Turmeric

"[URL='https://www.techpowerup.com/310582/amd-announced-as-starfields-exclusive-partner-on-pc']Exclusive Partner on PC[/URL]"

this should be illegal, you must partner with every brand and make games work.

probably a shit game anyways so no loss. we already have censorship on forums so maybe i said something illegal right now...

There is nothing illegal, all this noise is just that. When Nvidia saw the buzz for CP2077 they paid CDPR to program DLSS into the Game, they did the same thing with Hairworks for the Witcher 3. I see in your specs you have a 4090 and in my opinion should care less about DLSS to play Games at high Frame and refresh rates.

Sponsorship is not to block competition but to have special perks. Like for instance, focus on a feature that the sponsor is supporting like FSR that is why the game is being released with the feature at launch date. The feature's implementation (unlike other games) will be very good at least it should be.
If NV's DLSS is not included then every NV supporter screams about blocking competition and unfariness. When NV has an exclusive deal then immediately that's ok because it is better.
People tend to forget, that their point of view about 'something being better or worse' from a business perspective may be invalid.
I'm pretty sure, that is the case here.

Turmeric

"[URL='https://www.techpowerup.com/310582/amd-announced-as-starfields-exclusive-partner-on-pc']Exclusive Partner on PC[/URL]"

this should be illegal, you must partner with every brand and make games work.

probably a shit game anyways so no loss. we already have censorship on forums so maybe i said something illegal right now...

Free Speech does not apply to privately run organizations. It applies to government. (i.e., the forum owners or site owners where you post can choose to remove your comments at will, with no legal repercussions).

ratirtSponsorship is not to block competition but to have special perks. Like for instance, focus on a feature that the sponsor is supporting like FSR that is why the game is being released with the feature at launch date. The feature's implementation (unlike other games) will be very good at least it should be.
If NV's DLSS is not included then every NV supporter screams about blocking competition and unfariness. When NV has an exclusive deal then immediately that's ok because it is better.
People tend to forget, that their point of view about 'something being better or worse' from a business perspective may be invalid.
I'm pretty sure, that is the case here.

As has been pointed out to you, this is not that. The sheer LACK of ANY AMD sponsored title also having competing technologies (save only for Sony first party titles, oddly), while NVIDIA sponsored titles frequently have BOTH DLSS and FSR supported, plus the non-statement from AMD while NVIDIA's concrete statement about not blocking competitor technologies seems to paint a fairly concrete picture as to what is going on behind the scenes.

Sure, the developers can "choose" to add FSR and not DLSS or XeSS, but when you implement one tech, it's not a stretch to implement others (as has been proven out by other developers speaking on the topic. It's trivial to add the other when the first is added already).

SlizzoFree Speech does not apply to privately run organizations. It applies to government. (i.e., the forum owners or site owners where you post can choose to remove your comments at will, with no legal repercussions).


As has been pointed out to you, this is not that. The sheer LACK of ANY AMD sponsored title also having competing technologies (save only for Sony first party titles, oddly), while NVIDIA sponsored titles frequently have BOTH DLSS and FSR supported, plus the non-statement from AMD while NVIDIA's concrete statement about not blocking competitor technologies seems to paint a fairly concrete picture as to what is going on behind the scenes.

Sure, the developers can "choose" to add FSR and not DLSS or XeSS, but when you implement one tech, it's not a stretch to implement others (as has been proven out by other developers speaking on the topic. It's trivial to add the other when the first is added already).

As I have said previously and say again, since you might have missed it. Any sponsored game by any company gets special perks like we will be first. Just like CP2077 was with DLSS at launch. Nobody whined about it but instead people waited. FSR showed up later not the day of game's release. Starfield's not even out yet and we already talking about the AMD being blamed for banning DLSS. It is not AMD's decision to ban or not to ban DLSS tech from a game which is not their property.
Just because NV is saying something about DLSS in a game at launch (the game is not out for Christ sake) is being blocked. Priority dictates to implement FSR first they best way possible since this is the sponsor's technology. In my eyes is a PR play done by NVidia.
The developers chose to add FSR at the start and may choose to add other later just like all developers sponsored by a company would.
We will see what happens after the game is released and if DLSS will not be included. If the DLSS is not included, only then your arguments will have some weight. Now, it's just silly talk in my opinion. Also if the DLSS is not included, who will be blamed for it (if you can even say blamed) AMD or game developer? I know NV fans will say AMD which is obvious but will it be true? I sincerely doubt it.

I think we are also missing the point that no one is being forced to buy or play the Game.

Time for DLSS to go open source ;)

kapone32I think we are also missing the point that no one is being forced to buy or play the Game.

Boycotting the game for this? I can think of many reasons one could boycott a game, but this one is far from reasonable.

If anything, we need to send the message to AMD that blocking and/or discouraging use of any competitor's technology through is NOT FINE. Nvidia's actions in the distant past don't justify this sort of behavior today, and while one can argue that DLSS is closed source and bound to Nvidia hardware, the latter has a technical explanation for it - DLSS makes use of matrix multiplication units (aka tensor cores), with the exception of one DLL version during the 1.x series (I believe it's 1.9). Radeon cards don't have matrix multiplication capabilities while all of their current generation competitors do (Turing, Ampere, Ada and Alchemist), this is still the case with the RDNA 3 generation. That's the only reason it got a pass while being worse was because FSR, being simple shader code, can be used on any GPU.

True, Nvidia can probably write a DP4A/INT24 version of DLSS like Intel did for XeSS and extend DLSS support as far back as Pascal and enable it on competing GPUs (Radeon VII primarily, since Vega 10/Vega 64 and Navi 10/5700 XT don't have DP4A support and as seen with XeSS, the INT24 fallback on them is quite slow), but they have little reason to do that. Being the market leader has its perks, and arguably the biggest one is letting your competitors play catch up - and that is what leads technology forward to the benefit of the consumer.

SlizzoAs has been pointed out to you, this is not that. The sheer LACK of ANY AMD sponsored title also having competing technologies (save only for Sony first party titles, oddly), while NVIDIA sponsored titles frequently have BOTH DLSS and FSR supported, plus the non-statement from AMD while NVIDIA's concrete statement about not blocking competitor technologies seems to paint a fairly concrete picture as to what is going on behind the scenes.

Sure, the developers can "choose" to add FSR and not DLSS or XeSS, but when you implement one tech, it's not a stretch to implement others (as has been proven out by other developers speaking on the topic. It's trivial to add the other when the first is added already).

Thank you, you understood it perfectly

ratirtJust because NV is saying something about DLSS in a game at launch (the game is not out for Christ sake) is being blocked. Priority dictates to implement FSR first they best way possible since this is the sponsor's technology. In my eyes is a PR play done by NVidia.

What kind of mental gymnastics do you need to do to reach the conclusion that AMD's shady business practices are a PR ploy by Nvidia? It's Olympics grade. AMD isn't worth our trust here. They're not some morally superior, ethical company, they're a Fortune 500 megacorp worth $179 billion in market cap right now and their sole objective is to make money and increase their reach by any means necessary.

The evidence is ahead of us all: AMD behaving like a corporation (non-answers, no regards for customer choice, lack of ethics) while Nvidia laid it bare, explicitly said that "we don't block competitor technologies" and went a further step beyond - pointing out they actually developed an open-source framework to further facilitate deployment of their and their competitors' technologies, while leaving a channel for the press to inquire about any further doubts regarding the subject, which basically clears them out of any wrongdoing on this one.

If this game comes out with DLSS/XeSS support, after attracting the unwanted attention of enthusiasts and the press, it will likely have been because AMD has internally negotiated a reversal of that policy, and not because we or the press are mad at them, it's because they probably consulted with legal and the answer would be "that will eventually incur the wrath of anti-trust authorities, revise".

Dr. DroBoycotting the game for this? I can think of many reasons one could boycott a game, but this one is far from reasonable.

If anything, we need to send the message to AMD that blocking and/or discouraging use of any competitor's technology through is NOT FINE. Nvidia's actions in the distant past don't justify this sort of behavior today, and while one can argue that DLSS is closed source and bound to Nvidia hardware, the latter has a technical explanation for it - DLSS makes use of matrix multiplication units (aka tensor cores), with the exception of one DLL version during the 1.x series (I believe it's 1.9). Radeon cards don't have matrix multiplication capabilities while all of their current generation competitors do (Turing, Ampere, Ada and Alchemist), this is still the case with the RDNA 3 generation. That's the only reason it got a pass while being worse was because FSR, being simple shader code, can be used on any GPU.

True, Nvidia can probably write a DP4A/INT24 version of DLSS like Intel did for XeSS and extend DLSS support as far back as Pascal and enable it on competing GPUs (Radeon VII primarily, since Vega 10/Vega 64 and Navi 10/5700 XT don't have DP4A support and as seen with XeSS, the INT24 fallback on them is quite slow), but they have little reason to do that. Being the market leader has its perks, and arguably the biggest one is letting your competitors play catch up - and that is what leads technology forward to the benefit of the consumer.



Thank you, you understood it perfectly



What kind of mental gymnastics do you need to do to reach the conclusion that AMD's shady business practices are a PR ploy by Nvidia? It's Olympics grade. AMD isn't worth our trust here. They're not some morally superior, ethical company, they're a Fortune 500 megacorp worth $179 billion in market cap right now and their sole objective is to make money and increase their reach by any means necessary.

The evidence is ahead of us all: AMD behaving like a corporation (non-answers, no regards for customer choice, lack of ethics) while Nvidia laid it bare, explicitly said that "we don't block competitor technologies" and went a further step beyond - pointing out they actually developed an open-source framework to further facilitate deployment of their and their competitors' technologies, while leaving a channel for the press to inquire about any further doubts regarding the subject, which basically clears them out of any wrongdoing on this one.

If this game comes out with DLSS/XeSS support, after attracting the unwanted attention of enthusiasts and the press, it will likely have been because AMD has internally negotiated a reversal of that policy, and not because we or the press are mad at them, it's because they probably consulted with legal and the answer would be "that will eventually incur the wrath of anti-trust authorities, revise".

Lol not having DLSS is not gonna incur the rath of the FTC. Atleast in the US our government does not give a rats ass about actual profiteering let alone this.

Yes Nvidia, thank you SO much for DLSS. Now you can sell me a 1080p 60fps card for $400 and pretend it’s reasonable- because MUH TECHNOLOGY

sethmatrix7Lol not having DLSS is not gonna incur the rath of the FTC. Atleast in the US our government does not give a rats ass about actual profiteering let alone this.

Yes Nvidia, thank you SO much for DLSS. Now you can sell me a 1080p 60fps card for $400 and pretend it’s reasonable- because MUH TECHNOLOGY

Not having DLSS isn't, not having other technologies explicitly because contractual clauses forbid the use of a competitor's product is not going to be seen well by any consumer protection agency, especially in the EU where they are super touchy feely about these things. They even got us removable battery packs back, and I expect a lot of the EU-mandated things like right to repair, universal connectors, replaceable batteries etc. to make it worldwide due to simple logistics. Even that "do you accept cookies" crap came from an EU mandate (GDPR) and spread worldwide.

Let's be frank and not play pretend, Nvidia isn't anyone's friend here. Ada stack is garbage, I repeatedly said this and chose to put my money where my mouth is by not upgrading this generation (and if I do, it'll be a 7900 XTX on sale), but it's tailored to match AMD's products in perfect lockstep, this is particularly noticeable with the RTX 4060:

www.techpowerup.com/review/galax-geforce-rtx-4060-ex/32.html

Literally made to be 5% faster than the 7600 and to upsell first party technologies (which they have and AMD doesn't).

