AMD Announces FidelityFX Super Resolution 3 (FSR 3) Fluid Motion Rivaling DLSS 3, Broad Hardware Support

[kapone32]

Seems like you were saying that AMD software is more refined because their UI is more modern, when he was saying that you should also take into consideration the software stack beyond the UI.
nvidia made a big bet on software long before ATI/AMD did, and I'm not just talking about gaming. With CUDA/OPTIX nvidia became a must have for a lot of content creation apps, OpenCL was either deprecated, or just avoided entirely by a few major developers. Pixar for exemple, even with their historical ties with Apple, eventually developed a set of internal tools that only works with Nvidia's APIs. Because it was just the best thing around.

AMD spend a lot of years just sitting around and waiting, Apple figured out fast that OpenCL (which was their creation) wasn't about to become the absolute industry standard and decided to do thing the Nvidia way. AMD HIP is just barely starting to get traction, which is good, but they have a decade of Nvidia optimisation to catch up with.

For as long as I can remember, Nvidia has always been more agressive on the software side of thing, AMD looked much more laid back with the exception of TressFX, Mantle and trueaudio.

Now it's hard to talk about driver stability without falling into speculative, or anecdotal experience. Unless someone can list the numbers of bugs reported by each side for the past few years.

Nvidia has software that it has been created to optimize it's hardware. Look at Freesync vs Gsync in terms of one was created with hardware requirements while the other was a driver level software innovation that worked without the requirement of specific hardware. I could also use Crossfire as an example but you would have to have had Polaris in crossfire to appreciate that. Of course all of the negative aspects of SLI were applied to that when there was no issue with Polaris Multi GPU implementation. Now we have the FSR/DLSS argument that somehow tries to establish that even though AMD is giving you all of Nvidia's selling points it is somehow a bad thing and FSR is somehow garbage already. Of course the truth is that if like me you have a 7900XT you wonder what all the noise about upscaling is all about. Now when the time comes that Games no longer support my generation to the fullest that I will have a software package to fully mitigate that.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Yeah right, cause in the hypothetical scenario that amd did pay them for that they would have admitted it....right right, silly me.

You really are the worst version of poirot or clueso or Agatha Christie, imagine ,you would bang up more innocent people than anyone hypothetically, it's him he was there, I said so.

My guess is they are in a damn if they do damn if they don't situation and decided against releasing it on Turing/Ampere.

Let's say they did release it and it performs like crap and has a ton of artifacts people will say they gimped it on purpose so basically the same situation that they are in now.

Whenever I buy a gpu I buy it for the performance it gives me that day I think most people just buy whatever performs the best within their budget regardless anyone buying a gpu because the box is red or green if there are better options at the same price point is only doing themselves a disservice.

Your lucky you can afford to.

If some didn't choose to go with the competition regardless due to reasons you wouldn't be able to afford a GPU now.


Now imagine if Huang had his way, a monopoly THEN this AI boom kicked in.

As I said your lucky to have that option.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Your lucky you can afford to.

If some didn't choose to go with the competition regardless due to reasons you wouldn't be able to afford a GPU now.


Now imagine if Huang had his way, a monopoly THEN this AI boom kicked in.

As I said your lucky to have that option.

Not for much longer at the rate GPU pricing is increasing.... And really they've already been pricing their flagship at whatever they want to for a decade.

 

[JustBenching]

You really are the worst version of poirot or clueso or Agatha Christie, imagine ,you would bang up more innocent people than anyone hypothetically, it's him he was there, I said so.

Your lucky you can afford to.

If some didn't choose to go with the competition regardless due to reasons you wouldn't be able to afford a GPU now.


Now imagine if Huang had his way, a monopoly THEN this AI boom kicked in.

As I said your lucky to have that option.

Yeah, let's buy the worst product for competitions sake!

People weren't buying AMD cpus for like 10 years or something, i was still able to afford CPUs. In fact, mainstream CPUs cost 1/3rd of what they cost today back then when there was no "competition".

 

[kapone32]

Yeah, let's buy the worst product for competitions sake!

People weren't buying AMD cpus for like 10 years or something, i was still able to afford CPUs. In fact, mainstream CPUs cost 1/3rd of what they cost today back then when there was no "competition".

You are talking trash. The focus may be 16 core monsters but there have been chips like the 3300x, 2400G, 10400F that are perfect fro what you want on a budget.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Not for much longer at the rate GPU pricing is increasing.... And really they've already been pricing their flagship at whatever they want to for a decade.

Well there's a extreme angle, both Intel AMD and Nvidia are working on APUS to sell cheap and game on, but perhaps eventually low end discreet cards will die out, I'm actually ok with that so long as APU can cope but that's all too off topic.

Because this thread is about Fsr3 , I do like it's wide support, I prefer in fact the option to others but again they're are few games where I Don't ever 180° spin fast at some point and that lag I just can't do.

@fevgatos see paragraph two, any chance of on topic chat please.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Well there's a extreme angle, both Intel AMD and Nvidia are working on APUS to sell cheap and game on, but perhaps eventually low end discreet cards will die out, I'm actually ok with that so long as APU can cope but that's all too off topic.

Because this thread is about Fsr3 , I do like it's wide support, I prefer in fact the option to others but again they're are few games where I Don't ever 180° spin fast at some point and that lag I just can't do.

@fevgatos see paragraph two, any chance of on topic chat please.

Well you know any Amd/Nvidia article is always going to go to shite people treat these companies like their favorite football team

I find FSR3 Promising but really want to see it independently tested to judge how well it works with asynchronous compute.

 

[AusWolf]

Yeah, let's buy the worst product for competitions sake!

Worst product? Why? Because it doesn't support DLSS?

People weren't buying AMD cpus for like 10 years or something, i was still able to afford CPUs. In fact, mainstream CPUs cost 1/3rd of what they cost today back then when there was no "competition".

You could afford them because one (Intel) generation was exactly the same as the last one. GPUs nowadays, on the other hand, keep getting faster, but also more expensive. I could easily afford the high-end 10 years ago while I still lived on my measly student loan. Now I can only afford mid-tier on a full-time salary with a night shift premium. At this rate, even the low-end will be out of my reach in the next 10-15 years.

 

[JustBenching]

Worst product? Why? Because it doesn't support DLSS?

In general, AMD cards are equal in raster to competing nvidia cards, have higher power draw, way less features, worse RT performance. So yes, they are worse, and the only way for amd to compete is by price cuts. Which is great, but it would be better if they actually launched their cards with lower prices to begin with.Take the 7900xt as a prime example, at launch it was worse at RASTER performance per dollar compared to the 4070ti. That is absolutely absurd, considering all the other pros the 4070ti has over it

You could afford them because one (Intel) generation was exactly the same as the last one

Well -that's a great myth people keep repeating but it's not true. You don't have to believe me, do the math yourself. Compared the multithreade performance of an i7 2600k vs an i7 6700k (same pricepoints) and compare it to the multithreaded performance increase between an R7 1700 and an r5 5600x (same pricepoint. Youll realize that intel gave us more performance per gen back then than amd does today

 

[kapone32]

Well -that's a great myth people keep repeating but it's not true. You don't have to believe me, do the math yourself. Compared the multithreade performance of an i7 2600k vs an i7 6700k (same pricepoints) and compare it to the multithreaded performance increase between an R7 1700 and an r5 5600x (same pricepoint. Youll realize that intel gave us more performance per gen back then than amd does today

Yes an 8 core CPU vs a 6 core but it doesn't matter. Regardless of how you feel there would be applications where the 5600X would be faster even with 2 less cores.

 

[JustBenching]

Yes an 8 core CPU vs a 6 core but it doesn't matter. Regardless of how you feel there would be applications where the 5600X would be faster even with 2 less cores.

The number of cores is irrelevant. We are talking about performance. Who actually cares about cores? Do you care how many cores your GPU has or how fast it is? Personally i've no idea how many cores my 4090 has.

 

[AusWolf]

In general, AMD cards are equal in raster to competing nvidia cards, have higher power draw, way less features, worse RT performance. So yes, they are worse, and the only way for amd to compete is by price cuts. Which is great, but it would be better if they actually launched their cards with lower prices to begin with.Take the 7900xt as a prime example, at launch it was worse at RASTER performance per dollar compared to the 4070ti. That is absolutely absurd, considering all the other pros the 4070ti has over it

You can pack it full of "features", wrap Christmas lights around the box and glaze it in exquisite Swiss chocolate, a 799 USD MSRP for a 12 GB card in 2023 is still nothing short of a joke (or rather, a slap in the face).

Well -that's a great myth people keep repeating but it's not true. You don't have to believe me, do the math yourself. Compared the multithreade performance of an i7 2600k vs an i7 6700k (same pricepoints) and compare it to the multithreaded performance increase between an R7 1700 and an r5 5600x (same pricepoint. Youll realize that intel gave us more performance per gen back then than amd does today

Let's agree to disagree on that one (and not visit off-topic territories).

