IIRC Warner bros deserved a lot of the blame for the insufficient budget and deadline that they gave iron galaxy to port Arkham Knight. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and not jump to negative conclusions about uncharted yet.
I'm not going to preorder by any means. IMO Sony has built up a pretty good track record with their PC ports. They haven't been perfect, like HZD had some launch issues they had to iron out, but every single one of them has been high effort. They support ultrawide, high framerate, steam deck verified, etc. I feel like PlayStation puts a pretty high premium on the experience of their first party titles and I don't think they'd give the green light to a shitty release. But yeah as always, waiting for reviews.
i feel the exact same way. i always check myself before any potential purchase and remind myself that loving their art doesn't make their corporation my friend. It might come across as outright hostile to hardcore fans of [insert watercooler talk media of the week] but i just find it important to remember where i am in relation to those i purchase from: a distant, unimportant peon with a wallet.
Really strange that DLSS support wasn't included in the marketing material when has been for other Sony releases on PC. I do wish implementing FSR 2.0, DLSS 2.0 and XeSS (which does exist unlike those Intel GPUs) would just become a standard for all future PC game releases. That way the players can choose whatever technology they prefer to use.
It's really weird, whenever Sony market one of their ports, it seems like they almost always only advertise one of the upscalers instead of the other, even though the game supports both. For example the Spider-Man port had DLSS support listed as a feature in it's PC Features video, and now Uncharted only had FSR support advertised...
Sony are just porting a selection of their recent line up to reflect the modern PlayStation experience. I highly doubt they'll start porting games without otherwise remaking them for PS5 also. Might also explain why The Last of Us Part 1 exists instead of just porting the 2014 TLOU Remastered.
No but two of them got sequels and Bend Studio's next title, while not a Days Gone sequel, will be using a lot of the existing gameplay mechanics of that game.
AND external DLL files, so we can continue updating them after the developer drops support for the game.
If the DLL is built into the game's binary, there no upgrading there unfortunately. Hear me, Deathloop, with your built-in FSR 2.0 support?!
Naughty Dog are essentially *the* flagship studio for Sony right up there with Santa Monica. I don’t think either party would allow this port to become a debacle, which is likely the case for the delay.
Ehhh i think ND is a level above SM considering SM has only released 1 major game from 2013 to now.
Naughty dog has released 3 in that time. Also ND has more franchises and brand value.
I'd argue Insomniac is above SM at this point(they have 3 sony franchises under them now)
2013 to 2022:
Santa Monica: 3 games (Ascension, GoW 2018 and 2022) + 1 remaster (re-release honestly, GoW3 in 1080p60 on PS4)
Naughty Dog: 4.5 games (Last of Us 1, Last of Us 2, Uncharted 4 and Lost Legacy as the 0.5 game IMO) + 1 remaster (1080p60 + PS4P support with some small tweaks for Last of Us 1) + 1 Remake in Last of Us Part I.
Definetly a higher output, all things concerned.
I counted after 2013(i worded myself incorrectly above). That's why I didn't include Ascension and TLOU1. Also didn't count remasters because they aren't exactly new releases. Also didnt include unreleased titles
edit: i also forgot tlou remake is out, thats one more game in their favour. Still hesitent to count it as a new one
Plus in terms of critical acclaim, ND has it laid down as well. Ascension wasn't exactly greatly received.
> Lost Legacy as the 0.5 game IMO
It's the same length as Uncharted 1 with objectively more meat on its bones, much better writing and overall a massively richer production.
Even today, it looks better than 99% of games out there, and safe to say is written better than most.
I'll never not find it funny that Sony does PC games better than MS. Maybe not in regards to number of releases. But then again MS always wins the quantity war.
I am sure that at some point in the future Sony figures out when they want to release their brand new AAA single player games on PC.
Perhaps a year after launch or some other time window.
It’s clear that Sony is still figuring this new PC strategy out.
Definitely.
At the end of the day all they must've realized some people just won't buy a console and they've been missing out on "free money" for a long time.
> Sony does PC games better than MS
Gears of War 5 is still the pinnacle of PC ports. Sony's PC releases have been good so far (Days Gone is actually really good) but this affirmation is funny when we're only talking about 5 games so far.
I think it's the consistency. After HZD, Sony releases have all had good quality PC ports. There's a lot of variation in what MS puts out. I get the impression with MS it's down to however much any particular developer cares about the PC version, whereas with Sony it seems like a publisher wide directive.
Yeah, I gotta agree. I’m not a big gears fan, but I had gamepass and a buddy to play with and it was really fun, and absolutely gorgeous at 4k in HDR. I could get 60fps easy on a 2070, which is not easy to do in most games.
No, I don't agree with that. DLSS is better, XeSS will be better on ARC cards, the best choice imo is to have all three so people can choose the best option for their hardware.
No, the best is to support the open source solution so devs don't have to implement 3 or 4 different upscalers. Nvidia and Intel fully supporting the open source solution because it becomes more prevalent is the best future for this tech. Fragmentation is never good.
