NVIDIA 4000 Series

[mrk]

In which game, Cyberpunk or F1 23?

 

[Nexus18]

 

[TNA]

To answer that, at their current pace, no. If anything they will keep playing catch up and falling behind.

Seems to me they don't have the hunger.

 

[heatonpkmassive]

To answer that, at their current pace, no. If anything they will keep playing catch up and falling behind.

Seems to me they don't have the hunger.

They seem to have settled for being second best.

 

[TNA]

They seem to have settled for being second best.

Exactly that. If they don't watch out they may have to settle for being third best. Lol.

 

[Tinek]

I've just seen in news that next big release of Windows 11 (24H2) has in the preview version a hidden option to enable AI upscaling in any supported application, irrelevant of graphics card vendor. Seems to be just part of the OS and likely a standard way of upscaling to replace FSR, DLSS, XESS and the likes. It wouldn't suprise me one bit, as it's so widespread now in games that Microsoft might as well standardise it in OS and finish the upscalers war once and for all, like they did with other tech in the past.

Whether it just works or requires support by the game or at least driver I don't know yet. Looking forward to more info about it.

 

[Nexus18]

I wouldn't hold out hope on microsoft solutions..... Their implementations for other things aren't great and usually release buggy. Windows auto hdr for example is half assed, very few games are whitelisted for it and then it doesn't use the correct gamma and some other issues.

I'll be amazed if it will match nvidias dlss but hopefully they show otherwise, at the very least, hopefully it will be better than FSR so there is an option to use windows upscaling if dlss isn't present.

 

[Tinek]

I wouldn't hold out hope on microsoft solutions..... Their implementations for other things aren't great and usually release buggy. Windows auto hdr for example is half assed, very few games are whitelisted for it and then it doesn't use the correct gamma and some other issues.

I'll be amazed if it will match nvidias dlss but hopefully they show otherwise, at the very least, hopefully it will be better than FSR so there is an option to use windows upscaling if dlss isn't present.

If it's part of the os and good enough, plus just part of DX (I suspect games will still need to implement support for it with proper motion vectors etc.), you can bet most studios will likely just stick to it and ignore all other ways - because it'll be cheaper and easier and in case of any issues they can just point people at the Microsoft and shrug. There's a lot of examples of vendor locked things that became part of the os and vendors stopped developing their own solution, they only needed to enable support in their driver.

On the other hand, it might be instead similar to Nvidia video upscaler and not use any motion vectors etc. Then it could be rather bad, but time will tell.

 

[Nexus18]

Also, I can't see DLSS going away anytime soon, nvidia have invested so much time and money into it now with the upscaling, frame gen, ray reconstruction and we'll no doubt get other things, which will tie into the whole package in the future and based on the latest drivers as well as a mod for the rtx hdr, it looks like driver injection for DLSS will happen too:

If it's part of the os and good enough, plus just part of DX (I suspect games will still need to implement support for it with proper motion vectors etc.), you can bet most studios will likely just stick to it and ignore all other ways - because it'll be cheaper and easier and in case of any issues they can just point people at the Microsoft and shrug. There's a lot of examples of vendor locked things that became part of the os and vendors stopped developing their own solution, they only needed to enable support in their driver.

Implementing DLSS/FSR is already very easy and quick though, especially with the engines that support the plugins, obviously to get the best from it though some fine tuning is still required on devs end but this will also be the case for microsofts solution too, if anything, it'll probably not be as good as dlss in this regard e.g. look at FSR, devs have to spend a considerable amount of time to get good results from it. Nvidia have done more of a t shirt fit size with custom presets.

It will probably be much like windows auto hdr, for games, it will mainly be microsoft supported ones.

 

[Nexus18]

To answer that, at their current pace, no. If anything they will keep playing catch up and falling behind.

Seems to me they don't have the hunger.

They seem to have settled for being second best.

