming is bound to become a tiny piece of the pie.
- NBJack 3y agoFor a time, so was bitcoin mining. ML hardware sales are being driven by a 'Renaissance' of rapid model development and commercial offerings, primarily by the FAANG, but several others too. This is neat, but beyond the initial waves, OpenGPT isn't exactly the digital messiah many suggested it was, and running these models is expensive (both in HW and power for it). Time will tell, but I am skeptical this will be more than a craze for most applications (except digital art, which is awesome and has already been proven effective; just not maybe as marketable to the masses).
- xiphias2 3y agoAI market just caught up with gaming this year. But aa it's growing faster than gaming, in a few years GPUs have to improve more in AI performance (matmul ops and interconnect) than gaming.