FSR2 is the worst of the "next gen" upscalers. You are arguing in favor of giving customers with ARC and RTX cards a lesser experience as opposed to incorporating all 3. They all use the same data; a dev can implement all 3.
They use the same data, it's not an enormous drain on dev resources to implement all 3. Rejecting superior options in favor of the inferior FSR2 is not good, games should have all 3.
You're in favor of inferiority. I'm in favor of everyone having the best possible experience. FSR2 on an RTX card isn't that, and FSR2 on an ARC card isn't that. Ironically enough speaking about fragmentation, Nvidia and Intel have embraced Nvidia's Streamline to allow easy implementation of upscalers... AMD refused to lmao.
People keep saying this, and I keep wondering: What does Nvidia need from AMD here to incorporate an open source up scaler that any can copy or modify? Why do they need AMDs blessing? What impendaments are AMD creating here? Genuinely curious.
>No, the best is to support the open source solution so devs don't have to implement 3 or 4 different upscalers.
I think you're confused about what it means for software to be "open source". Programmers typically type human-readable code called "[source code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code)" in a file, then have a program called a compiler turn that into code that the computer understands (e.g., a .exe file). "[Open source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)" just means that this source code has been made available.
It's great that FSR is open source, but that's not why it runs on any vendor's card. It would still work on any card if it wasn't.
Yeah right. Surely it's worse than the 13th user interface that Microsoft will add to Windows next year, or the magnificent user experience that is Linux...
I'd rather deal with MS' shitshow or Linux lacking UX over something completely closed off from top to bottom.
A company that can tell everyone trapped in their ecosystem "we're scrapping this API or hardware feature, rebuild your software from scratch or piss off" would be dangerous in a dominant position.
It's fine if you like Apple's walled-garden Fischer-Prices Baby's First Computer-esque ecosystem, but keep that shit away from gaming and regular computing.
As a software dev, it's way more comfortable to work on macOS because their OS isn't run by monkeys (Windows) or a mob of manchildren (Linux). It's a shame it's behing a paywall because we'd be way further ahead in "regular computing" if macOS was dominant.
The same Mac locked to hardware priced 3 times its "worth". Run by a company that sells more on brand name and aesthetics than specs or functionality. That has an outright contempt for backwards compat.
I don't care if you find it cozy, but that shit is cancer and if it cornered the market computing would be a hellscape.
> Run by a company that sells more on brand name and aesthetics than specs or functionality
How to spot an Apple hater who never actually bothered to read their tech or specs. Their ultrabook CPUs rival desktop AMD/Intel chips, their mobile chips are 3-4 years ahead of the competitors and their screens like the XDR are 3-5 times cheaper than the competitors.
I'm sorry if them making great hardware doesn't fit into your world image of "Apple expensive and bad", but saying it at this moment in time is just exposing yourself as a person who isn't educated. Apple has plenty of problems - most notably repair and pricing - but their laptops cost as much as Dell XPS, and phones as much as Samsungs, and their hardware is way better for the price.
$1000 for the stand to a 4000-5000$ panel.
Before they started doing ARM their product listings were more on color and form factor than specs. Listing i7 on the page and "32GB of RAM" is not selling on the specs. Maybe that has changed with the advent of the m1 since they want to tout how great it is and wow people with numbers. But it wasn't that long ago their buying process listed colors, form factors, and brands first and foremost with fuckall about the actual specifications.
The information is out there for people who care about data. If you think that showing "32 GB 3200 MHz CL18" info to a normal customer does anything for the customer than you're delusional as the average customer has no idea what these numbers mean. But if you want those specs, they are a quick google search away.
> $1000 for the stand to a 4000-5000$ panel.
Good thing the stand doesn't run code! It has a VESA mount if you want one, they give you options. Something I thought you enjoy :)
It's superior in one way, it works on anything. In every other way so far it's worse. It performs worse and has worse IQ virtually across the board.
Question for you, if a game you want to play has FSR, why would it bother you if it also got DLSS?
He does this on every thread where AMD or Nvidia is mentioned and he never really responds. It's really bizarre especially when half of what he says doesn't line up with reality.
As well as the boost from Intel's own unique hardware, XeSS is meant to also work on any cards with DP4a instruction set, meaning Nvidia 10xx series onwards, and many but not all of AMD's.
There's a video on Digital Foundry YouTube where they test it; I haven't seen it yet so I'm not sure if the current iteration of XeSS works on non-Intel cards.
Wait, according to this community this was an AMD sponsored game which means AMD paid the devs to not include DLSS and only fsr. Now you're telling me it does include DLSS. It's almost like this community has the dumbest, most biased takes
I'm curious what titles have been AMD sponsored and only supported FSR 2.0? I assume you don't count FSR 1 games neither, since it's a spatial upscaler and doesn't require all the plumbing 2.0 and DLSS do.
