Carzy Zarx’s PC Gaming Emporium - Catch Up on All the Latest PC Gaming Related News

[Jizz_Beard_thePirate]

Chazore said:

Captain_Yuri said:

Well I wouldn't count the chickens before they hatch just yet as AMD hasn't said whether or not FSR 3 will be coming to their previous gen gpus. They said they are trying to make it happen but hasn't actually said if it will or what issues it will have if it does. Plus considering DLSS 2 is better to significantly better than FSR 2 in every area and AMD doesn't have an alternative to Reflex to take the latency down without reducing image quality, even if FSR 3 is available on older GPUs, it could be something you may not want to use similar to how using FSR 2 at 1440p is horrid compared to using DLSS 2.

But yea, DLSS 3 not coming to Ampere/Turing is pretty lame but I think the reasoning behind it makes sense because while DLSS 3 does give you a framerate "boost," it comes at a big latency hit even on a 4090. So if Ampere/Turing isn't able to calculate the added frames fast enough or they don't look as good as they should, then it's basically pointless.

Come now, Yuri, you're giving Nvidia a bit of a benefit of the doubt in the same breath as "wait till AMD does an Nvidia", there.

Besides, Nvidia already has the jacked up prices, they've already shown their hand, DLSS 3 is also locked behind the 4000 series, and we know that FSR is open and still not holding a candle to DLSS, but at least it's open and I can use it, while I cannot use DLSS 3.0, because Nvidia wants me to sell my kidneys. 

I know you're likely to say you aren't at all influenced, but we're humans my man, we are absolutely influenced in some way by a bit of bias, be it by the products we own or services we partake in. I own my 1080ti to this day, but because I don't own a 4000 series, I will wholly admit, yes, I am salty, but at the same time, you own a 4090, and you're kinda pulling my leg a bit with the "well AMD on the other hand".

C'mon broskie, you gotta admit you're getting a tad flustered by that GPU of yours, just a smidge. Yes both sides have done good and bad, but right here, right now, Nivida is doing bad, only good thing is the tech, the band aid we absolutely need, because no one has figured how to not need a band aid to use RT yet (which I still don't like at all to count as a bonus, because we shouldn't have to rely on DLSS to do RT to begin with, it's like a stop gap in the tech cycle).

We better hope that Nvidia doesn't screw the 4000 series with DLSS 4.0 in the future, because that again would be bad, no matter the magical excuses made for something that isn't even a decade old.

Well I am not saying it's a good thing that Nvidia has locked DLSS 3 behind RTX 4000 series but I do think the technical reason does make sense because many tech experts have done benchmarks and testing and found out that even on a 4090, DLSS 3 has a big latency penalty. So it's not like I am believing only in Nvidias words, it is backed by those that tested the actual technology.

And sure, FSR is available to older GPUs but whether or not you would want to actually use it is another question entirely. Just because a technology is available to you doesn't mean it's worth using. Because of the issues with image stability when using FSR at anything lower than 4k, many would argue it's simply better to reduce settings than use the product. Remember how people used to laugh at consoles for using upscaling? The reason they used to do that is because of how bad the upscaling tech was. Only when Nvidia came out with DLSS 2 did upscaling become acceptable. FSR while better than something like checkerboard rendering is still not very good proven by DF, HUB, etc unless you are doing 4k. So while FSR might be open and available, it doesn't make it worth using. And while DLSS 3 is locked to RTX 4000, DLSS 2 and Reflex which are a part of DLSS 3 aren't. So any game that gets DLSS 3 also gets DLSS 2 and Reflex for RTX Ampere/Turing. Nvidia could have made DLSS 3 a separate thing altogether by doing the ultimate dickish move but they didn't.

I do favor Nvidia over Radeon because they bring innovation to the market. They are a terrible and greedy company no doubt but unlike Radeon who is also terrible and greedy, Nvidia is actually pushing pc gaming forward with new and innovative tech. It's also why I like Intel because they are trying to do what Nvidia is doing but at a much cheaper price. And it's not like Nvidia is only good at Ray Tracing. Nvidia is also competitive if not faster depending on the GPU with Raster as well. But it does depend on a persons priorities. Do you want a console experience but faster or do you want more innovative experience? Are you on a budget or are you willing to pay a premium for that experience?

I am sure Nvidia will eventually lock out RTX 4000 series from something in the future as well. It's Nvidia lol. But the fact is that there is no real alternative if you want a PC experience. Radeon is too far behind in tech that makes PC gaming worth investing a lot of money into. Intel could eventually be the cheap alternative that we are looking for but their driver department is still years away from being recommendable. But if you are on a budget, then Radeon is the easy option. Can't beat the value that a $500 6800XT really.