NVIDIA GeForce RTX 50 Technical Deep Dive

[remekra]

Depends, what exactly are you looking for? There are whitepapers available for released architectures.

https://www.nvidia.com/content/PDF/nvidia-ampere-ga-102-gpu-architecture-whitepaper-v2.pdf

https://images.nvidia.com/aem-dam/Solutions/geforce/ada/nvidia-ada-gpu-architecture.pdf

Blackwell is not released yet, so detailed stuff isn't public yet either.

It's still pretty high level compared to something like what AMD releases:

https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/radeon-tech-docs/instruction-set-architectures/rdna3-shader-instruction-set-architecture-feb-2023_0.pdf

You can see every detail on what exactly "RT Core" or "AI acccelerator" is on AMD side, on Nvidia there are no details other than "this block is RT core".

 

[londiste]

It's still pretty high level compared to something like what AMD releases:

https://www.amd.com/content/dam/amd/en/documents/radeon-tech-docs/instruction-set-architectures/rdna3-shader-instruction-set-architecture-feb-2023_0.pdf

You can see every detail on what exactly "RT Core" or "AI acccelerator" is on AMD side, on Nvidia there are no details other than "this block is RT core".

Haven't looked at it for a while but isn't Nvidia's ISA still abstracted to PTX as it used to be?

 

[JustBenching]

Interesting data from the article.

Usage statistics indicate that over 80% of RTX players enable DLSS during gameplay, with a cumulative total of 3 billion hours of DLSS-enabled gaming

 

[remekra]

Haven't looked at it for a while but isn't Nvidia's ISA still abstracted to PTX as it used to be?

It is:

https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/pdf/ptx_isa_8.5.pdf

I was more thinking about hardware diagrams alone, where you have a lot more details on AMD side, than on Nvidia side, my bad for not being clear.

Interesting data from the article.

Usage statistics indicate that over 80% of RTX players enable DLSS during gameplay, with a cumulative total of 3 billion hours of DLSS-enabled gaming

Yes, because contrary to what people here say, most people use it. Same with FSR. At least when it comes to upscaling. You can turn on Quality mode and gain performance with a little to no degradation to image quality. Someone that is not pixel peeping or taking pride in the fact that "I'm running native!" will not notice the difference during actual gameplay.
FSR only problem is that below "Quality" level or at lower resolutions it can be noticeable even during gameplay. That should be fixed with FSR4.

 

[JustBenching]

Yes, because contrary to what people here say, most people use it. Same with FSR. At least when it comes to upscaling. You can turn on Quality mode and gain performance with a little to no degradation to image quality. Someone that is not pixel peeping or taking pride in the fact that "I'm running native!" will not notice the difference during actual gameplay.
FSR only problem is that below "Quality" level or at lower resolutions it can be noticeable even during gameplay. That should be fixed with FSR4.

I personally do notice the difference with DLSS quality. It looks better than native for the most part in most games. Bonus - it performs better. The entire reason I went with a 4k monitor is DLSS Q, if it did not exist I would be on a 1440p, so even worse image quality. That technology is pretty insane.

Dunno what's wrong with FSR but in some games, its just looks bad. POE2 for instance, it's such a blurry mess.

 

[Jtuck9]

I think the next bone of contention for me will be which monitor to purchase. Especially considering this new Mediatek scaler...

 

[N3utro]

If you own a 4080 or a 4090, hang on to it. I know people who went and sold their 4080 and 4090 in expectation of the upcoming cards. I imagine they heard the uplift of the 5070 to similar performance to the 4090 in games. But they did not pay attention to the small print . As I understand it, you will need help from AI features, like DLSS, to achieve performance similar to a 4090. But I imagine that the same could be said of the 4090 and the 5090, perhaps, with all AI help it can get. Too early to speculate, but it is a trend from previous generations.

People said the exact same thing about 4 serie with DLSS 3 frame generation compared to series 3 without frame generation (well mostly people who paid overpriced serie 3 cards due to mining and shortage and were angry their card lost a lot of value because of serie 4 release). And now statistics show that 75% of people owning a 4 serie card enable frame generation when available.