 

[kapone32]

The number of cores is irrelevant. We are talking about performance. Who actually cares about cores? Do you care how many cores your GPU has or how fast it is? Personally i've no idea how many cores my 4090 has.

CPU cores and GPU cores cannot be compared but debating with you is better understood as you have a serious case of price justification syndrome. When you are looking at CPUs transistor count, clock speed and Memory support are tantamount (for AM4). Alone the fact that you could get RAM running at 4000 MHZ with a 5600X is an advantage. There is no 1700X that can run Memory above 3200. Then look at IPC. The difference especially in Multi threaded BENCHMARKS will be mitigated by core count in CPUs. And yes I come from a world where 1 GB VRAM was OMG. So yes when my 7900XT goes to 2898 Mhz I am happy but why the hell do you have a 4090 if it doesn't matter? BTW TPU is your friend to ascertain the specs of your PC.

 

[AusWolf]

The number of cores is irrelevant. We are talking about performance. Who actually cares about cores? Do you care how many cores your GPU has or how fast it is? Personally i've no idea how many cores my 4090 has.

Well, I do care.

Not only do I like knowing how things work, but I also like not being ripped off with a partially disabled GPU that's advertised as the flagship of the flagships, only for the Ti version to take its place 6-12 months later.

 

[gt362gamer]

In general, AMD cards are equal in raster to competing nvidia cards, have higher power draw, way less features, worse RT performance. So yes, they are worse, and the only way for amd to compete is by price cuts. Which is great, but it would be better if they actually launched their cards with lower prices to begin with.Take the 7900xt as a prime example, at launch it was worse at RASTER performance per dollar compared to the 4070ti. That is absolutely absurd, considering all the other pros the 4070ti has over it

Well, AMD gpus in general have more vram and less driver overhead (unless you play certain games, usually Directx11 games or older ones, where the higher Nvidia driver overhead is not important performance wise but you get more draw calls therefore better fps [if you have enough CPU power, of course]) at the same price points, unless I'm mistaken.

 

[JustBenching]

but why the hell do you have a 4090 if it doesn't matter?

Because of it's performance. I don't care if it delivers that performance with 1 core or a trillion.

Well, I do care.

Not only do I like knowing how things work, but I also like not being ripped off with a partially disabled GPU that's advertised as the flagship of the flagships, only for the Ti version to take its place 6-12 months later.

If you buy a product at a price that makes sense for you, then you can;'t get ripped off regardless of whether a ti or a super variant taking it's place. Would you buy a product that is full of specs (cores ram bandwidth etc.) if it - for whatever reason - underperforms? Probably not. So you don't really care about specs either. Specs tell you how a product should perform. Actual performance metrics tell you how it does in fact perform. I buy stuff based on the latter. The former is useless when it comes to buying decisions.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

The number of cores is irrelevant. We are talking about performance. Who actually cares about cores? Do you care how many cores your GPU has or how fast it is? Personally i've no idea how many cores my 4090 has.

This I agree with.

The number of cores does seam to be irrelevant to Fsr3 .

 

[kapone32]

Because of it's performance. I don't care if it delivers that performance with 1 core or a trillion.

Why are you on TPU if none of the nuance matters to you? Your 4090 sucks almost more than 100 Watts vs my 7900XT but it is all I need for 4K. The fact that it has 20GB of VRAM matters more to me than some feature like lighting. I Gamed on Atari so I can appreciate how fing sweet Armored Core 6 looks and appreciate the 100+ FPS I get all day at 4K. I know that it is good because I read and only now am I fully behind AMD but that is because the 7900XT is everything I expected it to be. If I play CP2077 at high in 4k I get over 200 FPS. You can DLSS your way to that but that is your choice. Don't rag on people because they did not make the same decision as you when purchasing a GPU.

 

[Dr. Dro]

Why are you on TPU if none of the nuance matters to you? Your 4090 sucks almost more than 100 Watts vs my 7900XT but it is all I need for 4K. The fact that it has 20GB of VRAM matters more to me than some feature like lighting. I Gamed on Atari so I can appreciate how fing sweet Armored Core 6 looks and appreciate the 100+ FPS I get all day at 4K. I know that it is good because I read and only now am I fully behind AMD but that is because the 7900XT is everything I expected it to be. If I play CP2077 at high in 4k I get over 200 FPS. You can DLSS your way to that but that is your choice. Don't rag on people because they did not make the same decision as you when purchasing a GPU.

Well it's 100W for almost twice the performance in some situations, so I guess it's not only winning but it's also significantly more efficient at perf/W

I'll agree the 4090 is quite overkill, the XTX or 4080 is all most people are gonna need for this generation.

