News AMD research suggests plans to catch up to Nvidia using neural supersampling and denoising for real-time path tracing

[Admin]

AMD appears to have plans to use a neural network to perform denoising and reconstruct scene details. It's not yet available, but it sounds a lot like Nvidia’s Ray Reconstruction feature in DLSS 3.5.

AMD research suggests plans to catch up to Nvidia using neural supersampling and denoising for real-time path tracing : Read more

 

[hotaru251]

industry needs a 60 tier value card (as in $300-350) that can play games as well as a 70 tier (as even that is only medium 1080p 60 in many new games)

If amd could do that & improve their fsr they'd take a lot of the market given thats what most people want to buy at

 

[umeng2002_2]

I don't see any new games on the horizon that demand a 5080 or 5090. Allen Wake II and Silent Hill 2 are not blockbusters, and Cyberpunk is long dead.

 

[thestryker]

Hopefully AMD can get these in place along with better upscaling. Then once they put out cards with more equivalent RT capability they should be close enough to feature parity to gain market should the pricing accompany the technology. Ray Reconstruction is a pretty big deal and hopefully all three will have it implemented in a simple way to add to games like upscaling is. There's a lot of really cool stuff that can be done with RT, but they really need to work on a way to bring that to the masses rather than being behind the $600+ price points.

 

[Trake_17]

I'm still waiting to actually care about Ray Tracing

 

[Mama Changa]

I don't see any new games on the horizon that demand a 5080 or 5090. Allen Wake II and Silent Hill 2 are not blockbusters, and Cyberpunk is long dead.

More and more games using UE5.x engine will need them IMO, otherwise I agree.

Any way, 5090 is going to be $2K+ so only the noisy forum jockeys will pretend to buy one while using a 1660/2060/3060 still.

 

[Pemalite]

industry needs a 60 tier value card (as in $300-350) that can play games as well as a 70 tier (as even that is only medium 1080p 60 in many new games)

If amd could do that & improve their fsr they'd take a lot of the market given thats what most people want to buy at

Unfortunately for ATI/AMD, even when they historically had the technical edge in terms of performance, features and were also cheaper... nVidia still had more marketshare.
For example... Back during the Geforce FX vs Radeon 9000 days where AMD had better performance, better features and a better price, nVidia still had more marketshare.

It was only during the 2004/2005 period during the transition from Geforce 6 to Geforce 7 that AMD managed to get above nVidia... Ironically AMD had the arguably inferior product with the Radeon x800 series which weren't fully SM3.0 compliant.

It's hard to get marketshare if you don't have consumer mindshare, nVidia's marketing and deals with game publishers is what gave them the boost, then things like CUDA/Crypto/A.I has continued to propel them forwards.
Companies like Matrox (Who still exist), Intel have tried to stay relevant, but just don't seem to gain traction either.
nVidia is just a monolithic uphill battle, consumers have voted and voted for years... And that will keep prices high for consumers unfortunately.

 

[Notton]

I don't see any new games on the horizon that demand a 5080 or 5090. Allen Wake II and Silent Hill 2 are not blockbusters, and Cyberpunk is long dead.

RTX4080 Super barely hits 60/50fps in star wars outlaws at 4k ultra with frame gen and ultra rtx lighting.
The 4090 does 80/70fps with the same settings.

I'm still waiting to actually care about Ray Tracing

It looks great when the devs have the time and will to implement it correctly, like Wukong.
Of course, if all you play are games that don't use it, and there are a lot of current titles like that, then sure, go for pure raster.

 

[Amdlova]

try'n to play quad hd with the 4060 8gb 😀 using dlss working great, but the 13500T don't have the power to keep the fps high... deeps below 50ish

I want a new gpu but don't want pay full premium for it max 450usd!

 

[TheHerald]

Unfortunately for ATI/AMD, even when they historically had the technical edge in terms of performance, features and were also cheaper... nVidia still had more marketshare.
For example... Back during the Geforce FX vs Radeon 9000 days where AMD had better performance, better features and a better price, nVidia still had more marketshare.

It was only during the 2004/2005 period during the transition from Geforce 6 to Geforce 7 that AMD managed to get above nVidia... Ironically AMD had the arguably inferior product with the Radeon x800 series which weren't fully SM3.0 compliant.

It's hard to get marketshare if you don't have consumer mindshare, nVidia's marketing and deals with game publishers is what gave them the boost, then things like CUDA/Crypto/A.I has continued to propel them forwards.
Companies like Matrox (Who still exist), Intel have tried to stay relevant, but just don't seem to gain traction either.
nVidia is just a monolithic uphill battle, consumers have voted and voted for years... And that will keep prices high for consumers unfortunately.

