• 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.

The RT Related Games, Benchmarks, Software, Etc Thread.

Status
Not open for further replies.
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
OK,lets try this angle. AMD decides to launch FSR3 for Starfield - it only is locked to RDNA3 cards. It ends up being OK by some miracle. Will most people on the internet ditch their Nvidia cards for an RDNA3 one? Or will they moan they want DLSS in the game,and AMD is "forcing" them to upgrade. Then I expect AMD will be called out for not making it run fully on RDNA2 also. But with Cyberpunk 2077,locking out 2/3 of Steam(probably more) was fine and making DLSS3 articially locked out of RTX2000/RTX3000 cards is fine.

You know the answer already.

Again nothing stopping Nvidia make DLSS like XeSS and FSR,ie,having a fallback layer for older Nvidia cards,AMD/Intel cards and consoles. Popular Nvidia cards such as the GTX1060,GTX1650 and GTX1660 are forced to use FSR,XeSS or TSR.

This is the same moaning against Hogwarts Legacy because of JK Rowling and AMD trying to on purpose screw Nvidia(because of VRAM) according to Reddit. It made no difference to sales AFAIK.

Moreover,is this what PC gaming has gone down to? Upscaling wars? PCMR was laughing at console users gushing over Checkerboard rendering.No wonder with the overpriced junk we seem to be getting the last few years,its almost like PCMR is clutching its pearls. PC gamers really are gluttons for punishment.
Click to expand...

But why are we trying different angles? Seems like you do not want to acknowledging my point and jumping into looking for ways to prove the way you see things is right.

My position is I do not have any issues with upscaling tech. It is there and you can choose not to use it if you do not want. My experience is it helps image quality and no I do not wear glasses. All you have to do is enable DLDSR and then use DLSS after. You arrive back to your native resolution and get similar performance, but you get a nice improvement in image quality. More on some games than others.
 
Nexus18 said:
Yup nvidia have an open source solution called streamline that implements their solutions all in one go i.e. reflex, dlss and FG, intel were onboard with it but not amd due to very iffy reasoning by their chief engineer (in DF interview with Alex) even though it would have benefitted just not consumers (being able to use what works best for their hardware) but also developers (do all 3 in one go as opposed to separately) and also would have benefitted amd since uptake would be larger and quicker for them.

developer.nvidia.com

Streamline

developer.nvidia.com developer.nvidia.com

github.com

GitHub - NVIDIAGameWorks/Streamline: Streamline Integration Framework

Streamline Integration Framework. Contribute to NVIDIAGameWorks/Streamline development by creating an account on GitHub.
github.com github.com
Click to expand...

Seemingly no one will acknowledge this as it does not fit the narrative.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
That's the point. If Nvidia does its fine due to XYZ reasons. Considering there are over 50 million consoles,and apparently only 1/3 of the 120 million Steam systems are RTX cards,maybe Bethesda Game Studios is just putting in the upscaler which works with as much hardware as possible?

Maybe its a console orientated title then.
Click to expand...
There are so many factors, but I feel it's likely that AMD had them priorities FSR; maybe not deny DLSS, but put it as a low priority.

It could then be that they don't have enough time to implement DLSS right now because let's face it, the game will probably run like trash for the first few patches given the current release trend. My thoughts on that is that they should have both upscalers in if they're expecting the game to run poorly. If the game runs poorly and the upscaling looks bad but makes it playable, then I'm definitely not buying it, although I probably wouldn't buy it anyway if it is unfinished - no point supporting that behaviour.
 
Calin Banc said:
That's up to anyone's will. is called a choice, something that console players don't have.

Again, you want native PC? Good, have native consoles. Hold everyone to the same standard.
Click to expand...
So due to other people's choice, you are then forced where the image quality limits is no more consoles?

Sometimes choice isn't a good thing especially where both image quality and performance is better on console.

You happy with a segment where a component costs 1500 or more and you get no tangible increase in image quality?
 
Mesai said:
There are so many factors, but I feel it's likely that AMD had them priorities FSR; maybe not deny DLSS, but put it as a low priority.

It could then be that they don't have enough time to implement DLSS right now because let's face it, the game will probably run like trash for the first few patches given the current release trend. My thoughts on that is that they should have both upscalers in if they're expecting the game to run poorly. If the game runs poorly and the upscaling looks bad but makes it playable, then I'm definitely not buying it, although I probably wouldn't buy it anyway if it is unfinished - no point supporting that behaviour.
Click to expand...
Bethesda games are never released properly, even oblivion was rough and that was PC only for a long time.
 
CAT-THE-FIFTH said:
Its everything to do with upscalers. Just look at their marketing - a lot of cards "peformance" boost is advertised on upscaling and frame generation. Even AMD is doing it.

It's all about selling cheaper hardware for more money. Have you noticed how DLSS3 is locked to newer hardware(unless you really think an RTX3090TI has less Tensor core output than an RTX4060?) and probably the same with FSR3? Sell cards with the minimum level of performance improvements,then fill out performance with upscaling,etc.

So ironically PC and console are closer in marketing now. Consoles have to use economy hardware to hit their price-points,so need to use upscaling,etc to do so. Now PC is doing the same as Nvidia/AMD want to increase margins.



If Nvidia does its fine due to XYZ reasons. Considering there are over 50 million consoles,and apparently only 1/3 of the 120 million Steam systems use RTX cards,maybe Bethesda Game Studios is just putting in the upscaler which works with as much hardware as possible?Maybe its a console orientated title then.

