all 10 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 15 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (2 children)

This is actually a good idea.

Latent encoding/decoding is basically extreme, "good enough" image compression. It's a pretty old ML technique, and the models to do it can be small (eg fast-ish). A cross-platform implementation is doable.

If I were a game dev, I wouldn't overuse it, but it seems like a great way to store huge, somewhat less frequently-used textures in VRAM.


...But one thing I'm wondering is what they decode to? If its a huge bitmap (instead of a compressed texture format), that seems suboptimal. And I don't think it's decoded per pixel like BCx compression, unless I'm misremembering how it works. That granular access is kind of the point of texture compression.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 8 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    That’s one thing that’s been bothering me a lot about this AI worship era that I don’t see mentioned enough anywhere. Machine learning is a fucking incredible tool that can surely be used to do a lot of things in a novel or better way. Instead all of the investment and eyeballs are on overplayed party tricks

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago*

    That's what OpenAI wants.

    They want "Our AI vs no AI." They want to stoke the simplistic ML hate because the thing they fear most is it being viewed for what it is: dirt cheap, dumb, albeit useful tools. Like a set of specialized hammers.

    It's what I keep trying to tell the "Fuck AI" crowd, but no one wants to hear it, and they're playing right into what these stupid Tech Bros want.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    What's the catch? Will CPU/GPU processing (I/O) skyrocket?

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

    Seems pretty perf intensive for present hardware. Wonder how it will influence later designs, presume more area would go towards accelerating this.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Great, more vendor-locked solutions to problems created by them.

    It really is impressive how Nvidia manages to push everyone into buying from them, by enshittifying the whole market.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 11 points 7 months ago

    While the work is being pushed by Nvidia, it’s based on an API tool that is being implemented into DX and Vulkan called “Cooperative Vectors.” This is just Nvidia’s implementation.

    It’ll just be up to each hardware vendor to support it.

  • source
  • parent
  • 33 comments in c/hardware@lemmy.world view that post
    [–] 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.

  • 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

  • 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 23 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    I really hope the competition steps up their game soon… this monopoly is cancer and nvidia gets better at tech and shittier as a company by the second. At this point only DLSS 5 seems to scratch on their invincibility cloak. Jensen needs to be brought down to earth.

  • source
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Problem is that even when the competition is ahead, people continue to buy Nvidia.
    Texture compression is nothing new, and back in the day ATI was ahead of Nvidia on this.

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

    Not really. They went back and forth, though. I'd argue Nvidia has generally had more efficient and aggressive memory compression(not just textures!)

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago

    You obviously isn't aware of the sales statistics, AMD may win a tiny bit of marketshare when they are in the lead against Nvidia, but even when AMD was the clearly better cards and value, Nvidia maintained the bigger market share.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 10 points 7 months ago*

    Novidia will do anything but bump the vram on consumer models. CG artists be dammed.

  • source
  • [–] 17 points 7 months ago (3 children)

    So, nvidia, a gpu maker, invents a technology that reduces memory needs in exchange for more gpu needs. Bonus points for AI.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 18 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    Nvidia has always had strong real time hardware accelerated memory compression.

    Compute is basically a free lunch compared to memory bottlenecks. And individual textures will probably fit in low level caches, which allows the compute to flex.

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

    doesn't that end up using more energy? I thought compute was more power intensive than accessing memory.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    Compute units are significant, but so are the caches and i/o.

    Real world datasets tend to have a lot of sparsity.

    One of the biggest problems is called a page fault. Which is basically when the app needs to go to storage to find data to continue execution. This results in the processor waiting, which isn't free.

    Generally, I'd say they go hand in hand about 50/50 plus or minus 10%.

    One benchmarks can fit in L1 cache and really stress the cores but most benchmarks you're using all the levels of cache, ram, IO, etc... which is a hell of a lot compared to just a little bit of processor in that chip. GPUs again are often just massive collaborations of massive throughout and compute. So it can be to really separate.

    And legit. Most data is compressed these days on the Internet. So that's again compute used to save data in flight. It's a neverending tradeoff.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

    So finally my 4GB VRAM gpu is not gonna be useless?

  • source
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (1 child)

    Finally! An excuse for AAA studios to 10-fold game size!

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 13 points 7 months ago* (10 children)

    Yet another AI enshittification on top of visual artists hard work.

    “NTC drastically reduces VRAM usage by emulating textures, allowing for either much lower VRAM consumption or significantly enhanced material appearance, depending on the game developer's goals.”

    We are just emulating textures, trust me bro.

  • source
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 7 points 7 months ago (9 children)

    This has nothing to do with artistic creation.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 7 months ago (8 children)

    Textures are created by visual artists, this technology shits all over that work.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (7 children)

    This has nothing to do with creating textures. It's a texture compression algorithm.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (6 children)

    I guess you didn’t bother to read the article.

    “This process is so refined that the output can either provide a more realistic version on top of the base texture layer that the game uses or maintain the same texture appearance for significant VRAM savings.”

    What is more “realistic version on top of the base texture layer” if not AI enshittification? It either compresses the textures, when has that ever maintained the original quality, or layers AI layer of “better” textures on top of the original ones. Shit vs shit.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 7 months ago (5 children)

    If you look at the NVIDIA presentation (linked in the article), they explain how they quantify realism at around minute 16. Also audio and video compression doesn’t aim for original quality, it aims for lower quality that is visually or acoustically“the same” from the human perspective, not the computer. Just because it’s AI doesn’t mean it’s garbage.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago (4 children)

    So no original quality in any option, only worse or AI “enhanced” as I said: enshittified. They’re trying to push the “enhanced” shit by lowering the quality of the original vision.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 7 months ago (2 children)

    The original quality will be there when you turn this feature off. It’s safe to assume this will just be part of a future DLSS version

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 7 months ago* (1 child)

    I’m sure the corporations owning the development studios will make sure their slaves will still create great art and optimize it, instead of just relying on a big tech to solve their problem of paying for professionals.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 7 months ago

    I'm not understanding, studios are going to insist that their artists bloat assets for no reason? Are these professionals being paid per VRAM GB used?

    Also this is some pretentious argument. If you're distributing art through the audience's hardware then you're meeting them where they are no matter what. It defines your constraints; a good artist will make art that works nicely with AI in the same way that pixel art worked with CRTs.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 7 months ago (1 child)

    Ah great, just what we need </s>, "AI" slop on the textures too.

    -- Frost

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] [S] 1 point 7 months ago

    This is more like MP3 or H264, a compression algorithm that strives to be perceptually lossless mid to high end.

    For much of mainstream music, on a vast majority of speaker/headphones it's difficult to tell a 256 KB MP3 and a FLAC.

    This is sort of similar. Just read up on it.

  • source
  • parent