| Captain_Yuri said: 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 would argue technologies like FSR and DLSS is actually *more* important for older and less capable graphics cards.
It's a performance/image enhancement and older hardware would absolutely benefit from it more in regards to being able to continue playing the latest titles with acceptable image quality and performance.
| Captain_Yuri said: 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? |
Every company innovates, whether those innovations are important is another matter entirely... Many innovations are not middle-ware either that are advertised to consumers... AMD has pushed integrated graphics capabilities forwards rather significantly for instance.
AMD beat nVidia with Tessellation by almost a decade, TressFX got rolled into GPUOpen and is still being developed... Mostly because it's open source and not beholden to AMD developing it.
Where GameWorks with HairWorks has fallen by the wayside.
Things like Mantle getting rolled into Vulkan was another innovation brought to the PC market, which then influenced Microsoft's Direct X 12 to be more efficient by bringing low-level improvements.
I think it's a big disservice to the entire industry when people assert that any company doesn't innovate... Even the long dead S3 Graphics brought innovative technologies that nVidia and AMD use today, like texture compression.
I don't find AMD or nVidia better than either, they both have their Pro's and Con's... And I will weigh them both everytime I make a purchase.
I.E. I generally go Radeon on Desktop because of price/performance reasons... But I often go nVidia with notebooks because of how seamless Optimus generally is.
--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--
