AMD Announced as Starfield's Exclusive Partner on PC

[MarsM4N]

Quit the whining, it's just a sponsorship deal. It's not like AMD is forcing Bethesda to make the game run like crap on Nvidia hardware.

If the engine didn't change much (which is very likely) Nvidia cards will be running the game more than fine:

Fallout 4 CPU benchmark thread - Page 2

New hard drive came today so will install it later

forums.hexus.net

And not to forget, most Bethesda games just run like crap thanks to it's game engine. Also rumors are that the game is very CPU intense, so it could be that esp. the AMD X3D chips have a big edge here.

 

[Upgrayedd]

The amount of comments either blasting about no DLSS/DLAA/RTX features or fanboys praising their all AMD systems seemed to have totally forgotten the best part about Bethesda games, the mods!!

Mods will add in anything that's missing.

 

[R0H1T]

They're doing this intentionally, to reduce the amount of DLSS and XeSS games available as devs will have to spend time implementing both.

This only fuels fragmentation, FSR(3) is open source DLSS is not & neither is XeSS IIRC. This will play out almost exactly like Freesync vs Gsync or Vulkan vs Physx (although that's not totally comparable) & guess who won? AMD is doing this for their selfish reasons but let's not pretend the others aren't out looking to protect their own turf!

 

[Dr. Dro]

This only fuels fragmentation, FSR(3) is open source DLSS is not & neither is XeSS IIRC. This will play out almost exactly like Freesync vs Gsync or Vulkan vs Physx (although that's not totally comparable) & guess who won? AMD is doing this for their selfish reasons but let's not pretend the others aren't out looking to protect their own turf!

It is hard to picture Nvidia as company making the move towards openness but this time, they have done just that, and it was AMD that proved uncooperative. It's true that FSR's biggest strength is that it's hardware agnostic (at least thus far), but by providing a framework for easy implementation of their technology and all competitors at the same time bring up two important points, IMHO:

1. The first and obvious is that Nvidia is confident in the superiority of its technology; and that they are willing to stake on it by making it extra easy for all their competitors to be included alongside it;
2. By refusing to provide a plugin, AMD shows the extreme opposite, that they are very much aware that their technology is currently finishing last and moves such as their PR non-answer to WCCF "they know best" show that they are actually quite willing to go against consumer choice if it means that they can do any form of damage to the competition in the process. The fact that FSR technically runs even on a DX10-era GPU works well to further that goal.

 

[kapone32]

It is hard to picture Nvidia as company making the move towards openness but this time, they have done just that, and it was AMD that proved uncooperative. It's true that FSR's biggest strength is that it's hardware agnostic (at least thus far), but NVIDIA providing a framework for easy implementation of their technology and all competitors at the same time bring up two important points, IMHO:

1. The first and obvious is that Nvidia is confident in the superiority of its technology; and that they are willing to stake on it by making it extra easy for all their competitors to be included alongside it and
2. By refusing to provide a plugin, AMD shows the extreme opposite, that they are very much aware that their technology is currently finishing last and moves such as their PR non-answer to WCCF "they know best" show that they are actually quite willing to go against consumer choice if it means that they can do any form of damage to the competition in the process. The fact that FSR technically runs even on a DX10-era GPU works well to further that goal.

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Saying Nvidia is open anything is foolish and they did not release the entire suite to open either. Now we are getting arguments like AMD is not open when you are free to use FSR on your GPU. Give me a break are we 8 year olds comparing Matchbox to Hot Wheels? Then you are calling them the evil empire when they are competing with a Company that left most of you out in the cold for almost 2 years with an Open standard? Before you wax on about Nvidia maybe load up some Arkham and admire Physx and get some context on why it is no longer relevant. Maybe we should compare DLSS/FSR to Gsync/Freesync and though there are plenty of people with Gsync Monitors, Freesync is as common as 1080P resolution support.

You are the proud owner of a 3050 laptop and I am a proud owner of a 3060 laptop. The only thing is I am confident that you bought yours at least a year after mine and probably paid the same or a little more for a cut down card. Do you know what the difference is? I don't need to use DLSS to push my 1080P panel to 120HZ but does that seem right?

 

[Slizzo]

You new.

It's like Nvidia didn't invent proprietary shit, you know like physx to create division.

This is like getting pitched a baseball in the face then screaming at the ball for an hour.

NVIDIA didn't invent anything like PhysX, they bought the company that came up with the technology and software to implement PhysX; then they made it only work for them (hardware acceleration wise at least) rather than on the Ageia hardware that proceeded the purchase.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Hmmmn recalls ALL the Crysis remastered games with their only Nvidia cards can do RT technology, even to this day(I'm Replaying through them again ATM), and the original crysis with it's sub screen space physx ocean.

No proof = drama for nothing

NVIDIA didn't invent anything like PhysX, they bought the company that came up with the technology and software to implement PhysX; then they made it only work for them (hardware acceleration wise at least) rather than on the Ageia hardware that proceeded the purchase.

I know right yet you would think they invented physx, Raytacing and screen scaling the way some noobs chat.

 

[Upgrayedd]

NVIDIA didn't invent anything like PhysX, they bought the company that came up with the technology and software to implement PhysX; then they made it only work for them (hardware acceleration wise at least) rather than on the Ageia hardware that proceeded the purchase.

Please don't fail to mention that it is now open source.

 

[Dr. Dro]

You are making a mountain out of a mole hill. Saying Nvidia is open anything is foolish and they did not release the entire suite to open either. Now we are getting arguments like AMD is not open when you are free to use FSR on your GPU. Give me a break are we 8 year olds comparing Matchbox to Hot Wheels? Then you are calling them the evil empire when they are competing with a Company that left most of you out in the cold for almost 2 years with an Open standard? Before you wax on about Nvidia maybe load up some Arkham and admire Physx and get some context on why it is no longer relevant. Maybe we should compare DLSS/FSR to Gsync/Freesync and though there are plenty of people with Gsync Monitors, Freesync is as common as 1080P resolution support.

You are the proud owner of a 3050 laptop and I am a proud owner of a 3060 laptop. The only thing is I am confident that you bought yours at least a year after mine and probably paid the same or a little more for a cut down card. Do you know what the difference is? I don't need to use DLSS to push my 1080P panel to 120HZ but does that seem right?

There is no need to be so defensive. I did not claim AMD wasn't open, I said that they didn't develop an FSR plugin for Streamline, nor a solution of their own for universal implementation of upscalers including its competitors. This is a fact. Give praise and credit where due, by providing this FOSS tool, Nvidia has done a pro-consumer move which promotes growth and customer choice. By shunning it; AMD has done an anti-consumer move by pursuing the growth of their own technology at the expense of others. To claim otherwise is whataboutism.

What's with the laptop thing? Am I like supposed to be impressed that "you paid less on your better laptop"... what kind of argument is that? It's just... a basic laptop I got to get my gaming fix when I'm not home? Why should I be proud of having it? It's not a measuring contest. I'm happy your laptop makes you happy, mine makes me happy as well, for what I need of it, that is, typing down my schoolwork and playing some video games when I'm away from home.

 

[kapone32]

There is no need to be so defensive. I did not claim AMD wasn't open, I said that they didn't develop an FSR plugin for Streamline, nor a solution of their own for universal implementation of upscalers including its competitors. This is a fact. Give praise and credit where due, by providing this FOSS tool, Nvidia has done a pro-consumer move which promotes growth and customer choice. By shunning it; AMD has done an anti-consumer move by pursuing the growth of their own technology at the expense of others. To claim otherwise is whataboutism.

What's with the laptop thing? Am I like supposed to be impressed that "you paid less on your better laptop"... what kind of argument is that? It's just... a basic laptop I got to get my gaming fix when I'm not home? Why should I be proud of having it? It's not a measuring contest. I'm happy your laptop makes you happy, mine makes me happy as well, for what I need of it, that is, typing down my schoolwork and playing some video games when I'm away from home.

I am just giving you evidence of Nvidia's thought process in discussing the laptops. They are all about profit with no nuggets for the consumer.

You are missing the point and let's go a little deeper down that rabbit hole. Which version of DLSS were they suppose to support? Which users would have been left out if it was only DLSS upscaling available? You seem to be under the impression that Nvidia cards work better than AMD cards on Linux (If you want to argue Open support) as evidence that AMD is anti consumer (WOW). There is also the fact that you seem to be missing. There is nothing preventing you from using FSR in that Game just like AMD users, that is a fact. AMD did not have to make fSR work with 1060s and guess what the latest implementation won't be reserved to 7000 owners either.

Please don't fail to mention that it is now open source.

Just like Abandoned Games and Freespace2 but is it really relevant like it could have been?

 

[Dr. Dro]

We'll agree on that but I'm not missing the point, I'm claiming AMD doesn't really care either. FSR being agnostic has more to do with RDNA hardware having no dedicated ML acceleration capabilities than anything else, making it work for everyone was a nice PR bonus and a way to earn good will with the customers that resented Turing's high prices.

Everything is done for a business reason.

 

[THU31]

All AMD needs to do is come out and confirm or deny it to dispell the rumors. Let's wait and see shall we.

They can't admit it, because it's literally illegal to block competition. At least in the EU, not sure about Murrica.

Proprietary technology is not illegal. Blocking the use of a competitor's proprietary technology is.

But I guess it's all NVIDIA's fault anyway. They locked down DLSS, which means AMD had to develop their own tech. As revenge, AMD are now blocking DLSS, so in the end the consumer loses, as always.

 

[Deleted member 177333]

You new.

It's like Nvidia didn't invent proprietary shit, you know like physx to create division.

This is like getting pitched a baseball in the face then screaming at the ball for an hour.

I am not taking NVidia's side on anything. All I am saying is I don't like seeing more division. Would like to see both technologies supported.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

I am not taking NVidia's side on anything. All I am saying is I don't like seeing more division. Would like to see both technologies supported.

so would I, it's not happening though, in many other games for me either, even with AMD and Nvidia tech in hand, I've still in the moment, hit games that wanted f£$%£ intel proprietary tech, dirt 3 I think, and now as I said the 3 crysis remastered games got an Nvidia raytracing lockout, it's arsse.
many games have dlss and no fsr and I cant use dlss on one pc but can on another, though I cant use fg, all AAArsse but it is what it is, Deliberate product segregation to benefit the maker with NO NEEED.

 

[john_]

Please don't fail to mention that it is now open source.

They open sourced the dead? Oh wow! All praise Nvidia!!!!

Nvidia could market PhysX in a way where everyone for years could be using a low/mid range Nvidia GPU for PhysX and CUDA, even when having an AMD card as a primary GPU. While this doesn't looks that much importand today, with Nvidia having 80% of the market, back then they where playing at around 50%-60%. So they could find potential customers between that 40-50% buying AMD GPUs and in an era where integrated graphics where non existent or a joke, meaning the market was way bigger in absolute numbers.
Instead Nvidia decided to lock those features. I think they removed the lock from their drivers in 2014, way after hardware PhysX was already dead.

DirectX 10.1, PhysX, Tessellation shenanigans and a number of other things in the last 15+ years, makes AMD look like a saint even if they payed for DLSS to remain out of Starfield. And even if they did payed, I bet it is mentioned already a dozen of times here (haven't read the thread) that a DLSS patch will come right after the game is released. So, too much excitement (4 pages...) about nothing. It was going to be something serious and extremely bad if there was a lock in the game to prevent a DLSS patch.

 

[phanbuey]

dissapointing.

Forced to use FSR usage when both XeSS and DLSS are better is kind of a let down. Hopefully they add that later on.

 

[Upgrayedd]

They open sourced the dead? Oh wow! All praise Nvidia!!!!

Nvidia could market PhysX in a way where everyone for years could be using a low/mid range Nvidia GPU for PhysX and CUDA, even when having an AMD card as a primary GPU. While this doesn't looks that much importand today, with Nvidia having 80% of the market, back then they where playing at around 50%-60%. So they could find potential customers between that 40-50% buying AMD GPUs and in an era where integrated graphics where non existent or a joke, meaning the market was way bigger in absolute numbers.
Instead Nvidia decided to lock those features. I think they removed the lock from their drivers in 2014, way after hardware PhysX was already dead.

DirectX 10.1, PhysX, Tessellation shenanigans and a number of other things in the last 15+ years, makes AMD look like a saint even if they payed for DLSS to remain out of Starfield. And even if they did payed, I bet it is mentioned already a dozen of times here (haven't read the thread) that a DLSS patch will come right after the game is released. So, too much excitement (4 pages...) about nothing. It was going to be something serious and extremely bad if there was a lock in the game to prevent a DLSS patch.

I assume modders will fix it as usual. 4 pages of people forgetting its a Bethesda game that they already said would be a modders paradise.

It is still a bit of a let down from MS and Bethesda here selling out to AMD. Selling out to Nvidia would still get everyone FSR because they know DLSS is better lol. Fallout 4 used Nvidia Flex on PC in a later update so other Nvidia features in Starfield may still have a chance.

 

[john_]

I assume modders will fix it as usual. 4 pages of people forgetting its a Bethesda game that they already said would be a modders paradise.

