FSR support for Nvidia graphics cards that are several years old?

[ICDP]

See I would contend DLSS hasn't taken off because most games do not support DLSS and that is such a simple, yet the most important metric for success. It's like G-Sync vs Freesync. Nvidia had a headstart and there are arguments that it is technically better but not by much as they both achieve the same goal. Yet Freesync was vendor neutral and won out in quantity and support, so much so that Nvidia ended up supporting it.

Do you not see how you are contradicting yourself? Saying FSR will fail because a developer has to support it just like DLSS, yet you declare DLSS has proven itself because it is supported. Which is clearly not the case considering it has taken 2 years for this laughably small list. How would anyone call this a success?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_games_with_DLSS_support

The reason DLSS has failed to gain traction* (sorry there is no arguing over that fact) is because it is vendor specific, requires an RTX card and is unsupported by consoles. Developers are not falling over themselves to get DLSS added to their game because the vast majority of their customers are on console. FSR gives them a much wider customer base to aim at and money talks.

AAA titles are cross platform and if a developer can implement FSR with decent quality and use it on their console ports (and vice-versa) then they save money and time. Why would they choose DLSS, that will only work for the realtively small number of PC users who own an RTX GPU?

So if FSR can get close enough and be better than DLSS 1.0 then it will gain far more traction and support for one very simple reason. Potential customer base.

*I mean failed in a sense it is in a very, very limited number of games, NOT that it is a poor feature. I have used it in CP2077 and WD: Legions and 2.1 really does a great job.

 

[stooeh]

It's pretty clever for AMD to allow it to work on rival cards as it may edge developers to choose it over implementing DLSS instead. Of course depends how much money Nvidia throws at them too

 

[Rroff]

It's like G-Sync vs Freesync. Nvidia had a headstart and there are arguments that it is technically better but not by much as they both achieve the same goal. Yet Freesync was vendor neutral and won out in quantity and support, so much so that Nvidia ended up supporting it.

Have to say I don't think that is really a happy outcome - the adaptive sync standard is quite frankly poor - that isn't down to nVidia or AMD really though combined they could no doubt put more pressure on to bring it up to a better standard. G-Sync attempts to work around some of the **** poor work by MS but increasingly they've been frustrating that with updates to 10 which break things for no real good reason while the adaptive sync spec doesn't even attempt to do that and is based on beating display features into use which were never intended for this kind of purpose.

It would be nice if everyone including the likes of VESA, MS and both nVidia and AMD got on board with a proper decent implementation.

 

[ICDP]

It's pretty clever for AMD to allow it to work on rival cards as it may edge developers to choose it over implementing DLSS instead. Of course depends how much money Nvidia throws at them too

Exactly my point. It's why AMD Freesync categorically and comprehensively won the VRR wars. Even current Vsync modules support Freesync as standard now.

 

[harney]

Open source love it ..great move AMD

 

[Wrinkly]

It's pretty clever for AMD to allow it to work on rival cards as it may edge developers to choose it over implementing DLSS instead. Of course depends how much money Nvidia throws at them too

Looking forward to running some games on my 1070 laptop with FSR, but It's not without its down side and so I'd like to see games support both standards.

 

[CuriousTomCat]

What's in it for AMD? None of you are going to regret purchasing your Nvidia GPU or switch to AMD next gen. They're just giving away open source tech while Nvidia continue to produce closed tech (while also adopting tech that AMD created.)

How many people switched to AMD because of Freesync? It's great that AMD are giving to the community but it would be nice if they got something back in return such as a feature or two that Nvidia developed.

 

[sparkymark75]

Looking forward to running some games on my 1070 laptop with FSR, but It's not without its down side and so I'd like to see games support both standards.

Can you really call DLSS a standard if it only works on a (subset) of nVidia tech? It's more like a proprietary tech. The role of a standard is to allow it to be used and work across multiple different products, devices, manufacturers, etc

 

[Unseul]

How much work does it take to support? If it's not a great deal, games could potentially be patched to support it surely?

