AMD Introduces FidelityFX Super Resolution, NVIDIA Announces DLSS For Steam Play

[gardotd426]

Hey nvidia, how about gsync/freesync on multimonitor on linux? how about wayland? how about HDR? is HDR even working on any setup?

Um, GSync on multimonitor is impossible on Xorg due to the fundamental nature of how it works. It can never support variable refresh rate (freesync OR Gsync), ever. Only Wayland is capable of that, and any Wayland DE that allows multimonitor VRR will support Gsync due to the way VRR works on Wayland. AMD doesn't support Freesync on multi-monitor on X11 either. Because they can't. So that's one nonsensical statement down.

Wayland is already supported. The issue is accelerated *XWayland*, which is an Xorg thing. And support for accelerated XWayland is coming in the next Nvidia driver release (470). So there's another statement down.

And finally, Nvidia isn't to blame for the lack of HDR on Linux. HDR support is nonexistent on Linux regardless of GPU, whether it's AMD, Nvidia, or Intel.

[gardotd426]

no thats not what is killing nvidia i tell you what is killing nvidia: not the Quantity of the people who use linux as desktop or gaming it is the "Quality" of the people...

now you think what "Quality" ??? quality means that like all linux desktop users and linux gamers are also group of linux professionals who work in HPC and server space and other part of the computer/IT/internet industry...

forget Quantity (marketshare) it is the "Quality of people" what count.

Um, Nvidia has the majority of market-share of dGPU users ON LINUX. So....

[gardotd426]

well there is some truth in what you say but your conclusion is irrational and wrong.

true is: if you buy AMD gpus for linux what is completely "new" then the result will be not good because all the bugs and features will be fixed after like 1 year...

the conclusion of this is not to buy Nvidia GPUs but instead to buy 1 year old AMD gpus.(or even older)

my vega64 for example is rock solid. (3 years old)

if you watch the PRO hardware of amd they are all 1-2 year old chips thats the products AMD sells to linux users.

What you're suggesting is not acceptable to many (maybe even most) people.

No one wants to run Vega 56's or 64's. Those cards are hot, loud, inefficient, and at this point don't even qualify as midrange GPUs, not to mention the fact that they don't support new tech like RT. If you're someone who doesn't need a good gaming GPU, then that's fantastic for you. But what you're talking about is completely unacceptable to the majority of people that care about gaming.

And to sacrifice all that, just to what, not buy Nvidia for some nonsense arbitrary reason, when Nvidia will give you full support on day one and not make you wait a year for your new GPU to work? That's preposterous, and you have zero room to call anyone else irrational, because what you just said is one of the most irrational things I've ever heard when it comes to PC hardware - "I don't want to buy Nvidia because I don't like them despite the fact that Intel and AMD do the exact same shit, so I'm going to only buy old hardware, but what's more, I'm going to tell *everyone else* to only buy old hardware too, even if that isn't acceptable for their needs."

[gardotd426]

right ... but whats the point?... Nvidia with game streaming is a competitor to "steam"

they maybe like to see DLSS on linux for steam but they will never build a nvidia hardware based console gaming product...

I don't think you know what you're talking about. GeForce NOW isn't remotely a competitor to Steam.

You DO realize that literally like 90% of the games available on GeForce NOW are STEAM GAMES, right??? Which means that if someone is playing a Steam game on GeForce NOW, Valve gets the *exact* same amount of money as if they were playing it locally on their own hardware.

So no. They aren't competitors. Valve benefits from GeForce NOW almost as much as Nvidia does, actually.

[Stefem]

Even if is not on par of DLSS 2.0 the fact that it is an open (source) standard is a big plus. DLSS is just vendor lock crap like CUDA.

CUDA, PhysX, GSync... DLSS. They love to push their proprietary garbage.

You clearly don't know what a standard is, being open source or working on both vendors hardware (but not optimized for NVIDIA apparently) doesn't make it a standard

[Stefem]

I would say it's even worse. Cuda at least is natively available in linux. But from the pull requests they have done, seems to me this DLSS is only a hack in wine/proton to make it load a windows DLL that they will distribute together with their driver. There is no native linux implementation so this will not work ever with native linux binaries, only windows ones.

DLSS is natively supported on Linux by years, this announcement is for non native applications

[coder]

I don't think you know what you're talking about. GeForce NOW isn't remotely a competitor to Steam.

You DO realize that literally like 90% of the games available on GeForce NOW are STEAM GAMES, right??? Which means that if someone is playing a Steam game on GeForce NOW, Valve gets the *exact* same amount of money as if they were playing it locally on their own hardware.

So no. They aren't competitors. Valve benefits from GeForce NOW almost as much as Nvidia does, actually.

I introduced that idea, actually, based on clearly less knowledge of the issue than you seem to have.

I do wonder if we really know that Nvidia didn't negotiate a deal with Valve. Also, doesn't Steam just take a cut of the price, like other app stores?

