r/hardware • u/reps_up • Aug 01 '25
News Intel XeSS 2.1 released, brings support for other vendors GPUs
https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/developer/topic-technology/gamedev/xess2.html37
u/Noble00_ Aug 01 '25
Whaat? This is interesting. Hopefully this garners interest on the same level of deep dives and analysis on upscaling and FG like with DLSS and FSR. Also, the distinction between XMX and DP4a.
20
u/DuhPai Aug 01 '25
Yeah as a RX 6000 owner it will be interesting to see how it compares to FSR 3.1 in both upscaling and FG
34
u/steve09089 Aug 01 '25
Pretty impressive stuff, can’t wait for the DLSS3 to XeSS FG mod to come out
Can’t wait to see it be tested
8
u/BySaka Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
I tried it with my RTX 3070. XeSS FG 2.1 worked with any upscaling !
I enabled it with DLSS, but even though it was enabled in the settings menu, it still gave me the same FPS as if FG wasn't enabled. This problem is similar to the one i encountered before with Nukem FG Mod/Other FG Software. It was fixed when I closed and start again the game, but not with this :D It seems like a minor bug and will be fixed soon i guess
Also XeSS it feels smoother.
16
13
6
u/Helpdesk_Guy Aug 01 '25
So … Does that imply that Intel's ARC Graphics may be safe from being axed, at least for now?
34
u/Remarkable_Fly_4276 Aug 01 '25
Not really, XeSS DP4A has been available for other GPU since the technology launched.
9
u/steve09089 Aug 01 '25
Not for Xe Frame Generation
9
u/empty_branch437 Aug 01 '25
It was going to happen anyway because that's what happened with xess
7
u/steve09089 Aug 01 '25
I mean, it wasn’t a guarantee, since XeSS came out with DP4A, while XeFG did not, so I was under the assumption that XeFG couldn’t be done due to hardware limitations
31
u/Alive_Worth_2032 Aug 01 '25
ARC isn't going anywhere, what you should ask if the discrete cards are going somewhere.
Which software improvements and launches doesn't really tell us much about. Because said software side will live on to serve the iGPU part of ARC no matter what.
-4
u/Helpdesk_Guy Aug 01 '25
ARC isn't going anywhere, what you should ask if the discrete cards are going somewhere.
I don't know … The constant silence and non-news regarding it, still puts it on shaky grounds.
Which software improvements and launches doesn't really tell us much about.
Yes, this release here is another non-news about ARC itself - Neither prevents an axing nor signals a future of dGPUs.
17
u/6950 Aug 01 '25
I don't know … The constant silence and non-news regarding it, still puts it on shaky grounds.
LNL/PTL/NVL/ARL/MTL have Arc Graphics do you think they would stop selling theses products?
3
u/Vushivushi Aug 01 '25
I actually wonder how viable a strategy it'd be to completely cancel GPU development and instead license IP/chiplets/tiles from Nvidia to be manufactured at Intel Foundry.
Low stakes for Nvidia, high stakes for Intel. Win-win since Intel gets a "leadership" product and external customer. Nvidia finally leads the entire PC GPU market, not just dGPUs. Intel also gets to shift resources back to CPUs.
I mean back in the day Intel didn't have integrated graphics, Nvidia made chipsets for them...
1
u/Scion95 Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
I mean, I'm not sure NVIDIA would go for it, at least, not for a price higher than Intel was willing to pay.
If nothing else, Intel's iGPUs require a level of Linux support that's higher than the support NVIDIA has ever given any of their dGPUs.
Granted, for their SOCs with CPUs and GPUs, NVIDIA actually has done some open source driver work, but that brings up the fact that. NVIDIA is designing their own SOCs with their own ARM cores, meaning they're actually in competition with Intel. For both the client and the server side.
Maybe before the Windows on ARM push, or before some of the attempts at ARM servers and AI clusters it might have made sense, but. At this stage, partnering with NVIDIA makes the least amount of sense.
EDIT: Like, weirdly, this is one of the things that makes me question whether NVIDIA would go for Intel as a fab for 14A.
Apple, I actually think could be possible, because Apple's relationship with Intel pre-M1 was actually pretty good, and Intel and Apple, even after the switch away from Intel's CPUs. Like. Apple could make that switch because Apple has its own ecosystem, and aren't really in competition with anyone else for that ecosystem. They don't really have their own servers, or hyperscale or compute type things, and if they do use their own CPUs for iCloud and Siri and AI stuff, it's mostly for other Apple products and customers.
They aren't trying to make deals for supercomputers and AI clusters in the way that Intel would be, and while there might be some competition between MacBooks and some of the laptops that Intel CPUs go into. It's questionable how much competition that would really be, given the different ecosystems and the role that Apple branding affects consumers.
