Is Turing the first step that nvidia took to bring their GPUs to consoles in the future ?

[cucker tarlson]

It just struck me. Is nvidia taking the first step towards consoles ?
DLSS and variable rate shading - two technologies that a console would really benefit from, it would allow a mid-range GPU to cheat its way to higher fps and higher resolution,ideal for consoles where people generally don't have any idea about how it works, they just hear 4K/60fps and that is really what sells them. Ray Tracing too. With low setting DXR and all tricks like dlls or vrs, it may become possible to have the first "4K"/60 or "4K" RT/30 console in the future.We know navi can't do that without tensor or rt cores.

 

[lexluthermiester]

It's possible. Not sure how likely as they are not eager to get caught up in a bidding war with AMD and Intel..

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Nope, nothing about Turing is good for consoles. It's a huge expensive chip. Most of the new transistors went to features that are not useful for console tasks. Turing is an architecture for AIs (because tensor cores). DLSS was created so the tensor cores aren't completely useless to gamers; however, they still are because few games will implement DLSS. Turing is mostly marketing fluff and Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo have no interest in that.

Xbox One X is a 4K/60 console.

Navi is an unknown quantity at this point. All we know for sure is that in one configuration, it will be included in PlayStation 5 which is also a 4K/60 console.


NVIDIA is not attractive to Microsoft and Sony because all NVIDIA can offer for processors is Tegra. That would translate to a backwards compatibility mess and designing a new ARM-based operating system. Cheaper to stick with AMD.

 

[ShurikN]

At this point in time next gen hardware is well known (just not to us), and more or less set in stone. So there wont be any nVidia in it.
By the time all of that RT stuff actually becomes mainstream, AMD will have capable hardware of their own. Either in time for Pro versions or for the generation of the PS6

 

[cucker tarlson]

Nope, nothing about Turing is good for consoles. It's a huge expensive chip. Most of the new transistors went to features that are not useful for console tasks. Turing is an architecture for AIs (because tensor cores). DLSS was created so the tensor cores aren't completely useless to gamers; however, they still are because few games will implement DLSS. Turing is mostly marketing fluff and Microsoft/Sony/Nintendo have no interest in that.

Xbox One X is a 4K/60 console.

Navi is an unknown quantity at this point. All we know for sure is that in one configuration, it will be included in PlayStation 5 which is also a 4K/60 console.


NVIDIA is not attractive to Microsoft and Sony because all NVIDIA can offer for processors is Tegra. That would translate to a backwards compatibility mess and designing a new ARM-based operating system. Cheaper to stick with AMD.

yeah,obviously, turing is 12nm and ps5 is already confirmed to be navi. I'm talking about 5-6 years into the future, that's why I said turing is "the first step".

"turing is for AI" - no it isn't. We just literally had an "AI" card being sold to gamers. They took a pretty bold step to sell this to pc gamers,who knows what they're planning. Selling a pc gaming chip to consoles is a much more predictable move than what they did with introducing turing to pc gaming, not only the high-end but 2070 too.

"XOX is 4K/60" - no it isn't either 4K or 60.

 

[holyprof]

Nvidia is at a disadvantage right now, they don't have anything that can challenge AMD's CPU. All that talk about ARM getting as fast as x86 CPUs (Qualcomm and Apple) is only true if you talk about perfomance per watt. Games need high single threaded performance and that's not going to change.
So Nvidia can only try to get into (high-performance) consoles with Intel CPUs, BUT .... Intel as we all know is developing its own GPU, and at the same time "divorced" Nvidia and is using the "Frankenstein" Intel-AMD chip in some laptops.
TLDR: Nvidia interested in consoles - maybe, high-perf consoles (PS5, XBox next) - not likely.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Nvidia is at a disadvantage right now, they don't have anything that can challenge AMD's CPU. All that talk about ARM getting as fast as x86 CPUs (Qualcomm and Apple) is only true if you talk about perfomance per watt. Games need high single threaded performance and that's not going to change.
So Nvidia can only try to get into (high-performance) consoles with Intel CPUs, BUT .... Intel as we all know is developing its own GPU, and at the same time "divorced" Nvidia and is using the "Frankenstein" Intel-AMD chip in some laptops.
TLDR: Nvidia interested in consoles - maybe, high-perf consoles (PS5, XBox next) - not likely.

why exactly can't they use ryzens or intel cpus ? just make a cpu-gpu on an interconnect like the intel-amd chip.they already have nvlink.

what turing really showed is that nvidia is pretty forward thinking in terms of what they're gonna sell in a few years time. eventually the stuff they're making for tesla/quadro makes it to gaming.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

yeah,obviously, turing is 12nm and ps5 is already confirmed to be navi. I'm talking about 5-6 years into the future, that's why I said turing is "the first step".

