Fidelity Super Resolution 2.0

[Chuk_Chuk]

People are making it out like nvidia is going to dictate how and what intel and amd can do with their own solutions when from my understanding of streamline, they will have no say whatsoever, again, it is just a framework to allow seamless integration of all 3 in one go as opposed to the current method developers are having to face of implementing them all (well less so intels one....).

Guessing you're skimming posts again?

That has already been raised by someone else but for reasons, it's not the wisest decision for nvidia:



IMO, that is the last reason nvidia want streamline to be successful, dlss is already integrated into several game engines to allow quick and easy implementation in games (as attested to by developers), from nvidias POV, the most applicable reason is to ensure dlss stays around for much longer as eventually there will be an "industry" standard, most likely in DX or/and vulkan itself.

All in all, I find it hilarious this:

"nvidia are bad because they don't do any open source solutions"

*nvidia make an open source solution to aid all gamers and developers*

Insert new reason to hate on nvidia. I swear if nvidia made dlss open source and able to run on all hardware, people would still find some reason to hate on them.



No one has been able to provide a good/solid answer to this yet.





If only FSR 2 was here 2-3 years ago and in the same quantity and quality of games.....

The proposed reason for why Nvidia doesn't want to implement FSR themselves goes straight out the window when you remember gameworks exists. Nvidia uses gameworks to knee cap AMD and their own old cards and they don't care about the backlash regarding that. Why would this be any different?

Yep still skimming posts. Most posts have too much waffle anyway

From a technical point of view, isn't streamline a middle man between the render engine and say FSR or DLSS? Isn't the advantage of FSRs open source nature that developers can choose how to integrate it into their pipeline? So streamline removes one of the advantages of FSR.
Also from the little I know about programming I thought middle men reduce the performance of programs. So a clean integration of FSR would perform better than one that needs to run through streamline.

Assuming what I have said is correct then,the only advantage of streamline is to keep DLSS relevant for longer and there is no benefit to the end user.

 

[Nexus18]

The proposed reason for why Nvidia doesn't want to implement FSR themselves goes straight out the window when you remember gameworks exists. Nvidia uses gameworks to knee cap AMD and their own old cards and they don't care about the backlash regarding that. Why would this be any different?

Yep still skimming posts. Most posts have too much waffle anyway

From a technical point of view, isn't streamline a middle man between the render engine and say FSR or DLSS? Isn't the advantage of FSRs open source nature that developers can choose how to integrate it into their pipeline? So streamline removes one of the advantages of FSR.
Also from the little I know about programming I thought middle men reduce the performance of programs. So a clean integration of FSR would perform better than one that needs to run through streamline.

Assuming what I have said is correct then,the only advantage of streamline is to keep DLSS relevant for longer and there is no benefit to the end user.

If you aren't reading the posts fully or/and skimming them then you are missing a lot of context to said points being put across.....

TLDR:

- streamline is open source itself, any dodgy behaviour will instantly be picked up on, this is nothing like gameworks so it's a silly comparison and tbf to gameworks, the reason previous gamework techs. hurt amd so much was because nvidia targeted amds weaknesses i.e. over doing tessellation (I wasn't a fan of it, see my posts on hairworks when it came to witcher 3 and crysis 2 over done tessellation for example) but I digress....

- nvidia are not modifying either intels or amds version of upscalers, streamline is simply allowing "integration" in one go, nothing more, nothing less from my understanding

- if there was foul play by nvidia, game developers and obviously amd/intel would instantly pick this up and remove themselves from streamline and developers wouldn't make use of streamline (unless paid by nvidia)

That's a valid point the second last paragraph as there isn't any documentation that I can see of which explains how exactly that aspect works, however, given that DLSS also needs some form of tuning on a per game basis to get the best from it as well, I imagine developers would be able to tweak the likes of FSR, dLSS, xess even if the implementation of them is done via streamline, essentially all streamline does is allow the integration but the tuning of each upscaler tech. within said game would still be down to the game developers, not nvidia, not amd, not intel.

i.e. looking at the image from nvidia (which is extremely simplified):

The "game/3d" grey layer, game developers will still have the ability to configure what they need to in order to get the best from fsr, dlss, xess.