Also, as HUB kind of got to, nvidia need to massively **** up somewhere to allow amd to really take over.

As it is, I think the best way forward for amd is to just simply stop trying to compete with nvidia and focus on the consoles hardware and software feature set for them, get FSR 3 in more console games as right now, it's a joke tbph. If they want to remain in the PC market, then focus on what their fanbase and supposedly the customers want i.e.

- bang per buck - true bang per buck and not just £50 cheaper than nvidia
- rasterisation - since RT doesn't matter at the moment according to the surveys etc.
- gpus with plenty of vram at affordable prices
- less on software "tricks"/features since according to surveys, pc gamers don't want these either (although as discussed before, secretly, we think people do actually want this but won't admit to it....)

 

[Tinek]

It will probably be much like windows auto hdr, for games, it will mainly be microsoft supported ones.

The one thing that I learned years ago and it never failed us the publishers of AAA games will always penny pinch and whatever solution is cheaper and works with everyone, most will go for that. Anyway, too little information about this currently, as I don't think Microsoft even said anything yet. It's just experimental code at the moment and they might decide to not even implement it or leave for Windows 12 for example. At least we know they are working on something.

 

[Nexus18]

The one thing that I learned years ago and it never failed us the publishers of AAA games will always penny pinch and whatever solution is cheaper and works with everyone, most will go for that. Anyway, too little information about this currently, as I don't think Microsoft even said anything yet. It's just experimental code at the moment and they might decide to not even implement it or leave for Windows 12 for example. At least we know they are working on something.

Yup, it's great to have more choice but I just hope it's a good solution and not one that will be inferior and win out just because it works for everyone and is cheap/quicker to add.... much like FSR, great to have an open source solution that works on a variety of hardware but as shown by the poll results here and my own experience, most people won't use it if it sucks so customers don't really win in the end....

 

[Tinek]

If they want to remain in the PC market, then focus on what their fanbase and supposedly the customers want i.e.

- bang per buck - true bang per buck and not just £50 cheaper than nvidia

You are thinking about products that cost £1k, which is tiny minority of the market. As we all know the huge majority of the market still sits on 1060 and 1660Ti cards, as 4060 is too expensive to upgrade to. And in such price range £50 would already be a huge difference.

- rasterisation - since RT doesn't matter at the moment according to the surveys etc.

They always did and often were faster than NVIDIA - but it almost never helped them sale more. People don't care about raw performance in cheaper products if they don't know such products exist. And AMD marketing was always very weak and non present, unlike Nvidia's. That's where they need to invest more into.

- gpus with plenty of vram at affordable prices

That should be a thing but then that eats into their profits on cheap cards which sale the most - same for Nvidia. Greed wins.

- less on software "tricks"/features since according to surveys, people don't want these either (although as discussed before, secretly, we think people do actually want this but won't admit to it....)

Again, with cheaper cards that are the true mainstream, most people seem to not know nor care about extra features. But that's not an excuse to not develop it as a competition. Also, this will trickle up to cards where people do care.

 

[Tinek]

Yup, it's great to have more choice but I just hope it's a good solution and not one that will be inferior and win out just because it works for everyone and is cheap/quicker to add.... much like FSR, great to have an open source solution that works on a variety of hardware but as shown by the poll results here and my own experience, most people won't use it if it sucks so customers don't really win in the end....

Don't forget about cases from the past where good enough but cheaper almost always wins against better but more expensive (e.g. VHS versus other formats, compact cassette Vs much better but much more expensive formats, MP3 Vs other etc.). Hence, I dare to say if DLSS was available only on cards xx70+ it would have never taken off comparing to fsr 2 working on everything for example. What made it succeed is that it's available on even cheapest cards. Though, 1060 doesn't have it and it's still the most popular GPU out there it seems. This is also why RT will not really take off till it's cheap to use for consumers.