RTX 2080 Ti can barely manage 1080p30 using Direct Raytracing. Smooth 4K is more important to consumers/developers than raytracing. It's going to be at least a decade before console manufacturers consider RTRT as viable.

They took a pretty bold step to sell this to pc gamers,who knows what they're planning.

Not really. They invested a lot of money into Turing and the only way to recoup it is to make gamers want it, hence "RTX."

"XOX is 4K/60" - no it isn't either 4K or 60.

https://gearburn.com/2017/06/4k-60fps-xbox-one-x/

So Nvidia can only try to get into (high-performance) consoles with Intel CPUs, BUT .... Intel as we all know is developing its own GPU, and at the same time "divorced" Nvidia and is using the "Frankenstein" Intel-AMD chip in some laptops.

Indeed, Intel poses a greater threat to AMD in the console space than NVIDIA does. AMD can likely beat Intel's price though so the threat isn't that great.

why exactly can't they use ryzens or intel cpus ? just make a cpu-gpu on an interconnect like the intel-amd chip.they already have nvlink.

The Vega chip on Hades Canyon is MCM'd over PCIE. There's literally nothing special about it other than the fact it is MCM'd.

what turing really showed is that nvidia is pretty forward thinking in terms of what they're gonna sell in a few years time. eventually the stuff they're making for tesla/quadro makes it to gaming.

Again, tensor cores were designed for deep learning AIs. DLSS was only created so the tensor cores aren't completely useless to the gaming space. DLSS itself is redundant and as a feature, utterly unimportant.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/tensorcore/

Another version of super sampling is something no one has been asking for.



The irony of it is I can't even find any legitimate benchmarks comparing DLSS to alternative smoothing technologies. As far as I can tell, only FF15 demo has DLSS support (which was abandoned by its developer). All websites that talk about DLSS are going on NVIDIA's pre-launch numbers (which are obviously deceptive because marketing).

Edit: Only one benchmark: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...e-geforce-rtx-2080-performance-tested.249571/

 

[cucker tarlson]

RTX 2080 Ti can barely manage 1080p30 using Direct Raytracing.

2070 can do 1080/60 or 4K/30

Apart from Forza,what other games can really do 4k/60 ?

rdr2 runs at 30 fps

https://pclab.pl/art79211-3.html

the crew 2

 

[EarthDog]

RTX 2080 Ti can barely manage 1080p30 using Direct Raytracing

This is outdated information. Post patch in the game, performance has jumped significantly allowing a 2080ti to run 2560x1440 with RT on Ultra and well over 70 fps.

https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews...ield_V_Tides_of_War_RTX_DXR_Raytracing/3.html


Anyway, Turing is not a step towards consoles, not at all.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

A whole one game, woo. That's with 18.6 billion transistors, 754 mm² die, and 250 watts. An extremely inefficient use of silicon.

By comparison, Xbox One X is doing 4K/60 with 7 billion transistors. Console space will move to 8K rasterization before it moves to 4K RTRT.

 

[cucker tarlson]

By comparison, Xbox One X is doing 4K/60 with 7 billion transistors.

no it isn't.

 

[dorsetknob]

Not really. They invested a lot of money into Turing and the only way to recoup it is to make gamers want it,

MORE GAMERS WOULD WANT IT if it cost a lot less

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Everyone would want a Buggatti Veyron too if it cost $20k, sadly, it costs well north of $1 million.

That's the problem with RTRT in general. Rasterization can always fake it for cheaper and look "good enough" doing it. NVIDIA is trying to justify the expense of tensor cores to gamers and developers aren't buying it unless NVIDIA pays them to. NVIDIA's value as a company has been pummeled because they overplayed their hand with cyptocurrencies. NVIDIA can't afford to promote RTX like they were planning on being able to. Areas where they did, RTX has fallen flat on it's face (Battlefield V being the only exception to the norm).

 

[cucker tarlson]

Everyone would want a Buggatti Veyron too if it cost $20k, sadly, it costs well north of $1 million.

That's the problem with RTRT in general. Rasterization can always fake it for cheaper and look "good enough" doing it.

all it takes is good marketing and people will think old tech is irrelevant.

 

[Vayra86]

what turing really showed is that nvidia is pretty forward thinking in terms of what they're gonna sell in a few years time. eventually the stuff they're making for tesla/quadro makes it to gaming.

That is an interesting thought actually.

A whole one game, woo. That's with 18.6 billion transistors, 754 mm² die, and 250 watts. An extremely inefficient use of silicon.

By comparison, Xbox One X is doing 4K/60 with 7 billion transistors. Console space will move to 8K rasterization before it moves to 4K RTRT.

Well, the fact they can optimize it like that is still pretty amazing for a first iteration, even if it is only on the biggest die. In my view that did make RTRT 'viable' as in: it can scale to the midrange with decent performance, which is where it needs to be to gain traction. If they can't bring it to the midrange on the 7nm node, at a comfortable res and steady, >60, non stuttery FPS (and yes, 1080p still is a comfortable res, look at display res market share for the answer to that) it has no chance to go big anytime soon.

Let's take that one step further and consider the performance level AMD needs to achieve here IF they are going to hold on to their console market. I think reasonably, that is 2020 for them. If they can implement some form of weak RTRT at that time, it will become huge.

I think what's more interesting than the fact that BFV has the performance in RTRT it has today, is knowing how much dev time was spent getting it there and how easy the lessons learned can be implemented elsewhere. In the end rasterization versus RT is a cost/benefit proposition, if the quality improvement isn't worth the additional time, it won't fly regardless of market share of RT capable GPUs.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

Except that you're getting 25% of the frames and you're not gaining much in terms of visuals:

 

[Vayra86]

Except that you're getting 25% of the frames and you're not gaining much in terms of visuals:

In some examples you can really see how it adds to the atmosphere. 3:49 is a good example of that I think. The rest, hard to spot the differences indeed

 

[Vya Domus]

Again, tensor cores were designed for deep learning AIs. DLSS was only created so the tensor cores aren't completely useless to the gaming space. DLSS itself is redundant and as a feature, utterly unimportant.
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/data-center/tensorcore/

Another version of super sampling is something no one has been asking for.



The irony of it is I can't even find any legitimate benchmarks comparing DLSS to alternative smoothing technologies. As far as I can tell, only FF15 demo has DLSS support (which was abandoned by its developer). All websites that talk about DLSS are going on NVIDIA's pre-launch numbers (which are obviously deceptive because marketing).

Edit: Only one benchmark: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...e-geforce-rtx-2080-performance-tested.249571/

Also, it turns out it doesn't even look much better than a 2560x1440p image scaled up through usual scaling algorithms. Which makes sense, no matter how much information you try to inference through sophisticated machine learning software, you just can't reconstruct the fine details that would make up the difference between 4k and 1440p.

DLSS is placebo, for all intents and purposes.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

In some examples you can really see how it adds to the atmosphere. 3:49 is a good example of that I think. The rest, hard to spot the differences indeed

I'd argue that when they took the video in RTX, there was an explosion off screen that didn't occur with RTX off (can see what I'm talking about at 2:30). You see it frequently throughout the video where there's a reflection on one that isn't present in another. Those are RNG elements in the engine the footage they used for benchmarking can't control for.

 

[Xzibit]

Except that you're getting 25% of the frames and you're not gaining much in terms of visuals:

It also doesnt speak too well for introducing more RTX effects other then Reflections. When your looking at large reflective objects windows, cars, water the noise is noticeable. You simply can't fix that a 1spp + denoiser. They also had to reduce Rays with VRRT which says they are not ready to add GI or AO RT due to the performance limitations.

All ultra reflections were at 40% of resolution before the updated patch. Not sure if they stuck to that or reduced it further along with a more aggressive lower LOD changes like DICE said to improve performance.

 

[cucker tarlson]

Look at 4K,it's is a pointless feature for gaming too,it's extremely taxing and produces very little image quality improvement over 1440p. It's considered a very whimsical feature even for PC gamers who prefer to go with 1440p if they want something more than 1080p ,yet it's still what sells ps4 pro and xox at twice the price of regular ones.

 

[EarthDog]

That's because you don't need the extreme horsepower on a console to run 4K.

Also, 4K TVs are getting more common every day. They are MUCH more common than 4K PC monitors, that is for sure. So, it makes sense that is 'sells' for consoles, no?

 

[sixor]

Xbox One X is a 4K/60 console.
.

very few times is 60fps 4k,

30fps or less 4k yes

 

[mouacyk]

NVidia is showing AMD how to maintain their grip on consoles.