• 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 5000 SERIES

I can see why some would go with that. For me 2160p DLSS Perf can look okay and get the frame boost needed. :) Also seen a few people claim that the new DLSS transformer mode is as good at perf mode as the old cnn at quality mode. Not yet convinced but I have only tried it in CP2077 and FF7Rebirth.

Yeah I’ve heard that as well.. I’m keen to try it out!

I find on ‘performance’ background details start looking murky / fuzzy, but it depends on the game.

Sometimes it’s immediately noticeable… in Helldivers 2 when you’re walking around on your ship it makes it feel like you need glasses… as if your eyes can’t focus on the other end of the ship! :o
 
For me dlss comes down to been able to control sharpness setting. Too much image looks artificial, too little and it looks soft compared to native. There is a sweet spot if you truly want the best image quality.
 
Last edited:
Unless AMD pulls a shocker.

Even if AMD make a card that's 50% faster than the 5090 for £1500, it won't sell as Nvidia has too great a mindshare.

AMD graphics have the stigma of bad drivers, bad software, bugs and other issues, so AMD don't even bother to make a high end card anymore and Nvidia can get away with charging £2k for the most basic 5090.
 
Even if AMD make a card that's 50% faster than the 5090 for £1500, it won't sell as Nvidia has too great a mindshare.

AMD graphics have the stigma of bad drivers, bad software, bugs and other issues, so AMD don't even bother to make a high end card anymore and Nvidia can get away with charging £2k for the most basic 5090.

I think the high end drives the whole stack. I'm not sure it's possible to aim just for the middle-low long term.
 
Even if AMD make a card that's 50% faster than the 5090 for £1500, it won't sell as Nvidia has too great a mindshare.

AMD graphics have the stigma of bad drivers, bad software, bugs and other issues, so AMD don't even bother to make a high end card anymore and Nvidia can get away with charging £2k for the most basic 5090.
if AMD sold a card that was faster than the 5090 for 1500 quid it would sell like **** off a shovel, but they are nowhere near that. They are also several generations behind the RT performance (which going forward is going to be vital) and as you said, the drivers are awful.

"Nvidia can get away with charging £2k for the most basic 5090." They can get away with it because it's the fastest card in every area and they have zero competition, if AMD were better Nvidia couldn't do it.
 
It's clear MFG marketing has been at best misleading and at worst, blatant lies. I would hazard a guess and say most single player gamers are fine in the 60 - 90fps range. Considering that's the baseline for MFG to get a managable frametime, what's the point for most people?
What is the point of even having 240fps on a single player game if the responsiveness feels like your at 50fps and you get artifacting.
 
What is the point of even having 240fps on a single player game if the responsiveness feels like your at 50fps and you get artifacting.
Seems like jensen is living in his surreal ai generated world. He totally lost the link with reality with his AI bs.
 
Back to returning to my role as the ‘MFG defender’ I guess :o :p

Addressing several points raised…

Yes, Nvidia told a big porky pie with the 5070 = 4090 thing. Criticism of that sales pitch is fair. The raw raster uplifts of the 50 series isn’t as good as the 40 series, we all know.

Beyond that, everyone has said they’ve been impressed by the MFG tech whilst noting that it would be incorrect to suggest that it’s perfect. At least a couple have outright said that they ‘prefer it’.

The only professional reviewer I’ve heard that said he doesn’t intend to use it was Linus, remarking that he’s an absolute demon when it comes to pixel peeping because it’s his professional job. It was quite funny hearing about how he could instantly spot the differences in a blind upscaling test which upset Nvidia back in the day :p

My personal minimum for ‘good FPS’ is 90. If I’m hitting that at 4k, I’m happy. My new monitor is going to be able to push 240fps at 4k. So regardless of whether it’s ‘needed’, I’m personally pretty excited to try this out and experience it, which is completely impossible without FG in demanding titles. The major thing that everyone was critical of in the first place was the latency issue, which appears to have been practically solved.

Really, I think Nvidia have shot themselves in the foot on this, because it was THEM (not the consumer) that started comparing it to ‘real frames’.

At any specific settings, the real choices for everyone are:

(1) raw raster = frames
(2) raw raster + upscaling = more frames (1.2x) with some artefacts
(3) raw raster + upscaling + FG = much more frames (1.8 - 3.8x) with some more artefacts.

There is no choice of “1.8 - 3.8x” frames without FG, so I think making a comparison as if anyone can push these frame rates at 4k as a ‘real choice’ is misguided. Put another way, despite Nvidia’s flub IMO people shouldn’t dismissing MFG on the basis ‘imaginary options’. I think it has some value as a choice.

But if you would also rather either lower res and lower frame rates to avoid the artefacts (like Linus), that’s fine. It’s a case of picking your personal compromise that bothers you the least (on a per game basis, I guess).

I’ll do my best to be honest with myself and avoid ‘wow what I bought is the bestest!’-syndrome if I think it’s **** or distracting.


Just enable BFI or something
 
if AMD sold a card that was faster than the 5090 for 1500 quid it would sell like **** off a shovel, but they are nowhere near that. They are also several generations behind the RT performance (which going forward is going to be vital) and as you said, the drivers are awful.

"Nvidia can get away with charging £2k for the most basic 5090." They can get away with it because it's the fastest card in every area and they have zero competition, if AMD were better Nvidia couldn't do it.

Go back over 10-20 years. Even when AMD/ATI were faster, Nvidia still outsold them like 100 to 1. It's why Nvidia have > 92% marketshare today.
 
Last edited:
Just enable BFI or something

Yup that’s an alternative I’ll be checking out.

Good smoothing at the cost of HDR, screen brightness and (for some people) getting headaches from the flickering.

I hear the pulsar tech for LCDs is better than the BFI on the OLEDs.
 
Yeah I’ve heard that as well.. I’m keen to try it out!

I find on ‘performance’ background details start looking murky / fuzzy, but it depends on the game.

Sometimes it’s immediately noticeable… in Helldivers 2 when you’re walking around on your ship it makes it feel like you need glasses… as if your eyes can’t focus on the other end of the ship! :o
Helldivers 2 doesn't have DLSS or FSR, it's a proprietary upscaler that is indeed complete pants.
 
Back
Top Bottom