AMD plans for FSR4 to be fully AI-based — designed to improve quality and maximize power efficiency
The team in charge has already been working on this for 9–12 months.
-
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.
AMD needs to be 33% cheaper than Nvidia for similar performance as Nvidia cards are 50% overpriced, for example if Nvidia launches a $600 GPU then AMD needs to come in with a similar performing product for $402.
Last edited:
Yep it looks like it.
AMD have taken the work they did for PSSR and will put it into FSR4, was confirmed today by AMD.
AMD says it's been working on FSR4 for 9 months, which lines up with the PS5 Pro work they did. FSR4 is an AI solution to finally rival DLSS, AMD did not provide further details but it's highly likely FSR4 will be exclusive to RDNA4 GPUs.
I suspect PSSR and FSR4 may be the same thing; but Sony wanted to name it something else, because Xbox already has FSR and Sony wants to be clear that PSSR on PS5 Pro is much superior to anything Xbox has
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 30,852
It's thought that it'll be able to run on NPU's too so that includes handheld machines. RDNA3 is **** out of luck I reckon
So you are saying AMD need to be 30% cheaper than some hypothetical price Nvidia are 50% more expensive than?
It always surprises me that AMD have to save us from Nvidia dry humping us, yet when they do offer better price/perf they still lose market share.
I’m not saying AMD don’t shaft us, but at least they use lube most of the time.
Last edited:
The biggest thing AMD could do is actually hit the value to performance price points on day one instead of slowly reducing the prices and 9 months later being decent value.
If they could hit the £200/£300/£500 points on review day with by far the best card for the money, they might actually get some hype and have a chance.
If they could hit the £200/£300/£500 points on review day with by far the best card for the money, they might actually get some hype and have a chance.
What I'm saying is that all Nvidia cards were 50% overpriced at launch, the 4080 for example should have been around $800 but instead cost $1200 which is a 50% mark up, AMD needs to take that $1200 and minus 33% which brings their competing card the 7900XTX to $800 which should have been the launch price, the 4060 should have been $200 but with a 50% mark up came in at $300 so a 7600XT should have been $200 so on and so forth.
The reason AMD lose marketshare is because they don't use the 33% swing to Nvidia and if people have to pay over the odds anyway for both brands then they are more likely to just go with Nvidia.
Last edited:
Ah OK, so you are saying AMD need to match Nvidia’s hypothetical realistic prices because Nvidia are 50% overpriced. But that would mean you are saying Nvidia should be 33% higher priced than AMD. So of AMD were $800, that means Nvidia equivalent is worth $1050, so Nvidia are only 20% overpriced and not 50%. It’s all very confusing.
That 33% value difference is an arbitrary made up number. If AMD were to get improved RT and FSR does that mean they can raise prices 33%?
What really needs to happen is people to ignore new massively overpriced GPUs to send a message to Nvidia and AMD. It was said years ago when Titan GPUs were sold at close to £1k and gullible gamers lapped them up as “future proof”. Yet here we are.
That 33% value difference is an arbitrary made up number. If AMD were to get improved RT and FSR does that mean they can raise prices 33%?
What really needs to happen is people to ignore new massively overpriced GPUs to send a message to Nvidia and AMD. It was said years ago when Titan GPUs were sold at close to £1k and gullible gamers lapped them up as “future proof”. Yet here we are.
Last edited:
AMD needs to be 33% cheaper on an equivalent card than whatever price Nvidia set IF they want to gain market share.
If applied to the 7000 series then launch prices should have been around
7900XTX = $800
7900XT = $656
7800XT = $420
7700XT = $324
7600XT = $210
So lets hope AMD learns for next time if they want to go after marketshare.
Last edited:
If that $600 Nvidia card becomes $450 should AMD then be $300?
No, these are launch prices. At launch its important to come out strong as it sets the tone for the next 2 years.
The 4070 was $600, the 7800 XT came in at $500, that's barely even -20% for a better GPU and the first thing Nvidia did, before the 7800 XT even got warm was drop the price of the 4070 to $550, they didn't do that for some realisation that the 4070 was overpriced, no, they did that to deny the 7800 XT sales, and it worked.
Nvidia's job is to stop AMD from getting any sales, from gaining any sort of traction in this segment, if AMD engage in a price war Nvidia will snuff them out with zero effort, Nvidia could deny AMD any sales of any kind, zero sales, without any effort, AMD exist in this space at all... by the grace of Nvidia. That is where we are at and until that changes you will be forever blaming AMD for inflated GPU prices.
Its not all on AMD, its also on tech jurnoes, its on us, its a collective effort and we are never going to come together like that.
Last edited:
Your problem against this arbitrary concept that Nvidia features are worth 33% extra cost. AMD pricing sensibly does not mean Nvidia can keep taking the ****.
By your own prices, that means a 4070 S is worth $870 and that is why giving Nvidia free rein on pricing is the actual root cause of the problem.
