Wednesday, April 3rd 2019

Further Optimizations to NVIDIA RTX, DLSS For Battlefield V

DICE and NVIDIA have been hard at work on their partnership to bring RTX and DLSS to Battlefield V. It seems the tech is a constant work in progress, as this isn't the first time the companies have introduced optimizations to the games' handling of DLSS and RTX since its release. According to the patch notes from the latest update, the Trial by Fire Update #2, there have been further optimizations to RTX on Ultra - with increased ray trace counts to improve quality of reflections, which will definitely hit performance further.

Additionally, DLSS now supports rendering in borderless mode, and DLSS sharpness has also been improved. This likely means that NVIDIA's servers are still hard at work processing their "ground truth" image for the available scenarios in-game, further optimizing image quality. This is one of those rare technologies that will be improving with time, bringing the "fine wine" argument to (likely) its clearest scenario yet.
Sources: DICE, via Reddit
Add your own comment

32 Comments on Further Optimizations to NVIDIA RTX, DLSS For Battlefield V

#1
Vayra86
"It seems the tech is a constant work in progress "

That is precisely why DLSS is dead in the water. An AA that needs specific dev time and crunch time to 'git gud'... oh yeah, and don't use resolution X on card Y, because that's not supported because Nvidia said so.

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so real.
Posted on Reply
#2
tvamos
Nvidia working hard to get more rtx in ONE game
Posted on Reply
#3
PerfectWave
more optimization means more blurrrr Kappa
DLSS is DOA
Posted on Reply
#4
biffzinker
Even though I have access to RTX/DLSS with a 2060 I mainly bought the card for the performance uplift over the RX 480.
Posted on Reply
#5
xkm1948
biffzinkerEven though I have access to RTX/DLSS with a 2060 I mainly bought the card for the performance uplift over the RX 480.
Same here, mainly for the performance uplift from my old fury x as well as better VR experience.

Found use for the CUDA cores and Tensor cores, but haven't found any use for the RT cores yet. Maybe I will try the Quake II RTX rebake when it is available.
Posted on Reply
#6
TheOne
I wonder how well Intel's discrete GPU will be able to handle RT.
Posted on Reply
#7
bug
Vayra86"It seems the tech is a constant work in progress "

That is precisely why DLSS is dead in the water. An AA that needs specific dev time and crunch time to 'git gud'... oh yeah, and don't use resolution X on card Y, because that's not supported because Nvidia said so.

It'd be hilarious if it wasn't so real.
Search algorithm and other stuff we do online on a daily basis also need "dev time and crunch time to 'git gud'". Do you still think that's the criterion that makes a tech dead in the water?
Posted on Reply
#8
biffzinker
TheOneI wonder how well Intel's discrete GPU will be able to handle RT.
Regular Ray Tracing isn't to demanding, but Real Time Ray Tracing is the one making headlines with a significant performance hit.
Posted on Reply
#9
Vayra86
bugSearch algorithm and other stuff we do online on a daily basis also need "dev time and crunch time to 'git gud'". Do you still think that's the criterion that makes a tech dead in the water?
When its just Nvidia carrying that and with the wealth of games coming out, yes. There is no way this can really last or apply to a large catalog. I'm under the impression DLSS is largely meant to carry RT performance loss, so it'll launch alongside that support. Which is very limited.
Posted on Reply
#10
Doghead
Tried the update and found it was still not worth the performance hit at 2k resolution.
2080 w/ Ryzen 7 2700x
Posted on Reply
#11
bug
Vayra86When its just Nvidia carrying that and with the wealth of games coming out, yes. There is no way this can really last or apply to a large catalog. I'm under the impression DLSS is largely meant to carry RT performance loss, so it'll launch alongside that support. Which is very limited.
What if (some of) the data could be shared between titles?
(And I'm not saying DLSS is a runaway success. Just that I don't count it as dead just yet.)
biffzinkerRegular Ray Tracing isn't to demanding, but Real Time Ray Tracing is the one making headlines with a significant performance hit.
What do you mean? When everything but RT can be done in real time with relative ease, how is RT not too demanding? ;)
Posted on Reply
#12
moproblems99
Vayra86When its just Nvidia carrying that and with the wealth of games coming out, yes. There is no way this can really last or apply to a large catalog. I'm under the impression DLSS is largely meant to carry RT performance loss, so it'll launch alongside that support. Which is very limited.
I think the pros of DLSS outweigh the pros of RTRT frankly. I don't really know the limitations of DLSS but if it is limited to 1440 upscaled to 4k then I guess the next point is moot. Think of budget cards or IGP that struggle with 1080 or 1440. I do think ML has the potential to turn an upscaled image into a pretty decent looking one, in all honesty, it does now.

I shit on DLSS in the beginning but the more I looked at the images the more I came to the realization that I have to stare at a still image to really pick it apart. If I had these images moving by sixty times a second all while trying not to die and yelling expletives at the sap trying to kill me....I doubt I would notice.

