NVIDIA GeForce RTX 50 Technical Deep Dive

[JustBenching]

Because 45% of people have an AMD card, obviously... Wait, what?

To be fair, polls prove the point. Because as you said previously, you are seeing a lot more nvidia fans on forums. But every damn poll which is nvidia vs amd is usually a split 50/50, even though the marketshare is like 90/10. That's exactly what actual content creators noticed (daniel owen for example), that the obnoxious vocal people around the internet are usually amd fans. And that's coming from an amd "centered" channel says a lot. Think about a poll of "what GPU are you buying". It will be a 50/50 split between amd and nvidia, and yet sales will tell you a different story.

Just think about it, have you noticed that a lot of known youtubers are making content around "nvidia is crap, amd is great"? MLID for example, or even HUB with his 20 video series about how bad the 8gb on the 3070 is? Do you know of any channel like MLID doing "amd is crap content" and being popular? Doesn't sell. Every content creator on the internet knows it

Also, if Nvidia owns 90% of the gaming GPU market, 80% of which use upscaling, then that's 72% of all people in total. Yet, the poll shows 55%. I don't know who's bad with maths here.

Again, easily explained. The majority of people buying nvidia aren't posting on the forums. The people that participate in reddit forums etc are largely amd fans.

 

[AusWolf]

To be fair, polls prove the point. Because as you said previously, you are seeing a lot more nvidia fans on forums. But every damn poll which is nvidia vs amd is usually a split 50/50, even though the marketshare is like 90/10. That's exactly what actual content creators noticed (daniel owen for example), that the obnoxious vocal people around the internet are usually amd fans. And that's coming from an amd "centered" channel says a lot. Think about a poll of "what GPU are you buying". It will be a 50/50 split between amd and nvidia, and yet sales will tell you a different story.

The poll in question is about upscaling, not AMD vs Nvidia. You can't ask me how I prefer my eggs done, and deduce whether I like pineapple on a pizza from my answer.

Just think about it, have you noticed that a lot of known youtubers are making content around "nvidia is crap, amd is great"? MLID for example, or even HUB with his 20 video series about how bad the 8gb on the 3070 is? Do you know of any channel like MLID doing "amd is crap content" and being popular? Doesn't sell. Every content creator on the internet knows it

Yes, MLID is elbow deep in AMD's backside. And is also a lot of times fake. Totally not worth paying any attention to, imo.

As for HUB, I've disagreed with them on many things from basically all vendors. Their data is fine, but Steve's far too opinionated to give his conclusions too much credit, regardless of which brand you prefer.
So no, he's totally not an AMD fan, or an Nvidia fan for that matter - just pure clickbait, imo.

Again, easily explained. The majority of people buying nvidia aren't posting on the forums. The people that participate in reddit forums etc are largely amd fans.

So you're saying that common people buy Nvidia, but people versed in tech and tech sites lean more towards AMD? Well, that explains Nvidia's bullshit fake frames and "do you like my jacket" marketing, I guess.

 

[JustBenching]

The poll in question is about upscaling, not AMD vs Nvidia. You can't ask me how I prefer my eggs done, and deduce whether I like pineapple on a pizza from my answer.


Yes, MLID is elbow deep in AMD's backside. And is also a lot of times fake. Totally not worth paying any attention to, imo.

As for HUB, I've disagreed with them on many things from basically all vendors. Their data is fine, but Steve's far too opinionated to give his conclusions too much credit, regardless of which brand you prefer.
So no, he's totally not an AMD fan, or an Nvidia fan for that matter - just pure clickbait, imo.


So you're saying that common people buy Nvidia, but people versed in tech and tech sites lean more towards AMD? Well, that explains Nvidia's bullshit fake frames and "do you like my jacket" marketing, I guess.

I didn't call Steve an amd fan. I don't think he gives a rats ass about amd or nvidia. But his job is to get clicks and he will do the videos that will do the most. Same with Mlid, you are saying he is fake, but the point is he is getting clicks. Why do you think he is deep in amds backside? Because doing that content for Intel or nvidia just wouldn't sell. Same with adoredtv before him. And this isn't my opinion, a lot of content creators have expressed the same and are basically saying that they feel "forced" to do nvidia sucks content cause it just clicks a lot more and is of low effort.

No, I'm saying diehard amd fans represent a much larger number on forums, which is what skews poll results. Just think about it logically, if that wasn't the case we'd have 9 times as many people claiming they are not buying amd cause of religious reasons and yet we don't. We only have people that don't buy Nvidia cause of religious reasons.

 

[AusWolf]

I didn't call Steve an amd fan. I don't think he gives a rats ass about amd or nvidia. But his job is to get clicks and he will do the videos that will do the most. Same with Mlid, you are saying he is fake, but the point is he is getting clicks. Why do you think he is deep in amds backside? Because doing that content for Intel or nvidia just wouldn't sell. Same with adoredtv before him. And this isn't my opinion, a lot of content creators have expressed the same and are basically saying that they feel "forced" to do nvidia sucks content cause it just clicks a lot more and is of low effort.

Shitting on everything is popular these days, that's what gets you views and likes. Try making a video on the fact that not one single person has ever felt a 5% difference in GPU performance, so it doesn't matter if you buy A or B because they're both great products - nobody will watch it. But make a video on A being an utter piece of crap because it can't get within 5% behind B, and everybody will love you.

It's one of the most disgusting sides of human nature (being happy for others' failure) magnified by the internet, with a little spice of "rooting for the underdog" sometimes.

This is why I skip the conclusion in every single (written or video) review. I care about hard data, and I'm perfectly capable of drawing my own conclusion from it without any help.

No, I'm saying diehard amd fans represent a much larger number on forums, which is what skews poll results. Just think about it logically, if that wasn't the case we'd have 9 times as many people claiming they are not buying amd cause of religious reasons and yet we don't. We only have people that don't buy Nvidia cause of religious reasons.

I don't know. I see both religious red and green people online, perhaps green in a bit higher number, while I don't know anyone in real life who's devoted to the red camp. I only know open-minded, value conscious buyers, and green cultists. I'm sure the ratios of online presence and real-world buying are somewhat different, just probably not as much as you're saying.

Also, like I mentioned, if tech forums are much more populated by AMD users than computer shops are, it says something. Maybe that people who care about tech actually think about their purchases and buy what they need, while common people more commonly go with the "I'll have the top dog" mentality. Just a thought.

 

[JustBenching]

Shitting on everything is popular these days, that's what gets you views and likes. Try making a video on the fact that not one single person has ever felt a 5% difference in GPU performance, so it doesn't matter if you buy A or B because they're both great products - nobody will watch it. But make a video on A being an utter piece of crap because it can't get within 5% behind B, and everybody will love you.

It's one of the most disgusting sides of human nature magnified by the internet, with a little hint of "rooting for the underdog" sometimes.

This is why I skip the conclusion in every single (written or video) review. I care about hard data, and I'm perfectly capable of drawing my own conclusion from it without any help.

Im absolutely 100% in agreement with that, but still there is a pattern. MLID - adoredTV before him (they patented the formula, lol). Why do you think the creators themselves are saying that unless their content is pro amd they aren't getting clicks or get vitriol in the comments? I mean in my own video, with like 200 views total, I got 8/10 comments saying im an idiot that doesn't know how to install a cooler and that's why the 9800x 3d is scorching and im an amd hater...what I posted the same about an Intel CPU everyone would be high 5ing me about how crap intel is.

Also, like I mentioned, if tech forums are much more populated by AMD users than computer shops are, it says something. Maybe that people who care about tech actually think about their purchases and buy what they need, while common people more commonly go with the "I'll have the top dog" mentality. Just a thought.

Does that apply to AMD cpus as well? Common people buying AMD and all that, while the tech conscious are buying Intel.

 

[AusWolf]

Im absolutely 100% in agreement with that, but still there is a pattern. MLID - adoredTV before him (they patented the formula, lol). Why do you think the creators themselves are saying that unless their content is pro amd they aren't getting clicks or get vitriol in the comments? I mean in my own video, with like 200 views total, I got 8/10 comments saying im an idiot that doesn't know how to install a cooler and that's why the 9800x 3d is scorching and im an amd hater...what I posted the same about an Intel CPU everyone would be high 5ing me about how crap intel is.

I'm not sure about that. I just see an increasing tendency of people enjoying taking a smelly one on stuff, and watching others do the same, unfortunately. People are annoyingly negative these days, especially on the internet.

