Hudo
Member
DIdn't something like that happen on a live PC build by Linus Tech or something?Or that screw up the memory configuration of a system, then get 90ns latency on a CPU.
DIdn't something like that happen on a live PC build by Linus Tech or something?Or that screw up the memory configuration of a system, then get 90ns latency on a CPU.
That has to be BS, Nvidia was first to implement frame generation into games but frame gen was a thing theoretically since the 360 era. Also, isn't frame gen a thing in VR?I mean… one of the very first replies to the tweet nails it. It's likely that DF just has a more thorough understanding of what frame generation actually is now. When DLSS3 was first introduced it was essentially just witchcraft. Now that there's been some time to fiddle with it and really understand the nitty gritty and everything it is - when talking about a similar technology they are more nuanced in their verbiage.
I personally think FSR3 looks better. It's less blurry. Sure there are some more artifacts compared to DLSS and I've always been pro-dlss against FSR but I have to admit AMD is really bringing it to the table. Especially since FSR isn't hardware locked.
DLSS and FSR perform the same on NVIDIA GPUs 99% of the time.I'm not an expert on these techs but for what I know, FSR is hardware agnostic because it relies on shader cores while DLSS uses its own cores.
It's clear that FSR eats some performance using cores intended for graphics while DLSS not.
Did you watch the clip in the tweet? The DF crew knew frame gen was a thing before Nvidia and suggested it was a type of performance boost even though they state frame gen can make a game feel less responsive on the DLSS3 clip.Rich: Im careful with words used to describe the frame rate increase because similar to DLSS3, I dont think you can call it extra performance as such.
Where is the double standard here?
He says he doesnt think you can call FrameGen from DLSS3 or FSR3 extra performance.
DIdn't something like that happen on a live PC build by Linus Tech or something?
Did you watch the clip in the tweet? The DF crew knew frame gen was a thing before Nvidia and suggested it was a type of performance boost even though they state frame gen can make a game feel less responsive on the DLSS3 clip.
Source: https://community.amd.com/t5/gaming/first-look-at-amd-fidelityfx-super-resolution-3/ba-p/626581Doesnt FSR3 FrameGeneration currently only work on 7000 series GPUs.
AMD Fluid Motion Frames only works on AMD GPUs 6000 series and up.
So isnt it hardware locked?
Supported and Recommended Hardware for using AMD FSR 3 with Upscaling and Frame Generation | |
AMD | NVIDIA |
Supported: AMD Radeon™ RX 5700 and above Recommended: AMD Radeon™ RX 6000 Series and above | Supported: NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 20 Series and above Recommended: NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 30 Series and above |
Supported and Recommended Hardware for using AMD FSR 3 with Upscaling ONLY | |
AMD | NVIDIA |
Supported: AMD Radeon™ RX 590 and above Recommended: AMD Radeon™ RX 5000 Series and above | Supported: NVIDIA GeForce® GTX 10 Series and above Recommended: NVIDIA GeForce RTX™ 20 Series and above |
It's very easy to measure chances of latency: shoot a video with a high framerate (same or higher than the fps of the game) camera where it's seen the hand of someone pressing a key or button to perform a game action (like to shot or to move in a menu) and the tv/monitor running the game (with higher or same Hz than fps achieved than the game), in the same game both with this stuff activated and disabled, but with a framerate counter shown in the screen.Theres's visual performance and gameplay or latency performance.
We have all kinds of ways to measure visual performance (resolution, texture detail, fps, model detail/poly count, lighting, etc.) but latency performance measurement is sadly still in its infancy.
I mean… one of the very first replies to the tweet nails it. It's likely that DF just has a more thorough understanding of what frame generation actually is now. When DLSS3 was first introduced it was essentially just witchcraft. Now that there's been some time to fiddle with it and really understand the nitty gritty and everything it is - when talking about a similar technology they are more nuanced in their verbiage.
I personally think FSR3 looks better. It's less blurry. Sure there are some more artifacts compared to DLSS and I've always been pro-dlss against FSR but I have to admit AMD is really bringing it to the table. Especially since FSR isn't hardware locked.
I mean… one of the very first replies to the tweet nails it. It's likely that DF just has a more thorough understanding of what frame generation actually is now. When DLSS3 was first introduced it was essentially just witchcraft. Now that there's been some time to fiddle with it and really understand the nitty gritty and everything it is - when talking about a similar technology they are more nuanced in their verbiage.
I personally think FSR3 looks better. It's less blurry. Sure there are some more artifacts compared to DLSS and I've always been pro-dlss against FSR but I have to admit AMD is really bringing it to the table. Especially since FSR isn't hardware locked.
That DLSS "preview" was essentially paid advertisement, the DF crew clearly pointed out frame gen makes game images smoother but it's not like "real frame" and their usage of performance is wrong since your in-put on the mouse is not the same as the suggested/observable frame rate.The clip in the tweet is an out of chronological order, cherry picked to look bad, out of context bunch of clips.
I watched it and know where all the clips are actually from so ive got context.
They didnt even have their current capture card when they did the DLSS3 video.
And in their most recent, and assumed most accurate data they have said out right that they wouldnt call DLSS3 and FSR3 FrameGen extra performance as such.
So whats the issue?
If you are gonna hold shit from yesteryear against them when they have updated and amended their opinions you might as well call out their PS4/XB1 era videos because its a fucking double standard.
They said the PS4 was the best way to play Game X, but clearly the Xbox One X version of that game runs and looks better.
Fucking double standards!!!!!!!!
