Some simple math As I see it(IMHO)

the 3060TI beats the 4060Ti 16GB by a large margin, see HUBand others.

without dlss3 AND FG, THE LOW END 4050 SORRY 4060 is shit compared to last gen 3060 and won't sell

so like the 2### series it depends on dlss for its gains.

Now we have MANY pushing hard for AMD to support Streammline??

I accept there are many users who just want to use their tech on their games and that's many in here, understandable and fair enough.


BUT DAMN IT SEEMS LIKE NVIDIA ALSO ACTIVATED ITS FULL SCHILL ARMY, there are names in Tech forums that appear only at certain times, like now.

Nvidia is trying to pull yet another fast one upselling alll their wares one tier higher and need to push hard for dlss

...no one is shilling for Nvidia mate, quite contrary, we're pointing out that by pulling anti-competitive stunts, AMD is going a dark path that we do not wish to see the company go through - there is no action that Nvidia may have taken in the past that justifies this behavior.

You say that the 4060 is underwhelming and can't beat the 3060, but the same applies for Radeon this time around, even with AMD knocking the 7600 down one tier by removing the XT moniker, it's literally -5% to +4% over the RX 6650 XT, considering that the 7600 is full Navi 33 and the latter full Navi 23, making them perfectly comparable with one another. AMD marketing actually had to pitch the 7600 against the 6600 to make any ground to justify it, and the 6600 is a cut down previous generation part with hobbled clocks and a bunch of compute units disabled.

This generation in general is rotten.

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.

Comparing lists of sponsored games and the correlation is evidence, asking AMD direct questions, multiple times and getting shit answers is evidence.

Remembering that evidence is or can be available information indicating whether a proposition is valid.

Don't want to call it evidence? Sure, I sure as hell do, as do this major publications who asked, and countless gamers. Why do you think it's in my sig, it literally fits the dictionary definition of evidence, it's just not proof yet.

Dr. Dro...no one is shilling for Nvidia mate, quite contrary, we're pointing out that by pulling anti-competitive stunts, AMD is going a dark path that we do not wish to see the company go through - there is no action that Nvidia may have taken in the past that justifies this behavior.

You say that the 4060 is underwhelming and can't beat the 3060, but the same applies for Radeon this time around, even with AMD knocking the 7600 down one tier by removing the XT moniker, it's literally -5% to +4% over the RX 6650 XT, considering that the 7600 is full Navi 33 and the latter full Navi 23, making them perfectly comparable with one another. AMD marketing actually had to pitch the 7600 against the 6600 to make any ground to justify it, and the 6600 is a cut down previous generation part with hobbled clocks and a bunch of compute units disabled.

This generation in general is rotten.

I agree on the generational lameness of the low end.

You say No one, is Schilling, I disagree.

And that's not to say I think everyone is.

But No one is too big a leap the other way.

Actually its long time since AMD promised that games will run better on their hardware in the future, this is the first implementation as i get it.
They did not say other hardware would suck, but that their own would get a bennefit.
Now we can test that statement soon

wolfComparing lists of sponsored games and the correlation is evidence, asking AMD direct questions, multiple times and getting shit answers is evidence.

Remembering that evidence is or can be available information indicating whether a proposition is valid.

Don't want to call it evidence? Sure, I sure as hell do, as do this major publications who asked, and countless gamers. Why do you think it's in my sig, it literally fits the dictionary definition of evidence, it's just not proof yet.

Oh sorry I wasn't saying those weren't evidence, I was asking if there's anything else because those alone aren't exactly a smoking gun. That said, having watched the HWUB video & seeing the exact phasing of their questions to AMD, their complete avoidance of any direct answer is stronger evidence than it first sounds. I am now lent more towards they're doing something fishy than my previous neutral position.

HOkayOh sorry I wasn't saying those weren't evidence, I was asking if there's anything else because those alone aren't exactly a smoking gun. That said, having watched the HWUB video & seeing the exact phasing of their questions to AMD, their complete avoidance of any direct answer is stronger evidence than it first sounds. I am now lent more towards they're doing something fishy than my previous neutral position.

