-
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.
Fidelity Super Resolution 2.0
- Thread starter shankly1985
- Start date
It's popular for various reasons, obviously main one is the performance increase but as we have seen from proper in depth testing, it also provides better than native/AA IQ in many ways. DLSS, FSR etc. will never go away now even if/when gpus get so powerful, it means developers can get a lot more performance back without having to optimise their games as well as what they used to i.e. it's a huge time saver, which saves a **** ton of money from a project budget POV.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,206
That hasn't answered his question. That is a lot of deflection against a straight question. He is using an amd tech on nvidia Gpus, without paying amd for it.
In response to your point, you want him to say he only bought an nvidia gpu for DLSS. But 5 posts back, you quoted him saying he only bought it for RTX.
I like a discussion, but please make your mind up and if you're going to put words in his mouth, be consistent.
Soldato
When you've asked me three questions yet you can't answer one simple question...
When you can't acknowledge DLSS has a buy in cost...
When you can't help but **** on FSR instead of discussing any benefits...
When you can't even do the courtesy of answering 'It's free' when asked about the cost of non RTX capable Nv FSR support...
When other users point out your trying to put words in my mouth inconsistantly...
Exactly Bill, complains people change the narrative, but here we are.
I have already answered his question, heck I even said further back:
The problem is much like other topics, we have people "insisting" on what they think/have had happen to them based on their "experience/purchase" then tarnishing "everyone" else with the same paintbrush i.e. in this case, people only buy nvidia because of dlss hence why I keep saying, this is few and far between, hence the points I keep bringing up about do people consider AMDs SAM to be a buy in cost as well then? etc. etc. etc. etc.
Because I have already explained why several times... Really is puzzling how you don't get it, if you can't understand why or refuse to re-read said posts to try and process what is being "explained" then lets just agree to disagree as like every other topic, just goes around in circles.
PS. I'm not putting words in your mouth, you're the one strongly insinuating people are only buying nvidia for dlss and nothing else hence the "zOMG buy in cost"
Also, has there been any confirmation on if FSR 2 is amds own solution or have they taken an industry standard such as TSR or TAAU and just simply added their branding to it (with maybe a few tweaks to improve it)? Much like they did with freesync aka adaptive sync and SAM aka resize-bar.....
Soldato
We have a winner. Be like Bill.
Yep. Still waiting for my answers from months ago.. but alas only one way traffic.
Soldato
Its a great solution, however think about it. If nvidia made it that good then you would not bother buying their higher tier cards or new gen's. Same goes for AMD. But at least AMD open features up, sometimes open source initiatives, that's one of the reasons I like them.
Just out of interest, have you guys been over to the amd reddit thread and reminded "amd owners" that "FSR 2 is free!!!!"? Just seems they also agree with the points I originally raised.... 
www.reddit.com
Reddit - Dive into anything
www.reddit.com
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,206
This was the question. Your self-quoted response:
There is no mention of amounts he paid to AMD. That is not answering the question.
DLSS wasn't in games when it was announced, it took time. They were first, which is why you are currently seeing greater adoption now.
Genuine question, how long between DLSS's announcement and the announcement of FSR? Because both the first iteration of DLSS and FSR wasn't spectacular. I agree DLSS appears a superior system at the moment, but a little time will see FSR improve. Will it reach the same levels? To be seen.
DLSS is brand proprietary to the brand however, FSR is not. Using FSR on an nVidia card does not see additional money go to AMD.
Permabanned
I can't afford another GPU right now and I think DLSS is excellent.
The 3070 was bought because of drivers though mainly for me, I could live without RT but having it has been great (Having the performance to do RT).
The 3070 was bought because of drivers though mainly for me, I could live without RT but having it has been great (Having the performance to do RT).
Permabanned
Took AMD almost 15 years to fix OpenGL and it took until DX11 is getting phased out to improve that.
We could have hope though eh?
Soldato
True, but swings and roundabouts with support, it only took Turing for Nvidia to get progressive rather than regresive DX12 performance.
Read here for my "answer".....
It doesn't matter if dlss was released first or not, amds marketing has all shown how quick and easy it is suppose to be, that is why you have had people on here and sites dubbing FSR as the "dlss killer".... i.e. I am going entirely by what amd have told us.... This is why it is embarrassing for amd (imo) as they have literally had nothing to compete for the past 2+ years and based on current results, it will potentially be another several months until they get FSR 2 into more games and "maybe" on par with dlss, if we have been talking about <1 year then fine but we're not and whether people like it or not, these upscaling techs have been extremely vital if you want to enjoy gaming with max/high settings AND high fps....
