26 ms·
Similar CUDA core counts for most SKUs compared to last gen (except in the 5090 vs. 4090 comparison). Similar clock speeds compared to the 40-series. The 5090
by numpy-thagoras 2y ago
Similar CUDA core counts for most SKUs compared to last gen (except in the 5090 vs. 4090 comparison).
Similar clock speeds compared to the 40-series.
The 5090 just has way more CUDA cores and uses proportionally more power compared to the 4090, when going by CUDA core comparisons and clock speed alone.
All of the "massive gains" were comparing DLSS and other optimization strategies to standard hardware rendering.
Something tells me Nvidia made next to no gains for this generation.
- nullbyte808 2y agonot true. They have redesigned AI cores with a dramatically better DLSS4 model that takes advantage of the new cores. Frames have more details and also a third frame can be generated creating a 300% FPS bump.
- danudey 2y ago> All of the "massive gains" were comparing DLSS and other optimization strategies to standard hardware rendering. > Something tells me Nvidia made next to no gains for this generation. Sounds to me like they made "massive gains". In the end, what matters to gamers is 1. Do my games look good? 2. Do my games run well? If I can go from 45 FPS to 120 FPS and the quality is still there, I don't care if it's because of frame generation and neural upscaling and so on. I'm not going to be upset that it's not lovingly rasterized pixel by pixel if I'm getting the same results (or better, in some cases) from DLSS. To say that Nvidia made no gains this generation makes no sense when they've apparently figured out how to deliver better results to users for less money.
- throwaway48476 2y agoFake frames, fake gains
- ThrowawayTestr 2y agoThe human eye can't see more than 60 fps anyway
- geerlingguy 2y agoCan definitely see more than 60, but it varies how much more you can see. For me it seems like diminishing returns beyond 144Hz. Though some CRT emulation techniques require more than that to scale realistic 'flickering' effects.
- AdrianB1 2y agoYou are right, but diminishing returns technically start around 60.
- UltraSane 2y agoi can tell up to about 144Hz but struggle to really notice going from 144 to 240Hz. Even if you don't consciously notice the higher refresh rate it could still help for really fast paced games like competitive FPS if you can actually generate that many frames per second by reducing input latency and if you can actually respond fast enough.
- scotty79 2y agoSame with me. At least on LCD. I'm still gonna get 480hz OLED display because I'm curious.
- Salgat 2y agoThe human eyes are analog low pass filters, so beyond 60Hz is when things start to blur together, which is still desirable since that's what we see in real life. But there is a cutoff where even the blurring itself can no longer help increase fidelity. Also keep in mind that this benefit helps visuals even when the frame rate is beyond human response time.
- Sohcahtoa82 2y agoThis is factually incorrect and I don't know where people get this idea from. Just moving my mouse around, I can tell the difference between 60 and 144 fps when I move my pointer from my main monitor (144 hz) to my second monitor (60 hz). Watching text scroll is noticeably smoother and with less eye tracking motion blur at 144 hz versus 60. An object moving across my screen at 144 fps will travel fewer pixels per frame than 60 fps. This gain in motion fluidity is noticeable.
- UltraSane 2y agoAre DLSS frames any more fake than the computed P or B frames?
- mdre 2y agoYes.
- UltraSane 2y agohow so?
- shock-value 2y agoP and B frames are compressed versions of a reference image. Frames resulting from DLSS frame generation are predictions of what a reference image might look like even though one does not actually exist.
- scotty79 2y agoCompression and prediction are the same. Decompressing a lossy format is guessing how the original image might have looked like. The difference between fake frames and P and B frames is that the difference between prediction of fake frame and real frame is dependant on the user input. ... now I wonder ... Do DLSS models take mouse movements and keypresses into account?
- UltraSane 2y agoBut MPEG is lossy compression which means they are kind of a just a guess. That is why MPEG uses motion vectors. "MPEG uses motion vectors to efficiently compress video data by identifying and describing the movement of objects between frames, allowing the encoder to predict pixel values in the current frame based on information from previous frames, significantly reducing the amount of data needed to represent the video sequence"
- wtallis 2y ago
- m3kw9 2y agoThe fps gains are directly because of the AI compute cores, I’d say that’s a net gain but not a the traditional sense preAI.
- ahartmetz 2y agoKind of a half gain: smoothness improved, latency same or slightly worse. By the way, I thought these AI things served to increase resolution, not frame rate. Why doesn't it work that way?
- throwaway48476 2y agoIt's both. And it's going to continue until games are 100% and AI fever dream.
- ahartmetz 2y agoRight, I should have said "generate extra pixels in every frame, not interpolate whole frames". Doing the former also increases frame rate by reducing computation per pixel.
- CSDude 2y agoI have 2070 Super. Latest Call of Duty runs on 4k with good quality using DLSS with 60 fps and I can't notice at all (unless I look very closely, even with my 6k ProDisplay XDR) so yeah I was thinking of building a 5090 based computer and it will probably last many more years than my 2070 super with latest AI developments.
- dragontamer 2y agoBecause if two frames are fake and only one frame is based off of real movements, then you've actually lost a fair bit of latency and will have noticably laggier controls. Making better looking individual frames and benchmarks for worse gameplay experiences is an old tradition for these GPU makers.
- lovich 2y agoIf anyone thinks they are having laggier controls or losing latency off of single frames I have a bridge to sell them. A game running at 60 fps averages around ~16 ms and good human reaction times don’t go much below 200ms. Users who “notice” individual frames are usually noticing when a single frame is lagging for the length of several frames at the average rate. They aren’t noticing anything within the span of an average frame lifetime
- foxhill 2y agoyou’re conflating reaction times and latency perception. these are not the same. humans can tell the difference down to 10ms, perhaps lower. if you added 200ms latency to your mouse inputs, you’d throw your computer out the of the window pretty quickly.
- DanielHB 2y agoyeah the "distance between frames" latency is just one overhead, everything adds up until you get real latency. 10ms for your wireless mouse then 3ms for your I/O hardware then 5ms for the game engine to process your input then 20ms for the graphics pipeline and so on and on. 30 FPS is 33.33333 MS 60 FPS is 16.66666 MS 90 FPS is 11.11111 MS 120 FPS is 8.333333 MS 140 FPS is 7.142857 MS 144 FPS is 6.944444 MS 180 FPS is 5.555555 MS 240 FPS is 4.166666 MS Going from 30fps to 120fps is 25ms which is totally 100% noticeable even for layman (I actually tested this with my girlfriend, she could tell between 60fps and 120fps as well), but these generated frames from DLSS don't help with this latency _at all_. Although the nVidia Reflex technology can help with this kind of latency in some situations in some non quantifiable ways.
- 2y ago
- bitmasher9 2y agoRasterizing results in better graphics quality than DLSS if compute is not a limiting factor. They are trying to do an apples to oranges comparison by comparing the FPS of standard rendering to upscaled images. I use DLSS type tech, but you lose a lot of fine details with it. Far away text looks blurry, textures aren’t as rich, and lines between individual models lose their sharpness. Also, if you’re spending $2000 for a toy you are allowed to have high standards.
- UltraSane 2y agoDLSS 4 uses a completely new model with twice as many parameters and seems to be a big improvement.
- bitmasher9 2y agoI hope so, because it looks like 8k traditional rendering won’t be an option for this decade.
- brokenmachine 2y agoWhy is that an issue? Do you have an 8k monitor?
- UltraSane 2y agothere aren't many 8k monitors. I would rather have 300fps 4k
- hervature 2y agoThese are NVidia's financial results last quarter: - Data Center: Third-quarter revenue was a record $30.8 billion - Gaming and AI PC: Third-quarter Gaming revenue was $3.3 billion If the gains are for only 10% of your customers, I would put this closer to the "next to no gains" rather than the "massive gains".
- pshc 2y agoDLSS artifacts are pretty obvious to me. Modern games relying on temporal anti aliasing and raytracing tend to be blurry and flickery. I prefer last-gen games at this point, and would love a revival of “brute force” rasterization.
- AdrianB1 2y agoAs long as you can still disable DLSS from the game menu, it is good enough for me. I don't care about fake frames, I disable fake frames.
- everdrive 2y agoIf you're doing frame generation you're getting input lag. Frame generation from low framerates is pretty far from ideal.
- ryao 2y agoNvidia claims to have fixed this with Nvidia reflex 2. It will reposition the frame according to mouse movements.
- Arn_Thor 2y agoAny frame gen gains don’t improve latency so the usefulness is reduced
- ryao 2y agoNvidia reflex 2 is supposed to fix that. It will recenter the frame based on mouse movements.
- nicman23 2y ago>Do my games look good i d like to point you to r/FuckTAA >Do my games run well if the internal logic is still in sub 120 hz and it is a twichy game, then no
- laweijfmvo 2y agoI started thinking today, when Nvidia seemingly keeps just magically increasing performance every two years, that they eventually have to "intel" themselves, where they haven't made any real architectural improvements in ~10 years and just suddenly power and thermals don't scale anymore and you have six generations of turds that all perform essentially the same, right?
