[HN Gopher] Nvidia Unveils GeForce RTX 30 Series GPUs
___________________________________________________________________
Nvidia Unveils GeForce RTX 30 Series GPUs
Author : mkaic
Score : 449 points
Date : 2020-09-01 16:42 UTC (6 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (blogs.nvidia.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (blogs.nvidia.com)
| Ninjinka wrote:
| The 3080 requires a 750W PSU, while the 3070 only requires 650W.
| Given I have a 650W, that might tip the scale for me.
| arduinomancer wrote:
| Heavily depends what else is in your system.
| arvinsim wrote:
| They did have a disclaimer that it depends on your PC
| configuration. If you run something like the Ryzen 3600, it
| might be fine.
| gambiting wrote:
| These numbers never meant anything. I run a 1050Ti on a 200W
| PSU - nvidia recommends 450W minimum. Add the TDP of your GPU,
| CPU and add about 100W for accessories = what you actually
| need. Nvidia recommends a much more powerful PSU than needed
| just in case.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > Nvidia recommends a much more powerful PSU than needed just
| in case.
|
| The two things to watch out for here are
|
| 1) Cheaper PSUs can't always actually hit their claimed
| wattage, particularly not in real-world heat scenarios
|
| 2) CPU & GPU both use the 12V rail for their power, and not
| all PSUs can deliver all the rated wattage on the 12V rail.
|
| Any decent to good PSU won't have either of those issues,
| most list their rated wattage entirely on the 12V rails these
| days.
|
| So for example let's assume 250w for the GPU average and 120w
| for the CPU average (turbo & boost & all that). A 400w PSU
| could technically do that, particularly since if your only
| drive is an SSD your "accessories" are basically a rounding
| error. But if we take this 400W PSU for example:
| https://www.newegg.com/coolmax-i-400-400w/p/N82E16817159140
| it can only deliver 300W on the 12V rail. Not enough. By
| comparison this EVGA 450W PSU can do a full 450W on the 12V
| rail alone:
| https://www.evga.com/products/product.aspx?pn=100-BR-0450-K1
|
| That's a 150W useful difference in this scenario even though
| the "rated" power only differs by 50W.
| phaus wrote:
| Yea I think if you run the calculations and you have room you
| should be good if your PSU is just slightly above the power
| requirements. If you run an unusual amount of memory or
| HDDs/etc, you might want to calculate everything manually
| rather than just assume its 100 watts though.
|
| I have never had a PSU fail, but supposedly unlike pretty
| much every other component if it fails its possible it will
| destroy your GPU/CPU/MB so it makes sense to spend a little
| extra on a good PSU.
|
| Probably my best component purchase ever was a 1050W Modular
| PSU in 2014. It was an old model even then and apparently no
| one wanted 1000W+ power supplies back then because it was on
| clearance. It should still be good for a 3090 and probably
| even a 5090 when I upgrade again in the future.
|
| I paid far less than a 1000w PSU costs now.
| eMSF wrote:
| I feel like this used to be more true in the past. These days
| CPUs can exceed their official TDP by quite a large margin,
| and while in theory they should only do so temporarily, many
| motherboards default to unlimited boost clocks. (Then again,
| perhaps you're never going to fully utilize both CPU and GPU
| at the same time...)
| gambiting wrote:
| That is correct. Nowadays a 75W TDP Intel CPU can use as
| much as 200W for short bursts. That wasn't the case in the
| past. However, it should still be possible to find out that
| maximum draw value for many motherboards and pick a PSU
| accordingly.
| Macha wrote:
| This is likely a cautious recommendation on nVidia's part.
|
| A 2080 Ti + 8700k system used 450W (nvidia recommended a 650w
| psu). While high end CPUs have gotten a bit more power hungry
| with higher core counts on the 10900k/10700k/3900x/3950x, I'd
| be shocked if a 650W PSU couldn't handle a mainstream CPU +
| 3080.
|
| https://www.techspot.com/review/1701-geforce-rtx-2080/page4....
|
| nVidia's recommendation is based on "we don't want people
| pissed off because they put it in a system with a 3990wx at the
| recommended PSU capacity and it didn't work"
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Do note that a PSU running at max capacity might also cause a
| noisy hot PSU.
|
| Having some headroom might result in a quieter system
| redisman wrote:
| You can see on Nvidias product page they are calculating
| based on a 125W processor. My 3700X is 65W so I'll have
| enough room for a 3070 easily on a 600W PSU.
| shajznnckfke wrote:
| My old theory was they add so much headroom that you might be
| able to add a second one later in SLI.
| ponker wrote:
| Jensen's stovetop is the billionaire'a equivalent of a tricked-
| out RGB setup.
| ablekh wrote:
| Very cool. I'm wondering about whether RTX 30 Series cards are
| compatible (interfaces, form factor, etc.) with Quadro RTX 8000.
| Thoughts?
| jordache wrote:
| dude has a lot of spatulas at his house!
| Falell wrote:
| What's the expected delay between reference card release and OEM
| card release?
| shantara wrote:
| It's worrying to see GPU cooling system dumping the heat directly
| onto the CPU, RAM and motherboard components. That's the only
| thing that left me skeptical after watching the presentation.
| jiofih wrote:
| What do you mean? The fan design is pretty standard. Either way
| it won't matter, as hot air should be extracted from the case,
| it's not gonna meaningfully change the temp on anything it
| hits.
| shantara wrote:
| The back fan flows the air through a hole in the GPU, past
| the thermal tubes and carries the hot air above the GPU to
| the upper part of the motherboard. Which is not in any way a
| standard design with the hot air going directly outside the
| PC case.
|
| https://youtu.be/ALEXVtnNEwA?t=3283
| shados wrote:
| A few weeks/months after release, 3rd parties are going to come
| out with a bazillion different thermal solutions, including
| self contained liquid cooling, like they always do. So that's a
| minor issue. Just don't buy the reference model.
| redisman wrote:
| I mean that's where the air will go anyway as it rises up, just
| more inefficiently.
| 0xfaded wrote:
| I have some CUDA code that I need to run as fast as possible, so
| if I was going to blow $1500, my use case would imply that I
| should go with two 3080s.
|
| However, I also play around with deep learning stuff, expect to
| do so more in the future, but don't currently follow it so
| closely.
|
| Would someone care to ponder on what difference they think a 24GB
| gpu vs a 10GB gpu will have as a tool for deep learning dev over
| the next 3 years?
|
| For what it's worth, I'm a computer vision guy, but I did have a
| play with DeepSpeech earlier this year.
| godelski wrote:
| Being in the ML space myself I can tell you that memory is
| pretty important. With my current workload (vision tasks) it is
| my largest constraint.
|
| That said, rumor has it that they will announce a 20Gb 3080
| later.
| abledon wrote:
| and its a 20gb with the ability to do FP16 right? So
| theoritcally lots of the models can actually be 40gb?
| dplavery92 wrote:
| It's not _impossible_ to distribute training across multiple
| GPUs, but it 's certainly not straightforward. And if you want
| activations for an entire 4K image in the same model, having a
| lot of memory on one card is your friend.
| hwillis wrote:
| I'm fairly lay but imo GPT-3 demonstrates pretty soundly that
| huge models are no magic bullet- it's got >2x as many
| parameters as the human brain has neurons and it can't do long
| division. Dogs and other animals get by just fine having less
| than 1% as many neurons as humans.
|
| Even a billion parameters is a _huge_ model, and a factor of
| 2.4x increase is not going to make a tremendous difference in
| your performance. In particular the data-heavy nature of vision
| stuff means that you 'll be bottlenecked by training more than
| memory, AFAIK (again, lay).
| junipertea wrote:
| It can't do long division because it literally can't read the
| number inputs, due to the way text is encoded (BPE). That it
| manages to learn any sort of arithmetic despite that is
| pretty impressive to me.
| ipsum2 wrote:
| Model parameters and biological neurons do not map 1:1.
| benlivengood wrote:
| The human brain has about 100 trillion synapses which is a
| closer analog to ML model parameters.
| i-am-curious wrote:
| This is a misleading comparison. You are comparing a massive
| model with huge models. What you should be comparing are big
| models vs medium models that a single consumer GPU will fit.
| And - you don't need to take my word for it, there's tons of
| papers - the bigger models definitely perform better.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Wow, I wasn't planning on upgrading from a 1080 (non-Ti) but the
| 3080 is so good and priced so well, I probably will. I just
| ordered a 240 Hz 1440p IPS monitor and I wasn't planning to hit
| 240 Hz, but this makes it so easy I might as well.
|
| My day job is primarily ML as well, so I might just go for the
| 3090. 24 GB of memory is a game changer for what I can do
| locally. I really just wish Nvidia would get its shit together
| with Linux drivers. Ubuntu has done some great work making things
| easier and just work, but having them directly in the kernel
| would be so much nicer.
|
| One thing I'm curious about is the RTX IO feature. The slide said
| it supports DirectStorage for Windows, but is there an equivalent
| to this for Linux? I'm hoping someone with a little more insight
| or an Nvidia employee may have some more information.
| smileybarry wrote:
| > One thing I'm curious about is the RTX IO feature.
|
| Me too, but for a different reason: I wonder if it can work
| with BitLocker if you're using software encryption (as hardware
| encryption is transparent enough that the drive basically locks
| and unlocks).
|
| It would still save the CPU cost of decompression but it'd have
| to go through RAM for (AES-NI accelerated) CPU decryption
| either way. Maybe at that point RAM speed and latencies start
| to matter more. Or the feature turns off altogether. Definitely
| something to test.
| marmaduke wrote:
| > 24 GB of memory is a game changer
|
| a little confused here, I see Dell offering machines with cards
| up to 48 GB, so 24 GB seems quite nice, but not game changing.
| jjcm wrote:
| The difference is the Quadro RTX 8000 is $5500 (vs the 3090's
| $1500 price), and the Quadro has less than half of the CUDA
| cores that the 3090 does.
|
| You can buy two of the 3090's for almost half the price of
| the Quadro and have 4x the processing power.
|
| EDIT: looks like I'm not fully correct here - nvidia changed
| how they measure cores: https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/com
| ments/ikok1b/explaining...
|
| Still great for the price, but not double the power
| necessarily.
| gowld wrote:
| I thought quadro sacrifices speed to get accuracy, which
| matters for modelling/rendering but not ML (and games)
| cercatrova wrote:
| Which monitor? I was looking at the Samsung G9.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| The G9 and G7 seem to suffer from the same problem that
| previous VA adaptive sync monitors had, i.e. brightness
| depends on frame rate, so the screen flickers with changing
| framerate.
|
| In addition to that they seem to have some issues with their
| firmware trampling over its own memory, causing glitch
| artifacts and such. I suspect they'll fix that through a
| firmware update.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| The EVE Spectrum[1]. I actually pre-ordered a while back, so
| got it for less than what it's priced at now. Their first
| project had some issues with delivery, but they seem to have
| done a great job with this one and I'm cautiously optimistic.
|
| [1]: https://evedevices.com/pages/full-specs
| cercatrova wrote:
| Hm, Eve as a whole feels pretty suspect after what they did
| with the V. I wonder if they'll really ship these this
| time, but I doubt it.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Yeah, I read the stories, but I also read their side of
| the story and it seemed like they got pretty screwed with
| the vendor.
|
| Like I said, I'm cautiously optimistic and I'm also lucky
| enough that losing out on my $100 deposit isn't a
| financial issue for me.
| [deleted]
| godelski wrote:
| > I really just wish Nvidia would get its shit together with
| Linux drivers.
|
| This has always confused me. They are pushing ML hard, yet we
| often use Linux for that kind of work. And these cards are the
| ones expected to be used in universities and home labs. Linux
| drivers that "just work" would be a big push forward to really
| show that they are trying to push for ML development.
| dragandj wrote:
| I have several nvidia GPUs of different generations on Linux,
| and Nvidia drivers + CUDA "just work". They are closed source
| - that's bad - but I don't get what people are complaining
| about related to "just working". They DO "just work" (Arch
| Linux, both package and BLOB install...
| godelski wrote:
| I'll give you a few examples.
|
| - Ubuntu 18 I had hit or miss with the hdmi connection on
| my laptop (1060Q). 20% of the time it would work if I
| plugged it in. 50% of the time it would work if I had it
| plugged in and rebooted. This makes giving presentations
| difficult.
|
| - Arch/Manjaro/Fedora/Ubuntu 16 I could never get the hdmi
| connection working for a laptop.
|
| - All distros, difficulty getting cuda running AND using
| the display. Intel drivers for display + nvidia for cuda
| works, but this means I can't use my GPU when I want to do
| some of the limited linux gaming.
|
| Laptops seem to have more problems than desktops. On
| desktops I have many more hits than misses (if I have the
| graphics card installed when I install the OS). Laptops
| have just been terrible.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Because some DEs like KDE have devs behind them that don't
| want to deal with non Open Source blobs out of principle so
| you get a terrible experience with Nvidia. Gnome is usually
| fine.
| emilsedgh wrote:
| Isn't it funny and ironic, since Gnome is a GNU project
| and was created because KDE (Qt) wasn't FOSS enough.
| [deleted]
| kjs3 wrote:
| I've had an M4000 in my desktop and a P620 in a side-box,
| both running SuSE Tumbleweed for a year or so using the
| NVIDIA drivers. Once I got the initial setup done (follow
| the directions), I've had zero issues. Updates have been
| smooth, though there's an extra step now (hit ENTER to
| accept the NVIDIA license). GLMark2 score is a bit north of
| 7000.
| Miraste wrote:
| They don't "just work" with Wayland, i.e. the future of
| Linux desktop.
| jakear wrote:
| Is this just for gaming/etc or does the desktop
| environment also cause issues if you're just trying to
| use it as a highly parallel compute device?
| godelski wrote:
| The DEs are moving towards wayland.
| jakear wrote:
| That doesn't really answer my question.... rephrased: all
| I do with high-powered GPU's is Remote-SSH into hosted
| Linux machines and run ML jobs. Does this wayland thing
| have any impact there?
| godelski wrote:
| It should answer the question because the use case which
| you are stating (didn't before) is that you're using a
| headless environment. Which means you aren't using a DE.
|
| IF you are using a server with a DE then it answers the
| question about how yes it does affect you because you are
| using a DE.
|
| In either case, it isn't "just for gaming"
| benchaney wrote:
| They mostly work most of the time. When people say they
| want something that "just works", they are looking for more
| consistency than that.
|
| I don't doubt that they work for you, but not everyone is
| so lucky. I have encountered serious reliability issues
| with their drivers.
| hajimemash wrote:
| 90% good * 90% of the time = 81% good all the time [only
| :( ]
| gavinray wrote:
| The headache with Nvidia drivers and Linux is that
| depending on how new your model is and what distro you're
| using, you may or may not be able to load the GUI until
| you've manually upgraded kernel and disabled the Nouveau
| drivers (if enabled) then updated to latest nvidia-
| drivers-XXX package.
|
| I tried to get Ubuntu/Pop_OS! 20.04 running on a dual-GPU
| laptop that has an RTX-2060 and AMD Renoir integrated.
| Had to modify kernel boot params to disable nouveau
| modeset and then run script for mainline kernel upgrade +
| drivers to get it to run. Was not a fun Saturday =/
|
| But prior to this, yeah Nvidia non-open source drivers
| have mostly "just worked" for me on the older models.
| godelski wrote:
| Something interesting I've noticed is that there is a big
| difference in usability between desktops and laptops.
| Desktops I have far less issues. But laptops I have to
| get lucky to be able to use my HDMI port. And good luck
| doing that and having cuda support.
| gavinray wrote:
| Out of curiosity, what laptop models + distros have you
| tried to set up?
|
| On Acer Nitro 5 with Nvidia GTX-1060Ti and i5, stock
| Ubuntu 20.04 loaded no problems, and even DisplayLink
| driver for dual monitor, one through regular HDMI + other
| through USB -> HDMI adapter worked (though I couldn't get
| it to rotate display vertically).
|
| The bugs I did have were with it constantly re-disovering
| network printers that I had to disable, and changing the
| default wifi power-saving settings because something was
| funky with it.
|
| On Asus TUF A15 with Nvidia RTX-2060/AMD Renoir + AMD
| Ryzen 7 4800h absolutely no distro worked out-of-the-box
| and I needed mainline kernel + latest Nvidia drivers. But
| after fixing that myself Pop_OS picks up everything
| perfectly and no problems.
|
| Both of them have CUDA working IIRC (at least running
| "nvidia-smi" says it does).
| godelski wrote:
| I have an inspiron with a 1060Q and had similar problems
| on an HP envy (forgot the card in there). I've tried a
| bunch of distros (I've been on linux for about a decade
| and mainly run Arch though).
|
| I have heard great things about Pop and I am going to be
| building a new machine with these new cards and giving
| pop a try.
| gavinray wrote:
| Highly recommend Pop_OS!, it may as well be called
| "Ubuntu, except more driver patches and performance
| tweaks" haha.
| Shared404 wrote:
| And no Snap, although I suppose that could fall under
| performance tweaks.
| murgindrag wrote:
| NVidia has always been a headache for me. I run ATI on
| Linux. I use xmonad as a window manager, and NVidia's
| proprietary drivers just didn't handle multiple screens
| correctly. I switched to free drivers, and they did one
| fewer monitor than I was driving. I switched to ATI, and
| then things just worked.
|
| What's more surprising is that ATI doesn't take this
| opening.
| literallycancer wrote:
| AMD just works, as in the distro includes their drivers
| because they are open source.
|
| Nvidia works if you add their repo and install the blobs,
| maybe. If your distro is mainstream enough.
| fluffything wrote:
| > I really just wish Nvidia would get its shit together with
| Linux drivers. Ubuntu has done some great work making things
| easier and just work,
|
| This has been my experience. Ubuntu "just works". What would
| get better with what you propose? (speaking from ignorance)
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| Yeah, Wayland is one of the main issue here. Things are going
| really well generally speaking with the Wayland transition,
| but Nvidia is single-handedly delaying the wide-spread
| transition from X to Wayland across most distros, which is
| super unfortunate, because it's a very important part of a
| desktop Linux experience. Using Wayland day to day on my XPS
| 13 with regular Intel integrated graphics is great in terms
| of perf and battery life. There's a much larger conversation
| to be had about X vs Wayland, but broadly speaking Wayland is
| just better and not bogged down by design decisions made 20
| or 30 years ago.
|
| The other key benefit would be driver management. Updating
| your drivers right now can be a nightmare. If the drivers are
| open sourced and upstreamed into the kernel this becomes a
| non-issue. I do understand why Nvidia doesn't want to do that
| though. A lot of their lead right now is not just hardware
| based, but software based. They have a choke-hold on the ML
| ecosystem and it's a huge cash cow for them. Giving away that
| secret sauce in their drivers, so that AMD could make their
| cards seamlessly compatible would probably be a huge mistake
| from a business perspective for Nvidia.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Weyland still doesn't work with nv drivers, so you get to
| choose between a reasonable desktop display substrate and
| full graphics acceleration.
| fluffy87 wrote:
| KDE and Gnome Support Nvidia drivers on wayland.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| They support nouveau. Wayland doesn't support EGS, no
| matter what DE you stick in front, so nv drivers are out.
|
| (Nvidia cards have two drivers on Linux, nouveau, the
| open-source, slow, and incompatible-with-Quadro ones, and
| NV, the binary blob shipped by Nvidia that people take
| religious exception to.)
| jborean93 wrote:
| Gnome supports Wayland over EGS just not by default. I
| tried it out a few months ago and while it "works" it was
| somewhat buggy and I just went back to X.
| tracker1 wrote:
| Having gone through some hellish months on a 5700xt, AMD isn't
| any better than Nvidia on the Linux front, though since late
| January it was relatively stable (on beta linux kernel, which
| meant I couldn't use KVM/Virtualbox reasonably).
|
| Personally, looking at the RTX 3070, for 1440p, but I'm not
| doing anything other than some casual gaming.
| jacquesm wrote:
| > I really just wish Nvidia would get its shit together with
| Linux drivers
|
| That's something I've never had a problem with when it comes to
| NV. And I've been using their cards for years for combined
| compute/display purposes.
| sharken wrote:
| Am in the same situation, the 1080 is still holding up well,
| but the 3080 looks very tempting indeed.
|
| Looking forward to some benchmarks that evaluate the difference
| between PCIe 3.0 and 4.0. Getting a new motherboard with PCIe
| 4.0 along with a CPU will up the cost considerably, so
| hopefully that can be avoided.
|
| Also considering an upgrade to the Corsair RM1000x PSU which
| should be able to be totally silent even with the RTX 3080
| according to https://www.tweaktown.com/reviews/7376/corsair-
| rm1000x-1000w....
|
| UPDATE:
|
| According to this answer, using PCIe 3.0 should not make a huge
| difference:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/iko4u7/geforce_rtx_...
| errantspark wrote:
| I use an eGPU, so I have a 4x instead of a 16x PCIe 3.0 link
| with a 1080Ti and even that doesn't make much difference,
| some games blit/do more system <-> gpu transfers than others
| (APEX, I'm lookin at you) and there's a noticeable perf
| impact for the most part it's negligible. I wouldn't worry at
| all about PCIe 3.0 vs 4.0.
| jasomill wrote:
| Same. In gaming and graphics benchmarks on my 1070Ti over
| Thunderbolt 3 (Hades Canyon Intel NUC), I've seen no more
| than a 10%-20% drop in frame rate vs. what I'd expect from
| equivalent benchmark results reported online, so I'd expect
| no material difference between PCIe 3.0 x16 and PCIe 4.0
| x16 for typical gaming applications, and, from benchmark
| numbers I've seen, only a modest performance drop from PCIe
| 4.0 x16 to PCIe 3.0 _x8_.
|
| This assumes, of course, that the PCIe lanes in question
| actually exist+ and are dedicated to the card, and are not
| shared with another in-use device via a switch or similar
| chipset shenanigans.
|
| Case in point: the only time I ever had performance
| problems with my eGPU setup was when attempting to do 4K
| HDMI output through a Blackmagic Decklink card while
| simultaneously using the 1070Ti for compute over the same
| (shared) Thunderbolt bus in DaVinci Resolve.
|
| As far as I know, this would not typically be a problem
| with a single-GPU, non-Thunderbolt-connected desktop
| system, as desktop motherboards typically have at least one
| full-bandwidth x16 slot, which you'd almost always use for
| the GPU.
|
| + Physical x16 slots can have fewer than sixteen connected
| PCIe lanes. For example, while my HP Z820 has four "x16"
| slots, only three have full bandwidth; the fourth slot
| supports x16 cards, but only at the speed of an x8 slot,
| because only eight of the slot's sixteen PCIe lanes are
| actually connected.
| proverbialbunny wrote:
| The major difference is offloading some of the load from the
| CPU when using the pci-e bus.
|
| If you have a spare core not being used when playing a video
| game, it can be used which should make the difference between
| 3.0 and 4.0 somewhat indistinguishable.
| option wrote:
| 10496 CUDA cores plus 24GB should be pretty good for ML
| nomel wrote:
| edit: Wrong! Ignore/downvote!
|
| > 10496 CUDA cores
|
| Not quite. 5248 cores, each supporting double fp32.
| XCSme wrote:
| But they clearly state in the specs (for 3080): 8704 NVIDIA
| CUDA(r) Cores
|
| And 10496 for 3090.
| nomel wrote:
| Correct!
| ohnoesjmr wrote:
| https://www.reddit.com/r/hardware/comments/ikok1b/explain
| ing...
|
| Seems it is half the cores but double the fp
| instructions.
|
| The spec talks cuda cores which is their inventive unit
| of measure.
| wtallis wrote:
| > One thing I'm curious about is the RTX IO feature. The slide
| said it supports DirectStorage for Windows, but is there an
| equivalent to this for Linux? I'm hoping someone with a little
| more insight or an Nvidia employee may have some more
| information.
|
| I haven't been able to find any real technical details about
| what DirectStorage really is, but my expectations are that it
| will consist of:
|
| 1. An asynchronous IO API allowing for low-overhead submission
| of IO requests from the application to the kernel, including
| batch submissions and reaping of completion events.
|
| 2. Some provision for transparent compression offload, either
| to the GPU or to a CPU-based fallback
|
| 3. Optional support for peer-to-peer DMA transfers of data from
| SSD to the GPU's VRAM
|
| Linux is already the gold standard for (1) with the relatively
| recent io_uring API, and has support for (3) to some extent
| (P2P DMA has been a fairly obscure feature until recently).
|
| There are still some pretty big unanswered questions about
| DirectStorage. How well will it reduce the IO overhead that
| currently allows antivirus and other programs to hook into the
| IO stack? Will it be compatible with non-Microsoft NVMe
| drivers, including Intel's RST drivers that are commonly used
| for their software RAID? Microsoft doesn't seem to want to make
| that kind of information public this year.
| modeless wrote:
| There's a slightly more detailed blog post here:
| https://devblogs.microsoft.com/directx/directstorage-is-
| comi...
| wtallis wrote:
| Yeah, I already read that. If you pay attention, you'll
| notice it talks a lot about the problem they're trying to
| solve, and very little about how exactly they're going
| about solving it. Partly because it's apparently still in
| flux, which calls into question what's going on with the
| storage API for the Xbox, which really should have been
| nailed down by now.
| AaronFriel wrote:
| Linux is the gold standard for (1)?
|
| Windows NT 3.5 (1994) would beg to differ with its support
| for IO completion ports (IOCP). I think io_uring is more
| general and more flexible for the sort of M:N scheduling
| systems now commonly used in programming languages, but IOCP
| predates io_uring by 25 years!
|
| The rest of your comment sounds right to me, there are
| unanswered questions about how DirectStorage interacts with
| filesystem filter drivers.
| elipsey wrote:
| >> My day job is primarily ML as well, so I might just go for
| the 3090. 24 GB of memory is a game changer for what I can do
| locally. I really just wish Nvidia would get its shit together
| with Linux drivers.
|
| What is your ML dev environment like?
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| We have a small team of 7, so after a lot of bureaucratic
| navigation I got us custom built desktops for local
| experimentation with 2080 Ti's and for the rest we use your
| typical cloud providers. Personally, I'm partial to GCP,
| because of the TPU support and BigQuery, but AWS is fine too.
| me_me_me wrote:
| Don't buy it yet, usually oem versions are more optimised and
| better value overall.
|
| But i must say 3070 is really tempting for $500 for someone who
| is not looking to upgrade.
| i-am-curious wrote:
| Not at all. The 20 series has excellent founders cards.
| sammycdubs wrote:
| I could be wrong - but I believe Nvidia bins the chips for
| Founders Edition cards
| sincerely wrote:
| What does it mean to bin a chip?
| xxpor wrote:
| Basically, after the chips are manufactured, they're not
| 100% uniform. Some have better performance, some have
| worse.
|
| In this case, it means they're reserving the best chips
| for the founders cards. In other cases, there have been
| instances where a company has two products, a high end
| and a low end (or medium, etc). In some of those cases,
| people have investigated and the chips are actually
| exactly the same, but the lower end product will have a
| core disabled or similar, depending on the exact product.
| That'll happen a lot of the time when the company has
| yield issues where too many of the chips don't have
| acceptable performance or one part of the chip is just
| broken. They'll disable the broken portion and boom, the
| lower end product is born. That's still a net win for
| them because the alternate is either to throw the entire
| thing away or spend more time improving the yield.
| dastbe wrote:
| chip manufacturing is an imperfect process, and so there
| is variance in performance/viability of all of the
| hardware on a chip. the higher performing chips are
| "binned" for the top end of the price point, while the
| lower performing chips are either binned for lower
| performance or have some of their functionality disabled.
| For contrived example, A company may produce nothing but
| quad core chips but sell those with some cores that don't
| meet minimum performance as dual cores with the bad cores
| physically disabled.
| henriquez wrote:
| they cherry-pick their best silicon so you can run them
| at higher speeds if you're overclocking or lower voltage
| if you want cooler temperatures and less power
| consumption at stock speeds.
| Covzire wrote:
| I know for the 20 series Nvidia supplies AIB's like EVGA
| with binned chips too, higher end cards had GPU's with
| slightly different model numbers that typically clocked
| better. They probably do the same for all the different
| card makers.
| BoorishBears wrote:
| There's always a ton of speculation about it, I've seen
| the claim NVIDIA bins for FE cards and factory
| overclocked AIB cards together
|
| At the end of the day it doesn't really matter, you're
| paying a FE premium for early access mostly.
|
| On the plus side, this time the FE card might have a top
| tier cooling solution, which is why I'll probably be
| caving to their FE tax (and probably plenty of others,
| focusing on cooling was a smart move)
| zachrip wrote:
| I'm confused, wouldn't FE be considered OEM?
| smileybarry wrote:
| The terminology is a bit confusing: OEM in this context is
| referring to aftermarket (NVIDIA partners) cards. It's
| referred to as "OEM" because the aftermarket cards come
| from OEMs like Asus, EVGA, etc.
| numpad0 wrote:
| I don't believe it, old reference fans were optimized for
| static pressure on server chassis and gaming cards optimize
| for low speed high volume airflow, I think.
| redisman wrote:
| That flow-through cooling looks like it would be really good
| though. I might go for the FE cards this time around.
| abvdasker wrote:
| I have a Micro-ATX case for my PC and am a little skeptical
| that flow-through would well for that form factor because
| the intakes are on the bottom of the card.
| trollied wrote:
| It's going to be very interesting to see what AMD counter with. I
| don't think anyone was expecting pricing this aggressive.
|
| Competition is great!
| DivisionSol wrote:
| I wonder what the price would've been without AMD dipping their
| toes into the GPU market again.
|
| I very much assume Nvidia slices price, to not only compete but
| also crush the AMD GPU market. Nvidia's innovation is crazy
| huge, but they probably don't want to be in the same situation
| as Intel where people regard the big dog as slow, profit-
| extracting. Nvidia will do it's best to eat as much market
| share with better products over AMD('s GPU.)
| judge2020 wrote:
| It's targeted for a November 2020 unveil[0] so we'll have to
| wait to see what they're coming out with, but I doubt it'll
| stack up to the 30xx series on both price and performance (at
| least, based on these marketing slides).
|
| 0: https://www.techradar.com/news/amd-big-navi-isnt-coming-
| unti...
| BearOso wrote:
| It has to be out before the new consoles, which are
| reportedly coming the first two weeks of November. I think
| the consoles are being kept secretive on AMD's request as
| well.
| arvinsim wrote:
| I already expected AMD to only compete in the low and mid level
| range.
|
| But NVIDIA pegged the 3070(which is faster than the 2080 TI) at
| $499.
|
| That's pretty hard to beat!
| fluffything wrote:
| The 2080 TI are going to overflow the used market, at
| 100-200$ at best, so... if AMD can't top that significantly,
| a used 2080 TI might be much better value than anything AMD
| can offer.
| kcb wrote:
| > The 2080 TI are going to overflow the used market, at
| 100-200$ at best
|
| Not even close. 1080 ti's are still going for twice that
| and it was $300 cheaper at launch.
| selectodude wrote:
| 1080ti has a pretty significant bump in GPU memory which
| has helped keep the price up.
| fluffything wrote:
| Sure, but who buys a 1080 Ti or 2080 TI today for 400$
| when a RTX 3070 costs 499$ ?
|
| Like, really, if you know somebody, let me know. I have a
| 1080 that I want to sell.
| bradlys wrote:
| That's overly aggressive. If a 3070 is really the same
| performance as a 2080 TI then the 2080 TI will likely go
| used for $400.
|
| People don't see graphics cards like they're brake pads.
| They don't wear down the same way. $150 (no tax) is still
| $150 less for what is essentially the same thing.
| fluffything wrote:
| The 3070 appears to have better perf than the 2080 TI at
| many things though.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| GPUs are still overpriced because of Nvidia's monopoly on high-
| end cards. The fact that we're so normalized to this after the
| 2xxx series is kind of sad. It's like praising Apple for a
| phone that's "only" $999.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| Without competition from AMD, Intel had normalized quad core
| chips for $800 on the high end for over 10 years.
| gruez wrote:
| >Intel had normalized quad core chips for $800 on the high
| end for over 10 years.
|
| What are you talking about? The i7-3770K (top of the line
| 4-core chip in 2012) sold for ~$330.
| nolok wrote:
| I assume you meant desktop only, because the top of line
| 4 core chip of 2012 was the Xeon E3 1290v2 which sold for
| almost $900
| Macha wrote:
| The rumour mill has the top end big navi at 2080 ti levels of
| perf. If those rumours and nvidia's claims here are accurate,
| they're out of the high end segment. again.
|
| Here's hoping that they'll outdo the rumours.
| redisman wrote:
| That would be bad for them. 3070 already seems to do that at
| a cheap price so they would have to have some very cheap
| cards.
| baybal2 wrote:
| It looks really huge.
| mmanfrin wrote:
| The 3080 is '2x faster than the RTX 2080', which was roughly on
| par with a 1080TI (it had advantages, of course, RTX among them).
|
| 3 Generations newer with only a 2x speedup feels like a much
| smaller leap than the prior generations.
| ebg13 wrote:
| I missed a step here. How is the 3080 3 generations newer than
| either the 2080 or the 1080Ti?
| mmanfrin wrote:
| 1080ti -> 20xx -> 20xx ti -> 30xx
|
| There were also the 16xx cards.
|
| I'm being downvoted for this.
|
| 10xx
|
| 16xx
|
| 20xx
|
| 30xx
|
| That's 3 gens difference.
| ebg13 wrote:
| Ah. It seems unreasonable to me to consider the 2080 and
| 2080Ti as different generations when they were released at
| the same time. Also I think we should factor that the 3080
| at $700 costs _half_ what I paid for a 2080Ti in December
| (The ASUS RoG Strix, a premium 3-fan model, was going for
| like $1400 before it was discontinued). By NVidia prices,
| the 3090 is the true price successor to the 2080Ti.
| mmanfrin wrote:
| You're right, I shouldn't likely be distinguishing the Ti
| series (although it is usually a 'toc' generation, like
| the just announced gen, as Ti variants were not
| announced).
|
| But that does leave the 16xx generation which was
| released wholly on its own, in its own year.
| berryjerry wrote:
| I thought only the RTX was twice as fast, which no one really
| uses still.
| mmanfrin wrote:
| If that's the case, then this is an even smaller leap.
| npmaile wrote:
| As much as I like to hate Nvidia for all of the right reasons,
| this is pretty big and might make me compromise my morals until
| AMD comes out with something that can compete.
| tkuraku wrote:
| When would the Quadro cards based on Ampere likely be released.
| Any ideas?
| modeless wrote:
| I love a small feature he mentioned in the video: Monitors with
| built-in latency measurement. You plug your mouse into the USB
| ports on the monitor and it tells you how long it takes the image
| to change after you move the mouse. Brilliant idea.
|
| It's long overdue to have widely available metrics for latency in
| consumer tech. Many hardware/software setups have absurdly long
| latency for no good reason other than that it's difficult to
| measure. People underestimate the subconscious effects it has on
| your usage of technology.
|
| I couldn't be happier that phone and monitor manufacturers are
| finally starting to compete on refresh rates >60 Hz. It's far
| more important than wide gamut or 8K.
| dan-robertson wrote:
| This does encourage optimising the OS or application part (eg
| double buffering and taking another frame is slow), but it
| doesn't measure two significant sources of latency:
|
| The latency in the hardware before the signal makes it to the
| usb (for most keyboards, even specialised gaming keyboards this
| is like 30ms, which is 2 frames).
|
| There is also the latency from when the monitor gets a signal
| to when the pixels have perceptually finished transitioning.
| This can be 10s of ms too.
|
| So even if the OS has 0 latency, and the monitor measures that,
| you could still easily observe a latency of say 60ms.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > for most keyboards, even specialised gaming keyboards this
| is like 30ms, which is 2 frames
|
| Worth noting that unlike some of the other sources being
| discussed, this source of latency is more due to physical
| constraints than bad engineering or bloated software.
| Keyboards are limited by the physical travel time & de-bounce
| of the mechanical switches themselves.
|
| So this is more a tradeoff of using mechanical keyboards at
| all rather than "gah bloated electron" or whatever.
|
| The other common peripheral, mice, don't have this mechanical
| constraint. They can even achieve sub-10ms for clicks due to
| the difference in switch expectations (
| https://www.rtings.com/mouse/tests/control/latency )
|
| EDIT: Also 30+ms seems to be quite far off. Cherry MX's specs
| are around 5ms, and I'm getting 8ms playing around with this
| tool: http://blog.seethis.link/scan-rate-estimator/
| modeless wrote:
| I understand keys take time to travel, but you can press
| them faster if you want. On the other hand I've never
| understood debounce as a justification for button latency.
| Surely a properly designed debounce circuit would add zero
| latency.
| kllrnohj wrote:
| > but you can press them faster if you want
|
| I mean, yes but not really? There's very real speed
| limits to the human finger, after all.
|
| But the times given above are also quite far off - the
| actual keyboard numbers seem to be more in the 5-15ms
| range, not 30+ms. At least, my mechanical gaming keyboard
| is hitting 8ms on this test:
| http://blog.seethis.link/scan-rate-estimator/
| modeless wrote:
| True! I just watched this video [1] they put out with more
| details, and it sounds like they are working with monitor
| _and_ mouse manufacturers to build _true_ end-to-end latency
| measurement when using supported hardware. It would be easy
| for manufacturers to game these numbers, but hopefully Nvidia
| will provide some enforcement to prevent that. Maybe they
| could also add a microphone to measure audio latency because
| that is another huge problem with modern systems.
|
| The video mentions that they get 15 ms end-to-end latency on
| a 360 Hz monitor in Fortnite. So that's what it takes for a
| modern system to finally beat the latency that you used to
| get on, say, an NES connected to a CRT. Still an order of
| magnitude above the limits of perception though [2].
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-cXg7GQogAE
|
| [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOvQCPLkPt4
| jayd16 wrote:
| Its not really full end to end latency though. I think, at best
| it can measure when the the monitor thinks it received the
| signal from the mouse and when it perceives the new image.
| Latency in the monitor itself can't be measured, can it?
| nightski wrote:
| Is there any reason to believe latency within the monitor
| itself wouldn't be relatively constant? Or would you expect
| large variances in monitor latency? If it was a pretty narrow
| distribution they could simply add on that constant factor.
| I'm not sure if they do this though.
| seiferteric wrote:
| I wish monitors in general had better (and open) firmware. It
| would be really cool if for example I could have my laptop
| plugged into my desktop's monitor and have it show up as a
| "window" on my desktop. All it would take would be for some
| simple driver on my desktop to tell the monitor where to draw
| the image when I moved the window around. Basically a better
| version of the mostly useless PiP feature my monitor already
| has.
| slimsag wrote:
| As with many things, this comes back to DRM. HDCP in
| specific.
| freeone3000 wrote:
| Monitors are generally connected through DisplayPort or
| Thunderbolt, not HDMI, so there's no reason for HDCP to
| enter here. The card in question does have a HDCP output,
| but advanced features are only available through
| DisplayPort.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| It might surprise you that most monitors out there,
| especially the cheap garbage ones from Amazon/Walmart
| that most consumers have in their homes, are connected
| via HDMI.
| tgb wrote:
| As someone running their monitor over HDMI, this is news
| to me. If it gives the resolution and framerate of the
| monitor, what's the difference if it's HDMI or
| DisplayPort?
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| For you as an end consumer nothing if bandwidth is enough
| with either cabke, but techies like us will be sticklers
| that one is more open than the other, not bound by
| royalties and such.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Displayport usually has something like 50 % higher
| bandwidth compared to the HDMI standard of the same
| vintage. Which makes sense, since home video folks are
| fine with like 15 pictures per second and 4:0:0 chroma
| subsampling, but that doesn't really work for
| computers...
| jasomill wrote:
| That, and some video cards support higher resolutions
| over DisplayPort. For example, while my 2013 Mac Pro has
| both HDMI and Thuderbolt/Mini DisplayPort outputs, the
| only way to get 2160p60 HDMI output (without chroma
| subsampling) is via a DisplayPort-to-HDMI 2.x adapter
| (and I had to try about half a dozen different adapters
| before I found one that does this correctly).
| nailer wrote:
| > Monitors are generally connected through DisplayPort or
| Thunderbolt, not HDMI, so there's no reason for HDCP to
| enter here.
|
| HDCP runs over DP and Thunderbolt. But derefr's
| discussion above is accurate.
| derefr wrote:
| In this particular case, no, as the image wouldn't be being
| sent into the PC to render in its framebuffer; but rather
| the PC would just be drawing an empty window, and reporting
| the geometry of that window to the monitor. The monitor,
| with two HDMI leads plugged in, would be responsible for
| compositing the inputs together, according to the geometry
| the PC reported, but all internal to itself.
| shawnz wrote:
| I think they mean DRM is the reason we can't have open
| firmware. Not that DRM is the reason we can't have
| sophisticated PiP features.
| smileybarry wrote:
| That's how hardware-accelerated video decoding used to
| work in Windows XP days IIRC (before GPU-based desktop
| composition), the video player would be a blank black
| square and the GPU would be told to draw the video on
| those coordinates.
|
| Because of how it was implemented, you could drag VLC
| around while the video was playing and the video would
| stay "behind" everything, with the VLC window acting as a
| "hole" through which you could see it. (So you could move
| the window to the left and see half a black square on the
| left, and the left-most half of the video on the right)
|
| Nowadays with desktop composition AKA DWM, Windows just
| makes sure to black out DRM content from any frames/video
| it sends to an app requesting to capture the screen,
| making sure to send the video-including composed desktop
| only to the display. (And if you have some GPU recording
| software like NVIDIA ShadowPlay, it switches off when DRM
| content starts playing) You can see it in action with the
| Netflix UWP app. Of course, a bunch of DRM-respecting
| software -- like Netflix in Google Chrome -- doesn't
| really follow that spec and can still be screenshot/video
| captured like any app.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| This isn't a firmware issue, because enabling this would
| require adding the hardware to the scaler ASIC to
| actually process multiple video streams, and to increase
| the buffer size and bandwidth n-fold so that it can
| synchronize and composite the unsynced video sources
| (also introducing 1+ frames of latency).
| nradov wrote:
| Just use remote control software to connect from one computer
| to the other and display it as a window.
| seiferteric wrote:
| I do, but now you have latency.
| aaronblohowiak wrote:
| HDMI encoder will be better than remote software, in my
| experience (depending on the hdmi encoder)
| amelius wrote:
| > Monitors with built-in latency measurement.
|
| They should start measuring the time it takes for monitors to
| recognize the signal when you press the "Source" button.
|
| Even on recent monitors, it's often 5 seconds or more.
| modeless wrote:
| Yes! I would love for more review sites to benchmark this, as
| well as time to wake from sleep. I have a gsync monitor that
| has only one input port and it wakes from sleep in like 0.2
| seconds. After the experience of using it for a while, if I
| now had to choose between gsync and fast wake from sleep I
| would choose fast wake from sleep every time.
| nomel wrote:
| > You plug your mouse into the USB ports on the monitor and it
| tells you how long it takes the image to change after you move
| the mouse. Brilliant idea.
|
| Related, "Your mouse is a terrible webcam", 2014:
| https://hackaday.com/2014/01/14/your-mouse-is-a-terrible-web...
| nickjj wrote:
| Fortunately a number of monitor review sites include input
| latency that's properly measured. For example
| https://www.tftcentral.co.uk/.
|
| They have a lot of popular models and super in depth reviews.
| tgtweak wrote:
| Rtings pretty solid too
| ksec wrote:
| And I am surprised [1] Link hasn't pop up yet.
|
| Yes. The industry has been optimising for throughput in the
| past decades. It is time to bring latency back to the table. I
| want super low latency Computing. Street Fighter or The King of
| Fighters in CRT Arcade Era just felt so much more responsive.
|
| https://danluu.com/input-lag/
| CarVac wrote:
| Using Project Slippi, you can play Super Smash Bros Melee at
| the same latency as on a CRT... over the internet!
|
| (Melee on a CRT has 3 frames of input lag)
| TaylorAlexander wrote:
| Good thoughts all around.
|
| I will say that I am excited about 8k video for computational
| photography. I am studying computer vision for robotics and it
| is quite clear to me that a simple spherical lens with a very
| high resolution sensor would be a very good imaging system for
| a real world robot.
|
| I recently got a Panasonic GH5 and it shoots 18 megapixel "6k"
| 30fps video, encoded in h265 (important for higher res). I am
| experimenting with photogrammetry using this photo mode. The
| initial results are very promising. In four minutes I took a
| scan of a short street block in Oakland, and after processing
| the photogrammetry solution I have a very good dense 3D full
| color map of the street. The model has holes but I am slowly
| learning how to plan a photogrammetry capture. Currently
| computation takes hours but I am seeing more and more research
| on ways that machine learning can improve compute times and
| data density.
|
| See how low the visual acuity is on 5.6k spherical video here:
| https://youtu.be/nASvIYq3VkE
|
| However all this is to say that very high resolution sensors
| are a very good thing for robotics.
| namibj wrote:
| Hi there!
|
| So, all free/open multi-view stereo and structure-from-motion
| software I know of is incapable of handling rolling shutter
| artifacts.
|
| The problem seems to be that electronic global shutter
| sensors lack (some) dynamic range compared to otherwise-equal
| rolling shutter cameras.
|
| If you'd be interested in talking more about this, contact
| me/let me know (I'll get in touch if requested).
|
| My photogrammetry experiments typically encompass low-effort
| bulk data collection, though the search for a light-weight
| camera to use with a prosumer-class drone and some
| revelations about reconstruction quality issues inherent to
| older, easily-optimized algorithms for both multi-view stereo
| and mesh reconstruction stalled progress somewhat.
|
| In general, machine learning doesn't seem to be as much of a
| benefit as one might guess, when compared to applying the
| resources in non-ML ways to the data.
|
| Mind teasing some numbers from your street capture?
| strogonoff wrote:
| Could it be faster to skip in-camera encoding and build a 3D
| scene based on raw scene-referred data?
| namibj wrote:
| It's not efficient to do all of this live. Skipping the
| H.265 parts would likely be beneficial, though.
| modeless wrote:
| I think the far future of computer vision will be "event
| cameras" feeding directly into ML systems:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Event_camera
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's because our operating systems treat user input as a soft
| real time problem when actually it should be a hard real time
| problem. That's why your window manager sometimes can be
| unresponsive. I've used a hard real time OS for a desktop for
| some years and the difference with consumer stuff was extreme.
| You get used to the computer _instantly_ doing what you tell it
| to do. None of these half second or longer delays between
| command and result. It 's like magic.
| grishka wrote:
| And in addition to that, there's the problem of some apps
| doing too much work on the UI thread.
| phkahler wrote:
| That should affect the app, but I have seen it cripple
| gnome desktop too. That should not happen with Wayland.
| rudolph9 wrote:
| What OS do you use?
|
| And does the mouse being a ps/2 input vs USB make a
| difference?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Right now I use Linux, unfortunately a series of corporate
| games left QnX without a window manager and mostly useful
| for embedded work. But if someone were to do a 64 bit port
| of it it would be an awesome workstation OS even today. And
| that's just the UI, under the hood it was very impressive
| as well. Extremely elegant and well thought out.
| ahartmetz wrote:
| Blackberry BB10 was based on QNX. The UI "feel" was
| fantastic.
| pqb wrote:
| Yes, it was fantastic - minimal, elegant, simple, fast,
| had low learning curve and everything had a description -
| even icons in action bar[0]. As their competitors, namely
| iOS7+ and Android 5+ totally replaced gradients into flat
| design I was very welcoming the balanced UI redesign on
| my Z10[1]. However, autocompletion on their touch
| keyboard was probably the best [2], you had 3-5
| suggestion that were spread around on the keyboard and to
| use them I had to place a finger below and flick it up.
| On BB Passport it was even more pleasant with physical
| keyboard - it had small gesture sensor and reacted on
| swipes in the air above the keyboard.
|
| On the developer side, documentation was also amazing.
| There are tens of full, working example applications.
| BB10 used QT behind the scenes (Cascades UI). It had also
| a Python (2.x) binary on the device among other typical
| UNIX programs.
|
| [0]: https://developer.blackberry.com/devzone/files/desig
| n/bb10/i...
|
| [1]: https://developer.blackberry.com/devzone/design/bb10
| /10_3_vi...
|
| [2]: https://developer.blackberry.com/devzone/design/bb10
| /keyboar...
| ahartmetz wrote:
| I've been involved with Qt for a long time and got a Z10
| as a conference freebie, but the great developer
| documentation is actually news to me! I prefer to just
| use phones, I develop for PC hardware for fun and
| embedded platforms for money these days. At the time,
| some of my coworkers helped with porting Qt to QNX. I
| worked on a different Qt project on QNX and I was also
| duly impressed by the technical quality and elegance of
| the OS.
|
| The BB10 UI was built on something like QML (the language
| and runtime) from Qt 4 with their own UI elements and an
| OpenGL based backend from the acquired company The
| Astonishing Tribe. They had animations e.g. for slider
| switches running in the render thread, perfect 60 fps. Qt
| Quick (the UI framework based on QML, colloquially called
| "QML") only got an OpenGL backend in Qt 5.
|
| Another very good Qt-based phone OS (after the Nokia N9,
| got one of these at a conference as well) that failed :(
|
| By the way, the Ford Sync 3 IVI ("in-vehicle infotainment
| system") is also based on QNX and Qt and it received
| fairly good reviews. I think I made some tiny
| contribution to it, if only helping a coworker with
| something.
| rudolph9 wrote:
| Are there any open source real-time operating systems?
| jacquesm wrote:
| None with a GUI. I never released mine, and it's so far
| behind the times now it would take major work to get it
| ported to the 64 bit era and even then it would still be
| a C based OS.
|
| This would be one way in which the Rust crowd could
| _really_ make a difference.
| Shorel wrote:
| > And does the mouse being a ps/2 input vs USB make a
| difference?
|
| The difference used to be very noticeable. Nowadays my PC
| doesn't have a PS/2 port.
| rudolph9 wrote:
| Is the difference due to changes in the operating system
| or is it due to differences in hardware usb vs ps/2
| inputs?
| mariusmg wrote:
| Mainly due to hardware :
|
| - USB works by polling for changes at fixed intervals
|
| - ps/2 works with interrupts, so the OS will know
| immediately when hw does something.
| rudolph9 wrote:
| Does a serial port poll or interrupt?
|
| If it's possible to interrupt on a serial port, are there
| existing examples of how to configure a mouse or keyboard
| to interrupt over a serial port?
| jacquesm wrote:
| Depends on how you configure the chip. You don't actually
| need a chip, you can bit-bang serial just fine if you
| have accurate enough timing.
|
| Typically a serial port would contain a small buffer
| which would fill up, upon completion of the first byte an
| interrupt would be generated and you'd respond to that
| and read out the register freeing up room for more bytes
| to be received. Transmit the same but reversed, as soon
| as a byte had left the shifter in the chip it would
| generate an interrupt so you could re-use that space for
| more bytes to send.
|
| This works quite well. Hardware flow control can help in
| case the OS doesn't respond fast enough to the
| interrupts, so you don't lose characters.
| simcop2387 wrote:
| It can do both, but I believe you need hardware flow
| control working to get proper interrupt behavior for
| that. I don't think any mice actually did it that way
| back in the day.
| jacquesm wrote:
| All serial chips that I'm familiar with since the 8 bit
| days would do interrupts, the only time that I worked
| without is when we were just using GPIO pins to emulate
| serial ports.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| What about USB mice with 250-1000Hz polling rate. I can't
| imagine it's still a problem.
| carbocation wrote:
| I feel like your comment gives voice to what I wanted to say
| in the thread about why doctors hate their computers:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24336039
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| Most operating systems and software throw tons of junk into
| the critical path. I don't believe they're anywhere near soft
| real time, and I bet soft real time would work pretty well.
| You can miss a couple deadlines by a couple million cycles
| each and still have instant response.
|
| (And a real-time scheduler isn't enough by itself, the many
| layers of architecture around handling input events can still
| be bad even if you're meeting every deadline there.)
| acdha wrote:
| This is one of the things I still miss about BeOS. On late
| 90s hardware, the OS wasn't quite hard real-time like QNX but
| the worst-latency latency was much better than Windows 10 or
| MacOS on the latest hardware, even in the presence of heavy
| resource contention -- I remember simultaneously surfing the
| web, downloading video from a camcorder with a Firewire
| interface which did not buffer, and compiling Mozilla. The UI
| latency didn't change at all, and the DV transfer didn't drop
| a packet -- everything else got throttled back as necessary,
| of course, but that meant that, say, GCC took longer to run
| rather than impacting what I was doing in the foreground.
| outworlder wrote:
| > I remember simultaneously surfing the web, downloading
| video from a camcorder with a Firewire interface which did
| not buffer, and compiling Mozilla
|
| Did you forget to run the OpenGL teapot?
|
| BeOS was magical. I wish I could use Haiku in my desktop
| today.
| winter_blue wrote:
| > I've used a hard real time OS for a desktop
|
| Which one?
| anderspitman wrote:
| https://64.ms/
| copperx wrote:
| I've long been of the same opinion. There's nothing that
| would make me happier as a computer user. Delays in feedback
| are unacceptable.
| willtim wrote:
| I feel like even "soft real time" is too generous for
| Android.
| grishka wrote:
| Yeah just try using your phone while Google's updating some
| crap in the background _again_... Doesn 't depend on the
| newness of the phone either -- this happened on every
| Android phone I've owned since 2011.
| smichel17 wrote:
| What, you don't enjoy the back-button+muscle-memory
| keyboard/navigation tango?