Your graph shows otherwise though. It show that when AMD / ATI had good products, marketshare was competitive. They went from 40-60% to less than 10, and you think it's because of mindshare....Yet on the CPU market they are outselling Intel in DIY.

Come on,stop the cope. Their products are mediocre.

 

[ManDaddio]

Unfortunately for ATI/AMD, even when they historically had the technical edge in terms of performance, features and were also cheaper... nVidia still had more marketshare.
For example... Back during the Geforce FX vs Radeon 9000 days where AMD had better performance, better features and a better price, nVidia still had more marketshare.

It was only during the 2004/2005 period during the transition from Geforce 6 to Geforce 7 that AMD managed to get above nVidia... Ironically AMD had the arguably inferior product with the Radeon x800 series which weren't fully SM3.0 compliant.

It's hard to get marketshare if you don't have consumer mindshare, nVidia's marketing and deals with game publishers is what gave them the boost, then things like CUDA/Crypto/A.I has continued to propel them forwards.
Companies like Matrox (Who still exist), Intel have tried to stay relevant, but just don't seem to gain traction either.
nVidia is just a monolithic uphill battle, consumers have voted and voted for years... And that will keep prices high for consumers unfortunately.

People buy Nvidia because they like the product. That's how the markets work. AMD also raised their prices as well. So it's not just Nvidia that raised their prices. If AMD was 40% cheaper all the time for the same performance then I would agree with you. A lot of people go out and buy AMD cards either on the used market or at the end of life cycle when they drop their prices a lot to get rid of the stock. That is your typical AMD customer.

 

[ManDaddio]

I have no doubt that AMD will improve their features. But they are always going to be behind the eight ball. Do we really think that Nvidia won't improve their Ray tracing and path tracing for the 5000 series? Or come up with some other new techniques to do things better?

Also it all comes down to developers implementing the graphical eye candy correctly. A lot of people overlooked that fact.

You can see that the ray tracing looks great in one game and maybe not so great in another. That's not because of Nvidia.

That's because of implementation or engine limitations or whatever else but not NVIDIA.

 

[evdjj3j]

Unfortunately for ATI/AMD, even when they historically had the technical edge in terms of performance, features and were also cheaper... nVidia still had more marketshare.
For example... Back during the Geforce FX vs Radeon 9000 days where AMD had better performance, better features and a better price, nVidia still had more marketshare.

It was only during the 2004/2005 period during the transition from Geforce 6 to Geforce 7 that AMD managed to get above nVidia... Ironically AMD had the arguably inferior product with the Radeon x800 series which weren't fully SM3.0 compliant.

It's hard to get marketshare if you don't have consumer mindshare, nVidia's marketing and deals with game publishers is what gave them the boost, then things like CUDA/Crypto/A.I has continued to propel them forwards.
Companies like Matrox (Who still exist), Intel have tried to stay relevant, but just don't seem to gain traction either.
nVidia is just a monolithic uphill battle, consumers have voted and voted for years... And that will keep prices high for consumers unfortunately.

They've had terrible drivers since ATI in the 90's.

 

[bigdragon]

My problems with AMD usually involve their drivers and software support. I know exactly how Blender, Unreal, and other tools are going to behave when I use an Nvidia card. AMD is unpredictable. Sometimes it works great, and sometimes you get an out of memory error even though the GPU has twice the amount of VRAM as the Nvidia card it replaced. I hope AMD improves their graphics products because we need a strong competitor to check Nvidia.

 

[upsetkiller]

Unfortunately for ATI/AMD, even when they historically had the technical edge in terms of performance, features and were also cheaper... nVidia still had more marketshare.
For example... Back during the Geforce FX vs Radeon 9000 days where AMD had better performance, better features and a better price, nVidia still had more marketshare.

It was only during the 2004/2005 period during the transition from Geforce 6 to Geforce 7 that AMD managed to get above nVidia... Ironically AMD had the arguably inferior product with the Radeon x800 series which weren't fully SM3.0 compliant.

It's hard to get marketshare if you don't have consumer mindshare, nVidia's marketing and deals with game publishers is what gave them the boost, then things like CUDA/Crypto/A.I has continued to propel them forwards.
Companies like Matrox (Who still exist), Intel have tried to stay relevant, but just don't seem to gain traction either.
nVidia is just a monolithic uphill battle, consumers have voted and voted for years... And that will keep prices high for consumers unfortunately.