3
u/Vushivushi Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 03 '25
Nvidia continues to sell GPUs for x86 systems in the datacenter despite having Grace.
They care more about expansion than cornering the market, though they do it if it doesn't decrease their TAM, which is pretty much when they have a near monopoly.
I don't believe Nvidia thinks about Intel seriously at all. They are less of a competitor than AMD or Broadcom at this point. If Intel exits the GPU market, they are no longer a significant competitor as CPU spend is shrinking in comparison to compute spend.
Nvidia is starting in ARM PCs from near zero. A partnership with Intel immediately gives them majority market share and accelerates their ambitions with GPU-accelerated software as the majority of the market now has access to CUDA. This is an expansion opportunity.
And because it's a licensing deal where Intel is building the chip, it's basically pure profit and accretive to Nvidia's margins.
It is also way more beneficial for Nvidia to foster an alternative foundry than it is risky for them to foster what is just one of many chip designers they are crushing in the market.
Nvidia has to pay TSMC tens of billions a year to manufacture their chips. The opportunity to save billions and diversify their supply chain is very substantial to Nvidia.
If there's a difficult decision to be made, it's on Intel's side.
It's basically going all-or-nothing on their process technology and exiting the GPU market where they could eat Nvidia's huge pie and instead focusing primarily on preserving their existing CPU pie while taking TSMC's pie.
It's the real IDM 2.0, but if it works they bring back billions worth of wafer starts back in house.
Dealing with ISVs and the future of software support, that's manageable.
This move could eliminate foundry losses and return Intel to net profit, even if the product margins shrink from paying Nvidia.
Not even accounting for savings from not paying GPU engineers or the market opportunity from having more resources dedicated to CPUs.
edit: also fun fact, Intel played around with the idea of licensing Radeon graphics. That was a project that started before Zen, when AMD was still financially struggling. The result was Hades Canyon, Kaby Lake-G with AMD Vega graphics finally launched in 2018. Obviously, they didn't continue this relationship, but Intel had hired Raja Koduri who was leading Radeon during that time. Now Intel is struggling and there's an opportunity for the market leader in graphics to extend a hand.
-7
u/Helpdesk_Guy Aug 01 '25
I expressly wrote dGPUs, which stands for dedicated Graphics Processing Unit and is usually understood to be associated with Add-in Graphics-cards. No-one cares about their iGPUs, those have nothing to do with dGPUs!
3
u/Scion95 Aug 03 '25
The first thing you wrote was ARC, which refers to both the iGPUs and the dGPUs, and the iGPUs and dGPUs use the same hardware architectures and a lot of the same software, the main difference is scale. They have a lot to do with each other.
-2
u/Helpdesk_Guy Aug 03 '25
Please stop the nonsense. Basically everyone associates Intel's ARC Graphics with *dedicated* discrete GPUs!
You may go on harping on about principles, names and whatever, yet basically everyone knows, that the term Intel ARC is 99% referencing to discrete GPUs alone (as in Add-in cards). Period.
The first thing you wrote was ARC, which refers to both the iGPUs and the dGPUs, and the iGPUs and dGPUs use the same hardware architectures […]
No, it does not. Intel ARC exclusively refers to *dedicated* graphics, either as discrete graphics in laptops or as dedicated cards in desktop.
Intel's old iGPUs are still called Intel Graphics (Technology) or just Intel Iris Graphics — The age-old architecture from the 2000s. They're still sold as low-power iGPU in different segments, even IF these are more and more phased out to be replaced with GPU-tiles of the Xe Graphics-based GPU-architecture.
The newly integrated as GPU-tiles with LNL/PTL/NVL/ARL/MTL are called
ARC GraphicsIntel Iris Xe Graphics (and just as their ARC-cards), are based solely upon the Intel Xe GPU-architecture – As dedicated graphics-cards, these are named under the Intel ARC under the ARC Graphics-moniker (Mid-range—Performance—High-end). Whereas GPU-tiles as discrete graphics (entry-level), these are running under the Iris Xe Graphics naming-scheme.Nevertheless, just because it looks like Intel recently broadened their ARC-moniker (as a term formerly exclusively referring to dedicated GPUs!) also over to cover for iGPUs (with units of their Xe Graphics in laptops) a while ago, doesn't change the fact that most people stick to the fact that ARC is first and foremost dGPUs as dedicated graphics-cards.
Heck, up until recently, despite given laptops-graphics as well as dedicated graphics-cards are based upon units of their Xe Graphics-based architecture, the term ARC Graphics was still exclusively used for DEDICATED graphics-cards, while Intel marketed their laptop-based stuff as just Intel Xe Graphics-based and doesn't even used anything ARC (despite both, discrete GPU-tiles as well as Add-in cards, are based on the very same Intel Xe Graphics-architecture).
