AMD Releases HIP RT 2.2 With Multi-Level Instancing

[blackiwid]

And the author points out that the GPU rendered version is a higher quality version in so far as it is the more accurate render, which dispels another myth that software rendering is of higher quality.

Oh, and about rendering performance? It’s 26.7 seconds on the GPU (an NVIDIA RTX A6000) versus 326.5 seconds on the CPU (a 32 core AMD 3970X).

Why do you bring that all up, when the news says that it does it now over GPU? It sounds like today AMD is 14 times slower vs Nvidia because you artificially only run it over the CPU? Am I missing something or are you so biased that you make a comparsion that has nothing to do with current state of things? Yes lot's of things take longer over CPU than over GPU but why do you make that now about Nvidia vs AMD when both can do GPU rendering?

Also somebody claimed the 7900xtx would not sell, which is obviously not true. What is true is that the 4080 and 4070ti did not sell.

[Panix]

It has nothing to do with TR. First of all that's not even technically possible since NVIDIA offers professional GPUs, so refusing participate in this market would merely mean leaving the market and not pushing more TR CPUs. Second of all, AMD market share in this segment is very low, so they tend to invest the resources in more profitable ones, since they are far more limited on them than Intel or NVIDIA.

Your opinion, as almost always, is pure trash.

AMD also offers professional GPUs - I know since Q tells me so..... maybe, their market share is bad because their software stack sucks and they don't support their products? Could be one reason, perhaps?

[sophisticles]

Why do you bring that all up, when the news says that it does it now over GPU? It sounds like today AMD is 14 times slower vs Nvidia because you artificially only run it over the CPU? Am I missing something or are you so biased that you make a comparsion that has nothing to do with current state of things? Yes lot's of things take longer over CPU than over GPU but why do you make that now about Nvidia vs AMD when both can do GPU rendering?

Also somebody claimed the 7900xtx would not sell, which is obviously not true. What is true is that the 4080 and 4070ti did not sell.

Reread what i wrote.

I pointed out that you could do this with an NVIDIA GPU 2.5 years ago.

I also offered the opinion that the reason AMD does not pursue GPU acceleration as aggressive;y as NVIDIA is because AMD has a vested interest in selling you faster and faster CPU's every year.

If AMD were to offer you a solution that suddenly made your workload 12 times faster there would be no reason for you to upgrade your CPU next year.

[drakonas777]

AMD also offers professional GPUs - I know since Q tells me so..... maybe, their market share is bad because their software stack sucks and they don't support their products? Could be one reason, perhaps?

Perhaps, I don't deny it. But it's not an intentional effort to make poor professional GPUs just to boost TR sales. This idea was absurd.

[blackiwid]

I pointed out that you could do this with an NVIDIA GPU 2.5 years ago.

I also offered the opinion that the reason AMD does not pursue GPU acceleration as aggressive;y as NVIDIA is because AMD has a vested interest in selling you faster and faster CPU's every year.

If AMD were to offer you a solution that suddenly made your workload 12 times faster there would be no reason for you to upgrade your CPU next year.

I agree that it's about money but in a different way than you write, it's pretty easy, Nvidia bribes company to use their proprietary software (pays gaming companies money to implement their DLSS and GSync and so on, they invest lot to get it out faster, why so they have a monopoly that they can overcharge everybody for it.

AMD don't has that, so they only can choose to be timely similar to Nvidia with high amount of money but don't get money back for it. Now they could sell more GPUs but TSMC doesn't give them enough wafers, so they can't sell also if they would compete 1:1 with Nvidia they either have to underbit them making less money or people would still buy blindly Nvidia anyway, because it would took at least 5 years before they trust that AMD is always software wise 100% on par with Nvidia.

It's more like AMD behaves normal don't have 90% margins like Nvidia per GPU and therefor they can't just send 1000 people to implement this and other stuff like that.

You really think AMD would not want to get into A.I. where Nvidia just earns many billions of dollars? I mean they get in but can't outcompete NVidia yet.

They can't out-spend a companies that creates nonstop monopolies (proprietary technology) and then asks for gigantic marges.

Nvidia sells like 5 times as much and earns probably just for consumers at least 2 times if not more per card, how could they have the same money for software developers? It's just basic math that this can't be.

So all makes sense without your conspiracy theory that AMD wants to trick people to buy more CPUs according to your logic it would be best for them to not produce GPUs at all, then Nvidia would raise the prices a lot so more incentive to buy their cpus and do it over cpu.

[sophisticles]

I agree that it's about money but in a different way than you write, it's pretty easy, Nvidia bribes company to use their proprietary software (pays gaming companies money to implement their DLSS and GSync and so on, they invest lot to get it out faster, why so they have a monopoly that they can overcharge everybody for it.

You call it a bribe, I call it investing and AMD does the same thing:

https://www.amd.com/en/gaming/featured-games.html

Want to know where NVIDIA's genius lies? Academia.

If you look at the computer science programs of every major university, they require classes on CUDA programming either at the undergrad or graduate level.

A few simply require GPGPU programming classes taught in Open CL but most of them specify and offer CUDA programming classes.

What this means is when someone graduates with a degree in Comp Sci or similar, they know how to code using CUDA and are likely to use that which they learned in college.

So all makes sense without your conspiracy theory that AMD wants to trick people to buy more CPUs according to your logic it would be best for them to not produce GPUs at all, then Nvidia would raise the prices a lot so more incentive to buy their cpus and do it over cpu.

In order for it to be a conspiracy theory I would need to state that AMD conspired with another company to prioritize higher core count CPU's.

However, if you have been following AMD's business tactics what i say becomes obvious.

Before the Ryzen, back in the Bulldozer days, AMD introduced the word APU and heterogeneous computing.In fact they advertised a 12 core APU that was 4 CPU cores and 8 GPU cores and they worked with Open Office to add Open CL acceleration to Calc, something that exists to this day in both Open Office and Libre Office.

When Lisa Su took over as CEO and they signed the deal for that manufacturing process, they launched the Ryzen and the talk about OCL, and APUs disappeared.

Instead they focused on Blender rendering, Cinebench, 3d rendering in general, video encoding, things that most people would choose a video card for.

Before ATI was bought by AMD, ATI had excellent content oriented video cards, their AIW cards are legend.

ATI also had the first hardware encoder in the form of a chip on the AIQ cards that was capable of handling 10% of mpeg-2 encoding during capture and ATI also had a FPU powered encoder that was accessible through the driver panel on Windows for h264 encoding when using the 9600 Pro.

The encoding for a beta product was quite good and 5 times faster than software encoding on a Pentium D 820.

Where are we today?

AMD pays lip service to hardware acceleration, they promote their high core count CPUs.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's there business plan.

[Panix]

Perhaps, I don't deny it. But it's not an intentional effort to make poor professional GPUs just to boost TR sales. This idea was absurd.

I didn't suggest or imply that.

[blackiwid]

You call it a bribe, I call it investing and AMD does the same thing:

No the difference is helping companies to support a open standard, that nvidia also can use heck often they don't even have to do anything about it, or sit in the commities to create the standards for adaptivesync as example or opencl etc, or fsr.

Want to know where NVIDIA's genius lies? Academia.

Yes like apply bribing schools and in this case I am absolutely clear about this, state sponsored schools should not favor an vendor, if they use Cuda because it's the only viable thing, not great but ok but if they even get money from companies to do that, the monopolists created it they get bribed, btw I am also not for books for schools that are given by companies promoting diat products or other bullshit, or even the companies name, I understand that some of this schools are poor but A not all and B government should never let that happen it's basically a sign of a failed state.

And yes this technique is well tested with drug dealers get them young, that doesn't make it moral.

When Lisa Su took over as CEO and they signed the deal for that manufacturing process, they launched the Ryzen and the talk about OCL, and APUs disappeared.

They advertise what they are great in and what they make most money which every single company would do. They not only released recently a new desktop apu not to mention their laptop apus, they have on their roadplan a monster APU with lot's of gpu power the only question is how they get enough bandweight to the ram, I assume Quad Channel and a slightly bigger cache.

Before ATI was bought by AMD, ATI had excellent content oriented video cards, their AIW cards are legend.

When they were so great why did they nearly go bankrupt? Not only were they weaker in the back then better opengl speed they also had even worse linux driver than Nvidia. I was in total party mood hearing that this garbage company god bought and AMD could make good products with free drivers for it.

ATI also had the first hardware encoder in the form of a chip on the AIQ cards that was capable of handling 10% of mpeg-2 encoding during capture and ATI also had a FPU powered encoder that was accessible through the driver panel on Windows for h264 encoding when using the 9600 Pro.

Ohh a company that spend more than they earned and have only 1 product GPUs concentrate 100% of their strategy on GPU Stuff how surprising.

AMD pays lip service to hardware acceleration, they promote their high core count CPUs.

It's not a conspiracy theory, it's there business plan.

High core count they stop at 16 cores for a long time now and not right now probably the next 1,5-2 years nothing above (for consumer desktop) will come out, of course for servers they always push cores why would they want to give up the important market to intel?