Mind share is why intel outsells amd globally as well, in asia most people go for intel and nvidia regardles of anything. Arrowlake here will outsell am5, just based on the perception that amd is a poor mans product. Only the rx400 and rx500 series found success

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Your graph shows otherwise though. It show that when AMD / ATI had good products, marketshare was competitive. They went from 40-60% to less than 10, and you think it's because of mindshare....Yet on the CPU market they are outselling Intel in DIY.

Come on,stop the cope. Their products are mediocre.

Amd/Ati had performance parity/leadership with the 9000 series, HD4870 and HD5870. The graph shows the red team with sales leadership for 1 model series, x800. Nvidia though hot and thirsty still held near parity even with their relatively poor performing cards. For decades people purporting to be experts have slated Amd/Ati drivers. This hasn’t been a problem for years. (Anyone remember Vista…. Nvidia drivers crashed windows regularly, they weren’t ready).

Mindshare takes a hell of a long time to shift.
Elsewhere in the thread Ryzen is mentioned, it took time to be considered a reliable alternative in the private buyer space. Company inertia still buys intel.

The thing is… gaming is barely a rounding error on their balance sheet. AI, GPU compute stokes their coffers… Nvidia could give away their cards and barely even notice the loss.
Mind share buys them their coffees..

 

[TheHerald]

Amd/Ati had performance parity/leadership with the 9000 series, HD4870 and HD5870. The graph shows the red team with sales leadership for 1 model series, x800. Nvidia though hot and thirsty still held near parity even with their relatively poor performing cards. For decades people purporting to be experts have slated Amd/Ati drivers. This hasn’t been a problem for years. (Anyone remember Vista…. Nvidia drivers crashed windows regularly, they weren’t ready).

Mindshare takes a hell of a long time to shift.
Elsewhere in the thread Ryzen is mentioned, it took time to be considered a reliable alternative in the private buyer space. Company inertia still buys intel.

The thing is… gaming is barely a rounding error on their balance sheet. AI, GPU compute stokes their coffers… Nvidia could give away their cards and barely even notice the loss.
Mind share buys them their coffees..

If amd held parity when they made good or better cards, doesn't it mean their cars sucks now that they dropped to 10%

 

[stuff and nonesense]

No, there have been a few bad cards, HD2900 comes to mind.

I don’t video encode, I don’t care about ray tracing.. current cards, both sides are good for the task. 7900 xt is damned quick, the model I have is quiet and doesn’t get excessively hot. The 300W full load.. only drawback.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

If amd held parity when they made good or better cards, doesn't it mean their cars sucks now that they dropped to 10%

Consider the reviews…

All the comparison data for any new release is whatever Nvidia is replacing or if amd is making a release is whatever Nvidia is doing.. Nvidia is always in the script. It needs to be it has the higher performance.
That the reviewers show the higher performance of Nvidia for 20 minutes in a review and then have a 5 second line saying Amd is cheaper cements in the mindshare that Nvidia is “better”.
It isn’t the reviewers being shills.. it is what it is.

Hardware finds its price, its value in the market but when performance is equal and features are comparable people tend to look towards Nvidia… mindshare.

 

[thestryker]

Mindshare takes a hell of a long time to shift.
Elsewhere in the thread Ryzen is mentioned, it took time to be considered a reliable alternative in the private buyer space. Company inertia still buys intel.

AMD undercut quite a bit on pricing so there was a segment of buyer who realistically they were the only logical choice for. These buyers also got to reap the benefit of how far AMD had to go with drop in upgrades down the road. Mindshare matters, but matching, or even beating the competition isn't what breaks that it's doing so while providing a better value.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

AMD undercut quite a bit on pricing so there was a segment of buyer who realistically they were the only logical choice for. These buyers also got to reap the benefit of how far AMD had to go with drop in upgrades down the road. Mindshare matters, but matching, or even beating the competition isn't what breaks that it's doing so while providing a better value.

Examples?

 

[thestryker]

Examples?

Prior to the 9th Gen Intel didn't offer desktop 8 core period. Intel's tray prices tended to be under the retail price during this period as well.

2700X MSRP $330
8700K Tray $359

The 2700X came with a sufficient cooler and better multithreaded performance though still behind in gaming/single. So while this price isn't significantly better on launch it'd still be around 17% cheaper when factoring cooling. Then there's of course the fact that AMD's parts tended to go on sale fairly quickly as they were still very much the underdog. Then there was also the 2600X which had an MSRP of $230 and could keep up in many multithreaded tasks with the 8700K.

