AMD Radeon RX 5500 XT Linux Performance

[coder]

The number of transistors on the two chips (RX 5700, RTX 2060) was taken into account. Approximately their ratio is 1:1.

The RTX 2060's TU106 has 10.8 B transistors, while the RX 5700's Navi 10 has 10.3. So, the Nvidia GPU has about 5% more. Considering it also has ray tracing and tensor cores, that's not bad. However, Navi 10 has about 28% more raw fp32 performance, if we compare the stock RX 5700 XT to the RTX 2060 Super, at base clocks.

Of course, even the RTX 2060 Super doesn't fully-enable the TU106. It's still down on "cores", by about 6% vs the base RTX 2070, which also uses that GPU. That should approximately cancel out the transistor-count differences vs. Navi 10, perhaps giving some idea of the fp32 performance Nvidia is leaving out, in favor of tensor cores and ray tracing.

[Linuxxx]

And yes, I also use my TV's motion interpolation, when watching 24 fps content. Once you get over the initial adjustment period, a fair-minded person cannot deny that it looks better (assuming a competent implementation with minimal artifacts).

You know the ultimate solution to the "24 FPS is too low for smooth motion" problem?

"mpv" with these interpolation settings:

tscale=box
tscale-window=quadric
tscale-clamp=0.0
tscale-radius=1.1

The result?

No artifacts while having absolutely smooth motion, all while completely avoiding the 'soap-opera' effect!

Try it out; else your missing out!

[coder]

You know the ultimate solution to the "24 FPS is too low for smooth motion" problem?

"mpv" with these interpolation settings:

The result?

No artifacts while having absolutely smooth motion, all while completely avoiding the 'soap-opera' effect!

Try it out; else your missing out!

You can't have "absolutely smooth motion, all while completely avoiding the 'soap-opera' effect". The "soap opera effect" is simply watching content at a high framerate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion...p_opera_effect

Back in the days of analog TV, soap operas were shot directly on video (i.e. 59.94 Hz for NTSC or 50 Hz for PAL). People subconsciously associated the smooth motion with low-budget, since movies and even some high-budget TV programs were shot & edited on film.

If you want smooth video on a PC, the only way I know (not to say there aren't others) is: https://www.svp-team.com/get/

It's closed source, but free on Linux. On their home page, they have testimonials from Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings director) and James Cameron (Terminator, Alien, Abyss, Titanic, Avatar, etc.)! So, certainly not all of Hollywood is against HFR!

[Linuxxx]

You can't have "absolutely smooth motion, all while completely avoiding the 'soap-opera' effect". The "soap opera effect" is simply watching content at a high framerate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion...p_opera_effect

Back in the days of analog TV, soap operas were shot directly on video (i.e. 59.94 Hz for NTSC or 50 Hz for PAL). People subconsciously associated the smooth motion with low-budget, since movies and even some high-budget TV programs were shot & edited on film.

If you want smooth video on a PC, the only way I know (not to say there aren't others) is: https://www.svp-team.com/get/

It's closed source, but free on Linux. On their home page, they have testimonials from Peter Jackson (Lord of the Rings director) and James Cameron (Terminator, Alien, Abyss, Titanic, Avatar, etc.)! So, certainly not all of Hollywood is against HFR!

And your saying all of this after having tried out my suggestion, right?

Please, I know full well what the soap-opera effect is; and what you are suggesting with the "smooth video project" software is nothing else than what your TV is doing already either:
Interpolating new frames from the already existing ones to fill out the screen's refresh rate (e.g. 23.976 FPS --> 60 FPS).

No, what I'm talking about is simply blending the existing frames into each other; this way, no "new" frames are being produced, which has the following benefits:

- easy to calculate (i.e. low resource usage)
- no soap-opera effect(!) [yes, really; even if it's hard to grasp for your mind...]
- NO UGLY ARTIFACTS (which even you admit as being noticable with your TV's 'advanced' interpolation algorithms!)

Here, have a read next time before you start lessoning others:

https://github.com/mpv-player/mpv/wiki/Interpolation

[Linuxxx]

Michael
Any particular reason You are not approving my response to coder ?

[Michael]

Michael
Any particular reason You are not approving my response to coder ?

Just funky spam queue, should be through in a minute when I go to clear out the legit posts.

[Danny3]

HDR and HFR is in no way "quality features", all the movies shot above the proper 24fps (and note here that this card will support 4K60Hz) looks like ugly tv soap operas. However if that really is your fancy then yes you will have to look for a different card, even if they had added 2.1 support I have a hard time believing that the GPU on it would be able to push 48Gbps, let along decode any codec on that bandwidth.

For anyone interested in why 24fps is better for movies, please see this Youtube by Filmmaker IQ:

HDR and HFR are "quality features" for me in the way that they try to solve problems that there shouldn't be there in the first place or for so long.
HDR improves the lightning / brightness in low light scenes making it closer to how we see in real life.
HFR improves the clarity especially in high movement scenes to make it somewhat closer to how we see in real life, it eliminates that crappy blur.
Just pause a 24 frames movies and see how crappy the image looks and that's what the eyes see normally, just faster.

How can 24 FPS be better for movies but worse for everything else ?
24 FPS was chosen almost 100 years ago because they have added also sound to the movie tape and increasing the frame rate to more than 24 FPS would make the sound weird at playback.
This problem was solved in the meantime, but Hollywood sticked with 24 FPS because "Hollywood is cheap" not because 24 FPS is better.
They don't want to consume 2.5 times more film for every shot, upgrade their expensive cameras, computers, storage space, etc.
And how can 60 FPS be good only for Virtual Reality, gaming, sports, Reality Programming and not for movies?
And the "Eye cannot see HFR" is pure crap!
I bet the eye can see to at least 150 FPS.
Just look on Youtube on guys who have HFR monitors and how they can tell the difference between 60 / 120 / 144 Hz.
I'm sorry but even my phone can shoot at 60 FPS and I'm really amazed how well those videos look, how natural.

[F.Ultra]

And yes, I also use my TV's motion interpolation, when watching 24 fps content. Once you get over the initial adjustment period, a fair-minded person cannot deny that it looks better (assuming a competent implementation with minimal artifacts).

This part actually blows my mind. One evening some week ago when I was binging through the second season of Jack Ryan, I was constantly upset of how god awful it was filmed and had this whole "uncanny valley" feel until I noticed that the damn interpolation setting had been automatically enabled in a recent firmware update.

Even though I have a hard time understanding how you can experience that it looks better I do acknowledge that you do and this is a subjective matter, however I do have a problem with "a fair-minded person cannot deny that it looks better". This is image manipulation and "better" is a subjective and not objective measure.

edit: I have yet to see the Gemini Man, however since it's in 3D I can see that 120Hz helps there since 3D needs higher framerates due to how the 3D technology works.

I see however that The Times did not enjoy the HFR:

Giving the film one star, Kevin Maher of The Times was unimpressed with the script and the 120fps shooting, writing "It keeps every detail in the frame (background and foreground) in vivid, garish focus at all times. Besides being aesthetically repellent (it's like 1980s children's telly or the worst wedding video yet)" and called the de-aging "alarmingly unconvincing"

[coder]

And your saying all of this after having tried out my suggestion, right?

No, because that's not what I want.

Please, I know full well what the soap-opera effect is; and what you are suggesting with the "smooth video project" software is nothing else than what your TV is doing already either:
Interpolating new frames from the already existing ones to fill out the screen's refresh rate (e.g. 23.976 FPS --> 60 FPS).

Not exactly. The output is computed as a function of the input, but when the display rate is not an integral multiple of the input, it's doing more than just generating the "missing frames".

BTW, my TV interpolates to 96 Hz.

No, what I'm talking about is simply blending the existing frames into each other; this way, no "new" frames are being produced,

Right. That's exactly what I don't want [yes, really; even if it's hard to grasp for your mind...]

Here, have a read next time before you start lessoning others:

Why don't you try to understand what people actually want, before you start to "lessoning" them.

I'm not the one who has a problem with the "soap opera effect". As I said, it only looks weird until you get used to it. Then, you'll most likely prefer it, even if there are a few artifacts.

Earlier tonight, I was just watching a remaster of a 54-year-old movie that looked phenomenal, with motion interpolation, and I didn't notice a single artifact in the whole thing. The amount of detail I could see was simply astounding. With the type of frame blending you suggest, it would've been a blurry mess. NO THANKS. Been there, Done that. Don't want.

[coder]

And the "Eye cannot see HFR" is pure crap!

Exactly! If the eye couldn't see faster than 24 fps, people wouldn't complain about the "soap opera effect". By virtue of their complaints, they're invalidating that whole line of argumentation.