AusWolfThat's proof that it works better on Ada. It's not proof that it doesn't work on Turing and Ampere.
If Nvidia could enable RT on cards that have zero dedicated RT hardware (GTX 1000 series), then this shouldn't be a problem, either.

Lew ZealandI think the difference is that one is adding a new feature, RT. The other is not and is instead adding perceived smoothness, FrameGen.

RT sucks the frames out of your card no matter which one you use, so having it cut to 20-25% on a 1xxx series card was merely 2-3x worse than a Turing card but still allowed the user to "see what they were missing." It's a decent advertising gimmick.

Frame Generation exists specifically to make more frames to increase perceived smoothness. If adding FrameGen to Turing and Ampere ends up adding few or no additional frames, then you are getting nothing yet taking a hit on latency in the process.

One (RT) adds something while the other (FG) adds nothing on "unsupported" cards hence why RT got added to those cards and not FG.

oxrufiioxoMy guess is they are in a damn if they do damn if they don't situation and decided against releasing it on Turing/Ampere.

Let's say they did release it and it performs like crap and has a ton of artifacts people will say they gimped it on purpose so basically the same situation that they are in now.

Whenever I buy a gpu I buy it for the performance it gives me that day I think most people just buy whatever performs the best within their budget regardless anyone buying a gpu because the box is red or green if there are better options at the same price point is only doing themselves a disservice.

Lew ZealandI think the difference is that one is adding a new feature, RT. The other is not and is instead adding perceived smoothness, FrameGen.

RT sucks the frames out of your card no matter which one you use, so having it cut to 20-25% on a 1xxx series card was merely 2-3x worse than a Turing card but still allowed the user to "see what they were missing." It's a decent advertising gimmick.

Frame Generation exists specifically to make more frames to increase perceived smoothness. If adding FrameGen to Turing and Ampere ends up adding few or no additional frames, then you are getting nothing yet taking a hit on latency in the process.

One (RT) adds something while the other (FG) adds nothing on "unsupported" cards hence why RT got added to those cards and not FG.

AusWolfThat's proof that it works better on Ada. It's not proof that it doesn't work on Turing and Ampere.
If Nvidia could enable RT on cards that have zero dedicated RT hardware (GTX 1000 series), then this shouldn't be a problem, either.

fevgatosBut nvidia themselves said that yes, it can work on older hardware. It will just look like crap.

AusWolfMaybe, maybe not. We won't know unless they do decide to roll it out for Turing and Ampere in the future.

Personally, I don't like all this "new tech" Nvidia introduces with every generation. One may see it as something new and exciting, but to me, it's just gimmicks to make people spend money on an upgrade even if they wouldn't have to otherwise. I'm more of an advocate of unified, hardware-agnostic standards, and a level playing field where the only major qualities of a graphics card are its computing power and price. If Nvidia is really a software company as some may claim, then they should develop software that runs on everything instead of hardware dedicated for not giving people a choice when buying a GPU.

dyonoctisSometimes the industry needs a push. Vulkan was born from mantle, anything that tressFX and gameworks did is now a standard feature in games engine.

AusWolfYes, but they were all hardware-agnostic, just like they are now. The industry needs a push, but not by X company to buy only X company's cards.

Assimilator3dfx killed itself. Stop making up stupid bullshit to justify your lack of actual argument.

Ah yes the good old "I don't actually have an argument so I'm going to bring up everything that I think NVIDIA has ever done wrong". I could do the same for ATI/AMD, but I won't, because I'm smart enough to know that that's not an argument, it's just stupid whining by a butthurt AMD fanboy.

AusWolfThat's proof that it works better on Ada. It's not proof that it doesn't work on Turing and Ampere.

PatriotYou asked for a history lesson, don't be annoyed you got one.

AssimilatorI didn't ask for a history lesson, and the stupid bullshit you made up in a pathetic attempt to support your not-argument wasn't one. Unless it's a history of your inability to make a coherent argument.