Of course they will do.
Modder Promises DLSS 3 Integration Early in 'Starfield' | Tom's Hardware

Again. As long as FSR 2 can get unofficial support in DLSS titles and DLSS can gen unofficial support in FSR 2 titles, excluding an upscaling option is not optimal obviously, but it's also not something to rage about. It's not like PhysX where you either had physics effects or not. Software PhysX was an (intentionally?) unoptimized slideshow without an Nvidia GPU, so disabling PhysX effects was usually like having no physics in a game. And the whole rage back then was Nvidia LOCKING it even when having an Nvidia GPU in the system. That GPU had to be primary or else Jensen was panishing you for not being loyal enough.

Spoiler

This is a completely different situation. Official support is good to have, but modes do seem to work good enough most times. And I haven't read anywhere that AMD will put a lock in the code making the game crush when a mode tries to replace FSR with DLSS. If Starfield becomes a huge success official DLSS support will come even if Bethesda and AMD wants it or not.

The whole story about "Bad AMD doesn't let DLSS support in Starfield" looks more like a PR stunt from Nvidia in retaliation for AMD's PR stunt of sponsoring Starfireld. Nvidia enjoys friendly treatment from the press, so this was easy for them to promote. If Starfield was a DLSS only game or was throwing FSR 1 there for the rest, I doubt a single article would have been written.

It is still a bit of a let down from MS and Bethesda here selling out to AMD. Selling out to Nvidia would still get everyone FSR because they know DLSS is better lol. Fallout 4 used Nvidia Flex on PC in a later update so other Nvidia features in Starfield may still have a chance.

This is a very selfish way of looking things and screams "double standards". DLSS only means GTX, Radeon and console owners not having an upscaling tech AT ALL. And this is the main reason why FSR 2 is better than DLSS. Everyone gets the tech.

 

[ratirt]

I wonder what is the min requirement for this game. I only hope there will be no bugs everywhere. Well optimized game at release would have been nice. If they can pull this off then Kudos.
I will take a look at the game nonetheless.
Oh boy. The DLSS problem. I thought NV's card are fast enough to run games without it? NO? Well, next time think twice before you purchase a graphics card. To rely on something like DLSS or FSR is solely a desperate move and whining about not having it, is simply miserable.

 

[64K]

There has been considerable concern over DLSS not being supported in this game but modders will likely fix that. Already one modder (PureDark) has said that he will add DLSS 2 and DLSS 3 support to the game when it launches but I don't recommend going this route unless you absolutely have to have it. The reason being that the mod will be behind a Patreon Wall. You could of course just subscribe and get the mod and then unsubscribe but it's likely that future patches from Bethesda will break the mod and so you will need ongoing new versions of the mod as well assuming PureDark even makes those available in the future.

Starfield will get a DLSS 3 Mod, but it will be behind a Patreon wall

Modder PureDark revealed that he will add support for DLSS 2/3 via a mod when Starfield officially launches.

www.dsogaming.com

There's a chance that there will be a free mod to add DLSS support to the game but it may take a while after release. My guess is that you will probably be better off waiting a while before buying this game and trying to play it anyway because.....Bethesda.

 

[ratirt]

There's a chance that there will be a free mod to add DLSS support to the game but it may take a while after release. My guess is that you will probably be better off waiting a while before buying this game and trying to play it anyway because.....Bethesda.

Skeptic about mods. These tend not to work as game devs implementation for DLSS or FSR. I will take a look at the game but I really dont want any FSR nor DLSS> If you prediction is correct and there will be some updates and fixes needed why would I complicate things with upscaler.
DLSS will be supported for sure.

 

[phanbuey]

DirectX 10.1, PhysX, Tessellation shenanigans and a number of other things in the last 15+ years, makes AMD look like a saint even if they payed for DLSS to remain out of Starfield. And even if they did payed, I bet it is mentioned already a dozen of times here (haven't read the thread) that a DLSS patch will come right after the game is released. So, too much excitement (4 pages...) about nothing. It was going to be something serious and extremely bad if there was a lock in the game to prevent a DLSS patch.

Sort of... the difference is that NVidia never actually degraded AMD user's visual game experience as a result. This is different because we're FORCED to use the crappiest blur filter because AMD marketing thinks that will get people to buy cards.

Nvidia shenanigans are garbage no doubt - but it's mostly lies - skewed benchmarks, dubious claims and "features" that were unnecessary (hariworks, physX etc.) - they never actually visually impaired ATI/AMD users the way that FSR only titles do (AHEM far cry 6).

 

[sethmatrix7]

It is hard to picture Nvidia as company making the move towards openness but this time, they have done just that, and it was AMD that proved uncooperative. It's true that FSR's biggest strength is that it's hardware agnostic (at least thus far), but by providing a framework for easy implementation of their technology and all competitors at the same time bring up two important points, IMHO:

1. The first and obvious is that Nvidia is confident in the superiority of its technology; and that they are willing to stake on it by making it extra easy for all their competitors to be included alongside it;
2. By refusing to provide a plugin, AMD shows the extreme opposite, that they are very much aware that their technology is currently finishing last and moves such as their PR non-answer to WCCF "they know best" show that they are actually quite willing to go against consumer choice if it means that they can do any form of damage to the competition in the process. The fact that FSR technically runs even on a DX10-era GPU works well to further that goal.

Don't confuse confidence in their technology with confidence in their mindshare, and remember how little Nvidia needs the consumer GPU space.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

It is hard to picture Nvidia as company making the move towards openness but this time, they have done just that, and it was AMD that proved uncooperative. It's true that FSR's biggest strength is that it's hardware agnostic (at least thus far), but by providing a framework for easy implementation of their technology and all competitors at the same time bring up two important points, IMHO:

1. The first and obvious is that Nvidia is confident in the superiority of its technology; and that they are willing to stake on it by making it extra easy for all their competitors to be included alongside it;
2. By refusing to provide a plugin, AMD shows the extreme opposite, that they are very much aware that their technology is currently finishing last and moves such as their PR non-answer to WCCF "they know best" show that they are actually quite willing to go against consumer choice if it means that they can do any form of damage to the competition in the process. The fact that FSR technically runs even on a DX10-era GPU works well to further that goal.

1>SO CONFIDENT WE ARE ON THE THIRD TRY.

and the third breaks compatibility with the first card to use dlss,which is, arse

2 Big leaps of bullllllshit right there, intermingled with conspiracy and unproven wccf shit, in their own post on it they adequately show its a shitshow of support that's about equal in, fsr and dlss being both supported or just one, no drought of dlss exists, just a darth of Entitled plebs who think they bought Nvidia everyone else should, and everyone has to dance to Huangs tune.

3 that wccftech is a trusted journo source, I read it but its not an instant fact type of site is it.

4 Do you think when cyberpunk got bought by Nvidia it didn't get leaned towards Nvidia!, I wouldn't buy it until it was A fixed and B supported a decent FSR version, it took a while , but I survived .

Now let's see the honesty and maturity of posters come release since Bethesda make some shocking first-day shit Ala fallout 76 /everything they do so expecting much here on new IP well.

@phanbuey Bullshit, nearly every Crysis game and remake, fu$$$$ by Nvidia co-operation money, many others I waited ages for Fsr support to be added way after dlss, or like Crysis Basic DX12 Raytracing support not RTX only!, Gameworks making some games unlayable on day one on AMD, your blinkers need to come off.

 

[john_]

Sort of... the difference is that NVidia never actually degraded AMD user's visual game experience as a result. This is different because we're FORCED to use the crappiest blur filter because AMD marketing thinks that will get people to buy cards.

Nvidia shenanigans are garbage no doubt - but it's mostly lies - skewed benchmarks, dubious claims and "features" that were unnecessary (hariworks, physX etc.) - they never actually visually impaired ATI/AMD users the way that FSR only titles do (AHEM far cry 6).

Are you kidding me? Nvidia's proprietary techs, what do you think they are for? Most are there to make competing hardware look worst. We had physics in games running on single core Pentium 4/Athlon XP systems will AGP cards 20 years ago and when Nvidia started promoting PhysX it was like programmers forgot how to program physics effects without the help of PhysX libraries. Games where either very nice looking with hardware PhysX, or crap without it.

You are NOT forced to do anything. You can disable it in the settings. You have a 4090 based on your system specs. Did you bought a 4090 to have the absolute need of an upscaling tech just to play at acceptable framerates? Also it was already posted that the game will have unofficial support soon after release. If the game is a success you can bet official support to come latter.

The second part of your post is lies I am afraid. I posted a video in my next post where there is a comparison of Alice Madness Returns with and without PhysX. Totally different game without PhysX support. Was playing it with an HD 4890 as primary card and a 9600GT as a secondary card purely for PhysX effects. As in this case with Starfield and DLSS, we where using a patch to unlock the Nvidia driver and run PhysX and CUDA with an AMD GPU as primary. Nvidia was forbidding having a competing GPU as primary. Nvidia customers where getting punished by doing so.