Overclock.net banner
61 - 80 of 83 Posts

Expert pin bender
Joined
3,057 Posts
Hey look I'll be the first to come back and slap myself around if it makes you happy for being wrong.

I realize the bias that's potential here however, if it were AMD and Nvidia switched I'd be railing against AMD

There has long been a history of Nvidia doing black box things. AMD is no saint but they have done many open source or hardware agnostic things.(albeit sloppy)

So I just don't take their word. I personally like I said way early don't care for any upscalers. If AMD is going to use "tensor cores like" hardware in GPUs like the good old Nvidia. All that just for a dumbarse upscalers they can all go pound sand.

I am not interested is paying massive more inflated dollars for gimmick hardware I don't even want to use.

AI and ray tracing and deep learning whatever is such new stuff and it's just not ready.
 

Banned
Joined
5,701 Posts
Discussion Starter · #63 ·
This bothers me if true, this also would explain why Nvidia wants to go with streamline. Hmmm 馃
If it were remotely true then the other rumor of consoles using next gen Radeons would make sense. It's still all rumors though. Not something I would take seriously.

RDNA 3 will be using WMMA Wave Matrix Multiply-Acclumate Instructions. Which is generating this kind of news. Although a rumor, it's still not clear what this type of instruction will actually do for RDNA3.
 

Banned
Joined
5,701 Posts
Discussion Starter · #64 ·
FidelityFx Super Resolution 2.0 for Dying Light 2
Make sure that the game has the Renderer Mode set to D3D12 in the Advanced Video Settings.

It's quite hilarious that a modder knows to use DX12 for FSR 2.0 then someone who tries to review it. How do you fully trust a reviewer who omits this information is beyond me.
Yet you see snippets of the truth in Mod(s).

Mind boggling. :ROFLMAO::LOL:
 

Expert pin bender
Joined
3,057 Posts
FidelityFx Super Resolution 2.0 for Dying Light 2


It's quite hilarious that a modder knows to use DX12 for FSR 2.0 then someone who tries to review it. How do you fully trust a reviewer who omits this information is beyond me.
Yet you see snippets of the truth in Mod(s).

Mind boggling. :ROFLMAO::LOL:
Interesting that it can be modded like that. Something tells me you can't do that with DLSS...

Either way I may find myself messing with these options at some point because I like to do very high resolution tests in games. I'd like to see how bad it is if it can be used at 8k or so vs native
 

Banned
Joined
5,701 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 ·
Interesting that it can be modded like that. Something tells me you can't do that with DLSS...

Either way I may find myself messing with these options at some point because I like to do very high resolution tests in games. I'd like to see how bad it is if it can be used at 8k or so vs native
Someone modding DLSS into games on the regular bases? 馃槀馃ぃ
This is why open source is so important. The more coverage it gets from the modding the community the better exposure it gets.
 

Expert pin bender
Joined
3,057 Posts
Someone modding DLSS into games on the regular bases? 馃槀馃ぃ
This is why open source is so important. The more coverage it gets from the modding the community the better exposure it gets.
It's interesting to look back through the years of PC gaming and hardware. Not so much the advances of hardware but the effects of the gaming/mod/programming community has had.
Many times companies were caught either lying or very borderline tactics. The community exposed much of these things. Not only that unofficial things would be made and worked even better than the original by the hardware vendor. Maybe it's more of an issue with maximizing profits so vendors don't bother going much further than a few steps. Then queue the modding and gaming communites.

I recall many things that just blew your mind when first introduced. The sad part is the hardware vendors always were more on the subversion side where as software was generally more just a community making something better.

Open source indeed is nice, but I feel like I t he case of Linux it's a bit detrimental. 5 billion flavors of an OS is neat, but oh so confusing for many.
 

Registered
Joined
464 Posts
There's some interesting info in that FSR2.0 readme file. AMD provides the functionality to use different API's other than DX12 or Vulkan.

The GOW devs did nothing wrong in my opinion.
 

Expert pin bender
Joined
3,057 Posts
There's some interesting info in that FSR2.0 readme file. AMD provides the functionality to use different API's other than DX12 or Vulkan.

The GOW devs did nothing wrong in my opinion.
I skimmed through this, and i don't see any mention of anything outside Dx12 and Vulkan. Can you point to where you read other API's?

