-
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
- Thread starter Nexus18
- Start date
Back in the day, the hardware module was a huge advantage not just from a range pov (agree you don't really want to be dropping below 50 fps at most regardless of free/g sync anyway) but most importantly, having variable pixel overdrive/response i.e. essentially motion clarity for when your fps is fluctuating. TFTcentral (arguably one of the best monitor reviewers) did a good article explaining the pros and cons:
Variable Refresh Rates - G-sync and FreeSync - TFTCentral
A detailed look at variable refresh rates (VRR) including NVIDIA G-sync, AMD FreeSync and all the various versions and certifications that exist
tftcentral.co.uk
There is a lot more to it than just the range differences.
I would argue that for LCD screens, the gsync module holds more pros and less for oled since oleds pixel response is instantaneous, however, PCM2 has stated even here, the gsync module has it's advantages:
Are you sure you're not confusing these 2 things:
- variable refresh rate i.e. the range at which g/free sync operates in e.g. sync happens between 30-144 hz/fps
- variable overdrive with regards to pixel response time depending what your fps is at i.e. "NVIDIA also talk about how their G-sync technology allows for “variable overdrive” where the overdrive is apparently tuned across the entire refresh rate range for optimal performance." so for example on a freesync monitor a pixel response overdrive setting of +1 will only look good with fps of over 100 but if you drop to say 50 fps, that +1 setting will exhibit inverse ghosting because the pixel response setting is set to high and you would need to drop this to 0 or -1 to eliminate the inverse ghosting
My last iiyama freesync premium screen was a perfect example of where gsync module would have been perfect as when fps where over 100 fps and with a setting of + 2, motion looked nice and clear but as soon as fps went to sub 80 fps, noticeable inverse ghosting started thus had to drop the setting to 0.
Either way, there is more to gsync ultimate module than just that, essentially it's not quite the "freesync does exactly what gsync ultimate does" that some would have you believe, I would say the more important advantage with having gsync ultimate is better QC/certification i.e. amds lack of qc allows monitor manufacturers to ship lesser monitors out with things like worse HDR performance.
Yeah lets wait and see how FSR 3 does before claiming "nvidia selling you hardware" just to lock you in etc. as so far all of nvidias hardware solutions have been better than the software approach. Especially concerning latency as there is no reports on this for fsr 3 yet.
Last edited:
The modder PureDark has released his DLSS2+XeSS mod for Starfield for free on Nexus, His DLSS3 mod however will be exclusive to Patreon.
Starfield Upscaler - Replacing FSR2 with DLSS or XeSS
Replacing the in-game FSR2 with DLSS/XeSSwww.nexusmods.com
Look forward to the comparisons where dlss and xess comes out ahead of the official fsr integration, I'm sure wizzard from TPU has got the template ready to go
Anyone tried this yet? Thoughts? Have read FSR 2 has the same old issues of fizzling, shimmering etc. Going to try myself shortly.
Well I haven't seen any freesync monitor with variable overdrive so that kind of ties in with the poor QC by amd for freesync screens.... Also, chances are if you are paying for a really good freesync monitor (since they aren't skimping on hardware bits like the scalars), it will be pretty costly in its own right, maybe not as much as the gsync version but still on the more expensive side. When the DW came out, it was cheaper than majority of "top end" monitors, I got mine for like £650-700 as did most other people due to vouchers. The DWF didn't launch for that much cheaper either, think it was like £200 extra which when £800+ isn't a huge amount imo.
I don't disagree that free/adaptive sync is fantastic and would have no problems buying one if it offers an experience without compromises, point is, that gsync module still does provide advantages, far more so back in the day but less so now and the most important thing which nvidia/gsync had when it first launched, it had the market to itself for a good 2 years, again, this is always the difference between nvidia and amd, if people are happy to wait years for something, great but many aren't.
BTW, the DWF had been plagued for a long time with poor HDR implementation, it is only in the last month or 2 it got fixed and even then, gsync version still provides slightly better hdr experience (outside of side by side, you probably wouldn't notice though)
Last edited:
I hate to say it but what did I say.........
Look forward to the comparisons where dlss and xess comes out ahead of the official fsr integration, I'm sure wizzard from TPU has got the template ready to go
Anyone tried this yet? Thoughts? Have read FSR 2 has the same old issues of fizzling, shimmering etc. Going to try myself shortly.
DLSS would be black magic to them prob, amazed they even got fsr implemented tbh Yup sadly people don't see the problems with amds approach though. Amd know what's best for consumers even though, it's clear their vision and options they provide have to actually be as good or better if they want to be the only solution.
Maybe if amd led the way and didn't follow 2+ years later, we wouldn't be in such a situation....
Always the way though, victim mentality is a very serious issue.
Last edited:
It's rather embarrassing tbh when you really look into it especially the video where alex interviews the chief amd engineer about lack of support for streamline. If you're going to be last to the market and with a sub par solution, you can't give of about others coming up with their own solutions lol, whether you like the following things or not is another matter but can you imagine how long we would be waiting for the likes of adaptive sync, upscalers, frame gen, ray tracing in gaming if nvidia hadn't steamed ahead..... The only reason amd have such a hard on for free/open source is for these reasons. As it is they probably don't see the need to lead the way/innovate as they have the console market and we all know, console market is where the money really is for when it comes to gaming so nvidia can't exactly sit around twiddling their thumbs waiting for amd to provide options. I really am not joking when I say "victim mentality" comes to mind.
People need to remember none of these companies are your friends, you simply buy what fits your needs/wants within your budget.
Last edited:
Also, given they made a big deal about the activating fg from the driver control panel, don't be expecting many official implementations..... Hopefully the driver way will be good. Consoles? Well, remind me how many games have FSR 2 lol....
Only took them how many years/months to get FSR 2 in games? DLSS 2+ is still in more games than FSR 2. If you want to include FSR 1 then yeah "FSR" wins out but no one implements/uses fsr 1 now....
Have you read/watched the videos on FSR 2 and read their github guide? FSR is entirely up to the developers and community to do as they please. This has always been amds approach, it's nothing new from a software development pov where devs want to throw their work over the fence and let the ongoing ownership and growth be someone else's problem/mission, which is perfectly valid if the company can't spare the resources to drive growth etc. And for consoles, FSR 2 is still not in more than 2-3 games..... Why is that? After all, it's free and open source and amd powered......
This is where amd always fail, it's nothing new, truehd or whatever their audio was, same with tressfx and so on. That's all perfectly ok btw, the problem is, having this "victim mentality" and then complaining that oh "it's not fair and not right these other companies doing similar things but closing it of to just themselves and their customer base", if amd want to change this, well then come out first and with a good solution rather than following the market leader, not years later then cry foul. Despite what many would have you believe, it's not nvidias fault amd are in the position they're in and this is why they'll keep failing in the gpu space as they too busy pointing fingers. They have shown they can turn things around i.e. cpu space so they can do it again, nvidia have given them a wide open goal for the past year here and they still haven't acted on it.
Not exactly a wall but whatever.
Not a tangent, it's relevant to provide the insight as to "why it's amds fault".
I'll quote the main bit though:
I rather pay extra money to get "advertised" features in games sooner than later especially if it is going to provide a huge boost to the experience. How long did ampere/turing have dlss for over amd gpus? Maybe people are happy to wait months/years, which tbh, does seem to be the motto for amd gamers, which again, is completely ok, what isn't is the crying foul and victim mentality, less of this and more action and focussing on your own issues. It's a bit like their rdna 3 reveal, instead of focussing on what made their gpus stand out and look good based on their strengths, they had to resort to the petty attacks of "oh, you don't need a new case, won't burn the house down" then fast forward to release, they had overheating/fire risk/issues lol....
And would you rather not have amd take the initiative to change that stance?
No, like I said:
It's always "bad nvidia" etc. which is just finger pointing, nothing else. Again, look up victim mentality:
AMD didn't like gsync - well then release adaptive/free sync first
AMD didn't like dlss - well then release fsr first
AMD didn't like hairworks - well then release tressfx first
AMD didn't like frame gen - well then release your frame gen first
See the trend here?
As for this bit:
Again see this bit:
I play games usually on launch week and get new hardware when/if I need an upgrade so personally I want to get the best from that time onwards not months/years later, if people can wait this length of time, great, I wish I had this patience but life is too short to be waiting months/years.
You are missing the point, this point:
With regards to this point:
Maybe but to me it sounded like their focus will be on driver level, which again is completely ok if it works just as well as what an official implementation would, they have had a very hard uphill battle to get FSR 2 in games, I doubt they want to face the same issues all over again with FSR 3/frame gen i.e. years behind.
Yes it's an educated guess based on amds history and development approach, time will tell.
You only see it being "pro" as amds own brainwashing has led you in to believing nvidia are the bad guy, take a neutral stance and you'll see there is no one to blame for amds issues but themselves, same way nvidia has no one to blame but themselves when their methods backfire i.e. over done tessellation in said sponsored games which harmed their own customers.
Watch AMDs interviews and it's perfectly clear to see they don't like nvidia and xess etc. having their versions as both are better.
If amd are serious about FSR and getting everything to embrace it:
- then work with microsoft and sony to get every console game working with it
- make it so that customers can update FSR themselves, same way rtx users can with dlss or maybe do it in such a way with OTA through the drivers if possible
There are a lot of "solutions" to amd "problems", it is only them who can do better.
Again, it's "amds way or the highway", let the customer choose and decide what is best for themselves.
Grims posts sums it up perfectly.
I also recommend watching this video:
Also, read the github page on the closed/open issues where developers have brought up the concerns around it.
From my understanding of streamline, it was only the interface/api to allow all 3 to be implemented in one swoop but yes you are right in that FSR needs a lot more tuning from the devs to get the best from it where as dlss is more of a t shirt size approach i.e. pick what preset works/looks best.
Also, streamline is open source so if there was any dodgy tactics, it would be picked up on straight away by the community as well as amd and intel, wouldn't exactly be good pr for nvidia now would it.....
In all honesty, I would rather amd lock their features down (if it meant getting better quality and consistently good implementations) but again, they like the over the fence approach so they can be as hands of as possible (Roy etc. have all more or less said this themselves but dressed up along the lines of "we want the whole community to take it and do as they please and run with it") so this will never happen, not to mention, when you are last to the market and with a subpar solution, you can't exactly take nvidias approach especially not with 10% (?) of the market.....
See it's funny, I have owned far more amd hardware than intel and nvidia combined (was amd from the 3850 right up to the vega 56 and then cpu wise, 2600x, 5600x and now 5800x3d but nope, "nvidia pro, nvidia fanboy"
)Wasn't the same said for FSR 1 and then FSR 2? Yet still 2-3 console games only have it?
It will be interesting to see the modder implementation though as the modder implementation sometimes was better than the official integration but then other times, it was awful in terms of ghosting since the modders don't have access to motion vectors etc.
Also, read the fine print of amds FSR 3, to get the best from it (mainly surrounding lag), you will need rdna 3 gpus.
Last edited:
I have always said I'm happy to pay to get access to features "if" they are good/worthwhile
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?
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)
Last edited:
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?
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
Keep working on the mental gymnastics, I'm away to explore the universe
Last edited: