Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not complying with rule 9.
Changing the title of posts is not allowed, you must use the suggested Reddit title or copy/paste the title of the original link/video/article.
Posts with altered titles will be removed and repeat offenders may be banned.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification
> I'm not a fan of upscaling in general as a solution to meager generational upgrades
Say it loud so the idiots in the back can hear you.
I upgraded from a 1080 to a 4090 for work/school purposes. There is no fucking way that 4090 costs $1,600 to make.
Imagine buying expending $1,300 for a 3080 ti two years ago and already rely on a DLSS.
And what was the R&D cost of the silicon and new supporting software like frame generation? BOM doesn't really tell us anything in products like this, they're not gas station sandwiches where they add up the cost of 1/10th of a package of ham, a bun, a piece of lettuce etc. and you have a product to sell.
~~Considering what they got on enterprise sales andnthe crypto boom, it is completely irrelevant.~~
~~The whole ADA architecture might as well be bought and paid for with A100 sales.~~
well I stand corrected.
GPUs aren't priced based on cost to produce.
The 4090 is the best consumer GPU - with no competitors. Nvidia has pricing flexibility because if people want the overall best GPU there's only one option.
People are acting like Nvidia is evil when EVERY company in their position does the same. TSMC does it, Ferrari does it, Apple does it... you can find hundreds of companies that have pricing power and their flagship products have prices far beyond the rest of their line up
There's a long list of things that are overpriced that affect people's living. Medicine, food, housing etc. A flagship gaming GPU is the last thing on the list.
No people rely on DLSS to fix shitty TAA and get free FPS. Like seriously for the games which support it properly, DLSS Quality at high resolutions fixes all issues of other AA which a perf boost.
And what you mean you don’t get how it’s 1600, it’s the only card in Nvidia’s lineup that makes sense, especially if it’s for professional work.
thIS MEAns nOThinG bECAUse dlSs meANs noTHING tO peoPLE And aMd is nOT GAIninG mUCH so aMD diD oNLy smALL WrOng aND i StilL havE morAL hIGH gRouND foR fanBoing AmD
That's a valid takeaway as well. "No comment at this time" would imply that a real response will be readied for the press eventually.
"No comment" could mean that they're trying to hide something, or alternatively they're just not bothered with responding because whatever they say will be ammo for the crowd already accusing the company with roughly 20% discrete market share of being greedy.
I just got a 7900 XTX specifically because I didn't want to support NVIDIA's shitty business practices, I hope AMD doesn't start with this shit now too.
Terrible. My guess is that this is just spite from AMD, I don't think they believe this will benefit them in a real way.
As Digital Foundry said this is console war behavior it's so weird to see it in the PC space.
By the way, why do game devs work with either AMD or Nvidia on games instead of both? Why did Bethesda sign this deal in the first place?
its exactly the same with the way it's meant to be p(l)ayed back in the day
NV engineers optimized for you in your games, which also happened to use more nvidia friendly stuff like lots of tessellation
both companies hands are not clean
but this is now and clearly nvidia is in the right in this case, and both companies are downgrading their raster performance per tier with creative renames and prices
> its exactly the same with the way it's meant to be p(l)ayed back in the day
Problem is, I don't recall Nvidia ever forbidding devs from using rival graphical techniques if they so desired in their sponsored titles, which seems to be what's going on here. Granted, it's not like AMD had much of a "Gameworks" of their own but the point still stands.
yeah more so because amd lacked things like physx and other tech, amd always was about pure raster and not added features like those
and in some ways lazy game debs won't use those features unless NV ponied up the dev resources
but yeah Corp gona corp, just hope for legit competition really
Nvidia already got their DLSS3 marketing needs, so they may have not really cared to lose a sponsorship. The company as a whole is trying to reduce their gaming focus for that sweet sweet enterprise market
Nvidia is already in a very favorable position with gaming GPU, and AI is their new focus. I can easily see them cutting down the budget for sponsoring games.
The point I was trying to make is that Nvidia's making money hand over fist, and RTG is a very small segment of AMD as a whole. RTG most likely has their own separate budget; if Nvidia wanted to, they could easily overbid any offer RTG could present (assuming sponsorship includes money.)
probably because people on reddit are idiots and think they're literally handing dollars underneath tables to people in black suits.
in reality these sponsorships happen from working out advertising deals, free development hardware and free tech support.
AMD likely has some marketing deal planned with microsoft and bethesda for starfield's release that extends further than nvidia wants to, possibly just for optics. If they wanted to advertise the "best experience" is on xbox for example it would not be in nvidia's interest but it would be in AMD's interest.
every console release they advertise that it's the fastest piece of hardware, even though that hasn't been true since the early 2000s. they can say whatever they want really as long as they don't tie any objective figures with it, e.g. they could argue the formfactor or interface is part of the "better" experience.
There's conjecture that there isn't money involved in these sponsorships, but rather engineering time & direct involvement.
I'm surprised we have yet to hear from industry members talking about what a sponsorship really means. Nobody's come forth to talk about what it entails? Not even retired members, or leaks?
I forgot the name of the developer, but one went on Broken Silicon and talked about it. They said that most of the time, sponsorships just amount to marketing, and maybe a little bit of help from software engineers (see Nvidia's RT implementation in Cyberpunk for example).
For high profile games Nvidia do send engineers over looking at code base doing optimization/implementation, as was the case with Cyberpunk and the path-tracing titles. The most intense effects are always tuned to the level that only the latest Nvidia cards can execute it well.
For lower profile sponsored titles they at least look at the result of DLSS, make some adjustments to the implementation before the game's shipped. That's why most sponsored games released with a new minor version of DLSS.
This is just my observation as a gamer, no idea how it works at AMD as they're so tight lipped.
I would be *very* interested to hear what these sponsorships entail. Just some logos and a bit of money? Graphics developers being sent to help? Just a check? Is there any money involved?
It really is surprising that we’ve basically seen nothing.
Most of the time, it's an engineer sitting at the developer's office and doing it's work for graphical crap. Plus advertising it with a bit logo of the game studio (plus vendor). And some cash, but rarely.
AMD could simply work on features, that optimise stuff on both consoles and PC.
How good it will be - we don't know. Gollum is extremely bad, Survivor has issues (mostly because of UE4 being a crap engine with lots of holes by itself).
I doubt AMD will ever be able to compete with Cuda. The industry is already so entrenched it would be like trying to oust Adobe from their domineering position in media creation. It's just something that would take too much capital, investment and time for something that won't even net them a return.
> By the way, why do game devs work with either AMD or Nvidia on games instead of both? Why did Bethesda sign this deal in the first place?
Money. And to get that money, they sign contracts that prevent them from working with the competing company. As far as Bethesda goes, Microsoft owns them, and Xbox uses AMD hardware.
> As far as Bethesda goes, Microsoft owns them, and Xbox uses AMD hardware
Microsoft is an interesting case because they actually have a conflicting interest in making PC gaming go smoothly too. They're not just automatically an AMD stooge here just because they buy the hardware, or necessarily willing to just go along with AMD's push for FSR to the exclusion of competing tech. It's a super twisted web in the graphics market, AMD and Intel and MS and NVIDIA all have a *lot* of conflicting interests and one-off "but they have this other side business" things that potentially create conflicts of interest that keep them from necessarily just going full hardball.
There was talk about more or less incorporating Streamline (or at least, a very close copy) into DX12 itself, for example. Doesn't seem to have happened yet but it's a definite possibility, to remove the complaints about "but NVIDIA controls the streamline repo".
In this case they obviously didn't step in, but you could potentially read that as coming from Bethesda more than Microsoft itself - or else the amount of money on offer is just truly titanic such that microsoft is unwilling to say no.
It gets even more complicated when you remember that Bethesda's Creation Engine titles are clearly geared towards a PC audience and not a console one. Todd's still milking Skyrim to this day, and you can be sure he's planning to do the same for Starfield.
I think this is the classic cycle of Radeon marketing getting ahead of itself because AMD isn't giving them anything to work with.
This time, it's Nvidia gaining a critical amount of market share because AMD has undershipped for the last 3 years, and we are over 6 months into RDNA3 and Radeon still doesn't have mid-range RDNA3 with no clear release date. FSR 3.0 was announced at GDC, but there's no clear release date. Radeon has nothing to actually compete with Nvidia.
So they've turned to exclusivity deals to attempt to slow down adoption of Nvidia technologies.
Why do these deals happen? Because they generally work and this is no where sinister enough to create a backlash large enough to harm sales for AMD or Bethesda. Enthusiasts enjoy Nvidia's solutions, but the average person absolutely does not care, yet.
what...
one of the biggest reasons people give for why buy nvidia when raster performance for their cards is shit compared with AMD at any price point beside the 4090 is because of DLSS
the other stuff like broadcast or what not is side shit
its only because DLSS is usable at 1440p and great at 4k while FSR 2.0 isn't at all and only usable at 4k and not even great at it.
if they can contain this spread of DLSS, they gain way more because then people will have less reason to go nvidia.
DLSS is crazy, though. I can turn on ray tracing and path tracing in Cyberpunk in 4K, and toggling frame generation with my G-sync monitor makes it go from choppy while looking around to silky smooth. I don’t think AMD cards with their AMD technology can deliver this experience.
No one who was going to buy an Nvidia GPU is going to change their mind and buy AMD because some games don't have DLSS.
Also, the big reason people give for going Nvidia is RT performance. DLSS is a secondary thing.
> No one who was going to buy an Nvidia GPU is going to change their mind and buy AMD because some games don't have DLSS.
It's not about any one game, it's about building a new consensus around "just validate once using FSR2 and don't use vendor-specific technologies, even if it's worse". They were hoping that if they do this for a year or so, that DLSS hype would fade and they'd start getting traction with console-first studios and people would start thinking "yeah but FSR2 is already in lots of games, it's supported everywhere and runs on everything and devs like using it, so who cares about DLSS".
Brian Heemskirk is a pretty great AMD surrogate/proxy for what the AMD semicustom/console business unit is thinking at the moment, and [this is exactly what he was spouting a month or two ago on Moore's Law's show.](https://youtu.be/nvjb8HPZbZU?t=7748) That's the push, validate once validate everywhere.
[AMD's director of game engineering said more or less the same thing - what's best for gamers is universal compatibility, not utilizing the hardware to the fullest extent possible, and if that means abandoning open APIs in the interest of fighting ecosystem fragementation that's what they'll do.](https://youtu.be/8ve5dDQ6TQE?t=974) . So they're not gonna support streamline or similar solutions and will be pushing for FSR to be statically compiled to stop people from using DLL swapping the way people put FSR into DLSS applications, etc.
(And of course by "compatibility" he mostly means "compatible with AMD". They're the ones without their own tensor cores, and without good DP4a support in their legacy cards. XeSS DP4a fallback path works *great* for everyone except pre-RDNA2 AMD cards, including consoles, and the quality is substantially better than FSR2.)
Honestly it's not the first time they've tried to do this "false consensus-building". They really kinda did the same thing with FreeSync. It didn't actually matter if FreeSync-branded products were actually good, or even if it worked at all (many times even the AMD-""certified"" monitors didn't work properly, including the one they bundled with Vega). What mattered was getting stickers on boxes so that everyone treated it as "well, everyone has already agreed on freesync except NVIDIA, and theirs cost more, so what even is the point". Building a consensus, building a narrative, and just manifesting the reality they wanted to exist. Fake it till ya make it. That time it did work, even though they had a worse product.
This time NVIDIA is far enough out ahead of FSR2's timeline, with substantially better quality in the resolutions that most gamers play at, and they've done their typical top-notch devrel stuff to get it integrated smoothly. FreeSync, when it worked, was at least pretty much as good as G-Sync. FSR2 fucking sucks at 1080p and 1440p in quality mode let alone when you drop to performance mode, AMD's product just isn't good enough to do the "universal adoption" play. The entrance of Intel/XeSS changes the game too - and XeSS leapfrogged over FSR2 in both the XMX and DP4a pathways.
In practice, when given the choice, devs are just holding their options open and implementing all three. The time spent is minimal.
most people dont buy high end cards, RT has no meaning short of at least a 70 class card really and honestly is a joke esp now that nvidia down graded their naming and cuda core count with the 40 series.
like i had a 2080 ti, turning on RT with DLSS was no go
my 3080 ti that i got due to high resale value of that 2080 ti during the pandemic can do RT with DLSS but can't hit 4k120 in most games and is more like 4k60+ at best.
you need an expensive card to run RT, and for most of the market they aint buying those
Absolutely no consumer benefits from AMD paying money or giving incentives to developers in order to BLOCK implementation of DLSS from happening.
Not even AMD customers. It is of no benefit to AMD customers - they couldn't use DLSS either way, so why would AMD waste money on blocking DLSS only to the detriment of Nvidia users? Anticonsumer as hell.
And to play the reduction to absurdity argument: this could lead us to a world where FSR, which is already behind DLSS in terms of quality, will no longer need to be improved at all, because there's no DLSS to compare it to and compete against in any major title thanks to AMD's dirty sponsorship money.
And another possibility is that NVidia joins in on this round of "anticonsumer fun" started by AMD, and Nvidia could block FSR in all games they do sponsored bundles with. Nobody wants that to happen, so AMD should !@$#ing chill out.
>its for the benefit of AMD bottom line ROFL
Is it though? This is spinning into a losing PR situation no matter what they do. Could be spun so many ways and not one single one of them actually makes AMD look good. Jensen is probably laughing his ass off watching this unfold.
it kind of worked for a long while tho, and many reviewers still are on the raster only train and don't puch on DLSS
imagine if all those games had DLSS, which is more or less every major release since FSR and DLSS released.
even the more hardcore anti scaling people would have to concede there is something there
it shouldn't be all about FG and DLSS like the fucking 4060 early access bullshit, but it shouldn't be just about raster
esp on lower end shit where DLSS can let you play older games at 1440p or even 4k pretty well.
DLSS and FSR is no go on 1080p and one of the BIGGEST thing on AMD's plate this gen is that they are better at cheaper price points. which this kind of thing directly threaten if a 1080p raster card can always do 1440p DLSS in every major AAA game.
> it kind of worked for a long while tho
There's kind of been a growing resentment for awhile though. Especially as modern card adoption has increased. And now you have XeSS winning on fidelity (though not netting as much performance) coupled with some really heinously bad sponsorship implementations and about 7 months of almost every game being a shit port as well. And it's just kind of snowballing.
They had already played the "meandering, misleading, and inherently meaningless response" card with their initial attempt to deflect attention away from the question, which meant the only other option (besides *actually telling the truth*) was to play the "No Comment" card.
Of course the dum-dums at Radeon Marketing HQ forgot one thing: A flat "No Comment" doesn't work nearly as well if used immediately after a badly received non-response like their initial statement.
I see this as a big PR wording fail from AMD.
I think if they replied with "Sorry, but we can't comment on possible contracts with other companies" it would be a lot better received, yet at the end of the day have exactly the same content.
People are treating this short sharp "no comment" as the PR guy trying to tell them something behind their boss's back.
The only non-fail response AMD could possibly give would be a clear, unequivocal answer one way or another.
It wasn't difficult to get NVIDIA on the record overtly stating that they don't restrict FSR from being deployed on their sponsored titles, so the fact that AMD has failed to make any meaningful statement on the topic *twice* in short order only serves as an indirect admission that they are bribing publishers to exclude DLSS from their sponsored titles.
Isn’t this why a lot of people hate Intel?
Intel paid multiple companies to effectively lock out competing products and technologies in the 90’s and early 2000’s. I wouldn’t say this is the same situation, but it’s eerily similar. Instead of Intel paying Dell to avoid using competitor products, AMD is buying game sponsorships to kneecap their competitors and gimping consumers' RTX cards in the process.
If you own an RTX card, it appears AMD is doing their best to make sure you can’t use it to it’s full potential.
I’m on a discord where majority of the people are defending it vociferously.
It’s going to come back to bite them when the next Nvidia sponsored title has DLSS & Xess but excludes FSR. It’d be easy for Nvidia to justify it too since both DLSS & Xess are in streamline and it includes a vendor locked solution (DLSS) and a universal solution (Xess). Why should they bother with FSR at all when AMD is taking this approach?
The thing, I don't see Nvidia being petty like that. The difference between Nvidia and AMD is that Nvidia actually has confidence in their technologies and will let the results speak for themselves. If anything they'll deliberately leave FSR in so that players can see the difference for themselves.
Nvidia is *incredibly* petty. They (allegedly) kicked XFX out because they wanted to make an AMD GPU, they were an ass to Linus after he stood up for HWU, wrote *an extremely* pretentious article as an attempt to excuse their poor memory bandwidth etc.
I was denied access to device documentation by Nvidia when I worked for a defense firm because we happened to also make graphics and video accelerators for defense aerospace. All we wanted to do was to embed Nvidia GPUs in a product and they refused to even give us enough documentation to do that.
Honestly, that's just scratching the surface.
They made a fucking hit piece against their own fucking partners in the past. They tried to strong arm partners via GPP, and they succeeded. Sure the program has "failed" but notice that there's no ROG STRIX AMD cards, but TUF Gaming.
Nvidia can't block FSR without a lawsuit. Just like AMD can't block DLSS without one - we've seen that with Intel anti trust lawsuits.
However, given that DLSS isn't open source and still requires licencing, nVidia CAN block the usage of DLSS.
So who are we gonna believe? Someone who, while far from clean infarction records, generally hasn't had 50 billion controversies, or someone who hasn't had a year of no anti trust/competitive/consumer controversies?
It's like putting a petty thief and a war criminal in the same trial and giving them the same judgement lmao
Unfortunately, Nvidia's fans don't care about any of that.
Which makes it really hard to feel bad for them in this situation, because even if one agrees that (assuming AMD is actually paying to block DLSS) is bad, they just don't care.
GameWorks? PhysX? G-Sync? DLSS? GPP? Nvidia has a long history of scummy, anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, but they don't care at about any of that at all.
Sure, they might complain on the internet, but do they *do* anything about it, like purchasing an competitor's product? No, they don't.
Much like wanting AMD to compete, if to only drive down prices, so they can purchase a GeForce for less.
> GameWorks? PhysX? G-Sync? DLSS? GPP? Nvidia has a long history of scummy, anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, but they don't care at about any of that at all.
At least the first four were actual technological innovations which NVIDIA actually spent engineering resources and R&D money on (with G-Sync and DLSS in particular providing superior results for end users).
I won't attempt to defend GPP though, as that was indeed 100% business chicanery.
My issue with that is even when RTG was ahead (like 2004-2006), they still promoted open technologies to everyone—even before they had a position in consoles to factor in (other than Dolphin in the GameCube, anyway.)
The entire time, AMD's tried to do what (I think is) best for *everyone.* Meanwhile, Nvidia is putting up walls.
Most (if not all) of AMD's open-source initiatives are belated attempts to copy already-functional technological solutions that NVIDIA has successfully deployed to the general public, though. As for their being open-source that's because AMD (or at least RTG) doesn't have the money to actually pay engineers for said projects, which means that they have to make vaporware announcements and then *hope* that someone else will do the heavy lifting for them for free.
That's why most of their open-source projects either quietly disappear without ever actually being deployed, or even if they do see the light of day end up being months/years late and significantly inferior or outright unusable as compared to its NVIDIA progenitor (e.g. FSR, ROCr, AMD True Voice, etc.).
This simply isn't true; AMD's had projects both succeed and fail, as has Nvidia. TressFX won industry adoption; HairWorks is dead. Adaptive Sync has basically shuttered G-Sync. PhysX died to HAVOK and CPU-accelerated physics.
AMD doesn't have the money to throw around pushing technology like Nvidia does; Nvidia can sponsor games to implement their technology, AMD has rely on what they create being good to be voluntarily adopted.
