Visible NoiseThus proprietary = profit. Not that difficult. I assume you have an employer? Are they the same as everyone else in the field or do they have some special sauce that keeps them in business? I’m sure they don’t just give away all their corporate secrets to anyone that asks.

You're talking from a business perspective. I asked you how you, as a consumer benefit from proprietary technologies?

Visible NoiseDude, really??? You don’t have any IT exposure, do you?

Oh my god, my nature of being a home user doing home user things just got exposed! How pedestrian! :eek:

I'm truly ashamed of being a mere mortal, not working among IT demigods. :rolleyes:

Visible Noisewww.linuxfoundation.org/about/members

I'll look into this, thanks.

Visible NoiseWho is this “you” that has no expenses and doesn’t need to eat?

Maybe AMD should stop hoping and start executing.

Edit: I can’t believe you even brought up Proton. Where would it be without Valve? Proton makes Gabe a fucktonn of money. I wonder why Steam isn’t open? Oh that’s right, there’s no money in it for Valve.

Steam isn't open? Does it only run on one specific set of hardware? Does it not have versions for various different operating systems? Do you have to pay for it compared to other storefronts? What are we talking about?

AusWolfYou're talking from a business perspective. I asked you how you, as a consumer benefit from proprietary technologies?

I get to have fun toys.

AusWolfSteam isn't open?

Of course not! Holy shit, you don’t even know what open software is, but you somehow proclaim it’s better.

Yeah, we’re done.

Goodbye.

Visible NoiseI get to have fun toys.

I get to have fun toys, too.

Visible NoiseOf course not! Holy shit, you don’t even know what open software is.

Yeah, we’re done.

Again, you're talking from an IT professional point of view. I have no interest in that, so yeah, we're done.

Edit: I have a rough idea what open means. Openly modifiable with source code available, etc. But like I said, I'm not interested in that aspect. I just want features that don't force me to use one specific hardware or software.

AusWolfYou're talking from a business perspective. I asked you how you, as a consumer benefit from proprietary technologies?

With the way that the world is working, we actually need both...when it's done right, closed tech often benefits from a deeper level of optimization and/or support. But of course, there's also an example of closed becoming so bloated, and so complacent that performance goes down the drain...but sometimes that also happens because some technologies can't afford to lose decades of compatibility layers. Like how Apple has an exemplary balance of power and battery life with their Macbook. With a PC laptop...geez I really hope you don't plan to use that GPU unplugged ?

Then there's the financial reality. Sometimes you get really smart people who can figure out something for dirt cheap. But growth tends to work best when there's big money backing it up. (Android is open source ? yhea but Google also want your data and feed you ads to balance things out.) That might sound counter intuitive, but OpenSource benefits a lot from some of the most ruthless companies outthere. Apple, Nvidia, Disney are not absolute control freaks, they are involved in many opensource project, but if they spot an area that can lead to a massive growth in benefits, you can bet that they will keep that cake for as long as they can. But some of that company growth can be beneficial to select opensource projects.
Pixar, Adobe, Apple, Autodesk, and NVIDIA Form Alliance for OpenUSD to Drive Open Standards for 3D Content
NVIDIA Transitions Fully Towards Open-Source GPU Kernel Modules | NVIDIA Technical Blog
Open-Source Projects | NVIDIA Developer | NVIDIA Developer
Disney Open Source
Like visible noise explained, Linux is as good as it is now because a LOT of for-profit businesses saw the benefits of having a highly customizable OS. But Linux isn't "free" for every business, the RedHat distribution (based on Fedora and CentOS) is very popular in enterprises since they provide support, but you've got to pay for that. Meanwhile things like ReactOS are stuck in development hell because nobody is seeing the potential for an opensource windows compatible OS (crazy I know) It's been in Alpha for over 20 years. Blender rise to the top can also be explained by the growing interest of big companies for the software. OpenSource isn't really a bunch of small guys fighting against the big Corpos, they are often working with them. Those who don't, do not have a level of growth comparable by a big margin. It's a symbiotic relationship.

