By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Soundwave said:
DonFerrari said:

I'm still waiting you to explain if DLSS 2.0 is such a godsent how will they still convince people to buy 1000 USD cards when their 200 USD variation with DLSS 2.0 basically erases almost all differences from your own speculation.

Well DLSS 2.0 is only supported by RTX range cards, so you can't use this on a $200 card. Nvidia will probably then move up to DLSS 3.0 and simply state you must now have an Ampere based card (3060 or better) and so on and so on. So they can cover themselves that way. 

But for enclosed software hardware ecosystem like the Switch is, Nintendo can simply just build it into every development kit so that it's used basically for every game. On a system like Switch there's no benefit to not using it most of the time. 

Guess you missed the point. If DLSS would cover very big gaps in power then small ones won't even exist so even the lowest grade card with DLSS would basically remove all the reason for any card above it.

And you also ignore that there are already other reconstruction techniques that have been used, the on in PS4 was already making things not be noticed when making under 1400p to 4k.

And the UE5 engine DF couldn't really see the difference from 1440p to 4k.

Also you are ignoring that pixel count is just a very small part of the IQ on a game and also of the graphic budget.

duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."