I may be wrong but this approach seems to me on the console side anyway tailormade for Sony and MS to further develop FSR with custom solutions for their platforms on top of whatever R&D input they may have had regarding performance on their platforms,on the PC side it should be an option that lives and dies on how well it does it's job compared to alternatives so games using FSR for their resolution upscaling do so out of merit, and not because it has AMD's name on it.

Yea it's gonna continue to happen. On any AMD sponsored games, Nvidia GPU users are going to have to use Super Resolution as DLSS won't be an option. On Normal Titles, I suspect we will probably have both because DLSS is so easy to implement and it already has integration with the big engines like UE4. And you will have Super Resolution for AMD users. I do think DLSS will continue to be the fap worthy choice until AMD gets an ML solution which will take a while. On Nvidia sponsored titles, it will be DLSS only. I think AMD users will be getting the shorter end of the stick on PC as there will be games where you will have DLSS as the only option.

So they have virtually nothing at all on their PC side then?.

Basically we're banking on Sony to cripple Nvidia and get pc to use GOTY games as a means of pushing an open source tech?.

If it comes out crappy, it comes out crappy. Trying to force crappy tech to being mainstream is honestly just a bad idea, and it's why I want AMD to actually catch up, not "oh well, we tried, but let's just get everyone to adopt it anyway".

It's going to be for both, unless we're getting weird press events where AMD gets MS/Sony to show up a totally different named tech (that still does the same thing as DLSS) to what's going to be competing against DLSS on PC.

Yeah, it how it be and I just wish we'd get more of the "everyone wins" instead of the "the one who sponsored this" wins, moments. 

The difference between Nvidia and AMD on things like this is that AMD's solutions are open source. FSR will run on Nvidia cards. It's not even just confined to RDNA2 cards.

What I mean is that having a scenario where AMD's is up there on the game, but DLSS isn't, and even though AMD's could work with Nvidia, it might not mean better perf gains than what could be done with DLSS.

Like we had Tress FX, but Nvidia cards didn't always like that option being turned on, and I've had issues with Sleeping Dogs AMD fx, even though they *can* play with Nvidia's cards, it didn't mean they would play nice. Do you see what I'm getting at?. 

Why would the consoles work, inovate and push tech, stop amd from further developing the PC side? Where you not one of the diehard scaling warriors? Why would it be any diferent here? Having something work on the consoles is not gona make the PC version crappy. Maybe stop pushing a side of an argument when its only convinient to your side.

Yes but by being open source, FSR at least gives Nvidia a chance to optimize FSR performance on their cards. Nvidia's solutions don't give that option. You won't see that for DLSS or Hairworks. 

@bolded: lord no, I was the person that was happy sticking to 1440p as my sweet spot and cared less for 4k.I'm not saying whatever's on PC is gonna make PC "crappy". What I'm on about is a tech that does less than DLSS being pushed forward and mass adopted, which is what I don't want happeneing, because I honestly don't see any pros in lesser tech being mass adopted in the first place.

I also wonder why you think that PC isn't pushing tech itself, because you're here putting more stock into AMD+consoles than what Nvidia is with PC/Switch.

@2nd Bolded: Maybe don't for your side?. And you claim I'm a warrior lol, come on mate, I've watched you warrior'ing things up for ages now.

Because Nvidia has it's own tech to improve, and that's why we've seen it done with DLSS before. I don't see why it has to fall on Nvidia to fix something AMDF has created and could potentially perform lesser than DLSS, that's excusing AMD for making something possibly lesser in the first place.

WHy don't they just knock it out of the park like Ryzen?. I mean, that's what people were expecting from their GPU lineup, and then it turned out to focus more on raster yet again.

Again if AMD's tech is worse than Nvidia, wich should be expected, Your unwilling to understand that it can get better over time. And the point of mass adoption is the main reason that it will improve at at faster rate. Because you yourself brought up a few features before that got adopted over better ones simply because it was more available. Would you rather have none cuz a feature is locked behind a niche product? Because thats what DLSS is right now, very few games have it and the adoption started recently. That's the other side of the gated community you forget to mention that devs wont push something where the market is small.

And again at what point did I or anyone said this? I even tried telling you with every response that im not saying that and you still bring that up. I said very clearly that the consoles where gona be AMD's best friends. At no point did I say after that AMD was gona sit on their hands and just leave it to them. They can all 3 innovate  at the same time independent from each other and work together as well. How is that so difficult? Why would you think PC gets slighted because Consoles wich are the majority of the market gets hyped up?

OK but even if thats the case, this was never a console VS pc thing and my thread was that it was gona be good for all because they are working toghether. Not even, the main point was that a tech that is not out yet im predicting is gona be out sooner than anticipated across all platforms. You decided to make a PC vs console thing. Because im still trying to figure out how you managed to go in that direction even though I said multiple times it wasn't about that.

It doesn't and that has literally zero to do with anything I've said. The fastest way to have a technology implemented by game developers is have it open source. One only has to look at how quickly Resizable BAR has been adopted to see that. AMD was first with the technology but because it's an open source solution. Nvidia was able to implement the technology quickly. Since both AMD and Nvidia cards are cable of this feature, it incentivizes developers to actually use it.

Also your Ryzen comment doesn't make much since. Ryzen took three generations to surpass it's Intel competition completely. Zen 1 was a good value proposition with some productivity advantages. Zen 2 nearly matched Intel in gaming and destroyed them in productivity task. Zen 3 took the gaming and productivity crown. If RDNA is going to "be like Ryzen", then RDNA3 (the 7000series of GPUs) would be the product line to surpass Nvidia.