- DanielHB 2y agoAs long as TSMC keeps improving die size it will keep getting incremental improvements. These power/thermal improvements are not really that much up to nvidia. The intel problem was that their foundries couldn't improve the die size while the other foundries kept improving theirs. But technically nvidia can switch foundry if another one proves better than TSMC even though that doesn't seem likely (at least without a major breakthrough not capitalized by ASML).
- ryao 2y agoNvidia is a very innovative company. They reinvent solutions to problems while others are trying to match their old solutions. As long as they can keep doing that, they will keep improving performance. They are not solely reliant on process node shrinks for performance uplifts like Intel was.
- Cumpiler69 2y ago>They are not solely reliant on process node shrinks for performance uplifts like Intel was. People who keep giving intel endless shit are probably very young and don't remember how innovative Intel was in the 90s and 00s. USB, PCI-Express, Thunderbolt, etc., all Intel inventions, plus involvement in Wifi and wireless telecom standards. They are guilty of anti competitive practices and complacency in the last years but their innovations weren't just node shrinks.
- ryao 2y agoThose standards are plumbing to connect things to the CPU. The last major innovations that Intel had in the CPU itself were implementing CISC in RISC with programmable microcode in the Pentium and SMT in the Pentium 4. Everything else has been fairly incremental and they were reliant on their process node advantage to stay on top. There was Itanium too, but that effort was a disaster. It likely caused Intel to stop innovating and just rely on its now defunct process node advantage. Intel’s strategy after it adopted EM64T (Intel’s NIH syndrome name for amd64) from AMD could be summarized as “increase realizable parallelism through more transistors and add more CISC instructions to do key work loads faster”. AVX512 was that strategy’s zenith and it was a disaster for them since they had to cut clock speeds when AVX-512 operations ran while AMD was able to implement them without any apparent loss in clock speed. You might consider the more recent introduction of E cores to be an innovation, but that was a copy of ARM’s big.little concept. The motivation was not so much to save power as it was for ARM but to try to get more parallelism out of fewer transistors since their process advantage was gone and the AVX-512 fiasco had showed that they needed a new strategy to stay competitive. Unfortunately for Intel, it was not enough to keep them competitive. Interestingly, leaks from Intel indicate that Intel had a new innovation in development called Royal Core, but Pat Gelsinger cancelled it last year before he “resigned”. The cancellation reportedly lead to Intel’s Oregon design team resigning.
- Salgat 2y agoThe 5090's core increase (30%) is actually underwhelming compared to the 3090->4090 increase (60% more), but the real game changer is the memory improvements, both in size and bandwidth.
- ryao 2y agoThey held back. Had they used 32Gbps GDDR7, they would have reached 2.0TB/sec memory bandwidth. 36Gbps GDDR7 would have let them reach 2.25TB/sec. The GB202 also reportedly has significantly more compute cores, TMUs, ROPs, tensor cores and RT cores than the 5090 uses: https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/nvidia-gb202.g1072 https://www.techpowerup.com/gpu-specs/nvidia-gb202.g1072 Maybe there is a RTX 5090 Ti being held in reserve. They could potentially increase the compute on it by 13% and the memory bandwidth on it by 25% versus the 5090. I wonder if anyone will try to solder 36Gbps GDDR7 chips onto a 5090 and then increase the memory clock manually.
- NoPicklez 2y agoJensen did say that in the presentation that compute performance isn't increasing at large enough scales to make enough change. The shift is moving to reliance on using AI to improve performance and there are additions in hardware to accommodate that. Isn't not being kept a secret, its being openly discussed that they need to leverage AI for better gaming performance. If you can use AI to go from 40fps to 120fps with near identical quality, then that's still an improvement
- 7bit 2y agoDLSS and DLAA are terrible for any high-movement Games Like FPS, racing games, Action Games. I wouldn't exactly call it near identical quality. To shareholders this may ring true, but most gamers know that these GPS gains are not worth it and don't use it.. (They still buy it tho)
- NoPicklez 2y agoThat's not true, DLSS isn't terrible for high movement games. I've been using DLSS for FPS and racing games since I got my 3080 on launch and it works perfectly fine. Frame gen might be a different story and Nvidia are releasing improvements, but DLSS isn't terrible at all.
- az226 2y agoFlops went up 26% and power draw 28%. So the biggest benefit is PCIe 5 and the faster/more memory (credit going to Micron). This is one of the worst generational upgrades. They’re doing it to keep profits in the data center business.