I don't think I'll be buying 90-class hardware anymore myself unless the price comes back down to the $1k price point, so the custom Asus cards go for 1.5k tops.

This binned midrange ASIC on overengineered flagship VRM and cooling solution niche that the 4080 Strix OC and the former 980 Kingpin I've used to have all the way back belong to is quite awesome for a gamer that looks for performance and finesse without throwing balance off the window.

 

[AusWolf]

Because of it's performance. I don't care if it delivers that performance with 1 core or a trillion.


If you buy a product at a price that makes sense for you, then you can;'t get ripped off regardless of whether a ti or a super variant taking it's place. Would you buy a product that is full of specs (cores ram bandwidth etc.) if it - for whatever reason - underperforms? Probably not. So you don't really care about specs either. Specs tell you how a product should perform. Actual performance metrics tell you how it does in fact perform. I buy stuff based on the latter. The former is useless when it comes to buying decisions.

It's worth knowing whether a higher-tier version with unlocked cores (potentially for a similar MSRP) can be expected later, or not. I don't buy a product that underperforms (unless I'm extremely curious for some reason), but I also don't buy a product that is based on a partially disabled chip, knowing that the full version hasn't been released, yet. For example, what's stopping Nvidia (except for yields) from offering a slight price reduction on the 4090 and releasing a 4090 Ti with a fully enabled GPU die for the same MSRP as the 4090 any time between the release dates of the 4090 and the 5090?

 

[95Viper]

Stick to the topic.
And, stop your insults and belittling of others.
Discuss civilly and do not argue.

 

[mkppo]

In general, AMD cards are equal in raster to competing nvidia cards, have higher power draw, way less features, worse RT performance. So yes, they are worse, and the only way for amd to compete is by price cuts. Which is great, but it would be better if they actually launched their cards with lower prices to begin with.Take the 7900xt as a prime example, at launch it was worse at RASTER performance per dollar compared to the 4070ti. That is absolutely absurd, considering all the other pros the 4070ti has over it

4070Ti never had faster raster than the 7900xt, and the gap only increased over time as the RDNA3 drivers matured. Right now the 7900xt is clearly faster in raster, has more VRAM while consuming just under 40W more power which is much less than the power difference between a 7950X3D and the slower 13900K. Go figure

 

[JustBenching]

4070Ti never had faster raster than the 7900xt,

I never said the 4070ti was faster in raster. You are making stuff up. I said the 4070ti had better raster per dollar. Which is true.

Why are you on TPU if none of the nuance matters to you? Your 4090 sucks almost more than 100 Watts vs my 7900XT but it is all I need for 4K.

My 4090 is power limited to 320w and even at that wattage, it sends your 7900xt to meet it's maker in terms of performance. But why does that matter? How is that relevant to anything?

offering a slight price reduction on the 4090 and releasing a 4090 Ti with a fully enabled GPU die for the same MSRP as the 4090 any time between the release dates of the 4090 and the 5090?

Nothing is stopping them, they did that with the 3090ti as well. But who cares? They can release a 4090ti a 4090super and a 4090ti super, doesn't really matter. When I bought the 4090 I thought it was good value for the performance (and the longevity, since next gen is at least 2 years later), so I don't really care what other product releases.

 

[AusWolf]

My 4090 is power limited to 320w and even at that wattage, it sends your 7900xt to meet it's maker in terms of performance.

For double the price, damn well it should!

Nothing is stopping them, they did that with the 3090ti as well. But who cares? They can release a 4090ti a 4090super and a 4090ti super, doesn't really matter. When I bought the 4090 I thought it was good value for the performance (and the longevity, since next gen is at least 2 years later), so I don't really care what other product releases.

If you thought/think it's good value, that's within your rights. Personally, I don't want to buy anything with the thought that something better is lurking around the corner for a potentially similar price.

 

[mkppo]

I never said the 4070ti was faster in raster. You are making stuff up. I said the 4070ti had better raster per dollar. Which is true.

Yeah..no it isn't. When the 4070Ti launched, the 7900XT was already $850 and falling. But 7900XT is anywhere between 8-13% faster. Do the math.

Now you're going to say the MSRP is $900. Well it doesn't matter for shit, because it legit doesn't matter when comparing the launch of 4070Ti.

Also, i'm not sure about the way less features part. DLSS2/3? Sure, but what else? Relive is just as good as Shadowplay, AMD's control center is leaps and bounds better than the shitfest from nvidia that I have to deal with. Some extra features, sure i'll give them that. But don't make it sound like nvidia has a ton more features when they really don't.