| Chazore said: This has "don't bother with public release, just let it stew in the office" written all over it. All those caveats and downsides just continue to make FSR not all that worth it. Frame timing has become less important to me, to top priority with my games. |
Supposedly DF spoke to AMD and have fixed the frame pacing issue but its not yet implemented. At least in the two inital games that support FSR 3. Which begs the question why launch in such a bad state.
| Jizz_Beard_thePirate said: There is no better sales team for Nvidia products than Radeon themselves. Nvidia makes something proprietary claiming it requires specialized hardware to make it work. AMD announces they are making an open version that works on every GPU thus proving Nvidia is a big bad evil corp. AMDs solution releases and is objectively much worse than Nvidias solution. Customers see the reviews and justifies spending the premium on Nvidia products as AMD just proved Nvidias claims to be correct. Honestly AMDs tactics need to change. Their idea this entire generation seems to be "FreeSync and VRR killed Gsync so if we make an open standard for every Nvidias technology, then it should kill off the adoption and need for their tech." But the issue is Freesync and VRR isn't significantly worse than Gsync. Gsync module has it's advantages such as being able to go down to 1hz and allow for ULMB but Freesync/VRR can do the variable refresh rate just as good as Gsync if you stay with-in it's window and allows for HDMI 2.1 support which the G-sync module still doesn't. FSR 1/2/3 on the other hand effectively makes you games look and play much worse than DLSS. FSR is effectively has little to no difference than upscaling solutions that already exist and the thing is that PC gamers do not want that. Why? Because PC gamers shat on console gamers for generations for using upscaling tech similar to FSR. DLSS is different because it really is the next generation of upscaling tech that consoles and Radeon products simply do not have access to. And it's like, well if I am going to pay more than a console on a GPU, why wouldn't I get a GPU that has upscaling tech that is better than the rest? Cause god knows game devs aren't optimizing shat this generation. Hopefully Herkelmens successor finds a way for Radeon to start innovating because playing second class is not working for them in the PC space. The marketing does not work because Nvidia is the default choice and it's known that people do more research before buying the "second choice" and if reviewers keep saying, Nvidia has the better tech, people are generally willing to pay the premium for it. |
Thats true. Its another self goal from the RTG group. I do understand they have to get something out there, but releasing it in a bad state isn't going to do it any favors. Nvidia already has set the flag to what we should expect from frame gen and upscaling, and to come up majorly short isn't a good look.
I was really looking forward to FSR 3 as I do prefer the open source approach and less closed off software. But at the end of the day if it isn't any good or falling way behind the competition why should we (the gamers/consumers/whatever) care for AMD GPU and products. Even more-so when its not really all that useful or actually detrimental when turned on. Same thing could be said about FreeSync like you said, its just way inferior experience unless you reach the frequency threshold but then its way, way more useful at lower framerates but if the user can't get there it falls back in LFC, and thats if your display has that.
And yeah they really need to sort out FSR 2 before getting on FG. It just inferior in nearly every aspect to DLSS 2. Never mind 3, and moreso at lower resolutions. Don't get me wrong I do want AMD to do well but we aren't charities and most of us enthusiasts are more tuned in. But even the average PC gamer can see the difference in tech and will just keep defaulting to Nvidia. Until, they offer something as good or better it'll just be status-quo in the GPU market. Idd, they need someone who's willing to push the boundries and with way larger budget and R&D pushed towards the RTG.
| numberwang said: 19:20 These latency numbers are terrible overall (between 104-163ms). I believe "Vsync on" is partly to blame here.
|
Yeah 154ms even counting for peripherials from native is terrible. And then you need V-Sync and FSR to work as intended still gets you pretty bad results. Wouldn't want to go over 80ms even for singleplayer games. Meaning you'd want at least 80 fps before kicking it on to make it actually usable. And even then the added lag from V-Sync wouldn't feel good verses just using Anti-lag and no FG.
Last edited by hinch - on 06 October 2023
