Quoting: sub

Quoting: x_wingBTW, didn't know that SteamOS 3.0 was based on Arch Linux. When did that happen?

O'rly? Good choice.

Check it out: https://youtu.be/5Q_C5KVJbUw?t=236 [External Link]

They also give some hope for the ac on proton. In fact, the guide to "test your product on SteamOS" mentions that proton will work with most ac as long as they aren't kernel based. Not sure if this is hype but it seems that the ac are coming home :P

View this comment - View article - View full comments

BTW, didn't know that SteamOS 3.0 was based on Arch Linux. When did that happen?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I have the feeling that ac fix for proton is around the corner... I mean, at least it feels like is a required feature for this console to succeed.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: x_wingSo, the idea was to accelerate physics execution using the GPU but their reluctance to make a standard made them fail and 15 years after they first release of Physx we are still using the CPU.

No, the idea was that you'd buy a separate card just for accelerating physics calculations. But that was silly: no one was going to buy a card just for that, and no one was going to put support into their game for something that no one had. So Nvidia bought the company and made it so that you could run those calculations on the GPU that you already had. Then they open sourced it some time later.

IIRC, the first sample of Physx I saw was on 2005 and it was from the former company that created the tech, using dedicated hardware, which was in a very early stage (I'm almost sure that their dedicated solution never got to the market). In the moment that Nvidia bought that company, their strategy was to implement that solution into the GPU. So, Nvidia wanted to move physics calculation into GPU as use case of GPGPU. But they fucked up with that proprietary API that only became open source long after the hype was gone. That's my point.

Time will tell what will win. But I'm confident to say that Nvidia will fuck up once again.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 3zekielAnd Nvidia is anti competitive yes ... I mean, I would do the same as them in their position, and frankly most sane people would, so I have a hard time criticizing them. At the same time, they are not a charity, but a company, they are supposed to be making money, not give kiss and hugs to everyone.
My only wish is that they open source the core driver, for which it makes absolutely no sense from a business perspective to keep closed source. It would keep everyone happy too, as those who do not want proprietary features could ignore them.

Nobody is expecting that they behave as charity company. But creating standards is not about charity but to create a sustainable market environment and allow it to evolve for the better.

Quoting: 3zekielAs for PhysX, it is embedded in engines directly since a long time already, and the point for them is not so much if many games use it or not, but at some point it was the cool thing that made you buy an Nvidia GPU. It's really all that matters to them, and it was a clear win on that point. It was also still used in metro last light at least, not sure for redux. I'd say it is mostly phased out by new techs - I remember it was used for some lighting, which as an example would be replaced by RT now. Once a feature like that is used up, you just do the next one. It also profits everyone eventually since the competitors will implement an alternative, potentially cross vendor and cross platform. Or it will just become a de facto standard, depends.

As I answered slaapliedje, the innovation was to move physics calculations into the GPU but they completely failed, mostly because their crappy proprietary API strategy.

Quoting: 3zekielThe win I present for us is the subject of the news, that is, Nvidia cares enough about us to support its features here. And I did throw some salt at AMD for their (lack of) RT support, but also OC that came after a long time etc ... (yeah I do not forgive easily, I know).

Which can also be seen as a marketing movement. I mean, you didn't get DLSS Proton support until AMD came up with FSR and what a coincidence that we get the Nvidia "new linux feature" on top of the AMD FSR article.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: x_winghttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support

40 games in ten years... I call that far away from a success.

This is kind of a false pretense. The PhysX engines have been built into the GPUs for years now, and so special support for it is no longer a thing. So 40 sounds about right. New games for the most part just use the hardware if they need/want to.

40 games and most of them (if not all of them) being sponsored by Nvidia in ten years. And as far I know, most of the nowdays game physics are still running on the CPU. So, the idea was to accelerate physics execution using the GPU but their reluctance to make a standard made them fail and 15 years after they first release of Physx we are still using the CPU. IMO, that's a failure.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 3zekielPhysX was a success for a long time, tessellation also made a lot of noise for them, and did give them an edge. OF COURSE it does not last forever - for as long a there is competition - (CUDA has for a very long time though). I am not appreciating it, I am being purely realist. I don't particularly like it, I don't encourage it as a consumer, but I do understand the rational from their PoV. And wishing them to do otherwise in their position is, well, wishful thinking.
We can wish all that we want, but R&D cost money, a lot of money. So companies want some pay back for it. Nvidia is already doing the effort of supporting most features faster and faster on Linux. And now contributing directly to Proton too so we get even more. So from our point of view, it is a clear win.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_hardware-accelerated_PhysX_support [External Link]

40 games in ten years... I call that far away from a success.