Dr. DroBoycotting the game for this? I can think of many reasons one could boycott a game, but this one is far from reasonable.

If anything, we need to send the message to AMD that blocking and/or discouraging use of any competitor's technology through is NOT FINE. Nvidia's actions in the distant past don't justify this sort of behavior today, and while one can argue that DLSS is closed source and bound to Nvidia hardware, the latter has a technical explanation for it - DLSS makes use of matrix multiplication units (aka tensor cores), with the exception of one DLL version during the 1.x series (I believe it's 1.9). Radeon cards don't have matrix multiplication capabilities while all of their current generation competitors do (Turing, Ampere, Ada and Alchemist), this is still the case with the RDNA 3 generation. That's the only reason it got a pass while being worse was because FSR, being simple shader code, can be used on any GPU.

True, Nvidia can probably write a DP4A/INT24 version of DLSS like Intel did for XeSS and extend DLSS support as far back as Pascal and enable it on competing GPUs (Radeon VII primarily, since Vega 10/Vega 64 and Navi 10/5700 XT don't have DP4A support and as seen with XeSS, the INT24 fallback on them is quite slow), but they have little reason to do that. Being the market leader has its perks, and arguably the biggest one is letting your competitors play catch up - and that is what leads technology forward to the benefit of the consumer.

I guess Path Tracing in CP2077 is the distant past. Take off your Rose coloured Glasses for a second. You can wax on all you want about the details of Upscaling but it does not take away from the fact that raster is the most important thing. Just yesterday I watched a Frame Chasers video and he was talking about the 3090, 4070Ti and 7900XT. Of course there were Games that the 3090 won in but the 7900XT looked much better than the narrative describes. Of course he showed his dedication to the narrative by openly lying and saying that the 7900XT draws 400 Watts in Gaming. Now you have been expressing your support for DLSS but because it is not INITIALLY in a Game you want to play does not mean that the Culture roles of Nvidia and AMD have somehow reversed.


True, Nvidia can probably write a DP4A/INT24 version of DLSS like Intel did for XeSS and extend DLSS support as far back as Pascal and enable it on competing GPUs. Yes they could but they won't. I will tell you why I will never buy an Nvidia GPU. When I got into PC Gaming (where I built my own PC) my first card was a GTS450. I was so impressed that I got another for SLI. Total War Shogun2 launched and the 2 cards could not handle it. So i sold them to friend who wanted to use them for Flight Simulator. After about 2 months he called me fuming. I asked him what was wrong. He told me that nothing he could do would enable SLI. When we investigated Nvidia had quietly released a driver that broke SLI on cards. I saw AMD 6800 for $99 and we both bought those. So now we are looking good and there is a new feature called Physx that makes explosions make more realistic. The catch was you needed an Nvidia card to do it. Then one day my PC no longer recognized the Nvidia card in my system so I got another 6800 and enjoyed the hell out of Crossfire. Now it is 2023 AMD has finally caught up (again) and in some cases passed Nvidia on raster but have set a value for that that has kind of hurt their fans that are looking for price/performance. Unfortunately Social media has pumped so many people's minds with their opinions that you are willing to fully expect that your opinion must be construed as fact. There are some Channels like Level 1 or MSI Gaming that are actually good for learning as an Example Wendell's video on DP cables confirmed what some us know. Then there are the rest of them that are addicted to getting as many clicks and subs as they can. Jay will do something special when he gets his billionth viewer and today they are all reviewing the 5600X3D, including Linus who happens to live in place that you are not supposed to get a 5600X3D. If you doubt me (I have said it before) when reviews for DLSS3 first came out everyone called out Nvidia. Now they all praise the technology. Even today Jarrod's tech did a video praising Frame Generation on the Mobile 4090.