And what's to stop Nvidia from going around Valve/Steam and cutting a deal directly with the game's publisher to run it outside of Steam, in GeForce Now? My guess is that's probably not currently worth the effort, due to the relatively low volume of GeForce Now players. If GeForce Now would take off, then I think it would represent more of a competitive threat to Steam.

[coder]

You clearly don't know what a standard is, being open source or working on both vendors hardware (but not optimized for NVIDIA apparently) doesn't make it a standard

True, but I think evasb 's statement holds, if you simply substitute "technology" for the word "standard".

That said, I think there are real concerns about it not being a very good technology or very competitive with modern DLSS. I don't think it's worth expending too much energy on that question, when the answer will become apparent in relatively short order.

[Stefem]

AMD's opensource FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) will be Freeync all over again. Opensource for the win. AMD even showed it working on a GTX 1060, outch:

I don't like the way AMD PR department do its work but they are pretty effective, most people (even most reviewer) mislead the proprietary software implementation Freesync owned by AMD with the open industry standard Adaptive Sync of the VESA DP (no, it's not Freesync adopted by VESA) and HDMI 2.1 VRR. Everyone that want to have a good working VRR on a Freesync branded DisplayPort monitor have to create a software that manage it (that's what NVIDIA call G-Sync Compatible) while all HDMI Freesync monitors before the HDMI 2.1 revision (practically every) cannot be used with NVIDIA because it's a proprietary standard of AMD (I think they even patented it if I remember well). When NVIDIA introduced G-Sync on the market (let alone while they where in development) there wasn't any standard available on desktop to sync the refresh to the framerate.
I personally prefer the road taken by NVIDIA from a technical stand point, by two years now newly manufactured ones supports AMD GPUs (through the VESA standard) and since everything is managed by the module inside the monitor everything works automatically for AMD (or anyone else). This fact gave G-Sync another advantage once HDR become a factor.

The HDR pipeline require that the display do its tone mapping which makes sense since each model is different and it perfectly known what is capable of (which is needed for a good result). After the GPU completed a frame it does a tone map from the internal format to a standard, like the Rec.2020, that the monitor can understand, then the monitor is supposed to tone map the frame to make it appear like it should. This is needed because each panel model have different luminance capabilities and this would results in images that looks bad (which is not a problem for SDR since luminance is constant).
This isn't a problem for movies since latency isn't important (and they have a static or semi-static gamma curve) but monitor with cheap and slow scaler will impact gaming with a substantial latency penalty (like 60ms or more), this isn't a problem for G-Sync but AMD run on this issue because Freesync monitors doesn't employ a faster processor. To solve this with the launch of Freesync 2 (which introduced HDR support) they created first a proprietary API and later an addon (now known as FidelityFX LPM) that goes outside the standard HDR pipeline to do the tone map for the display on the GPU (initially they claimed the second tone map wasn't necessary but it was simply preposterous). The problem is that it must be implemented by the game developer and AMD must keep track of each monitor, leaving that to the monitor is much more elegant and effective solution in my mind, monitor makers could just upgrade the scaler if they don't want to use the G-Sync module.

[gardotd426]

I do wonder if we really know that Nvidia didn't negotiate a deal with Valve. Also, doesn't Steam just take a cut of the price, like other app stores?

Huh? Yeah I really think you don't know anything about GeForce Now or how it works or what it even is. Which is fine, but you should probably try and actually research a topic before making wild claims about it

And what's to stop Nvidia from going around Valve/Steam and cutting a deal directly with the game's publisher to run it outside of Steam, in GeForce Now? My guess is that's probably not currently worth the effort, due to the relatively low volume of GeForce Now players. If GeForce Now would take off, then I think it would represent more of a competitive threat to Steam.

GeForce Now has no games of its own. That's not how it works. GFN is just a game-streaming service for games you ALREADY OWN. There are games from Steam, Origin, GOG, and Epic Games Store (maybe a couple more launchers but I believe that's it). You have to own the game separate from GFN to be able to play it (which is a good thing, unlike Stadia where you have to pay full price for the games, can never play them locally, and will lose them when Stadia dies). So Nvidia don't get a single penny from a single sale of any game that's available on GFN. Not one.

Let's look at an example. Cyberpunk 2077 is available on GFN. If you go to GFN and try to play it, you have to tell GFN which platform you own the game on, GOG, Steam, or Epic Games Store. You then have to sign in to your Steam/GOG/EGS account, and GFN verifies that you own the game. If you do, the VM launches, Steam/EGS/Galaxy opens and the game launches automatically.

So GFN has nothing to do with game sales, whatsoever. You have to own the games completely separately, and no money for the sale goes to GFN (you don't even buy the games on GFN, you buy it in your browser or in whichever launcher on your local machine).

Oh, there's also the fact that Steam Cloud Gaming which entered Beta a couple months ago literally uses GeForce Now under the hood. There's literally nothing that could more completely destroy the notion that Valve and GFN are somehow competitors and wouldn't partner up. Because they already have.