As for your 9800X3D, it is scorching because it is a scorching hot CPU. Anybody who saw the temperature page in the TPU review should know that.

Does that apply to AMD cpus as well? Common people buying AMD and all that, while the tech conscious are buying Intel.

AMD's CPU market share is 28.7% for desktops, 22.3% for laptops, and 24.2% for servers. Just saying.

 

[JustBenching]

As for your 9800X3D, it is scorching because it is a scorching hot CPU. Anybody who read the TPU review should know that.

Sure but that's not the point. The point is, the kind of comments I got...

AMD's CPU market share is 28.7% for desktops, 22.3% for laptops, and 24.2% for servers. Just saying.

The DIY market though is over 70% AMD right?

 

[AusWolf]

Sure but that's not the point. The point is, the kind of comments I got...

Those are just stupid. But I dare to say, you'd have got similar comments with any hardware.

The DIY market though is over 70% AMD right?

No, that's the 28.7%.

 

[JustBenching]

Those are just stupid. But I dare to say, you'd have got similar comments with any hardware.


No, that's the 28.7%.

From what I've read, it's ~90% in EU and 70% around the globe for AMD. Your numbers are definitely not for DIY.

 

[AusWolf]

From what I've read, it's ~90% in EU and 70% around the globe for AMD. Your numbers are definitely not for DIY.

Take a look.

AMD's desktop PC market share skyrockets amid Intel's Raptor Lake CPU crashing scandal — AMD makes biggest leap in recent history

Though Intel says it was an inventory adjustment at one of its customers.

www.tomshardware.com

 

[JustBenching]

Take a look.

AMD's desktop PC market share skyrockets amid Intel's Raptor Lake CPU crashing scandal — AMD makes biggest leap in recent history

Though Intel says it was an inventory adjustment at one of its customers.

www.tomshardware.com

But that's not DIY man. Has data from a lot of countries, from 65 up to 90% for amd depending on the country.

Google Search

 

[AusWolf]

But that's not DIY man. Has data from a lot of countries, from 65 up to 90% for amd depending on the country.

Google Search

There's only vague info on that, coming from individual stores rather than the global market. This article mentions 43% in one single South Korean store. There is a report on Germany's Mindfactory hitting 90%. With such differences across regions, I wouldn't give these numbers too much credit.

 

[LittleBro]

It's not about the native resolution, but image quality you can get with the limited performance your GPU can provide in real time. I hope we agree that the highest image-quality (a GPU can render in real time) is the goal. And to do that we need to sacrifice some quality, where it's the least noticeable in order to gain quality where it matters. We used to sacrifice some resolution in order to have shaders. And then to have better shaders. Now to do basic path tracing to get real reflections, proper lighting and shadows. And now we can also fake some fine details in order to improve perceived image quality. It's not perfect, but most of the time is better that brute forcing lower quality graphics at higher resolutions. It is also partly subjective what is important and what is not.

"And to do that we need to sacrifice some quality, where it's the least noticeable in order to gain quality where it matters."
Let's just dial up graphics settings that are the least important and ramp up settings for others options you care for?
Or can be rendering in halved resolution/pixel count (50% loss of information) generally considered "sacrificing quality where it's least noticeable in order to gain quality where it matters"?

It's not about the native resolution, but limited performance your GPU can provide in real time. I hope we agree that the smooth framerate is the goal. And to do that we need to sacrifice some quality, where it's the least noticeable in order to gain performance. We used to sacrifice some resolution in order to have shaders. And then to have better shaders. Now to do basic path tracing to get real reflections, proper lighting and shadows. And now we can also fake some fine details in order to fake perceived image quality. It's not perfect, but most of the time is better that brute forcing lower quality graphics at higher resolutions. It is also partly subjective what is important and what is not.

Corrected version above.

@zigzag
sure but thats because it learned that from previous training.
e.g. if i have a pixelated (say ultra low res) license plate from a car, no AI will be able to make that readable.

my problem is with ppl claiming that upscaling (from a lower res) to native res, will look better than straight native, which isnt the case.


upscaling to above native res, then downscaling to native (screen) res, is a completely different thing, works, looks better, i use it, and i never said anything to the contrary.

The AI upscalers are for speed, first and foremost. I'll prove it to you:

You have a choice between a conceptual graphics card that can:
1) play 4k supersampled (so full screen rendered at 8k and downsampled to 4k) at 60fps
2 play 4k DLSS4 (1080p upsampled to 4k) at 60fps

what are you picking?

They never used supersampling before. Those who did, do understand what resolution scaling 2.0x supersampling shrinked to 1080p can do.
Supersampling works good when there is at least 1.5x resolution scaling, works best at 2x and then with multipliers of 2.

DLSS-like technologies are used to basically compensate for (obfuscate) poor GPU generational performance increases. Compute resources required to render game without DLSS for achieveing smooth framerate are very high at 4K and above when using RT or PT. Ray Tracing is nice to have feature, as it really improves graphics quality and realism, but it is way too much taxy for GPUs. DLSS-like technologies causes GPU to render image at, let's say, halved resolution or more like halved pixel count. 1080p would get rendered in 768p, that's 50% less pixels less to compute for and to render which causes enormous performance boost but also enormous bitmap data loss. Who would have thought. Then it gets upscaled with use of trained neural networks and vectors. Upscaling and/or frame generation is much easier task for GPUs to do compared to rendering in native resolution with everything (incl. RT/PT) maxed out. That's the trick. That's the purpose - to sacrifice the quality in order to compensate for performance loss.

Which is funny IMHO. You max everything out incl. RT/PT to achieve max. graphics quality and then you turn on DLSS-like technology to lay waste to that very same image quality you wanted.

It also helps game devs to spend less time on properly optimizing games, thus releasing games sooner and earning more profit (because of less work). Shitty framerate? Switch on DLSS, please!

Very true.
And 45% in rhat poll is mostly AMD users, beause Amd upscaler is not so great allways, thats why they use native.

Most of RTX user use ofc Upscaler because DLSS is just great

Do you realize that quite a few of nowadays so called "AAA" titles can't even run without upscaling? They are so badly optimized that DLSS is mandatory.
Some of these games comes with upscaling enabled by default. Since majority of market share owns NVidia, this easily helps Nvidia's statistics of DLSS usage.

"Most of RTX user use ofc Upscaler because DLSS is just great" that is indeed clearly one absolutely unbiased explanation.

39% + 9% + 4% +3% = 55%
But most of AMD users wont use it so thats why Native is 45%, FSR is not so good,better to use Native if gaming Amd gpu

I never said that upscaling is not used by overall majority of users. In relation to currently ongoing TPU poll, I said this:
"It also clearly shows that vast majority of poll contributors values image quality above performance, where mostly prefering no upscaling."

Do a breakdown of that sentence, here's help:

Hint: Balanced/Performance/Ultra Performance settings are not achieving high enough graphics quality for users to use them (according to poll they are minorities compared to Quality settings users).

 

[chrcoluk]

Curious how they get this 80% data, not even 80% of gamers play games that support DLSS, which makes me call it out as a misleading statistic. I expect its 80% of gamers playing a modern DLSS supported game enabling DLSS, rather than 80% of the customer base.
Also not surprising people use DLSS given games are optimised to a level where the hardware required is at insanity levels.

 

[JustBenching]

Curious how they get this 80% data, not even 80% of gamers play games that support DLSS, which makes me call it out as a misleading statistic. I expect its 80% of gamers playing a modern DLSS supported game enabling DLSS, rather than 80% of the customer base.
Also not surprising people use DLSS given games are optimised to a level where the hardware required is at insanity levels.

Well I assume they don't count games that don't even have the option. It would make sense.

 

[dyonoctis]

I don't know. I see both religious red and green people online, perhaps green in a bit higher number, while I don't know anyone in real life who's devoted to the red camp. I only know open-minded, value conscious buyers, and green cultists. I'm sure the ratios of online presence and real-world buying are somewhat different, just probably not as much as you're saying.

Also, like I mentioned, if tech forums are much more populated by AMD users than computer shops are, it says something. Maybe that people who care about tech actually think about their purchases and buy what they need, while common people more commonly go with the "I'll have the top dog" mentality. Just a thought.

There's also people who won't buy Intel/Nvidia by principle because they don't appreciate their business practices. Being AMD an fan doesn't label you as a cultist because it's the right thing to do, and the arguments that you can make to justify that (as far as gaming is involved) are more sensible: "better price-performance", "they support open standard". AMD as a company is easy to like and to root for. But AMD could gain from being more aggressive in their software deployment, and stop so passive and wait for adobe to start to care about them.

You cannot say the same of Behemoth Nvidia, which won't hesitate to kick their opponent when they are down (GPP when they already dominate the market), be sneaky (Crysis overusing tessellation), or build a closed garden that only benefits their products.

Intel has been more chill lately, but the collective tech consciousness will never forgive them for the bribes they gave to OEMs. Even if the people who were responsible for that, might not be there anymore, the company still need to pay for it.

Hence, being happy that Intel might be going under is right I guess? I don't see this playing out well in the long term, but what do I know?

 

[zigzag]

"And to do that we need to sacrifice some quality, where it's the least noticeable in order to gain quality where it matters."
Let's just dial up graphics settings that are the least important and ramp up settings for others options you care for?
Or can be rendering in halved resolution (about 50% loss of information) generally considered "sacrificing quality where it's least noticeable in order to gain quality where it matters"?

Halved resolution is 75% less pixels, but it doesn't look 75% worse to humans. It's not a linear relationship. This non-linearity between compute requirements and perceived quality is used to improve IQ at fixed compute budget. Resolution is not the only thing where we can use this fact to our advantage.

Corrected version above.

Smooth framerate is implied by real-time. I'm taking about IQ/performance ratio. If you have such aversion to everything fake, it might be best to go outside, as computer games are essentially all fake.

They never used supersampling before. Those who did, do understand what resolution scaling 2.0x supersampling shrinked to 1080p can do.
Supersampling works good when there is at least 1.5x resolution scaling, works best at 2x and then with multipliers of 2.

I did enough graphics programming to know that 2x supersampling often isn't enough to get rid of all the aliasing artefacts.

Which is funny IMHO. You max everything out incl. RT/PT to achieve max. graphics quality and then you turn on DLSS-like technology to lay waste to that very same image quality you wanted.

If an image quality of RT/PT + DLSS > raster + native-res, then it's a net win. That's not always the case. The difference will get larger as both the quality of RT/PT and of AI models improves.

 

[JustBenching]

AMD as a company is easy to like and to root for.

Until they increase their prices by 50% gen on gen (zen 3), remove mobo support, take 2 whole years for a bios update to support their new CPUs, make HEDT completely unapproachable (threadripper says hi). Intel basically had 0 competition for 6-7 years and they didn't dare to increase prices as much as AMD did while having competition. It's insane.

Smooth framerate is implied by real-time. I'm taking about IQ/performance ratio.

That part is never going to stick with people. They just don't get it. We are not using DLSS to get extra frames, we are using DLSS because at a target performance level, using DLSS always gets you higher image quality.

My card can do 100 fps at 1440p native and 100 fps at 4k DLSS Quality. It's obvious to me that I should go with a 4k monitor and use DLSS Q instead of going for a 1440p monitor and playing natively, cause the 4k DLSS Q looks WAY better at the same performance target.

Did the same with my laptop, I knew the dGPU on it isn't really fit for the 1440p resolution of the display, but 1440p with FSR Q looks better than 1080p native, so there was no point in going for a 1080p display.

 

[Waldorf]

@JustBenching
never said it doesnt work for things like games or even restoring old pictures, but it wont be able to make up the letters/numbers from a license plate to the point where it can be used for law enforcement purpose, even with previous learning.

@AusWolf
never said ferrari or even 2 door sports car, i said 100K, which can buy suvs/station wagons/ sedans, just to name a few.
im tired of folks claiming something is (always) better, just because its cheaper.

i rather sit in a nice car ( (say mid range Audi/MB etc, with comfortable AC seats, maybe massage) and "enjoy" sitting in stop and go traffic on my way to work, and will be much more "relaxed" after driving nice, than the Golf i had after getting my license, that had limited adjustments for seating position/features etc.
during the time my father had a car repair/paint business, i have driven almost everything from Fiat 500 to 911 and Bentley, and lots of "average" (family) cars, so can compare it.
im not saying asian brands are bad, but there is a reason why it takes longer to make the interior of something like a Bentley, than most other brands make the whole car, and its not because they just want to charge you more money.


well cuda is relevant to me, so why would any cheaper or even faster amd card be better for me in any form?
right.


my point about having the option to run games at a lower res (than native to the screen), to allow for weaker gpus/games with heavier load to still run on the (better) screen,
without being forced to upgrade the gpu right away, not about image quality.


there is no agree to disagree, as you dont even know what games i play (short of the ones i might have mentioned somewhere in the forum), so claiming im wrong is as incorrect as it gets.