Both Nvidia and AMD need to get real on prices and AMD get within 10% (overall) of Nvidia on RT and similar raster. If they are then priced 10% cheaper that would be realistic. If AMD are giving similar RT and raster performance, why should Nvidia be given free reign to charge 33% extra?
By your own prices, that means a 4070 S is worth $870 and that is why giving Nvidia free rein on pricing is the actual root cause of the problem.
Both Nvidia and AMD need to get real on prices and AMD get within 10% (overall) of Nvidia on RT and similar raster. If they are then priced 10% cheaper that would be realistic. If AMD are giving similar RT and raster performance, why should Nvidia be given free reign to charge 33% extra?
Last edited:
Associate
That's roughly what I think maybe $600 for the XT though, overall though I think there are too many tiers of cards now and the market could be simplified, I find it weird how say a high end 4070ti will be the same price or more expensive then an entry 4080... and people will buy that 4070ti... it's weird, or a top XT is more expensive than an XTX of which the entry levels of the next tier of cards universally out perform the previous tier.
Last edited:
If RDNA 4 RT is as good as the PS5 Pro indicates, if FSR 4 works close enough to as well as DLSS and the GPU's are well priced AMD will have done the work at their end, at that point its up to reviewers and its up to us. If AMD have done enough and they don't start recommending them over Nvidia even if Nvidia reduce the price and we don't start buying them then the fault is not with AMD.
The RT performance of the RX 7800 XT is at worst the same as a 4060 Ti 16GB, on average its actually 19% better, how about that?
In raster its 45% faster.
The 4060 Ti 16 GB is £410
The RX 7800 XT is £440
Its a better card than a lot of people think it is. and you can add 15% by overclocking, easily.
In raster its 45% faster.
The 4060 Ti 16 GB is £410
The RX 7800 XT is £440
Its a better card than a lot of people think it is. and you can add 15% by overclocking, easily.
Last edited:
Are you saying that people should buy amd even if nvidia still offer a better package for the price? If so, simply no, you buy what is best for your needs and for your price bracket, if amd offer an experience basically on par with nvidia for considerably less or even a similar price (but they need to have their package literally matching nvidia and not be lacking behind but a quantifiable amount still), then yes go for them, however, if they are still lacking somewhat "overall" and are simply under pricing by £50-100 then no, I'll still go for the better package for not that much more money.
RT and upscaling improvements are the 2 main areas that amd sorely needed to improve upon and it does finally look like they are going to improve to where they should have been years ago, however, lets not forget they still have to match and exceed in other areas too, personally for myself, they need an answer/solution to these:
- perform and do better in RTX remix titles, given amds stance on supporting any nvidia tech, even when it is open source, I doubt we'll ever see this though
- RTX HDR competitor
- DLDSR competitor
- ray reconstruction competitor
- reflex is still substantially ahead it seems in end results and adoption compared to amds anti lag
AMDs frame gen tech is incredible now though so they have got that going for them. But here's the problem which as listed above, if/when amd do catch up, will nvidia have advanced even further or/and come up with something new which then leaves amd playing catchup again?
There is no case of being "enough" when people are spending £££(£), amd are no longer an underdog so they don't get the same pass that they use to when I bought all their products right from the 3850 up to the vega 56.
No, that's not what i'm saying.
Would you still argue that Nvidia are worth 15% more because they have Ray Reconstruction?
Last edited:
The launch reviews compare it to the 4070 though as it wasn't priced $440 at launch which is the point im making that AMD need to hit the ground running and get the launch prices right.The RT performance of the RX 7800 XT is at worst the same as a 4060 Ti 16GB, on average its actually 19% better, how about that?
In raster its 45% faster.
The 4060 Ti 16 GB is £410
The RX 7800 XT is £440
Its a better card than a lot of people think it is. and you can add 15% by overclocking, easily.
Well it reads a bit like that.
Also, something which is definetly a factor for me after having experienced freesync premium and gsync ultimate module first hand is that amd or/and vesa will need to do some more work on their free/adaptive sync front since nvidia have partnered up with mediatek to bring back gsync mass adoption:
Level Up: NVIDIA, MediaTek to Bring G-SYNC Display Technologies to More Gamers
NVIDIA and MediaTek are working together to make the industry’s best gaming display technologies more accessible to gamers globally.
blogs.nvidia.com
Not a deal breaker right now as most likley won't be upgrading my display for another 2 years but will be a consideration for me if things like vrr flicker, better vrr ranges still aren't solved/improved on non gsync ultimate oled displays.
For just 1 tech currently in what 4/5 games (2/3 of which I play(ed)? Of course not but what about over the next 1-2 years where we will probably see it widely adopted and improved even further? Then yes it will be a case of being worth the "premium", same way DLSS and RT started of **** with turing and became worthwhile feature set with ampere and throughout its lifecycle.