WYP
News Guru
Last edited:
AMD has an answer to DLSS, DirectML Super Resolution
- Thread starter WYP
- Start date
Dicehunter
Resident Newb
DLSS2 is literal voodoo, AMD's version needs to match it like for like, And in mainstream AAA games and not cheapo games like Strange Brigade, For me to consider a Radeon purchase.
AlienALX
Well-known member
If this works in every game it could end DLSS. This has much more of a chance of becoming a standard, but I still want to see how it performs.
I would get excited, but I've fallen for DX hype over the years. It needs to be used for it to be good.
WYP
News Guru
Dawelio
Active member
NeverBackDown
AMD Enthusiast
With MS and AMD supporting this that is a big push without a doubt.
On the other hand Nvidia still holds what 80% GPU market share? It's been in use for a few years and has had successful support and applications? It'll be pretty interesting to see how this plays out.
Xbox will undoubtly help make this a thing since its apart of their ecosystem, my thing is what will Sony be using for this? It just further fragments the features of next gen games. Comes down to time/investment/support from Sony and how they interact with Studios.
On the other hand Nvidia still holds what 80% GPU market share? It's been in use for a few years and has had successful support and applications? It'll be pretty interesting to see how this plays out.
Xbox will undoubtly help make this a thing since its apart of their ecosystem, my thing is what will Sony be using for this? It just further fragments the features of next gen games. Comes down to time/investment/support from Sony and how they interact with Studios.
I am pretty sure that Nvidia GPUs support DirectML as part of DX12 Ultimate support so, in theory, should support DMLSR as well. I would compare this to G-Sync vs FreeSync but I don't know if there is any advantages to Nvidia's version like there is for G-Sync (mainly niche advantages though).
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, I'm wondering how Sony fits into all this.
Daiyus
Member
I'd always go for for a slightly worse open solution to a slightly better proprietary one.
AlienALX
Well-known member
Indeed, which I have a feeling this is going to be. However, given it works on console it should come to every game, rather than just a select few, whilst Nvidia can be arsed to keep pushing.
Dawelio
Active member
As far as my understanding goes, according to GamersNexus, this isn't supposed to be like AMD's straight answer to DLSS.
At 15:24 in the video below.
At 15:24 in the video below.
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
In a way, AMD saying "Here's our version of DLSS" directly is akin to them admitting that Nvidia created the concept behind the technology and how it can be applied, which is technically not true. It would also be suggesting Nvidia were the first to do it, thus acknowledging their leadership, something AMD will probably try to avoid publicly doing.
They also don't want to compare directly to DLSS because everyone knows DLSS is powered by the AI Tensor cores that only Nvidia have, while Direct-ML is more just clever software, at least in simple terms. So in that sense AMD know whatever they create is not going to be an apples to apples competitor.
It's very similar to Freesync/Gsync. Nvidia didn't invent variable refresh rate monitors, but they were first to implement it on grand scale for gamers. Their implementation is hardware-based and works very differently. VRR was already in the works on a software level before that by VESA, but it took AMD longer to bring it to market with Freesync. When that was being publicised and marketed with their newest GPUs a few years ago, I don't remember AMD directly comparing it to Gsync. Gsync was and still is better. The only ploy AMD had was that Freesync was free. That's why they called it that. They knew it was inferior technology, and even today it's inferior. It would have been unwise to directly compare Freesync to Gsync in anything but cost and availability, because those are the only two advantages it had.
It's the same with DLSS vs Direct-ML. The only advantages at this time are cost and availability. Direct-ML is 'free' and could theoretically be available for all games and all hardware. But it'll still be inferior to DLSS.
Sounds like all AMD is saying here is that "Our version doesn't necessarily work in the same way with library/game support". If they've created a version that works at the driver level or something they wouldn't want it to be associated with the limitations of DLSS.
I think it's also wrong to state DirectML is any more software based than DLSS AngryGoldfish, both are software that is only possible for these use cases because of hardware acceleration for the calculations of neural networks, DirectML still requires hardware support for something like this, in the same way DLSS could be run on a CPU but would become impractical, but hardware support (In terms of additional instructions for accelerating relevant calculations, usually mixed precision fused multiply-add matrix calcs) has been quite commonplace for a year or two now, long before anything useful software wise has been available for it.
I think it's also wrong to state DirectML is any more software based than DLSS AngryGoldfish, both are software that is only possible for these use cases because of hardware acceleration for the calculations of neural networks, DirectML still requires hardware support for something like this, in the same way DLSS could be run on a CPU but would become impractical, but hardware support (In terms of additional instructions for accelerating relevant calculations, usually mixed precision fused multiply-add matrix calcs) has been quite commonplace for a year or two now, long before anything useful software wise has been available for it.
Last edited:
AngryGoldfish
Old N Gold
Yeah, I understand that. I was just trying to keep it simple to differentiate DLSS and Direct-ML.
KingNosser
Well-known member
It's better for the tech to be system wide across the platform than having it only being used in a few games, but like with RTX being DXR some might think that Direct ML is going to be amd only when the truth is both amd and nvidia will use Direct ML.
The part I'm happy about is all the buzz word RTX games will be supported with DXR and Vulkan RT on amd gpu's to me that is more important, with only a few outlining games like Quake RTX being Nvidia only.
I think also once it's been optimised even further with Direct ML and far more widespread it actually has a chance at being better than dlss, only time will tell.
The part I'm happy about is all the buzz word RTX games will be supported with DXR and Vulkan RT on amd gpu's to me that is more important, with only a few outlining games like Quake RTX being Nvidia only.
I think also once it's been optimised even further with Direct ML and far more widespread it actually has a chance at being better than dlss, only time will tell.
Similar threads
