• 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

Will AMD even have a card in that performance bracket this time?

They really need to drop the we are premium stuff and price the card properly. That said will there be enough silicon to supply the demand of a properly priced card?

I think there was rumours they're pulling out from the high/flagship end, which makes sense tbf as imo nvidia just can't be touched here when amd are charging similar price for a lesser package overall so they either need to price a comfortable 20-25% lower or just try and win the market share back at the most popular gpus tier.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
Well the new control panel answered my question as I thought a new revamped one would be exclusive for a while to the 5xxx series.

I guess DLSS 4 will be.
 
What could DLSS4 add that DLSS 3 doesn't already have? I see it being an iterative update only with some new rendering API that has yet to be enabled by Nvidia that further optimises quality and performance like how DLSS3.5 did with ray reconstruction which is supported by all RTX cards but benefits the most on 40x due to working alongside DLSS frame gen.

So likely see DLSS 3.6 which adds a new feature that works on existing cards just like ray reconstruction does but further speeds up ray tracing or something.

You heard it here first.

Again, I still see the 50xx cards being cards aimed at those who squarely want to maximise framerates on the new gens of Gsync OLEDs coming out with 4K 240Hz+ etc. A 4090 is never going to be able to hit those sorts of framerates in any modern game at 4K+ - Not that it matters if you don't actually have a 240Hz+ monitor in the first place though :p


5080 - probably £1000 (offering 4090 matching or beating perf)

With 16GB VRAM you forgot to mention and not using GDDR7 :p
 

Streamline used by Windows to support multiple upscalers. This was originally thought but as Alex says "AMD didn't want to support it" - But now that MS are taking over and baking in the framework at an OS level, you either lose out or be part of it, so this is good and potentially makes upscaling support for all games as long as the game can expose itself to the framework, I guess older games simply need a mod to show themselves to the framework rather than a modder having to inject upscaling.

All good looking ahead.
 

Streamline used by Windows to support multiple upscalers. This was originally thought but as Alex says "AMD didn't want to support it" - But now that MS are taking over and baking in the framework at an OS level, you either lose out or be part of it, so this is good and potentially makes upscaling support for all games as long as the game can expose itself to the framework, I guess older games simply need a mod to show themselves to the framework rather than a modder having to inject upscaling.

All good looking ahead.

I'm sure amd are delighted that Microsoft are basically taking up nvidias idea and now not having any choice or excuses but to get onboard :p
 
Looks like AMD has realised that not using hardware based AI upscaling will push them into a deep cave of no return, so now they are doing a 180 :p


Where are the FSR fanboys now huh :cry:
 
Last edited:
Following on from that, looks like FSR powered by AI hardware will only be possible on RDNA3 and above, and going by chatter on [H] and elsewhere, likely won't see RDNA4 until AI-FSR is ready, but if PS5 Pro uses it too, then that will likely take priority for obvious reasons. So once again lagging behind in the PC space for AMD:

 
Following on from that, looks like FSR powered by AI hardware will only be possible on RDNA3 and above, and going by chatter on [H] and elsewhere, likely won't see RDNA4 until AI-FSR is ready, but if PS5 Pro uses it too, then that will likely take priority for obvious reasons. So once again lagging behind in the PC space for AMD:


Pretty sure Sony have said they're working on their own upscaling solution? It's a shame amd are so far behind here and they have the over the fence approach, powering consoles and obviously having that relationship with both microsoft and sony, they really could have excelled with fsr.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mrk
Following on from that, looks like FSR powered by AI hardware will only be possible on RDNA3 and above, and going by chatter on [H] and elsewhere, likely won't see RDNA4 until AI-FSR is ready, but if PS5 Pro uses it too, then that will likely take priority for obvious reasons. So once again lagging behind in the PC space for AMD:

Good that they're actually *trying* now but I personally think they'll keep it locked behind rDNA4 onwards.
 
Good that they're actually *trying* now but I personally think they'll keep it locked behind rDNA4 onwards.

Wonder if amd will get the same **** then for locking their tech to certain gpus as nvidia do? ;) :p

If it works well, it's a good move as heck look at me and others with nvidia gpus, we can't and don't want to move to amd because of how good nvidias feature set is. AMD need to start doing the same. The key thing they will need to do is make sure they take ownership in the development and improvement of this or at least provide a t shirt size like nvidia do because if they just throw it over the fence again and expect devs to do the tuning themselves, well then it'll be repeat of FSR 1-3 again with inconsistent results and more often than not just being poor.
 
Wonder if amd will get the same **** then for locking their tech to certain gpus as nvidia do? ;) :p

If it works well, it's a good move as heck look at me and others with nvidia gpus, we can't and don't want to move to amd because of how good nvidias feature set is. AMD need to start doing the same. The key thing they will need to do is make sure they take ownership in the development and improvement of this or at least provide a t shirt size like nvidia do because if they just throw it over the fence again and expect devs to do the tuning themselves, well then it'll be repeat of FSR 1-3 again with inconsistent results and more often than not just being poor.

It is a good move. They need to compete. This is a good solution in doing so. If they solve it and bring their solution to be as good as DLSS that will remove a big barrier imo.
 
It is a good move. They need to compete. This is a good solution in doing so. If they solve it and bring their solution to be as good as DLSS that will remove a big barrier imo.

Yup, it was all very well saying "we support all gpus and our tech works on everything" etc. but as shown by the poll here and other sites, who cares when people don't want to use it? :cry: If they do end up locking it to RDNA 4 and maybe RDNA 3, it means they have a far lesser userbase to support as well as optimise for, which in theory, means they'll be able to get the best from it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
They shouldn't lock it to rdna4, but I have no issue if rdna4 has certain bits that help accelerate the workloads required to do what it needs to do fast enough so that it can actually do it. Though this is from my understanding that it's all just maths, and gpus should be good at doing maths but not necessarily good enough to drive an upscaler fast enough for it to work well.
 
Wonder if amd will get the same **** then for locking their tech to certain gpus as nvidia do? ;) :p

If it works well, it's a good move as heck look at me and others with nvidia gpus, we can't and don't want to move to amd because of how good nvidias feature set is. AMD need to start doing the same. The key thing they will need to do is make sure they take ownership in the development and improvement of this or at least provide a t shirt size like nvidia do because if they just throw it over the fence again and expect devs to do the tuning themselves, well then it'll be repeat of FSR 1-3 again with inconsistent results and more often than not just being poor.

It depends on whether they try and keep some backwards compatibility like Intel does. If not then they deserve criticism!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom