re: PC Discussion - Gaming, Performance and Enthusiasts

quote:

---

What does that have to do with understanding adoption? Availability matters the most. The fact that it's available in so many gpus new and old will all but guarantee fast adoption. In fact, I'd bet a good sum of money a year later that FSR3 is in more games than the 25 a year into DLSS3.

---

The answer is zero, isn’t it?

And you understand that the majority of gamers are down on Nvidia frame gen as a mediocre solution in search of a problem, right? It’s not a popular feature, because its usage case is very small.

When people think high frame rate, they think smooth image and low latency. With frame gen, unless you already start at a high frame rate to begin with, you’ll likely have image jutter in spite of the high reported frame count. On top of that, you have increased latency and increased artifacting. It just doesn’t accomplish what Nvidia, and now AMD, are trying to claim it does. Most people should not use frame gen tech, regardless of whether or not they have access to it. The drawbacks aren’t worth the benefits.

But anyway, that was just a bit of general info for anyone who doesn’t immediately skip over our normal bullshite. Feel free to keep spouting your hyper biased, uninformed nonsense, though.

You routinely ignore the bulk of posts that you have zero response to just to pick out single sentences to strawman. You’re a fricking clown

Back to our regular non bitchy programing:

About six months ago, I posted this:

quote:

---

I think there are two possibilities left for me this Gen:

1. Nvidia releases a 4080ti with a full fat 102 die but with the same 16gb of vram for $1,200. With the original 4080 sliding down to $999.

2. AMD releases a groundbreaking card with 3D cache, etc, that resets the market.

Outside of those two options, I’m likely a skip.

---

This morning, looks like we've got some rumors of a maybe:
NVIDIA reportedly working on GeForce RTX 4080 Ti with AD102 GPU for early 2024 release

Now, this could obviously be bullshite. But, if a 4080ti releases with essentially the same die as the 4090 but just with less VRAM, it becomes a very interesting buy. Though, with one caveat: When I said $1,200, I had in mind the standard late Q3/early Q4 2023 release cycle. With a Q1 2024 release, $1,200 becomes a bit harder to stomach. The 7900xtx can routinely be had for about $900 these days, and that should only see downward pressure in the next six months. Assuming the xtx stays at $900, or even manages to sink to $850 or less, a 4080ti will have a hard time justifying a price premium of $300+ for a mild to moderate raster performance bump, even with the more significant RT bump and the better upscaling technology.

At $1,400, it would be DOA for me. At $1,200, it would be tempting, but still a tough purchase for a lot of people knowing that next gen cards would coming down the pike reasonably soon. At $1,100, I think it becomes a solid buy. At $999, I think it becomes a 2020-esque "sold out everywhere, being scapled" kind of release.

But, I have approximately zero faith that Nvidia won't step on its own dick, as always, so I would say $1,200 with the 4080 being pushed to $999 is probably the best case scenario, assuming this isn't pure rumor to begin with, that it wouldn't see a significantly cut down die, etc, etc.

But, still a fun rumor for a Saturday morning.

quote:

---

The XTX will go down to 799 or lower if Nvidia does that.

AMD actually has a pretty good argument for the midrange now, but they aren’t even trying to compete with Nvidias high end cards.

---

That's actually something I thought about after I posted, but didn't think it was worth an edit. Both a $999 4080 and a $1,199 4080ti would apply pressure on a $900 7900xtx. I still think the xtx would be a better value for a lot of people, but for those of us who play super intensive single player games, usually with RT and upscaling, the price premium might be palatable enough to push the Nvidia offerings over the edge. If the xtx pushed down to $799, I think it's firmly in the driver's seat again. If Nvidia pushes down to, say, $899/$1,099, I'm not sure AMD can push prices low enough to stem the tide. If Nvidia blows it out and goes $799/$999, the market will explode.

But I'm not allowing myself to consider that scenario and set myself up for disappointment

quote:

---

Hmm, seems unlikely.

---

The 4080ti in general, or potential pricing paradigms?

Both. It would be a weird place. At the 4080 price, you have to lower the price of the 4080, or it won't sell.

That creates a snowball effect.

I mean, I hope it does happen.


GPU prices have been insane for the last few years. This kind of snowball affect would be nice. But considering the limited capacity of TSMC? I don't see it.

At least not until late 2024 or something. Both companies will want to unload unsold gpus.

quote:

---

Nope. With how many GPU's it works with. Just nope.

Is it inferior, yes. AMD is trying a software solution for a hardware problem. With the rumors of the next RDNA being midrange, this should tell you that AMD has a shotgun ready to take RDNA out back.

Their effort is admirable, and it's decent, but software can't overcome hardware in this. Or well, at what's proven by now.

Of course, AI is the main driver in all of this.

---

To go back, I don't mean it won't see any adoption. I'm saying it will be limited from what it could be. Frame gen is already a niche application. When you combine that with it being tied to FSR upscaling, I imagine tons of older Nvidia owners are just going to write it off, just like I am.

So in short, if there is a substantial number of Nvidia owners who say "meh, I'd rather have DLSS 2.2 than FSR 3 and frame gen", that's not exactly the win I think AMD was going for.

quote:

---

with it being tied to FSR upscaling,

---

Um... I'm pretty sure that's FUD. I've seen some videos where you can disable FSR and still use FG. Although, I'm sure not sure if it's HYPER-X or FSR 3. frick these names.

quote:

---

Frame gen is already a niche application.

---

Correct. I turned it on cyberpunk and immediately turned it off. Your hand and eyes are telling your brain 2 different things. Frame generation isn't free performance, in fact, it's the opposite. It's a graphics feature.

Edit: bolded for mt. That and added sure.

quote:

---

Um... I'm pretty sure that's FUD. I've seen some videos where you can disable FSR and still use FG. Although, I'm sure not sure if it's HYPER-X or FSR 3. frick these names.

---

I haven't personally tested it, but both videos I've watched as well as the TechPowerup review I linked previously say that you can't have frame gen without turning on upscaling. Quote from the article:

quote:

---

Speaking of image quality, it is important to note that in order to use AMD's Frame Generation solution, the Super Resolution upscaling component is required. Unfortunately, the image quality of the Super Resolution component isn't improved with the third version of FSR, and the game is still essentially using FSR 2 for upscaling, which, as we have tested numerous times, has major instabilities in motion, especially at lower resolutions.

---

Yep. That's been my sticking point since before I started getting insulted for no fricking reason

AMD appears to have done just fine for a first attempt at a software based frame gen solution. It has a host of problems, but they are all fixable. But as long as AMD frame gen requires the use of AMD upscaling, a lot of people who would otherwise use it, aren't going to. Just not worth giving up either native or DLSS in order to use AMD frame gen, at least for most people.