3700X MSRP $330
9700K Tray $374
9900K Tray $488

Zen 2 is when AMD became quite a bit better in a lot of the multithreaded workloads and closed the gap in gaming/single. They were also still including coolers so say 18-35% or so cheaper depending on which Intel competitor you were looking at. There's also the 3600X at $250 MSRP which could beat everything below the 9900K at multithreaded tasks.

These parts offered significantly more value than anything Intel was providing and drove Intel to raise core counts and then stop withholding HT. AMD has not done anything of the sort in the graphics market. This is just looking at desktop in HEDT (which AMD also murdered) and Enterprise AMD completely flipped the table.

 

[stuff and nonesense]

Prior to the 9th Gen Intel didn't offer desktop 8 core period. Intel's tray prices tended to be under the retail price during this period as well.

2700X MSRP $330
8700K Tray $359

The 2700X came with a sufficient cooler and better multithreaded performance though still behind in gaming/single. So while this price isn't significantly better on launch it'd still be around 17% cheaper when factoring cooling. Then there's of course the fact that AMD's parts tended to go on sale fairly quickly as they were still very much the underdog. Then there was also the 2600X which had an MSRP of $230 and could keep up in many multithreaded tasks with the 8700K.

3700X MSRP $330
9700K Tray $374
9900K Tray $488

Zen 2 is when AMD became quite a bit better in a lot of the multithreaded workloads and closed the gap in gaming/single. They were also still including coolers so say 18-35% or so cheaper depending on which Intel competitor you were looking at. There's also the 3600X at $250 MSRP which could beat everything below the 9900K at multithreaded tasks.

These parts offered significantly more value than anything Intel was providing and drove Intel to raise core counts and then stop withholding HT. AMD has not done anything of the sort in the graphics market. This is just looking at desktop in HEDT (which AMD also murdered) and Enterprise AMD completely flipped the table.

Zen 1 and Zen + showed Amd can execute. Zen 2 made people wake up, Zen 2 is still viable.

I thought you were going to come up with GPU examples, 480/590 being mid range 1060 competitors, the liquid cooled hbm GPU not having enough (expensive) memory, 64 and vega… not really commercial GPUs.. wrong market for them. 2900, cost a lot of money to develop but was not the product the devs worked with well and as such benchmarked badly. 6850, a regression/consolidation from the previous 58x0 the ones from a decade ago. 58x0 were awesome chips, 48x0, 79x0, Ati 9700 caught Nvidia on the hop. Their competitor was damn loud with a crazy blower cooler and it was slower..

I feel that even if AMD made a release that was faster and cheaper people would still buy Nvidia. It would take a few cycles of quicker fully featured cards flawlessly executed to start to persuade the public to switch.

In the mean time people, buy what suits your pocket and your specs on the day.

 

[thestryker]

I thought you were going to come up with GPU examples,

No I only quoted your bit about Ryzen because there's a reason that was successful but graphics hasn't been despite the last 3 generations of Radeon having good products.

I feel that even if AMD made a release that was faster and cheaper people would still buy Nvidia. It would take a few cycles of quicker fully featured cards flawlessly executed to start to persuade the public to switch.

I disagree and we saw this play out with Ryzen where they were immediately gaining marketshare simply due to value. AMD doesn't need feature parity to gain marketshare they need cheaper prices on launch. If their goal is marketshare they need to be at least 25% cheaper than nvidia until they have feature parity.

In the mean time people, buy what suits your pocket and your specs on the day.

I wish that's how people bought because it's the best way.

 

[Pemalite]

They've had terrible drivers since ATI in the 90's.

That's "mindshare".
I have used ATI/AMD since the 90's alongside a 3dfx Voodoo for a chunk of that with a splattering of nVidia in between when they offered the superior price/performance product. (I don't care about brand.)
I.E. Geforce 4200, Geforce 8800, Geforce 1080 etc'.

I have anecdotally had minimal issues with any GPU manufacturer.

Consequently... If you remember... nVidia was the cause for almost a third of all Windows Vista blue screen crashes.

Vista-capable lawsuit paints picture of buggy NVIDIA drivers

Evidence drawn from Microsoft's own Windows Vista crash logs suggest that …

arstechnica.com

Then you had the Gameready driver from nVidia which was consuming massive amounts of CPU time.
https://www.pcworld.com/article/1659646/nvidia-driver-fixes-cpu-woes-and-other-issues.html

I could go on... But empirically nVidia doesn't have a perfect track record in terms of driver quality.

Conversely, nVidia's drivers UI interface looks like something from the 90s.