Hilarious
You wouldn't be that far off. They have plenty [Sponsored by Nvidia] videos on their channel.I won't go as far as to accuse them of taking the free luxury cruise tickets from Jensen Huang, but dishonesty is all you're really left with if there wasn't some degree of incompetence involved.
Based on the replies, it seems that that clip throws together clips out of chronological order, cherry picking to make a point completely void of context.
OP did you make a thread for your own tweet? Be honest
Doesnt FSR3 FrameGeneration currently only work on 7000 series GPUs.
They changed their opinion about how best to refer to the extra frames generated by DLSS 3. This was explained in the 4090 review video. They did not change their opinion about how DLSS 3.0 works, or (as far as I am aware) how effective it is. They do not seem to be any less enthusiastic about frame generation than they were before and this also applies to FSR 3.0.DF just look like a marketing arm of some companies/products at this point: extremely biased towards some, if they did changed their stance on this they should be transparent about it, they should be making a video about how they are wrong about dlss3 and how they changed their minds, but I ain't seeing it.
I think a video about dlss3 review will be much more popular than a 4090 review, they are just dishonest.They changed their opinion about how best to refer to the extra frames generated by DLSS 3. This was explained in the 4090 review video. They did not change their opinion about how DLSS 3.0 works, or (as far as I am aware) how effective it is. They do not seem to be any less enthusiastic about frame generation than they were before and this also applies to FSR 3.0.
Really, an entire video just to say, "so we're just gonna say from now on that frame generation isn't exactly performance increase,"? Is that what would have appeased you? Months ago, Rich said the exact same thing for DLSS3, stating that you cannot exactly call it a performance boost. In this video he has the exact same stance for both technologies.DF just look like a marketing arm of some companies/products at this point: extremely biased towards some, if they did changed their stance on this they should be transparent about it, they should be making a video about how they are wrong about dlss3 and how they changed their minds, but I ain't seeing it.
Technically there wasn't a DLSS 3.0 performance review. There was a "first look" video showing DLSS 2.0 and 3.0 running together on the 4090, with no frame rate data and only a couple of benchmarks with frame generation specific performance. Then there was a 4090 review which had actual frame generation benchmarks. The first look video could not be effectively used to evaluate DLSS 3.0 due to the lack of frame rate data and FG specific benchmarks. It was, I agree, a marketing video. When DF provided benchmark data, they then gave the caveat that it could not be considered "real" performance.I think a video about dlss3 review will be much more popular than a 4090 review, they are just dishonest.
Really, an entire video just to say, "so we're just gonna say from now on that frame generation isn't exactly performance increase,"? Is that what would have appeased you? Months ago, Rich said the exact same thing for DLSS3, stating that you cannot exactly call it a performance boost. In this video he has the exact same stance for both technologies.
And to top it all off, FSR3 is useless more than 80% of the time and can actually make the game feel more jittery, not smoother, so there's no way you can call it a performance increase overall in its current state. DLSS3 is black and white, the frame rate and smoothness pretty much always increases, no exception. If anything, Rich knocked DLSS3 a peg to put it on par with FSR3.
The blind DF hatred on this board borders on lunacy at times.
They didn't change their stance. They said it couldn't be exactly called a performance boost and they maintain that in this video. And what do you mean "don't care about DLSS3 anymore,"? They have a positive opinion on FSR3 and are looking forward to see the technology evolve and improve. They very much still care about frame generation.I don't hate DF, I just see it for what it is: marketing, I have just indifference for them.
If they really changed their instace they should have said so in the fsr3 video, they should say that they also don't care anymore about dlss3, but for some reason they didn't.
Hilarious
That's the worst analogy I've heard because that's not an opinion change that's just technological advancement while maintaining an impartial opinion that graphics makes somewhere the best place to play. An opinion change would be suggesting graphics are very important during the PS4 then when the X1X comes suggesting they're not that important and the best place is actually PS4 pro. That's an opinion change.They said the PS4 was the best way to play Game X, but clearly the Xbox One X version of that game runs and looks better.
Fucking double standards!!!!!!!!
And I take it people arent allowed to have a change of opinion?That's the worst analogy I've heard because that's not an opinion change that's just technological advancement while maintaining an impartial opinion that graphics makes somewhere the best place to play. An opinion change would be suggesting graphics are very important during the PS4 then when the X1X comes suggesting they're not that important and the best place is actually PS4 pro. That's an opinion change.
Doesnt FSR3 FrameGeneration currently only work on 7000 series GPUs.
AMD Fluid Motion Frames only works on AMD GPUs 6000 series and up.
So isnt it hardware locked?
If fairness, DLSS3 worked, and FSR3 seems fundamentally broken, at least on Richard's system.I don't think DF's biased at all, but it is funny the difference in how they presented FSR3 versus DLSS3.
Opinions can change over time. We're all human.
It was Rich calling it extra performance a year ago, not Alex. Though I'm sure Alex likely was very pro DLSS3 frame generation too.And I take it people arent allowed to have a change of opinion?
Considering its Alex who harped on about DLSS3 in that one video being extra performance and Rich saying its not extra performance as such.
Couldnt it just be two differing opinions from different people within DF?
If you watch their DF Directs they dont always agree on everything.
If fairness, DLSS3 worked, and FSR3 seems fundamentally broken, at least on Richard's system.
The issues with VRR might be particular to his set up (or might be easier to detect because of the set up they are using), as I have seen other reviewers say that at least the VRR mode works, but it's hard to blame the guy for not being as sunny about a tech that is busted in every mode for him.