A lengthy thread I wrote just to write. Feel free to ignore.

1/ The future of consumer GPUs is probably less ASICy than people think. I think we're nearing the end of growing non-general purpose compute/cache die utilization in consumer GPUs. Here's why:

2/ Real world RT core usage is far from peak theoretical perf. On Nvidia, they're cache starved. The way to improve performance for Nvidia is to add more cache to the die a la infinity cache. On AMD, it's just to improve their RT core design, which isn't great.

More importantly,
3/ real world RT core usage is very naive. It's often collect n sample per pixel with m reflections w/irradiance caching, & then run A-SVGF to denoise. This usually works well, but sucks w/moving objects, fine details like leaves on distant trees, and the combo of leaves in wind.
4/ But research already shows that you can get pretty drastic improvements w/adaptive sampling in that case.

Beyond that, adaptive sampling research usually focuses on general cases. But consumer GPUs use RT for e.g. games, Blender, etc. These aren't super general. The engines
5/ underpinning these applications have access to a lot of information. For example, developers can add hints to objects to suggest to the renderer that they be sampled more or less.

Better exploitation of temporal data and ray tracing statistics can make a lot of the rays cast
6/ totally redundant. This isn't speculation: Nvidia Research has been pumping out papers showing this for years. My favorite is this fairly simple statistical approach that can achieve parity with older techniques using 1/6 to 1/60th the rays: https://t.co/d8x76w4POL
7/ If there's that much on the table with simple (if elegant) applied states, imagine what more complex techniques can do. Finally, there's neural techniques, which brings us to tensor cores.

Frankly, I love tensor cores on consumer cards. Cheap training hardware is great! But I
8/ am deeply skeptical of the needs of most consumers re: neural networks. We probably have enough compute for anything game engines will use in the foreseeable future, and tensor cores scale well with die shrinks. Plus, NN architectures keep getting more efficient.

The reason
9/ having hundreds of tensor cores is appealing to consumers at all *right now* is b/c you can train neural networks to cheaply refine data, as used in DLSS, "AI denoising" for ray tracing, microphone noise suppression, etc.

But you don't need THAT much compute for these.
10/ In fact, computation needs are probably only going to decrease. Recall that the 5-year anniversary of resnets was just a few months ago. NN architecture efficiency has been improving really fast, while microphone bitrates are kept equal, DLSS low-resolution inputs are, well,
11/ low-resolution inputs. They're kept at low res so it's not like resource requirements for DLSS are increasing.

The big concern is that for DLSS and AI denoising, you usually need Nvidia's help training a model for your work. This may make them inaccessible for small devs and
12/ and impossible to implement well in engines.

Sure, there are general NN denoisers & upscalers, but they're not demanding, and they suck in terms of predictability, flexibility, (and, hot take: promise,) etc., so it's hard to see demand for these ASICs growing long-term.
13/ With this in mind, it's worth considering why Nvidia would put as much tensor and RT HW as they have on consumer GPUs. After all, these make GPUs a lot more expensive.

The answer is simple: the software is still being written. Nobody knows how quickly better RT algorithms
14/ will arrive. Nobody knew that the first DLSS would flop, and *on top of that*, had also come up with DLSS 2 and calculated the HW they'd need for it. Had they fully bet on AI denoising and underprovisioned RT cores, RTX would've been a disaster: AI denoising has gone nowhere!
15/ By overprovisioning hardware, Nvidia played it safe with the otherwise incredibly risky launch of RTX.
@threadreaderapp unroll

More from For later read

I should mention, this is why I keep talking about this. Because I know so many people who legally CAN'T.

How do I know they have NDAs, if they can't talk legally about them? Because they trusted me with their secrets... after I said something. That's how they knew I was safe.


Some of the people who have reached out to me privately have been sitting with the pain of what happened to them and the regret that they signed for YEARS. But at the time, it didn't seem like they had any other option BUT to sign.

I do not blame *anyone* for signing an NDA, especially when it's attached to a financial lifeline. When you feel like your family's wellbeing is at stake, you'll do anything -- even sign away your own voice -- to provide for them. That's not a "choice"; that's survival.

And yes, many of the people whose stories I now know were pressured into signing an NDA by my husband's ex-employer. Some of whom I *never* would have guessed. People I thought "left well." Turns out, they've just been *very* good at abiding by the terms of their NDA.

(And others who have reached out had similar experiences with other Christian orgs. Turns out abuse, and the use of NDAs to cover up that abuse, is rampant in a LOT of places.)

You May Also Like

The entire discussion around Facebook’s disclosures of what happened in 2016 is very frustrating. No exec stopped any investigations, but there were a lot of heated discussions about what to publish and when.


In the spring and summer of 2016, as reported by the Times, activity we traced to GRU was reported to the FBI. This was the standard model of interaction companies used for nation-state attacks against likely US targeted.

In the Spring of 2017, after a deep dive into the Fake News phenomena, the security team wanted to publish an update that covered what we had learned. At this point, we didn’t have any advertising content or the big IRA cluster, but we did know about the GRU model.

This report when through dozens of edits as different equities were represented. I did not have any meetings with Sheryl on the paper, but I can’t speak to whether she was in the loop with my higher-ups.

In the end, the difficult question of attribution was settled by us pointing to the DNI report instead of saying Russia or GRU directly. In my pre-briefs with members of Congress, I made it clear that we believed this action was GRU.