@Dawora
thanks for being ignorant, just because you didnt care to spend 2s, to look at my sys specs to see, that im using Nv.

and as long as you dont know what games ppl are playing, claiming a lower tier gpu wont play games at 4k is an absolute joke.
guess what, i play all my games at 4K, and some older stuff even scaled to higher res, and it works fine with my 2080S.
and all at native, not dlss, as for the ones i play, it doesnt look better, even in Q mode, vs native with all AA options i have maxed out.

 

[AusWolf]

There's also people who won't buy Intel/Nvidia by principle because they don't appreciate their business practices. Being AMD fan doesn't label you as a cultist because it's the right thing to do, and the arguments that you can make to justify that (as far as gaming is involved) are more sensible: "better price-performance", "they support open standard". AMD as a company is easy to like and to root for. But AMD could gain from being more aggressive in their software deployment, and stop so passive and wait for adobe to start to care about them.

You cannot say the same of Behemoth Nvidia, which won't hesitate to kick their opponent when they are down (GPP when they already dominate the market), be sneaky (Crysis overusing tessellation), or build a closed garden that only benefits their products.

Intel has been more chill lately, but the collective tech consciousness will never forgive them for the bribes they gave to OEMs. Even is the people who were responsible for that, might not be there anymore, the company still need to pay for it.

Hence, being happy that Intel might be going under is right I guess? I don't see this playing out well in the long term, but what do I know?

Definitely. But I wouldn't call those people AMD fans. More like fans of free markets and open standards. And while I do agree with those principles completely, I also like looking at every option and making an informed decision before I buy something. Principles are good to have, but I wouldn't want them to bind my purchase decisions. They're more of a guide than a hard rule for me.

Basically, if Nvidia had some revolutionary tech that transforms my life completely (which they don't, DLSS and FG are not it), and wasn't trying to sell 12 GB cards for $550, then I'd be happy to buy their cards again.

Better Linux support is also among my criteria, but I've heard it has improved a lot lately, which I intend to test on my HTPCs that have Nvidia GPUs in them.

It's just my two cents on the matter.

@AusWolf
never said ferrari or even 2 door sports car, i said 100K, which can buy suvs/station wagons/ sedans, just to name a few.
im tired of folks claiming something is (always) better, just because its cheaper.

I wouldn't even want a 100K SUV / sedan / station wagon or anything. I don't feel the allure. I'd probably have a V8 Mustang, though.

i rather sit in a nice car ( (say mid range Audi/MB etc, with comfortable AC seats, maybe massage) and "enjoy" sitting in stop and go traffic on my way to work, and will be much more "relaxed" after driving nice, than the Golf i had after getting my license, that had limited adjustments for seating position/features etc.
during the time my father had a car repair/paint business, i have driven almost everything from Fiat 500 to 911 and Bentley, and lots of "average" (family) cars, so can compare it.
im not saying asian brands are bad, but there is a reason why it takes longer to make the interior of something like a Bentley, than most other brands make the whole car, and its not because they just want to charge you more money.

Sure, expensive things are (usually) made better (not always, but that's another matter), but is it worth the extra money? I'm not pretending to answer this question, as everybody will have to judge that themselves.

well cuda is relevant to me, so why would any cheaper or even faster amd card be better for me in any form?
right.

Good, then buy Nvidia for CUDA. Nobody said you shouldn't.

my point about having the option to run games at a lower res (than native to the screen), to allow for weaker gpus/games with heavier load to still run on the (better) screen,
without being forced to upgrade the gpu right away, not about image quality.

I agree. But people tend to think about DLSS as a quality of life option. No, it's not. It's a "my card needs a bit a push to run this game" option.

there is no agree to disagree, as you dont even know what games i play (short of the ones i might have mentioned somewhere in the forum), so claiming im wrong is as incorrect as it gets.

I'm not claiming that you're wrong. I'm claiming that your opinion isn't the only one out there.

 

[Waldorf]

@AusWolf
so you wanting linux support, should be part of the decision for gamer to buy a gpu.
but me wanting cuda is not?
quote: I disagree with the CUDA argument on a similar fashion. A gamer doesn't need it, it shouldn't influence the buying decision. Whatever you don't use is a waste of your money.
that assumes you know what gamers use or dont.

im a gamer first, but still want cuda, and many i know use sw that makes use of it, so its not like this applies to only 1% of gamers.
and if i compare to linux, you (and others here) are the only ppl i know using linux, so far less than those with cuda use.

and yes, saying you disagree with me, that low settings look worse for the games I play, is saying im wrong, as again, you dont know what games im talking about,
so how do you know what they look like with different settings?
you could have easily just said: your opinion isnt the only one, but you didnt.

 

[AusWolf]

@AusWolf
so you wanting linux support, should be part of the decision for gamer to buy a gpu.
but me wanting cuda is not?

No - it is part of MY decision. You decide on whatever you want, it won't make any of us right or wrong. If you want CUDA, buy Nvidia. If you want an airplane, then buy a f-ing airplane. I Don't care.

But please, pretty please, let me shop by my own criteria instead of yours, will you?

and yes, saying you disagree with me, that low settings look worse for the games I play, is saying im wrong, as again, you dont know what games im talking about,
so how do you know what they look like with different settings?
you could have easily just said: your opinion isnt the only one, but you didnt.

So what if I disagree with you? I don't see what your games look like. Do you see mine? Is there a reason for this hostility?

I don't come here on the forum to agree with everyone. Do you? I come here to share and learn about ideas, even if they are different from my own. That's how one grows, you know. Try it sometime.

 

[JustBenching]

You decide on whatever you want, it won't make any of us right or wrong. If you want CUDA, buy Nvidia.

But don't you agree that, when it comes to "complaining" about a products price for example, you can't argue "Oh I don't care about that X feature, so the product it's too expensive"? Focusing on the 4080 vs the XTX, I've heard a ton of people saying the 4080 is crap cause it's more expensive, completely forgeting that's it's a good 45% faster in RT. You personally not caring about it is absolutely great, but it makes sense that the product is more expensive, right?

 

[LittleBro]

Smooth framerate is implied by real-time. I'm taking about IQ/performance ratio. If you have such aversion to everything fake, it might be best to go outside, as computer games are essentially all fake.

I did enough graphics programming to know that 2x supersampling often isn't enough to get rid of all the aliasing artefacts.

That's why you go for even higher supersampling. Of course, DLSS eases the pain with AA generated artifacts since it effectively distorts them among with other things.

If an image quality of RT/PT + DLSS > raster + native-res, then it's a net win. That's not always the case. The difference will get larger as both the quality of RT/PT and of AI models improves.

That part is never going to stick with people. They just don't get it. We are not using DLSS to get extra frames, we are using DLSS because at a target performance level, using DLSS always gets you higher image quality.

Those are two a bit contrasting statements. I'll give the 1st one a a bit of credit, but the latter is nothing else but a humble personal opinion.
If an image quality of this is better than that ... that's again something for someone to tell.
It also depends at what display size are you looking on DLSS output image. Your eyes' ability to see differences is lower when display points are smaller.

Me and Waldorf gave you explanation based on facts, not on personal opinions.
When you lose bitmap information in the process, you can't recreate it, only guess or estimate (interpolate, extrapolate). Thus, native wins over rendered in lower res and upscaled.

We clearly stand on the opposite sides when it comes to DLSS. I think we just keep looping the same statements. It's been nice talk, though.

 

[AusWolf]

But don't you agree that, when it comes to "complaining" about a products price for example, you can't argue "Oh I don't care about that X feature, so the product it's too expensive"? Focusing on the 4080 vs the XTX, I've heard a ton of people saying the 4080 is crap cause it's more expensive, completely forgeting that's it's a good 45% faster in RT. You personally not caring about it is absolutely great, but it makes sense that the product is more expensive, right?

I want it to be more expensive on the basis of more raw performance, not features. I'd consider the RT argument relevant if it was necessary to play games, but as long as there's only like what... 3 (?) games with mandatory RT, it's more of a nicety than something to pay extra money for.

Needless to say, that this is my opinion, everybody is free to think whatever they want. Why do I feel like I have to put this at the end of every post to avoid personal attacks? Huh.