I am certainly willing to admit there isn't bulletproof, irrefutable evidence, but on a balance of the evidence we have, I am certain that something fishy is up. I happen to agree with the assertions of the tech press on this one.

It is very reasonable to assume that if the answer was a simple no, we'd have gotten it already, so perhaps at best it's a complicated, messy no? at worst... yeah they're doing it and are scrambling to find a way to do damage control. There are also several other terrible arguments I don't buy, many covered in the HUB follow up.

It boggles my mind that the same folk who decry Nvidia for absolutely everything, vehemently refuse and deny that this is even possible, never mind happening, hanging their hats on the games list isn't absolutely exhaustive, or perhaps only on accepting irrefutable evidence - which again isn't even strictly necessary for the highest level of criminal proceedings. Yet, are more than happy to speculate, believe rumours, believe untrustworthy leakers and so on when it's about their least favourite company. I won't get into examples because I'm not really about whataboutism, this matter is separate and should be dealt with in isolation. It seems like too much to ask people to have an open mind, accept that AMD isn't infallible, accept that this absolutely could be what's happening, and that it's of zero benefit to the PC gaming community if so.

Dr. DroYou 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.

What proof do we have? All people are talking about here is speculation nothing more. The game is not out everybody talk about scams and blocking something. All of it doesn't make much sense. Perhaps, people know what NV did in the past and nowadays try to tag AMD with this "pay to block others" scenario. What I say is, wait for the game and we will see what feature it will have and if DLSS is not there after a while, why is it not there and who decided not to implement in the game. Throwing crap and pointing fingers at this point is simply put stupid.

ratirtWhat I say is, wait for the game and we will see what feature it will have and if DLSS is not there after a while, why is it not there and who decided not to implement in the game. Throwing crap and pointing fingers at this point is simply put stupid.

Ah, but if there's a fuss now, then if AMD are blocking DLSS implementation they'll probably stop & the game might launch with DLSS support, which we can all agree is the best outcome. If AMD aren't doing anything wrong then they can simply ignore it, & the developer can decide whether it's worth implementing for themselves.

HOkayAh, but if there's a fuss now, then if AMD are blocking DLSS implementation they'll probably stop & the game might launch with DLSS support, which we can all agree is the best outcome. If AMD aren't doing anything wrong then they can simply ignore it, & the developer can decide whether it's worth implementing for themselves.

The problem that I see here is assumptions and drawing conclusions too fast without full spectrum of evidence. Just because some people want them to block NV with DLSS does not mean they actually do it. The DLSS is not there at launch (we do not know if it won't show up later like in most cases). The only argument there is, AMD is blocking and yet the game is not out yet. Also, the argument is that AMD did not answer specifically to the question if they are in fact blocking anything. You have a lot of NV sponsored titles which do not have FSR. Also, you have FSR titles which do not have DLSS implementations. (Some games got FSR 18 months later even though the tech was available during the game's production). NV stated they are not blocking other technologies like AMD's FSR in games and yet not all NV sponsored titles have FSR. Does this mean NV is lying or there's another factor in the equation? Same goes for AMD sponsored titles with FSR that do not have DLSS implementation. It is easy to draw fast conclusions.
No company can ignore it, your PR will go down even if the accusations are not true. Some people will still be 100% sure, AMD or NV is blocking the competition. I say, wait for the answer. Sometimes the company can't give a simple answer because they are not in a position to give answer about it. Can the producer of the game decide not to implement an upscaling solution? Could that be a possibility? If yes, then why would upscaling tech company take a stand on that and belittle the company which agreed to sponsor their tech in a game as an exclusive which is promoting their technology and can bring more profit for the company? If no, then why we don't have both upscaling techs in every game? Another question is, why this particular game is on a display not so many other games which don't have both upscaling techniques? There is definitely something fishy going on and it is not what you think. There is also something missing in the conclusion process about the entire situation.

It does really boil down to if they aren't blocking implementation of competitor technologies, then it's a very easy answer which hurts no one if they simply say no, like Nvidia did. It could still be a lie ofc, but to not respond directly to the question with a simple "no" does really incriminate them fairly strongly.

HOkayIt does really boil down to if they aren't blocking implementation of competitor technologies, then it's a very easy answer which hurts no one if they simply say no, like Nvidia did. It could still be a lie ofc, but to not respond directly to the question with a simple "no" does really incriminate them fairly strongly.

What if. Only what if. they say, No we do not block, which means the producer of the game is not implementing the DLSS upscaler (for whatever reasons) and the hate will flow to the game's producer which is being sponsored by AMD. Do you think, because AMD saying no, it will somehow impact the relationship with the game's producer since then their PR will be at stake here for a game that has not been released which may impact sales of the game and relationship between the two companies? Do you think AMD would have been happy of a poor sales of a game which they are a sponsor with when the feud started way before its release?
The answer is easy but the consequences may be severe.
NV said NO but there are games there with DLSS and no FSR. Explain that one to me why this happened. And while you are at it explaining, think why this particular game is being grilled so much about it not the other titles and what can be other factors for not having an upscaler in a game when one of the competitors says No, we are not blocking anything and yet the competing upscalers are not present in that game.

I'm not talking about this game, I'm focusing on the list of sponsored games from both sides which shows the curious one-sidedness.

If it's completely developer choice then I'm not going to "hate" on a developer or boycott a game because they choose not to implement DLSS or FSR. If they implement neither of them, or one but not the other, I would be disappointed, but it wouldn't stop me buying a game. L

As for why some Nvidia sponsored games with DLSS don't have FSR, I don't know. If it's really as easy to implement the second one after the first is done as AMD & Nvidia make out then I really don't know, I can only guess it's because they're prioritising other work over it & it simply never gets the dev time. Even if it's a small amount of time, it's still time away from other things; bugs, DLC, cosmetics, things that are judged to be more important. Plus with a sponsored title I expect AMD or Nvidia devs help implement & test the upscaling, so that dev effort comes for free, but they sure aren't going to implement the competitor upscaler!

HOkayI'm not talking about this game, I'm focusing on the list of sponsored games from both sides which shows the curious one-sidedness.

If it's completely developer choice then I'm not going to "hate" on a developer or boycott a game because they choose not to implement DLSS or FSR. If they implement neither of them, or one but not the other, I would be disappointed, but it wouldn't stop me buying a game. L

As for why some Nvidia sponsored games with DLSS don't have FSR, I don't know. If it's really as easy to implement the second one after the first is done as AMD & Nvidia make out then I really don't know, I can only guess it's because they're prioritising other work over it & it simply never gets the dev time. Even if it's a small amount of time, it's still time away from other things; bugs, DLC, cosmetics, things that are judged to be more important. Plus with a sponsored title I expect AMD or Nvidia devs help implement & test the upscaling, so that dev effort comes for free, but they sure aren't going to implement the competitor upscaler!

I'm talking in general but I point out that the feud about DLSS not being in Starfield game. For some reason other games that have no DLSS are not mentioned.
Everything is developers choice since it is their prduct. I'm sure companies can influence the decision but the developer is the one to say the last word.
Honestly, I dont care if there is DLSS or there isn't since for me I can't use it anyway but I'm just pointing out there are games in both camps that have their own tech and don't have the other. Not sure what one sidedness we are talking about here.
If AMD and NV have a lot to say regarding which upscaler is in the game which is not when they are the sponsors, then NV must have lied about 'we don't block anything'.
I think, they do not have anything to say in that regard thus what NV said stands. AMD is not answering cause they don't want to throw MS or Bethesda under the bus. Also, the game is not yet out so the question, why DLSS is not in the game is irrelevant. Some people strive for accusations and are looking for problems even if they are not there.
If it is prioritizing as you say, not sure why so much hate on AMD trying to get FSR in the game that is sponsored by them. I'm sure DLSS will be in the game sooner or later.

ratirtNot sure what one sidedness we are talking about here.