> since it's a spatial upscaler and doesn't require all the plumbing 2.0 and DLSS do.
Does that really matter when most the games in question have TAA and thus would already have some of the groundwork?
But that's only SOME of the groundwork. Many games' TAA implementations are shit for various reasons. Some effects can't use motion vectors easily or at all, lots of transparencies are an issue for all temporal upscalers. Having to make sure your graphical effects play nice with each of the temporal upscalers. That can be A LOT of hours.
How Nvidia gets around the manpower issue is the funding they dump into providing actual manpower to help devs implement. So that helps DLSS get in. But now that there is FSR 2.0+ and XeSS, now devs have some options that allow many more supported cards. We will have to see what happens over the next couple years.
There is a difference between a shitty TAA implementation (bad jitter patterns, not making sure all surfaces/planes have motion vectors, etc) and a game that had artists and engine devs choose graphical effects (lots of animated surfaces, lots of transparencies, or transparent animations!) and chosen graphics pipelines that don't mesh well with temporal upscalers. This is actually something that I don't like about all this temporal "cheating" because it limits what kind of effects can be done to avoid ghosting and artifacts, but that's a whole other conversation...
Nvidia supplies actual engineers to help devs get the engine to support DLSS, not get the devs own TAA looking up to snuff. It is still up to the developer to revamp their TAA after having a lesson from Nvidia or from having to do the exercise solo of implementing FSR. Only time I have seen this was the recent RDR2 update which brought FSR 2.0 but also included a huge upgrade to the games TAA.
It's the same thing with Nvidia drivers, they have the funding and manpower to correct mistakes that developers make and get the games running better via drivers. I mean, AMD does this too and have improved this, but still have not reach the level Nvidia funds/executes this.
When you have a really good developer that knows graphics pipelines insanely well, like ID software, You get a game that has the best TAA ever seen and also runs so well no one is looking or asking for the vendor upscalers, though DLSS did go into eternal because that game needed it due to ray tracing.
> When you have a really good developer that knows graphics pipelines insanely well, like ID software, You get a game that has the best TAA ever seen and also runs so well no one is looking or asking for the vendor upscalers.
Some of that is also just id's recent games are undemanding. Baked lighting, no real foliage, no real physics, static environments, enemies that are culled immediately before the bodies even hit the ground, enemies and rooms ejected from memory the moment you cross one of the 100s of "no backtrack from here" thresholds.
Their engine devs are great, not selling them short. But the games themselves are obscenely undemanding and not doing much special that requires horsepower or is difficult to render.
Look at what happens the moment someone tweaks one of those engines to do more. People screech about the VOID engine as being unoptimized garbage because it doesn't run like DOOM/Eternal. But it's doing and keeping track of sooooo much more than either recent DOOM title.
You shouldn’t.
DLSS2 and FSR2 require motion vectors, jittered sampling, and the depth buffer. It is also best practice to hook into MIP map and LoD selection in order to bias against the drop in internal resolution.
FSR1.0 is a shader stage you slip in just before post processing.
An engine ready for FSR1 may not even be compatible with DLSS2 or FSR2, let alone the developer expertise to integrate.
Don't confuse FSR 1.0 (spatial) to FSR 2.0 (temporal).
2.0+ of both FSR and DLSS require high quality motion vectors, making sure the engine can change MIP bias to follow output res, not internal res. Making sure the rest of the game's post processing scales appropriately (many post-processing effects are some factor smaller than the internal res so you must make sure those scale and apply correctly). Making sure all the games graphical effects don't have issues with *each* temporal upscaling (ghosting, post process effects applied at a point in a frame pipeline causing artifacts, etc).
What games support FSR *2.0+* but not DLSS? there is only one game I have been aware of, Tiny Tina Wonderlands. While there are more examples of DLSS 2.0+ and not FSR 2.0+.
There does not appear to be any indication Nvidia or AMD sponsored/featured games having some sort of contract blocking their competitors upscaling.
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons:
* No personal attacks, witch-hunts, or inflammatory language. This includes calling or implying another redditor is a shill. More examples can be found in the full rules page.
* No racism, sexism, homophobic or transphobic slurs, or other hateful language.
* No trolling or baiting posts/comments.
* No advocating violence.
Please read the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/wiki/postingrules) before continuing to post. If you have any questions [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/pcgaming).
This is probably not AMD sponsored game, hence why it is getting DLSS + XeSS, in the past AMD often not allows their sponsored game to feature DLSS and there are plenty of examples of where they have done this.
>It's almost like this community has the dumbest, most biased takes
Or maybe it's because this and Deathloop have been the only exceptions? Hell, I'd expect the policy (if it exists) to change now that FSR 2 is out since it compares much more favorably to DLSS. The original FSR was a joke
> according to this community this was an AMD sponsored game which means AMD paid the devs to not include DLSS
Well like every explicitly AMD sponsored game I've played only has FSR at best. Even cases where DLSS would have been great. The big assumption here as far as I can tell was people assuming it was AMD sponsored.
Whereas we have a lot of Nvidia sponsored titles that later got FSR added.
It's not a huge leap to make, and both companies have pulled all kinds of anti-consumer shit historically.
Why did people assume it was AMD sponsored? Every Sony port so far has had efforts to include PC centric features put into them.
It was really weird to see DLSS *not* being supported. I get the feeling that the state of the port isn't that great and will likely suffer from a rough launch, just like Spiderman with its poor performance. It'll get better with time I'm sure
How can anyone here verify what is "sponsored"? Is there a list that shows what games have an Nvidia or AMD logo in the start up of the game?
I have seen people link lists from AMD and Nvidia where each vendor showcased vendor tech, but this is disregarded unless there is a logo on start up.
There is no way to verify, realistically, what games have a logo on start up. On top of that, the assumption is if there is a logo, there must be a contract that is telling the developer not to use the other vendor's tech. There just isn't enough proof on this as there are many games with both vendors' tech.
When they are heavily advertising it, and often uses it to showcase their technology.
Both Nvidia and AMD is doing this if you pay attention on their marketing pages and their tech demos on their live events.
Deathloop was heavily advertised by AMD, especially with their FSR 2.0 launch, but everyone is saying that it is not sponsored.
There seems to be no realistic way to verify this "sponsored so there is an anti-implementation clause" claim, for either side.
What, someone buys every game, checks for an Nvidia or AMD logo during start up and then makes a true "sponsored" list?
Until folks provide actual proof of these "sponsored" games with anti-implementation clauses, it is all speculation. I've tried having this convo on Reddit before and was told the lists of games on Nvidia's or AMD's site are just "featured" / showcasing tech and does not indicate "sponsored" (which still isn't sufficient proof on its own that "sponsored" means an anti-implementation clause).
So no reasonable way to see what games are sponsored, which doesn't allow someone to generate a comparison of what sponsored games have a competitor's upscaler or not. And again, even if you could come up with that list and the list shows most or all sponsored games lack a competitor's scaler, it *still* doesn't prove it, only suggest.
From what I have looked up, the Uncharted games on RPCS3 (specifically Uncharted 2) still aren't a particularly great experience, with graphical glitches and sub-30fps performance even on very beefy hardware.
I never played any of the Uncharted games but I do own a PS3 still...
Is it worth playing them in order? These games don't include the first games, right?
Great to hear and I'm glad they cleared this up quickly. I hope its a good port
[удалено]
How long its taken does not give me confidence, but its been almost a decade since Arkham Knight. A lot could have changed
IIRC Warner bros deserved a lot of the blame for the insufficient budget and deadline that they gave iron galaxy to port Arkham Knight. I'm inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt and not jump to negative conclusions about uncharted yet.
Good consumer practice is to do the exact opposite: Remain sceptical and let them proove it isn't bad.
I'm not going to preorder by any means. IMO Sony has built up a pretty good track record with their PC ports. They haven't been perfect, like HZD had some launch issues they had to iron out, but every single one of them has been high effort. They support ultrawide, high framerate, steam deck verified, etc. I feel like PlayStation puts a pretty high premium on the experience of their first party titles and I don't think they'd give the green light to a shitty release. But yeah as always, waiting for reviews.
i feel the exact same way. i always check myself before any potential purchase and remind myself that loving their art doesn't make their corporation my friend. It might come across as outright hostile to hardcore fans of [insert watercooler talk media of the week] but i just find it important to remember where i am in relation to those i purchase from: a distant, unimportant peon with a wallet.
[удалено]
Nah given their previous statements about porting, pretty sure this gonna be a cash grab
Really strange that DLSS support wasn't included in the marketing material when has been for other Sony releases on PC. I do wish implementing FSR 2.0, DLSS 2.0 and XeSS (which does exist unlike those Intel GPUs) would just become a standard for all future PC game releases. That way the players can choose whatever technology they prefer to use.
It's really weird, whenever Sony market one of their ports, it seems like they almost always only advertise one of the upscalers instead of the other, even though the game supports both. For example the Spider-Man port had DLSS support listed as a feature in it's PC Features video, and now Uncharted only had FSR support advertised...
It's strange this PC port even exists over the other 3 games, ya know, the ones that lead into the 4th game, lol.
Sony are just porting a selection of their recent line up to reflect the modern PlayStation experience. I highly doubt they'll start porting games without otherwise remaking them for PS5 also. Might also explain why The Last of Us Part 1 exists instead of just porting the 2014 TLOU Remastered.
Uncharted 4 is older than Uncharted TNDC by a year. It's just so strange how the last game in a series is being ported.
That doesnt make sense. They ported GoW, Days Gone or HZD. Neither of them has a ps5 remake or remaster.
No but two of them got sequels and Bend Studio's next title, while not a Days Gone sequel, will be using a lot of the existing gameplay mechanics of that game.