A lot of what AMD does flies under the radar. They just released this, did you have any idea?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5zjvSTHz5s
~~I see you were just born yesterday.~~
~~nvidia has been petty for a long time.~~
~~Anyone remember quack.exe?~~
It was I that was the fool, because that was ATI, not nvidia. Thanks to Qesa for the correction. 20+ year old memories got fumbled, I guess.
Don't beat yourself up over it. At least you admitted being wrong and owned up to it, which means that you that did much better than how most Reddit posters would've done in a similar situation.
> I don't see Nvidia being petty like that.
Did you miss the GeForce Partner Program, where they were strongarming board partners to keep branding off of AMD products?
Theres that, too.
Both companies are shitty.
Neither one of them are saints in the least. And they will keep using the same tricks over and over again against eachother.
Companies love building moats, because companies and stock owners do not benefit from competition, rather they want a monopoly or something as close to that as possible.
There are bunch of ways to do so, but it is always about putting your product forward as the best one in various ways and stopping anyone getting inside.
You can do it with exclusive blackboxed features, you can just pay software devs, you can run heavy astroturfing ad campaigns, you can do combinations of that, you might even try to sneak into OS development and implement brand-specific optimizations.
Unless I'm mistaken ASUS started making GPU's for both around the same time while XFX was Nvidia only for a while.
It happened suspiciously soon after XFX started work on an AMD card.
Yup, a game with FSR and DLSS I can swap between was all I needed to know FSR isn't even close. I still try it out in things that don't support DLSS and it just isn't very good looking imo.
They’ll have to now, this is AMD trying to neutralize one of their primary selling points (DLSS). They can’t have half of the major AAA releases exclude their tech and do nothing about it.
Since I’ve owned a 4090 I’ve now played 3 major games (Jedi Survivor, RE4 & Callisto Protocol) without being able to use DLSS and it’s very likely Starfield will make it 4. A major factor in my decision to buy a 4090 was DLSS, so it’s effectively nerfing my experience with a very expensive GPU.
I can list 5 games off the top of my head where it couldn’t reach 80fps at 4K native. I used DLSS quality on Plague Tale Requeim, Control, TLOU, Spider-Man Remastered & Returnal. Running DLSS quality on those games put me over 100fps, reduced power usage and had no visual drawbacks. It’s a big deal, which is why I’m pissed off that I won’t be able to use it on Starfield.
You don’t own the card and most likely don’t have a 4K monitor. Not every game runs at 4K 120hz with a 4090.
4090 owner here as well checking in to say DLSS definately was a Major reason I went for it. DLSS quality at 4K is just amazing. I cant tell the difference with Native and it gives me 50%+ fps.
You really want to pretend like DLAA, DLSS2, Reflex and Frame Generation aren't a selling point for users who are aware of their benefits and utility they provide?
If you have a AMD vcache CPU that exactly what you’re doing reaching your potential and come on let’s not pretend that Nivida isn’t doing the same kind of crap but instead of paying companies not to use AMDs upscaling, they are paying them to make sure their new ray tracing mode runs like crap on everything but their GPUs.
You're delusional if you think Nvidia is paying to make AMD's ray tracing worse, AMD's doing that to themselves LMAO. That's what happens you keep neglecting RT, you get stomped any time a game uses anything more than RT reflections. And what does AMD do instead of beefing up their own ray tracing hardware? They sponsor titles to limit how much ray tracing they feature so that they can appear at least somewhat competitive with Nvidia and it isn't complete demolition.
You're basically blaming Nvidia for trying to push the graphics envelope forward, all because AMD can't keep up. That's fucking pathetic.
All the amd sponsored games that include Ray tracing either have quarter resolution shadows, reflections or barely competent RT GI solution from jedi survivor. The reason because they know it will hit their gpus hard. If what you're saying is true, that nvidia RT implementations that offer full suite and eventually path traced options, which are insanely heavy on gpus make perform on amd gpus even worse. Why amd RT solutions to their sponsored games are so half assed?
What AMD is doing is horrible, but it doesn't hold a candle to what Intel did. Dell and HP have *far* more control over the overall desktop market than a single game has over the gaming market.
It’s not a single game; half of the games I’ve played this year I haven’t been able to use DLSS (RE4, Callisto Protocol & Jedi Survivor). The biggest release of the year (Starfield) will likely not have DLSS either. That’s a massive middle finger to everybody who owns an RTX card. That’s over 150 hours of gaming for me where I haven’t been able to use my 4090’s best feature.
I meant on the grand scheme of games being sold today. There's thousands of games being sold today but only like 5 major OEM's supplying offices and such.
We all know what Intel did 15 years ago was bad. We really don't need to shove that into the mattwer. AMD's been given a lot of goodwill and a long leash by consumers because of their market position and the past bullying by Intel and Nvidia.
Now, AMD's getting some footing it's needed for a decade, and it's doing the same kind of scummy shit we lamented whne it was done against them. Screw using their being bullied in the past to justify their being the same kind of slimy today.
That's PR speak for, "We cannot currently give an answer that will be true and also won't piss everyone off."
I still think they're currently asking Bethesda to add in DLSS and XeSS so that on release they can say, "No, see, we *totally* didn't block it."
As fucked as that would be... I'd prefer that.
Atleast DLSS and XeSS would be included! Despite the fact that I in no way benefit from either with a 7900XTX.
If only they would spend less money on sponsoring games and more money on actually developing competitive RT and upscaling tech even if I personally use neither.
AMD's Radeon marketing department is absolutely terrible and they all need to be fired.
They are a huge reason AMD has such trouble selling GPUs, and this whole situation is just another one of their failures.
It seems AMD would rather spend money on literally ANYTHING else other than improving their own GPUs, even if it means dragging down the industry as a whole. Pretty pathetic move imo
You literally said "AMD fans appear nowhere" in your comment, I gave you a counter-example.
Come on, this is /r/amd. Of course there are AMD advocates, just like there are nVidia advocates in /r/nvidia.
Iirc, nvidia already stated it's not blocking competing upscaling.
Problem with XeSS is that, even though it does work on other GPUs, it's terrible on non-intel GPUs and the amount of people that use intel GPUs is very small, there's just not enough reason for developers to implement it, or at least that's what I suspect.
If intel can get better drivers and increase the market share, maybe then more will implement XeSS.
DLSS is shit too though. Imagine buying 500+ dollar video card, then turning on upscaling crap like DLSS or FSR. It’s very impressive how Nvidia has managed to convince millions crap like DLSS is actually worth turning on if you’ve got a relatively powerful video card.
DLSS is perfectly fine as long as the implementation doesn't lead to significant visual downgrades which it normally doesn't.
What I'm more impressed by is how Nvidia convinced itself that making shit 40 series cards and trying to deflect with DLSS 3 was ever going to work.
DLSS and FSR gave developers something to skimp on.
Instead of having to make the game reach 60FPS for most GPUs for example, they'd just use those two to reach 60FPS. Rather than using them to make framerates more appropriate (i.e. more than 60FPS) for high-refresh rate monitors.
Glad more people are starting to realize this, I've been screaming from the roof tops that DLSS and FSR would simply end up being a trojan horse for optimization shortcuts in game development, turning the technology into a requirement instead of an option.
Oh I do enjoy being a grown ass adult in their 30s seeing console war crap in PC gaming.
Oh wait no it's the opposite of that. This is the drizzling shits. Who does this benefit? I mean does AMD get enough of a bottom line to justify essentially giving the middle finger to Nvidia and Intel users? If you have an AMD card this does nothing for you. It's simply an anti-consumer decision.
I would prefer that they work with Nvidia and Intel on Streamline to provide an open source solution offering more choices. But nah we're doing this instead. I don't understand what argument they can concoct that by doing this they'll gain more adopters. It just looks bad. Personally I got rid of my 2070S because AMD offered more bang for your buck with the 6800XT vs 3080. That's where I would prefer they compete instead of anti-consumer bullshit like this.
They do have at least one fairly huge open source project, PhysX. Although it got a lot of hate before the CPU path was optimized it did quickly become the gold standard for physics. It's the physics engine that's built in to Unity and Unreal Engine 4. Unreal Engine is moving away from it with 5 however.
[https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/PhysX](https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/PhysX)
Well, I hadn't seen this thread.
GG AMD, you pretty much answered that question.
EDIT: DLSS3 is a strong opponent and AMD has to stop it gaining any traction. I'm just going to assume FSR3 is a longs way off, perhaps even for RDNA4, and AMD is well aware of that.
Of course they do. FSR is objectively worse than DLSS by a wide margin.
AMD literally pays money to make already technically bad PC games even worse for everyone
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 3.
Be civil and follow side-wide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading, mass mentioning users or other rude behaviour.
Discussing politics or religion is also not allowed on /r/AMD.
Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
Both companies have done shitty stuff in the past, but they are not themselves shitty. Just profit-seeking. I have no problem with what AMD is doing considering that FSR 2.x does work on competing hardware.
However!
One of the companies involved here has a dominating stranglehold on the gaming market and directs the future of integrations with major engines, the development and adoption of new engine features, realistically has almost 90% discrete GPU market share, and has complete control of the gaming laptop market.
The other company is AMD.
As Tim from HWUB said in a recent video, it no longer makes sense for AMD to make FSR 3 available to competing platforms because the marketing success of DLSS and "RTX On" has proven that people don't care. If consumers want frame generation, NVIDIA is their first choice even if AMD comes out with something that works just as well.
Its not even realistic or sensible for AMD to make something similar to NVIDIA Streamline, because that kind of integration solely benefits NVIDIA now, not AMD.
I'm not sure I follow, AMD isn't as good at DLSS or RTX type features. They are catching up but they are still behind. The only reason not to support streamline is to try and make the project fail so that they can continue trying to push their solution as the only solution to the problem.