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Not limited to Android. On iOS for example Safari loading
| some ads or whatever causes so much input lag that the
| keyboard can't keep up and mangles the input completely.
| And on some websites that one just shouldn't visit without
| rigorous blockers ( _ehrm_ reddit) the device becomes so
| sluggish to respond that taps on the close button are not
| registered consistently any more.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| One of the funniest instances of software intentionally
| kneecapping itself are compositors. As far as I know
| compositors universally treat all monitors together as a
| single surface and just assume that they're synchronized. On
| Windows, this causes all sorts of hilarious stuttering and
| hitching. On Linux, compositors just vsync on the slowest
| display.
| simcop2387 wrote:
| From what I understand, on linux wayland makes it possible
| to do this properly but I'm not sure that any environment
| on top of it is doing it. I think it's in a "nice to have"
| holding pattern for them because there's still so much to
| do to getting a stable and usable desktop environment there
| to begin with.
| juergbi wrote:
| Should be fixed in the upcoming GNOME 3.38: https://gitla
| b.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/1285
| phkahler wrote:
| I wrote a gtk program in Rust that did all its work in
| the wrong place. It locked up the ability to move ANY
| windows on the desktop for several seconds. That's a
| compositor design issue if ever there was one. Is that
| going to get fixed?
| kevincox wrote:
| This is changing, I believe that the next release of mutter
| (GNOME) will remove the global clock on Wayland so it can
| drive each monitor at it's native frequency[1].
|
| IIUC input is still driven at 60Hz but changing this is in
| discussion [2].
|
| [1]
| https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/1285
| [2]
| https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/mutter/-/merge_requests/168
| burlesona wrote:
| Which OS? What is your setup?
| deaddodo wrote:
| Probably QNX or VxWorks.
| jacquesm wrote:
| QnX is correct.
| tokamak-teapot wrote:
| Is it feasible for mortals to get hold of and run QnX as
| a desktop OS?
| pas wrote:
| Apparently not really:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24346411
| jacquesm wrote:
| You might find an old archived copy of it but nothing
| that would be very useful if you intend to run a modern
| browser and other tools like that. For curiosity's sake
| you could.
|
| There used to be a one-floppy installer with the desktop
| on it, I'm sure you could get that to work in a VM.
|
| Lots of screenshots:
|
| https://www.operating-
| system.org/betriebssystem/_english/bs-...
|
| Docs:
|
| https://www.mikecramer.com/qnx/qnx_6.1_docs/sysadmin/intr
| o.h...
|
| Unfortunately I can't seem to locate any disk images,
| rumor has it there was a VMWare image floating around.
| neilpanchal wrote:
| Also RTLinux kernel:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RTLinux
| monocasa wrote:
| RTLinux is soft real time, FWIW.
| rudolph9 wrote:
| Can you elaborate? The wiki says it combines hard-
| realtime with soft-realtime. It sounds like it depends
| how you configure it but this is the first I've read of
| it so I could be mistaken.
| kijiki wrote:
| They're just mistaken, RTLinux is hard realtime. It works
| by running a tiny real time OS on the bare metal, and
| then running a Linux kernel as a (lightly)
| paravirtualized lowest priority task. You write your hard
| realtime code to run on the RTOS, and then your soft/non
| realtime code runs on Linux.
|
| In this model, your compositor, input pipeline and (at
| least the UI latency sensitive part of) your applications
| would have to be ported to the RTOS, which makes this
| pretty infeasible. But it works really well if you have a
| some hard-realtime control loop talking to a bunch of
| non-realtime network IO or UI code. Would be a fun way to
| build a wifi controlled quadcopter.
|
| These days you probably want to use Xenomai, or possibly
| RTAI.
| monocasa wrote:
| Yes, I was mistaken. I was thinking of the preempt_rt
| patches.
|
| Thanks for the great writeup correcting me!
| als0 wrote:
| RTLinux is a special supervisor below the kernel that
| allows you to run "hard-realtime" programs outside of the
| Linux environment with a lot of restrictions. Everything
| within the Linux environment is soft. As far as I can
| tell, it's not feasible to run the GUI stack in the more
| primitive environment.
| pixelface wrote:
| this sounds like a really cool way to operate and it would be
| really interesting if you could expand on your experiences.
| jacquesm wrote:
| I worked on a project that used QnX for large volume
| message transmission via custom telex interfaces. Millions
| of messages on a good Monday morning. Because I like my
| development machine to run the same OS as the servers I
| ended up using it for my daily driver for quite a few
| years. In the end I liked it so much that when Quantum
| Software dawdled on their 32 bit implementation that I
| wrote my own version of the OS.
|
| One really neat demo was 250 windows running the size of
| poststamps with a little bouncing line demo inside them.
| All still received their 'fair share' of time, all could
| still be moved around and expanded as though the machine
| was otherwise idle.
| kjs3 wrote:
| Would you have that OS you wrote up on github or
| anything, would you? Big fan of QNX; like to look at OS
| code.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ok. see https://jacquesmattheij.com/task.cc
|
| That's the scheduler. There are a lot of moving parts to
| running this code, I may make a little project out of
| restoring it to life under a VM at some point.
|
| Happy reading.
|
| Edit: reading it myself, wow, my English was cringe
| worthy back then. Moving to Canada certainly fixed that.
| mjcohen wrote:
| About as good as the Amiga.
| YarickR2 wrote:
| And what about IO ? What will you do when everything is
| stuck waiting for that spinning rust to position itself
| under the drive head ?
| jacquesm wrote:
| That's just another user process. So everything else will
| continue. You have to let go of your macro kernel mindset
| if you want to make sense of the timing in a micro kernel
| environment. Blocking threads is fine. Just make sure
| that you don't do that sort of stuff in your UI thread
| and you won't even realize there _is_ such a thing as
| disk or network IO.
|
| Mouse, keyboard, screen. Those are the things that should
| run at high priority. Everything else can - quite
| literally - wait.
| leguminous wrote:
| > Mouse, keyboard, screen. Those are the things that
| should run at high priority. Everything else can - quite
| literally - wait.
|
| I might add audio to this list.
| jacquesm wrote:
| Ah yes, of course. Sorry, I wasn't thinking clearly, just
| had the usual UI loop and regular interaction with a
| computer in mind, you are 100% right, audio should have a
| very high priority. Nothing more annoying than dropouts.
| Incidentally, the way most OSs deal with that is by
| having very large audio buffers which in turn will give
| you terrible latency. On a hard real time OS you could
| reduce the size of those buffers quite a bit because you
| can guarantee they are filled (and emptied) regularly.
| pier25 wrote:
| You mean software vs hardware? Can you elaborate?
| neilpanchal wrote:
| It has to do with the architecture of operating system.
| Real-time operating systems prioritize and preempt tasks
| based on their priority value - no matter how inefficient
| it may be; whereas operating systems such as Windows and
| Linux try to optimize throughput and speed over event based
| priorities.
|
| More to read here:
| https://stackoverflow.com/questions/5452371/why-isnt-
| every-o...
| jacquesm wrote:
| Low latency > high throughput in a real time context.
| joshvm wrote:
| I assume it means the user input handler is given a
| deterministic time slot to do stuff. Regardless of what the
| operating system is doing, it will always schedule mouse
| movement (or something along those lines). It's a software
| implementation (scheduling), but it requires hardware that
| can support it - usually you need fine-grain control over
| interrupts. So typically nowadays you see RTOSes on
| microcontrollers (eg ARM). Maybe more precisely you need
| access to that fine grain control and that often means
| getting hold of datasheets that are under strict NDA (eg
| Broadcom).
|
| RTOSes are often found in autopilot and vehicle management
| systems controlling critical peripherals or safety critical
| software. More mundanely there are also sensors that will
| get upset if you don't give them undivided attention for
| fixed periods of time (or if you interrupt them, they will
| terminate the transfer). Image sensors are particularly
| picky about this.
| qppo wrote:
| You can implement hard real-time scheduling using polling
| instead of interrupts, which is usually faster anyway. It
| just changes how you measure your tolerance, since
| nothing is instantaneous, ever.
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| This! Automotive hard real time is polling based.
| qppo wrote:
| I think most things are trending that direction, even in
| soft/non real-time. How fast can an interrupt respond
| these days anyway, a dozen microseconds?
| ianhowson wrote:
| Nanoseconds if you can respond inside the interrupt
| handler ('top half' in Linux.) Microseconds to
| milliseconds with significant variability if you need to
| be scheduled ('bottom half'.)
| jacquesm wrote:
| And that only if your codepath is deterministic. Linux
| can do pretty funny stuff at times.
|
| I've run a plasma cutter under Linux on a run-of-the-mill
| VIA SBC, it was actually pretty easy: just make a program
| setuid root, use that to disable interrupts after you've
| read all your data in and then just go wild on polled and
| precision timed IO until you're done. Re-enable
| interrupts and return as if nothing ever happened.
| joshvm wrote:
| Yep, more that actually being able to turn interrupts off
| is a barrier to doing real time work on desktop OS's, for
| example. Even if you can disable them globally (I think
| on the Pi you can with some low level C), but stuff goes
| wonky quickly e.g. if the WiFi soc doesn't get serviced.
|
| It's a good lesson to play with polling versus interrupts
| on a micro. Susprising just how many cycles it takes to
| jump into the ISR.
| ponker wrote:
| > It's far more important than wide gamut or 8K.
|
| This is just a matter of opinion. Wide gamut is more important
| to me, latency is more important to you.
| hyko wrote:
| ...and I'd opt for the spatial resolution, completing the
| trifecta!
|
| Thankfully, we can just have all three :)
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > Thankfully, we can just have all three :)
|
| Not at this time. There are some hypothetical options like
| the LG 27GN950, but it has poor contrast and uses
| Displayport 1.4 compression, which is only supported in the
| latest graphics cards. VESA and friends really made
| DisplayPort 1.4 as close as they possibly could to false
| advertising without actually committing it (because the
| only relevant new thing in DP 1.4 -- DSC, display stream
| compression -- is technically optional and no one claimed
| they'd support DSC while saying they support DP 1.4, which
| is pretty much the same as supporting DP 1.3, since nothing
| of note changed).
|
| And now we're looking at DisplayPort 2.0 which can already
| barely support uncompressed 8K at 60 Hz and is basically
| maxed out by 5K/6K 120/144 Hz. And it's unclear if the
| presently introduced generation of GPUs even supports it,
| or if we're going to use effectively-2013-Displayport until
| ~2022.
|
| Note how the marketing material only talks about HDMI 2.1;
| DisplayPort isn't mentioned _once_.
| tormeh wrote:
| I think DisplayPort is not mentioned because Nvidia
| hasn't upgraded their cards to 2.0. Super disappointing.
| 4k/144Hz/HDR is enough for now, to be honest, but DP2 can
| do 84/144Hz/HDR as long as it has DSC, 244Hz with
| subsampling. The slow pace of development and deployment
| has hurt everyone for sure, but I don't think the
| standard is bad in itself - just a bit late.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| This is why I'm personally looking at the LG CX 48" - low
| latency, 120Hz, 4k, wide gamut, HDR.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| OLED TVs are in a much better space than PC LCDs, where
| no really good options exist. Either IPS, which has poor
| contrast, bleed and doesn't do HDR, or VA, which has good
| contrast, but also doesn't really do HDR, and VA
| generally has poor uniformity (nitpick) and viewing
| angles. Some VA are pretty smeary, but that seems to have
| cleaned up in the latest generation. TN panels are much
| better than they used to be in the color department, but
| it doesn't have the contrast of VA, and even poorer
| viewing angles than VA.
|
| OLED is clearly the way forward - accurate colors,
| excellent contrast, no bleeding, no uniformity issues,
| proper HDR, excellent response time. Except OLED doesn't
| come to PCs.
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| Yep, agreed. I mentioned the CX 48 because it's the first
| one that can somewhat reasonably be used as a monitor.
|
| MicroLED is another promising tech that has a lot of OLED
| upsides, but no burn-in issues.
| namibj wrote:
| Iiyama's MVA3 displays are, to my knowledge,
| significantly in front of other LCD styles (e.g. TN, IPS)
| as far as contrast, especially from an angle, is
| concerned.
|
| Unfortunately my desk's dear centerpiece,
| https://iiyama.com/gl_en/products/prolite-x4071uhsu-b1/ ,
| has been EOL'd about 2 years ago, because I have been
| unable to find a replacement that's not worse, while
| staying in the 40~50" range. Any concrete suggestion
| would be greatly appreciated.
| [deleted]
| iforgotpassword wrote:
| This looks reassuring. After the first couple rumors/teasers,
| especially regarding power consumption, I feared that NVIDIA
| mostly just sat on their hands and would just release something
| that's mostly a bigger version (more execution units, ram) of the
| current Gen. I think they did that once some years ago. Seems
| they actually did improve on the technical level too for 30xx.
| :-)
| en4bz wrote:
| All this on Samsung 8nm (~61 MT/mm2). They didn't even feel the
| need to use TSMC 7nm (~100 MT/mm2). Probably keep the price down
| and to reserve capacity at TSMC for the A100.
|
| This is like the anime hero/villain (depending on your
| perspective) equivalent of fighting at half power.
| npunt wrote:
| Yeah, impressive for the node. TSMC's latest N5 process is 173
| MT/mm2, which Apple is using now and AMD (probably in N5P form)
| will start using next year. EUV is really a big step up.
| ss248 wrote:
| >They didn't even feel the need to use TSMC 7nm
|
| They just couldn't get enough wafers. They tried to force TSMC
| to lower the prices and it backfired.
| ZeroCool2u wrote:
| On the slide in the presentation it did say something like
| Samsung Nvidia Custom 8NM process, so perhaps Nvidia made such
| significant contributions to the process that it's not really
| Samsungs process anymore?
| wmf wrote:
| TSMC's "customized" 12FFN process just had a larger reticle,
| so the burden should be on Nvidia to explain any
| customization. I don't think they deserve any benefit of the
| doubt here.
| gpm wrote:
| Why would Nvidia willingly explain any customization?
| Surely keeping that secret is a competitive advantage.
| jjcm wrote:
| A small thing that I haven't seen mentioned yet, but these cards
| have native hardware decoding for AV1. With chrome just launching
| support for AVIF this last week it seems like more and more
| platforms are getting out of the box support for it. Nvidia is
| also working with a lot of partners[1] on it it seems. I'm
| currently working on a social video platform, and having a
| unified next-gen codec that works everywhere for both images and
| video would be SO helpful. Hopefully this trend progresses -
| would love to be able to do some extremely high quality
| streaming.
|
| [1] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/rtx-30-series-
| av1-...
| Thaxll wrote:
| Problem with AMD is their drivers, nowdays drivers are 50% of
| what makes a good graphic card.
| fomine3 wrote:
| Comparing 3080/3070, 3080 is 146% greater TFLOPS than 3070 and
| VRAM capacity and speed is different. Meanwhile 2080/2070 was
| 135% greater TFLOPS in same MSRP with 3080/3070. 3080 looks very
| competitive.
| adamch wrote:
| I wonder if the pricing will drop once AMD releases their ray-
| tracing PC GPUs.
| KingOfCoders wrote:
| I wonder about the ML performance compared to my current setup of
| 2080TIs.
| dougmwne wrote:
| I am curious how quickly Nvidia will add these to their GeForce
| Now streaming servers. As of right now, they only stream in 1080p
| and it seems this could allow them to stream 4k for about the
| same hardware cost. I'm personally not in the market for a gaming
| desktop, but happily subscribe to GPU as a service.
| xx_alpha_xx wrote:
| GFN has been a bear, very hit or miss. Current generation of
| hardware is either 1080 or 2060. If they start adding 30xx
| (which they have hinted at in this past) that would be great.
| system2 wrote:
| All these crazy graphics cards, they still couldn't figure out
| high density VR displays. I want amazing VR with super clarity.
| Then I'd invest whatever money they want for a graphics card. LCD
| gaming just doesn't cut it.
| Kapura wrote:
| It's not that they can't figure out high density VR displays,
| it's that they're prohibitively expensive to produce. Display
| miniturisation is not a problem domain that a lot of tech is
| focused on, so progress is necessarily slower than the more
| profitable areas.
| lodi wrote:
| HP Reverb G2 is coming out soon. Dual 2k x 2k displays:
| https://www8.hp.com/us/en/vr/reverb-g2-vr-headset.html
|
| Looks really great in this video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4wlEbD5vxk
| gallerdude wrote:
| These look great! It's amazing how much better hardware gets
| annually. The only thing I was hoping for that wasn't mentioned
| was hardware-accelerated VP9 encoding, but we can't get
| everything we want in life.
| daneel_w wrote:
| If we were to imagine that VP9 hardware encoding by Nvidia
| would hold the same standard as their H.265 hardware encoding
| then we can stop holding our breaths, as we have not missed out
| on anything of any value what so ever.
|
| For H.265 their encoder is fast, yes, but the quality per
| bitrate is complete rubbish, requiring higher bitrate than a
| good H.264 encode yet still contrives the gruesome trick of
| looking far worse, which entirely offsets all and any point
| with H.265.
| gallerdude wrote:
| Oh interesting, I didn't know the Nvidia encoder was regarded
| as trash. What tools can one I use to evaluate visual quality
| of a video file? My proxy for quality has always been
| bitrate, but I know that bitrate is just chasing visuak
| quality anyways...
| fluffything wrote:
| * RTX 3070, 499$, faster than RTX 2080 Ti
|
| * RTX 3080, 699$, 2x faster than RTX 2080
|
| * RTX 3090 (Titan), 1500$, 1.5x faster than RTX Titan, 8k
| resolution @ 60 FPS with RTX on Control.
|
| ---
|
| I hope that if somebody bought an RTX 2080 or similar in the last
| 2-4 weeks, that they bought it over Amazon, and can return it.
| m0zg wrote:
| I couldn't find pricing for 3090. I seriously doubt it's less
| than the current version of Titan. It'd also make sense - lots
| of DL research is currently done on 2080Ti. Take that away and
| people will buy a more expensive SKU just to get more VRAM.
|
| If this pricing holds up though, I need to get a large NVDA
| position, because they'll sell at TON of 3090. I'll buy 8.
| ralusek wrote:
| It's in the video, confirmed $1499.
| m0zg wrote:
| Exciting! Looking forward to it, then. Time to unload my
| 1080Tis. :-)
| ralusek wrote:
| Same.
| jacquesm wrote:
| A bit past that time I think? Yesterday would have been a
| lot better!
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Is not out till October so you gonna not play games or use an
| inferior card for 2-3 months, as they gonna get sold out till
| when ever
| cooljacob204 wrote:
| 3080 and 3090 is out this month. Probably will be sold out
| though.
| pier25 wrote:
| Super aggressive pricing. Not sure if they are selling those at
| a super low margin or they were ripping people off with the
| previous gens...
|
| Anyway, thank you AMD for the competition.
| berryjerry wrote:
| How is that aggressive pricing? Those are the same prices
| they have used for previous generations.
| kenhwang wrote:
| Agreed, seems like Nvidia is preemptively trying to fend off
| AMD with an extreme show of force. This level of
| performance/pricing is much higher than even AMD's most
| optimistic estimates for performance/efficiency gains for
| their next generation.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| Well, 2 generations ago the MSRP of the 1070 was $379 and the
| 1080 was $599, so I'd say we've just gotten used to the
| higher prices which they successfully normalized.
| JackMcMack wrote:
| As always, wait for the benchmarks before deciding to buy (or
| return). My guess is the performance improvements are the
| biggest for raytracing, which I personally don't care for. And
| let's not forget the huge power draw, requiring a new power
| connector and a 3 slot cooler.
|
| 8N manufacturing process is presumably Samsung, which will
| probably be beat by TSMC 7nm.
|
| I'm holding out for RDNA2.
| thdrdt wrote:
| I was wondering if all benchmarks use the OptiX features or
| only the CUDA features. In software like Blender this makes a
| huge difference. OptiX can be twice as fast as CUDA. So of
| benchmarks don't use the OptiX capabilities then they will
| miss a lot of available speed.
| alkonaut wrote:
| Yeah there is no way they sell a card that does 200% the fps
| of a 2080ti in "normal" (non raytracing, ultra quality)
| averaged over multiple titles. If a 2080ti does 100fps
| without raytracing and 30fps with, this might do 110fps
| without raytracing and 60fps with, for they'll a "100%"
| increase but most would consider that 10%.
| outworlder wrote:
| > My guess is the performance improvements are the biggest
| for raytracing, which I personally don't care for.
|
| I still don't understand the raytracing craze when it comes
| to games. Years ago when I wrote my first raytracer I might
| have got excited about it. But we have advanced so much with
| rasterization that I don't really understand why this is
| something we need.
|
| Raytracing complexity is tricky and it is likely to prove
| challenging to do in a game with consistent frame rates. Soft
| shadows are expensive even for hardware.
|
| I would be more excited about some other global illumination
| improvements, like photon mapping.
| adamch wrote:
| I think the new connector is only on the 3090.
| smileybarry wrote:
| The product page linked elsewhere in the thread[1] has
| photos of the 3070 with the 12-pin connector and mentions
| that all Founder Edition cards include an adapter:
|
| > To that end, our engineers designed a much smaller PCB,
| shrank the NVLink and power connectors, and still managed
| to pack in 18-phases for improved power delivery. Don't
| worry, we included an adapter that allows Founders Edition
| cards to work with users' existing power supplies.
|
| [1] https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/introducing-
| rtx-30...
| fluffything wrote:
| > As always, wait for the benchmarks before deciding to buy
| (or return).
|
| Why would you keep a 1200$ RTX 2080 Ti or a 2500$ Titan when
| you can get at least the same perf for 50-75% of the price
| with the new products, and much better RTX perf ?
|
| This assumes that with RTX off the new gen won't be slower
| than the old one, but I think that's a fair assumption, and
| if it isn't, you can always return the 30xx card in 2 weeks,
| and buy an used 2080 Ti or Titan on ebay for pennies, once
| the market overflows from people upgrading for the 30xx
| series.
|
| People were still asking for 900$ for a used 2080 Ti on ebay
| this morning, and the 3080 700$ price just destroys that
| offer. Many owners are going to try and dump these cards for
| as much as they can get in the next two weeks. I wouldn't buy
| a used 2080 Ti for more than 250$ today. In one month, these
| cards are going to sell used for 100-200$. If AMD can only
| match the 2080 Ti perf, they are going to have a very hard
| time pricing against the used 2080 Ti market.
|
| > And let's not forget the huge power draw, requiring a new
| power connector and a 3 slot cooler.
|
| That's only for the 3090 IIUC. All other cards were announced
| as being actually much smaller than the 20xx series ones.
| ses1984 wrote:
| >Why would you keep a 1200$ RTX 2080 Ti or a 2500$ Titan
| when you can get at least the same perf for 50-75% of the
| price with the new products, and much better RTX perf
|
| Well for one, keeping a card you already bought is free,
| buying a new one costs money.
|
| Why are you all getting so excited about the prices given
| in a paper launch? Wait until you can actually buy one at
| that price, which I'm guessing isn't going to be until well
| into 2021.
| mu_killnine wrote:
| Pretty bold claim that 2080TIs are going to sell for $250
| in a month, lol.
|
| Certainly the market for them will take a beating compared
| to new prices now. But I can't imagine it collapsing like
| that purely based on the supply. How many people are really
| going to drop their 2080 just because a new thing is out
| there?
|
| I'd love to be wrong, as an original 2070 owner ;)
| fluffything wrote:
| > How many people are really going to drop their 2080
| just because a new thing is out there?
|
| Pretty much everyone who paid for a 2080 Ti on launch and
| always need to have the latests bestest thing.
| JackMcMack wrote:
| True, the new generation offers better price/performance vs
| the previous generation.
|
| Do note that the 3080 is still 2 weeks away (17 sept), 3090
| 24 sept, 3070 in October.
|
| I would consider getting a non-founders edition though, in
| the past other brands have had better/more silent cooling
| for pretty much identical pricing.
|
| Edit: While the 3090 (350W) is the only one requiring a 3
| slot cooler, all 3 use the new 12 pin power connector. The
| 3080 founder edition power draw is still 320W, vs 220W for
| the 2080.
| binaryblitz wrote:
| The 12 pin connector has an adapter for two 8pin cables.
| This is a non issue unless the connector just bothers you
| for some weird reason.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > True, the new generation offers better
| price/performance vs the previous generation.
|
| That's not that difficult considering the RTX cards had
| terrible price/perf.
| godelski wrote:
| > 8N manufacturing process is presumably Samsung
|
| They explicitly noted that it was Samsung.
| JackMcMack wrote:
| It's not mentioned in this announcement, was it confirmed
| somewhere in the past by Nvidia?
| fluffything wrote:
| It was mentioned in the video.
| JackMcMack wrote:
| Indeed it is. For those wondering, this (official) link
| has much more info (and the video), that the currently
| linked blog post.
|
| [1] https://www.nvidia.com/en-
| us/geforce/news/introducing-rtx-30...
| Cacti wrote:
| The RTX at 24GB seems like a great deal for the machine
| learning crowd. Assuming the heat dissipation is ok.
| fluffything wrote:
| They mentioned its 10K cooler than RTX Titan, and 10x less
| noise (not sure which scala they use for noise, dB are
| logarithmic...).
| hajimemash wrote:
| 10K = 10 Kelvin [?] 10 Celsius?
| phoe-krk wrote:
| > * RTX 3090 (Titan), 1500$, 1.5x faster than Titan, 8k
| resolution @ 60 FPS with RTX on Control.
|
| You likely meant something else; Titan can't be faster than
| Titan.
| tedunangst wrote:
| 3090 holds the product position previously known as titan.
| dplavery92 wrote:
| I think it holds the market position previously known as
| xx80Ti
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Extremely confusingly the Ti stands/stood for titan as
| well, while at the same time Nvidia also released cards
| with the name "Titan", like the Titan X, Titan Xp, Titan
| V, Titan RTX etc. When people say "the titans" they may
| refer to either the "something Ti" cards or the "Titan
| something" cards.
| smileybarry wrote:
| The video[1] mentions that it (3090) was made for users
| in the Titan product segment, and it's introduced as a
| Titan replacement. The Ti models will probably come later
| as usual.
|
| [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E98hC9e__Xs&t=34m14s
| fluffything wrote:
| Yeah, naming is confusing, the RTX 3090 is the non-HPC
| "Titan" model of this gen, and, if I understood correctly, is
| 1.5x faster than the previous gen RTX Titan, which costed
| this morning 2500$.
|
| There is also a previous gen HPC "Titan V" with HBM memory,
| but AFAICT no Ampere Titan card with HBM2 was announced.
| bitL wrote:
| There is a rumor about 48GB version of RTX3090 replacing
| the original Titan RTX with a similar price. That would
| make sense for Deep Learning workloads as 24GB is already
| too small for attention-based models.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It's 50% in ray-tracing performance, not raw performance,
| and it doesn't have big memory bandwidth improvements. It's
| not the Titan successor, it's the 2080Ti.
|
| You can see this because the chip name is GA102, the 2 at
| the end indicates that this is a cut-down chip.
| fluffything wrote:
| All previous generation Titan models have been cut down
| chips as well TU102, GV102, etc.
|
| With one exception: the Titan V card that I mentioned
| which comes with the GV100 chip. But as I mentioned, that
| one targets a very different market segment with HBM
| memory, which the "RTX 3090" obviously doesn't target,
| since otherwise it would come with HBM2 memory like all
| the GA100 products.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| >All previous generation Titan models have been cut down
| chips as well TU102, GV102, etc.
|
| >With one exception:
|
| This is simply wrong. The majority of Titans have been
| full chips: Titan, Titan Z and Titan Black as well as the
| Titan V and Titan X.
|
| The other Titans were about as fast as manufacturer-
| overclocked 80Ti models.
| fluffything wrote:
| Indeed.
|
| The naming is super confusing. The 100 versions are
| essentially HPC chips on a PCI-express board, while 10x
| are completely different products.
| addcninblue wrote:
| I believe they're referencing past editions of Titan.
| pornel wrote:
| BTW: In the EU you have "14 day cooling off period" that gives
| you a right to return items bought online.
| mkaic wrote:
| Here's the static launch page if anyone's interested:
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/graphics-cards/30-serie...
| ckastner wrote:
| Thanks! Most importantly: "Available on September 17th"
| tgb wrote:
| That's for the 3080, the 3090 is Sep 24th, and 3070 is
| "October", from lower down on that same page.
| dang wrote:
| We changed from https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/special-
| event/?nvid=nv-..., which is a video of (what looks like) the
| same material.
|
| Some of the comments in this thread are about things people saw
| in the video (spatulas?), so keep that context in mind.
| mkaic wrote:
| Yeah I posted the live announcement video and only found the
| static launch page a few minutes after that. Apologies :)
| dang wrote:
| No worries!
| sudosysgen wrote:
| So it seems that the 3090 will be priced at 1499$. This is kind
| of insane.
|
| EDIT: For people comparing this to the Titan RTX, no. This GA102,
| not GA100. It's the cut-down version of Ampere. GA100 will come
| out, and it will be even more expensive.
| rrss wrote:
| > EDIT: For people comparing this to the Titan RTX, no. This
| GA102, not GA100. It's the cut-down version of Ampere. GA100
| will come out, and it will be even more expensive.
|
| That doesn't mean it's not the Titan equivalent for this
| generation. Titan X(pascal) and Titan XP were both GP102, and
| Titan RTX was TU102. AFAIK, only Titan V used the "100" chip,
| and that was sorta a fluke because there was no smaller volta
| chip. (and 3090 was explicitly introduced as the Titan RTX
| replacement)
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Actually, the Titan, Titan Z and Titan Black as well as the
| Titan V and Titan X. Titans XP, Xp and RTX were basically
| just overclocked 80Ti chips, sometimes slightly unlocked.
| They are the outliers, and widely regarded as a scam, locking
| away 60$ of memory behind 1500$, with a bit more CUs yet
| about as fast or slower in aggregate than aftermarket 80Ti
| models.
|
| It's not the Titan, because it's not the biggest chip, and
| also, it's not called "Titan". It fits the motif of the
| 2080Ti almost to a T.
| fluffything wrote:
| No HBM2 though.
| liuliu wrote:
| Yeah. Even if it is not a Titan, it is at a price that I am
| glad to pay for the performance (if the 1.5x faster than Titan
| claim holds true). Bert / Transformer models are incredibly
| memory hungry, and a sub-2k graphics card with 24GB memory is
| great to have. Also, its number of CUDA cores seems to be
| slightly more than A100, would be interesting to see benchmarks
| once it comes out.
|
| Not to mention that it still has NVLink support! The 3-slot
| design is a bit challenging and for 4-card workstation, I need
| to rework my radiator mount to make space for another PSU.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Well, it's not just 1.5x faster than the Titan, it really is
| 1.5x faster than the aftermarket 2080Tis too since they
| basically are the same chip anyways.
|
| If you're happy paying 40% more for a 50% faster card, that's
| okay. I just don't think it's very good for the industry.
| king_magic wrote:
| $1499 is a rounding error for ML hardware.
| zamalek wrote:
| Virtually nobody needs a 3090, much less a gamer (let's be
| honest, though, many will buy one regardless). For the people
| that actually do need that horsepower, it's unbelievably cheap
| _for what you are getting._ You could have easily paid twice
| that a year ago for less.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Well yeah, that's just how it is because of progress. It's
| still more expensive than last year's XX102 chip. That said,
| it's only about 50% faster than a 2080Ti at everything except
| ray-tracing. 50% faster, 40% more expensive.
|
| Back in Kepler, a 780Ti was 800$, and it had the GK110 chip,
| which was the full-fat chip. Now, the cut-down chip costs
| twice as much.
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| > Virtually nobody needs a 3090, much less a gamer (let's be
| honest, though, many will buy one regardless).
|
| That statement is absolutely true regarding me. Honestly, I
| don't _need_ a gaming system at all, let alone one with such
| a powerful GPU. But even in terms of my leisure-time gaming,
| I could never justify the price difference over a much
| cheaper card.
|
| Still, I could imagine it making a lot more sense for other
| people. E.g., pro gamers, people with big entertainment
| budgets, or people using CUDA for number-crunching.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| > Virtually nobody needs a 3090, much less a gamer
|
| I'm tempted to get one just to avoid having to think about
| upgrading a graphics card for another 10 years. Plus I can do
| some ML messing about as well for resume-driven development.
| selectodude wrote:
| Cheaper and better to get three $500 GPUs every three
| years.
| zimpenfish wrote:
| Best I can get for $500 now (~PS377) is an 8GB GTX2060 -
| 5x fewer cores, 1/3rd the RAM, 2/3rd the memory bandwidth
| of the GTX3090 which is PS1399. Plus I really don't want
| to upgrade my PC again for at least 5 years - just done
| that and been reminded of why I hate it.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| Maybe you should spend 500 pounds and get a 2070 super?
| Cacti wrote:
| It's insane for gamers, but cheap for machine learning. $1500
| for that speed and more importantly 24GB vram? Yes please.
| starlust2 wrote:
| What about for VR?
| sudosysgen wrote:
| 24GB of RAM at GDDR6X speeds, not HBM. It's not scaling
| memory bandwidth with memory capacity, for a lot of ML
| applications it's meh.
| [deleted]
| Cacti wrote:
| For $1500 many are willing to trade speed for overall VRAM.
| krautsourced wrote:
| Also for GPU rendering.
| Nursie wrote:
| It's the Titan of this generation, but aimed at a slightly
| wider audience. The RTX titan was what, $2400? SO you could say
| it's come down a bit...
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It's not the Titan, it's a 2080Ti, upgraded. It is GA102, not
| GA100.
| Nursie wrote:
| They even said it's the titan of this generation, but for a
| wider audience.
|
| Whether the chip number is right is pretty irrelevant.
| sudosysgen wrote:
| It isn't, because it means that there's a bigger chip.
| redisman wrote:
| I'm almost sure we're still getting the Ti's and Super's
| next year since its easy marketing and money.
| daneel_w wrote:
| Yeah, for consumer use these things are starting to approach
| "smartphone fashion" consumerism levels.
| nirav72 wrote:
| did they leave out the price of the 3090 in the article or did I
| somehow miss it? All I see is the 3070 and 3080 prices.
| berryjerry wrote:
| I find it nuts that those streamers called the game "smooth as
| butter" at 60 fps. Even if it was 8K, there is no way 60 fps
| could feel smooth.
| Macha wrote:
| If their performance claims are accurate, AMD has a huge hurdle
| ahead of it, as the rumour mill only had them drawing even with
| the 2080 ti with big navi.
| zamalek wrote:
| > AMD has a huge hurdle ahead of it
|
| I hope AMD can pull it off, as I am _really_ hoping to make my
| first red box build. That being said, the performance:cost
| ratio of 30xx is mindbogglingly attractive (assuming the
| reviews back up NVIDIA 's claims).
| arvinsim wrote:
| I will wait for benchmarks. Their 2x qualifier was RTX On.
| Not sure if they meant general performance or RTX performance
| only.
| PaulBGD_ wrote:
| The small text also said DLSS iirc, so non-dlss games and
| machine learning loads probably aren't 2x.
| BearOso wrote:
| The 3070 has 20 classic shading module TFLOPs. The 2080ti
| was 13.5 TFLOPs. I think you'll see 50% better performance
| at the minimum.
| chinigo wrote:
| Digital Foundry's initial analysis _mostly_ bears this
| claim out.
|
| They found FPS increases of between 160-190% for a bunch of
| recent games featuring both RTX/traditional rendering, and
| about a fixed 190% in Quake RTX (which is exclusively RTX
| rendering).