Essentially think of it like this tool:

Ninite - Install or Update Multiple Apps at Once

The easiest, fastest way to update or install software. Ninite downloads and installs programs automatically in the background.

ninite.com

Regarding this:

Assuming what I have said is correct then,the only advantage of streamline is to keep DLSS relevant for longer and there is no benefit to the end user.

I stated that is true if we are looking at this from nvidias POV and is the main reason they created streamline afaic but remove the usual amd vs nvidia controversies and what are the disadvantages to the game developers and gamers with streamline? (especially as as PC gamers, one thing we always state as being the big advantage over console is having "choice")

 

[JediFragger]

- nvidia are not modifying either intels or amds version of upscalers, streamline is simply allowing "integration" in one go, nothing more, nothing less from my understanding

Can't really blame not jumping into bed with Nvidia on this, can't trust those seenuts as far as you can throw them!

 

[Nexus18]

Can't really blame not jumping into bed with Nvidia on this, can't trust those seenuts as far as you can throw them!

Not wrong tbf Had this been closed source or extremely restrictive, definitely avoid.

It would be funny if streamline takes of and intels xess ends up being in more games than amds fsr

 

[shankly1985]

Personally think nvidia is just banging on adding streamline in the hopes DLSS will remain in the market in the future.

If the past is anything to go by then we all know what will happen to DLSS.

 

[humbug]

One thing i hate is proprietary lock in, this is what PhysX was, Gameworks, G-Sync, its Nvidia's MO, back in the day a Phenom II X6 could render PhysX faster than a GTX 480, so Nvidia gimped PhysX on CPU's. G-Sync used to be a chunk of hardware in the back of the monitor, that's rare now, Because AMD came up with an open source solution that didn't require that hardware, Nvidia had to switch tactics and adopted AMD's approach, great, only not really, Nvidia still managed to get their branding on almost every Adaptive Sync screen, they are all compatible with either or Nvidia / AMD but the way they are branded' if you didn't know any better you would still think it didn't work on AMD, that you were still locked in to Nvidia.

I'm all for cross vendor features in singular software, but i think AMD should learn from their mistakes, and Intel, both of them should make Nvidia put their logo's on their products if they are going to "Borrow" their technology, that or let AMD's and Intel's open standards fight it out with Nvidia, see who wins.
Nvidia are not doing this to be nice, they are doing it to make XeSS and FSR obsolete, to make them invisible and stamp their branding all over it.

 

[Dicehunter]

One thing i hate is proprietary lock in, this is what PhysX was, Gameworks, G-Sync, its Nvidia's MO, back in the day a Phenom II X6 could render PhysX faster than a GTX 480, so Nvidia gimped PhysX on CPU's. G-Sync used to be a chunk of hardware in the back of the monitor, that's rare now, Because AMD came up with an open source solution that didn't require that hardware, Nvidia had to switch tactics and adopted AMD's approach, great, only not really, Nvidia still managed to get their branding on almost every Adaptive Sync screen, they are all compatible with either or Nvidia / AMD but the way they are branded' if you didn't know any better you would still think it didn't work on AMD, that you were still locked in to Nvidia.

I'm all for cross vendor features in singular software, but i think AMD should learn from their mistakes, and Intel, both of them should make Nvidia put their logo's on their products if they are going to "Borrow" their technology, that or let AMD's and Intel's open standards fight it out with Nvidia, see who wins.
Nvidia are not doing this to be nice, they are doing it to make XeSS and FSR obsolete, to make them invisible and stamp their branding all over it.

Thing is Nvidia is a predatory company and generally speaking predatory companies don't get taken down a peg or two unless other companies start working together. Nvidia is flat out not good for the industry.

 

[humbug]

Thing is Nvidia is a predatory company and generally speaking predatory companies don't get taken down a peg or two unless other companies start working together. Nvidia is flat out not good for the industry.

The problem is also AMD, they don't have the market share for propitiatory lock-in's so they use an open standard approach in everything they do, because frankly its the only chance they have for wide adoption, and it does work, Free-Sync killed Nvidia G-Sync module stone dead, so now 99% of adaptive screens don't care if its an AMD GPU, Nvidia or Intel, and yet 90% of them have no AMD branding on them, they are pretty much all branded Nvidia.

AMD are too soft, what they should say to screen vendors is the IP is free but if you use it you have to put our logo on it, no logo, no Free-Sync.

Because they don't do that Nvidia just trample all over them.

 

[tommybhoy]

Most of ocuk posters in agreement of getting NV as far as **** away from FSR is refreshing, not surprised with nobody trusting NV.

 

[Nexus18]

Personally think nvidia is just banging on adding streamline in the hopes DLSS will remain in the market in the future.

If the past is anything to go by then we all know what will happen to DLSS.

Agree although still think that is sometime away. DLSS is very different to previous nvidia "features" hence why it is still very much alive now despite FSR 1 being debuted as the dlss killer and now FSR 2 is debuted as the dlss killer yet it still hasn't killed dlss yet.... had dlss not been integrated to several game engines, we would have seen it dead with fsr 1 launch though.

One thing i hate is proprietary lock in, this is what PhysX was, Gameworks, G-Sync, its Nvidia's MO, back in the day a Phenom II X6 could render PhysX faster than a GTX 480, so Nvidia gimped PhysX on CPU's. G-Sync used to be a chunk of hardware in the back of the monitor, that's rare now, Because AMD came up with an open source solution that didn't require that hardware, Nvidia had to switch tactics and adopted AMD's approach, great, only not really, Nvidia still managed to get their branding on almost every Adaptive Sync screen, they are all compatible with either or Nvidia / AMD but the way they are branded' if you didn't know any better you would still think it didn't work on AMD, that you were still locked in to Nvidia.

I'm all for cross vendor features in singular software, but i think AMD should learn from their mistakes, and Intel, both of them should make Nvidia put their logo's on their products if they are going to "Borrow" their technology, that or let AMD's and Intel's open standards fight it out with Nvidia, see who wins.
Nvidia are not doing this to be nice, they are doing it to make XeSS and FSR obsolete, to make them invisible and stamp their branding all over it.

I'm not sure why you keep on insisting that AMD came up with an open source solution for adaptive sync, they are utilising the industry standard supported through vesa i.e. adaptive sync. Freesync is just amds marketing name for it, same way nvidias "gsync compatible" is nvidias marketing name for it.

See Rroffs reply on "gsync" too:

When G-Sync came out on 99% of displays it was impossible to change refresh rate on the fly without a momentary black screen while the display "re-trained".

Good article on adaptive sync in general by viewsonic:

What is Adaptive Sync? - ViewSonic Library

Adaptive Sync dynamically syncs the monitor's refresh rate to the GPU's frame rate to eliminate screen tearing and reduce game stuttering.

www.viewsonic.com

And this:

VESA's Adaptive-Sync Certification Could Kill FreeSync, G-Sync Branding

We may see G-Sync and FreeSync branding completely supplanted by Adaptive-Sync Display and MediaSync Display logos.

www.tomshardware.com

Also, the gsync module still has one big advantage of variable pixel response on lcd based monitors (amongst other little things but less important imo), less so on oled based screens (since their pixel response is already something like 0.0000007ms across the fps/hz range)

Nvidia still managed to get their branding on almost every Adaptive Sync screen, they are all compatible with either or Nvidia / AMD but the way they are branded' if you didn't know any better you would still think it didn't work on AMD, that you were still locked in to Nvidia.

