longdi
Banned
MS has worked with AMD on consoles for 15 years, back with x360. It's even longer when you consider DX. So yes patent guys supposed to know better.Serious or joke?
MS has worked with AMD on consoles for 15 years, back with x360. It's even longer when you consider DX. So yes patent guys supposed to know better.Serious or joke?
Do you know what the 3 points in the slide actually mean
]
They are important, they detail the RDNA2 CU and what its doing for high frequencies > 2 Ghz.
I understand if you want to pretend it does not exist. But the hardware is fixed now.
can you share your CV? we want to see how many consoles you developed, how many games and game engine you created?Someone should tell him that variable rate shading has nothing to do with geometry.
Geometry is handled by mesh shading.
Geometry Engine is a hold over from GCN which AMD dropped in favour of supporting Microsofts solution.
can you share your CV? we want to see how many consoles you developed, how many games and game engine you created?
MS has worked with AMD on consoles for 15 years, back with x360. It's even longer when you consider DX. So yes patent guys supposed to know better.
Do you know what the 3 points in the slide actually mean
]
They are important, they detail the RDNA2 CU and what its doing for high frequencies > 2 Ghz.
I understand if you want to pretend it does not exist. But the hardware is fixed now.
It’s the first time I hear that VRS has anything to do with the Halo Infinite demo. You should let Digital Foundry know. And SFS is exactly the opposite approach of the PS5 SSD. it would still multiply the texture bandwidth. The point you could make is that the GPU bottleneck made it an overkill but Sony hasn’t stated that.
Someone should tell him that variable rate shading has nothing to do with geometry.
Geometry is handled by mesh shading.
Geometry Engine is a hold over from GCN which AMD dropped in favour of supporting Microsofts solution.
It’s the first time I hear that VRS has anything to do with the Halo Infinite demo. You should let Digital Foundry know. And SFS is exactly the opposite approach of the PS5 SSD. it would still multiply the texture bandwidth. The point you could make is that the GPU bottleneck made it an overkill but Sony hasn’t stated that.
I'm not the one trying to compare a feature that specifically changes the shading rate (resolution) at a per pixel level across a scene to geometry culling.can you share your CV? we want to see how many consoles you developed, how many games and game engine you created?
DF should have been the ones telling you about this but they concentrated on the time of day in the game.
Vrs was clearly visible in screenshots posted on here around MS games showcase. Maybe I'm understanding it wrong but doesn't SFS just load what the eyes can see, therefore saving memory? It's exactly what cerny talked about in the road to ps5, " the ssd is fast enough that you can move assets into memory as the player turns" (it's not an exact quote). Maybe I have my wires crossed about SFS.
You miss the whole point.
All the buzzwords used are about one thing and one thing only: How can we reduce the number of calculations to create a frame with minimum fidelity loss?
VRS downgrades the shading rate for parts of the 3D space that matters less for how the frame looks (e.g. periphery, obscured objects etc).
The tweet is trying to compare 2 completely different things.
VRS is NOT about geometry culling.
Mesh shading is an actual comparison.
Mesh shading culls geometry long before it reaches any shading operation
You miss the point again.
ALL these techniques are about reducing the # calculations with minimal visual downgrade. That is it.
Sony has chosen to change how this is done in the PS5 by creating a new GE that is the main driver to achieve this. You imply that this is somehow worse - and we do not know that. Given that Sony sits on the largest group of world-class 3D engine software engineers I highly doubt it is a bad solution.
And please note that one goal for Sony here was to allow for the use of much more polygons/vertices, i.e. almost down to single pixel sized. The normal pipeline approach with methodologies that you mention starts to break down then. Have they succeeded? Who knows.
Point is that you claim advantage when there is so far no indication that is the case.
You miss the point again.
ALL these techniques are about reducing the # calculations with minimal visual downgrade. That is it.
Sony has chosen to change how this is done in the PS5 by creating a new GE that is the main driver to achieve this. You imply that this is somehow worse - and we do not know that. Given that Sony sits on the largest group of world-class 3D engine software engineers I highly doubt it is a bad solution.