Now, the exact opposite of that is true for RTRT. I have to really stare at a still image before I can objectively say 'Yeah, that looks better' or 'Nope, looks about the same'. With that flying by at sixty times a second, it just isn't noticeable or provide any value for the hit. Except for the hot trash that is BFV RTX. It straight up looks garbage and I would turn it off.
Posted on Reply
#13
bug
moproblems99I think the pros of DLSS outweigh the pros of RTRT frankly.
There is no technical limitation that says DLSS can only be applied to a specific resolution. There is a technical limitation that says DLSS must be trained for each resolution and I'm thinking Nvidia has started with resolutions that make more sense (to them, at least).

And you're on to something about RTRT. Lighting can be pretty subjective to the human eye. I've posted before, as long as developers can't go full RTRT (and they won't, for years to come), games will offer a hybrid solution that prevents devs from shedding off rendering steps that aren't needed when doing RT only. That's not what will make RT shine in the next few years. But the first developer that lets you get a glimpse of an enemy sneaking up on you in a reflection, just might.
Posted on Reply
#14
moproblems99
bugAnd you're on to something about RTRT. Lighting can be pretty subjective to the human eye. I've posted before, as long as developers can't go full RTRT (and they won't, for years to come), games will offer a hybrid solution that prevents devs from shedding off rendering steps that aren't needed when doing RT only. That's not what will make RT shine in the next few years. But the first developer that lets you get a glimpse of an enemy sneaking up on you in a reflection, just might.
I think we are all dependent on consoles which means at the least we are all dependent on an AMD implementation. With exception to something from say CDPR or another dev that really focuses on PC and just goes all out for it.
bugThere is no technical limitation that says DLSS can only be applied to a specific resolution.
Technical as far as NV giving it a go. I don't see them dropping all this loot for budget and mobile GPUs....for a while anyway.
Posted on Reply
#15
biffzinker
bughow is RT not too demanding?
Because it's not Real Time-RT, I was poking fun at the @TheOne for only saying RT meaning what can be done on a farm of servers rendering the next Pixar movie or POV-Ray. ;)
Posted on Reply
#16
bug
moproblems99I think we are all dependent on consoles which means at the least we are all dependent on an AMD implementation. With exception to something from say CDPR or another dev that really focuses on PC and just goes all out for it.
You can't go full RTRT even if on PC. The installed user base would be tiny. And if Nvidia's next iteration doesn't seriously beef up RTRT and lower prices, that user base will remain tiny for a while longer.
The good news is every game engine worth something is adding RTRT support (whether it's done right or just a haphazard attempt is another story). And I'm hoping we'll at least get some 100% RTRT demos to shows us what's really possible - even though we know that already.
Posted on Reply
#17
Vayra86
bugWhat if (some of) the data could be shared between titles?
(And I'm not saying DLSS is a runaway success. Just that I don't count it as dead just yet.)
Seeing is believing ;)
Posted on Reply
#18
B-Real
biffzinkerEven though I have access to RTX/DLSS with a 2060 I mainly bought the card for the performance uplift over the RX 480.
Interesting as you could have bought a Vega 56 for $80-90 less with 3 games included.
Posted on Reply
#19
biffzinker
B-RealInteresting as you could have bought a Vega 56 for $80-90 less with 3 games included.
Sure, I could have bought Vega 56 but what if I decided I would rather have Nvidia this time?
Posted on Reply
#20
moproblems99
bugYou can't go full RTRT even if on PC. The installed user base would be tiny. And if Nvidia's next iteration doesn't seriously beef up RTRT and lower prices, that user base will remain tiny for a while longer.
Which is exactly why I think DLSS has more potential. The fact they are wasting it on 4k is silly.
Posted on Reply
#21
Steevo
moproblems99Which is exactly why I think DLSS has more potential. The fact they are wasting it on 4k is silly.
DLSS requires RT.


Perhaps DLSS requires it due to an algorithm that equates angle dependence to pixel Z depth as calculated by RTRT? At the end there is a huge penalty in performance that cannot be masked on high frame rate lower resolutions.
Posted on Reply
#22
moproblems99
SteevoDLSS requires RT.


Perhaps DLSS requires it due to an algorithm that equates angle dependence to pixel Z depth as calculated by RTRT? At the end there is a huge penalty in performance that cannot be masked on high frame rate lower resolutions.
I don't think so. Doesn't FFXV only have DLSS and not RTX?
Posted on Reply
#23
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
moproblems99I don't think so. Doesn't FFXV only have DLSS and not RTX?
What about Anthem, just got DLSS support and iirc has no RT in it of any kind either.
Posted on Reply
#24
notb
biffzinkerRegular Ray Tracing isn't to demanding, but Real Time Ray Tracing is the one making headlines with a significant performance hit.
WHAT?
It's the same problem. What "Real Time" means is that it needs to output a significant number of frames per second.

How do you measure "being demanding"? Are these operations "demanding" in your world?
Posted on Reply
#25
biffzinker
notbWHAT?
It's the same problem. What "Real Time" means is that it needs to output a significant number of frames per second.

How do you measure "being demanding"? Are these operations "demanding" in your world?
I was nitpicking at the difference between Ray Tracing a static image vs Real Time Ray Tracing required to happen at 60 fps.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
Copyright © 2004-2021 www.techpowerup.com. All rights reserved.
All trademarks used are properties of their respective owners.