Whilst technically true, amd have been doing all the pr etc. for ages now and going on about these things:
- making it so it is accessible on all kinds of hardware, they obviously nailed that and good on them but a bit pointless if it isn't getting into the games "now", what makes this worse is probably because nvidia have had this for the past 2+ years now..... if we were talking about only a couple of months, fine but 2+ years is a long time in the pc/gaming market
- making it so it has zero ghosting/motion issues given they and the amd fans give dlss **** over its ghosting/motion issues, however, FSR 2 hasn't achieved perfect motion either, look at the samples over on amd reddit where there is ghosting especially in FS, it's like dlss 1 levels
- making it so it is far easier and quicker to add than dlss, so far it doesn't look like it and going by developers comments, it's not as easy as amd fans will have you believe especially on the testing front.... more so with FSR 2 i.e. it will take just as long as dlss or perhaps even longer if not a plugin in the engine
- amd stated in their own pr article how if a game has dlss already, it is extremely quick:
This is why I raised this point:
Do they need to get more involved and help developers in order to get FSR 2 adopted more quickly? Part of me thinks it is very much this (especially when I think back to Roy's comments on things like tressfx and how they wanted to "come up with solutions and allow developers to use and add to it as they pleased" or something along those lines i.e. an over the fence approach), working in the development industry, I know first hand how hard it can be to implement 3rd party/vendors software without any support/guidance.
And your last point pretty much echoes my thoughts on this:
Yup hence why I keep saying you are buying into the "brand" and its "feature set", not just buying said brand for the "one" feature... despite what one might have you believe.
Another great example of how long do we have to wait for amd to get in the same league for certain things, same with dx 11, only just recently have they resolved the issues and at a time when most games are now dx 12
But no, lets just call it "fine wine" 
This is why if amd are going to be charging pretty much the same as their competitors then they need to get their **** together, as a consumer, I and am sure many others don't really give a **** if one is offering something for free or not, I care about the experience I could get "now", not in 2/3 years or even longer.
Permabanned
Absolute golden nugget, thank you.Read here for my "answer".....
It doesn't matter if dlss was released first or not, amds marketing has all shown how quick and easy it is suppose to be, that is why you have had people on here and sites dubbing FSR as the "dlss killer".... i.e. I am going entirely by what amd have told us.... This is why it is embarrassing for amd (imo) as they have literally had nothing to compete for the past 2+ years and based on current results, it will potentially be another several months until they get FSR 2 into more games and "maybe" on par with dlss, if we have been talking about <1 year then fine but we're not and whether people like it or not, these upscaling techs have been extremely vital if you want to enjoy gaming with max/high settings AND high fps....
Yup hence why I keep saying you are buying into the "brand" and its "feature set", not just buying said brand for the "one" feature... despite what one might have you believe.
Another great example of how long do we have to wait for amd to get in the same league for certain things, same with dx 11, only just recently have they resolved the issues and at a time when most games are now dx 12
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,206
As for the question at hand, you didn't pay anything "directly" to amd, same way you haven't necessarily paid anything "directly" to nvidia "purely" for dlss i.e. you are buying into the brand and its feature set. Had we had the exact same gpus where one supported dlss and the other didn't then that is what you call a true buy in.
This makes a little more sense as a response to his question. But I'm not sure I agree, insofar as, "you haven't necessarily paid anything "directly" to nvidia "purely" for dlss i.e. you are buying into the brand and its feature set" this contradicts itself as a sentence. DLSS is part of the feature set, therefore as you say, you are paying them direct for it.
If you are buying into a brand's feature set, then you must, logically be speaking, therefore be paying a proportion purely for DLSS.
As for the "DLSS killer" hyperbole, it's exactly that. They exist together, one is not going to wipe out the other. See Gsync/Freesync as a rough example. Hell, that went the other way.
This makes a little more sense as a response to his question. But I'm not sure I agree, insofar as, "you haven't necessarily paid anything "directly" to nvidia "purely" for dlss i.e. you are buying into the brand and its feature set" this contradicts itself as a sentence. DLSS is part of the feature set, therefore as you say, you are paying them direct for it.
If you are buying into a brand's feature set, then you must, logically be speaking, therefore be paying a proportion purely for DLSS.
As for the "DLSS killer" hyperbole, it's exactly that. They exist together, one is not going to wipe out the other. See Gsync/Freesync as a rough example. Hell, that went the other way.
Exactly. My main debate has always been people are not buying into nvidia "solely" for "dlss". Another post of mine explaining my view point further back:
As I said, to me a true indicative of a buy in cost "solely" for dlss would be if you had 2 of the same gpus but one offered dlss support and the other didn't. That is the only way "dlss" is 100% a buy in.
I never liked the comparison of dlss/fsr to gsync/freesync as they are both completely different scenarios really because gsync does cost money for both the hardware module and also costs the monitor manufacturers with regards to having to design a monitor chassis to accommodate said module, dlss does not cost developers anything to incorporate.
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,206
Who said they did? May have missed it.
Read back through tommys posts, just because he bought into turing for DLSS, he seems to think everyone that buys a nvidia gpu is only buying for dlss and no other reasons (although he hasn't specifically answered that question still...)
Associate
- Joined
- 1 Oct 2020
- Posts
- 1,206
He didn't. You claimed he insinuated that's what people did, but even then I pointed out that it wasn't how I read his post. Posts 337 - 339. I disagreed with him on the AMD buy in until he clarified his point regarding support.
This is all getting a little off topic now though. FSR 2.0 can only be a good thing, and it's time AMD had an upscaler that at least competes with DLSS, even if I'm of the opinion it isn't quite the same level yet. The fact that it's open source will help in the long run.
This is all getting a little off topic now though. FSR 2.0 can only be a good thing, and it's time AMD had an upscaler that at least competes with DLSS, even if I'm of the opinion it isn't quite the same level yet. The fact that it's open source will help in the long run.