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cWD01yUQdVA
| Nursie wrote:
| He was trying to sell it as double the RTX, double the
| tensor cores _and_ double the general raster capability.
|
| Guess the benchmarks will show us.
| zucker42 wrote:
| The rumours I've heard have them beating the 2080Ti, but not
| enough to be competitive with the top Nvidia cards if these
| performance claims are accurate. Plus I'd guess Nvidia will
| launch a 3080Ti at ~$1000 sometime around the release of Big
| Navi.
| fluffything wrote:
| Or they'll just move the 3070 and 3080 to 7nm TSMC to lower
| the price. Or both.
| tus88 wrote:
| But can it play Crysis?
| [deleted]
| metalliqaz wrote:
| 8K gaming is the ultimate gimmick. Even in the ideal conditions
| they set up for that demo, I'm doubtful those gamers have the
| ability to detect a significant improvement over 4K.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| In my experience, high resolution is only relevant to games
| where the camera isn't constantly moving.
|
| Think DOTA 2 or Civilization 5. They both look _amazing_ at 4K
| and I bet would look noticeably better at 8K.
|
| Especially in those two, the games assets have enough detail to
| allow zooming in all the way from a bird's eye view to a first
| person view. As you crank up the rendering resolution, there's
| plenty of "real" detail available in the models and textures.
| You could push these games to 16K and _still_ get more quality
| out of them.
| shados wrote:
| That's fine. Its really hard to get good frame rate in 4k
| today. A lot of that isn't just the GPU (eg: poorly optimized
| games, CPU, I/O, etc), but if it can do 8k 60fps reasonably
| consistantly on paper, then it can do 4k@60fps+ consistently
| for real (assuming nothing else is the bottleneck).
|
| That makes it worthwhile. That's personally what I was waiting
| for before upgrading my 1080 GTX TI and my monitor.
| cma wrote:
| There already exist 1/2 8K VR headsets though (full 16:9 4K per
| eye), and you can keep seeing a difference there up through
| around 16K per eye and higher refresh rates than they showed.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Agree that 8K is a bit overkill, but it'll be nice for 60FPS+
| 5k since 5k doubles 2560x1440 exactly and makes for a better
| multipurpose use resolution than 4k does at 27".
| shados wrote:
| > since 5k doubles 2560x1440 exactly
|
| Does that really matter? Integer scaling isn't really a thing
| AFAIK, and game devs are more likely to test their HUD
| layouts in 4k than 5k these days.
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| Doesn't matter much in games, but it makes a difference on
| the desktop. Don't know about Windows but under macOS and
| Linux integer scaling generally works more cleanly and
| predictably than fractional scaling does.
| shados wrote:
| Ahh yeah, I don't know about Linux, but MacOS' desktop is
| notorious for the way it scales things up.
| friedman23 wrote:
| Ultra high pixel count gaming is not a gimmick. Get a 4k
| ultrawide form factor monitor and you have close to as many
| pixels as are in an 8k monitor
| t0mbstone wrote:
| It's all about VR headsets
| nomel wrote:
| Until DLSS can work with VR, it's probably still out of
| reach, beyond Roblox quality graphics.
| fluffything wrote:
| For VR 60 FPS is not enough, but maybe in the next generation
| with another 2x leap we'll have 120 FPS at 8k.
| omni wrote:
| The interpolation tech they've come up with is not shabby,
| 45 FPS will get you pretty far with that
| Tuganin wrote:
| Can anyone think of cases where the GPU/Processor unveiled by the
| maker wasn't actually what they said it was once it is run in
| real use-cases?
|
| It always felt to me that something similar to the car's gas
| emissions scandal is just waiting to happen in this industry.
| dsign wrote:
| That looks good!!! Can we upload already?
| xvilka wrote:
| Any news about that open source thing they promised to unveil
| this year? Or they lied as usual?
| solatic wrote:
| Still no proper Wayland support?
|
| I mean, I get that the primary market runs Windows. But some
| people like to dual-boot.
| wmf wrote:
| Support vendors who support you. Buy AMD.
| rnantes wrote:
| Interesting that this card has 8K capable HDMI 2.1 but not
| DisplayPort 2.0. Wonder when we start seeing DP 2.0 support in
| products, VESA said late 2020 in the press release.
| Const-me wrote:
| Indeed, the specs page says all 3 have HDMI 2.1 and 3x
| DisplayPort 1.4a: https://www.nvidia.com/en-
| eu/geforce/graphics-cards/30-serie...
|
| However, Wikipedia says it's capable of 8k with a proprietary
| lossy video codec called Display Stream Compression:
|
| DSC is a "visually lossless" encoding technique with up to a
| 3:1 compression ratio. Using DSC with HBR3 transmission rates,
| DisplayPort 1.4 can support 8K UHD (7680 x 4320) at 60 Hz
|
| The quote is from there:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DisplayPort#1.4
| DoofusOfDeath wrote:
| Apologies if this question is super naive, but is there a good
| reason for ongoing development of _both_ HDMI and DP? At least
| for my use cases (home entertainment, and work computers) both
| seem roughly equivalent.
|
| The devices I've bought recently have tended to support HDMI
| more than DP. So I got the impression that HDMI was "winning"
| and DP would fade away.
|
| But now it seems like vendors are moving towards video-over-
| USB-C cables. And the "Alternate Mode protocol support matrix
| for USB-C cables and adapters" table in this article [0] seems
| to indicate that USB-C _cables_ have broader support for DP
| than HDMI. Which makes me wonder if vendors will converge on
| DP-protocol-over-USB-C-cable?
|
| This makes me nostalgic for the relative simplicity of DVI.
|
| [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB-C
| EricE wrote:
| HDMI is all about DRM. USB-C is just one of many reasons DP
| hangs on. The ability to chain monitors is huge for digital
| signage and other display uses too. Let's hope both continue
| to be developed since for computing display port is far more
| useful and free of at least some of the DRM hell of HDMI.
| debaserab2 wrote:
| How many studios are even going to produce art assets at the
| level of fidelity that 8K provides? These installs are going to
| be huge.
| redisman wrote:
| The 8k is really just a sneak peek at the future. I doubt
| anyone will actually be expecting to game on that resolution
| this generation.
| EricE wrote:
| It's not always about providing the final product in 8K - 8K
| means you can have multiple 4K windows up.
| randyrand wrote:
| I have a GTX 970 that I bought for $379 in 2015. Does Nvidia make
| flagship GPUs in this price point still?
| d33lio wrote:
| I just want to see an OCL-Hashcat bench of the 3090 :)
| polishdude20 wrote:
| He sure likes his silicone spatulas.
| valine wrote:
| It's interesting that the 3090 is a replacement for the Titan.
| The $1500 price tag is a bit higher than expected but considering
| the Titan cost $2500 it doesn't seem too unreasonable.
| PeterStuer wrote:
| tbh he pricing is much better than I expected. I'll get one for
| my new build, but probably a 3rd party as I'm not convinced by
| the cooling on the FE as of yet.
| mkaic wrote:
| In terms of just nomenclature, I think I like the consistency
| of having all of the current lineup actually be called GeForce
| 30XX.
| Macha wrote:
| The supers/tis/titans will come to clutter it up next year or
| so.
| rectangleboy wrote:
| It was behind the exorbitant number of spatulas the whole time!
| tbeseda wrote:
| And then the oven 3090 reveal!
| heyoni wrote:
| It's so hot, he uses it to bake bread.
| mkaic wrote:
| Right?! I thought that was absolutely hilarious. Good to know
| NVIDIA's got a sense of humor.
| carabiner wrote:
| Why does he have so many?
| golergka wrote:
| That's why.
| gallerdude wrote:
| Just compare how much Nvidia is pushing the limits as the
| industry of leader of GPU's, to how Intel seems to be playing
| catch-up reluctantly as the industry leader of CPU's. Leadership
| matters.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Nvidia isn't a fab. AMD isn't a fab. TSMC is the fab that beat
| Intel. TSMC's customers, like AMD and NVidia, are
| beneficiaries.
|
| So far. As customers of TSMC, in the long term it behooves them
| for TSMC to have competition.
|
| Further, "leadership matters" is a somewhat ironic complaint
| given that Intel ran face-first into a brick wall precisely
| because they were leading. TSMC placed conservative bets on the
| next node and Intel placed risky bets because they needed the
| extra risk/reward to maintain leadership. Intel's bets failed
| (in particular, cobalt wires and COAG). They chose "leadership
| or bust" and went "bust," at least for now.
| rrss wrote:
| 'gallerdude didn't mention anything about fabs. Also, these
| GPUs are fabricated at Samsung, so your comments about TSMC
| are mostly irrelevant.
|
| If the fab was all that mattered, AMD GPUs would be
| dominating Nvidia, since they have been shipping GPUs using
| TSMC 7nm (a superior process to Samsung 8nm) for over a year.
| trynumber9 wrote:
| In this case Nvidia said they're using Samsung's "8N"
| process.
| i-am-curious wrote:
| This is such a simpleton take.
|
| The whole reason AMD are able to crank out 128 core CPUs is
| the CCX architecture - the one people laughed at. No TSMC
| there. Not to mention other innovations like Infinity Fabric.
|
| In ampere for instance, there are so many innovations, like
| PAM signalling, 2x shader instructions per clock, DLSS, RTX
| Voice.
|
| TSMC beat Intel, sure, but that is not the main reason for
| why Nvidia and even AMD are leading the industry. In fact,
| ampere is on Samsung 8n.
| Havoc wrote:
| No need for name calling...
| johnwheeler wrote:
| It's interesting the effect new graphics have on how old graphics
| are seen. I remember when Resident Evil came out on the first
| Playstation, at the time, I considered certain game elements like
| fire and water indistinguishable from reality. Now it looks like
| pixelated garbage and I ask myself how I could have ever thought
| that.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Part of it is also that modern TVs and monitors are much higher
| resolution than their predecessors.
|
| One interesting point of reference is the initial switch to HD
| in the 2000s; I remember there was a bit of panic in the
| beginning because news studios had to adjust studio lighting
| and makeup; flaws that were not perceptible on a CRT were all
| of a sudden extremely noticeable blown up on a 48" flatscreen.
| Shorel wrote:
| My CRT could do 1600x1200, not bad at all compared with
| modern 1080P.
|
| My point is: CRT did show a lot more colours, had much lower
| latency, and did not have a grid where you could see
| individual pixels.
|
| No colour banding, no lag and no screen door effect. That
| really enhanced the content you saw when you had a CRT.
| gowld wrote:
| Nice CRT. Did your _videos_ have 1600x1200?
|
| During that era, 640x480 video was the common high end.
| MBCook wrote:
| When you watch TV shows from the SD era that has been scanned
| into HD from film, you can sometimes see this. For example
| Seinfeld.
|
| Occasionally things will be slightly out of focus, but it
| wasn't apparent on a SD CRT so they shot the scene. On an HD
| screen you can see it and it's kind of distracting.
| keanebean86 wrote:
| 30 Rock did a skit about HD cameras. Close to the end of this
| clip: https://youtu.be/zoXfQupV5n8
| Nokinside wrote:
| Dogs and cats suddenly started to watch TV when refresh rate
| and resolution increased.
| tpmx wrote:
| Presumably the TV size increase when we went from CRTs to
| plasmas and LCD panels around the same time was a big
| factor.
| EamonnMR wrote:
| Is this real? Would make a fascinating study.
| atom-morgan wrote:
| Based on anecdotes it seems like it. Older generations
| always seemed to think pets had no idea what was going on
| when viewing a TV to the point of ignoring it. I'm
| assuming their body language suggested so.
|
| Nowadays people open up koi pond videos on phones and let
| their cats play with it. But like you mentioned, it would
| be interesting to see a study on it.
| tpmx wrote:
| The framerate didn't increase. It was still 60 or 50 Hz.
| The resolution did increase, but so did the size. The
| typical angular resolution stayed pretty much constant, I
| think.
| rubber_duck wrote:
| IMO watching a few sci-fi movies in 4k+ looks ridiculous - I
| start noticing the difference between CGI environment and
| actors and it kills the immersion completely, it goes from
| "that character is really there" to "this guy is larping in
| front of a green screen"
| colechristensen wrote:
| A lot of it is the lighting, I think.
|
| Higher resolution, better color replication, and frame rate
| make very obvious the fact that there seems to be a magical
| glowing orb following around the characters right behind
| the camera. Immersion breaking because you can get away
| with it with less quality, it's more difficult to notice.
|
| Something that I've also found more and more irritating is
| the foley artists doing ridiculous things for sound
| effects, especially in nature documentaries, but all over
| the place really.
| Narishma wrote:
| Probably because low-resolution graphics look better on CRTs
| than on flat panels.
| Const-me wrote:
| This.
|
| When people are saying something is photo-realistic, they
| aren't comparing to reality, they're comparing to photos or
| videos _as viewed on the same display_.
|
| By some metrics, even extremely expensive modern hardware is
| very far from reality. Pretty much all games show Sun
| occasionally, to reproduce same luminosity at 1m distance you
| need kilowatts of light (assuming 180 degree viewing angle;
| the surface of 1m half sphere is about 2 m^2 and the flux of
| visible spectrum is about 550w/m^2), these levels are simply
| unsafe for home use. For example, such display is going to
| ignite or at least melt a keyboard if it's too close.
|
| Similar for dynamic range. Reality has extreme dynamic
| ranges, i.e. both very light and very dark areas on the same
| scene.
|
| At least modern hardware generally delivers realistic
| resolutions, and color accuracy.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| > At least modern hardware generally delivers realistic
| resolutions, and color accuracy.
|
| I don't know, look at some flowers... most screens can't
| show their colors. Stuff like the intense, super-saturated
| reds and purples are basically impossible to get right in
| sRGB, with very obvious artefacts, yet in real life there
| are no artefacts, there is texture, detail and color, where
| the picture only has a smear of four different reds. P-3
| and Rec.2020 might reduce the issues there, as would 10 bit
| color.
| Const-me wrote:
| > Stuff like the intense, super-saturated reds and
| purples are basically impossible to get right in sRGB
|
| I agree, but professional monitors are close to Adobe
| RGB, and have been for decades. Adobe RGB is close to
| DCI-P3, and not much worse than BT.2020.
|
| P.S. Doesn't help with red/purple though, Adobe RGB
| extends sRGB mostly in green direction.
| Nokinside wrote:
| I had the same experience with VR.
|
| I had opportunity to test Varjo VR-2 Pro ($5,995.00)
| https://store.varjo.com/varjo-vr-2-pro and now all consumer VR
| products feel like total crap.
| liamcardenas wrote:
| That's interesting. Even if I look at current state of the art
| graphics _today_ I don't think for a second that it's anything
| close to indistinguishable from reality (not to say it's not
| good or impressive).
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| It's even harder to convince other people. Once you realize
| that we do not understand how to make graphics look real, the
| pattern appears everywhere. Yet no one will acknowledge it.
|
| Graphics -- even movie quality graphics -- don't look anything
| like what a camera produces. The sole exception is when you're
| mixing in real video with CG elements. But try to synthesize an
| entire frame from scratch, then put it next to a video camera's
| output, and people can tell the difference.
|
| Also, screenshots are misleading. You have to test video, not
| screencaps. Video is processed differently by the brain.
|
| 10 out of 10 times, all the graphics engineers come out of the
| woodwork going "but actually we do know how! It's a matter of
| using so and so calculations and measuring BDRF and" none of
| those equations work.
| drran wrote:
| Unreal engine looks pretty convincing with proper camera
| setup: https://youtu.be/zKu1Y-LlfNQ?t=118 .
| devit wrote:
| We definitely know how to make graphics look real - look at
| the unbiased renderers like LuxRender
| [https://luxcorerender.org/gallery/].
|
| The problem is that we can't do that in 1/60 second on
| consumer-priced hardware, and also both scanning real objects
| and manually modelling are expensive.
| natdempk wrote:
| Which of those images look real to you? To me, pretty much
| all of them look strictly like rendered images or have some
| aspect of them which gives away the fact that they are
| rendered.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| We need a blind test where you evaluate a set of images
| on whether you think each one is real or rendered.
| natdempk wrote:
| Heh, I agree! I'd love to try something like that if it
| exists.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| With a caveat: the real images should not be cherry
| picked to look as close to cgi as possible but the other
| way around. Real and render can look indistinguishable
| that way too, but we want real looking cgi, not carefully
| arranged cgi-looking reality. The biggest giveaway is the
| simplicity and pristine sterility of the rendered scenes,
| no mess, clutter, irregularity. Just look at photos that
| people haphazardly snap in the real world.pick those for
| a blind study and cgi is nowhere near. Pick carefully lit
| and arranged artificial scenes with heavy post-
| processing, like studio shoots or hotel brochures or car
| ads and the difference will be less obvious.
| CydeWeys wrote:
| I love this idea. Quick question for you, is this scene
| real or rendered? https://imgur.com/a/MpKMo6j
|
| If you think the answer is obvious, then CGI definitely
| has more work to do. If not ... ??
