Soldato
It really isn't difficult to understand that when a user asks for an opinion on why buy AMD.
And you want evidence to back up opinion, lmao.
Last edited:
-
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.
NVIDIA 4000 Series
- Thread starter MrClippy
- Start date
And you want evidence to back up opinion, lmao.
Caporegime
Yes, because opinions can't be challenged, can they?
It's amazing how hypocritical your posts are when you look at your own posting history in this section.
Question to you too:
You've literally just dismissed me with trust me bro because I can see artifacts on a massive extremely bright high clarity screen.
And you don't think df, hub, tpu etc. aren't using similar or better displays? Alex himself has got a 42" or the 48" 4k oled display so chances are he would notice said issues even more than yourself due to the higher PPI of his display over a 65" 4k..... Again, panel technology in terms of the type of display and brightness does not impact such things to the same extent that resolution, the type of finish on said display i.e. glossy vs matte/anti glare and so on do.
Last edited:
Caporegime
It's a big part of the nVidia 4000 series, as certain elements of DLSS can only be used on these cards.
Seems more relevant than giving opinions on why AMD is better in a thread titled "NVIDIA 4000 Series".
Well if people posted some evidence to back up their claims, the same old discussion points wouldn't happen and it might actually make for a more interesting discussion. I said it before and I'll say it again, there should be a rule on this forum, if going to make claims that goes against several reputable sources and the majority of end users then you should post something to back up your claim otherwise it just comes across as trolling imo.
TVs upscalers especially on lgs oleds are fantastic. That is where "PC" monitors really suffer as their upscalers are dog ****.
Soldato
Take that up with @opethdisciple that asked the question, instead of the user that uses both brands.
Last edited:
Caporegime
Take that up with @opethdisciple that asked the question, instead of the user that uses both brands.
Don't need to take it up with him, I was responding to @Gerard
Using both brands doesn't immediately give you a free pass to anything you post on this topic anyway.
Last edited:
Don't need to take it up with him, I was responding to @Gerard
Not much point bringing it up with me as his question was the one that brought amd into the discussion for the last page and a bit at least.
Soldato
Exactly, anyway I'm out.
Last edited:
Caporegime
So the real issue isn't a "dlss circle jerk" as you put it. You just wanted to pipe in with that post to try and stir the pot some more?
Hardly stirring the pot, by this point the pot has a built in whirlpool that does all the stirring needed. It's literally like watching a dog chasing its tail at this point.
Caporegime
If you go back and read the posts, it's hardly a DLSS circle jerk anyway. Simply asking someone why their anecdotal evidence somehow trumps the likes of DF etc, but all we got is that you need a super bright 65" QD OLED to notice the artifacting.
Well maybe that's his experience of it? I'd imagine different panels with different default settings might show up things that others don't. Some will naturally be brighter out of the box, some won't. Or maybe recommended settings from some of the monitor forums to get the best colour can cause some of these artifacts to become more noticeable? No idea myself, but it's a possibility I suppose.
Caporegime
So how is questioning that a DLSS circle jerk, and even if that is his experience, it doesn't mean that places like DF and the various other outlets are wrong about the overall experience. Let's not forget that it was Tommy who made the claim that DF are "trust me bros", as according to him, they only seem to show the deficiencies of older DLSS versions when analysing the latest one.
Artifacting is blatantly obvious unless you have poor eyesight and don't use anything to correct it. It just seems a massive reach tbh, going from a user asking for an opinion on why buy AMD to his TV somehow exposing a problem more than all the other places that have tested this. It reeks of confirmation bias.
Last edited:
I can't see how qd-oled exposes artifacts anymore than normal oled does, this is where it would be good to have some evidence to prove if this is the case..... I have got both a qd-oled display and lg woled and neither shows issues in this regard. Now what does impact the perception of such artifacting would be:
- resolution AND PPI
- how close you sit to the screen
- said display having a matte/anti glare finish which would mask said artifacting issues and only be visible on a display with a glossy finish
Given most of the comparisons done by df etc. are 400% zoom and even then, dlss still looks better in their footage, I can't see how the 2nd point would even factor into this though......
I think FSR and DLSS usage depends on the game.
FSR seems more consistently a little fuzzier to me, but both that and DLSS can be really good for removing shimmery edges on shiny things.
I actually thought that the slight fuzziness of the FSR wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, depending on the game. When things are running high res at high refresh rates, they can actually end up looking a little oversharp and very ‘video game like’, so it made it look a bit more cinematic. To be fair this was only one game.
As for ray tracing, that and HDR can make a huge difference to how good games look IMO, but you do have to scrutinise and judge for yourself with HDR and play around with it, rather than set and forget it - it’s easy to overcook.
FSR seems more consistently a little fuzzier to me, but both that and DLSS can be really good for removing shimmery edges on shiny things.
I actually thought that the slight fuzziness of the FSR wasn’t necessarily a bad thing, depending on the game. When things are running high res at high refresh rates, they can actually end up looking a little oversharp and very ‘video game like’, so it made it look a bit more cinematic. To be fair this was only one game.
As for ray tracing, that and HDR can make a huge difference to how good games look IMO, but you do have to scrutinise and judge for yourself with HDR and play around with it, rather than set and forget it - it’s easy to overcook.
Last edited: