![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
LOL considering Call of Duty is usually one of the top multiplayer games every year. Saying that no one cares is absolutely wrong.
We know Bethesda games aren't built on the best graphics engine, but it's still just like any other engine in that it was built on top of engines that goes as far back as the 90's. How many people know that the Source 2 engine is based on the Quake engine? World of Warcraft is actually running on a heavily modified Warcraft 3 engine.
Besides money, there's other reasons they kept their own engine. Bethesda games are known for being friendly when it comes to mods, so that may have been taken into account.
I'm not going to pretend like I know what was done in Starfield that makes it run better on AMD, but other people have and have done a much better job than what you're saying.
This is proof that Nvidia owners want to believe they have the best, because they paid the most. That's not been the case since forever. There's always going to be an edge case where hardware that's not been the fastest in most games, can be the fastest in one game. AMD cards have advantages and if done right can give them the edge.
DLSS is coming to the game and nobody cares because it's 2023 and new games will demand for more powerful hardware. This year we've seen people upset over a lot of new games because their new hardware can't keep up. What used to be common sense in the PC gaming world is no longer common.
Yes, that would be most games.
Nvidia sponsors a lot more games as well, so it shouldn't surprise anyone that the RTX 4090 is the fastest most of those games. Also, no amount of justification can make the RTX 4090 seem like a good deal. You paid $1,600 for the best, even though we're now approaching used car prices for a graphics card. People don't buy a RTX 4090 because it'll last them 10 years, or because a game they played needs it. People buy it because the 4090 is the fastest, but when it loses to a cheaper AMD card the ego takes a hit.
It's like sponsored games always favor the sponsors hardware? This isn't anything new.
None of these history factoids change how well each engine actually runs or looks practice, though. I don't care about where something came from. I care about the end result.
My point is for the large majority of games, the 4090 performs much better. Many of these games look better than this title. It is objectively the stronger piece of hardware. Logically speaking, that means this title does things differently from the vast majority of modern titles. But the majority of modern titles perform better while having better graphics. The nitty gritty of why how, or Red vs Green is irrelevant. My point is that this game does things in a different way, and it's generally for no one's benefit. Basically every game except a tiny subset of AMD sponsored titles show that. This title does things differently but to no one's benefit. Well, except perhaps modding, accordingly.
Bethesda games are known for being the king of open world games. There's a lot going on in their games, compared to other open world titles. From the TechSpot article you linked the 7900 XTX and 4090 are nearly running at the same frame rate at 1440p in some games. Assassin's Creed Valhalla on the 7900 XTX is faster as well as Modern Warfare II. Hitman 3 runs identical at 1440p. Some of these games do perform better on the 4090 at 4K, but again it's not a clear 100% win for the 4090.
That's debatable.
Most of the games Nvidia tends to win are older games.
Except for Jedi Survivor, yet another AMD sponsored game.
Seems to benefit AMD users. Without knowing what was done to the game itself, you can't assume that it can be done better.
Keep in mind that 2023 has been a shit show for Nvidia for most of their GPU's, with the exception of the 4090. If a games uses more than 8GB of VRAM then it's a badly optimized game. If a game doesn't come with DLSS, then AMD has paid developers not to include it. Again, it isn't just Starfield where it performs better on AMD hardware, but also Jedi Survivor. We had a huge thread about Jedi Survivor and how it's a bad game, because it performs poorly on the RTX 4090. 2023 is the year Nvidia owners are having buyers remorse.
AMD owners are constantly in a situation where it's flipped. It's just expected that AMD cards perform worse than Nvidia. Nvidia doesn't need defending, not with the pricing they ask for their cards. Soon as AMD offered the 7800 XT, the price of the 4060 Ti 16G dropped $50. The more AMD wins in games like Starfield and Jedi Survivor, the more likely Nvidia will have to drop the price of the 4090. Starfield brought out the worst in fanboys as you see Playstation fans review bombing the game, while Xbox fans are just doing as much as they can to give the game a 10/10. Now we have PC fanboys fighting because no DLSS and it runs worse on Nvidia than on AMD graphic cards. From what I hear the game is rather boring.
Huh? Bethesda titles don't run like shit. Their problem has always been in the length of QA testing. The engines they use have always been pretty damn solid. Starfield for example is CPU bound. Really think about that for a second since it can utilize 8 cores. The other engines they use, some of them coming from John Carmack himself run more efficiently than most engines ever created. When it comes to CPU utilization, Starfield is actually pretty good.
You mean that data is being transferred in accordance to a standard. In this case it's AMD's wave32. This is no different than what happens if nVidia were to sponsor a title. This is just like when a game is centered around CUDA and the architecture which supports it. It's not more "complicated" than that. The difference being is that AMD rarely if ever gets to control the development of a game like Starfield, while nVidia does all of the time. Like Portal (which actually DOESN'T support FSR), or Quake RTX, and especially Cyberpunk 2077. Go ahead and load up Portal Remix RTX on an AMD card.... if you get to load it at all.
And most of them being nVidia titles. Also the XTX is priced to compete with the 4080 not the 4090.
Who has ever said the 4090 wasn't worth it? It's easily the most desirable / reasonable card nVidia has released. The others? Not so much. The 7900xtx is smaller than a 4090, by A LOT. If it ever ends up in a situation where it's close or beating it that goes to show just how efficient the architecture can be.
RT has been "the future" since before the RTX 1080 which sucked at it. Ray-tracing itself in games is pointless. Why? Because lights and shadows are calculated/consumed differently between a human brain and a computer. The amount of data created by light at those rates far exceeds what the human brain can compute. The human brain can easily be tricked when it comes to lights and shadows because it's not designed to determine what an accurate ray of light should look like. This happens routinely (even games played with children) which is why whenever you see an explanation of it, its through freeze frames and a lengthy explanation of the reflection you're looking at.
This may have been true with the 6000 series cards, but the 7000 series seem competitive with their nvidia counter parts. Cyberpunk is the most distant outlier, so outside of that AMD RT is in the ballpark. Take the 7800xt vs 4070. This doesn't look like "at least a generation behind."
A recent game to compare would be immortals of aveum (because it is developed on unreal 5.1)
Last I checked, the 7900 XTX in any RT game is basically on the level of the 3090. Which the 4090 basically surpasses by roughly 1.5-2x (and the 4080 consistently surpasses as well, trivially). Although it's interesting how the more budget AMD boards compare to Nvidia budget boards, I guess? But Nvidia's budget boards for this gen have always sucked, and/or been mediocre values. I wouldn't really consider them RT-capable cards. I don't think many sane people would run ultra or high quality RT in a next gen title on them at least...
Good question. Egos get bruised when game devs don't backup Nvidia's marketing.
You are saying it performed better on AMD? Did you know that is because AMD paid to keep both competitor tech out as well as hamper performance on competitors GPU's?
I would be happy to see AMD win, but not by cheating which is what they are doing. It's anti-competitive and anti-consumer.
JS has DLSS now, they patched it in.
It's sad, you start stating facts and they got butt hurt, yell more and even block you lol.
Yeah now they moved on to it's not good enough and insist the modded DLSS is better.
It doesn't even matter now. Tons of copies sold and are played. I'm sure the standard Bethesda crowd are doing just fine.
They fucked it up pretty bad though.
Nobody knows if AMD did pay to keep DLSS out of Jedi survivor, especially you.
Nah, we just had a thread about this locked so clearly I never knew Jedi Survivor had a DLSS mod. Also, that mod created graphic glitches because again it's a mod.
AMD is doing what Nvidia has been doing for two decades. It's likely that the reason Nvidia wins in most game titles is because most game titles are sponsored by Nvidia. It's just that AMD's budget isn't as big as Nvidia's, so it's rare to find an AMD sponsored title. This is why PhysX made it into so many games, as well as hairworks. More recently Ray-Tracing and now DLSS. There are still some RTX games that just don't work on AMD hardware, and yet nobody cares.
Considering that DLSS did end up in Starfield and Jedi Survivor, I doubt AMD paid to not have DLSS in these games. Otherwise AMD didn't get their monies worth. AMD probably asked for FSR to be the priority, and that's reasonable. Probably the reason why AMD is ending up as the sponsor is either because Nvidia is too focused on AI, or because developers see value in FSR because it works on all GPU's. You can argue about image quality and performance, but it still took months for DLSS to get into Jedi Survivor and 1 month for Starfield. Apparently it's not as easy as some people say it is to implement.
And yet somehow, even without the source code, PureDark got DLSS working in Starfield on August 31st.
They announced its coming to Starfield, it’s not in there yet.
Add it to the long list of stuff they F'd up in that game. The recent DF video shows it's still not in great shape. And based on the fact that the first game still has stutter issues it may never be 100%.
The game just as its predecessor has serious multi-threading problems and relentlessly pounds one core.
Working seems like a bit of an oversell considering many using the mod ended up disabling it due to stability issues.
I suspect it’s not an exclusively thing but a customization one. Adding DLSS to the stock engine is easy, but depending on the changes made at a core level things can get off the rails pretty fast. Guaranteed that UE4 engine is a damned monster of modified code and plugins, I think that AMD’s framework is easier to implement in that sort of situation and much of the framework already existed for the console plugins.
The carefully chosen words of AMD Frank Azor (that he joked he was having to choose carefully) on the topic of DLSS when interviewed by Verge about Starfield, pointed to what sounded like timed exclusivity of FSR. And I'd guessed it was more soft agreement than something specified in a contract.
Sounds like wccftech is taking over [H]
FSR's adoption has more to do with it being open and able to work on all GPU's. Many people have argued that DLSS is superior, but not enough to justify the develop time to implement it over FSR. The difference between DLSS 2 and FSR 2 requires people to zoom in and point out certain sections of a game. If anything, we may see FSR implemented into DirectX and Vulkan just because it's open source and works on all hardware.
I favor AMD and Intel because Nvidia has priced themselves out of the competition. When Nvidia one day returns prices back to sane levels, I will defend them as well. It's better for the industry that we don't just give Nvidia more credit than they deserve.
The 7900 XTX isn't what I'd call... affordable. It wasn't until the price of the 7900 XTX started to drop is when sales started to happen. Nobody here is advocating that people should buy a 7900 XTX, cause you shouldn't. Buying those kind of GPU's at those prices just reinforces AMD and Nvidia to keep raising prices. The RTX 4090 is the most over priced GPU ever made, and it sells because there's a group of people who buy the best and the best is the RTX 4090.
If you're looking to buy a 7900 XTX or RTX 4090, then you're not looking at future proof. People with that kind of budget are going to upgrade every 2 years, depending on when Nvidia releases their next flag ship graphics card. People who buy RTX 4070's or RX 7800 XT's are going to probably upgrade every 3-4 years. People who buy RX 7600's or RTX 4060's will upgrade every 5 years or more. Different budgets, difference expectations.