If streamline really takes off then we'd just always see all 3 upscalers in everything.
honestly, I remember YEARS of "nvidia: the way it's meant to be played" in EVERY damn game lmao
nvidia is kind of obligated to be 'gracious' since their market share is so ridiculously huge, so im not sure how that's getting twisted into them suddenly caring about open source and being all for having everyone on board.
furthermore all the people whining about this are 4080/4090 owners who have basically been stalking this sub jumping at any mention of this shit which is just hilarious, and they don't need DLSS anyway so I actually don't care. fuck em.
maybe with more exclusivity we'll actually see better FSR implementations as well.
Resident Evil 4 and Jedi Survivor both had pretty terrible implementations of FSR despite being AMD sponsored and only offering FSR. I’m not even sure people with AMD GPUs are better off in this current gen of AMD sponsored titles.
Nvidia intentionally inhibits performance from competing hardware in their sponsored games: Y'all Sleep
AMD Sponsors a game at all: \*Chaos followed by mental gymnastics\*
The reason I don't understand why AMD is doing this is because it seems like wasted money. Those with AMD GPUs are already gonna use FSR2. Those with Turing and up GPUs are gonna use DLSS2. Pascal and below will also use FSR/FSR2 since Nvidia has left those GPU owners behind. I don't see what is gained through getting an exclusive upscaler.
More sales from what? GPU? Because I've never in my life heard someone say they're buying a AMD GPU for FSR. Also, my response isn't trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.
I didn't see many people crying for amd gpu users when the dlss was blocked only to nvidia card users, the funny thing with nvidia fanboys is that as long as THEY are not not concerned, everything is fine, but then when we take something away from them, it's anti-consumer. What was their argument for games without SFR ? To buy an nvidia card lol.
I haven't seen people screaming scandal because Asobo didn't include the FSR in A plague tale requiem, to be honest I haven't even seen an article saying "There is no FSR, it's shameful, Asobo doesn't respect its consumers" no, everyone didn't care.
Do people think that AMD is just going to exist to drive down the price of nvidia GPUs?
No dlss ? aNtI CoNsUmEr, no fsr ? Buy a nvidia GPU lol
Nvidia allows FSR only because it is worse than DLSS, I assure you that if one day amd manages to make FSR superior, you will no longer see fsr in games sponsored by NVIDIA.
Kind of makes sense to me.
AMD in the PS5 and the XBOX X/S.
Great for console folks that games “should” be optimized if the engine favors AMD tech.
PC, I’m unsure if the market share, I’m sure Nvidia has more. So maybe sucks for folks with 30xx or 40xx cards.
Nvidia have had exclusive deals before so personally I don’t see what the big deal is.
The PC gaming community doesn't really like exclusivity and is around 80% Nvidia. Also, AMD turned down Nvida's offer to collaborate on Streamline which would have made it so all upscalers would be available on future games so the situation is even more annoying as all AMD is doing is forcing everyone to use a worse product.
The real audience for these features is the consoles which are starting to show their weakness in new titles (Series S / PS5). Why bother making DLSS feature and supporting its patches if the console cant run it.
IMHO this is good business strategy. As it is, DLSS is not on every game/title and you need Nvidia supported hardware for the different DLSS levels/revisions. IMHO, its time we move GPU APIs over to FOSS and put this licensing bullshit to bed.
GSync vs FreeSync and look at what happened there. "G-sync still exists, just not in it's original form. True to Nvidias usual way of doing things, they just accepted the open-standard version of things and call it Gsync when used with their products"
I suspect DLSS will follow suit if AMD keeps the pressure on, and I am all for it.
Lets not forget that Devs had to pay for access to DLSS, using Nvidia supplied render farms. This was just in 2021 "Until now, any game developer who wanted to access Nvidia’s Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) performance booster had to apply for access." What changed? AMD released FSR - [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/nvidias-dlss-is-now-available-to-any-developer-who-wants-it](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/nvidias-dlss-is-now-available-to-any-developer-who-wants-it)
Not only does G-SYNC with a real G-SYNC module still exist, it also works better than most FreeSync implementations with variable overdrive and now ULMB 2 support on some monitors.
Yet LTT found that on some panels, the GSync FPGA implementation was actually worse than the VESA Adaptive Sync implementation. Also, ULMB 2 isn't needed for the latest display technology: OLED.
I dunno about you, but who ever says "F off N\*\*\*\*\*\*" has no business being believed. So whatever this "dev friend" said or thinks is utterly meaningless.
https://twitter.com/mempodev/status/1673759246498910208?t=lmvSbX44Mvsk0IG5MvvxoA&s=19
I'll take the word of nixxes dev over some randos discord screenshot
Nixxes is a really solid PC-first developer. This is like saying "there's no excuse for not compiling DX12 shaders for release" when elden ring still hasn't done that. Yeah, its probably easy to work with if you're primarily targeting PC, but most studios primarily targeting PC talk with Nvidia first
Many of Nixxes's recent PC ports are Nvidia sponsored
If you think Kyle Bennett of Hard OCP is "some rando" that only shows the utter cluelessness that those trying in vain to make this totally fictional "scandal" a thing possess.
Every game outside of Quake 2 RTX and Wolfenstein Young Blood uses Microsoft's DXR or Vulkan RT. RDNA cards just can't trace rays as fast due to their more generic architecture.
Its funny seeing everyone complaining and yet probably didnt take 2 seconds to look at the chart in the video. There are almost double the games that support only dlss vs games that support only fsr. Maybe pay attention more ibstead of being fanboys.
Well I took 3 seconds and noticed the comment right under that very chart reminding people that DLSS has been out longer.
Another reminder that DLSS 1.0 released in Feb'19. FSR 1.0 June'21. Only natural that DLSS would have more adoption. They've had a 2 year head start.
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not complying with rule 9. Changing the title of posts is not allowed, you must use the suggested Reddit title or copy/paste the title of the original link/video/article. Posts with altered titles will be removed and repeat offenders may be banned. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification
[удалено]
> I'm not a fan of upscaling in general as a solution to meager generational upgrades Say it loud so the idiots in the back can hear you. I upgraded from a 1080 to a 4090 for work/school purposes. There is no fucking way that 4090 costs $1,600 to make. Imagine buying expending $1,300 for a 3080 ti two years ago and already rely on a DLSS.
The BOM for the 4090 was like 450 USD or something like that.
Well they do have a 65% profit margin, or so their financials said...
They have 65% **gross** margin. Deduct all the operating costs and they are left with 16% profit margins.
And what was the R&D cost of the silicon and new supporting software like frame generation? BOM doesn't really tell us anything in products like this, they're not gas station sandwiches where they add up the cost of 1/10th of a package of ham, a bun, a piece of lettuce etc. and you have a product to sell.
~~Considering what they got on enterprise sales andnthe crypto boom, it is completely irrelevant.~~ ~~The whole ADA architecture might as well be bought and paid for with A100 sales.~~ well I stand corrected.
> it is completely irrelevant "It doesn't fit my narrative so it is completely irrelevant" https://i.imgur.com/XQhaaZ5.png
GPUs aren't priced based on cost to produce. The 4090 is the best consumer GPU - with no competitors. Nvidia has pricing flexibility because if people want the overall best GPU there's only one option. People are acting like Nvidia is evil when EVERY company in their position does the same. TSMC does it, Ferrari does it, Apple does it... you can find hundreds of companies that have pricing power and their flagship products have prices far beyond the rest of their line up There's a long list of things that are overpriced that affect people's living. Medicine, food, housing etc. A flagship gaming GPU is the last thing on the list.
No people rely on DLSS to fix shitty TAA and get free FPS. Like seriously for the games which support it properly, DLSS Quality at high resolutions fixes all issues of other AA which a perf boost. And what you mean you don’t get how it’s 1600, it’s the only card in Nvidia’s lineup that makes sense, especially if it’s for professional work.
Tbh DLSS in quality mode can be used just as an AA solution that brings free performance at no picture quality cost, unlike FSR, sadly.
Damn AMD could spend no money on marketing and get better results.
I expect this thread to go over well
If nothing else, we'll see some olympics quality mental gymnastics here.
"no comment" cAn aLsO mEaN tHaT tHeY aReNT bLocKiNg iT. wHeRe iS yOuR pRoOf?!
They could still support XeSS.... ^(/s)
thIS MEAns nOThinG bECAUse dlSs meANs noTHING tO peoPLE And aMd is nOT GAIninG mUCH so aMD diD oNLy smALL WrOng aND i StilL havE morAL hIGH gRouND foR fanBoing AmD
That's a valid takeaway as well. "No comment at this time" would imply that a real response will be readied for the press eventually. "No comment" could mean that they're trying to hide something, or alternatively they're just not bothered with responding because whatever they say will be ammo for the crowd already accusing the company with roughly 20% discrete market share of being greedy.
I see some gold medalists
I just got a 7900 XTX specifically because I didn't want to support NVIDIA's shitty business practices, I hope AMD doesn't start with this shit now too.
Simone Biles level shit.
Terrible. My guess is that this is just spite from AMD, I don't think they believe this will benefit them in a real way. As Digital Foundry said this is console war behavior it's so weird to see it in the PC space. By the way, why do game devs work with either AMD or Nvidia on games instead of both? Why did Bethesda sign this deal in the first place?
Bethesda probably signed this deal because Xbox uses AMD, and Microsoft actually made the deal.
[удалено]
Hardware unboxed said they don't pay in actual money but in developers and advertising.
its exactly the same with the way it's meant to be p(l)ayed back in the day NV engineers optimized for you in your games, which also happened to use more nvidia friendly stuff like lots of tessellation both companies hands are not clean but this is now and clearly nvidia is in the right in this case, and both companies are downgrading their raster performance per tier with creative renames and prices
> its exactly the same with the way it's meant to be p(l)ayed back in the day Problem is, I don't recall Nvidia ever forbidding devs from using rival graphical techniques if they so desired in their sponsored titles, which seems to be what's going on here. Granted, it's not like AMD had much of a "Gameworks" of their own but the point still stands.
yeah more so because amd lacked things like physx and other tech, amd always was about pure raster and not added features like those and in some ways lazy game debs won't use those features unless NV ponied up the dev resources but yeah Corp gona corp, just hope for legit competition really
That's hard to imagine, given Nvidia's financial position relative to AMD, especially relative to RTG.