In the real world the most disruptive thing in Gaming is unquestionably AMD's APU lineup. Minisforum, Steam Deck, ROG Ally and you can bet that Sony will give us a handheld in the near future. 1080P Gaming at high is for me only at most 2 generations away on AMD APUs. The thing for me though is this is a new standard not unlike laptops or tablets. Once you can get one that has good performance for $1-299 US they will really take off.

Path tracing is too heavy for any currently released Radeon card, too heavy for the RTX 20 and 30 series cards (including 3090 and 3090 Ti), and too heavy for every RTX 40 series card below the 4090 and even then the 4090 isn't exactly an optimal experience there. Computer hardware just isn't ready for it yet.

I've had poor experiences with both sides. I'm not going to hold a decades long grudge, i'll just buy whatever suits me best at the time I buy it, and somewhat ironically that is usually AMD.

I'm in agreement about the APUs, they are going to be great, and to a point most people would be happy with just them, it seems for the time being we are being granted a relative reprieve as games have somewhat plateau'd in fidelity (going higher increases production complexity significantly, and cost alongside it, until engine-level breakthroughs occur, UE5 techs come to mind), but RT/PT is likely an integral part of this "next step" in graphics technologies.

Dr. DroPath tracing is too heavy for any currently released Radeon card, too heavy for the RTX 20 and 30 series cards (including 3090 and 3090 Ti), and too heavy for every RTX 40 series card below the 4090 and even then the 4090 isn't exactly an optimal experience there. Computer hardware just isn't ready for it yet.

I've had poor experiences with both sides. I'm not going to hold a decades long grudge, i'll just buy whatever suits me best at the time I buy it, and somewhat ironically that is usually AMD.

I'm in agreement about the APUs, they are going to be great, and to a point most people would be happy with just them, it seems for the time being we are being granted a relative reprieve as games have somewhat plateau'd in fidelity (going higher increases production complexity significantly, and cost alongside it, until engine-level breakthroughs occur, UE5 techs come to mind), but RT/PT is likely an integral part of this "next step" in graphics technologies.

Changing Goal posts does not change the facts. No one told Nvidia to release that did they?

I am glad for you that that is your position and it has not been completely smooth sailing. The Level 1 video on DP showed the issue I was having with DP on Vega cards but HDMI worked fine. I personally prefer to buy AMD for their long term support and good will towards users. I never asked for Freesync but it is great and I actually appreciate FSR on my 3060 laptop as it gives me better frames than using DLSS. It is a 1080P laptop though so I don't need to use either of them. I would have bought a 3090 but a 6800XT was $1200 less and now the 4090 is great but at $2500 was $1000 more than the 7900XTX of which the 7900XT was $400 less than that. Before that Polaris was like $200 and supported Crossfire on the MB. The performance of the 5600 series was meh as it was no faster than a Vega 64 card but 6000 was a smash hit with AMD buyers.

It's not that Games have plateaued it is the amount of 1s and 0s you can process and 4K resolution is that hard to render. RT is a Gimmick that makes some Games look spectacular but I guess growing up on Atari allows me to tell you that Graphics are only one part of the experience. In terms of hardware the future is in the Data centre in terms of what we will be getting. The cost narrative should always be about the consumer in PC as it was Atari that inspired Commodore 64 and the rest is history from there. The plateau was actually 1440P as 4K is a very recent development with real high refresh panels as modern 4K TVs love to use Upscaling to give you 120 HZ but monitors are no more than 2-3 years old that are consumer friendly with the refresh rates we expect. I do expect that there will be a call for a general upscaler in the DX API (not Streamline).