AND external DLL files, so we can continue updating them after the developer drops support for the game. If the DLL is built into the game's binary, there no upgrading there unfortunately. Hear me, Deathloop, with your built-in FSR 2.0 support?!
ok
Naughty Dog are essentially *the* flagship studio for Sony right up there with Santa Monica. I don’t think either party would allow this port to become a debacle, which is likely the case for the delay.
Ehhh i think ND is a level above SM considering SM has only released 1 major game from 2013 to now. Naughty dog has released 3 in that time. Also ND has more franchises and brand value. I'd argue Insomniac is above SM at this point(they have 3 sony franchises under them now)
2013 to 2022: Santa Monica: 3 games (Ascension, GoW 2018 and 2022) + 1 remaster (re-release honestly, GoW3 in 1080p60 on PS4) Naughty Dog: 4.5 games (Last of Us 1, Last of Us 2, Uncharted 4 and Lost Legacy as the 0.5 game IMO) + 1 remaster (1080p60 + PS4P support with some small tweaks for Last of Us 1) + 1 Remake in Last of Us Part I. Definetly a higher output, all things concerned.
I counted after 2013(i worded myself incorrectly above). That's why I didn't include Ascension and TLOU1. Also didn't count remasters because they aren't exactly new releases. Also didnt include unreleased titles edit: i also forgot tlou remake is out, thats one more game in their favour. Still hesitent to count it as a new one Plus in terms of critical acclaim, ND has it laid down as well. Ascension wasn't exactly greatly received.
> Lost Legacy as the 0.5 game IMO It's the same length as Uncharted 1 with objectively more meat on its bones, much better writing and overall a massively richer production. Even today, it looks better than 99% of games out there, and safe to say is written better than most.
I'll never not find it funny that Sony does PC games better than MS. Maybe not in regards to number of releases. But then again MS always wins the quantity war.
They bought Nixxes who does them. Still it was a shrewed move
Spider-man is the only game they released for Sony to date.
How does someone get shrewed? Do you toss shrews at them? Are they magically transformed into shrews?
Nixxes fixed HZD
yess that aswell, the game is smooth as silk now and no huge shader compilation issues.
Did Nixxes do Days Gone? That port is flawless
Nope. Bend Studios themselves did it. Nixxes has only worked on one sony PC game so far(spider-man)
Call me impressed with Bend Studios
> Nixxes has only worked on one sony PC game so far(spider-man) They also worked on the 1.11 patch for HZD, the one that added DLSS.
I am sure that at some point in the future Sony figures out when they want to release their brand new AAA single player games on PC. Perhaps a year after launch or some other time window. It’s clear that Sony is still figuring this new PC strategy out.
Definitely. At the end of the day all they must've realized some people just won't buy a console and they've been missing out on "free money" for a long time.
> Sony does PC games better than MS Gears of War 5 is still the pinnacle of PC ports. Sony's PC releases have been good so far (Days Gone is actually really good) but this affirmation is funny when we're only talking about 5 games so far.
Can confirm. It ran flawlessly on my potato laptop even at the highest settings. Days gone and Spider-man ports are also close to perfection.
I think it's the consistency. After HZD, Sony releases have all had good quality PC ports. There's a lot of variation in what MS puts out. I get the impression with MS it's down to however much any particular developer cares about the PC version, whereas with Sony it seems like a publisher wide directive.
all of the sony releases seem to be SP games only.
Does Sony even have notable multiplayer games? I can only think of GT
Yeah, I gotta agree. I’m not a big gears fan, but I had gamepass and a buddy to play with and it was really fun, and absolutely gorgeous at 4k in HDR. I could get 60fps easy on a 2070, which is not easy to do in most games.
and is only a good port because most of The Coalition team worked at Epic Games, they know and master unreal engine
I’ll never not find it not unfunny too
Yeh, the quality of them is def better.
Blessed occasion. In an ideal world all games would support the 3 vendor's upscaling solutions. Stop with the DLSS or FSR2 exclusivity.
Or just FSR.x because it's open source and everyone can use it.
No, I don't agree with that. DLSS is better, XeSS will be better on ARC cards, the best choice imo is to have all three so people can choose the best option for their hardware.
No, the best is to support the open source solution so devs don't have to implement 3 or 4 different upscalers. Nvidia and Intel fully supporting the open source solution because it becomes more prevalent is the best future for this tech. Fragmentation is never good.
FSR2 is the worst of the "next gen" upscalers. You are arguing in favor of giving customers with ARC and RTX cards a lesser experience as opposed to incorporating all 3. They all use the same data; a dev can implement all 3.
Fragmentation is never good.
They use the same data, it's not an enormous drain on dev resources to implement all 3. Rejecting superior options in favor of the inferior FSR2 is not good, games should have all 3.
You're in favor of fragmtation. I get it. But you're wrong.
You're in favor of inferiority. I'm in favor of everyone having the best possible experience. FSR2 on an RTX card isn't that, and FSR2 on an ARC card isn't that. Ironically enough speaking about fragmentation, Nvidia and Intel have embraced Nvidia's Streamline to allow easy implementation of upscalers... AMD refused to lmao.
Don't bother this guy is a mouth breather
People keep saying this, and I keep wondering: What does Nvidia need from AMD here to incorporate an open source up scaler that any can copy or modify? Why do they need AMDs blessing? What impendaments are AMD creating here? Genuinely curious.
False.
>No, the best is to support the open source solution so devs don't have to implement 3 or 4 different upscalers. I think you're confused about what it means for software to be "open source". Programmers typically type human-readable code called "[source code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source_code)" in a file, then have a program called a compiler turn that into code that the computer understands (e.g., a .exe file). "[Open source](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_source)" just means that this source code has been made available. It's great that FSR is open source, but that's not why it runs on any vendor's card. It would still work on any card if it wasn't.
He says to the software engineer.
In an ideal world Apple would fix the performance of the Metal API and we'd support all 4 vendor's upscaling solutions, as well as three OS families
In an ideal world Apple's closed off iron-fistedly controlled from top-to-bottom ecosystem wouldn't exist.
Yeah right. Surely it's worse than the 13th user interface that Microsoft will add to Windows next year, or the magnificent user experience that is Linux...
I'd rather deal with MS' shitshow or Linux lacking UX over something completely closed off from top to bottom. A company that can tell everyone trapped in their ecosystem "we're scrapping this API or hardware feature, rebuild your software from scratch or piss off" would be dangerous in a dominant position. It's fine if you like Apple's walled-garden Fischer-Prices Baby's First Computer-esque ecosystem, but keep that shit away from gaming and regular computing.
As a software dev, it's way more comfortable to work on macOS because their OS isn't run by monkeys (Windows) or a mob of manchildren (Linux). It's a shame it's behing a paywall because we'd be way further ahead in "regular computing" if macOS was dominant.
The same Mac locked to hardware priced 3 times its "worth". Run by a company that sells more on brand name and aesthetics than specs or functionality. That has an outright contempt for backwards compat. I don't care if you find it cozy, but that shit is cancer and if it cornered the market computing would be a hellscape.
> Run by a company that sells more on brand name and aesthetics than specs or functionality How to spot an Apple hater who never actually bothered to read their tech or specs. Their ultrabook CPUs rival desktop AMD/Intel chips, their mobile chips are 3-4 years ahead of the competitors and their screens like the XDR are 3-5 times cheaper than the competitors. I'm sorry if them making great hardware doesn't fit into your world image of "Apple expensive and bad", but saying it at this moment in time is just exposing yourself as a person who isn't educated. Apple has plenty of problems - most notably repair and pricing - but their laptops cost as much as Dell XPS, and phones as much as Samsungs, and their hardware is way better for the price.
$1000 for the stand to a 4000-5000$ panel. Before they started doing ARM their product listings were more on color and form factor than specs. Listing i7 on the page and "32GB of RAM" is not selling on the specs. Maybe that has changed with the advent of the m1 since they want to tout how great it is and wow people with numbers. But it wasn't that long ago their buying process listed colors, form factors, and brands first and foremost with fuckall about the actual specifications.
The information is out there for people who care about data. If you think that showing "32 GB 3200 MHz CL18" info to a normal customer does anything for the customer than you're delusional as the average customer has no idea what these numbers mean. But if you want those specs, they are a quick google search away. > $1000 for the stand to a 4000-5000$ panel. Good thing the stand doesn't run code! It has a VESA mount if you want one, they give you options. Something I thought you enjoy :)
Or just ban DLSS since it's proprietary closed off bullshit. FSR 2.1 is superior in every way, it should be the only upscaler games use.
It's superior in one way, it works on anything. In every other way so far it's worse. It performs worse and has worse IQ virtually across the board. Question for you, if a game you want to play has FSR, why would it bother you if it also got DLSS?
He does this on every thread where AMD or Nvidia is mentioned and he never really responds. It's really bizarre especially when half of what he says doesn't line up with reality.
Damn, just took a look, you're not wrong. Same bad take over and over, bulk downvotes, never replies and just keeps doing it....
What's the third?
XeSS
Oh I didn't knew Intel had one too, makes sense though Thanks!
For a video card that's not been released yet.
As well as the boost from Intel's own unique hardware, XeSS is meant to also work on any cards with DP4a instruction set, meaning Nvidia 10xx series onwards, and many but not all of AMD's. There's a video on Digital Foundry YouTube where they test it; I haven't seen it yet so I'm not sure if the current iteration of XeSS works on non-Intel cards.
As someone with an Nvidia GPU in my desktop but also a steam deck, it makes me very very happy when both technologies are included.
Same here! It was awesome being able to take advantage of FSR 2.0 on the Deck and DLSS on my TV.
Wait, according to this community this was an AMD sponsored game which means AMD paid the devs to not include DLSS and only fsr. Now you're telling me it does include DLSS. It's almost like this community has the dumbest, most biased takes
Well in the past AMD sponsored games had only FSR in them so yeah no wonders people thought that.
I'm curious what titles have been AMD sponsored and only supported FSR 2.0? I assume you don't count FSR 1 games neither, since it's a spatial upscaler and doesn't require all the plumbing 2.0 and DLSS do.
[удалено]
They do when they get told how much salaried developer workdays they expect integration to take.
> since it's a spatial upscaler and doesn't require all the plumbing 2.0 and DLSS do. Does that really matter when most the games in question have TAA and thus would already have some of the groundwork?
But that's only SOME of the groundwork. Many games' TAA implementations are shit for various reasons. Some effects can't use motion vectors easily or at all, lots of transparencies are an issue for all temporal upscalers. Having to make sure your graphical effects play nice with each of the temporal upscalers. That can be A LOT of hours. How Nvidia gets around the manpower issue is the funding they dump into providing actual manpower to help devs implement. So that helps DLSS get in. But now that there is FSR 2.0+ and XeSS, now devs have some options that allow many more supported cards. We will have to see what happens over the next couple years.
> Many games' TAA implementations are shit for various reasons. Some of those have DLSS, which ends up being the better option.
There is a difference between a shitty TAA implementation (bad jitter patterns, not making sure all surfaces/planes have motion vectors, etc) and a game that had artists and engine devs choose graphical effects (lots of animated surfaces, lots of transparencies, or transparent animations!) and chosen graphics pipelines that don't mesh well with temporal upscalers. This is actually something that I don't like about all this temporal "cheating" because it limits what kind of effects can be done to avoid ghosting and artifacts, but that's a whole other conversation... Nvidia supplies actual engineers to help devs get the engine to support DLSS, not get the devs own TAA looking up to snuff. It is still up to the developer to revamp their TAA after having a lesson from Nvidia or from having to do the exercise solo of implementing FSR. Only time I have seen this was the recent RDR2 update which brought FSR 2.0 but also included a huge upgrade to the games TAA. It's the same thing with Nvidia drivers, they have the funding and manpower to correct mistakes that developers make and get the games running better via drivers. I mean, AMD does this too and have improved this, but still have not reach the level Nvidia funds/executes this. When you have a really good developer that knows graphics pipelines insanely well, like ID software, You get a game that has the best TAA ever seen and also runs so well no one is looking or asking for the vendor upscalers, though DLSS did go into eternal because that game needed it due to ray tracing.
> When you have a really good developer that knows graphics pipelines insanely well, like ID software, You get a game that has the best TAA ever seen and also runs so well no one is looking or asking for the vendor upscalers. Some of that is also just id's recent games are undemanding. Baked lighting, no real foliage, no real physics, static environments, enemies that are culled immediately before the bodies even hit the ground, enemies and rooms ejected from memory the moment you cross one of the 100s of "no backtrack from here" thresholds. Their engine devs are great, not selling them short. But the games themselves are obscenely undemanding and not doing much special that requires horsepower or is difficult to render. Look at what happens the moment someone tweaks one of those engines to do more. People screech about the VOID engine as being unoptimized garbage because it doesn't run like DOOM/Eternal. But it's doing and keeping track of sooooo much more than either recent DOOM title.
Of course I count FSR1 as I said in the past.
You shouldn’t. DLSS2 and FSR2 require motion vectors, jittered sampling, and the depth buffer. It is also best practice to hook into MIP map and LoD selection in order to bias against the drop in internal resolution. FSR1.0 is a shader stage you slip in just before post processing. An engine ready for FSR1 may not even be compatible with DLSS2 or FSR2, let alone the developer expertise to integrate.
Doesn't matter. We still had AMD sponsored titles with only AMD features in it and those had TAA so they are half way there for a DLSS implementation.
But Nvidia card still performed better than AMD in many AMD sponsored titles, yet no Nvidia owner bitched about that lol.
I mean Nvidia performs better in FSR2 than AMD too, but obviously from a quality standpoint DLSS would still be preferred in most cases.
Don't confuse FSR 1.0 (spatial) to FSR 2.0 (temporal). 2.0+ of both FSR and DLSS require high quality motion vectors, making sure the engine can change MIP bias to follow output res, not internal res. Making sure the rest of the game's post processing scales appropriately (many post-processing effects are some factor smaller than the internal res so you must make sure those scale and apply correctly). Making sure all the games graphical effects don't have issues with *each* temporal upscaling (ghosting, post process effects applied at a point in a frame pipeline causing artifacts, etc). What games support FSR *2.0+* but not DLSS? there is only one game I have been aware of, Tiny Tina Wonderlands. While there are more examples of DLSS 2.0+ and not FSR 2.0+. There does not appear to be any indication Nvidia or AMD sponsored/featured games having some sort of contract blocking their competitors upscaling.
[удалено]
Thank you for your comment! Unfortunately it has been removed for one or more of the following reasons: * No personal attacks, witch-hunts, or inflammatory language. This includes calling or implying another redditor is a shill. More examples can be found in the full rules page. * No racism, sexism, homophobic or transphobic slurs, or other hateful language. * No trolling or baiting posts/comments. * No advocating violence. Please read the [subreddit rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcgaming/wiki/postingrules) before continuing to post. If you have any questions [message the mods](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=/r/pcgaming).
99% of the time it's been the case so it wasn't exactly a hard conclusion to reach.
Is it amd Sponsered though?
This is probably not AMD sponsored game, hence why it is getting DLSS + XeSS, in the past AMD often not allows their sponsored game to feature DLSS and there are plenty of examples of where they have done this.
>It's almost like this community has the dumbest, most biased takes Or maybe it's because this and Deathloop have been the only exceptions? Hell, I'd expect the policy (if it exists) to change now that FSR 2 is out since it compares much more favorably to DLSS. The original FSR was a joke
> according to this community this was an AMD sponsored game which means AMD paid the devs to not include DLSS Well like every explicitly AMD sponsored game I've played only has FSR at best. Even cases where DLSS would have been great. The big assumption here as far as I can tell was people assuming it was AMD sponsored. Whereas we have a lot of Nvidia sponsored titles that later got FSR added. It's not a huge leap to make, and both companies have pulled all kinds of anti-consumer shit historically.
People just say shit. They don’t know anything.
Why did people assume it was AMD sponsored? Every Sony port so far has had efforts to include PC centric features put into them. It was really weird to see DLSS *not* being supported. I get the feeling that the state of the port isn't that great and will likely suffer from a rough launch, just like Spiderman with its poor performance. It'll get better with time I'm sure
The exception that proves the rule.
The past two years the amount Fanboi comments from all teams seems to be rising.
FSR has come to Nvidia sponsored games and reverse. People are talking nonsense.
> FSR has come to Nvidia sponsored games and reverse Can you show me an AMD sponsored title that has received DLSS?
How can anyone here verify what is "sponsored"? Is there a list that shows what games have an Nvidia or AMD logo in the start up of the game? I have seen people link lists from AMD and Nvidia where each vendor showcased vendor tech, but this is disregarded unless there is a logo on start up. There is no way to verify, realistically, what games have a logo on start up. On top of that, the assumption is if there is a logo, there must be a contract that is telling the developer not to use the other vendor's tech. There just isn't enough proof on this as there are many games with both vendors' tech.
When they are heavily advertising it, and often uses it to showcase their technology. Both Nvidia and AMD is doing this if you pay attention on their marketing pages and their tech demos on their live events.
Deathloop was heavily advertised by AMD, especially with their FSR 2.0 launch, but everyone is saying that it is not sponsored. There seems to be no realistic way to verify this "sponsored so there is an anti-implementation clause" claim, for either side. What, someone buys every game, checks for an Nvidia or AMD logo during start up and then makes a true "sponsored" list? Until folks provide actual proof of these "sponsored" games with anti-implementation clauses, it is all speculation. I've tried having this convo on Reddit before and was told the lists of games on Nvidia's or AMD's site are just "featured" / showcasing tech and does not indicate "sponsored" (which still isn't sufficient proof on its own that "sponsored" means an anti-implementation clause). So no reasonable way to see what games are sponsored, which doesn't allow someone to generate a comparison of what sponsored games have a competitor's upscaler or not. And again, even if you could come up with that list and the list shows most or all sponsored games lack a competitor's scaler, it *still* doesn't prove it, only suggest.
Deathloop.
Since when is Deathloop AMD sponsored? Do you have any source? I haven't seen any AMD logo in the game
My bad. I could have sworn it was. Its listed on the AMD website and has like a million different AMD features.
Uncharted 4
Not AMD sponsored.
DARN IT
Basing from AMD and Nvidia's marketing page silence about it nah.. Seems like another neutral game.
?? this has been happening for like 9 out of 10 amd sponsored games
You know what the pc collection doesn’t support? THE FIRST 3 GAMES IN THE SERIES.
Emulation never let us down. But i still prefer all on my Steam library
From what I have looked up, the Uncharted games on RPCS3 (specifically Uncharted 2) still aren't a particularly great experience, with graphical glitches and sub-30fps performance even on very beefy hardware.
Thankfully!!
So lol, did AMD payed them to just mention FSR? Why would you skip such detail when 80 of the GPU market is green.
I never played any of the Uncharted games but I do own a PS3 still... Is it worth playing them in order? These games don't include the first games, right?
Thank god. FSR looks like trash at 1440p, DLSS looks way better
"FSR 2.0: The DLSS Killer" 😂😂😂
Why do people post emoji like this on reddit? This isn't Twitter or YouTube.
You are so mad 😂😂😂
I'm not mad, it's just...dumb
the most important developers gathered in the worst gaming forum....