NVIDIA DLSS 3.7 and AMD FSR 3.0

LOL. One more example where the developers decide to give an advantage to RTX 4000 series owners, by mistreating Radeon and RTX 3000 cards. AMD decoupled Frame Generation from FSR with 3.1 version and what it should be seen as an advantage, it seems to becoming a reason for developers to avoid implementing it.

Of course I don't expect an online campaign like the one we have seen with Starfield.

I love monopoly. Don't you?

GFreemanthis new version adds PC-specific enhancements including native 4K resolution at up to 144hz on compatible hardware, monitor support for both Ultrawide (21:9) and Super Ultrawide (32:9), HDR10 support, and full keyboard and mouse functionality.

It sounds good to my ears !

Has it not been updated to RDR2 engine?

john_LOL. One more example where the developers decide to give an advantage to RTX 4000 series owners, by mistreating Radeon and RTX 3000 cards. AMD decoupled Frame Generation from FSR with 3.1 version and what it should be seen as an advantage, it seems to becoming a reason for developers to avoid implementing it.

Of course I don't expect an online campaign like the one we have seen with Starfield.

More concerning is what the hell is upscaling and frame generation doing in a game like this, this game is almost 15 years old, it predates GTA 5, it should run at 100 fps+ 4K easily on last gen PC hardware, it's unacceptable if it doesn't.

Wait.... I am only partly through 2.....

gffermariHas it not been updated to RDR2 engine?

Haha ofc not, did u think they would do it? Lets be real.. It was too logical for them to do it.
Anyways, just pray you can change ur controls haha, thats 1 feature im looking forward to. Considering they dont care about us PC gamers.

gffermariHas it not been updated to RDR2 engine?

Acting like switching game engines is as simple as swapping your shoes. LOL.

Game engines are complicated, it's highly unlikely that RDR1 can be ported into RDR2's game engine without significant work. Assuming the assets would even transfer properly. This isnt moving from unreal 5 to unreal 5.1.

It was likely less work to recompile the OG engine to x86 and add features like native 4k support then it was to port all those assets to the RDR2 engine. Or, it IS the RDR2 engine, or a derivative. Nobody has actually said it runs on the OG engine.

Vya DomusMore concerning is what the hell is upscaling and frame generation doing in a game like this, this game is almost 15 years old, it predates GTA 5, it should run at 100 fps+ 4K easily on last gen PC hardware, it's unacceptable if it doesn't.

The OG game also only ran at 720p, to be fair. Pushing that same engine to 4k may not be so simple, especially to hit 144 FPS on top of that. We dont know what performance robbing compatibility layers are being used to make this game run.

starfalsHaha ofc not, did u think they would do it? Lets be real.. It was too logical for them to do it.
Anyways, just pray you can change ur controls haha, thats 1 feature im looking forward to. Considering they dont care about us PC gamers.

>doesnt care about the PC audience
>is porting game to PC

oof, that's a swing and a miss.

john_LOL. One more example where the developers decide to give an advantage to RTX 4000 series owners, by mistreating Radeon and RTX 3000 cards. AMD decoupled Frame Generation from FSR with 3.1 version and what it should be seen as an advantage, it seems to becoming a reason for developers to avoid implementing it.

Of course I don't expect an online campaign like the one we have seen with Starfield.

I love monopoly. Don't you?

Your anger is misdirected - and by now you should have noticed that AMD is currently neither capable of nor willing to invest as much in their graphics IP as NVIDIA does. Besides, if the recent implementations of FSR 3 with frame generation are anything to go by, it won't be missed and you won't want to use it anyway.

XeSS will beat the crap out of it in image quality, and while GeForce owners can use them all, there's little reason to use anything else other than DLSS, and certainly not FSR if XeSS happens to be available. So, yeah.

Dr. DroXeSS will beat the crap out of it in image quality

With a couple asterisks.

1. It runs slower than both DLSS and FSR on non-Intel GPUs. Noticeably so.
2. Light sources get the most flickering precisely with XeSS in most games. Even FSR ain't this bad in this department.

But yeah, AMD had been shooting all their limbs lately, sometimes even nuking, so no surprise we only see FSR3 in this title.

