So you are telling me you are not pro amd and not a big fan of nvidia? I am only saying it as it is, nothing to do with the article you keep mentioning

Oh and I am not upset

 

No more then you are a pro nvidia and not a big fan of AMD. See how that works...

However you 'feel' about my allegiance still doesnt address why a top end, next gen card still needs games to have TAA for a performance boost using dlss against RDNA 2? And the ability to alter the game's existing IQ from within the drivers?

So let me get this straight. They are going to:
A. Get additional development time for these ampere press releases, existing, games and alter code to give them an advantage by altering IQ.
B. Inject taa
C. Add dlss for a performance boost

One word comes to mind: rigged. Another thought is crysis 2 tessellation controversy.
I hope amd has an answer for that.

Personally, I wouldn't have expected RDNA 2 to compete with a 3080ti to warrant the need for all these changes in benchmark review just for ampere. I mean, this is a first. Again, I'm not making that up. It's coming from a reviewer who's telling us how the review will go. Which is my interpretation. And, why I believe it's a bit underhanded.

Now if you want to continue calling me pro amd because of what I've read in the article then you are only ignoring the discussion at hand. Which is why I say you are upset.

 

I'm sort of with you on seeing potential (possibly even intended) "shady" tactics from nVidia with this.. However, if the IQ is equal or greater AND it doesn't needlessly hinder competitors (and thus the consumer) - then isn't it a valid technology that SHOULD be included as part of the reviews?
You bring up Crysis 2, which met the first criteria of equal/greater IQ (since it was equal) but the second criteria failed - it hindered the competitor for no IQ benefit; in other words it didn't help the consumer at all. You could also use GameWorks as an example - it might have improved IQ but it needlessly hindered competitors as they were "blackbox" techs that stopped AMD developing support for. So nVidia do have a history of being shady and anti-consumer; however, if DLSS 3.0 were to provide equal/greater IQ - it doesn't hinder competitor technologies; it just provides added value to the consumer... then as much as I might not like the gap between AMD/nVidia widening, then it seems like it's something that we'd have to accept as a valid improvement, no? As long as nVidia didn't dictate terms to developers like "you can't support AMD technologies if you use DLSS" or something; ie removing the fair playing field.

 

The problem with using DLSS in reviews for me is it's not really giving you a good idea of how powerful the card is in 99% of games which don't have DLSS. I would rather they tested all games equally and done a separate segment to show the benefits of DLSS both for performance and it's image quality.

 

I don't see why they wouldn't do that. Or if nVidia forces DLSS so it's not possible to test the same game with/without - then have a selection of games stating which are using DLSS and which aren't. it's not difficult to account for in the review process.

 

The reviewer clearly stated that it would be used in comparison with rdna 2.0. So it's not hard to believe that the nvidia would indeed use it in the performance charts for just such a reason. I think it is concerning to know if whether or not they differentiate regular Benchmark methods to this alternate NDA 2.0 version. Or whatever you want to call it.

 

I reckon that DLSS 3.0 will bring the original idea of better AA at the same resolution ( no up scaling involved) with no performance hit at all.

Or better yet give the end user the choice, with a nice slider in game to select how much DLSS they want to use. Upscale for more performance or same resolution but better visuals.

 

Haha. I said that based on all your posts overall. Not because of the discussion at hand

Definitely not upset, quite the opposite actually, having a great day today

 

Ah, Ad hominem it is then. It's one way of saying nvidias tactic isnt defendable.

 

https://www.imgtec.com/blog/why-benchmarks-are-the-missing-piece-of-the-ray-tracing-puzzle/

Very interesting read. Perhaps something to think about when thinking about RNDA's ray tracing capabilities.

 

I would like to see DLSS 2.0 in Star Citizen

 

I would like to see it in more than a handful of games over a year period.

 

Game likely will never be released.
so a non issue.

 

Quake RTX is so cool!

https://streamable.com/omgjn9

 

Nice - mind you that is nothing compared to what the renderer in Quake 2 is capable of without the geometry, material and so on limitations of a 25 year old engine :s

I really don't have much time for people who do the tech down knowing a bit of what is coming.

 

https://wowhead.com/news=317555.2/r...led-on-the-world-of-warcraft-shadowlands-beta

Spoiler

Spoiler

 

Awesome, I see Nvidia is earning the premium they charge for RTX. Lol.

 

Just look at the financial thread below this one, their prices are only going one way.

 

Yea

 

Who'd win in a fight between

One special boi coding reshade in his basement


Versus literally BILLIONS of $$$ of R&D