medi01I happen to dislike paid shills.


You mean, when was it that they got caught?
Easy.
The Doom's demo with Ampere super-exclusive-totallynotforshilling-preview.

medi01Stone that is at the same focal distance as the bush is sharper on below pic.

FranciscoCLXBoX One X works with HDMI VRR just like Freesync, even with LFC.

I guess it will be the same with the next consoles and videocards based on the same RDNA2 GPU.

Vya DomusIf the cropped out area looks worse isn't it a logical conclusion that the full image looks worse as well ? The problem is even a tiny bit of blur gets amplified by post processing and the fact that most displays have lower effective resolution when the image is moving.

ZoneDymoperformance is good, price not so much, sigh.

like take the RX6800, beats the 2080ti so it will be a bit faster then an RTX3070, but it also costs 580 dollars vs 500 dollar for the RTX3070, so not really a clear winner in the "What to buy" discussion.

ratirtIt works but it is not the same. FreeSync offers more like Low Framerate Compensation (FreeSync premium). VRR doesn't have that.

Valantar... that video is explicitly about how, on the LG CX, you don't need FreeSync Premium activated for LFC to work. Did you even read the title, let alone watch it?

ValantarWhat is with you and hating on Digital Foundry? Can you explain how they in any way whatsoever are "shills" for anyone? They do in-depth technical reviews with a much higher focus on image quality and rendering quality than pretty much anyone else. Are they enthusiastic about new features that have so far been Nvidia exclusive? Absolutely, but that proves nothing more than that they find these features interesting.

ValantarPut simply: if you have to do that, you also need a very good screen

Valantar... so getting exlusive access to hardware for a limited preview makes them shills?

ValantarLike I said: the below pic has sharper grass

BoboOOZI'll bite for discussion's sake and because their paid review after the Nvidia launch has really upset me.

They are smart people who understand very well how what they are saying might influence the buying decisions of their audience.
Look at this video:

Instead of having a disclaimer that the exact settings for the comparisons to run are given by Nvidia, and that by using any other combination of settings (resolution, RTX/DLSS, detail) results may be quite different. Instead of that, he's simply hyping up the card most of the time, talking about feelings and stuff. That's nowhere near the moral standards oh Hardware Unboxed, Gamer's Nexus or TPU.
Hate is a very strong word, but I dislike the fact that they, as many other review sites and YouTubers, are becoming influencers instead of reviewers.

Full disclosure: I can bring you the results of key tests today, but there are caveats in place. Nvidia has selected the games covered, for starters, and specified 4K resolution to remove the CPU completely from the test results and in all cases, settings were maxed as much as they could be. The games in question are Doom Eternal, Control, Shadow of the Tomb Raider, Battlefield 5, Borderlands 3 and Quake 2 RTX. Secondly, frame-time and frame-rate metrics are reserved for the reviews cycle, meaning our tests were limited to comparisons with RTX 2080 (its last-gen equivalent in both naming and price) and differences had to be expressed in percentage terms, meaning some slight re-engineering of our performance visualisation tools. This work actually proved valuable and the new visualisations will be used elsewhere in our reviews - differences in GPU power do tend to be expressed as percentages, after all.

ValantarUh ... only if you actually care about that kind of stuff. Which the average gamer does not whatsoever. This is quite limited enthusiast knowledge. Most gamers' level of knowledge about technical features is more or less on the level of "does the game run on my hardware, y/n?".

No cherry picking here. The only reason not to trust AMD's data here is that they themselves did the testing. The games used, settings used and hardware setups used are all publicized in the slide deck, if you bothered to read. There's no indication that the games they picked are disproportionately favoring AMD GPUs - shown at least partly by the relatively broad span of results in their testing, including games where they lose. Could you imagine Nvidia showing a performance graph from a game where they weren't the fastest? Yeah, there's a difference of attitude here, and AMD marketing for the past couple of years (since Raja Koduri left RTG and Dr. Su took over control there, at least) has been impressively trustworthy for first-party benchmarks.

As for Fortnite being full of 14-year-olds: that's a given. No, the majority aren't 14 - that would be really weird. But there are tons of kids playing it, and likely the majority of players are quite young. Add to that the broad popularity of the game, and it's safe to assume that the average Fortnite player has absolutely no idea what DLSS is. Heck, there are likely more people playing Fortnite on consoles and phones than people in the whole world who know what DLSS is.

ValantarI agree that that video was a bit dubious, but no disclaimer? Hm. I think I read their piece rathertthan watched the video, but their written pieces are typically identical to their on-screen scripts. That contains this (second) paragraph:

medi01Videos, with known paid shills like DF hyping it.
And then there are eyes to see and brains to use, god forbid.
And even some articles to be found, with, god forbid, actual pics:

arstechnica.com/gaming/2020/07/why-this-months-pc-port-of-death-stranding-is-the-definitive-version/


At the end of the day, it is a cherry picking game:



DLSS 2.0 (these are shots from picture that hypes DLSS by the way):




But it demonstrates how delusional DLSS hypers are. As any other image upscaling tech, it has its ups and downs.
WIth 2.0 it is largely the same as with TAA which it based on: it gets blurry, it wipes out small stuff, it struggles with quickly moving stuff.

Max(IT)being full of 14 yo doesn't mean the majority are 14 yo as claimed above.
That was my point.
Clearly we are speaking just about PC players here, because people playing Fortnite on a Playstation , a Nintendo or a smartphone clearly could be totally unaware of PC technologies.

BoboOOZI'm pretty sure most people playing FN are kids.

I play with my kid and his friends all the time, and I can see by the nicknames that most of our adversaries are very young, too. Statistics are skewed, because my kid and many of his friends play on their parents' account.

Anyway, the discussion about RTX in FN is pointless, the game is very playable on old hardware and anyone playing it remotely competitively puts shadows and post effects on "LOW", otherwise they cannot aim accurately while in the thick of the battle.

Max(IT)you are heavily underestimating young people here (and to be clear, I'm 48 years old). We are speaking about computer gamers here, and many of them know about their hardware.
By the way my entire point was that speaking about "14 years old players" is silly...

Max(IT)I didn't even write about not trusting them :rolleyes:

Max(IT)The level of aggressiveness in this thread by AMD supporters is staggering.
I just said we need the independent reviews to actually understand the real performance of the hardware, because data showed ARE cherrypicked (the whole situation is cherrypicked being a marketing presentation) and far from being complete.
I didn't saying they were lying. They are just showing one part of the story, and it is perfectly understandable. To know how much the 6800 is better than 3070 on an average system (one without a Zen 3) we need the review.

Max(IT)being full of 14 yo doesn't mean the majority are 14 yo as claimed above.
That was my point.
Clearly we are speaking just about PC players here, because people playing Fortnite on a Playstation , a Nintendo or a smartphone clearly could be totally unaware of PC technologies.

mechtechI wonder when/if 30, 36, 40CU cards and other cards will be released??

BoboOOZI'm pretty sure most people playing FN are kids.

I play with my kid and his friends all the time, and I can see by the nicknames that most of our adversaries are very young, too. Statistics are skewed, because my kid and many of his friends play on their parents' account.

Anyway, the discussion about RTX in FN is pointless, the game is very playable on old hardware and anyone playing it remotely competitively puts shadows and post effects on "LOW", otherwise they cannot aim accurately while in the thick of the battle.

mechtechI wonder when/if 30, 36, 40CU cards and other cards will be released??

AddSubAMD... they have to get their drivers working proper. I had four Polaris cards (2 x 480, 2 x 580) and one major issue was always software problems. Game breaking bugs, crashes, black screens, you name it, all of went away by switching to the green team. Again, AMD gfx gear always looks "great!!!!" on paper, craptop of software issues in tow though. They have to fix their drivers and considering how their Adrenaline suite looks and behaves these days, they are going the wrong way.


...
..
.

mechtechI have an RX 480 and never had any issues. Then again, I usually don't update the driver, and have left them for over a year. I kind of agree with the Adrenaline suite, I preferred the older version. Some of the older versions had the option only to install the driver and not the suite. Many times I just did that to avoid all those extras I never used or needed. They need to do that with Adrenaline, have custom install with a good selection to pick from, such as driver only. Only issue is the occasional wattman crash, that doesn't really seem to do anything. I also found windows 1709 and 1809 to be pretty good stability wise, but they are eol now.