I will say I noticed this:
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 Now Available and Coming Soon in More Games
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) 1.0 and 2.0 are available on select games and require developer integration. See https://www.amd.com/en/technologies/fidelityfx-super-resolution for a list of supported games. AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution is 鈥済ame dependent鈥 and is supported on the following AMD products. FSR 1.0: AMD Radeon鈩 RX 6000, RX 5000, RX 500, RX Vega series graphics cards, RX 480, RX 470, RX 460, and all AMD Ryzen鈩 processors with Radeon鈩 graphics if the minimum requirements of the game are met. FSR 2.0: AMD Radeon鈩 RX 6000, RX 5000, RX Vega Series graphics cards, and the Radeon鈩 RX 590 graphics card if the minimum requirements of the game are met. AMD does not provide technical or warranty support for AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution enablement on other vendors' graphics cards. GD-187.


They actually have GOW on there and talk about it. So this leads me to believe they are using it, and this may make sense now for DF to use it in a video to compare.

they link to below also:

God of War - Patch v1.0.12 Released - Steam News


I am having difficulty finding where it says what API it officially supports and in the ReadME on gitub it only shows DX12/Vulkan.
 

Registered
Joined
464 Posts
I skimmed through this, and i don't see any mention of anything outside Dx12 and Vulkan. Can you point to where you read other API's?

I will say I noticed this:
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 Now Available and Coming Soon in More Games


They actually have GOW on there and talk about it. So this leads me to believe they are using it, and this may make sense now for DF to use it in a video to compare.

they link to below also:

God of War - Patch v1.0.12 Released - Steam News


I am having difficulty finding where it says what API it officially supports and in the ReadME on gitub it only shows DX12/Vulkan.
It's all in the modular backend section. Also there is this quote:
The public release of FSR2 comes with DirectX(R)12 and Vulkan(R) backends, but other backends are available upon request. Talk with your AMD Developer Technology representative for more information.
 

Expert pin bender
Joined
3,057 Posts
It's all in the modular backend section. Also there is this quote:
The public release of FSR2 comes with DirectX(R)12 and Vulkan(R) backends, but other backends are available upon request. Talk with your AMD Developer Technology representative for more information.
I find both answers there, yes you can use any backend API, however it also says that for the ones it doesn't yet support.

So AMD chose to use GOW as an example of FSR2.0 in their own marketing. This a shady spot of grey because I can see if a review is to be done you would use one of AMD's own primary examples. However it appears dx11 is not officially supported. It wouldn't hurt to at least mention that in the video. This looks like it will fall on AMD because they have a bad wrap of bringing stuff out half finished. Then they are also known to stop supporting something at the drop of a hat.

Looks like AMD has rushed this out and they always shoot themselves in the foot. Either way I don't care for upscaling because it's always going to have flaws and quality issues. This will be especially noticable at high resolution. I think they should just focus on it for low end.
 

Registered
Joined
464 Posts
I find both answers there, yes you can use any backend API, however it also says that for the ones it doesn't yet support.

So AMD chose to use GOW as an example of FSR2.0 in their own marketing. This a shady spot of grey because I can see if a review is to be done you would use one of AMD's own primary examples. However it appears dx11 is not officially supported. It wouldn't hurt to at least mention that in the video. This looks like it will fall on AMD because they have a bad wrap of bringing stuff out half finished. Then they are also known to stop supporting something at the drop of a hat.

Looks like AMD has rushed this out and they always shoot themselves in the foot. Either way I don't care for upscaling because it's always going to have flaws and quality issues. This will be especially noticable at high resolution. I think they should just focus on it for low end.
I would say that upscaling has more noticeable flaws at lower resolutions rather than higher resolutions. This is because there is less information to feed into the algorithm, this producing more artifacts.
 

Banned
Joined
5,701 Posts
Discussion Starter · #75 · (Edited)
There's some interesting info in that FSR2.0 readme file. AMD provides the functionality to use different API's other than DX12 or Vulkan.

The GOW devs did nothing wrong in my opinion.
Based on what exactly? You took a readme file from AMD and created a fallacy about Jetpack Interactive about it. Ignoring the fact that Alex stated that AMD didn't give them dx11 code. Also stating FSR 2.0 in GOW was developed in house without AMD's code. Did you forget this part or are you intentionally trying to ignore it unless I or someone else brings it back into the conversation?

Having said this, since you agree with Alex review of FSR 2.0 issues in GoW then they do need to fix it. 1st by improving their use of TAA. Next remove DoF, vignette, sharpening, etc or at least have graphic options to remove those features. Then correct any spaghetti code causing issues.

