RTX 40 vs 50 series

[Helicopter200]

So on traditional frame render there is no big difference between 40 and 50 series but on frame generation its a big difference and since the 40 series will get DLSS 4 with improved frame generation (Multiframe generation is only for 50 series) this means i will get more frames when using DLSS and its kinda useless to upgrade from 40 series to 50 series since on traditional frame generation is no big difference? Tell me your opinion guys

[Monk]

People always want bigger and better, fact is, if you want that with pure rasterisation prepare fir a low end card to cost £2000 and a high end to cost £5000.

There is no magic secret to 'optimise' games that developers are 'just too lazy to do', higher res, more clutter, longer vistas, more npcs etc are all demanding, at a certain point you need to either make stuff look worse or clip in (witcher 3 if you ride into a town fast on horse back was bad gir this, as is the limited shadow box in gta5 / rdr2 as examples).

So, you either have limitations like in the past, which, look bad, let's be honest, you MASSIVELY increase gpu power and cost, or you use ai trickery to suppliment traditional rendering while pushing detail and fidelity even further.

Given most already think cards are too expensive I really don't think you would like to see what would happen to costs if you don't want to use ai and keep pushing the envelope on scope and scale.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by Monk:

People always want bigger and better, fact is, if you want that with pure rasterisation prepare fir a low end card to cost £2000 and a high end to cost £5000.

There is no magic secret to 'optimise' games that developers are 'just too lazy to do', higher res, more clutter, longer vistas, more npcs etc are all demanding, at a certain point you need to either make stuff look worse or clip in (witcher 3 if you ride into a town fast on horse back was bad gir this, as is the limited shadow box in gta5 / rdr2 as examples).

So, you either have limitations like in the past, which, look bad, let's be honest, you MASSIVELY increase gpu power and cost, or you use ai trickery to suppliment traditional rendering while pushing detail and fidelity even further.

Given most already think cards are too expensive I really don't think you would like to see what would happen to costs if you don't want to use ai and keep pushing the envelope on scope and scale.

If you can't make the GPUs more powerful, then work on making them more power efficient, smaller, and cheaper. Don't just try to trick customers with snake oil and fake frames.

[Monk]

Originally posted by Heretic:

AMD doesn't restrict it to the very latest generation of cards, so is in fact useful for those on older cards from both AMD and Nvidia. Nvidia are not benefiting gamers. They're selling gimmicks, and if the very latest game needs DLSS4 and all the other exclusives then they'll just kill PC gaming.

Face it, Nvidia sucks even if their cards and drivers are good enough.

That's because they use a software soloution not dedicated hardware the previous cards do not physically have.

I've not looked at fsr4 yet but if it's going yo be using ai too, chances are it will be using dedicated hardware too, soon, there is only so much software can do.

[Monk]

Originally posted by D. Flame:

Originally posted by Monk:

People always want bigger and better, fact is, if you want that with pure rasterisation prepare fir a low end card to cost £2000 and a high end to cost £5000.

There is no magic secret to 'optimise' games that developers are 'just too lazy to do', higher res, more clutter, longer vistas, more npcs etc are all demanding, at a certain point you need to either make stuff look worse or clip in (witcher 3 if you ride into a town fast on horse back was bad gir this, as is the limited shadow box in gta5 / rdr2 as examples).

So, you either have limitations like in the past, which, look bad, let's be honest, you MASSIVELY increase gpu power and cost, or you use ai trickery to suppliment traditional rendering while pushing detail and fidelity even further.

Given most already think cards are too expensive I really don't think you would like to see what would happen to costs if you don't want to use ai and keep pushing the envelope on scope and scale.

If you can't make the GPUs more powerful, then work on making them more power efficient, smaller, and cheaper. Don't just try to trick customers with snake oil and fake frames.

You really have no clue about the process of making chips do you.

If they could, they would, infact, nearly every generation IS smaller and there is only so much they can do gir efficency.

The smaller and more efficient they make the chips the more profit they make, it's one of their biggest goals, but there are limits placed upon silicon.

[D. Flame]

Originally posted by Monk:

Originally posted by D. Flame:

If you can't make the GPUs more powerful, then work on making them more power efficient, smaller, and cheaper. Don't just try to trick customers with snake oil and fake frames.

You really have no clue about the process of making chips do you.

I know more about it than you do, apparently.

[Heretic]

Originally posted by Monk:

Originally posted by Heretic:

AMD doesn't restrict it to the very latest generation of cards, so is in fact useful for those on older cards from both AMD and Nvidia. Nvidia are not benefiting gamers. They're selling gimmicks, and if the very latest game needs DLSS4 and all the other exclusives then they'll just kill PC gaming.

Face it, Nvidia sucks even if their cards and drivers are good enough.

That's because they use a software soloution not dedicated hardware the previous cards do not physically have.

I've not looked at fsr4 yet but if it's going yo be using ai too, chances are it will be using dedicated hardware too, soon, there is only so much software can do.

Sure, I didn't claim it used hardware to do it. The obvious point is that AMD's versions have a functional benefit for users of older hardware who cannot maintain a high enough frame rate.

That was the entire point of my post.

I can't predict the future on what AMD are going to do. If they're smart they'll win over more mainstream PC gamers.

[Monk]

Yes it's open to all, but is inferior for it.

If you don't like it, don't buy it, it isn't that serious.

[tyl0413]

Might regret not going for a 4070 TI Super or 4080 Super now and waiting for 50s to be sold out for months. Oh well, even if its just a tiny bit faster I take it, it is what it is, hopefully being the newest generation itll have better linux support, I'm hoping to get close to decade out of it, thats the only reason I see for buying high end cards if you don't like upgrading often.
I doubt AMD will have any compelling offerings.

[Monk]

That's pointless, you won't get a decade the way things are moving, just save a couple hundred bucks up every 2 years, we'll the existing card and upgrade.

Honestly, if you cannot save 500 bucks over 2 years, you have bigger problems and should not be buying a gpu.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by tyl0413:

Might regret not going for a 4070 TI Super or 4080 Super now and waiting for 50s to be sold out for months. Oh well, even if its just a tiny bit faster I take it, it is what it is, hopefully being the newest generation itll have better linux support, I'm hoping to get close to decade out of it, thats the only reason I see for buying high end cards if you don't like upgrading often.
I doubt AMD will have any compelling offerings.

Linux support is at least acceptable as it is, would be nice to have a proper working control panel on Wayland but that isn't happening for awhile I guess.

Experimental HDR in KDE works in varying degrees, Wayland works flawlessly as of Q2 last year, DLSS frame generation is fully supported in Proton 9 and newer so there's less tweaking to do with launch options on Steam

[tyl0413]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by tyl0413:

Might regret not going for a 4070 TI Super or 4080 Super now and waiting for 50s to be sold out for months. Oh well, even if its just a tiny bit faster I take it, it is what it is, hopefully being the newest generation itll have better linux support, I'm hoping to get close to decade out of it, thats the only reason I see for buying high end cards if you don't like upgrading often.
I doubt AMD will have any compelling offerings.

Linux support is at least acceptable as it is, would be nice to have a proper working control panel on Wayland but that isn't happening for awhile I guess.

Experimental HDR in KDE works in varying degrees, Wayland works flawlessly as of Q2 last year, DLSS frame generation is fully supported in Proton 9 and newer so there's less tweaking to do with launch options on Steam

Im often getting constant stuttering compared to windows, apparently the newer cards have better drivers or smth.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by tyl0413:

Originally posted by r.linder:

Linux support is at least acceptable as it is, would be nice to have a proper working control panel on Wayland but that isn't happening for awhile I guess.

Experimental HDR in KDE works in varying degrees, Wayland works flawlessly as of Q2 last year, DLSS frame generation is fully supported in Proton 9 and newer so there's less tweaking to do with launch options on Steam

Im often getting constant stuttering compared to windows, apparently the newer cards have better drivers or smth.

I've used Linux with both a 3080 and 4070 TS, haven't seen any stutters aside from just proton versions that had issues with some games, switching to another version made stutters go away

[xDDD]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by tyl0413:

Might regret not going for a 4070 TI Super or 4080 Super now and waiting for 50s to be sold out for months. Oh well, even if its just a tiny bit faster I take it, it is what it is, hopefully being the newest generation itll have better linux support, I'm hoping to get close to decade out of it, thats the only reason I see for buying high end cards if you don't like upgrading often.
I doubt AMD will have any compelling offerings.

Linux support is at least acceptable as it is, would be nice to have a proper working control panel on Wayland but that isn't happening for awhile I guess.

Experimental HDR in KDE works in varying degrees, Wayland works flawlessly as of Q2 last year, DLSS frame generation is fully supported in Proton 9 and newer so there's less tweaking to do with launch options on Steam

Honestly the Linux stuff is a significant trump card that AMD has for their GPU division and they should play into that strength.

Although I suppose that is a bit of a gamble and Linux isn't THAT popular, but there's a lot of people who are not willing to go to Windows 11 and the clock is ticking. I suppose it is a small subgroup of the small subgroup that is PC gamers, though, so maybe it's not worth. It obviously isn't worth it to Nvidia.

[r.linder]

Originally posted by xDDD:

Originally posted by r.linder:

Linux support is at least acceptable as it is, would be nice to have a proper working control panel on Wayland but that isn't happening for awhile I guess.

Experimental HDR in KDE works in varying degrees, Wayland works flawlessly as of Q2 last year, DLSS frame generation is fully supported in Proton 9 and newer so there's less tweaking to do with launch options on Steam

Honestly the Linux stuff is a significant trump card that AMD has for their GPU division and they should play into that strength.

Although I suppose that is a bit of a gamble and Linux isn't THAT popular, but there's a lot of people who are not willing to go to Windows 11 and the clock is ticking. I suppose it is a small subgroup of the small subgroup that is PC gamers, though, so maybe it's not worth. It obviously isn't worth it to Nvidia.

NVIDIA also can't afford to just let AMD run free on Linux without competition because eventually Linux gaming will become a bigger thing, especially with Valve helping it along by getting involved with Arch, also because of SteamOS and all the software that came with it like Gamescope which has been very useful to other distros.

All NVIDIA's drivers really need is a better control panel that works with Wayland as I said, with ideally most or all of the same functionality

Performance wise they've closed the gap between them and AMD, they just need to keep improving it

[xDDD]

Originally posted by r.linder:

Originally posted by xDDD:

Honestly the Linux stuff is a significant trump card that AMD has for their GPU division and they should play into that strength.

Although I suppose that is a bit of a gamble and Linux isn't THAT popular, but there's a lot of people who are not willing to go to Windows 11 and the clock is ticking. I suppose it is a small subgroup of the small subgroup that is PC gamers, though, so maybe it's not worth. It obviously isn't worth it to Nvidia.

NVIDIA also can't afford to just let AMD run free on Linux without competition because eventually Linux gaming will become a bigger thing, especially with Valve helping it along by getting involved with Arch, also because of SteamOS and all the software that came with it like Gamescope which has been very useful to other distros.

All NVIDIA's drivers really need is a better control panel that works with Wayland as I said, with ideally most or all of the same functionality

Performance wise they've closed the gap between them and AMD, they just need to keep improving it

I am not sure they can, though.
Isn't the whole schtick that AMD does a lot of stuff open source while Nvidia is entirely proprietary? I don't think proprietary software is really conducive to success on Linux.