AssimilatorOf course it isn't. But you keep claiming that it will work on Turing and Ampere, also without any proof. Do you see your hypocrisy?

dyonoctisHonestly, the impression that I'm getting from the GPU market right now is that there's a growing pain about the machine learning hardware. For a while nvidia was alone to have that, Intel followed them, but their ML hardware isn't software compatible with Nvidia, and AMD doesn't seem to think that dev accessible AI on a consumer GPU is the future, and it's MIA on the consoles.
-So Nvidia want to power everything with machine learning.
-Intel wants to do it as well, but they still propose an agnostic solution because they can't make XESS works with the tensor core apparently.
-AMD just want to use the basic GPU hardware since that seems to be the only workable agnostic solution at the moment.
-Direct ML is a thing that supposed to be hardware agnostic, but no one use it for upscaling and frame generation? (genuine question)

Upscaling/FG seems to suffer from a difference of philosophy about the means to achieve it, and the fact that each company seems unable to make use of the specialised hardware of the other. So, there's something to clean up and standardise there.... but I think that Microsoft would need make direct X 12_3 (direct x Ultimate ML) where every constructor would have a guideline about what the ML hardware need to be able to do to be compliant.

AusWolfNo - I keep claiming that we have proof that Turing and Ampere have the necessary hardware, and that we have no proof that it doesn't work. Nvidia is kindly asking us to believe whatever they say at face value. If they provided a video to compare how it runs across Turing/Ampere/Ada, so we could see with our own eyes why they chose to only enable it on Ada, it would be the difference of night and day.


That makes perfect sense. And I agree - standardisation is needed.

AusWolfwe have proof that Turing and Ampere have the necessary hardware

wolfIt's a piece of hardware with the same name, but lesser capability by a significant amount, so at least by their own measure, it's not the necessary hardware.

wolfIt's a piece of hardware with the same name, but lesser capability by a significant amount, so at least by their own measure, it's not the necessary hardware.

AusWolfI would still like to see how it handles (or doesn't handle) FG instead of believing Nvidia's claims without a second thought.

wolfI too would be very interested to know, and benefit of the doubt goes in all directions, I need to see certain claims tested before I am willing to accept AMD's word for it, especially after showing they have extensive "we can be dodgy and anti consumer" chops, especially recently.

SteevoI admit, I said mean things about the queen and some other royal family and was told by someone on Twitter they were going to phone me into the local police. However living in Montana I really don't give a fuck who they call, and even offered to donate to get the local constable a row boat to make the trip.
Some places aren't speech nazis.

apoklyps3In my gtx 970 days I Had the daily black screen with the "Display Driver Stopped Responding and Has Recovered" error for years.
Don't talk to me about nvidia's perfect driver stability. Just check their driver & hotfix releases change log

dyonoctisSeems like you were saying that AMD software is more refined because their UI is more modern, when he was saying that you should also take into consideration the software stack beyond the UI.
nvidia made a big bet on software long before ATI/AMD did, and I'm not just talking about gaming. With CUDA/OPTIX nvidia became a must have for a lot of content creation apps, OpenCL was either deprecated, or just avoided entirely by a few major developers. Pixar for exemple, even with their historical ties with Apple, eventually developed a set of internal tools that only works with Nvidia's APIs. Because it was just the best thing around.

AMD spend a lot of years just sitting around and waiting, Apple figured out fast that OpenCL (which was their creation) wasn't about to become the absolute industry standard and decided to do thing the Nvidia way. AMD HIP is just barely starting to get traction, which is good, but they have a decade of Nvidia optimisation to catch up with.

For as long as I can remember, Nvidia has always been more agressive on the software side of thing, AMD looked much more laid back with the exception of TressFX, Mantle and trueaudio.

Now it's hard to talk about driver stability without falling into speculative, or anecdotal experience. Unless someone can list the numbers of bugs reported by each side for the past few years.

fevgatosYeah right, cause in the hypothetical scenario that amd did pay them for that they would have admitted it....right right, silly me.

oxrufiioxoMy guess is they are in a damn if they do damn if they don't situation and decided against releasing it on Turing/Ampere.

Let's say they did release it and it performs like crap and has a ton of artifacts people will say they gimped it on purpose so basically the same situation that they are in now.

Whenever I buy a gpu I buy it for the performance it gives me that day I think most people just buy whatever performs the best within their budget regardless anyone buying a gpu because the box is red or green if there are better options at the same price point is only doing themselves a disservice.