Could we not use that same logic with amds freesync branding i.e. in order to use "freesync", you need amd gpus? I haven't looked but correct me if I am wrong, does amd state anywhere in their marketing material that freesync supports nvidia gpus? If not, maybe it's because nvidia gpus are using "gsync compatible" i.e. adaptive sync.

Nvidia are not doing this to be nice, they are doing it to make XeSS and FSR obsolete, to make them invisible and stamp their branding all over it.

I'm pretty sure that is illegal if they don't mention their "partners" involved with said solution, also kind of contradicting too given that intel is mentioned/shown in the initial diagrams for streamline. Also, how exactly is it to make FSR and xess obsolete?

Thing is Nvidia is a predatory company and generally speaking predatory companies don't get taken down a peg or two unless other companies start working together. Nvidia is flat out not good for the industry.

Nvidia are in that position to be able to get away with certain things given the "mindshare" they have, amd don't have this same sway/mindshare so have to go down the underdog/open route, if the positions of power were reversed, you can guarantee amd would be doing the same, no company is anyone's friend, which is why it's always best to just buy what's best for ones needs/wants at the time. It could be argued that whilst their methods are "predatory", in many ways, it is also good for the industry as it forces their competitors to act e.g.

- had gsync not come along, how long would we have been waiting for "freesync" to make an appearance
- had dlss not come along, how long would we be waiting for "fsr" to make an appearance

Same way amds reworking of resizable bar i.e. SAM forced nvidia to enable rebar on their gpus.

 

[gpuerrilla]

They got a reminder when they tried to take over ARM. AMD acquired Xilinx without the same issues so that probably annoyed them.

 

[gpuerrilla]

Most of ocuk posters in agreement of getting NV as far as **** away from FSR is refreshing, not surprised with nobody trusting NV.

Most..

 

[Bill Turnip]

I'm all for cross vendor features in singular software, but i think AMD should learn from their mistakes, and Intel, both of them should make Nvidia put their logo's on their products if they are going to "Borrow" their technology, that or let AMD's and Intel's open standards fight it out with Nvidia, see who wins.

Tricky to force them to put a logo on open source solution, though.

 

[humbug]

I'm not sure why you keep on insisting that AMD came up with an open source solution for adaptive sync, they are utilising the industry standard supported through vesa i.e. adaptive sync. Freesync is just amds marketing name for it, same way nvidias "gsync compatible" is nvidias marketing name for it.

See Rroffs reply on "gsync" too:

In which ever semantic way you want to word it its the same ###### difference, same to you too @Rroff.

So this stands.

The problem is also AMD, they don't have the market share for propitiatory lock-in's so they use an open standard approach in everything they do, because frankly its the only chance they have for wide adoption, and it does work, Free-Sync killed Nvidia G-Sync module stone dead, so now 99% of adaptive screens don't care if its an AMD GPU, Nvidia or Intel, and yet 90% of them have no AMD branding on them, they are pretty much all branded Nvidia.

AMD are too soft, what they should say to screen vendors is the IP is free but if you use it you have to put our logo on it, no logo, no Free-Sync.

Because they don't do that Nvidia just trample all over them.

 

[humbug]

Tricky to force them to put a logo on open source solution, though.

Not if the feature is part of the hardware, IE the GPU or its software.

 

[tommybhoy]

AMD are too soft, what they should say to screen vendors is the IP is free but if you use it you have to put our logo on it, no logo, no Free-Sync.

Because they don't do that Nvidia just trample all over them.

Monitor manufacturers want the brand that sells, Vrr isn't AMD's, so if you want to slap NV's Gsync on the monitor, as I've never seen both logos present, I imagine the NV G-Sync branding license states it's got to be exclusive

Most..

Well there's a lonesome fella with a semi in here for team green.