It's nonsense to post that you agree with Alex's review but try to falsely hold Jetpack Interactive harmless in how they implemented FSR 2.0. You are only creating confusion for yourself. What is accurate is that AMD did nothing wrong.
 

Registered
Joined
464 Posts
Based on what exactly? You took a readme file from AMD and created a fallacy about Jetpack Interactive about it. Ignoring the fact that Alex stated that AMD didn't give them dx11 code. Also stating FSR 2.0 in GOW was developed in house without AMD's code. Did you forget this part or are you intentionally trying to ignore it unless I or someone else brings it back into the conversation?

Having said this, since you agree with Alex review of FSR 2.0 issues in GoW then they do need to fix it. 1st by improving their use of TAA. Next remove DoF or at least have graphic options to remove those features. Then correct any spaghetti code causing issues.
I'm going to need proof that Alex said AMD didn't give them DX11 code. Also, you have no idea what AMD did or did not provide to the GOW devs. It's right in the readme. AMD allows the use of other backend API's for the FSR 2.0 implementation (it is backend API agnostic). AMD's FSR 2.0 API does not rely on a specific backend for correct and full functionality. AMD just makes it easier to implement with the DX12 and Vulkan backends.
 

Banned
Joined
5,701 Posts
Discussion Starter · #77 ·
I'm going to need proof that Alex said AMD didn't give them DX11 code. Also, you have no idea what AMD did or did not provide to the GOW devs. It's right in the readme. AMD allows the use of other backend API's for the FSR 2.0 implementation (it is backend API agnostic). AMD's FSR 2.0 API does not rely on a specific backend for correct and full functionality. AMD just makes it easier to implement with the DX12 and Vulkan backends.
Wait, am I replying to some sort of AI bot here? No seriously...
You ask me for proof when you provided the video and timestamp? Are you well? What's wrong with you? Or am I posting to the same person?
 

Registered
Joined
464 Posts
Wait, am I replying to some sort of AI bot here? No seriously...
You ask me for proof when you provided the video and timestamp? Are you well? What's wrong with you?
I thought he just said that FSR 2.0 doesn't officially support DX11. Didn't remember him saying anything about AMD not giving them any code. I don't even think it matters what Alex knows about Jetpack and AMD's development interactions anyways. The fact of the matter is that FSR 2.0 DOES NOT rely on specific backend API's for full and correct functionality. That's straight from the AMD readme.
 

Banned
Joined
5,701 Posts
Discussion Starter · #79 · (Edited)
I thought he just said that FSR 2.0 doesn't officially support DX11. DIDN'T remember him saying anything v about AMD not giving them any code. I don't even think it matters what Alex knows about Jetpack and AMD's development interactions anyways. The fact of the matter is that FSR 2.0 DOES NOT rely on specific backend API's for full and correct functionality. That's straight from the AMD readme.
Pivoting? I thought Alex didn't say it? LOL.

This is not accurate. You are not a developer nor coder. AMD themselves stated DX 11 is a bit more involved in terms of support when they were interviewed about it. So who are you to state as fact otherwise? Heck, even the modder tells you to use DX12 code in DL2. If what you said had any level of truth to it he would have included DX11. But they did not making your assertion inaccurate.

What we do know is:
-FSR 2.0 is moddable. But more for vulkan/DX12 then DX11. Even though a developer can impliment it in DX11. Jetpack Interactive, in this case, did so alone without the necessary help from AMD. Alex reviewed it knowing this and made it look like AMD did a horrible job. When in fact it was Jetpack who needs to amend/update it.
-FSR 2.0 is just a upscaling tool that can be used by nearly everyone with the know how to use it.
-The modding community is really getting involved in FSR 2.0 and it won't be long before we see some good things from it.
 

Registered
Joined
464 Posts
This is not accurate. You are not a developer nor coder. AMD themselves stated DX 11 is a bit more involved in terms of support when they were interviewed about it. So who are you to state as fact otherwise? Heck, even the modder tells you to use DX12 code ni DL2. If what you said had any level of truth to it he would have included DX11.
I mean...I actually am a developer lol. I've helped create a 2-D side-scrolling game engine using the XNA framework and C#. That's not really an easy task. I'm not a dev on a professional level, but I am a student studying computer science engineering. I'm just relaying exactly what AMD themselves had put in their README documentation. Just read it.
 
61 - 80 of 83 Posts
Top