Nvidia CEO: "We can't do computer graphics anymore without artificial intelligence"

Aren't frame rates artificial in the first place? I recall reading long ago that for each actual frame, the GPU inserts an extra artificial frame in between to speed up the processing of graphics on the screen. This was long before AI existed...so AI generated frames seems like a natural evolution of how frames are generated on the screen in the first place.
 
What a BS!


this is against our personal dignity, scientists should sue him for misinformation and exploitation of the public opinion.
 
Framegen only smooths gameplay, it's not meant to pump a crippled framerate. 30fps as a basis for 60fps framegen will be just as bad an experience. Nvidia largely omits this fact. They will rely on upscaling, but it will look crap. Anything under 1440p native looks crap for upscaling and 1080p performance mode uses a garbage grade 540p. Hell even 1440p performance mode using 720p looks trash too.
Yeah, that’s my point. 30fps is already ”bad experience, but looks good”, so FG to 60 is a natural extension to that.
 
I know resolution scaling has it's uses.

But I do find the whole concept silly that someone running a 4K or 8K game, the system will load up all these 4K and 8K textures, meshes, etc., render at 1080 or whatever, then scale that back up to 4K or 8K. At that point you might as well just have lower quality textures and meshes.

Something that seems to be missing, at least to some extent, in modern games is use of LOD (Level of Detail) -- using lower quality textures and meshes as you are further away from an object; if they are using it they don't seem to be using it enough. The games that surprise me are ones that are using pixel art style, but have high system requirements -- the silliness of having very high resolution textures of a blurry, low-rez texture to match the art style instead of, you know, just using lower-rez textures. (Abiotic Factor is like this, it's just about Quake 3-quality graphics with the system requirements of, well, not quite as high as CP2077 but I would say at least 10x the GPU load it could have.)
 
Oh.... AI graphics
they are different from these created with mouse in hand I guess
sounds like a plot against us
instead of make better product and support the current, they try to take our jobs?
not to mention the prices and the lack of availability of 'non AI'' products

just my 6 cents
 
With our latest technology you can now run your game at 60 FPS and all you need is our new £1000 GPU with our latest AI.

We are going to be stuck with really expensive GPU's that are mediocre , like we have been , that's the future.
 
I don't disagree that developers are leaning more and more on crutches to increase graphical performance. But this has always been the case to a certain extent, and DLSS is simply the latest and greatest "crutch". As for being lazy in efforts to optimize games/drivers for said improved performance, that's debatable.

But here's the thing, computer graphics are running in to a wall of diminishing returns. As developers try to increase graphical fidelity by even a modest amount the resources needed increase exponentially. In the end this means it's impossible to create better hardware within a reasonable cost and technology envelope to meet the increased graphics demands.

So yeah DLSS is very much a crutch. But it has to be admitted that for most gamers, better graphics is high on the list of "needed" features. Without an increase in graphic fidelity many/most games simply won't sell as well. And in the end that means that increasing the graphic quality while still having reasonable FPS necessitates using DLSS or the equivalate tech, even if we don't really like it..
 
Nvidia CEO: "We can't do computer graphics anymore without artificial intelligence"....yes you can

He can but as the only game in town maintaining and now taking a further lead it'll cost you ever more (Intel will very soon have a two gen gap to bridge and AMD have been pushed onto their current route more for the continuing anti-AMD bias directly affecting profit than any real negatives)

As such, and just like the last two gens doubling (or more) the AMD price at the high end for the same raster result plus a single gen, 30 fps average lead in RT and a fig in upscaling... you can be sure that Nvidia and partners will suck as much out of their lead, real, significant or otherwise.

Used to be about the gamers, remember? At least when it was Nvidia's only game and the gamers kept them afloat and paid. Now we're more a side business than anything, and it shows.
 
So back in 2019 when DLSS and upscaling was a brand new technology, it was a valid concern that developers might make games that relied on the technology to be playable, given that a lot of people at that time wouldn't have had graphics cards that were capable of performing it.

We're ~5 years on from that now. The past 3 generations of (NVidia) graphics cards support this technology. It is becoming much more reasonable for developers to now assume the availability of this tech and design their games explicitly with it in mind.

Would we prefer that all games can run at 200+ FPS with maximum settings at native 4k resolution? Sure. If we also assume that this isn't possible (yet), then I don't see why we should complain when developers use all the tools at their disposal to get their desired balance of graphics vs performance. Especially as the tech has continued to improve dramatically over the short space of time it's had to evolve.
and YET, big YET, every game that uses upscaling suffers from DEGRADED image quality. everyone that is not blind or pretend to be blind knows this.
 
Back