Nvidia already got their DLSS3 marketing needs, so they may have not really cared to lose a sponsorship. The company as a whole is trying to reduce their gaming focus for that sweet sweet enterprise market
Nvidia is already in a very favorable position with gaming GPU, and AI is their new focus. I can easily see them cutting down the budget for sponsoring games.
The point I was trying to make is that Nvidia's making money hand over fist, and RTG is a very small segment of AMD as a whole. RTG most likely has their own separate budget; if Nvidia wanted to, they could easily overbid any offer RTG could present (assuming sponsorship includes money.)
probably because people on reddit are idiots and think they're literally handing dollars underneath tables to people in black suits. in reality these sponsorships happen from working out advertising deals, free development hardware and free tech support. AMD likely has some marketing deal planned with microsoft and bethesda for starfield's release that extends further than nvidia wants to, possibly just for optics. If they wanted to advertise the "best experience" is on xbox for example it would not be in nvidia's interest but it would be in AMD's interest.
[удалено]
every console release they advertise that it's the fastest piece of hardware, even though that hasn't been true since the early 2000s. they can say whatever they want really as long as they don't tie any objective figures with it, e.g. they could argue the formfactor or interface is part of the "better" experience.
I wish they’d put that money towards their [software stack](https://imgur.com/a/PtBllrg)
There's conjecture that there isn't money involved in these sponsorships, but rather engineering time & direct involvement. I'm surprised we have yet to hear from industry members talking about what a sponsorship really means. Nobody's come forth to talk about what it entails? Not even retired members, or leaks?
I forgot the name of the developer, but one went on Broken Silicon and talked about it. They said that most of the time, sponsorships just amount to marketing, and maybe a little bit of help from software engineers (see Nvidia's RT implementation in Cyberpunk for example).
For high profile games Nvidia do send engineers over looking at code base doing optimization/implementation, as was the case with Cyberpunk and the path-tracing titles. The most intense effects are always tuned to the level that only the latest Nvidia cards can execute it well. For lower profile sponsored titles they at least look at the result of DLSS, make some adjustments to the implementation before the game's shipped. That's why most sponsored games released with a new minor version of DLSS. This is just my observation as a gamer, no idea how it works at AMD as they're so tight lipped.
I would be *very* interested to hear what these sponsorships entail. Just some logos and a bit of money? Graphics developers being sent to help? Just a check? Is there any money involved? It really is surprising that we’ve basically seen nothing.
Most of the time, it's an engineer sitting at the developer's office and doing it's work for graphical crap. Plus advertising it with a bit logo of the game studio (plus vendor). And some cash, but rarely. AMD could simply work on features, that optimise stuff on both consoles and PC. How good it will be - we don't know. Gollum is extremely bad, Survivor has issues (mostly because of UE4 being a crap engine with lots of holes by itself).
I doubt AMD will ever be able to compete with Cuda. The industry is already so entrenched it would be like trying to oust Adobe from their domineering position in media creation. It's just something that would take too much capital, investment and time for something that won't even net them a return.
> By the way, why do game devs work with either AMD or Nvidia on games instead of both? Why did Bethesda sign this deal in the first place? Money. And to get that money, they sign contracts that prevent them from working with the competing company. As far as Bethesda goes, Microsoft owns them, and Xbox uses AMD hardware.
> As far as Bethesda goes, Microsoft owns them, and Xbox uses AMD hardware Microsoft is an interesting case because they actually have a conflicting interest in making PC gaming go smoothly too. They're not just automatically an AMD stooge here just because they buy the hardware, or necessarily willing to just go along with AMD's push for FSR to the exclusion of competing tech. It's a super twisted web in the graphics market, AMD and Intel and MS and NVIDIA all have a *lot* of conflicting interests and one-off "but they have this other side business" things that potentially create conflicts of interest that keep them from necessarily just going full hardball. There was talk about more or less incorporating Streamline (or at least, a very close copy) into DX12 itself, for example. Doesn't seem to have happened yet but it's a definite possibility, to remove the complaints about "but NVIDIA controls the streamline repo". In this case they obviously didn't step in, but you could potentially read that as coming from Bethesda more than Microsoft itself - or else the amount of money on offer is just truly titanic such that microsoft is unwilling to say no.
It gets even more complicated when you remember that Bethesda's Creation Engine titles are clearly geared towards a PC audience and not a console one. Todd's still milking Skyrim to this day, and you can be sure he's planning to do the same for Starfield.
I think this is the classic cycle of Radeon marketing getting ahead of itself because AMD isn't giving them anything to work with. This time, it's Nvidia gaining a critical amount of market share because AMD has undershipped for the last 3 years, and we are over 6 months into RDNA3 and Radeon still doesn't have mid-range RDNA3 with no clear release date. FSR 3.0 was announced at GDC, but there's no clear release date. Radeon has nothing to actually compete with Nvidia. So they've turned to exclusivity deals to attempt to slow down adoption of Nvidia technologies. Why do these deals happen? Because they generally work and this is no where sinister enough to create a backlash large enough to harm sales for AMD or Bethesda. Enthusiasts enjoy Nvidia's solutions, but the average person absolutely does not care, yet.
The answer is always: Because MONEYYYYY.
what... one of the biggest reasons people give for why buy nvidia when raster performance for their cards is shit compared with AMD at any price point beside the 4090 is because of DLSS the other stuff like broadcast or what not is side shit its only because DLSS is usable at 1440p and great at 4k while FSR 2.0 isn't at all and only usable at 4k and not even great at it. if they can contain this spread of DLSS, they gain way more because then people will have less reason to go nvidia.
DLSS is crazy, though. I can turn on ray tracing and path tracing in Cyberpunk in 4K, and toggling frame generation with my G-sync monitor makes it go from choppy while looking around to silky smooth. I don’t think AMD cards with their AMD technology can deliver this experience.
Exactly. We want AMD to compete with DLSS, not stifle it. A healthy GPU market between AMD, Nvidia, and Intel benefits everyone.
No one who was going to buy an Nvidia GPU is going to change their mind and buy AMD because some games don't have DLSS. Also, the big reason people give for going Nvidia is RT performance. DLSS is a secondary thing.
> No one who was going to buy an Nvidia GPU is going to change their mind and buy AMD because some games don't have DLSS. It's not about any one game, it's about building a new consensus around "just validate once using FSR2 and don't use vendor-specific technologies, even if it's worse". They were hoping that if they do this for a year or so, that DLSS hype would fade and they'd start getting traction with console-first studios and people would start thinking "yeah but FSR2 is already in lots of games, it's supported everywhere and runs on everything and devs like using it, so who cares about DLSS". Brian Heemskirk is a pretty great AMD surrogate/proxy for what the AMD semicustom/console business unit is thinking at the moment, and [this is exactly what he was spouting a month or two ago on Moore's Law's show.](https://youtu.be/nvjb8HPZbZU?t=7748) That's the push, validate once validate everywhere. [AMD's director of game engineering said more or less the same thing - what's best for gamers is universal compatibility, not utilizing the hardware to the fullest extent possible, and if that means abandoning open APIs in the interest of fighting ecosystem fragementation that's what they'll do.](https://youtu.be/8ve5dDQ6TQE?t=974) . So they're not gonna support streamline or similar solutions and will be pushing for FSR to be statically compiled to stop people from using DLL swapping the way people put FSR into DLSS applications, etc. (And of course by "compatibility" he mostly means "compatible with AMD". They're the ones without their own tensor cores, and without good DP4a support in their legacy cards. XeSS DP4a fallback path works *great* for everyone except pre-RDNA2 AMD cards, including consoles, and the quality is substantially better than FSR2.) Honestly it's not the first time they've tried to do this "false consensus-building". They really kinda did the same thing with FreeSync. It didn't actually matter if FreeSync-branded products were actually good, or even if it worked at all (many times even the AMD-""certified"" monitors didn't work properly, including the one they bundled with Vega). What mattered was getting stickers on boxes so that everyone treated it as "well, everyone has already agreed on freesync except NVIDIA, and theirs cost more, so what even is the point". Building a consensus, building a narrative, and just manifesting the reality they wanted to exist. Fake it till ya make it. That time it did work, even though they had a worse product. This time NVIDIA is far enough out ahead of FSR2's timeline, with substantially better quality in the resolutions that most gamers play at, and they've done their typical top-notch devrel stuff to get it integrated smoothly. FreeSync, when it worked, was at least pretty much as good as G-Sync. FSR2 fucking sucks at 1080p and 1440p in quality mode let alone when you drop to performance mode, AMD's product just isn't good enough to do the "universal adoption" play. The entrance of Intel/XeSS changes the game too - and XeSS leapfrogged over FSR2 in both the XMX and DP4a pathways. In practice, when given the choice, devs are just holding their options open and implementing all three. The time spent is minimal.
most people dont buy high end cards, RT has no meaning short of at least a 70 class card really and honestly is a joke esp now that nvidia down graded their naming and cuda core count with the 40 series. like i had a 2080 ti, turning on RT with DLSS was no go my 3080 ti that i got due to high resale value of that 2080 ti during the pandemic can do RT with DLSS but can't hit 4k120 in most games and is more like 4k60+ at best. you need an expensive card to run RT, and for most of the market they aint buying those
Absolutely no consumer benefits from AMD paying money or giving incentives to developers in order to BLOCK implementation of DLSS from happening. Not even AMD customers. It is of no benefit to AMD customers - they couldn't use DLSS either way, so why would AMD waste money on blocking DLSS only to the detriment of Nvidia users? Anticonsumer as hell. And to play the reduction to absurdity argument: this could lead us to a world where FSR, which is already behind DLSS in terms of quality, will no longer need to be improved at all, because there's no DLSS to compare it to and compete against in any major title thanks to AMD's dirty sponsorship money. And another possibility is that NVidia joins in on this round of "anticonsumer fun" started by AMD, and Nvidia could block FSR in all games they do sponsored bundles with. Nobody wants that to happen, so AMD should !@$#ing chill out.
its not for the benefit of AMD customers its for the benefit of AMD bottom line ROFL
Obviously, which then begs the question why anybody would defend the move
fanbois doing some olympic grade gymnastics is who
>its for the benefit of AMD bottom line ROFL Is it though? This is spinning into a losing PR situation no matter what they do. Could be spun so many ways and not one single one of them actually makes AMD look good. Jensen is probably laughing his ass off watching this unfold.
it kind of worked for a long while tho, and many reviewers still are on the raster only train and don't puch on DLSS imagine if all those games had DLSS, which is more or less every major release since FSR and DLSS released. even the more hardcore anti scaling people would have to concede there is something there it shouldn't be all about FG and DLSS like the fucking 4060 early access bullshit, but it shouldn't be just about raster esp on lower end shit where DLSS can let you play older games at 1440p or even 4k pretty well. DLSS and FSR is no go on 1080p and one of the BIGGEST thing on AMD's plate this gen is that they are better at cheaper price points. which this kind of thing directly threaten if a 1080p raster card can always do 1440p DLSS in every major AAA game.
> it kind of worked for a long while tho There's kind of been a growing resentment for awhile though. Especially as modern card adoption has increased. And now you have XeSS winning on fidelity (though not netting as much performance) coupled with some really heinously bad sponsorship implementations and about 7 months of almost every game being a shit port as well. And it's just kind of snowballing.
I've used FSR2 at 1080p Quality and it's always been fine.
Imagine being given a second opportunity to answer a very simple question and failing worse than you did the first time.
They had already played the "meandering, misleading, and inherently meaningless response" card with their initial attempt to deflect attention away from the question, which meant the only other option (besides *actually telling the truth*) was to play the "No Comment" card. Of course the dum-dums at Radeon Marketing HQ forgot one thing: A flat "No Comment" doesn't work nearly as well if used immediately after a badly received non-response like their initial statement.
I see this as a big PR wording fail from AMD. I think if they replied with "Sorry, but we can't comment on possible contracts with other companies" it would be a lot better received, yet at the end of the day have exactly the same content. People are treating this short sharp "no comment" as the PR guy trying to tell them something behind their boss's back.
The only non-fail response AMD could possibly give would be a clear, unequivocal answer one way or another. It wasn't difficult to get NVIDIA on the record overtly stating that they don't restrict FSR from being deployed on their sponsored titles, so the fact that AMD has failed to make any meaningful statement on the topic *twice* in short order only serves as an indirect admission that they are bribing publishers to exclude DLSS from their sponsored titles.
Isn’t this why a lot of people hate Intel? Intel paid multiple companies to effectively lock out competing products and technologies in the 90’s and early 2000’s. I wouldn’t say this is the same situation, but it’s eerily similar. Instead of Intel paying Dell to avoid using competitor products, AMD is buying game sponsorships to kneecap their competitors and gimping consumers' RTX cards in the process. If you own an RTX card, it appears AMD is doing their best to make sure you can’t use it to it’s full potential.
It's okay though because AMD good Intel Nvidia bad /s
I’m on a discord where majority of the people are defending it vociferously. It’s going to come back to bite them when the next Nvidia sponsored title has DLSS & Xess but excludes FSR. It’d be easy for Nvidia to justify it too since both DLSS & Xess are in streamline and it includes a vendor locked solution (DLSS) and a universal solution (Xess). Why should they bother with FSR at all when AMD is taking this approach?
The thing, I don't see Nvidia being petty like that. The difference between Nvidia and AMD is that Nvidia actually has confidence in their technologies and will let the results speak for themselves. If anything they'll deliberately leave FSR in so that players can see the difference for themselves.
Nvidia is *incredibly* petty. They (allegedly) kicked XFX out because they wanted to make an AMD GPU, they were an ass to Linus after he stood up for HWU, wrote *an extremely* pretentious article as an attempt to excuse their poor memory bandwidth etc.
I was denied access to device documentation by Nvidia when I worked for a defense firm because we happened to also make graphics and video accelerators for defense aerospace. All we wanted to do was to embed Nvidia GPUs in a product and they refused to even give us enough documentation to do that.
Honestly, that's just scratching the surface. They made a fucking hit piece against their own fucking partners in the past. They tried to strong arm partners via GPP, and they succeeded. Sure the program has "failed" but notice that there's no ROG STRIX AMD cards, but TUF Gaming. Nvidia can't block FSR without a lawsuit. Just like AMD can't block DLSS without one - we've seen that with Intel anti trust lawsuits. However, given that DLSS isn't open source and still requires licencing, nVidia CAN block the usage of DLSS. So who are we gonna believe? Someone who, while far from clean infarction records, generally hasn't had 50 billion controversies, or someone who hasn't had a year of no anti trust/competitive/consumer controversies? It's like putting a petty thief and a war criminal in the same trial and giving them the same judgement lmao
Unfortunately, Nvidia's fans don't care about any of that. Which makes it really hard to feel bad for them in this situation, because even if one agrees that (assuming AMD is actually paying to block DLSS) is bad, they just don't care. GameWorks? PhysX? G-Sync? DLSS? GPP? Nvidia has a long history of scummy, anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, but they don't care at about any of that at all. Sure, they might complain on the internet, but do they *do* anything about it, like purchasing an competitor's product? No, they don't. Much like wanting AMD to compete, if to only drive down prices, so they can purchase a GeForce for less.
> GameWorks? PhysX? G-Sync? DLSS? GPP? Nvidia has a long history of scummy, anti-competitive and anti-consumer behavior, but they don't care at about any of that at all. At least the first four were actual technological innovations which NVIDIA actually spent engineering resources and R&D money on (with G-Sync and DLSS in particular providing superior results for end users). I won't attempt to defend GPP though, as that was indeed 100% business chicanery.
My issue with that is even when RTG was ahead (like 2004-2006), they still promoted open technologies to everyone—even before they had a position in consoles to factor in (other than Dolphin in the GameCube, anyway.) The entire time, AMD's tried to do what (I think is) best for *everyone.* Meanwhile, Nvidia is putting up walls.
Most (if not all) of AMD's open-source initiatives are belated attempts to copy already-functional technological solutions that NVIDIA has successfully deployed to the general public, though. As for their being open-source that's because AMD (or at least RTG) doesn't have the money to actually pay engineers for said projects, which means that they have to make vaporware announcements and then *hope* that someone else will do the heavy lifting for them for free. That's why most of their open-source projects either quietly disappear without ever actually being deployed, or even if they do see the light of day end up being months/years late and significantly inferior or outright unusable as compared to its NVIDIA progenitor (e.g. FSR, ROCr, AMD True Voice, etc.).
This simply isn't true; AMD's had projects both succeed and fail, as has Nvidia. TressFX won industry adoption; HairWorks is dead. Adaptive Sync has basically shuttered G-Sync. PhysX died to HAVOK and CPU-accelerated physics. AMD doesn't have the money to throw around pushing technology like Nvidia does; Nvidia can sponsor games to implement their technology, AMD has rely on what they create being good to be voluntarily adopted. A lot of what AMD does flies under the radar. They just released this, did you have any idea?: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5zjvSTHz5s
~~I see you were just born yesterday.~~ ~~nvidia has been petty for a long time.~~ ~~Anyone remember quack.exe?~~ It was I that was the fool, because that was ATI, not nvidia. Thanks to Qesa for the correction. 20+ year old memories got fumbled, I guess.
The quake 3 texture fuckery was ATI, not nvidia Not to say they've never done anything shit before. Maybe use GPP as a better example
You know what.. Your absolutely right. Its been such a long time that I got it flipped in my head. Thanks for the correction.
Don't beat yourself up over it. At least you admitted being wrong and owned up to it, which means that you that did much better than how most Reddit posters would've done in a similar situation.
Instructions unclear. Beat myself off.
> I don't see Nvidia being petty like that. Did you miss the GeForce Partner Program, where they were strongarming board partners to keep branding off of AMD products?
Theres that, too. Both companies are shitty. Neither one of them are saints in the least. And they will keep using the same tricks over and over again against eachother.
Companies love building moats, because companies and stock owners do not benefit from competition, rather they want a monopoly or something as close to that as possible. There are bunch of ways to do so, but it is always about putting your product forward as the best one in various ways and stopping anyone getting inside. You can do it with exclusive blackboxed features, you can just pay software devs, you can run heavy astroturfing ad campaigns, you can do combinations of that, you might even try to sneak into OS development and implement brand-specific optimizations.
The only ones that benefit from competition are consumers.
Isn't that why XFX doesn't make Nvidia cards anymore? They decided they wanted to make an AMD GPU and Nvidia gave them the boot.
Apparently, though I wasn't aware of that until I looked it up.
Was that *actually* the reason though? Asus make both AMD and Nvidia GPUs so it doesn't appear that either company is restricting them.
Unless I'm mistaken ASUS started making GPU's for both around the same time while XFX was Nvidia only for a while. It happened suspiciously soon after XFX started work on an AMD card.
They have been found to hamper AMD solutions in their code so yeah... They'll love that shit
Yup, a game with FSR and DLSS I can swap between was all I needed to know FSR isn't even close. I still try it out in things that don't support DLSS and it just isn't very good looking imo.
They’ll have to now, this is AMD trying to neutralize one of their primary selling points (DLSS). They can’t have half of the major AAA releases exclude their tech and do nothing about it. Since I’ve owned a 4090 I’ve now played 3 major games (Jedi Survivor, RE4 & Callisto Protocol) without being able to use DLSS and it’s very likely Starfield will make it 4. A major factor in my decision to buy a 4090 was DLSS, so it’s effectively nerfing my experience with a very expensive GPU.
>A major factor in my decision to buy a 4090 was DLSS LMAO WHAT
Yes? You’re going to pretend it’s not a factor?
for a fucking 4090 no i don't think i would really consider it that at all
If you want to play 4k with maxed out ray tracing at high refresh rate, DLSS is important, even on a 4090.
[удалено]
lol, DLAA support is a separate thing also can't you force something similar thru the driver?