60% of Nvidia sponsored games with FSR support vs 27% of AMD sponsored games with DLSS support.

ratirtAMD is not answering cause they don't want to throw MS or Bethesda under the bus.

This doesn't make sense as a potential explanation to me, it's not throwing them under the bus to simply say that AMD does not add contractual terms to block competitor technologies being used.

I just hope the real News of the Day (No 4060Ti review samples provided) generates as much traffic. It would be sad to have a thread that is no more than speculation be more pages then that. You people who are feeling sore about it are being juvenile as no one can say how the Game performs on PC. Now the other thing is that the only AMD products that don't get Starfield are the 6400 and 6500XT. That includes the 6600 and up. As far as CPUs go it looks like every 7000 CPU will get you a copy but the higher cost products will give you a more deluxe version. If anyone is wanting AMD's response you should watch CES (I think) when the 7000 series was announced. You will see that Bethesda and a few other known developers and publishers are PARTNERING with AMD to make Gaming more enjoyable on AMD products and actively working on software (FSR) improvements to draw more performance. Just like how all of a sudden AMD cards are bad at power draw. I watched the PC World podcast today and they had someone on from one of the bigger websites and he waxed on about AMD power draw at idle saying that he was drawing 90 Watts on idle. Someone asked about if he had updated the driver and he said yes but I can't see that but he never said that it could be his cable.

AMD is not your friend but they enjoy much friendlier relationships with the rest of the Community than Nvidia. How many Companies have been a part of AMD's announcements since the launch of Ryzen? The Nvidia laughs at it's PC customers by juicing the GPU market but unintended consequences are happening. Ask yourself this question. Have you heard anyone with a hand held (Steam Deck, Ally, Neo) complaining about DLSS support? Is there a negative review for the Minisforum 7940 Mini PC? That neither supports DLSS but I have not heard that mentioned.

HOkay60% of Nvidia sponsored games with FSR support vs 27% of AMD sponsored games with DLSS support.

what is it you are trying to prove here? I dont think it is something bad to a degree. Does it make it NV good or better because they have higher percentage of games with DLSS and FSR?
You are twisting and you are not looking at this with a full spectrum. Both companies have only their upscaler tech in certain games. It is not a matter of making one company look better or not with the % you have put. It happens that one upscaler is in the game the other isn't. The question here is not the % to which the company is bad but rather, why this is happening and what seem to be the reasons for it. AMD or NV blocking something? Seriously doubt that scenario.

HOkayThis doesn't make sense as a potential explanation to me, it's not throwing them under the bus to simply say that AMD does not add contractual terms to block competitor technologies being used.

It does make sense if you dont want to say what you know at the time when the game is about to be released it makes perfect sense. Have we seen contractual terms in which AMD can and is encouraged in any way to block competing technologies for upscaling technique in Starfield game? AMD does not add or game producer does not add? I think, it is the producer that is drafting the contract not AMD. When I see a clause there, saying that AMD is capable to block NV tech then sure. For now all of it is bullshit.

kapone32Ask yourself this question. Have you heard anyone with a hand held (Steam Deck, Ally, Neo) complaining about DLSS support? Is there a negative review for the Minisforum 7940 Mini PC? That neither supports DLSS but I have not heard that mentioned.

Why would anyone be complaining about no DLSS on those devices which are all AMD hardware? They never could support DLSS, that's completely different from a game which can (allegedly) "easily" support both.

ratirtwhat is it you are trying to prove here? I dont think it is something bad to a degree. Does it make it NV good or better because they have higher percentage of games with DLSS and FSR?
You are twisting and you are not looking at this with a full spectrum. Both companies have only their upscaler tech in certain games. It is not a matter of making one company look better or not with the % you have put. It happens that one upscaler is in the game the other isn't. The question here is not the % to which the company is bad but rather, why this is happening and what seem to be the reasons for it. AMD or NV blocking something? Seriously doubt that scenario.