dyonoctisWe might also end up with a GPGPU situation :
- Nvidia immediately went for a closed API.
- Apple collaborated with AMD, Intel, and Nvidia to make OpenCL, believing that open source was the way to democratize GPGPU.
- Nvidia made a massive sweep by being overcommitted to CUDA, when the other players were fairly passive, and whished for the best.
- We now have CUDA/METAL/HIP/OneAPI. With HIP and OneAPI somehow being opensource, but only backed by the company who created it., And Apple had to make nvidia persona non grata on MacOS so that Metal could have a fghting change.
Devs now have to work with 4 different API, with no unification in sight with Direct X's Direct Compute seeming to be a fucking joke. (Optix merely being CUDA optimized for offline 3D RT/denoising).

That'll be a fantastic path forward to get rid of this bullshit as well. Smells like DX12 mgpu 'figure it out yourself' and will likely end up the same way: dead.

AusWolfI get to have fun toys, too.


Again, you're talking from an IT professional point of view. I have no interest in that, so yeah, we're done.

Edit: I have a rough idea what open means. Openly modifiable with source code available, etc. But like I said, I'm not interested in that aspect. I just want features that don't force me to use one specific hardware or software.

Open means not closed, and Steam is a closed ecosystem. Steam decides where Steam runs. Not you. They just chose to allow you to do a lot and move along with that demand. But it is as closed a distributor as say, Apple Store is.

This is also why I've always frowned on that whole Steam vs EGS debate in terms of exclusiveness. Steam played the game earlier and also has exclusives, but they just don't need them anymore because they have the market reach. But essentially, there is absolutely zero difference between EGS and Steam on a technical and commercial level. You should trust Steam as much as you should EGS in that sense. Both can change policy tomorrow and screw you right out of your content.

Vayra86Open means not closed, and Steam is a closed ecosystem. Steam decides where Steam runs. Not you. They just chose to allow you to do a lot and move along with that demand. But it is as closed a distributor as say, Apple Store is.

I get that. But there's a difference between making your software for a wide variety of platforms, and making it just for one.

The term "open" is a little bit different for IT professionals and home users, you see.

AusWolfI get that. But there's a difference between making your software for a wide variety of platforms, and making it just for one.

The term "open" is a little bit different for IT professionals and home users, you see.

No its not, you just live in the illusion that it is, and you should change that perspective. Its all more of the same.

Vayra86No its not, you just live in the illusion that it is, and you should change that perspective. Its all more of the same.

In that sense, nothing is truly open, because nothing runs outside of the system that it's been developed for.

AusWolfIn that sense, nothing is truly open, because nothing runs outside of the system that it's been developed for.

Bullshit. I can plug a vast variety of plugs in many different systems and they all work. USB for example. Power cords. We have standardized many things to do exactly that: be useful in many places, even those they weren't initially sold for.

Similarly, if you can access the code (legally) you can change it to run on anything. That's the similarity. There is no artificial barrier in place denying you access to something.

Vayra86Bullshit. I can plug a vast variety of plugs in many different systems and they all work. USB for example. Power cords. We have standardized many things to do exactly that: be useful in many places, even those they weren't initially sold for.

Similarly, if you can access the code (legally) you can change it to run on anything. That's the similarity. There is no artificial barrier in place denying you access to something.

That's the IT professional talk again. No home user will access the code of anything, ever. Therefore, this sense of the term "open" and "closed" are meaningless.

I may have chosen the wrong word "open", but there is a difference between software that runs on all hardware and a wide range of OSes, and software that needs its own ecosystem. This is what I wanted to say.

AusWolfI may have chosen the wrong word "open", but there is a difference between software that runs on all hardware and a wide range of OSes, and software that needs its own ecosystem. This is what I wanted to say.

