AMD research suggests plans to catch up to Nvidia using neural supersampling and denoising for real-time path tracing

PowerColor Fighter Radeon RX 7700 XT 12GB GDDR6 Graphics Card
(Image credit: PowerColor)

Nvidia currently dominates the GPU market, thanks to a combination of performance, features, and brand recognition. Its advanced AI (Artificial Intelligence) and machine learning-based technologies have proven particularly potent, and AMD hasn’t really caught up, especially in the consumer market. But the company hopes to change that very soon.

According to a post on GPUOpen, AMD research is currently focused on achieving real-time path tracing on RDNA GPUs via neural network solutions. Nvidia uses its own DLSS for image upscaling with AI, but DLSS has come to mean a lot more than "Deep Learning Super Sampling" — there's DLSS 2 upscaling, DLSS 3 frame generation, and DLSS 3.5 ray reconstruction. AMD’s latest research centers on neural denoising to clear up noisy images caused by using a limited number of ray samples in real-time path tracing — basically ray reconstruction, as far as we can tell.

Path tracing normally uses thousands or even tens of thousands of ray calculations per pixel. It's the gold standard and what movies typically, often requiring hours per rendered frame. In effect, a scene gets rendered using calculated ray bounces where even a slight shift in the path taken can result in a different pixel color. Do that a lot and accumulate all of the resulting samples for each pixel, and eventually the quality of the result improves to an acceptable level.

To do path tracing in real-time, the number of samples per pixel needs to be drastically reduced. This results in more noise, as light rays frequently fail to hit certain pixels, leading to incomplete illumination that requires denoising. (Movies use custom denoising algorithms as well, incidentally, as even tens of thousands of samples doesn't guarantee a perfect output.)

AMD aims to address this with a neural network that performs denoising while reconstructing scene details. Nvidia’s solution has been praised for preserving details that traditional rendering takes much longer to achieve. AMD hopes for similar gains by reconstructing path-traced details with a few samples per pixel.

Workflow of our Neural Supersampling and Denoising

Workflow of our Neural Supersampling and Denoising (Image credit: GPUOpen)

The innovation here is that AMD combines upscaling and denoising within a single neural network. In AMD’s own words, their approach “generates high-quality denoised and supersampled images at a higher display resolution than render resolution for real-time path tracing.” This unifies the process, allowing AMD’s method to replace several denoisers used in rendering engines plus doing upscaling in a single pass.

This research could potentially lead to a new version of AMD’s FSR (FidelityFX Super Resolution) that might match Nvidia’s performance and image quality standards. Nvidia’s DLSS technologies require dedicated AI hardware on RTX GPUs, along with an Optical Flow Accelerator for frame generation on RTX 40-series (and later) GPUs.

AMD's current GPUs generally lack AI acceleration features, or in the case of RDNA 3, there are AI accelerators that share execution resources with the GPU shaders, but in a more optimized way for AI workloads. What's not clear is whether AMD can run a neural network for denoising and upscaling on existing GPUs, or if it will require new processing clusters (i.e. tensor units). Achieving this on existing hardware would potentially allow a future FSR iteration to work across all GPUs, but it might also limit quality and other aspects of the algorithm.

We'll need to wait and see what AMD ultimately delivers. A refined approach to neural path tracing and upscaling could bring accessible, high-fidelity graphics to a broader range of hardware, but given the demands of path tracing in games (see: Alan Wake 2, Black Myth Wukong, and Cyberpunk 2077 RT Overdrive), we suspect AMD will need much faster hardware than existing products to reach higher levels of image fidelity.

Kunal Khullar
News Contributor

Kunal Khullar is a contributing writer at Tom’s Hardware.  He is a long time technology journalist and reviewer specializing in PC components and peripherals, and welcomes any and every question around building a PC.

  • hotaru251
    industry needs a 60 tier value card (as in $300-350) that can play games as well as a 70 tier (as even that is only medium 1080p 60 in many new games)

    If amd could do that & improve their fsr they'd take a lot of the market given thats what most people want to buy at
    Reply
  • umeng2002_2
    I don't see any new games on the horizon that demand a 5080 or 5090. Allen Wake II and Silent Hill 2 are not blockbusters, and Cyberpunk is long dead.
    Reply
  • thestryker
    Hopefully AMD can get these in place along with better upscaling. Then once they put out cards with more equivalent RT capability they should be close enough to feature parity to gain market should the pricing accompany the technology. Ray Reconstruction is a pretty big deal and hopefully all three will have it implemented in a simple way to add to games like upscaling is. There's a lot of really cool stuff that can be done with RT, but they really need to work on a way to bring that to the masses rather than being behind the $600+ price points.
    Reply
  • Trake_17
    I'm still waiting to actually care about Ray Tracing
    Reply
  • Mama Changa
    umeng2002_2 said:
    I don't see any new games on the horizon that demand a 5080 or 5090. Allen Wake II and Silent Hill 2 are not blockbusters, and Cyberpunk is long dead.
    More and more games using UE5.x engine will need them IMO, otherwise I agree.

    Any way, 5090 is going to be $2K+ so only the noisy forum jockeys will pretend to buy one while using a 1660/2060/3060 still.
    Reply
  • Pemalite
    hotaru251 said:
    industry needs a 60 tier value card (as in $300-350) that can play games as well as a 70 tier (as even that is only medium 1080p 60 in many new games)

    If amd could do that & improve their fsr they'd take a lot of the market given thats what most people want to buy at
    Unfortunately for ATI/AMD, even when they historically had the technical edge in terms of performance, features and were also cheaper... nVidia still had more marketshare.
    For example... Back during the Geforce FX vs Radeon 9000 days where AMD had better performance, better features and a better price, nVidia still had more marketshare.

    It was only during the 2004/2005 period during the transition from Geforce 6 to Geforce 7 that AMD managed to get above nVidia... Ironically AMD had the arguably inferior product with the Radeon x800 series which weren't fully SM3.0 compliant.

    It's hard to get marketshare if you don't have consumer mindshare, nVidia's marketing and deals with game publishers is what gave them the boost, then things like CUDA/Crypto/A.I has continued to propel them forwards.
    Companies like Matrox (Who still exist), Intel have tried to stay relevant, but just don't seem to gain traction either.
    nVidia is just a monolithic uphill battle, consumers have voted and voted for years... And that will keep prices high for consumers unfortunately.
    Reply
  • Notton
    umeng2002_2 said:
    I don't see any new games on the horizon that demand a 5080 or 5090. Allen Wake II and Silent Hill 2 are not blockbusters, and Cyberpunk is long dead.
    RTX4080 Super barely hits 60/50fps in star wars outlaws at 4k ultra with frame gen and ultra rtx lighting.
    The 4090 does 80/70fps with the same settings.
    Trake_17 said:
    I'm still waiting to actually care about Ray Tracing
    It looks great when the devs have the time and will to implement it correctly, like Wukong.
    Of course, if all you play are games that don't use it, and there are a lot of current titles like that, then sure, go for pure raster.
    Reply
  • Amdlova
    try'n to play quad hd with the 4060 8gb :D using dlss working great, but the 13500T don't have the power to keep the fps high... deeps below 50ish

    I want a new gpu but don't want pay full premium for it max 450usd!
    Reply
  • TheHerald
    Pemalite said:
    Unfortunately for ATI/AMD, even when they historically had the technical edge in terms of performance, features and were also cheaper... nVidia still had more marketshare.
    For example... Back during the Geforce FX vs Radeon 9000 days where AMD had better performance, better features and a better price, nVidia still had more marketshare.

    It was only during the 2004/2005 period during the transition from Geforce 6 to Geforce 7 that AMD managed to get above nVidia... Ironically AMD had the arguably inferior product with the Radeon x800 series which weren't fully SM3.0 compliant.

    It's hard to get marketshare if you don't have consumer mindshare, nVidia's marketing and deals with game publishers is what gave them the boost, then things like CUDA/Crypto/A.I has continued to propel them forwards.
    Companies like Matrox (Who still exist), Intel have tried to stay relevant, but just don't seem to gain traction either.
    nVidia is just a monolithic uphill battle, consumers have voted and voted for years... And that will keep prices high for consumers unfortunately.
    Your graph shows otherwise though. It show that when AMD / ATI had good products, marketshare was competitive. They went from 40-60% to less than 10, and you think it's because of mindshare....Yet on the CPU market they are outselling Intel in DIY.

    Come on,stop the cope. Their products are mediocre.
    Reply
  • ManDaddio
    Pemalite said:
    Unfortunately for ATI/AMD, even when they historically had the technical edge in terms of performance, features and were also cheaper... nVidia still had more marketshare.
    For example... Back during the Geforce FX vs Radeon 9000 days where AMD had better performance, better features and a better price, nVidia still had more marketshare.

    It was only during the 2004/2005 period during the transition from Geforce 6 to Geforce 7 that AMD managed to get above nVidia... Ironically AMD had the arguably inferior product with the Radeon x800 series which weren't fully SM3.0 compliant.

    It's hard to get marketshare if you don't have consumer mindshare, nVidia's marketing and deals with game publishers is what gave them the boost, then things like CUDA/Crypto/A.I has continued to propel them forwards.
    Companies like Matrox (Who still exist), Intel have tried to stay relevant, but just don't seem to gain traction either.
    nVidia is just a monolithic uphill battle, consumers have voted and voted for years... And that will keep prices high for consumers unfortunately.
    People buy Nvidia because they like the product. That's how the markets work. AMD also raised their prices as well. So it's not just Nvidia that raised their prices. If AMD was 40% cheaper all the time for the same performance then I would agree with you. A lot of people go out and buy AMD cards either on the used market or at the end of life cycle when they drop their prices a lot to get rid of the stock. That is your typical AMD customer.
    Reply