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Looks real. The dirt on the computer, the curls of the
| books and magazines and many other small details look
| very real.
|
| If this is CGI, then I'm impressed and want to see more
| from where this came from.
| SahAssar wrote:
| I think that with a lot of work we can make a real scene
| that looks like those renders, but none of those look like
| a "normal" real photo.
| stan_rogers wrote:
| Do any of those actually look real to you? I'm not saying
| that a convincingly realistic render is impossible, but
| those are all obviously synthetic to me. Maybe that's just
| a lifetime of photography at play.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| Again, it's important to focus on video, not screenshots.
| Video is processed differently by the brain.
|
| "The Dress" illustrates how easy it is to fool people with
| still images. Movement gives crucial context. Our visual
| system has evolved for millions of years specifically to
| exploit that context.
| ACow_Adonis wrote:
| also, the style of photos most of us are used to seeing
| are so processed digitally before publication, there's a
| real question of what it means to have a 'real photo' to
| approach in the first place.
|
| That were capable of getting pretty close isn't that
| surprising, because most photos have already had N layers
| of digital effects applied, moving them closer to
| renders, rather than the other way around.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > don't look anything like what a camera produces
|
| The reverse-problem is a pet-peeve of mine: It seems many
| people have been accidentally brainwashed by Hollywood into
| thinking that film-camera effects are signs of "realism."
|
| So then the first-person game introduces something like lens-
| flares, and everyone goes: "OMG it's so realistic now", even
| though the truth is the exact opposite. If you were "really
| there" as Hero Protagonist, you wouldn't have camera-lenses
| for eyeballs except in a cyber-punk genre.
| ponker wrote:
| > Once you realize that we do not understand how to make
| graphics look real, the pattern appears everywhere. Yet no
| one will acknowledge it.
|
| Making graphics that look real is almost equivalent to the
| Turing Test, I think plenty of people are willing to
| acknowledge that it's unsolved.
| Terr_ wrote:
| > Turing Test
|
| Amusingly relevant yet slightly off-topic:
| https://existentialcomics.com/comic/357
| Scene_Cast2 wrote:
| So I've dabbled a bit in graphics, and it feels like a
| content problem. Sure, you can have an artist pump out some
| models and textures. But for every level of detail increase,
| the artist must spend ~3x the time of the previous level. So
| for example, even making just a simple a dirt road look
| _really_ good and photo-realistic would involve much more
| time (a week? a month?) than one can reasonably spend on a
| commercial project (where you have bajillions of assets to
| worry about).
| pdelbarba wrote:
| I think it depends on context. There are a lot of sim games
| where the environment is very controlled and forums are
| littered with people who can't tell whether the occasional
| picture is real or in-game. A forest is hard to render
| accurately but a plane in flight is pretty trivial
| i-am-curious wrote:
| Forests have pretty much been solved. Look at games like
| Shadow of the Tomb Raider, forest looks amazing. The
| difficulty now is limited to finer details, like hair. Hair
| is still pretty much unsolved.
| sillysaurusx wrote:
| See? It's almost deterministic. People really can't
| accept that we don't know how to do something.
|
| Plop a nature video next to your forest rendering and
| it'll become apparent just how unsolved trees are. And
| everything else, for that matter.
|
| The precise claim is this: viewers should be able to
| identify a rendered video no better than random chance.
| If you conduct this experiment, you'll see that real
| videos from actual video cameras wipe the floor.
| mrob wrote:
| The motion blur will probably give it away. Accurate
| video motion blur is computationally expensive but
| conceptually simple. Just render at about 100 times your
| target frame rate and average batches of frames together
| in linear colorspace. You can speed this up by rendering
| at a lower frame rate (e.g. 10 times your target frame
| rate), estimating motion, and blurring along the motion
| vectors before averaging the frames. You can further
| speed it up by using an adaptive frame rate depending on
| motion speed and contrast. But a lot of rendered video
| doesn't even try. Look at a fast-moving bright point of
| light and you'll easily see the difference.
|
| (But note this is only replicating video, not reality.
| Truly realistic motion blur requires ultra-high displayed
| frame rates beyond the capabilities of current hardware.)
| EForEndeavour wrote:
| > If you conduct this experiment, you'll see that real
| videos from actual video cameras wipe the floor.
|
| To be fair: have you run such an experiment yourself, or
| are you just assuming that this conclusion will always
| result?
| agumonkey wrote:
| Something that hasn't changed to me is the mood. RE is still as
| gloomy and soul grabbing. The value is outside the pixel count.
| Razengan wrote:
| > _I considered certain game elements like fire and water
| indistinguishable from reality. Now it looks like pixelated
| garbage and I ask myself how I could have ever thought that._
|
| Imagination. Same as the people who grew up with the original
| Atari and Sinclair Spectrum and Commodore 64.
| giarc wrote:
| I remember when I first saw a DVD on a good screen. It was the
| first Matrix movie in a friends basement. I was so blown away
| by the quality jump from VHS.
| jonplackett wrote:
| I think it's something we learn.
|
| I remember as a kid my younger sister watching cartoons and
| realising she couldn't tell the difference between them and
| live action.
|
| I think as graphics get more complex our ability to distinguish
| increases. But we'll probably hit a limit in our ability to
| keep up sooner or later.
| jamroom wrote:
| Oh man - the same here with me - when I first got Morrowind
| there was an option you could enable in ATI (now AMD) cards at
| the time that made water look "real". I was able to enable that
| and was blown away - I was like "well that's it - doesn't get
| any more real than this". Having loaded Morrowind recently I
| could not believe had bad it looked lol. Makes me wonder - what
| are we "not" seeing right now that will make us think this way
| 10-20 years from now?
| lacker wrote:
| The biggest thing to me is that video games do not have very
| many independent objects, compared to reality. Go outside and
| look at the real world and you will see the ground has little
| pebbles and bits of mud and all this stuff that gets kicked
| around. No video game will let you inspect the leaves of
| plants to look for little bugs, the way reality will. Or for
| indoor scenes, there is no video game that accurately
| captures the experience of "picking up a living room with a
| bunch of toys strewn about".
| makapuf wrote:
| > No video game will let you inspect the leaves of plants
| to look for little bugs, the way reality will.
|
| Why not? With procedural generation and LOD rendering it's
| not impossible. Not that it's easy, but not impossible?
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Presumably you're not a native English speaker. "will"
| here does not refer to the future, this is a subtle
| grammatical thing that I can't explain well, but it
| refers to presently existing games.
| cyberlurker wrote:
| Still, there is no reason I can think of that the game
| described couldn't be created right now besides it not
| being a very fun/Marketable game.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| But that's theoretical, the point is more how current
| games actually look, not what people _could_ make
| potentially with today 's tech.
|
| Also, some games are intentionally cartoonish as an
| artistic choice so photorealism isn't always the goal.
| bobthepanda wrote:
| Everything has a cost, either computational or human.
|
| We've probably reached the point where human cost exceeds
| computational cost, which is to say that developing and
| QA testing such a feature would probably cost more money
| than it's worth. How many users of software would gain
| from such minutiae?
| Shorel wrote:
| That would require programming lots and lots of procedural
| generation algorithms, one for each kind of thing.
|
| Sounds like a fun project for the next generations.
| Something to play when I am older.
| perseusmandate wrote:
| Procedural generation for plants is actually pretty
| common already Most trees you see in video games are from
| middleware like Realtree
| outworlder wrote:
| > Go outside and look at the real world and you will see
| the ground has little pebbles and bits of mud and all this
| stuff that gets kicked around
|
| We are getting better. Like snow deformation in RDR2, for
| instance(works even in a PS4).
|
| But random bits of debris that can get kicked around - and
| subsequently inspected - no. That's a problem.
|
| > No video game will let you inspect the leaves of plants
| to look for little bugs, the way reality will
|
| That's an easier problem than tracking all the debris.
| Before you inspect, you have no idea what will be there -
| the computer also doesn't have to and it can be optimized
| away until there's an observer.
|
| Think heisenberg uncertainty principle but for virtual
| worlds.
| jakear wrote:
| As someone who is most definitely not a gamer but with
| coworkers and friends that get big into high cost gaming
| systems, here's where I see the biggest deltas between real
| life and the screen:
|
| - Hair. Up until very recently hair was downright awful.
| Nowadays it's acceptable-ish, but there's still lots of room
| for improvement, in particular in natural motion of long
| hair.
|
| - Water. I spend a big chunk of my time on the water, so I'm
| probably more attuned to how it moves than most. Games just
| don't have it down. In particular, I think a lot could be
| gained by embracing it's fractal nature: in my experience, at
| every human scale (mm to dam and everything in between) very
| similar wave patterns exist, but games tend to have just a
| small fixed number of "wave-layers" at various scales stacked
| together.
|
| - Clouds. I can easily spend hours just observing clouds,
| looking at things like their shape, overall motion, internal
| motion, composition, edge behaviors, etc, and how they change
| over time. Game clouds are lacking in all these regards,
| particularly the time-sensitive nature of a cloud.
|
| - Foliage. In games I've seen, individual plants/etc. in
| isolation generally look really quite decent. But the second
| an physical object interacts with them, they very clearly
| don't respond in the right ways. There's a lot about how
| branches bend and leaves rustle and more that is lost.
| Additionally, in groups of plants it's often clear that some
| small number of models are being reused, possibly with some
| generated randomness added. But the variety doesn't come
| close to matching what one would really see.
|
| - Human faces and expressions. These are generally really
| bad, especially in normal gameplay (cut-scenes are sometimes
| better)
|
| Again, this is probably all just really weird stuff I notice
| because I spend the vast majority of my time outdoors and
| only see "HiFi" games being played very infrequently. I don't
| think games are worse for not implementing these, but I am
| very interested in what they'll look like 10-20 years down
| the road.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| Hm. Many people here share their sentiments of perceiving
| older games (or current games) as being close to
| photorealistic. Personally it never felt that way to me. All
| games have obvious problems where they don't behave/look
| anywhere close to reality. If you remove the interactive
| element and only use somewhat massaged screenshots, then,
| sure certain elements are basically photorealistic and have
| been for a while. For example, landscapes look pretty darn
| realistic. Anything alive or even most man-made artefacts,
| not so much.
|
| Apart from graphics most stuff in games is pretty rough.
| Animations are generally bad and ways before reaching the
| uncanny valley of "getting close"; they're still in the
| "abstract representation of concept" detail level. AI is dumb
| (largely for [perceived] player-acceptance reasons). Sound is
| generally poor; some games still don't use 3D sound. Physics
| are "abstract representation" level again, some games still
| have fly-through walls and vibrating items. etc. etc.
| foxdev wrote:
| I was always so confused by people saying the latest games
| were realistic. They looked so horrible. Maybe it's because
| my point of comparison was Nintendo games where they
| focused more on art direction than polygon count. I read an
| interview with someone who worked with Shigeru Miyamoto and
| they talked about how he would come back with changes to
| specific leaves and rocks after spending time exploring a
| cave or forest. The attention to detail, no matter how low-
| poly and simply-textured, made all the difference.
|
| This hasn't changed. New "realistic" games still range from
| horrible to boring-looking. I don't know if it's collective
| delusion or if I'm missing something.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| The new Microsoft Flight Sim goes for realism, and often
| achieves beauty.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=isvWpUXgKgM
|
| Take this as a compliment, not a criticism when I say
| you've rigged your proposition by holding up Nintendo
| first party games, and Shigeru Miyamoto for comparison.
| If you were to look back at he average Nintendo game, not
| made by Nintendo, they are mostly unremarkable.
|
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7ymWKnkAxM
| foxdev wrote:
| I should have specified first party. There were some
| third party games I liked, but few paid as much attention
| to style and detail. It's hard and expensive to get both
| realism and style right. I don't think it's a coincidence
| that most games I like for the art direction come from
| small indie studios who never had a shot at competing on
| realism.
| deaddodo wrote:
| Yeah, I never understood these comments. I went from the
| 8-bit generation on up and never thought PSX/Saturn/n64
| games looked "real"; just better and more options than
| before. I don't think I ever considered a game "realistic"
| until the mid-late 00's.
| KaoruAoiShiho wrote:
| Yeah... these comments are kinda weird. Hate to say it but
| maybe they should go outside more lol, computer graphics
| always looked pretty bad at me, even the clips in today's
| nvidia presentation looks really unnatural. That's not to
| take anything away from the technology and the massive
| advances it represents, just compared to reality it's still
| really far from fooling a human brain.
| Nursie wrote:
| To me the "marbles" RT demo looked amazingly real.
|
| The rest, not so much, sure.
| Retric wrote:
| Just watched the RT demo video and the paintbrushes for
| example look amazingly bad. All surfaces look flat for a
| better word, most noticeable it's sterile without dust.
| The steam blasts are terrible as they miss all the
| internal swirling you get from actual vapor. They cover
| most of this up by moving stuff around and adding clutter
| which tries to keep you from really focusing on anything.
|
| It's basically using the same technique as hand drawn
| animation where as long as you realize what's being
| represented you can automatically fill in missing
| details. However, this fails as soon as you focus on any
| one detail.
|
| Honestly, it's not bad for what it is. I mean the physics
| engine was probably the worst part, but as a visual demo
| that's fine.
| wiz21c wrote:
| interestingly many of us feel that there's a huge gap
| between the past and now. But how many of us can actually
| verbalize what will change in the rendering of pictures
| in, say 3 years.
|
| For example, I can clearly see that ray tracing produces
| better results. But it's a bit harder to tell how better
| it is, to find the words that describes how better it is.
| Of course, one can say that, for example, photon tracing
| is more physically accurate. But still, what words can we
| use to describe how real (or not real) a still image is
| ("more realistic" doesn't count :-))
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Game graphics look sterile, too clean, sharp, plasticky.
| The real world is messier with less clear separation
| between objects, things blend together more, subtle
| shadows, surfaces are less uniform, there is more
| clutter, dirt, wrinkles, details.
| formerly_proven wrote:
| In games and animations, everything is textured, but few
| things actually have a texture to them :)
| nightski wrote:
| Is that an artifact of the graphics capability? Or the
| art style? I think the two often get confused and many
| games are specifically designed for a sterile/clean look.
| bonoboTP wrote:
| Not sure. It's hard to analyze as it's more of a visceral
| impression. It could be in part the way natural
| environments tend to structure themselves over time, like
| how we throw our stuff around in natural ways.
|
| But also, the design often adapts to the capabilities.
| Games like GTA3 used to have thick fog just to hide the
| fact that they couldn't render stuff far away in time.
| You can say that's an artistic choice to give a smoggy
| big city atmosphere, but clearly it was a practical
| choice as well. Even today, game designers like to make
| things dark, blurry and rainy, so that the un-realism
| becomes less obvious.
| pvg wrote:
| Maybe the water stood out since Morrowind was an ugly game
| even in its day. All the Elder Scrolls games have a well-
| earned reputation of looking like they're populated by
| cardboard mutants. Reminds me a bit of the old Infocom ad:
|
| http://www.retroadv.it/images/03082019/Home_Computer_Magazin.
| ..
| int_19h wrote:
| Morrowind was complicated. The characters were ugly, and
| animations especially horrible. But the landscapes were
| considered very beautiful by the standards of the day.
| Yajirobe wrote:
| > Makes me wonder - what are we "not" seeing right now that
| will make us think this way 10-20 years from now?
|
| How about ray tracing?. If we get real-time 60fps+ ray-traced
| computer graphics in games, that would blow what we have now
| out of the water
| 0xffff2 wrote:
| >Makes me wonder - what are we "not" seeing right now that
| will make us think this way 10-20 years from now?
|
| My vote would be cloth simulation and clothing clipping. I've
| yet to see a game that comes even close to doing this
| realistically. Imagine what happens to your sleeves when you
| lift your arms above your head for example, or how the plates
| of a suit of armor naturally slide over each other. In every
| game I can think of, clothing is rigidly attached to the
| underlying skeleton and it just stretches/clips as the
| character moves.
|
| I guess fidelity of everything else has gotten much better,
| because I recently started noticing this and now I find it
| very distracting in any game that has in-engine cut scenes
| involving character closeups.
| noja wrote:
| When you compared it recently did you use the same monitor,
| cable (analog or digital), and resolution?
| outworlder wrote:
| YES! Morrowind was my 'shader benchmark' for some time.
| int_19h wrote:
| It was one of the first prominent uses of pixel shaders in
| the game, coinciding with NVidia (not ATI) releasing GeForce
| models that supported them.
|
| It was so noticeable because it was such a huge increase in
| quality compared to what passed for water in games before -
| usually some kind of blue-grey translucent texture. For the
| first time, pixel shaders produced water that was clearly an
| attempt to imitate water IRL, not the cartoonish
| representation of it.
| Budabellly wrote:
| For me, it's fidelity of human facial animation that has a
| long way to come. There are teams doing a great job of it
| [1], but the labor/skill required to bring one high hyperreal
| facial rig to a game or movie seems insane. I think companies
| pursuing AR/VR applications will lead here.
|
| ML creative tools stand to automate a lot of this imo.
|
| [1] random example: https://snapperstech.com/
| johnwheeler wrote:
| > "well that's it - doesn't get any more real than this"
|
| > Makes me wonder - what are we "not" seeing right now that
| will make us think this way 10-20 years from now?
|
| Yes - well said. That's what I was trying to convey in my
| comment.
| lwansbrough wrote:
| I think Epic's UE5 demo is really really close to reality
| in terms of lighting and geometry. Next 10-20 years will
| probably see the same technology being brought into larger
| and larger environments with more moving parts.
|
| Then there's the more obvious stuff that isn't done well
| even today: skeletal animation is still lacking and feels
| unnatural, physics systems are still very approximate and
| constrained - often times most things are indestructible in
| games, fluid dynamics are still very slow/limited. Human
| models still don't look real though, and the voice acting
| never quite matches the mouth movement or body language.
|
| I do really feel like we've crossed the uncanny valley when
| it comes to natural scenery rendering. But a lot of what
| makes things feel real are still missing from games.
| heipei wrote:
| I agree, it's so close that it's actually being used as
| an interactive movie background with a big-ass 360-degree
| screen for dynamic scene and lighting:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hjb-AqMD-a4
| formerly_proven wrote:
| IMHO it looks fake. The lighting is way off, it quite
| literally looks like they're standing directly below a
| big diffuser - which they are. The background looks like
| a poster with one of these diffraction parallax effects.
|
| It's very cool tech. But it doesn't look real.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| The camera angles in that demo were off axis.
|
| Take a look at The Mandalorian series, almost all of the
| outdoor scenes were shot using the video wall technology.
|
| I've worked in computer graphics and I didn't realise the
| sets were fake until after I finished the whole series.
| Shivetya wrote:
| I remember the progress from CGA to EGA; there was that odd
| bridge of Tandy 16 color; and then, boom, VGA, which looked so
| magical compared to what came before. Even when I did gray
| scale VGA on my IBM PS/2 50z it all just felt like a big jump
| had been finally taken.
|
| Then down the road came 3dfx with Voodoo and that to me was the
| next great leap forward. Each iteration has been leading to ray
| tracing which is the next great leap.
|
| Now just for screen tech to become as affordable as the cards
| that can drive them, the LG OLED we have is stunning but that
| is "just" 4K.
|
| just for fun, the story of 3dfx voodoo
| https://fabiensanglard.net/3dfx_sst1/index.html
| ttul wrote:
| Jensen Huang has a really baller stove.
| throwaway287391 wrote:
| You can see it in action in this video:
| https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So7TNRhIYJ8
| flas9sd wrote:
| as someone who put failing green IGPs on notebook pcbs into
| the oven in 2013 for a reball reanimation I feel some irony
| when the chef himself is at the old trick.
| xbryanx wrote:
| How many spatulas does one family need though?!
| sliverdragon37 wrote:
| His entire house is really sweet. I went there once for an
| intern event, there's an nvidia logo on the bottom of the pool.
| Crazy stuff.
| trynewideas wrote:
| I looked at the backsplash for way too long because at first
| glance I thought it was a field of crucifixes. But no, it's
| just a vineyard.
| emmanueloga_ wrote:
| backsplash! That's a word I did not know. Anyway, I couldn't
| help to notice the backsplash too and the kitchen enclosing,
| it looks optimized to collect grease and make it hard to
| clean :-/
| ealexhudson wrote:
| That stove is an Aga and in the centre of his Aga is one of
| these RTX 30 GPUs. Keeps the whole house warm.
| trumpeta wrote:
| Then why does he need the leather jacket?
| m3kw9 wrote:
| To keep him looking cool
| ChuckNorris89 wrote:
| His leather jacket is a meme at this point. Be a shame to
| waste it.
| nomel wrote:
| It's actually a full body oven mitt.
| ralusek wrote:
| To show off the specular highlights with RTX.
| tpmx wrote:
| The inventor of the continously burning "AGA cooker" beast
| was an interesting person:
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustaf_Dal%C3%A9n
| bitxbit wrote:
| As someone who runs data models at home in addition to 3D
| rendering, 3090 is a must buy for me. I imagine it will be sold
| out within minutes and supply will be an issue for months.
| fortran77 wrote:
| The pricing seems very good. Our company write a lot of CUDA
| code, mostly for real-time audio processing. It's amazing how
| much performance you can get with a desktop PC these days. These
| really are Supercomputers on a card.
| antpls wrote:
| Not sure it was mentioned so far, but the reference to photon
| instead of electron at the end of the presentation could point to
| future photonic GPU ? https://www.anandtech.com/show/16010/hot-
| chips-2020-live-blo...
| zamadatix wrote:
| I think it's more likely a reference that long distance high
| speed communication is done via photons not electrons.
| Ninjinka wrote:
| The pricing is insane. $499 for a card that beats the 2080ti?
| mkaic wrote:
| And to think I was just about to buy a $400 2060 Super. I don't
| think I'll be doing that anymore.
| verst wrote:
| About 4 months ago I picked up a 2060 Super for my ancient
| gaming desktop while I am waiting for the 3080 or 3090 to
| finally build a new gaming PC. Ideally I'd have a 4th gen
| Ryzen equivalent of the 3900X.
|
| The main reason my 2012 build of a PC is holding up ok was
| PCIE 3.0 support, so for me PCIE 4.0 is a must. The only
| thing I ever upgraded was the GPU and HDD. Went from 670 ->
| 980 -> 2060 Super. The i7-3370k (OC to about 4.3Ghz) has held
| up ok. The 16GB DD3-1866Mhz is slow however. Switching from a
| 2TB 5200 RPM drive to a 2TB NVMe SSD (Samsung EVO 860) for
| which I had to get a riser card since the ASROCK z77 Extreme
| 4 doesn't have m.2 made a huge difference also. When I
| upgraded to the RTX 2060 Super I ran out of PCI 3.0 lanes,
| and as a result my SSD is running slower, but that's ok.
|
| Suprisingly, I can play the new Microsoft Flight simulator
| just fine in 3440x1440 resolution on High Settings.
| Assassin's Creed Odyssey runs well in 1440p Ultra at ~60 FPS.
| saberdancer wrote:
| I almost bought an 2080 Ti. Now I have to wait :).
| aligray wrote:
| I bought one at the start of the year, it's always the way I
| suppose.
| ses1984 wrote:
| You got to use it for most of the year.
| arvinsim wrote:
| 1 year of use is fair. I have 5700 XT and I think I got
| good value of it.
| wlesieutre wrote:
| I just went and checked my RX 5700 receipt and I paid
| $212 after tax last November. After selling the included
| Borderlands 3 license because I'd already bought it, net
| price under $200. GPU value of the century right there.
|
| But as a lighting nerd, I do want the raytracing...
| elipsey wrote:
| >> $212 after tax
|
| So they have doubled in price since then? wtf?
|
| https://www.newegg.com/p/pl?N=100007709%20601341487%20601
| 341...
| easytiger wrote:
| I recently got a 2070 super OC. It really struggles with,
| say, COD:MW at near 4k Res (3440x1440). Indeed the campaign
| with RT on doesn't get more than ~50fps. Kinda disappointed
| really. Get about 100fps in multiplayer with everything
| turned off/low.
|
| But the cost of a 2080ti was ridiculous especially
| considering the open secret of its impending obsolescence.
|
| AMD really need to up their marketing budget. From the
| zeitgeist I've no idea where their lineup sits comparatively.
| No wonder they only have 20% market share
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| AMD still don't offer a compelling product for the high-
| end, which Nvidia is taking full advantage of. AMD cards
| are the most economical on the market and have their own
| advantages but they're niche (Linux support is much better
| for example).
|
| AMD got on top of Intel by creating hardware that delivers.
| Just a few years ago AMD CPUs were economical, but the
| performance was abysmal, especially in single-threaded
| applications by comparison. They didn't make a product for
| the high-end.
|
| I am eagerly awaiting what the next series of AMD cards are
| going to be able to do. They're talking a big game for
| sure. But Nvidia has a big software advantage as well as a
| hardware advantage on AMD and that's likely to be a
| sticking point for me personally on my next purchase.
| Nvidia spends a lot of resources on working closely with
| developers and providing them support they need to take
| better advantage of the hardware with nvidia-specific
| features. AMD doesn't seem to do the same, and has had much
| higher profile issues with their drivers in my experience.
|
| All that said, I hope AMD can provide a product to truly
| compete at the high-end with Nvidia, to hopefully drive
| prices down as GPU prices have gone up dramatically on the
| high end.
| corey_moncure wrote:
| All of the performance claims are extremely hand-wavey. They
| are using the deep learning and compute features to equivocate
| about resolutions and framerates. 8K@60 isn't real, but with
| DLSS activated it is.
| beagle3 wrote:
| It was the 20xx series that had insane pricing (in a bad way).
| nVidia had no competition and priced things at the highest
| markup the market could take, segmenting it by ML, cloud,
| mining, gaming etc.
|
| Not sure what their competition now in each vertical, but
| apparently they believe that they need a lower price point.
| m3kw9 wrote:
| Maybe it beats with RTX
| zucker42 wrote:
| Almost seems to good to be true, huh?
| WrtCdEvrydy wrote:
| That's pretty nice actually, can't wait for the 20XX to go on
| deep discount.
| tmpz22 wrote:
| I'd wait for in-game benchmarks on high end monitors before I
| believe that comparison from NVIDIA. Even if the specs are
| better games are still optimized for older gen cards.
| asutekku wrote:
| No matter what, $499 is still a better deal than $1200 for a
| somewhat similar card. You really don't need benchmarks for
| that.
| alkonaut wrote:
| I'm going to assume that's because it has twice the raytracing
| power so it's with all the eyecandy turned up (Until I see
| something that says otherwise).
| highfrequency wrote:
| Keep in mind that both the 3070 and the 3080 have less memory
| than the 2080 Ti
| cma wrote:
| But they also have PCI-e 4 with CPU bypass and onboard
| decompression for streaming in data from SSD.
|
| Probably a better trade-off for gaming and worse for ML
| training.
| jessermeyer wrote:
| Source on cpu bypass and ssd decomp? That reads like ps5
| tech.
| [deleted]
| cma wrote:
| >Leveraging the advanced architecture of our new GeForce
| RTX 30 Series graphics cards, we've created NVIDIA RTX
| IO, a suite of technologies that enable rapid GPU-based
| loading and game asset decompression
|
| https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/rtx-io-gpu-
| acceler...
|
| It can't both bypass the CPU and have decompression
| unless it is decompression on the GPU. I'm not sure it is
| dedicated decompression hardware, or if it is using the
| normal GPU compute.
| wtallis wrote:
| Read a bit further into that link:
|
| > Specifically, NVIDIA RTX IO brings GPU-based lossless
| decompression, allowing reads through DirectStorage to
| remain compressed while being delivered to the GPU for
| decompression.
|
| Still not sure if it'll use fixed-function decompression
| units on the GPU or if it's just compute shaders, but
| it's decompressing on the GPU.
| phaus wrote:
| Allegedly beats the 2080 TI, not just the regular one.
| Ninjinka wrote:
| I've heard a few people say that, this graphic makes it look
| about the same though: https://i.imgur.com/fbo1UIU.png
|
| EDIT: I am an idiot. It does say it's faster, though the
| chart makes it look pretty close.
| trollied wrote:
| It says "Faster than 2080TI" right underneath it...
| redisman wrote:
| Probably like faster at RT. I'll almost certainly go for
| the 3070 - that's crazy value for not much more than I
| paid for 2060S.
| phaus wrote:
| People are speculating that the 2x numbers come from RTX
| and/or DLSS, but they also doubled the number of CUDA
| cores so its possible its going to be an actual raw
| performance gain.
|
| I think its wise to be skeptical until independant
| benchmarks are available but I would be surprised if this
| didn't end up being the biggest performance increase in
| Nvidia's history for a single generation, just like they
| say it is.
| paulmd wrote:
| > I've heard a few people say that
|
| probably because of, oh I don't know, _the text right next
| to the 3070 dot saying "faster than 2080 Ti"_...
|
| (and I'm really only speculating here)
|
| It probably won't be like, night and day faster than a 2080
| Ti of course, it's going to be the same _bracket_ judging
| by the chart, but I 'd expect it to usually edge out the
| 2080 Ti by a couple percent based on the text there.
| godelski wrote:
| Everything was awesome except the 3090. $1500?!?!?!?! That's a
| big jump from the 2080Ti pricing of $1200.
| t3rabytes wrote:
| Seems like the expectation on Reddit is that the 3090 is more
| of a Titan replacement rather than a 2080Ti replacement and
| that a Ti variant will come later with 20gb of mem.
| saberdancer wrote:
| From what I heard, nvidia wants to simplify naming, having
| Ti and Super along side the numbers makes it confusing for
| the consumer (in their opinion), so they want to go away
| from it. I wouldn't be surprised that the rumor is true and
| that they will ditch the Ti/Super suffixes.
| godelski wrote:
| That is fair. It is a bigger jump from the Ti. Though most
| of the rumor sites were suggesting $1400. The 20Gb 2080
| variant seems to be a really recent rumor though.
|
| What I did find interesting is that it does seem like the
| $1499 on the slide could have been mistakenly shown. They
| didn't verbally announce it and other than that one second
| avoided talking about the price.
| gambiting wrote:
| It's not an expectation from Reddit, this was said
| explicitly in the presentation - that they used to make the
| Titan for people who wanted the best of the best, so here's
| 3090 for that market.
| t3rabytes wrote:
| Ope, my fault -- I didn't have a chance to watch it, so I
| was just going off of what I read on Reddit.
| redisman wrote:
| Jensen said it is the new Titan so it is actually a lot
| cheaper than 20 series Titan RTX at $2500.
| bitL wrote:
| Rumor is that RTX3080 gets 20GB RAM and another that
| RTX3090 gets 48GB RAM just by simply replacing memory chips
| for twice-the-size ones.
| fluffything wrote:
| > Everything was awesome except the 3090. $1500?!?!?!?!
| That's a big jump from the 2080Ti pricing of $1200.
|
| Since its a Titan model (for machine learning work, not for
| gamers), and the last gen "RTX Titan" costs 2500$ today, its
| actually a big jump, but in the opposite direction. Almost
| half the price...
| phaus wrote:
| 3080 ti comes later. They said at the presentation the 3090
| is the new Titan so its actually a massive price drop.
|
| The 3080 TI will probably be out next year if they follow
| typical patterns and it will have slightly better gaming
| performance than the 3090 at a much lower price.
| SketchySeaBeast wrote:
| I don't know about last gen, but that was the same as the
| generation before it - the 1070 beat the 980ti. It's the cycle
| they do, and as a gamer why I'll never buy more than the x70
| card.
| metalliqaz wrote:
| The 20xx series was very obviously the "tech development" release
| and was a terrible value. It was first gen ray tracing and thus
| actually unequipped to fulfill its promises. The 30xx series
| looks to be much better and is probably finally worth the upgrade
| from 9xx and 10xx equipment.
| pixxel wrote:
| I find the naming conventions for computer parts utterly
| confusing. I'm looking to step away from Apple and do my first
| (AMD) PC build. Need to find a good overview to read through.
| stu2b50 wrote:
| 3080
|
| 30 <- represents the generation, previously it was 20,eg RTX
| 2080
|
| 80 <- represents power within the generation, an 80 is near the
| top
|
| Higher generation means newer. Higher number means more
| powerful within that generation. To compare across generations,
| you need benchmarks.
| SahAssar wrote:
| IMO apples is even worse, most models just have semi-official
| dates like "Mid 2015" and no proper consumer-facing model
| numbers.
| zapnuk wrote:
| Very impressive. I predict that they'll be (more or less) sold
| out at least until 2021 at the very least.
| phaus wrote:
| I'm glad the 3080 is launching first so I can try getting one
| of those and if they are sold out I have time to think about
| whether I want to try dropping more than twice as much on a
| 3090 instead.
| mkaic wrote:
| I sure hope not. This launch is SUPER exciting--I really want
| to get my hands on a 3070 once I can afford it. They better be
| in stock by then!
| lachlan-sneff wrote:
| 3080 ($700) apparently has 238 teraflops of "tensor compute."
| We're frighteningly close to a petaflop of compute for less than
| a thousand usd.
| arcanus wrote:
| That is FP16 (rounding up to FP32). It is not sufficient for
| most HPC compute. Good for ML/AI, at least.
| alkonaut wrote:
| For all but the AI/DL crowd the move away from high precision
| to high-power low precision is a bit sad.
| bogwog wrote:
| 10,496 cores on the 3090. That's just insane.
| shmerl wrote:
| I'm waiting for RDNA 2 cards from AMD.
| Nursie wrote:
| I'm waiting for AMD to show their hand, but this is a very
| strong first strike from nvidia.
| shmerl wrote:
| Sure, if the bold 2x performance increase claim is to be
| believed. I'd wait for benchmarks to validate that.
|
| Plus for me, Nvidia is simply DOA on Linux, due them refusing
| to upstream their driver and hindering Nouveau to reclock
| properly. So even if AMD won't outdo them, I still won't
| touch Nvidia.
| BearOso wrote:
| Ditto. But it's pretty much certain that even if the new
| AMD cards don't match the top Nvidia performance, they're
| still going to be competitive or better on
| cost/performance. So you don't have to worry about missing
| anything if you go AMD for Linux.
|
| I'm just glad that we've finally gotten past that ceiling
| at ~13 TFLOPs. Nvidia has been hobbling along for a few
| years, so a breakthrough is nice.
| Nursie wrote:
| I think whether AMD can match price/performance is very
| much up in the air right now.
|
| _If_ nvidia 's performance claims are real then that is
| a massive challenge for AMD to meet.
| uep wrote:
| > Plus for me, Nvidia is simply DOA on Linux
|
| Same. The best this announcement does for me is force AMD
| to reduce the price of their GPUs. Which is appreciated,
| because I am due to upgrade.
| Nursie wrote:
| Never had an issue using the proprietary driver on linux,
| myself.
|
| I know, I know, it would be nice to have a proper FOSS
| driver, and better for integration, updates etc. But it
| does work fine, IMHO.
| shmerl wrote:
| Depends, it works for cases Nvidia care about. But what
| you call integration means all other cases :) And there
| it simply falls apart or takes decades to be fixed.
| Nursie wrote:
| In linux as long as I can get XFCE going, all thw screens
| at the right res and scling levela, and the cuda drivers
| working, I'm generally happy :)
|
| I'm probably pretty easy to please :)
| Havoc wrote:
| Guess I'm not keeping my 2070 super for long then
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| To be fair most games run great on any RTX card. What are you
| playing that would benefit an upgrade?
| tobyhinloopen wrote:
| Well my 2080TI still runs Factorio without issues so I suppose I
| don't need to upgrade
| ralusek wrote:
| Ya, but we'll know, and more importantly, you'll know. Go ahead
| and upgrade.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-09-01 23:00 UTC)