 

[g67575]

I think FSR could be become adopted quickly by devs for console games, which I think is AMD's plan. Many of these console games will get PC ports - and perhaps will also get FSR support?

 

[ICDP]

What's in it for AMD? None of you are going to regret purchasing your Nvidia GPU or switch to AMD next gen. They're just giving away open source tech while Nvidia continue to produce closed tech (while also adopting tech that AMD created.)

How many people switched to AMD because of Freesync? It's great that AMD are giving to the community but it would be nice if they got something back in return such as a feature or two that Nvidia developed.

I switched from a 980Ti to a Fury (non X) for Freesync at 4K and it was a far superior experience even against a massively overclocked 980Ti.

Try to look at this form another perspective, AMD have next gen consoles tied up for years. So anything that makes people look at a PS5 or XboX X doing 4K gaming at 60FPS is a very, VERY big deal.The fact their PC GPU range can also benefit and not suffer from the "but they are crap at RT" is a bonus. The fact that older GPUs benefit is also a big help because their own AMD lower end GPUs are kept relevant.

So all in all AMD can come out of this with plenty of benefits.

 

[Game]

You are probably right.
For me even dropping resolution scale to 90% on my 15” laptop looks crap.
Upscaling to 4K on my tv is perfectly fine because I sit further away from the screen (about 5-6 feet from 55” screen).

That's bloody close for a 55 inch screen or is that only when gaming

 

[z10m]

That's bloody close for a 55 inch screen or is that only when gaming

yeah thats only when gaming.

 

[ICDP]

Have to say I don't think that is really a happy outcome - the adaptive sync standard is quite frankly poor - that isn't down to nVidia or AMD really though combined they could no doubt put more pressure on to bring it up to a better standard. G-Sync attempts to work around some of the **** poor work by MS but increasingly they've been frustrating that with updates to 10 which break things for no real good reason while the adaptive sync spec doesn't even attempt to do that and is based on beating display features into use which were never intended for this kind of purpose.

It would be nice if everyone including the likes of VESA, MS and both nVidia and AMD got on board with a proper decent implementation.

The problem with G-Sync was (and is) the entry price puts many people off. So while it is possible to buy a cheap Freesync monitor that does a reasonable but not great job, that was not an option with G-Sync. G-Sync was adding a significant price to any monitor compared to Freesync and also tied you in to one GPU vendor.

Freesync as a standard varies from cheap and nasty to expensive and as good as any G-Sync tech. Though even the cheap nasty ones are better than a cheap nasty non-Freesync monitor. A 1080p 144Hz 24" G-Sync, IPS monitor can cost ~£350+ but by contrast an AOC 144Hz, IPS, Freesync 24", 1080p monitor costs ~£180 and a VRR range of 48 - 144Hz with low framerate compensation.

I bought one for my cheap PC and it workes perfectly with Nvidia and AMD and is genuinely a very impressive monitor for the price.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6MHdeDv9bqI

Or this one for £180
https://www.overclockers.co.uk/asus...MI1s69wbb58AIVh-3tCh3k3gsnEAQYBCABEgJF_vD_BwE

These prices and specs are the reason G-Sync lost because you were typically paying close to £100 more for no real benefit.

 

[henson0115]

Have to say I don't think that is really a happy outcome - the adaptive sync standard is quite frankly poor - that isn't down to nVidia or AMD really though combined they could no doubt put more pressure on to bring it up to a better standard. G-Sync attempts to work around some of the **** poor work by MS but increasingly they've been frustrating that with updates to 10 which break things for no real good reason while the adaptive sync spec doesn't even attempt to do that and is based on beating display features into use which were never intended for this kind of purpose.

It would be nice if everyone including the likes of VESA, MS and both nVidia and AMD got on board with a proper decent implementation.

i kinda partially agree, i think both nvidia and amd could have worked with microsoft in a similar fashion to how vulcan came together and nailed the tech between the 3, but id rather have the current opensync stuff than the option of none. once you go with a sync tech like this,. there is no going back.
ps high end freesync panels are no different to gsync panels range wise.

 

[ICDP]

i kinda partially agree, i think both nvidia and amd could have worked with microsoft in a similar fashion to how vulcan came together and nailed the tech between the 3, but id rather have the current opensync stuff than the option of none. once you go with a sync tech like this,. there is no going back.
ps high end freesync panels are no different to gsync panels range wise.

Ironically Vulcan came about because of Microsoft dragging their feet over DX12 and Nvidia were not pushing them either as their DX11 performance was better than AMD's. AMD created Mantle API which was donated to Khronos which they used as the basis for Vulkan. Though we are going off tangent with talk of Freesync and Vulkan.

I think we are both making the point that open source is better for everyone than a locked down vendor controlled solution. I used Freesnyc to show that this has happened in the past and this is why I feel FSR will be a DLSS beater.

 

[Rroff]

i kinda partially agree, i think both nvidia and amd could have worked with microsoft in a similar fashion to how vulcan came together and nailed the tech between the 3, but id rather have the current opensync stuff than the option of none. once you go with a sync tech like this,. there is no going back.
ps high end freesync panels are no different to gsync panels range wise.

More to it than just range though.

 

[LtMatt]

Presented without comment.
https://old.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/nqq3aa/scott_herkelman_responding_to_raja_koduri_on/

 

[ICDP]

More to it than just range though.

Like what exactly? G-sync may offer some minor features that overall mean not an awful lot to most. Ultimately the customers will decide if such minor features are worth the premium (hint, most didn't).

So while G-Sync may have higher standards overall, a small bit of research and you will get a Freesync monitor that will do the same for less. At no point has anyone claimed otherwise and the point was not which was better, but which ultimately became the defacto standard.

Some pro reviews on G-Sync vs Freesync

https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/freesync-vs-g-sync/

TLDR:
Conclusion
"Personally, when you compare the two, the G-Sync monitors come with a feature list that is slightly better, especially for the products rated at the G-Sync Ultimate level. That said, the difference between the two isn’t so great that you should never buy a Freesync monitor. Indeed, if you already have a decent graphics card, then buying a monitor to go with your GPU makes the most sense."

https://www.tomshardware.com/uk/features/gsync-vs-freesync-nvidia-amd-monitor

TLDR:
Conclusion
"So which is better: G-Sync or FreeSync? Well, with the features being so similar there is no reason to select a particular monitor just because it runs one over the other. Since both technologies produce the same result, that contest is a wash at this point."

 

[Rroff]

Like what exactly? G-sync may offer some minor features that overall mean not an awful lot.
https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/freesync-vs-g-sync/

TLDR:

Conclusion
"Personally, when you compare the two, the G-Sync monitors come with a feature list that is slightly better, especially for the products rated at the G-Sync Ultimate level. That said, the difference between the two isn’t so great that you should never buy a Freesync monitor. Indeed, if you already have a decent graphics card, then buying a monitor to go with your GPU makes the most sense."

Conclusion
"So which is better: G-Sync or FreeSync? Well, with the features being so similar there is no reason to select a particular monitor just because it runs one over the other. Since both technologies produce the same result, that contest is a wash at this point."

So while G-Sync may have higher standards overall, a small bit of research and you will get a Freesync monitor that will do the same for less. Though ultimately the fact that Nvidia decided to Support Freesnyc shows that the public made their choice and that choice was Freesync.

I've covered it a few times before but G-Sync has a few features like dynamic variable overdrive, quicker low frame rate recovery as it doesn't rely on PSR, better ability to work around Windows WDDM issues for mixed modes and compositing (albeit MS keeps breaking that in 10 with OS updates so it is more limited an advantage). Whether they are useful or noticeable to people will be somewhat subjective.

Also depends a bit which monitors you are comparing - one of my displays is the Philips 436M6 which actually works pretty well with G-Sync compatible - I think more by luck than judgement as it was a bit of a throw away feature of the monitor but they actually nailed the adaptive sync implementation pretty well aside from the only 48-60Hz range (If you aren't worried about all out latency it provides a very smooth and consistent response which is nice for stuff like racing games). Some adaptive sync monitors are far inferior in my experience.