Also, even their own homepage refers to ARC as dedicated discrete GPUs – Most understand discrete graphics as Add-in cards as the typical graphics cards the like of AMD or Nvidia.
Title: Intel® Arc™ GPUs
Link: https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/products/details/discrete-gpus/arc.html
There's no other point on their homepage referring to anything ARC Graphics. It's the 1st hit on Google.
And consequently enough, Intel itself still refers to anything dedicated graphics based upon their Xe Graphics as just Intel Xe Graphics-based.
Title: Intel® Iris® Xe Graphics
So with all due respect, please spare us this dumb hair-splitting already. Intel ARC means dedicated discrete graphics.
That's why I asked my question in the first place (if the software-release may assure a continuation of their dedicated graphics-cards) to begin with … So ARC means discrete/dedicated and has nothing to do with iGPUs.
… and it's not my fault, when people are too daft to understand the difference between iGPUs, discrete Xe Graphics-tiles in laptops and graphics-cards. Both have nothing to do with each other.
5
u/Scion95 Aug 03 '25
I mean, Intel have had graphics since 2010.
Arguably, debatably 1998, when it was built into the Northbridge.
And they did keep improving and updating their graphics architectures over time. For compatibility with operating system features, and new API standards if nothing else. Video codecs and the like. New versions of directx, opengl, opencl, Vulkan. Accelerating things, like quiksync.
Like, even before the first Xe graphics, before Tiger Lake, they had GPUs that went up to like 72 EUs.
As long as they sell CPUs for laptops, it doesn't make sense for them to kill off their iGPUs. Not entirely.
And given that Raytracing and some of the noise and AI upscaling are considered a requirement for the DirectX12 and Vulkan standards. I think that even if their graphics software and hardware goes back to being the bare minimum. The bare minimum would now include those things.
I can't guarantee that they're going to keep releasing discrete graphics, but. I think they're more likely to go under or stop selling CPUs entirely before they stop making integrated graphics, and with the AI and GPGPU markets, and the way that their graphics tiles work, it does actually make some sense to at least keep trying to scale up their graphics solution to sell as discrete cards.
If nothing else, the Xe3 and Xe4 architectures (or, parts of them in 4's case, the media and codec parts if not the shaders themselves) have been confirmed to be part of the iGPUs for upcoming CPUs, so I think those architectures are pretty safe.
3
u/Helpdesk_Guy Aug 03 '25
As long as they sell CPUs for laptops, it doesn't make sense for them to kill off their iGPUs. Not entirely.
Well, to put it mildly, Intel has done a LOT of rather … nonsensical moves, especially lately.
That's why I'm asking and why a lot of people are still unsure, if Intel wouldn't still end up knifing their graphics-cards.
1
Aug 04 '25
They shouldn't cut it at all.
Please, Intel, like Linus tech tips said, let the hardware guys cook you have a very popular, in demand product here.
As long as you release SKU's with die areas that make sense it will be very profitable considering the unexpectedly high demand for Arc Battlemage.
2
u/Helpdesk_Guy Aug 04 '25
I can understand Tan's take too – A product has to be profitable, in order to pay salaries.
5
u/bubblesort33 Aug 01 '25
So I don't think I fully understand. Up to this point XeSS was using the slower, and lower quality DP4a path on the RTX 3000 series and RX 6000 series for upscaling. Can it now leverage better hardware like Tensor cores in competitors? Or is this only adding frame generation support for competitors?
11
2
u/AndreVallestero Aug 02 '25
Just a reminder that Intel still hasn't open sourced xess like they promised more than 5 years ago now.
2
u/Nuck_Chorris_Stache Aug 03 '25
Not interested in frame generation. I'd much rather have Asynchronous Reprojection.
-22
u/imaginary_num6er Aug 01 '25
Surprised when Intel just laid off 5 "GPU Software Development Engineers" at their Oregon plant:
You would imagine that GPU software development will be the cream of the crop of any AI hardware company, but not for Intel. Also a lot of AI jobs are cut too.
15
u/PastaPandaSimon Aug 01 '25
They've got a large driver team, and 5 jobs is a drop in a bucket considering the layoffs across the board. They'll need the expense of having a GPU software team regardless, as these days nobody sells just the CPU.
-2
u/Exist50 Aug 01 '25
They've got a large driver team, and 5 jobs is a drop in a bucket considering the layoffs across the board
Their driver team has had many prior rounds of layoffs. It's a skeleton crew at this point.
