Is there anything fundamentally different that Nvidia users may have to turn down the textures a notch but enjoy superior image quality provided by DLSS vis a vis FSR? You can't even fine tune FSR on the AMD card. On Nvidia, you are not locked to the arbitrary 67%, 58% render scales like with FSR on AMD. You can change the percentages as per your liking and get an overall superior image over FSR. I personally think 67% render scale on DLSS does not look good and its only at 77% and above, DLSS really starts to shine but on FSR you are locked to 67% with no way to change it and it looks even worse than DLSS at 67%.
While you may not want those features, if the AMD and Nvidia card are in the same price bracket, the Nvidia card is perceived to be more premium by the average consumer because of those features. On high end cards, those features become mandatory. Hence, the 4090 on its own has managed to nearly outsell AMD's entire 7000 series lineup.
AFMF does not work properly with VRR and HDR unlike DLSS. That makes it a non starter at the outset. Also, Frame Gen adds a ton of latency and AMD does not have anything as good as Reflex bundled in. Anti Lag continues to be a work in progress. This is exactly what I mean when I say all AMD does it look at Nvidia's shiny new thing, develop an inferior version of that months and months down the line by which time the Nvidia technology has virtually cemented itself in the market and the AMD tech becomes an after-thought for developers.
Nvidia is constantly working to improve DLSS on a daily basis. Just last week they introduced DLSS 3.7 with Model E which produces a very sharp resolve for the image and in my experience looks superior to native TAA in many ways. And the best part is you can use this DLSS version along with the new model in ALL the games released till now. If you don't like Model E, you can always tinker with Model C, A , F and settle on whichever output you prefer. You cannot do any of this with FSR.
I do not see the same level of work going into FSR by AMD. It took ages after FSR 2.2 to get FSR 3 and months to get 3.1. Within that time, Nvidia advanced DLSS by a couple of versions already and the worst part is you cannot upgrade FSR on the previous games. Older AMD sponsored titles from 2023 still run on ages old FSR builds
Ironic that an open source solution is less customisable and upgradable than closed source.
On the first part, I'm not sure if you're correct on this, dlss percentage instead of using a preset slider? Or is this option present in dlss tweaks? Personally I only change the preset to E. That is one thing which many do overlook though, the very "fact" that you can use likes of dlss balanced and in some cases, even performance mode and still get better IQ than FSR 2 UQ/Q and native + TAA shows just how good DLSS is and how bad AMDs fsr is. Hopefully the next big update by amd for FSR will be the real deal but alas, I'll wait to see how the situation is outside of the amd sponsored showcase for the next version....
Must admit, this is quite funny:
Ironic that an open source solution is less customisable and upgradable than closed source.
This is where I have said it time and time again, amd have done wonders by convincing people that "closed source bad, open source good". We have come along way with nvidia solutions where things like physx, hairworks were/are dodgy. In my day to day work, we get to work with a lot of open source and closed source tools and often have to evaluate which one is best for our needs, sometimes an open source way is best, sometimes closed source tool is best, both have their pros and cons. The fact that nvidia made an open source tool called streamline (which intel were onboard with) and amd refused to get on board for "reasons" and people diss this tech. again just shows the hypocrisy that goes on. That and the fact that amd have zero choice on the path to go about their solutions, you can't be last to the market by months/years with an inferior solution and make it closed source and either way, amd prefer open source methods as it works better for them i.e. as Roy and the following lot that came after him said it themselves, it allows them to hand it over to the community to contribute to it, which means they can be more hands of and not stuck supporting a product i.e. frees up their engineers which means less time and money for them ultimately, can you imagine how many games FSR would be in if amd made it closed source, I be amazed if it would be more than 10... Essentially, nvidia and amd have different business models, neither approach is "bad/wrong" but imo and arguably as evidenced, one business model is working a lot better than the other.
To me, the things amd need to nail to get back to the greatness they once had is have:
- consistent good upscaling
- better RT perf, it doesn't have to be matching/beating 4090 level but it needs to at the very least be 4080 levels for next round (as shown, their RDNA 3 RT is not even quite on par with the equilvalent ampere gpu i.e. a 3+ year old gpu now.....), the real problem with amds rt which is overlooked by a lot of reviewers is when you add multiple RT effects to the mix, this is where amd completely crumble
- assuming we are talking about £600+ price bracket, be priced at least a £150 less than the equilvalent nvidia gou if they can't achieve the above (based on my gaming needs/wants, these 2 things are used in 99% of the games I play now)
There are other things which I would like to see now i.e. a competitor to RTX HDR, nvidia have somewhat made this my most must have feature now due to the **** show of hdr gaming at times and this makes a huge difference to improving IQ for HDR gamers along with their DLDSR feature. Having their anti lag working well would be nice to compete against reflex but it's not a deciding factor for me, however, if/when using FG then it would be pretty important. Ray reconstruction would be nice too but given nvidia only have this in 3 titles at the moment, it's not a must have but that could change quickly....
