• sugar_in_your_tea
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Well, FSR is open, as is FreeSync and most other AMD tech, it’s just that NVIDIA is so dominant that there’s really no reason for them to use anything other than their own proprietary tech. If Intel can eat away at NVIDIA market share, maybe we’ll see some more openness.

    • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      I guess they could just use FSR as a wrapper for DLSS, but they made DLSS because there was nothing like it available, and it leverages the hardware to absolutely blow doors off of FSR. They’re not comparable effects.

      • sugar_in_your_tea
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Last I checked, DLSS requires work by the developers to work properly, so it’s less “leveraging the hardware” and more “leveraging better data,” though maybe FSR 3 has a similar process.

        • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          It’s a hardware level feature, though. The reason they didn’t support hardware prior to RTX was because they didn’t have the tensor cores to do the right math.

          FSR is substantially less capable because it can’t assume it has the correct hardware to get the throughput DLSS needs to work. I know the “corporations suck” talking point is fun and there’s some truth to it, but most of the proprietary stuff nvidia does is either first or better by a significant bit. They use the marriage of hardware and software to do things you can’t do effectively with broad compatibility, because they use the architecture of the cards it’s designed for (and going forward) extremely effectively.

          • sugar_in_your_tea
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            1 year ago

            I think it’s more the other way around. They designed the feature around their new hardware as a form of competitive advantage. Most of the time, you can exchange cross platform compatibility for better performance.

            Look at CUDA vs OpenCL, for example. Instead of improving OpenCL or making CUDA an open standard, they instead double down on keeping it proprietary. They probably get a small performance advantage here, but the main reason they do this is to secure their monopoly. The same goes for GSync vs FreeSync, but it seems they are backing down and supporting FreeSync as well.

            They want you to think it’s a pro-consumer move, but really it’s just a way to keep their competition one step behind.

            • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              They can’t improve openCL. They can make suggestions or proposals, but because broad compatibility are the priority, most of it wouldn’t get added. They’d be stuck with a worse instruction set with tooling that spends half its time trying to figure out all the different hardware compatibility you have to deal with.

              Cuda is better than openCL. Gsync was better than freesync (though the gap has closed enough that freesync is viable now). DLSS is better than FSR. None of them are small advantages, and they were all created before there was anything else available even if they wanted to. Supporting any of them in place of their own tech would have been a big step back and abandoning what they had just sold their customers.

              It’s not “pro consumer”. It absolutely is “pro technology”, though. Nvidia has driven graphic and gpgpu massively forward. Open technology is nice, but it has limitations as well, and Nvidia’s approach has been constant substantial improvement to what can be done.

              • sugar_in_your_tea
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                CUDA is only better because the industry has moved to it, and NVIDIA pumps money into its development. OpenCL could be just as good if the industry adopted it and card manufacturers invested in it. AMD and Intel aren’t going to invest as much in it as NVIDIA invests in CUDA because the marketshare just isn’t there.

                Look at Vulkan, it has a ton of potential for greater performance, yet many games (at least Baldur’s Gate) work better with DirectX 12, and that’s because they’ve invested resources into making it work better. If those same resources were out into Vulkan development, Vulkan would outperform DirectX on those games.

                The same goes for GSync vs FreeSync, most of the problems with FreeSync were poor implementations by monitors, or poor support from NVIDIA. More people had NVIDIA cards, so GSync monitors tended to work better. If NVIDIA and AMD had worked together at the start, variable refresh would’ve worked better from day one.

                Look at web standards, when organizations worked well together (e.g. to overtake IE 6), the web progressed really well and you could largely say “use a modern browser” and things would tend to work well. Now that Chrome has a near monopoly, there’s a ton of little things that don’t work as nicely between Chrome and Firefox. Things were pretty good until Chrome became dominant, and now it’s getting worse.

                It absolutely is “pro technology”

                Kind of. It’s more of an excuse to be anti-consumer by locking out competition with a somewhat legitimate “pro technology” stance.

                If they really were so “pro technology,” why not release DLSS, GSync, and CUDA as open standards? That way other companies could provide that technology in new ways to more segments of the market. But instead of that, they go the proprietary route, and the rest try to make open standards to oppose their monopoly on that tech.

                I’m not proposing any solutions here, just pointing out that NVIDIA does this because it works to secure their dominant market share. If AMD and Intel drop out, they’d likely stop the pace of innovation. If AMD and Intel catch up, NVIDIA will likely adopt open standards. But as long as they have a dominant position, there’s no reason for them to play nicely.

                • conciselyverbose@kbin.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Cuda was first, and worked well out of the gate. Resources that could have been spent improving cuda for an ecosystem that was outright bad for a long time didn’t make sense.

                  Gsync was first, and was better because it solved a hardware problem with hardware. It was a decade before displays came default with hardware where solving it with software was short of laughable. There was nothing nvidia could have done to make freesync better than dogshit. The approach was terrible.

                  DLSS was first, and was better because it came with hardware capable of actually solving the problem. FSR doesn’t and is inherently never going to be near as useful because of it. The cycles saved are offset significantly by the fact that it needs its own cycles of the same hardware to work.

                  Opening the standard sounds good, but it doesn’t actually do much unless you also compromise the product massively for compatibility. If you let AMD call FSR DLSS because they badly implement the methods, consumers don’t get anything better. AMD’s “DLSS” still doesn’t work, people now think DLSS is bad, and you get accused of gimping performance on AMD because their cards can’t do the math, all while also making design compromises to facilitate interoperability. And that’s if they even bother doing the work. There have been nvidia technologies that have been able to run on competitor’s cards and that’s exactly what happened.

                  • sugar_in_your_tea
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Opening the standard… compromise the product massively

                    Citation needed.

                    All NVIDIA needs to do is:

                    1. release the spec with a license AMD and Intel can use
                    2. form a standards group, or submit it to an existing one
                    3. ensure any changes to the spec go through the standards group; they can be first to market, provided they agree on the spec change

                    That’s it. They don’t need to make changes to suit AMD and Intel’s hardware, that’s on those individual companies to make work correctly.

                    This works really well in many other areas of computing, such as compression algorithms, web standards, USB specs, etc. Once you have a standard, other products can target it and the consumer has a richer selection of compatible products.

                    Right now, if you want GPGPU, you need to choose between OpenCL and CUDA, and each choice will essentially lock you out of certain product categories. Just a few years ago, the same as true for FreeSync, though FreeSync seems to have won.

                    But NVIDIA seems to be allergic to open standards, even going so far as to make their own power cable when they could have worked with the existing relevant standards bodies.