Yes... one software runs on a larger ecosystem than the other. But if the source is closed (and therefore the software/product) there is no fundamental difference, it exists merely by grace of the way the business model is built. And business models can change. Its an important, if not crucial thing to understand in a digital world that many non IT people indeed fail to understand.

Its real. It affects you. Its the same thing as how companies handle your data and privacy. Its hard to grasp, but its real, and it affects you, and realistically, the only truly safe situation is that companies are fully transparent (=open) to how they handle your data. Anything else? We're screwed. This is for example why the EU is now looking at forcing big tech to publish/be transparent about the algorithms they use. Those are closed... but they run everywhere.

Vayra86Yes... one software runs on a larger ecosystem than the other. But if the source is closed (and therefore the software/product) there is no fundamental difference, it exists merely by grace of the way the business model is built. And business models can change. Its an important, if not crucial thing to understand in a digital world that many non IT people indeed fail to understand.

Its real. It affects you. Its the same thing as how companies handle your data and privacy. Its hard to grasp, but its real, and it affects you, and realistically, the only truly safe situation is that companies are fully transparent to how they handle your data. Anything else? We're screwed. This is for example why the EU is now looking at forcing big tech to publish/be transparent about the algorithms they use. Those are closed... but they run everywhere.

Still, "closed that runs everywhere" is better than "closed that only runs on X hardware". Am I finally communicating my point right? :D

AusWolfStill, "closed that runs everywhere" is better than "closed that only runs on X hardware". Am I finally communicating my point right? :D

Sure I got that and I'm saying that's a non argument. Its closed and the seller decides where it runs. Is it better if you can use something in more places? Sure, on that we can agree. But you have as little control over that as you do accessing your stuff in the cloud. If someone put a comma in the wrong place, you have nothing, if someone kills the authentication server on Steam, you have nothing, but sure you can click the icon in a hundred different places.

Vya DomusThey probably just intercept DLL calls, it's easy to do.

Uhr, a driver hooking a random DLL load in a random app?

X for doubt

medi01Uhr, a driver hooking a random DLL load in a random app?

Everything that uses the GPU is intercepted by the driver, that's how it all works. It's the same with running any shader on the GPU, the driver intercepts them and from there it does whatever it's supposed to. How do you think drivers optimize performance and fix visual issues in games ? They obviously don't modify the game files, shaders get sent to the compiler in the driver and from there the code that's generated can be modified.

Vya DomusEverything that uses the GPU is intercepted by the driver, that's how it all works. It's the same with running any shader on the GPU, the driver intercepts them and from there it does whatever it's supposed to. How do you think drivers optimize performance and fix visual issues in games ? They obviously don't modify the game files, shaders get sent to the compiler in the driver and from there the code that's generated can be modified.

That makes sense. We do have lots of driver-based features on both Nvidia and AMD, after all.

ToxicTaZI'll take quality over Blurry Fake Frames any day.

I can't tell the difference between native res and TAA vs. DLSS at Balanced. So i take DLSS performance over native res, in games that support it :)

A lot will depend on your display in no small part between the quality of it's color output and other panel details tied along with it and overall PPI. That gets overlooked a good bit in some in these discussions actually. The narrative is going to change a lot if playing on a 40" screen pretty up close or far away depending on resolution and same with a smaller screen and resolution plus beyond that the color output and panel details grey to grey, contrast, brightness, ect so mileage with vary.

If you can't readily tell the difference or it's minor enough for a good performance improvement by all means use what you prefer. It's no different than say RGB/4.4.4/4.2.2/4.2.0 trade off considerations. You can compress the color details and run at a bit higher refresh rate or resolution or you can run RGB more slowly do what you prefer. How much that inherently matters will also in part be reflected by the things I mentioned above as well.

droopyROI can't tell the difference between native res and TAA vs. DLSS at Balanced. So i take DLSS performance over native res

That's not true and you know it, TAA you can't even turn off in some games. TAA and DLSS or any other upscaler objectively looks worse than native because it adds a temporal component aka ghosting and blur. The reason you think they all look the same is because these days you rarely even get to see how native looks like with no temporal smudging.