After 14 years and not remastered the absolute maximum price is $19.99.

Dr. DroYour anger is misdirected - and by now you should have noticed that AMD is currently neither capable of nor willing to invest as much in their graphics IP as NVIDIA does. Besides, if the recent implementations of FSR 3 with frame generation are anything to go by, it won't be missed and you won't want to use it anyway.

XeSS will beat the crap out of it in image quality, and while GeForce owners can use them all, there's little reason to use anything else other than DLSS, and certainly not FSR if XeSS happens to be available. So, yeah.

I think most are annoyed becuase with FSR 3.1 you can use any of the 3 upscaling methods you prefer with frame generation so it benefits most amd hardware, Intel hardware, and pre 4xxx Nvidia hardware.

It should be implemented imo but it's on developers not Nvidia or AMD....

oxrufiioxoI think most are annoyed becuase with FSR 3.1 you can use any of the 3 upscaling methods you prefer with frame generation so it benefits most amd hardware, Intel hardware, and pre 4xxx Nvidia hardware.

It should be implemented imo but it's on developers not Nvidia or AMD....

The true question is do you want to. I used to be very critical of the fact that Nvidia did not enable DLSS-G on the RTX 30 series and I still think it should have been left enabled for users to choose at their own peril, as I believe that it could at least be serviceable on hardware like the 3080 Ti and 3090 - but AMD's frame generation probably exemplifies why Nvidia didn't bother - and yet worse, those do have a (slower) optical flow accelerator.

I have never seen something choppier than FSR's frame generator, the actual rate of frames went up but the game's smoothness went down dramatically, it felt like a choppy, juddery, laggy mess when I tried it on Final Fantasy XVI. Granted, DLSS-G performs very poorly in that game as well (lots of smearing and artifacting, like, unusually so amongst all other games I have ever tried), but still.

I don't see what's wrong with this statement anyway, we might all be jumping the gun. DLSS 3.7 doesn't necessarily include frame generation or ray reconstruction. It could just be the 3.7 super sampling DLL included with the game.

Dr. DroYour anger is misdirected - and by now you should have noticed that AMD is currently

Omg who cares what AMD is doing, it's not relevant here. This is strictly about the developer, AMD isn't forcing them to use an out of date version of FSR. Intel still has effectively zero dedicated GPU market share but somehow developers don't use out of date versions of their software.

Dr. Droit felt like a choppy, juddery, laggy mess when I tried it on Final Fantasy XVI. Granted, DLSS-G performs very poorly in that game as well (lots of smearing and artifacting, like, unusually so amongst all other games I have ever tried), but still.

What a bizarre thing to say, on one hand you call out FSR FG for being bad in this one game you played but then you admit DLSS FG was bad as well so basically that means nothing. Any rational person would conclude it's the game's fault.

I used FSR3 in several games and mods as well as the driver version of it and they all work as they should.

Vya DomusMore concerning is what the hell is upscaling and frame generation doing in a game like this, this game is almost 15 years old, it predates GTA 5, it should run at 100 fps+ 4K easily on last gen PC hardware, it's unacceptable if it doesn't.

Minimal specs are a lot higher than GTA V ones even if GTA V was released 3 years after RDR lol.
If they used that upscaling to make the specs... imagine the portage quality:).

john_LOL. One more example where the developers decide to give an advantage to RTX 4000 series owners, by mistreating Radeon and RTX 3000 cards. AMD decoupled Frame Generation from FSR with 3.1 version and what it should be seen as an advantage, it seems to becoming a reason for developers to avoid implementing it.

Of course I don't expect an online campaign like the one we have seen with Starfield.

I love monopoly. Don't you?

Even in Frostpunk 2, an AMD sponsored game, FSR Frame Gen is locked to FSR SuperRes and DLSS Frame Gen is locked to DLSS SR

Oh and this is how FSR Frame Gen looks like, in an AMD sponsored game, just took this screenshot.

Dr. DroThe true question is do you want to. I used to be very critical of the fact that Nvidia did not enable DLSS-G on the RTX 30 series and I still think it should have been left enabled for users to choose at their own peril, as I believe that it could at least be serviceable on hardware like the 3080 Ti and 3090 - but AMD's frame generation probably exemplifies why Nvidia didn't bother - and yet worse, those do have a (slower) optical flow accelerator.

I have never seen something choppier than FSR's frame generator, the actual rate of frames went up but the game's smoothness went down dramatically, it felt like a choppy, juddery, laggy mess when I tried it on Final Fantasy XVI. Granted, DLSS-G performs very poorly in that game as well (lots of smearing and artifacting, like, unusually so amongst all other games I have ever tried), but still.

I don't see what's wrong with this statement anyway, we might all be jumping the gun. DLSS 3.7 doesn't necessarily include frame generation or ray reconstruction. It could just be the 3.7 super sampling DLL included with the game.

Do you ever stop? One day you should read what you post. It is clear that you are anti AMD and are willing to describe everything they do as some weak facsimile of whatever Nvidia has. If I spend over $1000 for a GPU the last thing I think about is features. That even goes against the original post as there is no mention of what is better. In fact the implication of the rest is pro Nvidia anyway.

kapone32Do you ever stop? One day you should read what you post. It is clear that you are anti AMD and are willing to describe everything they do as some weak facsimile of whatever Nvidia has. If I spend over $1000 for a GPU the last thing I think about is features. That even goes against the original post as there is no mention of what is better. In fact the implication of the rest is pro Nvidia anyway.

No, I don't. If it wasn't painfully obvious by now, I do not care if my statements hurt your feelings. I only care about speaking the truth, not defending some company's honor like you do. Because that statement just reeks of pro-Nvidia rhetoric, and I totally didn't point out that in that specific title, DLSS admittedly doesn't do much better, although it's glitches and not the presentation that's the problem. Get a life...

Vya DomusOmg who cares what AMD is doing, it's not relevant here. This is strictly about the developer, AMD isn't forcing them to use an out of date version of FSR. Intel still has effectively zero dedicated GPU market share but somehow developers don't use out of date versions of their software.

I used FSR3 in several games and mods as well as the driver version of it and they all work as they should.

Perhaps you should write Rockstar and let them know that you are very unsatisfied with their low-priority treatment of your favorite graphics vendor (despite the fact that the game is probably gonna launch with whatever's the latest version of FSR is available at the time the game goes gold anyway and we are bickering weeks in advance for seemingly no reason whatsoever). Furthermore, you should write AMD and demand of them that they make FSR's DLLs easily updatable, just like DLSS's user drop-in version upgrades (or downgrades, as long as it's a DLSS 3.x DLL, I can just drop in whatever and it will likely work). That will get things done, bet.

nguyenEven in Frostpunk 2, an AMD sponsored game, FSR Frame Gen is locked to FSR SuperRes and DLSS Frame Gen is locked to DLSS SR

Oh and this is how FSR Frame Gen looks like, in an AMD sponsored game, just took this screenshot.

The only wee problem with this is that unless there's motion, you're not gonna see any generated frames on screenshots - and a game with largely static, top-down view is probably about the best case scenario for any frame generation technology.

gffermariHas it not been updated to RDR2 engine?

Why would we want that when older engines are better?

Dr. DroThat will get things done, bet.

No it wont, the DLL is just a small component, you still have to implement the rest, there is no logical reason why you wouldn't want to use the latest version regardless, it's the same cost to you as a developer.

By the way, the reason Nvidia and Intel use DLLs is because it's simpler to keep them closed source that way, it's not because they want developers to have an easier time. Popular engine makers can always repackage components of FSR as a DLL if they think it will make a big difference to future development, they don't which should give you an idea on how big of a deal this really is.

Also as far as I can tell at least the latest version of FSR does in fact offer DLLs, so even that excuse doesn't apply anymore.

€9,99 and no cut content, right?

Wait, why a 15 years old game even requires DLSS and/or other shenanigans??

Price $50

wth Rockstar. Why do you do these things to PC gamers?

64KPrice $50

wth Rockstar. Why do you do these things to PC gamers?

Cause they know we're gonna pay

Save yourself the laughably atrocious price tag of this 15 year old game and play it on an emulator.

matarAfter 14 years and not remastered the absolute maximum price is $19.99.

GUYS its going to be $49,99 :kookoo::roll::laugh: dream on Rockstar