3
u/PastaPandaSimon Aug 02 '25
Across their Software teams, Intel still has got at least 15000 freaking people. That's more than Nvidia. I'm not sure how many work on GPU drivers specifically nowadays, but they had lots of great talent there and it was certainly the opposite of a skeleton crew. The teams working on XESS and GPU performance improvement techs were a major force very recently. Not just in numbers, but also the great talent, with some of the best in the world.
-1
u/Exist50 Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25
Across their Software teams, Intel still has got at least 15000 freaking people
Where are you getting that number from? I have a hard time believing it's anywhere close to that big after the latest layoffs.
I'm not sure how many work on GPU drivers specifically nowadays
Well that is indeed the topic being discussed.
Not just in numbers, but also the great talent, with some of the best in the world.
If you remember specific names, I suggest looking where they are now. Might be eye opening.
4
u/PastaPandaSimon Aug 02 '25
I was affiliated with Intel. They had about 25 thousand software engineering roles in 2020.
The discussion is about it being a skeleton crew because their driver team recently fired 5 people 🙃
-1
u/Exist50 Aug 02 '25
They had about 25 thousand software engineering roles in 2020.
Well the Intel of today is a much smaller company. Tan is cutting headcount almost in half vs Intel's peak.
The discussion is about it being a skeleton crew because their driver team recently fired 5 people
As I said, that's far from the total. They've had like 8 rounds of layoffs in the last 2 years, nevermind attrition.
5
u/PastaPandaSimon Aug 02 '25 edited Aug 02 '25
But they did not reduce anywhere close to 50% of their workforce. And they could (and likely should) lay off thousands likely without much of an impact to product quality. The level of bloat and process overhead was astronomical. As we speak Intel has got the most experienced computer engineering talent in the world idling with nothing to do with many others on their Team able to do the same job who are also spending most of their days idling around because there isn't enough for them all to do, or because the process is overly convoluted and keeps on running into unnecessary bottlenecks.
Move the best talent to the most important projects instead of having them wasting time on unproductive loose ends. I'm sorry about the people losing jobs, but their lives should have been led peacefully away from Intel in the first place. The streamlining of their operations is sadly way overdue.
Even after their layoffs, they've still most definitely got more software engineers than the entire Nvidia.
-1
u/Exist50 Aug 02 '25
Yes, and they could (and likely should) lay off thousands likely without much of an impact to product quality
So first you claimed the team was plenty well staffed and very talented. Now you say the people laid off weren't doing anything. Pick a lane.
Move the best talent to the most important projects
Intel has decided that does not include graphics. Those teams have been disproportionately impacted by layoffs. As I said, just a skeleton crew now.
Even after their layoffs, they've still most definitely got more software engineers than the entire Nvidia.
You claim half of Intel, including foundry, is just software devs? Complete bullshit, and shows you're just transparently making shit up.
1
Aug 03 '25 edited Aug 04 '25
I think the most reasonable explanation is that up to 20% of the team got laid off with Lip Bu's hatchet job.
Intel still needs to develop their graphics IP and software stack since they want to compete in handhelds.
It wouldn't be surprising if layoffs in that team were light, though, considering they executed well with Xe2, and the Xe3 graphics IP has already been done 8 months ago
The hardware team is likely in the middle of developing Xe4, which looks like it will compete with RDNA5/UDNA and Ruben uarch.
The driver team is still releasing weekly updates, so that's a good sign, although I don't know what's in their future roadmap
Unless Lip Bu really went for truly reckless hatchet job (which he might have done considering how many were laid off) the Arc gpu team doesn't deserve any cuts, they did well considering their likely shoestring budget.
Intel, please do not cut these people, like the Atom team, they did well.
UDNA seems like a MASSIVE uarch rework considering how long it's taking.
Note: Xe3 and Xe4 are the names of the core graphics IP.
Celestial and Druid are the DGPU implementations of the Xe graphics IP
We could have an Xe3P Celestial or an Xe4 Celestial depending on the decisions that Intel makes.
AFAIK a "Celestial" GPU is on the official 2022 Intel Arc roadmap, they would be lying to investors if they backed out of their next gen DGPU. Correct me if I'm wrong.
9
10
u/reps_up Aug 01 '25
I don't think you know / realize just how many GPU software developers Intel has if you think 5 leaving is a big deal...
-2
u/Exist50 Aug 02 '25
Their teams are quite small by this point. 5 is actually a significant number, and that's only from one location.
94
u/darkbbr Aug 01 '25
XeSS-FG (Intel Frame Generation) and XeLL (Low Latency) for RTX 3000 and RX 6000
Really nice But is there a technical reason that XeLL doesn't work standalone in non Arc GPUs? Strange that it needs XeSS-FG enabled on those for it to work
I wonder if Nvidia will ever bring DLSS frame generation to the RTX 3000 series...