And please note that one goal for Sony here was to allow for the use of much more polygons/vertices, i.e. almost down to single pixel sized. The normal pipeline approach with methodologies that you mention starts to break down then. Have they succeeded? Who knows.
Point is that you claim advantage when there is so far no indication that is the case.
I'll simplify this,
Both consoles have advanced Geometry culling systems. (not even going into AMD dropping GE for Mesh Shading), XSX has VRS in adition to mesh shading.
The tweet being paraded around is trying to compare 2 entirely different functions of a rendering pipeline.
Someone should tell him that variable rate shading has nothing to do with geometry.
Geometry is handled by mesh shading.
Geometry Engine is a hold over from GCN which AMD dropped in favour of supporting Microsofts solution.
You miss the point again.
ALL these techniques are about reducing the # calculations with minimal visual downgrade. That is it.
Sony has chosen to change how this is done in the PS5 by creating a new GE that is the main driver to achieve this. You imply that this is somehow worse - and we do not know that. Given that Sony sits on the largest group of world-class 3D engine software engineers I highly doubt it is a bad solution.
And please note that one goal for Sony here was to allow for the use of much more polygons/vertices, i.e. almost down to single pixel sized. The normal pipeline approach with methodologies that you mention starts to break down then. Have they succeeded? Who knows.
Point is that you claim advantage when there is so far no indication that is the case.
Show me how all this translates into games.
That's all I care about. The result.
VRS looks legitimately shit if halo's implementation is any indicator. I'd rather take checkerboard rendering if you need to save on rendering.
You're still failing to provide any rationale for why that tweet is trying to compare geometry culling to variable rate shading or why it is attempting to claim that XSX isn't culling said geometry.My last post. The idea that a geometry engine is a geometry engine that you describe above is the same as stating that a shader is a shader.
There are multiple approaches to achieve this with very different data-paths. Sony has a new GE that - if the available information is correct - can do both advanced culling and prioritisation - with those priorities applied in all parts of the downstream pipeline to minimise GPU workloads. This cannot be done that way with any other GPU in the market.
I find it very interesting with such a different approach and we have already seen an amount of geometry on the screen in for example Demon's Souls that we have not seen before.
Let's wait for benchmarks but it is pretty rich to make assumptions that this is not beneficial for the platform based on what Mark Cerny, ND, Bluepoint, Guerrilla etc has achieved in the past. Developers seem very happy with the solution.
It’s not about knowing better. At the end of the day Sony is not designing its own GPU. They went to AMD for a reason.You implying one of two things here (or both): AMD knows better than Sony, and Sony cant do better than AMD.
I'm implying that a conglomerate like Sony probably wouldn't hang the future of their biggest cash cow (PlayStation) on inventions by a single engineer. That's precisely why they hired AMD's R&D department and didn't design the PS5 GPU internally like their TV or camera chips. The advantage of this is obvious. AMD was able during their presentation to display exactly how their technology fares against Nvidia in actual games. What tangible data could Cerny have presented to his bosses to prove the merit of his inventions? Just because Cerny filed a patent does not mean it was the blueprint for the PS5.You implying one of two things here (or both): AMD knows better than Sony, and Sony cant do better than AMD.
It’s pointless, MS knows how to conduct their fan base. They even take control of their memes.
The excuse is in, wait for 2022!
Even if they are bespoke features, they are still codeveloped with AMD. Nobody suggested otherwise.It’s not about knowing better. At the end of the day Sony is not designing its own GPU. They went to AMD for a reason.
I'm implying that a conglomerate like Sony probably wouldn't hang the future of their biggest cash cow (PlayStation) on inventions by a single engineer. That's precisely why they hired AMD's R&D department and didn't design the PS5 GPU internally like their TV or camera chips. The advantage of this is obvious. AMD was able during their presentation to display exactly how their technology fares against Nvidia in actual games. What tangible data could Cerny have presented to his bosses to prove the merit of his inventions? Just because Cerny filed a patent does not mean it was the blueprint for the PS5.
At the end of the day we should be able to rely on Sony's communication instead of posts by geordiemp about what's inside the PS5. At the very least we know what's NOT in the PS5, as MS has now made sure of that. We also know that Sony is far from being silent when they think they have the superior features. Just look at the controller coverage.
