The thing is that if their only choice is to develop an open standard, it needs to be competitive against Nvidia instead of being much worse. Intel has made a pretty worthy competitor to DLSS with their XeSS in their first attempt. It may not be as good as DLSS but it is still better than FSR and it works with Radeon GPUs. I highly doubt Intels GPU team is anywhere as big as Nvidia or Radeon so to me it doesn't make any sense as to why Radeon doesn't have their own Ai based upscaling solution.

I think it's simply a matter of priorities. Radeon would rather have a check mark than spend the time to fully develop a product. Instead of being like, here is frame generation, if they instead came out with ML based upscaling for all their GPUs, it would have been much better imo. Because if AMD comes out with an actual Ai upscaler that is competitive against DLSS that is open source and works with all GPUs and consoles, at that point they can really make the argument... Okay, the need for DLSS might actually not be there. But these days it's like, we have FSR that's worse than DLSS in a lot of different areas so people just buy Nvidia because reviewers tell them DLSS is better and game devs are increasing releasing badly optimized games that rely on upscaling.

So if they want to play the "Nvidia features but open standard" game, they need to fully bake their products even if they release it later. Otherwise they need to innovate. They need to do something that's not the current trajectory because it's not working.

NVidia already had the hardware for ML in their products, AMD didn't. They couldn't include ML without having something to gather the data for ML first, so they had to go another route or wait until about right now before they could release any product. Now imagine the sales of AMD if they didn't have *anything* to counter DLSS for 4 years straight and then only add the current additions several years later down the road. AMD could just as well quit the GPU business entirely if they don't have anything.

Case in point, frame generation. How many times have testers, critics and other people (including you) criticized AMD for not having their own frame generation tech. Now imaging if they would come and say today "we'll have it ready for release by 2026". That's suicide for the company.

Long story short, what you're proposing is simply not realistic or feasible. AMD needed something to counter, to show they care. It's not nearly as good, but at least it's something and not nothing.

I am not saying don't have an upscaling solution until now. If they needed to have FSR1/2 as a stepping stone, fair enough. But it's almost 2024 and they still do not have ML based upscaling even though Intel managed it on their first try. That is utterly insane that a first time dGPU vendor managed an Ai upscaling solution while Radeon still doesn't have one. And yea the Radeon technically does not have something like dedicated tensor cores until RDNA 3 but Intel showed with XeSS that you don't need dedicated Ai cores to make ML upscaling solution work. XeSS works on RDNA 2/1 because it uses dp4a. It's not like XeSS works any better on Nvidia than it does on Radeon. XeSS just works better on Intel only.

And yea many people wanted AMD to have FG and now that it's out, look at what they are saying. "It's not ready, it's not as good as Nvidia's solution, needs more time to get the kinks worked out, AMD released it too early" etc. Just by having a checkmark doesn't mean it's a good thing because now it's basically free advertising for Nvidia. As more and more comparisons and reviews come out, people are looking at how superior DLSS is and all those FSR reviews are giving people reasons to avoid AMD.

Where as if AMD worked on ML solution instead like XeSS and it turned out to be similar to DLSS that worked on every modern GPU like XeSS does. Critics and such will be singing it's praises and declaring DLSS to be dead.

At the end of the day, I am not saying there is an easy solution for Radeon but they need to change their strategy. Because if Intel comes out with Frame Generation with Battlemage early next year and the reviews show DLSS 3 as #1, XeSS + FG as #2, FSR 3 as #3. It will not be a good outlook for the red team.

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.

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.

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.

Yea pretty much. The thing is that many of the core failings of FSR 3 can be attributed to FSR 2 being terrible. If FSR 2 was similar to say XeSS, then it would make FSR 3 all the more better. That phrase of "A high tide raises all ships" sort of a scenario. But in the case of FSR 3, not only does FSR 3 has it's own sets of issues but FSR 2 makes the issues significantly worse. And it really doesn't help that Anti-lag+ isn't working with FSR 3 either since as DF showed, when Anti-Lag+ works, it's really good at reducing latency.

I wouldn't be surprised if Intel comes out with Frame Generation during the launch of Battlemage and beats FSR 3 mainly due to XeSS being better than FSR 2. The thing is that I personally wouldn't want a Nvidia/Intel duopoly but if Radeon doesn't get their act together, it feels like that is where the GPU market is headed. I personally would prefer Radeon over Intel since we know what happens with Intel gets too comfortable. We will see how things turn out though.

RTX 4000 refresh rumors from your favorite Ytuber RedGamingTech... (timestamped)

I mean a new refresh line, starting next year kinda makes sense. With Blackwell being delayed to 2025 and with poor sales of RTX 4000 rejigging their product stack may be a way to go. The new SKU's would essentially be put up against RDNA 4 and Battlemage (if true, that is).

If they have a 4070 Ti Super that has 4080 performance with 16GB of ram for $700. That would be the dream for ada. But as this is Nvidia, who knows.

Yep a properly fixed 4070Ti with the right amount of memory bus, size and bandwidth would do wonders for the higher end market. A card thats well rounded and can do RT and some PT at a reasonable price.. I think a lot of people would want that.

Then you have more SM's, TDP etc. That should really be easily be able to go up against whatever Intel is cooking with Battlemage and perhaps AMD's Navi 43/44. And a updated a variant of the 4070 for lower end SKU. Hopefully this is true and we have more of these cards releasing. The more competition there is this category; the more it drives down pricing all round. Which is especially wanted as we are heading into the next generation in the next couple years.

Even if they are doing a refresh line, they are going to have to be competitive on the pricing, not just market with "slightly better 4080S than regular 4080, that'll be 2k dollars pls".

Most of the 4000 series line sucked outside of the 80/90 bracket, so they are going to have to deliver for the validation of refreshing that entire series and actually be affordable and worthwhile to use (instead of cards that absolutely have to rely on DLSS).

If they don't sort out the prices, these refresh models may as well cease to exist. 

MEGAsizeGPU has tweeted about this rumored 4080Ti, and suggests the price will be the same as the actual 4080.

That would push the 4080 down in price, but there's enough gap between that card and the 4070Ti that Nvidia may not even have to change any other prices... although we know that AMD would counter that with price drops of its own, which might force Nvidia's hand.

Plus there's the possible AMD RDNA3.5 refresh, hopefully with something more than just a memory frequency boost this time around.