This is the main evidence that insinuates that AMD are blocking DLSS implementations. As stated before, it's by no means conclusive. I fully agree with you it's absolutely not about trying to make a company look good or bad, it's about trying to explain that discrepancy, and AMD blocking DLSS implementation in their default terms when they sponsor a game is one possible explanation. I think that sounds plausible, you obviously don't, which is fine since we can't prove either of us right or wrong at this point.
The only alternative reason I've heard that makes any sense is if there is a licensing cost to the publisher/developer to add DLSS support. I can certainly imagine then that they'd simply choose not to since all Nvidia GPUs can just use FSR so they don't need to spend the money to add it. What's your thoughts on that explanation? Can you think of any others?

ratirtI think, it is the producer that is drafting the contract not AMD.

I would imagine AMD or Nvidia approach the publisher and/or developer and they have a boilerplate agreement which they start discussions with. The publisher and/or developer could then push back on certain terms and AMD or Nvidia decide whether to concede on that particular term or not. So it's certainly possible that the publishers/developers of the AMD sponsored games which have DLSS were ones that pushed back and said they wanted to implement DLSS.

HOkayThis is the main evidence that insinuates that AMD are blocking DLSS implementations. As stated before, it's by no means conclusive. I fully agree with you it's absolutely not about trying to make a company look good or bad, it's about trying to explain that discrepancy, and AMD blocking DLSS implementation in their default terms when they sponsor a game is one possible explanation. I think that sounds plausible, you obviously don't, which is fine since we can't prove either of us right or wrong at this point.
The only alternative reason I've heard that makes any sense is if there is a licensing cost to the publisher/developer to add DLSS support. I can certainly imagine then that they'd simply choose not to since all Nvidia GPUs can just use FSR so they don't need to spend the money to add it. What's your thoughts on that explanation? Can you think of any others?

I think it is not conclusive that AMD or NV is blocking anyone from usage of their technologies in a game because a game does not have a technique implemented. Especially if you think about it as not their product (meaning the game) to have an argument about what's in the game or not. What they can try doing, is to approach the game developer company and ask them to use their technology since the company itself is not obligated to do so. That is why in my opinion there is a variety of DLSS and FSR not being in a game together. It is not the developer's obligation that they must use every single technique out there. The sponsorship assures usage of a technique in a best possible way at the launch of a game to promote the technique.
AMD or NV blocking other company from using a feature in a game. OK, how? By donating money to the company producing a game like a bribe? How is that work exactly? Also, why you are at it, can you tell me of any evidence supporting your statement that sponsorship means to block the other competing tech vs promoting their own?
You can have your own conclusion and opinion about it that is fine. I have different and since you can't present any evidence that this situation is having place in that particular game, I find your conclusion inaccurate since you can also have different conclusions at the same time without enough evidence.

HOkayI would imagine AMD or Nvidia approach the publisher and/or developer and they have a boilerplate agreement which they start discussions with. The publisher and/or developer could then push back on certain terms and AMD or Nvidia decide whether to concede on that particular term or not. So it's certainly possible that the publishers/developers of the AMD sponsored games which have DLSS were ones that pushed back and said they wanted to implement DLSS.

If you have a contract, you are discussing your product and your product only. Since you have a means of ownership to that product. If you were a company producing part for a device, you discuss usage of your product in a device not, forbidding using other parts for the product that by the end of manufacturing is not yours to begin with.
On the other hand, if a situation takes place, that the company that agrees to use your part also agrees not to use others there must be a bribery going on or there is some form of influence that would render the company prone to not use the parts despite potential sales loss or malfunctioning of the final product. If that happens, that of course is very bad and is anti-consumer and anti-free market and should have been punished but only if there is evidence. I can't see any evidence as of now so I'm not going to change my statement about DLSS not being in the game so it means AMD must have blocked it since they are the sponsor of the game. That is an assumption not a fact and an insinuation.