Sony prioritizes casuals as their marketing target audience. Which is why for them, the controller is such an important advantage. As are impressive looking first party games.We also know that Sony is far from silent when they think they have the superior features. Just look at the controller coverage.
It’s not about knowing better. At the end of the day Sony is not designing its own GPU. They went to AMD for a reason.
I'm implying that a conglomerate like Sony probably wouldn't hang the future of their biggest cash cow (PlayStation) on inventions by a single engineer. That's precisely why they hired AMD's R&D department and didn't design the PS5 GPU internally like their TV or camera chips. The advantage of this is obvious. AMD was able during their presentation to display exactly how their technology fares against Nvidia in actual games. What tangible data could Cerny have presented to his bosses to prove the merit of his inventions? Just because Cerny filed a patent does not mean it was the blueprint for the PS5.
At the end of the day we should be able to rely on Sony's communication instead of posts by geordiemp about what's inside the PS5. At the very least we know what's NOT in the PS5, as MS has now made sure of that. We also know that Sony is far from silent when they think they have the superior features. Just look at the controller coverage.
You're still failing to provide any rationale for why that tweet is trying to compare geometry culling to variable rate shading or why it is attempting to claim that XSX isn't culling said geometry.
Sony prioritizes casuals as their marketing target audience. Which is why for them, the controller is such an important advantage. As are impressive looking first party games.
You're still trying to compare 2 entirely different parts of the rendering pipeline.I do not know what to write to make you understand.
Let's make an oversimplification of a current pipeline (XSX, 20XX/30XX cards etc).
You create your basic geometry, culling is done by the mesh shaders (that also do some of the geometry work in a feed-back loop) on the meshlet level, your VRS function determines how much shaders work that is conducted on each meshlet and then you rasterise and you are good to go. Oversimplification but ok for this discussion.
This is a good approach but has a few challenges: 1) Each meshlet cannot contain too many primitives (triangles etc), so if your geometry is complex you start to bottle-neck the system and 2) both the mesh-shader and the VRS function independently of each other analyse the geometry to conduct culling and to allocate shader work. The more advanced your geometry to the more this duplication of processing becomes a bottle-neck.
In short: If you go for small or pixel sized primitives you potentially give your GPU a myocardial infarction.
What Mark Cerny talked about is that the culling (mes shader) and prioritisation (VRS) is done at the GE level. That is different - it is a very different GE. His idea - as he described it - is that this means that all functions downstream of that can utilise the now already culled geometry and apply work in accordance with the set priorities. This can be used for texture work, shader work, RT etc. And this calculation is only done once as opposed to more than once per the traditional pipeline. He also claims that this new GE can work with very small primitives without clogging.
We have to wait for benchmarks to understand how this system performs. Mark has made some bold claims here and we know that for example the PS3 did not fare well with all its proprietary technology. My assumption has been that this will penalise the PS5 on multiplats but let it shine in 1st party titles. For the multiplat penalty it of course boils down to the PS5 API and how well traditional pipeline work is translated to this new way of working. I am pleasantly surprised by the third party performance so far so it seems that development environment and the APIs are very well made.
You just off the bat think that the PS5 lacks something - that is what bothers me. It has something new and shiny. Is it good? Time will tell but I love people such as Mark Cerny that tries new things - that takes risks. So I hope he has succeeded.
Its funny, even with Sony custom Geometry and VRS, and MS RDNA2 standard mesh and VRS, none of those techniques will be used in Nanitie anyway.
Why no. It's just folk shouting about things they don't understand because it seemingly one ups the opposition as per usual.Wait? What?
We arguing over shaders again now?
Didn't we establish months ago that the PS5 uses Primitive Shaders because of the Geometry Engine and Scrubbers and Pipeline allows for advanced Primitives because of the SSD saturating the GPU?
Or did I miss something new in the last 2 months?
You're still trying to compare 2 entirely different parts of the rendering pipeline.
He bathes in the blood of neck-beard virgins.What kind of caped fuckin crusader is this Cerny dude? Developing games, inventing shit, getting platinums.. I'm not even sure I'd want his life lol it must be so frustrating to get no time outside~