But this is madness really - so people are saying that AMD and Intel have no right to sponsor titles and push their tech. Why doesn't Nvidia make its own tech work on AMD and Intel then?
Click to expand...
I'm not talking about marketing shenanigans, but actual benefits from upscaling tech or frame gen. You still need those.
Raelgun said:
So due to other people's choice, you are then forced where the image quality limits is no more consoles?

Sometimes choice isn't a good thing especially where both image quality and performance is better on console.

You happy with a segment where a component costs 1500 or more and you get no tangible increase in image quality?
Click to expand...
If choice is bad, then go ahead and critique consoles for not going native and only one option on how to run the game. :)

For instance, Starfield to be only 1440p/1080p 30fps (or whatever native will be for series S) and no more. Then see if you need a 4090 to run it at the same level of detail, frame rate and resolution.

Normally you wouldn't, but if you would, then Bethesda is a crap studio that doesn't deserve your money and move on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: TNA
Calin Banc said:
I'm not talking about marketing shenanigans, but actual benefits from upscaling tech or frame gen. You still need those.

If choice is bad, then go ahead and critique consoles for not going native and only one option on how to run the game. :)

For instance, Starfield to be only 1440p/1080p 30fps (or whatever native will be for series S) and no more. Then see if you need a 4090 to run it at the same level of detail, frame rate and resolution.

Normally you wouldn't, but if you would, then Bethesda is a crap studio that doesn't deserve your money and move on.
Click to expand...
Consoles do get that pass, you know why? They don't cost 1500
 
Calin Banc said:
That's up to anyone's will. is called a choice, something that console players don't have.
Click to expand...
A lot of games on consoles give you a choice between better graphics in lower resolution (with RT etc.) or worse in 4k (no RT etc.), or alternatively between 30FPS or 60FPS settings etc. Ergo, consoles DO have a choice - not as detailed as on the PC, but it definitely exist.
 
TNA said:
Seemingly no one will acknowledge this as it does not fit the narrative.
Click to expand...
Just reading description of this on NVIDIA's website clarified to me why no AMD nor Intel will touch that. It's loaded with NVIDIA's tech and seems to be working with upscaling plugins of other vendors but if you want for example to add denoiser then it only offers NVIDIA's one etc. Ergo, it seems to be a barebone solution for other vendors which by default disadvantage them against NVIDIA's hardware - so why would they even bother with it? I suspect there are more issues with it that other vendors do not want to deal with and prefer to stick to their own solutions.

That aside, hardware vendors rarely agree on any specific standard - it's always some other 3rd party like Microsoft (DirectX) or VESA (adaptive sync which NVIDIA supports as G-Sync Compatible), etc. who puts various vendors' techs into one standard. Forget about it ever happening without Microsoft's involvement here, I believe.
 
Raelgun said:
Consoles do get that pass, you know why? They don't cost 1500
Click to expand...
Well, that's subjective. Totally fine for you, of course.
Tinek said:
A lot of games on consoles give you a choice between better graphics in lower resolution (with RT etc.) or worse in 4k (no RT etc.), or alternatively between 30FPS or 60FPS settings etc. Ergo, consoles DO have a choice - not as detailed as on the PC, but it definitely exist.
Click to expand...
Exactly, is limited. You don't have levels of upscaling to be selected, details, resolutions, etc. Does a console offer Eyefiny? Can you simply upgrade something if your will to spend extra to run the game better? Nope. It does have some advantages as a fix, relative cheap system, but also disadvantages.
 
Tinek said:
Just reading description of this on NVIDIA's website clarified to me why no AMD nor Intel will touch that. It's loaded with NVIDIA's tech and seems to be working with upscaling plugins of other vendors but if you want for example to add denoiser then it only offers NVIDIA's one etc. Ergo, it seems to be a barebone solution for other vendors which by default disadvantage them against NVIDIA's hardware - so why would they even bother with it? I suspect there are more issues with it that other vendors do not want to deal with and prefer to stick to their own solutions.

That aside, hardware vendors rarely agree on any specific standard - it's always some other 3rd party like Microsoft (DirectX) or VESA (adaptive sync which NVIDIA supports as G-Sync Compatible), etc. who puts various vendors' techs into one standard. Forget about it ever happening without Microsoft's involvement here, I believe.
Click to expand...

At least you read something. Others would not even do that as it may not lead to information that would fit their narrative :p

Also apparently Intel were on board, unless you have a link that refutes this?
 
Last edited:
Calin Banc said:
Well, that's subjective. Totally fine for you, of course.

Exactly, is limited. You don't have levels of upscaling to be selected, details, resolutions, etc. Does a console offer Eyefiny? Can you simply upgrade something if your will to spend extra to run the game better? Nope. It does have some advantages as a fix, relative cheap system, but also disadvantages.
Click to expand...
It really isn't, paying 1500 for less iq then consoles isn't subjective.
 
TNA said:
Also apparently Intel were on board, unless you have a link that refutes this?
Click to expand...
There's no such thing as "corporation was on board" - there's either a legal contract or there isn't. Clearly, they aren't part of this currently, and that is it. We can only guess about the reasons basing it all on rumours but that's it and I rather not dive into rumours.
 
Last edited:
Tinek said:
There's no such thing as "corporation was on board" - there's either a legal contract or there isn't. Clearly, they aren't part of this currently, and that is it. We can only guess about the reasons basing it all on rumours but that's it and I rather not dive into rumours.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Kind of getting a bit of topic for this thread anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom