• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

Anybody else resenting AMD because of DLSS?

Status
Not open for further replies.
chris85oc said:
Actually, they could release it in a worse state than DLSS and all the amd fanboys/ apologists would eat it up like its better than 2x native.

Proof? Same people who were going on about how fidelityfx upscaling and a sharpen filter are better than DLSS.

The ignorance and personal bias runs too deep to care about facts.

so ...
Click to expand...

Conversely it could be as good as native (Unlike DLSS :p), triple the framerate, and the other fanboys would still say it's crap and horrible injustice that AMD dares to charge more than a tenth of the nvidia price...

There are crazies on all sides :D
 
There is no reason for Radeon ML not to be as good at upscaling as dlss on the software side when gaming on PC/Xbox.
a) It uses Microsoft DirectML to upscale, this technology was developed by Microsoft with input from Nvidia
b) The issue of lack of resources, DLSS was developed by Nvidia. DirectML was developed by Microsoft, with input from Nvidia (and AMD in developing the GPU to use it on PC/Xbox), so no lack of resources there

Can you expect AMD 6000 to outperform Nvidia 3000 on the hardware side, probably not on the high end cards as AMD aimed for a good 1440p experience not a good 4k experience.
 
chris85oc said:
Actually, they could release it in a worse state than DLSS and all the amd fanboys/ apologists would eat it up like its better than 2x native.

Proof? Same people who were going on about how fidelityfx upscaling and a sharpen filter are better than DLSS.

The ignorance and personal bias runs too deep to care about facts.

so ...
Click to expand...

It was shown in BF5 that dropping to 1800p and enabling sharpening was better than DLSS mark 1. Fps were around the same but the image on the AMD setting was much better.
 
chris85oc said:
Actually, they could release it in a worse state than DLSS and all the amd fanboys/ apologists would eat it up like its better than 2x native.

Proof? Same people who were going on about how fidelityfx upscaling and a sharpen filter are better than DLSS.

The ignorance and personal bias runs too deep to care about facts.

so ...
Click to expand...

:p

DLSS was so bad it WAS worse than upscaling and a sharpen filter. Hardware reviewers demonstrated the vaseline smear effect and took the **** out of it.

NVIDIA binned it, started again and named the new one DLSS 2.0

Keep it up with them facts though.
 
I'm actually of the opinion that AMD's Super Resolution and Nvidia's DLSS should with all things being equal produce the same image quality.

And that's because AMD is simply renaming Microsoft's DirectML for itself and DirectML was constructed using's Nvidia's DLSS model code. Of course Nvidia has since made changes to its model (DLSS 2.0 and 2.1 etc) and its not clear if Nvidia is still providing code updates to Microsoft. Worst case DirectML ships with DLSS 1.0 image quality but it can be improved after a while with updates

I'm not a fan of all these separate names - lets just call it DLSS since that's what it is
 
I expect the IQ to be on par with dlss, however, I expect nvidia to have a much bigger FPS boost.

PS. the ghosting/trailing effect seen with dlss looks to be chroma bleed, have a google and read on doom9 forums, some interesting stuff, either way, it's something that can be improved/reduced but requires a lot of tweaking so hopefully the next version of dlss will resolve this as it's my only complaint.

TheRealDeal said:
It was shown in BF5 that dropping to 1800p and enabling sharpening was better than DLSS mark 1. Fps were around the same but the image on the AMD setting was much better.
Click to expand...

Yup that was beyond awful dlss 1.0 but don't confuse a sharpening filter/effect with dlss 2.0, very different things.

I dare say redux is better than any type of sharpening post process effect but the good thing about amds method is it just works better universally, although I'm not a fan of sharpening effects unless used to combat the softness of some extreme TAA usage in some games.....
 
Last edited:
TheRealDeal said:
It was shown in BF5 that dropping to 1800p and enabling sharpening was better than DLSS mark 1. Fps were around the same but the image on the AMD setting was much better.
Click to expand...

This?

The RIS image in the middle looks better than native 4K, that's not bad considering this isn't even supposed to be used in the same way DLSS is, does a damned good job.

LvqGzmE.png
 
4K8KW10 said:
False.

The 6000 series is targeted as the Ultimate 4K Gaming Experience. radeon rx 6900 xt slides - Google Search
Click to expand...

Did you read the article that went with the slide you linked, it headlines


The Supposed 'AMD Radeon 6900 XT' Slides Are Completely Fake - ExtremeTech

Did you bother to look for evidence that they aimed for 1440p as you could have googled accurate information instead
AMD Says Radeon RX 6000 GPUs Provide a Great Ray-Tracing Experience at 1440p - The FPS Review
 
Those slides are quite funny, 50% faster than 2080ti and almost no performance penalty from using Ray Tracing :p

You didn't have to be a pessimist to see through those claims, you'd have been a crazy optimist to believe them
 
humbug said:
This?

The RIS image in the middle looks better than native 4K, that's not bad considering this isn't even supposed to be used in the same way DLSS is, does a damned good job.

LvqGzmE.png
Click to expand...

Well, 78% sharpened over 4K? That is effectively 5K or 6K! Sure, it will be better than native 4K.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom