dead internetJensen reckon there will be 5m+ ai chatbots in use within the next decade? Seems like there is a few on here right now looking at some comments? Or are they just just fanbois? Or is it that the new nickname for AI chatbots?
-
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.
DLSS 5 preview
- Thread starter WiGgLr
- Start date
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,663
if something equivalent was implemented by AMD and/or Intel
would it mean that games "could" look different between Nvidia/AMD/Intel ? as it not quantitively better or worse in resolution like we have when reviewers compare now - but actually different
will make for very interesting "benchmarks"
would it mean that games "could" look different between Nvidia/AMD/Intel ? as it not quantitively better or worse in resolution like we have when reviewers compare now - but actually different
will make for very interesting "benchmarks"
Definitely, if they used different training data on the model and different approach to how it works exactly. Because currently this tech doesn't change anything in the game's engine, it instead changes final look of the generated frame, by overlaying it with newly AI generated image. Ergo it could do any change to the final look desired, irrelevant of what game engine generates.
Last edited:
if equivalents do get implemented its going to make for very interesting graphics card reviews
they will just all be base game and **** the vendor specific ai slop filter applied
And reviews like that I’d completely ignore. If people are buying a certain card from either one, they want to see how it performs with all the features they have and not just simple raster performance because that is now dead.
With Nvidia and AMD having their own upscaling methods, each one handling RT in their own way as well, I want to see how they perform if I’m going to spend a lot of money on a GPU.
Even the consoles, as well as the Switch 2, are using each company’s upscaling methods, so games have to be tested with all of these “gimmicks” these days.
3060 Ti: 100% - $400
4060 Ti: 112% - $400 8GB / $500 16GB
5060 Ti: 128% - $430
You would think by now a 5060 Ti could best a 3090, it can't, not by a long way, it can't even keep up with a vanilla 3080.
You're not paying for the GPU, you're paying for features to compromise for the lack of advancement in performance.
4060 Ti: 112% - $400 8GB / $500 16GB
5060 Ti: 128% - $430
You would think by now a 5060 Ti could best a 3090, it can't, not by a long way, it can't even keep up with a vanilla 3080.
You're not paying for the GPU, you're paying for features to compromise for the lack of advancement in performance.
Last edited:
It’s like testing a car; you can’t just say it goes from 0 to 60 in this time and call it a day. I want to know how it gets there, what other features I’m paying for and how they compare from each company, and if each company does the same thing, which one does it better.
Testing GPUs has become a lot more complicated than it used to be. I certainly wouldn’t like that job these days, as it’s so much more work.
Just look at some Switch 2 vs Series S image comparisons. Thanks to DLSS, it’s doing a much better job at times when it comes to image quality in some games than a large console with more horsepower and it’s doing it from a lower resolution. This is why these things need testing.
Testing GPUs has become a lot more complicated than it used to be. I certainly wouldn’t like that job these days, as it’s so much more work.
Just look at some Switch 2 vs Series S image comparisons. Thanks to DLSS, it’s doing a much better job at times when it comes to image quality in some games than a large console with more horsepower and it’s doing it from a lower resolution. This is why these things need testing.
Last edited:
This is nothing like testing a car, you don't need a car to be faster every generation, the speed limit has been 70 MPH since before i was born and i'm old.
Every new generation game get's harder to run, it requires more GPU performance, so every generation GPU's get more powerful, if they don't you are effectively steeping down a GPU level unless you step up a GPU level.
Last edited:
GTX 770: 100%
GTX 970: 143%
GTX 780 Ti: 160%
GTX 980 Ti: 232%
GTX 1070: 263%
I'll say it again, an RTX 5060 Ti should be matching or besting a 3090 at this point, at least, its significantly slower than a 3080.
GTX 970: 143%
GTX 780 Ti: 160%
GTX 980 Ti: 232%
GTX 1070: 263%
I'll say it again, an RTX 5060 Ti should be matching or besting a 3090 at this point, at least, its significantly slower than a 3080.
Last edited:
Eh, what? Raster is not going anywhere anytime soon. Huge majority of modern games still use it and there's still a lot of development put into making it better (with new methods it can easily rival RT with look whilst using much less resources but that requires experienced and expensive dev team).
Some big publishers push for tech like dlss5 but only to cut cost on development (which they do not pass to gamers but into their pockets!). And that's a big difference to which a lot of enthusiasts seems to be completely blind.
Upscaling on mobile and handhelds and other battery powered devices, or power limited devices, is a very good idea for power efficiency. That is a very different thing from a PC, though, so I wouldn't put these things into same basket.
Last edited:
That's physics of transistors, but raster technology in general did not stagnate, just got abandoned by big publishers for financial reasons - incentives from Nvidia and cost cutting. Raster is harder to produce and requires skilled dev teams (ergo, expensive). RT and PT are easier and gamers happily throw money on new GPUs with better RT performance still, so not publisher's problem.
Upscaling implementation also much much cheaper than paying better dev team for longer to optimise games better.That's physics of transistors, but raster technology in general did not stagnate, just got abandoned by big publishers for financial reasons - incentives from Nvidia and cost cutting. Raster is harder to produce and requires skilled dev teams (ergo, expensive). RT and PT are easier and gamers happily throw money on new GPUs with better RT performance still, so not publisher's problem.
That and game developers love it because they don't need to optimise their games...
Why is Todd Howard licking Jenson's boot again now with DLSS5?
This is why....
Absolutely! And why Capcom jumped with support, whilst Capcom devs (actually making games) said they had no clue about DLSS 5 before public learned about it. Clearly, management loves it, devs not so much - at least in the current form.
Soldato
- Joined
- 16 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 8,306
Don't worry a 5090 is only required if you insist on owning your own hardware which by the way we're upping the price on substantially, because we can. Meanwhile subscription based online gaming with DLSS5 is coming to you! Yours for only £50 a month! /s
no its £50 a month for the first 100 hours then £15 for every 10 after that