Tom's Hardware writes: Nvidia's Tony Tamasi took ECGC 2011 attendees on a trip to the past, to the present, and to the future of both GPU rendering and mobile graphics.
During ECGC 2011, Nvidia senior vice president of content and technology Tony Tamasi made a startling prediction during his keynote presentation called "The Future of Graphics Processing." He claimed that GPU performance will increase 1000-percent by 2015, allowing graphics cards to generate real-time ray tracing and procedurally generated smoke at 30 to 60 frames per second.
NVIDIA rolled out the DLSS 4.5 update at CES last week, adding 2nd Gen Transformer-based Super Resolution technology for all RTX GPUs. The performance scaling varies wildly across the older (RTX 20/RTX 30) and newer (RTX 40/RTX 50) GeForce RTX lineups. We tested NVIDIA’s next-gen upscaling solution across Cyberpunk 2077, Black Myth: Wukong, Oblivion Remastered, and KCD 2.
I've been surprised by this, the difference between 4 and 4.5 is very noticeable. It's almost completely or has removed that weird dark ghosting that you'd get in foggy games like Silent Hill 2... and Cyberpunk mixed with a high res texture pack is jaw dropping in ultra 4k.
Also if anyone doesn't know I recommend DLSS swapper, it allows you to inject the latest DLSS version into older games.
Quite amazing. But, this does probably mean devs will depend on ai even more for their supposed optimizations lol.
no offense to AMD, but this sort of stuff shows that they are always going to be playing catchup. I guess Nintendo can take advantage of some of these features.
With the Switch 2? NVidia can easily lock their proprietary tech to their latest GPUs and the Switch 2 will be stuck on 3.5 for 5 more years at least
4 and 4.5 are available on 2 and 3 series cards right now. The Switch GPU is based on 3 series architecture, meaning it has access to some of those features. Obviously not as much as the higher end cards, but still some.
"Better than native."
Native 4K in nearly all games nowadays is actually native resolution with forced temporal anti-aliasing.
TAA smears and blurs frames together to soften jagged edges.
Of course DLSS makes games look "better than native" because native alone without any competent AA methods makes games look horrible.
FSR 4 was a substantial improvement to AMD’s upscaling solution. It reduces ghosting, improves finer mesh retention, and particle effects. In most cases, it delivers similar visual quality to DLSS 4’s CNN model, but slightly worse than the newer transformer model.
Since FSR is open-source and nvidia's DLSS isn't, I'd personally always prefer FSR.
Frankly, I think all these differences are nice to know (and notice) about if you're playing at DF level. And I totally respect that very small need to max out performance.
But given the prices, I don't think any nvidia GPU advantage justifies paying 1000+ bucks. I don't see any game(s) exclusively (or not) available on PC that offer a fundamentally different and innovative gameplay experience.
There's never a good reason to own any products from Nvidia. They are one of the most destructive and anti-consumer companies that's ever existed.
Anyone buying and using Nvidia is only contributing to the downfall and end of gaming as we know it now.
With the rise of Nvidia all we've seen is price gouging while their products that continue to become less power efficient and their performance gains are so miniscule you'd need a 100x microscope to notice the AI upscaling. Pathetic really.
Why do you need to pay 1000 bucks for an Nvidia GPU? You can find one that is faster than the PS5 Pro at 400 bucks, RTX 5060 ti 16GB, and it has better upscaling, more VRAM, multiframe generation and RT.
Exactly. Headline says FSR looks like last gen. Implying it's years behind the competition. Article says it's slightly behind.
Examples shown, the difference are barely discernible.
I dont know about anyone else, but I've never had 2 screens playing at the same time to know the difference in performance of a given game. It's like those TV screen comparisons, virtually nobody in the real world engages does this, lol. Performance seems comparable to me. Besides Nvidia is no longer interested in the gaming products, its full steam ahead with "AI".