Yes, the theory is that the AMD contract for sponsoring a game says that the developer "should" or "shall" only ever implement FSR, or that they should or shall only implement FSR at launch (leaving it up to the devs to implement DLSS later if they want to, probably hoping that the developer won't bother).

I think we both understand each other's viewpoint and we've got no more evidence to push either of us either way so probably time to call it a day. It'll be interesting to see if we ever find out why there is such a stark difference between the number of sponsored games that support the competitor upscaler. If we do, I look forward to one of us saying "I told you so" later :D!

HOkayYes, the theory is that the AMD contract for sponsoring a game says that the developer "should" or "shall" only ever implement FSR, or that they should or shall only implement FSR at launch (leaving it up to the devs to implement DLSS later if they want to, probably hoping that the developer won't bother).

I totally disagree with that. 1st, we dont have evidence about AMD stating anything like that in the contract. 2nd, the developer does not have an obligation to implement any technique in a game if the company does not approach them and ask for it. The developer may choose to do so but it is not mandatory for the developer in the first place. For all I know they can be no upscaling techniques in a game at launch or ever during the game's lifespan. Drawing a conclusion about having one only meaning the other has been blocked is inaccurate at best. 3rd, as I have already told you, when you hold a sponsorship it is not illegal or bad to have your technique to be implemented in the best way possible and that is the developers duty to do so. They will have to pull all the stops making it happen. That is the agreement. Is that approach blocking any other techniques? No it is not. The game has to be launched with the technique the developer's agreed on implementing via sponsorship by AMD approaching them and asking if they can do it to promote their own technique. There is nothing wrong with that. If the developer decides to go with DLSS at launch that is their decision but since AMD approach them and they have a contract they need to comply with and they also have obligation towards AMD so that at launch the implementation is not a flop because if it is, AMD may request to revoke the sponsorship due to infringement or not holding to the contract between the two parties.
Why I say this? Because there is huge number of NV sponsored games when FSR showed up a year(or longer) after the game's release while having DLSS at launch and I see nothing wrong with it. Was that blocking competition by NVidia? In my opinion it wasn't.

ratirtBecause there is huge number of NV sponsored games when FSR showed up a year(or longer) after the game's release while having DLSS at launch and I see nothing wrong with it.

A huge number? No there isn't. Name 10, or even 5 games where that happened. According to the list in the HWUB video, there was one title sponsored by Nvidia which received FSR 18 months after launch.

HOkayA huge number? No there isn't. Name 10, or even 5 games where that happened. According to the list in the HWUB video, there was one title sponsored by Nvidia which received FSR 18 months after launch.

This is an interesting Chart

www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_high-fidelity_upscaling

The Chart I have listed above should be the end of this ridiculous argument. Just do a quick scroll and see how many Games actually have DLSS support and no FSR support. It is interesting that there are already examples where either FSR, XEss or DLSS is supported but while the first 2 work with any card the last one requires an Nvidia card and does not work with the others. That mattered when the majority of PC Games were made with Nvidia hardware and shows in the chart as if you look you will see all of the DLSS games are PC Games.

Now the trend is changing and we have 9 page threads about Spy vs Spy but the fact that Nvidia provided no review samples of the 4060 16GB is pretty much meh. Do you realize the amount of hubris in that reflection?

I expected TPU to be held to a higher standard but TPU is just a reflection of society. The previous post specifically says, not imply, or infer "According to the list in the HWUB video". That means they are relying on being able to regurgitate the opinions and information provided to them by HWUB. The issue with that is these people are paid and sponsored by the very Companies they review (In some cases) so you should always get context. There is a channel called Frame Chasers that showed that the 7900XT is a really fast card. He then lied by stating that the card drew 400W of power. Even if you turn the power slider the max load a 7900XT will pull is about 360 Watts (on Water) but some people will take that and not go on the AMD website to verify for themselves.