So you like all those jagged edges and shimmering that native res gets you, instead of a little blurry objects in the distance and the use of DLSS/FSR ? Native res might be good on a 4K monitor, but on 1440p and 1080p the jagged edges are very visible. Also you can sharpen the image with DLSS/FSR on, 0.6-0.8 is the sweet spot for me. BTW, did you even try the new DLSS model in Cyberpunk, cause Quality just became Performance.

DLSS4/FSR3 is a God send to budget gamers or people that want high frame rates.
PS:

droopyROSo you like all those jagged edges and shimmering that native res gets you, instead of a little blurry objects in the distance and the use of DLSS/FSR ? Native res might be good on a 4K monitor, but on 1440p and 1080p the jagged edges are very visible. Also you can sharpen the image with DLSS/FSR on, 0.6-0.8 is the sweet spot for me. BTW, did you even try the new DLSS model in Cyberpunk, cause Quality just became Performance.

What shimmering? Shimmering is caused by upscaling errors or bad TAA. There is no shimmering on true native res.

It is exactly at 1440p and below where upscaling looks bad. 4K is not a problem because the upscaler can work with a high enough render resolution. Even quality mode is just 720p upscaled with a 1080p output.

droopyRODLSS4/FSR3 is a God send to budget gamers or people that want high frame rates.

That much is true. But so is not targeting 4K with a budget GPU.

AusWolfWhat shimmering? Shimmering is caused by upscaling errors or bad TAA. There is no shimmering on true native res.

Probably game/engine depended, tried it on Warhammer Darktide since i wanted >100 fps gameplay at 1440p. There are objects that pulse/shimmer( i don't know how to describe it in other words) in the distance and the aliasing is horrible. When i activate FSAA it's a bit less, but with TAA it's mostly gone, but so is some of the performance. I currently run it in 1440p a mix of Low details with High textures and DLSS set to Performance, i rarely go bellow 100 fps even when there is a horde of enemies coming at us.

I say it again, native res is fine for 4K monitor or small monitors like the ones of 14-15" laptops at 1080p. But for a normal monitor like 24" 1080p or 27-32" 1440p, the jagged edges are visible and no way i am going to play games like that :)

droopyROProbably game/engine depended, tried it on Warhammer Darktide since i wanted >100 fps gameplay at 1440p. There are objects that pulse/shimmer( i don't know how to describe it in other words) in the distance and the aliasing is horrible. When i activate FSAA it's a bit less, but with TAA it's mostly gone, but so is some of the performance. I currently run it in 1440p a mix of Low details with High textures and DLSS set to Performance, i rarely go bellow 100 fps even when there is a horde of enemies coming at us.

I've never seen that happen in any game. But I haven't played Darktide (yet).

droopyROI say it again, native res is fine for 4K monitor or small monitors like the ones of 14-15" laptops at 1080p. But for a normal monitor like 24" 1080p or 27-32" 1440p, the jagged edges are visible and no way i am going to play games like that :)

I'd rather put up with a few jaggies than a blurry smear. But each to their own.

Ok, the following might be incredibly ignorant but:

If FSR4 is a drop in .DLL, is there a technical reason AMD cannot enable it on any game that supports DLSS by replacing/hijacking the DLSS .DLL with their own FSR4 version?

I'm guessing there is some logic in the game itself that says don't allow DLSS to be an option if AMD/Intel is detected, but could AMD find a way around that to immediately boost FSR4 adoption rates?

AusWolfI think everybody should team up and create an industry standard like DirectX or OpenGL and call it OpenUpscale or something.

Hardware-dependent closed solutions are hurting gaming - they're only good for increasing mindshare and revenue of a single company.

Don't worry their will be a version of Windows Direct X that uses universal Upscaling. Maybe Windows 14.They would not actually use 13 would they?