Yeah, but the gaving division is still 8.5% of their global revenue, and they just made 30% YoY topline growth per quarter. A 11.35 billion business is absolutely massive, and this will continue to increase. That means there's 11.35bn reasons why they won't stop the gaming business, nor lose their focus on it. It's also their pivot if things do not go as well in the AI race. By end of 2026, they have DOUBLED the gaming division business in 5 years.
FY 2025 $11.35 billion 8.6%
FY 2024 $10.45 billion 15.2% (approx)
FY 2023 $9.07 billion -7.5% (approx)
FY 2022 $9.82 billion (approx) 49.6% (approx)
FY 2021 $6.5 billion (approx) 61.1% (approx)
I've been lucky enough to get a new 5090 build in March, glad I went with Nvidia. Cyberpunk looks amazing.
The 9070XT matches or beats Nvidia's much more expensive 5080 in CoD: BO7 benchmarks. A rare win for AMD. The article also takes a closer look at 9600X vs 9800X3D performance.
Why does the article use misleading terms like "Crushes" and "The 9070 XT "HANDILY BEATS" the more expensive RTX 5080" ? It even admits it at the end of the article, yet keeps the terms lol
Looking at the graph, the difference is only 4-19fps, depending on the settings.
I would hardly call a 4-19fps difference, "crushes" or "handily beats" and no one is going to buy a 9070 over a 5080 for COD alone. How does the 9070 fair in other games compared to the 5080?
I think they exaggerate because people like when a product punches above its weight, especially from an underdog, but yeah it's not a huge difference. There are plenty of games where the 5080 is significantly faster.
That is basically what the 5090 does compared to the 4090. I dont consider it crushing either and decided to keep my 4090 over geting the 5090 with its small increase of FPS.
That's a no brainer, the 5090 is definitely the fastest card on the market but the 4090 is the second fastest, so it's still extremely powerful.
This summer im saving ALL of my money to get the best AMD Processor and the best Graphics Card for mah rig.
Good read, and I can't wait to see what the future brings us. By 2015, I'll be 21, old enough to afford a really good PC/console. "Next Gen" should be simply amazing.
http://www.youtube.com/watc...
That's the level of graphics in the PS4 and 720.
Proof? Well I can't really offer any however. Epic games despite their PC history make most of their money out sourcing their engine to developers, who want to sell their game to as many people as possible, me and you, you and me, we want the best graphics, the developers also have deadlines and want to get work done. Why do you think suddenly games went from Quake engine to Unreal? Check COD:MW2 if you don't believe me there's a quake license in their. But now most games have unreal.
So, it's not only in Epics interest to produce the best current gen engine, but to keep it upto date. So, not too long ago, they went to Sony, Microsoft and Nintendo and said, something along the lines of
'We produce engines for your games, games which have made you a ton of money, Gears, Mass Effect. We're working on Unreal Engine 4, now we know you have some basics already down, but this is was we suggest
2GIG RAM-Min
1GIG V.ram
HD5770 or better, we'd like the HD6950 if you want long term
If you do those expect this. Sony has learnt from this generation to work more with third party engines, Microsoft has learnt their technology needs to be better.
http://n4g.com/news/12934/e...
Proof, and you don't think that'll happen again. The next generation is already started, behind closed doors.
Look at Battlefield 3, someone at EA said 'We really need to get this done, an engine that will carry us through the next generation.' Dice picked it up, and the engine is running on the PS4 and 720. When BF3 releases if you see one GPU out-preform the others FPS-$ rate compared to other games, then THAT'S the 720 GPU albeit with modifications.
EA may not have the 720 on desks but there's internal document floating around with it's GPU details.
or just buy a next gen console
" Is it even possible to push graphics beyond photo-realism? When will the GPU run out of gas? When will performance taper off?"
Graphics are far from looking photo realistic. Every leaf on a tree would have to have far greater detail than any main character on a PS3.
Graphics will NOT be photo realistic any time soon...I would probably seee photo realistic graphics before I die though =)