• 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 Momentum Continues: 50 Released and Upcoming DLSS 3 Games, Over 250 DLSS Games and Creative Apps Available Now

I have always said I'm happy to pay to get access to features "if" they are good/worthwhile :confused: I never saw the appeal with physx hence why I never bought a nvidia gpu to get access to this. Back in the day when I was amd gpu only, I funnily bought into their hardware because like many others I believed with amd powering consoles, we would see the benefits on pc side too, so in some ways I was buying into the amd system paying of in the long run but nope, that never happened and in fact, it's nvidia who often do better, some still stand by that, well, still waiting, like I said, imo, the amd motto now.

If amd locking features to work only on their gpus meant their solutions being far better and most importantly, consistently good, then great, that's the way to do it, as it is, based on my own testing and as confirmed by every comparison so far, fsr is still not a patch on dlss and given how important this is now (game devs are relying on this more than ever to "optimise" their games), this is a pretty big selling point and for me, it's made amd a no go until they get their solutions on par with what their competition is offering, thankfully my 3080 still doing great so I have no need to give either company money towards their extortionate gpus "at the moment". If amd had a good upscaler solution though, I would be pretty tempted by the 7800xt(x) deals that were going about recently but alas they don't.

Like I said, don't think so much about it buddy, buy what works best for your budget, if that is amd, nvidia or even a console, crack on, for me at this moment in time, it just so happens to be a nvidia based gpu, a couple years back, ps 4 pro exclusives were fantastic i.e. last of us, hzd, spiderman, god of war etc. hence why I bought it, now not so much with them coming to pc and sony not having the same good titles that interest me hence why it got sold on as it has no appeal.

And nope, you're wrong there, at 4k, you still need upscaling regardless unless you like fps dropping below 60?

MCNJucr.png


vrLzvGp.png


Although based on my own testing, you will want to keep FSR res. as high as possible which means dropping other settings unless you have access to dlss in order to avoid the usual issues with fsr 2. This is also confirmed by HUB:


Oh and just for the record too, I paid less for my 3080 than what I would have for a 6800xt or even a 6800 thanks to amd not providing a MSRP option in the UK like nvidia did. So didn't really pay anything extra at all and if you want to compare MSRP to MSRP, an extra £50 has proved well worth it for having access to a superior upscaler for 3+ years now (and not to mention the other things like ray tracing grunt and so on)
if you drop maybe a setting or 2, you will get 60 + FPs on the 7900 XT alone, thats 4K ultra and still almost 60 FPS average on that GPU is pretty solid.

tell me again where upscaling is needed there?
 
if you drop maybe a setting or 2, you will get 60 + FPs on the 7900 XT alone, thats 4K ultra and still almost 60 FPS average on that GPU is pretty solid.

tell me again where upscaling is needed there?

Did you watch gamer nexus video?


Even dropping to high preset, you are not getting a consistent 60+ fps Sure average fps may just be over 60 fps but I rather have a "consistent" high fps, which is only done by using upscaling (and settings also needing lowered in this game still), what if you're on a high refresh rate display, just drop settings to low instead of using upscaling?

4HUrQwY.png
 
Did you watch gamer nexus video?


Even dropping to high preset, you are not getting a consistent 60+ fps Sure average fps may just be over 60 fps but I rather have a "consistent" high fps, which is only done by using upscaling (and settings also needing lowered in this game still), what if you're on a high refresh rate display, just drop settings to low instead of using upscaling?

4HUrQwY.png
Low settings, but at least is native, peasant! /s :))
 
Did you watch gamer nexus video?


Even dropping to high preset, you are not getting a consistent 60+ fps Sure average fps may just be over 60 fps but I rather have a "consistent" high fps, which is only done by using upscaling (and settings also needing lowered in this game still), what if you're on a high refresh rate display, just drop settings to low instead of using upscaling?

4HUrQwY.png
So tweak the settings?

I saw the video and guess what, performance on the AMD GPUs are fine

I knew you were gonna make up that stance, what about the high refresh rate 4K settings?

Why does your goalposts keep changing, its clear looking at the charts the game can be run at 4K without any upscaling at all.
 
Last edited:
So tweak the settings?

I saw the video and guess what, performance on the AMD GPUs are fine

I knew you were gonna make up that stance, what about the high refresh rate 4K settings?

Why does your goalposts keep changing, its clear looking at the charts the game can be run at 4K without any upscaling at all.

Tweak the settings.... Way to miss the whole point of upscaling.

Low settings, but at least is native, peasant! /s :))

Seems you were right there calan *facepalm*

Make up high refresh rate 4k displays? Lmao. 4k 144+Hz gamers, sell your displays to drop back to 4k60 and just play on low :cry:

Keep working on the mental gymnastics, I'm away to explore the universe :)
 
Last edited:
if you drop maybe a setting or 2, you will get 60 + FPs on the 7900 XT alone, thats 4K ultra and still almost 60 FPS average on that GPU is pretty solid.

tell me again where upscaling is needed there?

The lows in this game are terrible you will not get 60fps 1% lows
 
Last edited:
Something up with starfield performance, it looks average at best and runs like it's cyberkpunk with RT on, worse even.

It's CPU limited very badly, the worst looking game can still run like crap if the CPU can't feed the GPU. If you want an easy example look at World of Warcraft - the game has very low framerates and was launched in 2004, it has terrible graphics but PCs still can't achieve high framerates because the game has always been CPU limited


And it could have been even worse, Todd said Bethesda has spent the last 2 months working on CPU optimisation, the game was running even worse before, that's why some of the first gameplay demos shown of this game looked like 20fps
 
Last edited:
It's CPU limited very badly, the worst looking game can still run like crap if the CPU can't feed the GPU. If you want an easy example look at World of Warcraft - the game has very low framerates and was launched in 2004, it has terrible graphics but PCs still can't achieve high framerates because the game has always been CPU limited


And it could have been even worse, Todd said Bethesda has spent the last 2 months working on CPU optimisation, the game was running even worse before, that's why some of the first gameplay demos shown of this game looked like 20fps

1 of the many drawbacks of Bethesda not moving on from their ancient Creation Engine.
 
Its needed when you dont drop those setting or 2
funny as many people turn off settings for preference such as blur, DOF for example.

Turning down some settings will have the most minor effect but turning on upscaling will make the whole image net worse through out.

Honestly, pick your poison here.

Many of you are moving goalposts to justify upscaling ( to be clear I dislike FSR as much as DLSS )
 
Back
Top Bottom