Serie 5 multi frame generation performance will make serie 4 cards uncompetitive the same way. If you cant see that you lack vision.

 

[JustBenching]

People said the exact same thing about 4 serie with DLSS 3 frame generation compared to series 3 without frame generation (well mostly people who paid overpriced serie 3 cards due to mining and shortage and were angry they card lost a lot of value because of serie 4 release). And now statistics show that 75% of people owning a 4 serie card enable frame generation when available.

DLSS, not frame generation. FG is only needed in a handful of games. AMD's FG is pretty good as well, so not a particular reason to buy nvidia for it.

 

[londiste]

It is:

https://docs.nvidia.com/cuda/pdf/ptx_isa_8.5.pdf

I was more thinking about hardware diagrams alone, where you have a lot more details on AMD side, than on Nvidia side, my bad for not being clear.

True enough. Very different approaches. Nvidia has had the PTX approach for a while though - I don't think they really have exposed the actual instruction set or real architectural details of any GPUs since PTX came around. And PTX is basically what enables CUDA in the first place.

I may misremember but didn't Nvidia also use to have better diagram in their whitepapers? The last few ones are mostly marketing-level stuff.

 

[Jtuck9]

True enough. Very different approaches. Nvidia has had the PTX approach for a while though - I don't think they really have exposed the actual instruction set or real architectural details of any GPUs since PTX came around. And PTX is basically what enables CUDA in the first place.

I may misremember but didn't Nvidia also use to have better diagram in their whitepapers? The last few ones are mostly marketing-level stuff.

Ironically, I think "Both Multi Frame Generation and the new transformer models are built to be backwards compatible with existing DLSS integrations" will swing perception in their favour regarding being "for the people (players)"

 

[AusWolf]

Yes, because contrary to what people here say, most people use it. Same with FSR. At least when it comes to upscaling. You can turn on Quality mode and gain performance with a little to no degradation to image quality. Someone that is not pixel peeping or taking pride in the fact that "I'm running native!" will not notice the difference during actual gameplay.
FSR only problem is that below "Quality" level or at lower resolutions it can be noticeable even during gameplay. That should be fixed with FSR4.

I see far less difference between low and ultra graphics in most games than I do between native and FSR at any setting.

 

[N3utro]

DLSS, not frame generation. FG is only needed in a handful of games. AMD's FG is pretty good as well, so not a particular reason to buy nvidia for it.

Ah yes it's DLSS stats not FG. Would be interesting to have the FG ones, i'm pretty sure it would show the same for AAA games.

AMD is just lagging behind nvidia for years now. They do nothing innovative, they just copy nvidia innovations every time a new one is released. I've tried games where i compared FSR with FG and DLSS 3 with FG, AMD FSR FG looked blurry compared to DLSS FG. They are so behind they dont even try to compete on the high end segment now. AMD GPU market share is only 10% and dropping, nvidia hoarding the other 90%. I have nothing against AMD, i own a 7800X3D and bought ATI/AMD cards in the past, but in GPU related stuff the only reason AMD is staying afloat is because of the consoles business.

 

[JustBenching]

Ah yes it's DLSS stats not FG. Would be interesting to have the FG ones, i'm pretty sure it would show the same for AAA games.

AMD is just lagging behind nvidia for years now. They do nothing innovative, they just copy nvidia innovations every time a new one is released. I've tried games where i compared FSR with FG and DLSS 3 with FG, AMD FSR FG looked blurry compared to DLSS FG. They are so behind they dont even try to compete on the high end segment now. AMD GPU market share is only 10% and dropping, nvidia hoarding the other 90%. I have nothing against AMD, i own a 7800X3D and bought ATI/AMD cards in the past, but in GPU related stuff the only reason AMD is staying afloat is because of the consoles business.

That's the FSR part looking worse, if you use just FG amd's approach is as good as nvidias. The FSR part yea, it's not good.

 

[Vya Domus]

People use upscaling in games because they need to not because they want to, the alternative is abhorent performance or shit visuals.

 

[AusWolf]

People use upscaling in games because they need to not because they want to, the alternative is abhorent performance or shit visuals.

I don't think changing graphics settings makes a lot of difference in the visual quality of modern games, whereas upscaling does.

 

[remekra]

People use upscaling in games because they need to not because they want to, the alternative is abhorent performance or shit visuals.

If I can play a game at say 80 fps without FSR or at 110-120 fps with it I always enable it, even though 80 should be enough. Maybe I'm blind but excluding some really bad implementations it doesn't look bad.
DLSS is even better at that category, when I had 3080 I also always used it if possible.

I see far less difference between low and ultra graphics in most games than I do between native and FSR at any setting.

Low usually means no shadows, low res textures, bad lighting, no volumetrics, bad LODs. If you don't see a difference between those but can between FSR then I don't know what to say. High and Ultra ok, but low?

 

[JustBenching]

If I can play a game at say 80 fps without FSR or at 110-120 fps with it I always enable it, even though 80 should be enough. Maybe I'm blind but excluding some really bad implementations it doesn't look bad.
DLSS is even better at that category, when I had 3080 I also always used it if possible.


Low usually means no shadows, low res textures, bad lighting, no volumetrics, bad LODs. If you don't see a difference between those but can between FSR then I don't know what to say. High and Ultra ok, but low?

Yep, medium is usually when games just turn into ps2 territory. I'd upload pictures but nobody will be willing to do a blind test..

 

[AusWolf]

Low usually means no shadows, low res textures, bad lighting, no volumetrics. If you don't see a difference between those but can between FSR then I don't know what to say. High and Ultra ok, but low?

It depends on the game of course. I haven't really seen new games with no shadows on low lately.

 

[zigzag]

Yep, medium is usually when games just turn into ps2 territory. I'd upload pictures but nobody will be willing to do a blind test..

What quality setting is this (low, medium, high, ultra)?'

 

[JustBenching]

What quality setting is this (low, medium, high, ultra)?'
View attachment 380174

You got me. Cause I definitely said in every game. Wanna try horizon? Give me one in ultra and one in medium. If you are not willing I can do it when I'm home

 

[zigzag]

You got me. Cause I definitely said in every game. Wanna try horizon? Give me one in ultra and one in medium. If you are not willing I can do it when I'm home

Is this medium or ultra?

 

[JustBenching]

Is this medium or ultra?
View attachment 380176

Why don't you put them side by side
I'm on the phone, looks like medium

 

[remekra]

Is this medium or ultra?
View attachment 380176

Draw distance on that hill and beyond looks pretty bad, if that's ultra then they would need to include Ultra Max settings. That loss of quality at the distance would bother me a lot more than FSR or DLSS does.
As for God of War, never played it as well but textures look pretty blurry and models quality on that mill also looks medium, so same as with Horizon, if that ultra then Im not impressed, so I would bet medium. But never played those games.

EDIT

In case of GoW, also there are lots of missing shadows, lighting especially on that mill looks flat.

 

[dyonoctis]

It's not young at all, 6 years is a lot, raster graphics advanced significantly in this span of time.

The hardware also advanced significantly. You cannot compare the jump from the Geforce 2 Ti to the GTX 8800 to the 2080TI to the 5090. Using the GeForce 2MX in 2006 would have been an awful experience, with many games just refusing to launch since the market changed so much. Crysis won't even launch when a 2080Ti is still a decent performer in modern games.

Even the Jump from the Geforce 2 ti to the geforce 3 Ti was subanstial, and that was within one year. now it's taking at least 4 years to get a similar jump

 

[zigzag]

Why don't you put them side by side
I'm on the phone, looks like medium

Because side by side image comparison is way easier that noticing the quality difference when playing the game. I wanted overall graphics quality assessment, like when comparing image quality of a new game to 5-year old game. People often say a new game is unoptimized, because graphics quality looks similar, but FPS is much lower. They forget that quality improvement get harder and harder to notice as graphics get better.

Both screenshots are from TPU reviews.

Answers:

God of War: Low
Horizon: Medium