I think Nvidia went with DLSS 5 because people have already accepted it and it has earned a good reputation, and so they wanted to use that brand power to keep pushing their agenda.

I'm starting to wonder why they needed DLSS5 in the first place. It's probably very, very long shot, but maybe RDNA5 is just that good in RT/PT tasks...

I know it is PS5, but it's interesting nevertheless.
https://videocardz.com/newz/playstation-frame-generation-is-coming-mark-cerny-tells-digital-foundry

I really hope they don't use Radeons frame gen unless they fix the frame pacing issue that's still not resolved for 2+ years now. If Cerny develops a fixed version, Radeon should update their broken one.

That may be the case but it under performs on AMD hardware. So it may be more about Pearl Abyss than anything.

https://videocardz.com/newz/intel-says-it-offered-years-of-help-for-crimson-desert-pearl-abyss-still-shipped-without-arc-support

I am guessing Pearl Abyss could not be bothered.

I honestly doubt it. This gen AMD had competing hardware, good drivers, "good" pricing and FSR4 massively closed the gap with DLSS. And yet, they're losing even more marketshare.

Nvidia could release an actual turd and it would still sell more than AMD. 

It is an sponsored title, that's why it's the second game that uses FSR Redstone, after CoD. So, if AMD cards perform worse than Nvidia while puting money and engineers into it, imagine what would have happened without them. It may not even run on AMD cards at all, like they've done with Intel.

And yeah, either Pearl Abyss didn't really care about making the game run on cards other than Nvidia, they're too incompetent, or they needed to get the game out at all costs and had to cut development corners to make it happen. And given that Black Desert Online, their MMO, runs on Intel Arc GPUs, they don't seem to be that incompetent.

I think they're both working together in this case to fix the frame pacing issues before launch. Though I expect Sony to call it PSSR 2 and have some things added or removed from FSR 4.x on the PS6.

They already did. Several times even.

I mean, just look at the timeframe from GeForce 9 to GeForce 400 series.

The GeForce 9 was just a refresh of the admittedly excellent GeForce 8, while Radeon fixed all the issues from the HD 2000 series (especially TDP, which went from 215W to 106W with more performance to boot) and surpassed them with the HD 3000 GPUs. And While NVidia was still releasing some new GeForce 9 GPUs, Radeon already came with the HD 4000 series, which absolutely hammered the GeForce 9 out of the park.

The Geforce 100 was just another refresh of the Geforce 8, this one probably just to have something "new" at the lower end before the entry-level GeForce 200 released. The Geforce 200 meanwhile released over half a year after the HD 4000 and could only barely keep up with the midrange Radeon GPUs that released later all while burning twice as much power.

Geforce 300 was another lower-end refresh, probably again to have something to counter the new Radeon 5000 GPUs while the GeForce 400 series was still in the works. And when Fermi finally released, well, there's a reason it's nicknamed Thermi: It was hot, very hot, and very slow and much more expensive than the Radeons.

So, how did the market share evolve during that timeframe? Well, Radeon went down from almost parity with NVidia to about 35% market share during that time frame. Radeon was much cheaper, more powerful, much less power-consuming and thus generally much more silent, first to use several technologies (DirectX 10.1, DX 11 for instance) and yet they lost in market share anyway.

And this is not the only time: Nvidia also apparently outsold ATi with the GeForce FX GPUs and to a smaller margin With the GeForce 7000 GPUs (The two NVidia GPUs that gave them a reputation for a while to only buy every other GPU generation, and possibly also why, as mentioned above, the Geforce 100 and 300 were just refreshes.

Yeah, I doubt it as well, that's why I said it's probably very, very long shot. That said, I do hope RDNA5 is massive leap. I just fired up Crimson Desert this morning on 9060XT and Ray Regeneration is more than halving frame rate. Still haven't checked what Ray Reconstruction does on RTX 30 series cards I have, but from what I've seen so far, I think heavy RT of next gen will be torturing pretty much all currently existing GPUs.

Yeah, I don't think any cards below the 5070Ti, and I'm including the 9070XT in there (AMd improved RT with RDNA4, but still not enouigh), will fare well in the long run.

But I'm not sure Crimson Desert is the right game to use as an example of what's to come in the near future. There are too many things going on in that game under the hood that still need work.

In any case, I wouldn't be too worried about it. Many games still use consoles as the base for how far they can push things and, until the next gen consoles launch, we won't be seeing many games pushing hard on ray tracing and path tracing, and even then it won't be noticeable after a couple of years or so after their launch.

RDNA5 should and needs improve things and put AMD closer to Nvidia, but it's so hard to tell what's going on right now that enything is possible. One thing is for sure, tho, AMD has to improve their software and make it compatible with several generations of GPUs. The next Diamond or whatever is called thing can't be just RDNA5 exclusive. For their (also therefore also our) own sake.