I'm... not changing goalposts? I directly addressed your post :confused:

And wtf are these prices, the 3090 was $1500 yes but the 6900 XT was $1000, no different from this generation, the 3080 and the 6800 XT had the same prices - 4090's also $1500, not 2500, that was the old Turing Titan RTX's pricing. Granted, this generation's pricing was entirely reliant on mining demand (which was high), as miners bought the entire supply of gaming cards for their own use, but 3090 was never officially $2500 and 6800 XTs were never $1200 cheaper, more like half the price at $700 or so (just like the 3080 tbh).

Dr. DroI'm... not changing goalposts? I directly addressed your post :confused:

And wtf are these prices, the 3090 was $1500 yes but the 6900 XT was $1000, no different from this generation, the 3080 and the 6800 XT had the same prices - 4090's also $1500, not 2500, that was the old Turing Titan RTX's pricing. Granted, this generation's pricing was entirely reliant on mining demand (which was high), as miners bought the entire supply of gaming cards for their own use, but 3090 was never officially $2500 and 6800 XTs were never $1200 cheaper, more like half the price at $700 or so (just like the 3080 tbh).

Ok

www.newegg.ca/asus-geforce-rtx-4090-rog-strix-rtx4090-24g-gaming/p/N82E16814126600?Description=4090&cm_re=4090-_-14-126-600-_-Product

the Cheapest 3080

www.newegg.ca/p/1FT-00EY-00026?Item=9SIBF3EJN78205&Description=3080&cm_re=3080-_-9SIBF3EJN78205-_-Product&cm_sp=SP-_-1595465-_-0-_-2-_-9SIBF3EJN78205-_-3080-_-3080-_-1

The Cheapest 6800XT

www.newegg.ca/asrock-radeon-rx-6800-xt-rx6800xt-pgd-16go/p/N82E16814930049?Description=6800XT&cm_re=6800XT-_-14-930-049-_-Product

A Refurb 3090

www.newegg.ca/msi-geforce-rtx-3090-rtx-3090-ventus-3x-24g/p/1FT-0009-009P3?Item=9SIARB1JMT3504&Description=3090&cm_re=3090-_-1FT-0009-009P3-_-Product

A new 3090

www.newegg.ca/p/1FT-000Y-00772?Item=9SIADDZHYB0202&Description=3090&cm_re=3090-_-1FT-000Y-00772-_-Product

A 7900XTX

www.newegg.ca/asrock-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-rx7900xtx-pg-24go/p/N82E16814930081?Description=7900XTX&cm_re=7900XTX-_-14-930-081-_-Product

A 7900XT

www.newegg.ca/asrock-radeon-rx-7900-xt-rx7900xt-pg-20go/p/N82E16814930083?Description=7900XT&cm_re=7900XT-_-14-930-083-_-Product

There have been price adjustments and I don't live in the US.

This is the card I have

www.newegg.ca/sapphire-radeon-rx-7900-xt-11323-02-20g/p/N82E16814202431?Description=7900XT&cm_re=7900XT-_-14-202-431-_-Product

This is the card I had

www.newegg.ca/sapphire-radeon-rx-7900-xtx-11322-01-40g/p/N82E16814202428?Description=7900XTX&cm_re=7900XTX-_-14-202-428-_-Product

Anything else?

@Dr. Dro and @Slizzo - it's nice to see some members on this forum understand it and don't just defend AMD to the end of the earth when the evidence paints a very strong picture. Like one of you said, Olympic grade mental gymnastics. AMD really need to address this properly and stop this practise, period. Also an interesting strawman with RTX remix titles lol, which of course, you can still play on AMD hardware, you're not blocked from anything, you just get far worse performance because AMD has yet to take RT seriously.

kapone32Anything else?

