Overclock.net - An Overclocking Community - View Single Post - [Techpowerup] NVIDIA DLSS and its Surprising Resolution Limitations

View Single Post
post #32 of (permalink) Old 02-15-2019, 07:27 AM
Waiting for 7nm EUV
tpi2007's Avatar
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 11,383
Rep: 894 (Unique: 503)
Quote: Originally Posted by ToTheSun! View Post
What tpi2007 is false because it's the opposite of what happens in reality, but he's not categorically wrong. He was led to believe, by statements from official documents, that GFE would be needed to manage DLSS data.

Now, that's exactly what nVidia wanted. Their wording, I bet, was intentionally ambiguous so as to incentivize people to download their software without committing to a solution that would further complicate the adoption of Turing's new features.

In that sense, let's all be friends.

Of course Nvidia changed their minds, at least for now in the meagre sample count of games we have with it, that much is a fact, it's obviously impossible to counter and neither did I do that. In fact, that is what I said and what apparently startled someone to say that the press (TR, Tom's and PCPer) was wrong when they initially reported on it. The problem is that the press wasn't wrong because that's what Nvidia said in no uncertain terms.

Contrary to what you say, there is nothing ambiguous in the Turing whitepaper about their intentions, they described in very clear terms how the system was going to work:


NVIDIA NGX features are managed by the NVIDIA GeForce Experience™ (GFE) application or the tech preview version of the NVIDIA Quadro Experience™ (QXP) application. After GFE or QXP is installed or updated, it looks for the presence of a Turing GPU. Once detected, the NGX Corepackage is downloaded and installed. GFE/QXP communicates with NGX Core to determine the game and application IDs present and their relevance to NGX. Different DNN models that work with various installed games and applications are then downloaded for subsequent use.

What exactly in the paragraph above leaves space for ambiguity? Of course Nvidia can do whatever it wants next, but their intentions were very clear, but apparently someone is trying to rewrite history by conflating what their written intentions were with what they are doing [for] now and accuse me of serious things along the way. And Tom's specifically confirmed with them back then too. Are we going to dispute that too? How unambiguous do things have to be? Have Jensen say it out loud on stage in pure 8K resolution so you can read the fine detail in his lips too if you wish?

tpi2007 is offline