 

[Nexus18]

You are thinking about products that cost £1k, which is tiny minority of the market. As we all know the huge majority of the market still sits on 1060 and 1660Ti cards, as 4060 is too expensive to upgrade to. And in such price range £50 would already by a huge difference.



They always did and often were faster than NVIDIA - but it almost never helped them sale more. People don't care about raw performance in cheaper products if they don't know such products exist. And AMD marketing was always very weak and non present, unlike Nvidia's. That's where they need to invest more into.



That should be a thing but they that eats into their profits on cheap cards which sale the most - same for Nvidia. Greed wins.


Again, with cheaper cards that are the true mainstream, most people seem to not know nor care about extra features. But that's not an excuse to not develop it as a competition. Also, this will trickle up to cards where people do care.

Even at the lower end, amds pricing is not good enough or much better than nvidia especially when you factor in the overall package.

AMD have never really been that far ahead in raster though, it's only been 1-2 games, mainly COD where they have had the huge lead over nvidia which somewhat skewed the "overall" benchmarks towards amd. Don't forget, amd only resolved their dx 11 issues last year and nvidia were lacking in dx 12 but they resolved that last year with their driver update to close the gap. One thing which doesn't ever really get marketed by nvidia either is they generally have better performance than amd in the smaller indie titles I've noticed. Few friends have always commented on this too. Probably because those devs are most likely using nvidia gpus and don't have access to amd to optimise for.

I agree, they should focus on software features but as said, the amd fans/pc gamer market supposedly don't want to be paying for these (although I think they do, just don't want to admit it for reasons) and rather the money saved be pocketed or go towards better raster etc.

Don't forget about cases from the past where good enough but cheaper almost always wins against better but more expensive (e.g. VHS versus other formats, compact cassette Vs much better but much more expensive formats, MP3 Vs other etc.). Hence, I dare to say if DLSS was available only on cards xx70+ it would have never taken off comparing to fsr 2 working on everything for example. What made it succeed is that it's available on even cheapest cards. Though, 1060 doesn't have it and it's still the most popular GPU out there it seems. This is also why RT will not really take off till it's cheap to use for consumers.

RT is more for devs than gamers. And where publishers/stakeholders are concerned, if they can save a fortune with quicker development times, they will push for this to be adopted quicker even if the market hardware isn't there, in todays world across the technology industry, it's all about cost cutting and devs/peoples time is the most expensive outgoing companies have...

 

[Nexus18]

As said in the other thread, the problem with RT not advancing much quicker is because devs have been supporting hardware which doesn't have RT support, once old gen consoles are dropped entirely, that's when you'll see more games like metro ee, spiderman 2, avatar. That and don't forget, games can be in development for up to 7-10 years..... Generally if you're half way through a product development life cycle, you're not going to move to a completely new process/workflow as that's just going to incur way more cost and time and impact various areas of the product.

4a enhanced somewhat touched upon this a few times in their articles:

No feature comes for free of course, and so, as with all rendering features the Ray Tracing pass and the denoising passes came with an associated time cost. However, we were able to offset that cost somewhat by removing some other features that were now entirely redundant. Screen Space Ambient Occlusion (SSAO), an approximation of the shadows cast by these many small lights, was the first to go. With those additional indirect lights now actually available to us, those shadows formed naturally as a feature of the overarching technique. Similarly, any legacy GI approximation terms were no longer required: this system is their direct successor after all. There is one more very important thing that would ultimately be able to be discarded, but that would have to wait until the implementation of certain Metro Exodus PC Enhanced Edition features.

The groundwork has been laid though and we have successfully brought a product to the 9th generation consoles complete with essentially our entire Ray Tracing feature set. This sets a baseline for this generation’s future projects. We mentioned that we had initially thought of some features as potential fallbacks solution to be maintained alongside superior and steadily evolving equivalents on PC. This wasn’t the case, but it could have been, if the consoles weren’t as good as they are. If it had been the case, then so many members of the team would have been hit by the massive increase in workload that comes with working with two separate and distinct systems in parallel. Instead, we now have a new set of standards to base our work on that are consistent across all target platforms.

It doesn’t just come down to what you end up shipping either. Game development is by its very nature an iterative process. You need to have some plan for where you want to take a project from the start, or course, but once you begin working on assets and developing features you always test them as part of the larger context of the game, and more often than not this leads to tweaks, refinements, and balancing. Even that might not be the end of it, other features can come along changing the experience and myriad different ways leading to yet more alterations and adjustments. For this process to work developers need an environment to work in that is intuitive, responsive, and as close a representation of the main game as possible. Our editor has always run basically the same simulation as the final game, but technological advancements seen in this generation streamlined the process significantly. Testing environments are quicker to set up with fewer dependencies on assets or on the work of other departments. Changes in visual design are visible (in their final form) immediately. The physical simulation on the whole feels more like a sandbox in which ideas can be tested and iterated upon. This makes for a more comfortable and fluent development experience, more conducive to creativity and experimentation.
The true effects of all this will take longer to be realized. The boundaries of what you can (and can’t) do in a video game have been shifted and design practices will take a while to feel them out and to fill them. But ultimately, what we see is the promise of more dynamic and engaging game worlds, with fewer limitations, which can be developed in faster and more intuitive ways. On the player side, all that translates to hopefully more content without the usual associated spiraling development cost, and to richer, more believable game experiences.

 

[srekal34]

As said in the other thread, the problem with RT not advancing much quicker is because devs have been supporting hardware which doesn't have RT support, once old gen consoles are dropped entirely, that's when you'll see more games like metro ee, spiderman 2, avatar. That and don't forget, games can be in development for up to 7-10 years..... Generally if you're half way through a product development life cycle, you're not going to move to a completely new process/workflow as that's just going to incur way more cost and time and impact various areas of the product.

Indeed, and it seems that 'native RT' titles are not that power hungry as the ones where RT is a gimmick.
At some point I would expect RT performance to be on par with raster - Nv 6xxx maybe?

 

[Nexus18]

Indeed, and it seems that 'native RT' titles are not that power hungry as the ones where RT is a gimmick.
At some point I would expect RT performance to be on par with raster - Nv 6xxx maybe?

I think metro ee, avatar and spiderman 2 are good showcases tbf and don't think you would be wrong on that statement either. People forget that raster has been around for donkeys now so the devs know all the cheats and tricks to get the best from it whereas with RT, it's completely new and as stated by 4a enhanced, there is still so much to learn and how to get the best from it so I can see the existing RT workloads/graphical effects becoming more efficient over time as opposed to more demanding (heck just look at the likes of bf 5 and control etc. in the beginning, absolutely tanked performance but nowadays, the same effects or more wouldn't hit performance anywhere as much), obviously we still need the hardware to be there in the first place but I think there is a lot left to discover/figure out on the software optimisation and feature front and of course, devs focusing more on RT than raster effects.....

 

[Tinek]

Even at the lower end, amds pricing is not good enough or much better than nvidia especially when you factor in the overall package.

That's correct, currently they are both just as bad. But in the past it was better and AMD had bit bigger market share, however not by much. Advertisement still sucks on their side.

AMD have never really been that far ahead in raster though, it's only been 1-2 games, mainly COD where they have had the huge lead over nvidia which somewhat skewed the "overall" benchmarks towards amd.

There's been plenty of times in the past where AMD often was considerably better and cheaper then Nvidia on the same "shelf" - it didn't make people rush for AMD cards most of the time, though. Nvidia is just much better known. Same with CPUs Vs intel, as it's not just GPUs.

Don't forget, amd only resolved their dx 11 issues last year and nvidia were lacking in dx 12 but they resolved that last year with their driver update to close the gap.

As far as I'm aware, Dx11 issues were dx11 issues - as in, problem was in DX itself. NVIDIA was able to workaround it with brilliant solution earlier as their GPU scheduler is a software one so they were able to modify it. AMD has had hardware one for ages and it took them munch longer to find a solution for dx11 shortcomings. Dx12 was the opposite and NVIDIA still has much higher CPU overhead which they can't fix without going for hardware GPU scheduler - but then they would lose dx11 advantage, hence this won't change anytime soon.

One thing which doesn't ever really get marketed by nvidia either is they generally have better performance than amd in the smaller indie titles I've noticed. Few friends have always commented on this too. Probably because those devs are most likely using nvidia gpus and don't have access to amd to optimise for.

That's likely down to the dx11 issues mentioned earlier. AMD physically can't make it as good as Nvidia's workaround because of how hardware works. That said, neither vendor is at fault here, dx11 just has core issues (literally - single thread limits).

I agree, they should focus on software features but as said, the amd fans/pc gamer market supposedly don't want to be paying for these (although I think they do, just don't want to admit it for reasons) and rather the money saved be pocketed or go towards better raster etc.

I don't think we are really paying much for these things - many seem to be trickling down things from pro/enterprise market and few small things that Nvidia engineers created in free time. Plus, free advertisement for Nvidia.

RT is more for devs than gamers. And where publishers/stakeholders are concerned, if they can save a fortune with quicker development times, they will push for this to be adopted quicker even if the market hardware isn't there, in todays world across the technology industry, it's all about cost cutting and devs/peoples time is the most expensive outgoing companies have...

If they pushed for RT now, they will save cost on development but lose on sales - people will quickly ditch such publishers which releases games that just don't work well on their machines. And that would be it. The mainstream gamers don't like to spend much and they dictate what is being widely used.

 

[Nexus18]

That's correct, currently they are both just as bad. But in the past it was better and AMD had bit bigger market share, however not by much. Advertisement still sucks on their side.



There's been plenty of times in the past where AMD often was considerably better and cheaper then Nvidia on the same "shelf" - it didn't make people rush for AMD cards most of the time, though. Nvidia is just much better known. Same with CPUs Vs intel, as it's not just GPUs.



As far as I'm aware, Dx11 issues were dx11 issues - as in, problem was in DX itself. NVIDIA was able to workaround it with brilliant solution earlier as their GPU scheduler is a software one so they were able to modify it. AMD has had hardware one for ages and it took them munch longer to find a solution for dx11 shortcomings. Dx12 was the opposite and NVIDIA still has much higher CPU overhead which they can't fix without going for hardware GPU scheduler - but then they would lose dx11 advantage, hence this won't change anytime soon.



That's likely down to the dx11 issues mentioned earlier. AMD physically can't make it as good as Nvidia's workaround because of how hardware works. That said, neither vendor is at fault here, dx11 just has core issues (literally - single thread limits).



I don't think we are really paying much for these things - many seem to be trickling down things from pro/enterprise market and few small things that Nvidia engineers created in free time. Plus, free advertisement for Nvidia.


If they pushed for RT now, they will save cost on development but lose on sales - people will quickly ditch such publishers which releases games that just don't work well on their machines. And that would be it. The mainstream gamers don't like to spend much and they dictate what is being widely used.

Which other raster games are/were amd massively ahead in? COD is the main one I know of and then there was assassins creed vahalla but nvidia closed the gap massively here when they relased their dx 12 optimisation driver update. Maybe a few other likes FC 6 and callisto protocol but everything else, it's either nvidia win some, lose some or neck and neck.

Well whatever the core issue was, it was an amd driver update that solved it (sorry was 2022, not 2023) - https://videocardz.com/newz/amd-has...he-ground-up-10-better-performance-on-average

Something has to fund the engineers working on these otherwise they would be bleeding money especially if it is a long term investment/feature.

That's only if developers do a **** job.... we have seen now in 3 well regarded titles, the games running pretty well even on consoles....