 

[Nexus18]

In which ever semantic way you want to word it its the same ###### difference, same to you too @Rroff.

So this stands.

As per usual can't address the points so get a quality reply

What you keep banging on about with gsync, freesync is just plain wrong though. How can you not understand/see that freesync is amds marketing name for adaptive sync and gsync compatible is nvidias marketing name for adaptive sync? You have articles right there stating exactly that and that at some point "both" freesync and gsync compatible "branding" names will probably be killed of for the proper certification from VESA.....

Tricky to force them to put a logo on open source solution, though.

See freesync and gsync compatible story

For once humbug is right there:

Not if the feature is part of the hardware, IE the GPU or its software.

If something is done on the gpu side, they can do whatever they want afaik especially if the brand have tweaked it with their own optimisation.

 

[humbug]

As per usual can't address the points so get a quality reply

What you keep banging on about with gsync, freesync is just plain wrong though. How can you not understand/see that freesync is amds marketing name for adaptive sync and gsync compatible is nvidias marketing name for adaptive sync? You have articles right there stating exactly that and that at some point "both" freesync and gsync compatible "branding" names will probably be killed of for the proper certification from VESA.....



See freesync and gsync compatible story

For once humbug is right there:



If something is done on the gpu side, they can do whatever they want afaik.

As per usual can't address the points so get a quality reply

What you keep banging on about with gsync, freesync is just plain wrong though. How can you not understand/see that freesync is amds marketing name for adaptive sync and gsync compatible is nvidias marketing name for adaptive sync? You have articles right there stating exactly that and that at some point "both" freesync and gsync compatible "branding" names will probably be killed of for the proper certification from VESA.....

You're missing the point, deliberately.

If something is done on the gpu side, they can do whatever they want afaik.

There it is....... #### me!

 

[humbug]

Monitor manufacturers want the brand that sells, Vrr isn't AMD's, so if you want to slap NV's Gsync on the monitor, as I've never seen both logos present, I imagine the NV G-Sync branding license states it's got to be exclusive

And you would probably be right.

So no Free-Sync, it doesn't make any difference anyway because so far as most normies looking at these things are concerned the green logo = no Free-Sync..

So don't make it so ####### easy for screen vendors to make that choice, AMD.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

If you aren't reading the posts fully or/and skimming them then you are missing a lot of context to said points being put across.....

Do you want to know whats worst that skimming a post. Making massive leaps in logic based on faulty assumptions. Such as assuming that because a person has checked out a thread they are skimming posts. Or assuming that a person is skim reading the posts they are responding to.
Do you want to know what's worst than faulty leaps in logic? Hypocrisy. Such as lecturing another poster on missing context then snipping their post later on to remove vital context.

Now then as for the rest of your post.

- streamline is open source itself, any dodgy behaviour will instantly be picked up on, this is nothing like gameworks so it's a silly comparison and tbf to gameworks, the reason previous gamework techs. hurt amd so much was because nvidia targeted amds weaknesses i.e. over doing tessellation (I wasn't a fan of it, see my posts on hairworks when it came to witcher 3 and crysis 2 over done tessellation for example) but I digress....

Dodgy behaviour was picked up in gameworks and that didn't stop Nvidia. Streamline being open source won't stop Nvidia, they just need to be more clever that's all. If Nvidia thinks they can get away with it, they will try and find away to screw over AMDs FSR implementation.

- nvidia are not modifying either intels or amds version of upscalers, streamline is simply allowing "integration" in one go, nothing more, nothing less from my understanding

Irrelevant to my post.

if there was foul play by nvidia, game developers and obviously amd/intel would instantly pick this up and remove themselves from streamline and developers wouldn't make use of streamline (unless paid by nvidia)

Only if/when they catch it. Which is pointless if it is caught late and has already done its damage.

what are the disadvantages to the game developers and gamers with streamline?

Well I did list a disadvantage but the context has gone missing for some reason.