You don't encourage it but you see it as a win. idk, for me it's clear that the best that can happen is that DLSS has the same fate as Physx, which is quite probable as their implementation requires a lot of resources from Nvidia.

Quoting: 3zekielAs for the open standard DLSS, it would be useless as of now, and while it might help getting more games with XeSS if Intel does make it good, it would not change much anyway as long as they do not open the background which they won't for very obvious reasons I already pointed out in another message.

To this day, AMD still has no real support for RT on Linux (except in the proprietary driver that one uses and no developers target).Also they have a very bad track record in term of day 1 support for GPUs themselves (yes they tend to boot now, clap clap, well done, thx for allowing us to boot your gpu, now also give all features and a stable driver). Nvidia has lagged behing for wayland support (but honestly, from a user perspective this does not matter one bit).
Who even knows when/if FSR will have (good) support on Linux, and even more so on Proton. It might work in reshade though according to GN's video.

And somehow you end up with a rant against AMD using arguments that applies for past releases of Nvidia hw as well...

All I have to say is hat any AMD problems of the past won't change the fact that Nvidia practices are anti-competitive. You may like them from a corporate point of view, but as a end user you should definitely feel them as despicable.

Quoting: 3zekielThey open sourced the headers ( of NVAPI), it was in news here multiple times. So I would guess you can do the plumbing behind that. Obviously no implem behind that, just headers. I am not saying it became an "open standard" per se either. It has no frozen version for others to implement etc. It might come, who knows.

Now, ignoring all that, FSR might still help a little with sub par configs, and it is always nice to have. But it does not seem like support is too hot either - metro said they wouldn't, and the games which does are not so hot either. Maybe reshade will save it... And even in consoles, I doubt it does much better than checkboard.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I always understood that DLSS was part of NGX, not NVAPI.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 3zekielCUDA did/does work, physx for a long time too. When you invest so much R&D in something cutting edge, you will try to monetize it to death, and if a method worked before, you will try again.

Physx was in life support for many years, at the end it was the same as their tessellation strategy. The discussion here is about bringing solutions and not gimmick features, which is what any user should look at. Unless you're a shareholder of Nvidia, this strategy cannot be appreciated (mainly from a Linux user pov).

Quoting: 3zekielNow, they did open source the APIs as far as I can tell, so everyone should be able to implement a source compatible solution. I agree they could have made some standard APIs from the start though, the best would be to make it a Vulkan extension.

Link? Unless you mean the sdk.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 3zekiel

Quoting: Guestits going to be interesting to see when AMD's alternative lands on linux. at least on windows their version will be cross compatible. their own demo was done on a 1060. software lockin's are extremely unethical.

Even if Nvidia wanted to port it over, they can not. AMD lacks the HW support for the feature. It is not a sw lock-in. It is just that they have an exclusive HW feature.
CUDA is a sw lock in on the other hand, since it theoretically could run on other GPU albeit it would likely then lose the advantage of being slimmer than openCL).

For DLSS, they could emulate it on older/amd GPUs, but it would most likely reduce performance instead of enhancing it (convolution and other inference methods are very heavy with no dedicated hw or customized ISA, and it would occupy normal cores for naught), which would make no sense.

You can still create an Open standard in order to implement it, it's not about of what your competence can do with their current hw but how you allow to evolve the industry with your technology. Nvidia strategy is simply anti-competitive, they don't want to be the best they just want to keep you tied to their brand.

The saddest part is they have been doing time after time the same stupid proprietary strategy that always end up in failure. Lets hope that once again they fail (and looking on how they have been pushing more titles and this support on Proton, they are definitely in fear).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: 3zekielPlus if you read the whole paragraph, you will see that the mesa devs actually needed to reverse engineer the RTX instructions from AMD's proprietary driver ... Meaning AMD did not even document it for them, which adds insult to injury.

It says that the documentation is poor, but that doesn't implies that they had to figure out what was the op code of this instructions (RDNA2 ISA [External Link]. So no, he didn't say that AMD didn't document the instruction, that's something you have inferred.

View this comment - View article - View full comments