CyberPomPom
15 years ago, almost to the day.
1600p60 FSAA was also a thing already on many games. And by the end of the year some cards had same performance level as the best of this graph but in 1600p.

mb194dcNever understood upscaliing, if I'm paying thousands for a graphics card and screen... I want the best image quality. That is native resolution. No interest in DLSS, FSR or whatever.

AssimilatorLMAO what utter nonsense. What's crippling hardware performance are the high resolutions people expect now... 4k is 4x 1080p, 8k is 4x that again, so you are asking the GPU to render sixteen times more pixels. Graphics cards could do that today... if they were 16x larger, consumed 16x more power, and cost 16x as much. Since that's stupid and nobody would be able to afford it, upscaling and frame generation are literally the only way that GPUs can keep up with high-resolution displays. It's almost like the people who design GPUs are a lot smarter than you, and have thought of this.


Because performance isn't a feature :rolleyes:


Since @las has posted evidence that contradicts this claim, how about you provide evidence to back it up?

AssimilatorLMAO what utter nonsense. What's crippling hardware performance are the high resolutions people expect now... 4k is 4x 1080p, 8k is 4x that again, so you are asking the GPU to render sixteen times more pixels. Graphics cards could do that today... if they were 16x larger, consumed 16x more power, and cost 16x as much. Since that's stupid and nobody would be able to afford it, upscaling and frame generation are literally the only way that GPUs can keep up with high-resolution displays. It's almost like the people who design GPUs are a lot smarter than you, and have thought of this.

Beginner Micro Device6 outta 9 games are way slower than 60 FPS on a single top-tier GPU. SLI and CF have never been ideal and playability is questionable. 4K runs faster now than 1080p back then.

Vya DomusWell, technically correct since Nvidia doesn't offer anything at all on this front.

andreiga76I was talking about PC market.
It's not about how many units you sell, or how much revenue you get, it's all about how much profit you get from each sold unit, AMD is not getting back much profit on those, in fact MS and Sony chose them because NVidia didn't want involved in that market.
You're talking about the booming handheld market, but you forgot Nintendo is a handheld device and they sell more units than PS5, this year with the new Nintendo console/handheld it will be a clear winner in units sold.
NVidia is ok in selling their GPUs to Nintendo because of their special negotiated agreement and because they can sell them at high margins, since they are much reduced versions compared to current generation, based on some info they are even based on last generation.

T0@stAMD Believes NVIDIA is Behind in Driver-Based Upscaler Development

DenverMore raw performance in rasterization is what most people want

Denverthese extra tricks and artifact generators will be used in the future to cover up mediocre performance gains

AssimilatorHey guess what, you don't always get what you want because of things like, IDK, physics.


Do you know what else uses all sorts of tricks to gain better performance? Rasterisation. Tricks like occlusion culling have been used for as long as rasterisation has existed, and sometimes they give the wrong results. Do I hear you complaining about those? Nope.

Really, this anti-frame-generation nonsense is exactly that: reactive nonsense from people who don't understand the limits of silicon or the future of graphics. Thankfully, that future is going to happen regardless of your inability or willingness to comprehend it.

Beginner Micro Device"640 kB is enough for everyone."

The difference in fidelity is real. Calculating power grows, upscaling technology improves. It's a matter of time. Maybe in 10 or 15 years we will have 8K monitors for sub 800 USD and GPUs capable of reasonable 8K gaming at High or at least Medium settings at sub 1000 USD mark. Doesn't sound insane to me (15 years ago, 1080p60 was not a thing, just FYI).

SteevoAlright youngsters, when I started I was excited to get a 600X800 screen and 16bit color.

I bought a 9600XT to play HL2 and bought a new CRT monitor at a whopping 1280X1024,

SteevoAlright youngsters, when I started I was excited to get a 600X800 screen and 16bit color.

I bought a 9600XT to play HL2 and bought a new CRT monitor at a whopping 1280X1024,

Beginner Micro DeviceWhen all that was a thing I was an elementary school nonsense. Now, being a 29 y.o. nonsense, I just enjoy the fact I don't need to lower my resolution to 320x240 for games to have a double digit framerate.

kapone32Remember when 720P was the rage? I loaded up Flashback on my 3DO emulation on my 4K tv and wow.

BeermotorUpscaling allows hardware vendors to sell weak, crippled parts at premium prices.

DenverYou can't maintain the coherence of your own argument. How do you claim to understand that physics makes it exponentially more difficult and expensive with each new manufacturing process, while at the same time defending Nvidia wasting transistors/area on the die with something remarkably impossible like RT?

- Oh, I know, but the $2000 4090 can run CB2077 from half a decade ago at 20-30fps with PT.
- No, It's not playable... Then, What are we going to do? Blur it with upscaling( the realistic graphic I was trying to create) and then insert fake frames, artifacts and extra latency... Wow, look, look, now it's playable. Yay!

Occlusion culling and fake frames/upscaling are not even comparable. One works on the part of the scene that is not visible; Sometimes it can cause artifacts depending on the efficiency of the implementation used, on the other hand fake frames/upscaling cause artifacts and quality degradation 100% of the time.

Yes, let's be thankful for a future of buggy games with upscaling, artifacts, expensive hardware, and minimal advancements; It's incredible.

Dirt ChipAnd to game developers ship the game at beta (or alpha) state, optimisation wise.


Anyone can choose to play at 1080@60. With that, the top tire GPU will give you what older 10 years ago couldn’t dream of, obviously. Compromise and tricks was used back then, like today. If you turn off RT, you will not have problems playing any game at max on a 1080 monitor even with mid level GPU.
You want more res and higher max fps? Then you need to move to the new age of compromise - AI. You can choose not to of course.
You’re ranting about AMD and NV (and Intel..) to choose to invest on RT and AI solving calculations and allocating precious wafer area is close to futile, as this is what all of the targeted.
Do you see any prospect to a new company or line of products that do only raster? I don’t.
For that you also need a whole line of new game developers to code only raster games.

In 5 years or less, non AI driven GPU (and just about everything else pc related) hardware will be davestatly inferior to non existing.
We’re at a transition time towards it, some polishing still to be done but will get there sooner than later. Do join along.

DenverYes, it is futile to think within reality and logic, the important thing is to create an irrational trend and make money. I'm entirely wrong, it makes perfect sense for companies to put a stick on supposed RT capabilities even on smartphone arm SOCs with just 5w TDP, APUs and low-end GPUs. People don't have brains, just put the "RT ready" stick and increase sales.

The solution is to simply admit that the gaming and hardware market is no longer attractive, get out and look for another hobby. There are so many options, including much healthier ones.