Well, that's local (and current day - any Ampere cards left in marketplaces at this point are just irrational overpriced listings leftover from crypto days) prices, with a bit of a skewer towards the most expensive Nvidia cards possible (that Strix 3090 was a bundle, I couldn't even hope to buy it, not that I could as it wasn't available day one anyway but I 100% tell you I couldn't afford it), the fact remains that MSRP in US dollars were indeed as I've stated. The Pulse, on the other hand, is one of the most affordable Sapphire models for any given product series.

wolf@Dr. Dro and @Slizzo - it's nice to see some members on this forum understand it and don't just defend AMD to the end of the earth when the evidence paints a very strong picture. Like one of you said, Olympic grade mental gymnastics. AMD really need to address this properly and stop this practise, period. Also an interesting strawman with RTX remix titles lol, which of course, you can still play on AMD hardware, you're not blocked from anything, you just get far worse performance because AMD has yet to take RT seriously.

And I honestly think AMD takes it seriously, they're just a full generation behind with it. While everyone slammed Turing for the high prices they also overlooked that this was the first generation of an (at the time) upcoming important feature. The same happened when the shader model 3.0 DX9 cards came out and then DX10... by DX11, AMD had a 6 month lead over Nvidia and no one even cared all that much, because during these first few months you had basically no games and only the Unigine Heaven demo to run anyway. The golden rule is that hardware and software have a symbiotic relationship, software will always target existing hardware which must advance to accomodate the needs of software. If either falters, both of them will suffer for it.

In 2018-2019, how many games had RT at all? And how many games were actually designed from the ground up with RT in mind? Even today, in 2023, games designed around RT can be counted with one hand, and amongst these half of them are enhanced editions of existing games. The rest are just having RTGI tacked over.

Dr. DroNot having DLSS isn't, not having other technologies explicitly because contractual clauses forbid the use of a competitor's product is not going to be seen well by any consumer protection agency, especially in the EU where they are super touchy feely about these things. They even got us removable battery packs back, and I expect a lot of the EU-mandated things like right to repair, universal connectors, replaceable batteries etc. to make it worldwide due to simple logistics. Even that "do you accept cookies" crap came from an EU mandate (GDPR) and spread worldwide.

Can you show me that clauses in the contract between AMD and the game developer?
It is not going to be seen well by NV fanboys who are constantly looking for problems. But if NV does something like this. Has a sponsorship and DLSS is released at launch that is great and everything is fine. Hypocrisy is driving you my friend. Nothing more.

Dr. DroWhat kind of mental gymnastics do you need to do to reach the conclusion that AMD's shady business practices are a PR ploy by Nvidia? It's Olympics grade. AMD isn't worth our trust here. They're not some morally superior, ethical company, they're a Fortune 500 megacorp worth $179 billion in market cap right now and their sole objective is to make money and increase their reach by any means necessary.

It is not mental gymnastics. Just because NV is upset not having a DLSS in the game (for F**k sake the game is not even out yet) at launch is not a crime or shady actions by AMD nor game developer. You have given no proof nor any legit thought or conclusion. Literally nothing and yet you still say DLSS is not in the game so its bad. The game is not out yet and there's been nothing said DLSS it is not going to be in the game later on and yet you NV's fans are always complaining. The goal is to make money. And developer decided to fo with AMD as a sponsor because the game is going to be on every platform and the audience is much broader then having DLSS for handful of people while FSR is also for consoles and these gobble PC market for breakfast. I've been posting over and over and you keep saying the same crap. Shady actions by AMD forbidding DLSS in a game. That is just immature and shallow.

So are you saying that it's pure coincidence that a majority, almost all, AMD sponsored titles do not including XeSS or DLSS? And that it's pure coincidence that ever since both technologies have been released that NVIDIA sponsored titles sporting DLSS and FSR are a thing?

I'd be just as upset if the game included DLSS and not FSR or XeSS, for the same reasons I stated before. It is TRIVIAL to add the other technologies once one is implemented. Like an extra couple minutes of time of a dev's part.

ratirtCan you show me that clauses in the contract between AMD and the game developer?
It is not going to be seen well by NV fanboys who are constantly looking for problems. But if NV does something like this. Has a sponsorship and DLSS is released at launch that is great and everything is fine. Hypocrisy is driving you my friend. Nothing more.