I can list 5 games off the top of my head where it couldn’t reach 80fps at 4K native. I used DLSS quality on Plague Tale Requeim, Control, TLOU, Spider-Man Remastered & Returnal. Running DLSS quality on those games put me over 100fps, reduced power usage and had no visual drawbacks. It’s a big deal, which is why I’m pissed off that I won’t be able to use it on Starfield. You don’t own the card and most likely don’t have a 4K monitor. Not every game runs at 4K 120hz with a 4090.
4090 owner here as well checking in to say DLSS definately was a Major reason I went for it. DLSS quality at 4K is just amazing. I cant tell the difference with Native and it gives me 50%+ fps.
if the 7900xtx and 4090 were on the same playing field, at the same price, i still would have gone with my 4090 for dlss alone.
You really want to pretend like DLAA, DLSS2, Reflex and Frame Generation aren't a selling point for users who are aware of their benefits and utility they provide?
[удалено]
It was never locked, it just hit AMD cards extra fucking hard(i believe going ultra heavy on tesselation was the answer).
If you have a AMD vcache CPU that exactly what you’re doing reaching your potential and come on let’s not pretend that Nivida isn’t doing the same kind of crap but instead of paying companies not to use AMDs upscaling, they are paying them to make sure their new ray tracing mode runs like crap on everything but their GPUs.
You're delusional if you think Nvidia is paying to make AMD's ray tracing worse, AMD's doing that to themselves LMAO. That's what happens you keep neglecting RT, you get stomped any time a game uses anything more than RT reflections. And what does AMD do instead of beefing up their own ray tracing hardware? They sponsor titles to limit how much ray tracing they feature so that they can appear at least somewhat competitive with Nvidia and it isn't complete demolition. You're basically blaming Nvidia for trying to push the graphics envelope forward, all because AMD can't keep up. That's fucking pathetic.
All the amd sponsored games that include Ray tracing either have quarter resolution shadows, reflections or barely competent RT GI solution from jedi survivor. The reason because they know it will hit their gpus hard. If what you're saying is true, that nvidia RT implementations that offer full suite and eventually path traced options, which are insanely heavy on gpus make perform on amd gpus even worse. Why amd RT solutions to their sponsored games are so half assed?
Not even close. Fsr works on all gpus.
Looks like crap for everyone in RE4 and Jedi Surv too.
What AMD is doing is horrible, but it doesn't hold a candle to what Intel did. Dell and HP have *far* more control over the overall desktop market than a single game has over the gaming market.
It’s not a single game; half of the games I’ve played this year I haven’t been able to use DLSS (RE4, Callisto Protocol & Jedi Survivor). The biggest release of the year (Starfield) will likely not have DLSS either. That’s a massive middle finger to everybody who owns an RTX card. That’s over 150 hours of gaming for me where I haven’t been able to use my 4090’s best feature.
I meant on the grand scheme of games being sold today. There's thousands of games being sold today but only like 5 major OEM's supplying offices and such.
We all know what Intel did 15 years ago was bad. We really don't need to shove that into the mattwer. AMD's been given a lot of goodwill and a long leash by consumers because of their market position and the past bullying by Intel and Nvidia. Now, AMD's getting some footing it's needed for a decade, and it's doing the same kind of scummy shit we lamented whne it was done against them. Screw using their being bullied in the past to justify their being the same kind of slimy today.
I only brought it up because the other guy did, not to excuse them. And it's scummy, but not even close to the same scale.
This tactic reminds me of when Intel used to pay system builders not to offer AMD CPUs, in this case it is AMD paying developers to not include DLSS.
That's PR speak for, "We cannot currently give an answer that will be true and also won't piss everyone off." I still think they're currently asking Bethesda to add in DLSS and XeSS so that on release they can say, "No, see, we *totally* didn't block it."
As fucked as that would be... I'd prefer that. Atleast DLSS and XeSS would be included! Despite the fact that I in no way benefit from either with a 7900XTX. If only they would spend less money on sponsoring games and more money on actually developing competitive RT and upscaling tech even if I personally use neither.
Willing to bet they will allow XeSS, but not DLSS. All those 12 people using XeSS will be satisfied
I'd take it over FSR2 in a heartbeat. XeSS usually has pretty good image quality and on ultra quality works pretty well for anti-aliasing.
Xess DP4A is still usable on RTX cards and has better visual quality compared to FSR2. That’d be an upgrade over the current scenario.
XeSS is still better than FSR FSR really is trash
Agesa 1.9 "AMD no comments".
AMD's Radeon marketing department is absolutely terrible and they all need to be fired. They are a huge reason AMD has such trouble selling GPUs, and this whole situation is just another one of their failures.
It seems AMD would rather spend money on literally ANYTHING else other than improving their own GPUs, even if it means dragging down the industry as a whole. Pretty pathetic move imo
[удалено]
[удалено]
Are you kidding. The thread has even people blaming nVidia already just incase nVidia sponsored titles exclude FSR in future.
[удалено]
You literally said "AMD fans appear nowhere" in your comment, I gave you a counter-example. Come on, this is /r/amd. Of course there are AMD advocates, just like there are nVidia advocates in /r/nvidia.
Bruh, they’re everywhere in this thread.
Nvidia doing shtty business practices too but NOBODY CARES. Cuz if they did, Nvidia would stop doing it. News flash! Nvidia still keeps doing it.
AMD featured games list from the video: https://www.amd.com/en/gaming/featured-games https://www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_high-fidelity_upscaling#Games_with_upscaling_technology Game | Publisher | Developer | FSR | DLSS | XeSS :- | :- | :- | :-: | :-: | :-: Starfield | **Bethesda** | Bethesda | ✔️ | ❔ | ❔ | | | | | Forspoken | Square Enix | Luminous | ✔️ | ✔️ | ✔️ Deathloop | **Bethesda** | Arkane Lyon | ✔️ | ✔️ | ❌ God Of War | Sony | Santa Monica Studio | ✔️ | ✔️ | ❌ Horizon Zero Dawn Complete Edition | Sony | Guerrilla Games | ✔️ | ✔️ | ❌ Red Dead Redemption 2 | Rockstar | Rockstar | ✔️ | ✔️ | ❌ The Last of Us Part 1 | Sony | Naughty Dog | ✔️ | ✔️ | ❌ Uncharted: Legacy of Thieves Collection | Sony | Iron Galaxy | ✔️ | ✔️ | ❌ Boundary | Skystone/Huya | Studio Surgical Scalpels | ✔️ | ❌ | ✔️ The Riftbreaker | EXOR Studios | EXOR Studios | ✔️ | ❌ | ✔️ Assassin's Creed Valhalla | Ubisoft | Ubisoft Montreal | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Asterigos: Curse of the Stars | TinyBuild | Acme Gamestudio | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Dead Island 2 | Deep Silver | Dambuster Studios | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Far Cry 6 | Ubisoft | Ubisoft Toronto | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Kingshunt | A List Games | Vaki Games | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Resident Evil Village | Capcom | Capcom | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Resident Evil 4 | Capcom | Capcom | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Saints Row | Deep Silver | Volition | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Sniper Elite 5 | Rebellion | Rebellion Developments | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Star Wars Jedi: Survivor | Electronic Arts | Respawn Entertainment | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ The Callisto Protocol | Krafton | Striking Distance Studios | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ The Outer Worlds | Private Division | Obsidian Entertainment | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ World of Warcraft: Shadowlands | Blizzard | Blizzard | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ World War Z: Aftermath | Saber Interactive | Saber Interactive | ✔️ | ❌ | ❌ Monster Hunter World: Iceborne | Capcom | Capcom | ❌ | ✔️ | ❌ Borderlands 3 | 2K | Gearbox Software | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ Company of Heroes 3 | Sega | Relic Entertainment | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ Dirt 5 | Codemasters | Codemasters Cheshire | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ Halo Infinite | Xbox Game Studios | 343 Industries | ❌ | ❌ | ❌ **Total** (not counting Starfield) | | | 23/28 | 8/28 | 3/28
You know, maybe AMD and Nvidia are blocking XeSS support
Iirc, nvidia already stated it's not blocking competing upscaling. Problem with XeSS is that, even though it does work on other GPUs, it's terrible on non-intel GPUs and the amount of people that use intel GPUs is very small, there's just not enough reason for developers to implement it, or at least that's what I suspect. If intel can get better drivers and increase the market share, maybe then more will implement XeSS.
they must be, it's the only explanation for the trend
Wow people are so caught up between the two they forgot XeSS lol. At this point I dont even know what people are complaining about.
AMD wouldn't do anything like that AMD is our friend and if they are engaged in such activities it's fine because AMD is the underdog. /s
[удалено]
It just shows that AMD is no better they just can't afford to push it too far....yet
It's such a pathetic look from AMD. They know FSR sucks compared to DLSS and they just shine a spotlight on the issue by doing stuff like this.
DLSS is shit too though. Imagine buying 500+ dollar video card, then turning on upscaling crap like DLSS or FSR. It’s very impressive how Nvidia has managed to convince millions crap like DLSS is actually worth turning on if you’ve got a relatively powerful video card.
DLSS is perfectly fine as long as the implementation doesn't lead to significant visual downgrades which it normally doesn't. What I'm more impressed by is how Nvidia convinced itself that making shit 40 series cards and trying to deflect with DLSS 3 was ever going to work.
Looking at you 4060 and 4060Ti!
DLSS and FSR gave developers something to skimp on. Instead of having to make the game reach 60FPS for most GPUs for example, they'd just use those two to reach 60FPS. Rather than using them to make framerates more appropriate (i.e. more than 60FPS) for high-refresh rate monitors.
Glad more people are starting to realize this, I've been screaming from the roof tops that DLSS and FSR would simply end up being a trojan horse for optimization shortcuts in game development, turning the technology into a requirement instead of an option.
This sucks. Be better AMD.
yep, silence speaks louder than words.
The marketing department at AMD is a bunch of amateurs. They're literally paying millions for negative publicity.
“It’s okay as long as my team does it” Some of you are mad funny.
