80
NVIDIA's Neural Texture Compression Cuts VRAM Use From 6.5 GB to 970 MB (www.techpowerup.com)
submitted 7 months ago by to c/hardware@lemmy.world
33 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 42 points 7 months ago (6 children)

That's a big reduction in VRAM usage, but how much processing power does it take to decompress the textures? It's worthless if it tanks the frame rate. The lower end GPUs that would benefit the most from this aren't going to have a lot of processing power to spare.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 30 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

    You've gotta look at the magnitude of difference here, to use a toy example:

    Let's use a memory data rate of 1GB/s for simple maths

    8GB of uncompressed textures getting moved would take us about 8 seconds

    The compressed stuff at <1GB is going to be done in less than 1 second.

    As long as the decompression process doesn't take another 7 seconds to complete it's going to be more performant

    Edit: typo

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Thanks for the explanation!

    Would you happen to have information about any loss from compression or is that kind of thing negligible with that much time for it to unpack?

    That would just be my only (uninformed) concern. I already fear we're going too deep in an era of 'fake' things, fake frames, fake 4k, fake lighting through strobing to induce less blur for moving objects (that monitor test was sick, but also I fear eye exhaustion will be a thing). My sibling has a card capable of utilizing new frame gen, and that doesn't look as bad, but it's still not visually equal to raw same framerate in terms of clarity for me.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •