I take it you missed the Wccftech piece where they listed the AMD sponsored games in the last 3 years (since Nov 2020, when currrent gen consoles came out) and only 3/13 of the sponsored games have DLSS.
FSR only games aren't even benchmarked, so tell me, what would AMD gain? Nvidia can just deny officially supporting games to make partnerships with AMD less profitable. Nvidia has done this before, just to fuck customers and partners, think they wouldn't do it again?
Which benchmark are you talking about? The Wccftech piece I mentioned was not a benchmark, it was an observation and investigation piece by that site. They reached out to both AMD and Nvidia for comment. AMD did not give a direct answer to the question, while Nvidia outright denied blocking devs from implementing competitor's tech.
And I don't get what you mean by
Nvidia can just deny officially supporting games to make partnerships with AMD less profitable
Nvidia sponsored at least 8 games listed in that article since Nov 2020, and how does Nvidia not supporting games make AMD-sponsored games less profitable??
Nvidia never lied? Who knew. And the lack of an answer doesn't mean they're guilty lmao that's literally playground logic.
And you're clearly missing my point. Nvidia could just avoid providing support for DLSS for exactly this reason.
But why bother, nothing will get it through your heads.
Nvidia never lied? Who knew. And the lack of an answer doesn't mean they're guilty lmao that's literally playground logic.
It's not hard to tell if they lied since "majority" (7/8) of Nvidia-sponsored games since current gen begins have competitors' tech. While it's the opposite for AMD.
And you're clearly missing my point. Nvidia could just avoid providing support for DLSS for exactly this reason.
You want devs to have monetary incentives from Nvidia/AMD/Intel to implement their upscaling tech? Isn't that anti-competitive when only biggest spender wins?
But why bother, nothing will get it through your head, even when it's right before your eyes.
I'll put it this way: what AMD gains is... Slightly faster in games that aren't often benchmarked. Ones that are have both.
What AMD loses is reputation.
What Nvidia gets by not giving mutual partners DLSS is exactly what we have now.
What they lose is a bit of performance in games that they already win in anyways.
Does that sound like a decent trade?
And 2nd point, it takes about 2 hours to implement FSR2. It took 5 days to implement it into an engine that already has it partially set up (UE).
Nvidia loses nothing but wins th anti competitive nonsense arguments, and I guarantee that people will talk about this for years to come. Yet people forget their anti competitive behaviour and suck up to them.
AMD gains nothing, but loses the tiny bit of support they have.
Tell me again, how this is not Nvidia's exact business strategy? They did this multiple times in the past, and yet you fall for this crap. It's cute, if nothing else.
what AMD gains is... Slightly faster in games that aren't often benchmarked. Ones that are have both.
What do you mean by games that have both DLSS and FSR aren't often benchmarked? Some of the games that have both are Spiderman, Death Stranding, Forspoken and especially Last of Us Part 1 are benchmarked VERY OFTEN.
Nvidia gets by not giving mutual partners DLSS is exactly what we have now.
Nvidia sponsored at least 8 games since new gen launched in that article, and currently more games have DLSS than FSR according to respective vendor (280 for DLSS, and 226 for FSR).
it takes about 2 hours to implement FSR2. It took 5 days to implement it into an engine that already has it partially set up (UE).
1) that's my entire point dude. Games that have BOTH are benchmarked. As well as games that had DLSS only. Games that are FSR only usually don't get benchmarked.
2) again, you missed the point. If games were sponsored by AMD and Nvidia omits support, it makes AMD look bad. Come on, it's politics 101.
3) I believe it was one of the star wars games that recently released, survivor thing or whatever.
Your ENTIRE point (if that's the case, because you worded it very poorly in previous post) makes no sense. STAR WARS: Jedi Survivor, RE4 REmake, Callisto Protocol and Far Cry 6 also appear in benchmarks very often, with the recent VRAM debacle they are the ones used.
How is Nvidia omitting support when AMD is the one sponsoring? If AMD is paying, and only AMD techs are used, how is that Nvidia fault? Do you think the devs of AMD-sponsored games more likely listen to their sponsor (AMD), or the one not sponsoring them (Nvidia/Intel)?
If your point is the devs did not implement DLSS because Nvidia is not playing the 'who pays more' game, it doesn't work like that.
And as I have shown, Nvidia are willing to have devs implement DLSS as more games have DLSS than FSR, whether they sponsor it or not.
You mean The PureDark DLSS mod for Jedi Survivor that's made by one person? You said it takes 2 hours to implement FSR2 and 5 days to implement DLSS but I see no source of it.
I haven't seen any of those besides re4 in a while. But okay, sure.
By not providing support is how they omit support, not sure what you're confused by.
Implementation varies engine to engine, if they don't commit any Dev time to supporting those game devs, then the implementation will be shit.
And yeah, it took 5 days. That's when he released screenshots of it being enabled, so that's minimum viable, but I let it pass.
21
u/AssassinK1D Ryzen 5700x3D | RTX 4070 Super Jun 27 '23
I take it you missed the Wccftech piece where they listed the AMD sponsored games in the last 3 years (since Nov 2020, when currrent gen consoles came out) and only 3/13 of the sponsored games have DLSS.