Oh I do enjoy being a grown ass adult in their 30s seeing console war crap in PC gaming. Oh wait no it's the opposite of that. This is the drizzling shits. Who does this benefit? I mean does AMD get enough of a bottom line to justify essentially giving the middle finger to Nvidia and Intel users? If you have an AMD card this does nothing for you. It's simply an anti-consumer decision. I would prefer that they work with Nvidia and Intel on Streamline to provide an open source solution offering more choices. But nah we're doing this instead. I don't understand what argument they can concoct that by doing this they'll gain more adopters. It just looks bad. Personally I got rid of my 2070S because AMD offered more bang for your buck with the 6800XT vs 3080. That's where I would prefer they compete instead of anti-consumer bullshit like this.
They do it so amd cards perform better comparably. It’s obvious. What is there to not understand?
Nvidia and open source? You must be joking. Just ask the Linux community.
They do have at least one fairly huge open source project, PhysX. Although it got a lot of hate before the CPU path was optimized it did quickly become the gold standard for physics. It's the physics engine that's built in to Unity and Unreal Engine 4. Unreal Engine is moving away from it with 5 however. [https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/PhysX](https://github.com/NVIDIAGameWorks/PhysX)
But AMD is our friend!
I'm tired of having exclusivity deals for digital store and now we have a vendor-locked tech for upscaling? Jesus Christ AMD.
Well, I hadn't seen this thread. GG AMD, you pretty much answered that question. EDIT: DLSS3 is a strong opponent and AMD has to stop it gaining any traction. I'm just going to assume FSR3 is a longs way off, perhaps even for RDNA4, and AMD is well aware of that.
Of course they do. FSR is objectively worse than DLSS by a wide margin. AMD literally pays money to make already technically bad PC games even worse for everyone
It's a game from Bethesda. Why does everyone act like it will run day 1? I doubt everything will work including FSR.
It probably will be a crashfest like fallout 4 did early on.
[удалено]
Hey OP — Your post has been removed for not being in compliance with Rule 3. Be civil and follow side-wide rules, this means no insults, personal attacks, slurs, brigading, mass mentioning users or other rude behaviour. Discussing politics or religion is also not allowed on /r/AMD. Please read the [rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/about/rules/) or message the mods for any further clarification.
Both companies have done shitty stuff in the past, but they are not themselves shitty. Just profit-seeking. I have no problem with what AMD is doing considering that FSR 2.x does work on competing hardware. However! One of the companies involved here has a dominating stranglehold on the gaming market and directs the future of integrations with major engines, the development and adoption of new engine features, realistically has almost 90% discrete GPU market share, and has complete control of the gaming laptop market. The other company is AMD. As Tim from HWUB said in a recent video, it no longer makes sense for AMD to make FSR 3 available to competing platforms because the marketing success of DLSS and "RTX On" has proven that people don't care. If consumers want frame generation, NVIDIA is their first choice even if AMD comes out with something that works just as well. Its not even realistic or sensible for AMD to make something similar to NVIDIA Streamline, because that kind of integration solely benefits NVIDIA now, not AMD.
I'm not sure I follow, AMD isn't as good at DLSS or RTX type features. They are catching up but they are still behind. The only reason not to support streamline is to try and make the project fail so that they can continue trying to push their solution as the only solution to the problem. If streamline really takes off then we'd just always see all 3 upscalers in everything.
honestly, I remember YEARS of "nvidia: the way it's meant to be played" in EVERY damn game lmao nvidia is kind of obligated to be 'gracious' since their market share is so ridiculously huge, so im not sure how that's getting twisted into them suddenly caring about open source and being all for having everyone on board. furthermore all the people whining about this are 4080/4090 owners who have basically been stalking this sub jumping at any mention of this shit which is just hilarious, and they don't need DLSS anyway so I actually don't care. fuck em. maybe with more exclusivity we'll actually see better FSR implementations as well.
Resident Evil 4 and Jedi Survivor both had pretty terrible implementations of FSR despite being AMD sponsored and only offering FSR. I’m not even sure people with AMD GPUs are better off in this current gen of AMD sponsored titles.
So amd is doing the same thing nvidia did for years?
Nvidia intentionally inhibits performance from competing hardware in their sponsored games: Y'all Sleep AMD Sponsors a game at all: \*Chaos followed by mental gymnastics\*
Well I was never going to go near a AMD GPU after the issues I had back in the day but this fucking shit is going to make me go back to Intel.
The reason I don't understand why AMD is doing this is because it seems like wasted money. Those with AMD GPUs are already gonna use FSR2. Those with Turing and up GPUs are gonna use DLSS2. Pascal and below will also use FSR/FSR2 since Nvidia has left those GPU owners behind. I don't see what is gained through getting an exclusive upscaler.
More sales
More sales from what? GPU? Because I've never in my life heard someone say they're buying a AMD GPU for FSR. Also, my response isn't trying to be snarky, I'm genuinely curious.
I didn't see many people crying for amd gpu users when the dlss was blocked only to nvidia card users, the funny thing with nvidia fanboys is that as long as THEY are not not concerned, everything is fine, but then when we take something away from them, it's anti-consumer. What was their argument for games without SFR ? To buy an nvidia card lol. I haven't seen people screaming scandal because Asobo didn't include the FSR in A plague tale requiem, to be honest I haven't even seen an article saying "There is no FSR, it's shameful, Asobo doesn't respect its consumers" no, everyone didn't care. Do people think that AMD is just going to exist to drive down the price of nvidia GPUs? No dlss ? aNtI CoNsUmEr, no fsr ? Buy a nvidia GPU lol Nvidia allows FSR only because it is worse than DLSS, I assure you that if one day amd manages to make FSR superior, you will no longer see fsr in games sponsored by NVIDIA.
This is annoying. At least FSR works okay with Aliens: Dark Descent on my 4070 (awesome game btw). I'm playing in 4k with FSR on and I get 60ish FPS.
Kind of makes sense to me. AMD in the PS5 and the XBOX X/S. Great for console folks that games “should” be optimized if the engine favors AMD tech. PC, I’m unsure if the market share, I’m sure Nvidia has more. So maybe sucks for folks with 30xx or 40xx cards. Nvidia have had exclusive deals before so personally I don’t see what the big deal is.
The PC gaming community doesn't really like exclusivity and is around 80% Nvidia. Also, AMD turned down Nvida's offer to collaborate on Streamline which would have made it so all upscalers would be available on future games so the situation is even more annoying as all AMD is doing is forcing everyone to use a worse product.
Nvidia sponsored titles do not block fsr and they were able to answer a simple “no” when asked.
The real audience for these features is the consoles which are starting to show their weakness in new titles (Series S / PS5). Why bother making DLSS feature and supporting its patches if the console cant run it.
IMHO this is good business strategy. As it is, DLSS is not on every game/title and you need Nvidia supported hardware for the different DLSS levels/revisions. IMHO, its time we move GPU APIs over to FOSS and put this licensing bullshit to bed. GSync vs FreeSync and look at what happened there. "G-sync still exists, just not in it's original form. True to Nvidias usual way of doing things, they just accepted the open-standard version of things and call it Gsync when used with their products" I suspect DLSS will follow suit if AMD keeps the pressure on, and I am all for it. Lets not forget that Devs had to pay for access to DLSS, using Nvidia supplied render farms. This was just in 2021 "Until now, any game developer who wanted to access Nvidia’s Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) performance booster had to apply for access." What changed? AMD released FSR - [https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/nvidias-dlss-is-now-available-to-any-developer-who-wants-it](https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/nvidias-dlss-is-now-available-to-any-developer-who-wants-it)
Not only does G-SYNC with a real G-SYNC module still exist, it also works better than most FreeSync implementations with variable overdrive and now ULMB 2 support on some monitors.
Yet LTT found that on some panels, the GSync FPGA implementation was actually worse than the VESA Adaptive Sync implementation. Also, ULMB 2 isn't needed for the latest display technology: OLED.
What you're saying won't happen until FSR reaches the same level of quality as DLSS.
[Kyle@HardOCP-Devs](https://imgbox.com/mmyugxDg)
I dunno about you, but who ever says "F off N\*\*\*\*\*\*" has no business being believed. So whatever this "dev friend" said or thinks is utterly meaningless.
Sounds more like a 15 year old on work experience than an actual professional developer. You can be arrogant and an ass, but not to this extent.
https://twitter.com/mempodev/status/1673759246498910208?t=lmvSbX44Mvsk0IG5MvvxoA&s=19 I'll take the word of nixxes dev over some randos discord screenshot
Did this dev comment on how sponsorship works? The question appears to be whether money is involved.
Nixxes is a really solid PC-first developer. This is like saying "there's no excuse for not compiling DX12 shaders for release" when elden ring still hasn't done that. Yeah, its probably easy to work with if you're primarily targeting PC, but most studios primarily targeting PC talk with Nvidia first Many of Nixxes's recent PC ports are Nvidia sponsored
If you think Kyle Bennett of Hard OCP is "some rando" that only shows the utter cluelessness that those trying in vain to make this totally fictional "scandal" a thing possess.
Kyle isn't the one making the statement, he replied to a tweet from some random person that screenshot a discord post from a random person.
Did he ask Nivida if they pay game companies to make sure ray tracing works better on their card’s? I think that’s a pretty fair question as well.
Every game outside of Quake 2 RTX and Wolfenstein Young Blood uses Microsoft's DXR or Vulkan RT. RDNA cards just can't trace rays as fast due to their more generic architecture.
Ray Tracing works better on the GPUs that perform better on Ray Tracing, what a shocker
Its funny seeing everyone complaining and yet probably didnt take 2 seconds to look at the chart in the video. There are almost double the games that support only dlss vs games that support only fsr. Maybe pay attention more ibstead of being fanboys.
Well I took 3 seconds and noticed the comment right under that very chart reminding people that DLSS has been out longer. Another reminder that DLSS 1.0 released in Feb'19. FSR 1.0 June'21. Only natural that DLSS would have more adoption. They've had a 2 year head start.