It is not mental gymnastics. Just because NV is upset not having a DLSS in the game (for F**k sake the game is not even out yet) at launch is not a crime or shady actions by AMD nor game developer. You have given no proof nor any legit thought or conclusion. Literally nothing and yet you still say DLSS is not in the game so its bad. The game is not out yet and there's been nothing said DLSS it is not going to be in the game later on and yet you NV's fans are always complaining. The goal is to make money. And developer decided to fo with AMD as a sponsor because the game is going to be on every platform and the audience is much broader then having DLSS for handful of people while FSR is also for consoles and these gobble PC market for breakfast. I've been posting over and over and you keep saying the same crap. Shady actions by AMD forbidding DLSS in a game. That is just immature and shallow.

You clearly don't believe AMD has what it takes to do something like this. You sincerely believe it goes against their ethics so you will only believe it (with serious resignation) if you have access to the contract, signed under NDA. Knowing full well that no one but those who signed it know what's in there, you choose to stonewall and deflect, giving them any benefit of the doubt out of sheer personal bias alone, going as far as calling it a play by Nvidia's marketing department. You want me to show you what no one can, like I literally said on my previous post.

Although I can't give you the raw admittance by AMD, the same things you often take as solid truths from Nvidia's past misgivings were left in the same stage - lots of evidence of foul play, no true confirmation ever because everything is done by NDA-protected contractual clauses to which the signer is not at liberty to discuss.

No, I don't think so. This isn't a matter of being an AMD or Nvidia fan, I'm a fan of technology and I hate when I see companies playing dirty to hinder one another.

Slizzo

More fodder for the Matchbox vs Hot Wheels debate. That one is getting old though so I will use Tyco vs AFX. None of this matters in a Game that no one has played. It's like the people that complained about Jedi Fallen Order and how bad in performance and story it was going to be all over again. As that was also an AMD sponsored title. Or maybe you want to use TWWH2 cause 3 has switched back to Intel. The word poppycock comes to mind. But let's do Hawkmoon and compare AMD to Granbreaten when they are actullay Hawkmoon's faction.

Slizzo

Hardware Unboxed earned my unreserved trust after this one. And I would actually jokingly call them AMD Unboxed every now and then.

If anyone wants to see my take to the letter, watch that video. He's covered everything the same way I would say myself

It's ridiculous that the AMD defence force are hanging their hat only on 100% irrefutable proof that it is happening, by way of dev or AMD openly admitting it.

Many things in life are concluded on a balance of reasonable evidence, even the highest standard, criminal cases are beyond reasonable doubt (ie you don't need 100% irrefutable proof), and civil cases are held to an even lower standard of probability.

To admit AMD is doing this they want a burden of proof over and above what is required to convict for murder. Seems unreasonable to me. There is plenty of evidence that adds up to this likely outcome, they just don't want to hear it because they feel personally attacked, somehow AMD is intertwined in their identity. It's so daft to me that all the evidence amounts to nothing whatsoever to them, and that they themselves don't want to hold AMD to a higher standard.

wolfIt's so daft to me that all the evidence amounts to nothing whatsoever to them, and that they themselves don't want to hold AMD to a higher standard.

What is the evidence exactly? So far I thought we just had a list of games supporting either upscaling tech, & the fact that AMD hasn't responded directly to questions on it. I'm still undecided on which way I'm leaning, but I don't think those two things are proof "beyond reasonable doubt" tbh.

HOkayWhat is the evidence exactly? So far I thought we just had a list of games supporting either upscaling tech, & the fact that AMD hasn't responded directly to questions on it. I'm still undecided on which way I'm leaning, but I don't think those two things are proof "beyond reasonable doubt" tbh.

Have you watched the videos and how the situation unfolded? It's so blatantly obvious