Now we have AMD being "shady"about something they announced at CES. It is insane to me that even TPU staff are engaging in this when all you have to do is a little research for yourself. In fact I will post it again. So AMD is being dishonest by not confirming why Bethesda chose to use FSR?

www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_high-fidelity_upscaling

To all of you that would challenge my thoughts on this. Read the wiki and see the truth for yourself. Just because some of us want to make AMD the bad guy does not make it real. Nvidia is still getting DLSS exclusivity in Games and the only reason in like 10 years that Nvidia gave the community carrots with DLSS binaries is the same reason they desperately tried to buy ARM. At least my argument is also broken about ARPGs not having upscaling. I forgot that the Ascent has DLSS support

Another shot of reality. If you take advantage of this Black Friday July and buy any AMD 7000 or 6000 GPU (not 6500XT) or any 7000 CPU you get Starfield making those prices even more attractive. Please don't tell me that you are not interested in a Game made by the people that gave us Skyrim? Isn't the Gaming part of PC Gaming supposed to be about fun and inclusion? Does the 4080 not support FSR? Does a 4080 even need FSR to play the Game? Will you get better frames if you have X3d and rebar? How will the 8 GB cards like the 6600 and 7600 compare to the 4060 in this Game? Will a 3070 be enough for high FPS? How does ARC play with this Game? Do you know who can answer those questions? No one because the Game has not been released.

kapone32This is an interesting Chart

www.pcgamingwiki.com/wiki/List_of_games_that_support_high-fidelity_upscaling

This doesn't list which ones are sponsored titles by either company so I think you're comparing apples to oranges here?

Edit: I'm also not sure I trust this page entirely given it says Baldur's Gate III came out on October 6, 2020 :D

Sorry where's the hubris in not caring about Nvidia seeding samples for review? All the reviewers just bought the cards & reviewed them anyway so frankly I don't really care if either company seed reviewers with cards for review, it's actually better if they don't because then reviewers can't be tempted to be biased in order to keep receiving free cards for review!

No one asked AMD why Bethesda didn't include FSR, they asked AMD whether they have terms that block competitor technologies in games they sponsor. Very different questions.

Edit: Oh also Starfield is going to be on Game Pass so I don't need to buy it.

HOkayThis doesn't list which ones are sponsored titles by either company so I think you're comparing apples to oranges here?

Sorry where's the hubris in not caring about Nvidia seeding samples for review? All the reviewers just bought the cards & reviewed them anyway so frankly I don't really care if either company seed reviews with cards for review, it's actually better if they don't because then reviews can't be tempted to be biased in order to keep receiving free cards for review!

No one asked AMD why Bethesda didn't include FSR, they asked AMD whether they have terms that block competitor technologies in games they sponsor. Very different questions.

Edit: Oh also Starfield is going to be on Game Pass so I don't need to buy it.

If you looked you would have seen that the Games that only support DLSS are Nvidia sponsored. Especially the first implementation. Do you think developers of their own volition do the extra work to add that code to the Game? Especially when it was first introed? Does not sponsored in a technology tangent mean hardware and software exclusive?

Show me another card from Nvidia where ALL reviewers had to get their own samples? I am looking at the fact that they expected us to pay $500 for a card they refused to sample.

When the WIKI shows that Nvidia has been doing exactly that. Just because it's not the 50 Games that seem to be the only Games in the World that youtube talks about does not mean that it is not real. If Nvidia is telling AIB partners that they can't use the same nomenclature for AMD cards and should shun Intel GPUs. You better believe I can see them doing that. By the way are these people the SEC, FTC or in just Youtubers looking for clicks.

Gamepass: Now that MS has EA say a prayer for developers as Game pass may seem nice to us the users but cannot be good for developers trying to control their own sales. You could have a Game that everyone plays on Game Pass and the developer gets screwed because no one buys the Game. Now that they own everything but that is also fraught as you can buy DLC on sale on MS for a Game that you can play on Game pass but don't own and can't even access the files.