News AMD Claims Starfield Devs Have the Power to Add DLSS Support

[SyCoREAPER]

Unfortunately FSR 2 sucks compared with DLSS. The former is a SW solution, the other HW which is obviously going to be better.

I'm talking about FSR 3.

But side by-side-yes AMD typically doesn't do as well but just like phone camera comparisons, neither looks horrible, one just looks better next to the other.

Disclaimer: My only (negative) bias is towards Intel GPUs

 

[ottonis]

This is a non-issue. If everybody (gamers using cards from AMD, nVidia, Intel etc.) benefits from FSR, and if DLSS has no fundamental advantages over FSR, then there will be no loss for anybody if a game supports FSR only instead of both, FSR and DLSS.
This is just fundamental logic.

 

[citral23]

We didn't hear much about how unfair it was from Nvidia owners, when half the games had the "the way it's meant to be played", nvidia(tm) hairworks and all that crap...

They just come out as petty here.

 

[Peter Ferrari]

We didn't hear much about how unfair it was from Nvidia owners, when half the games had the "the way it's meant to be played", nvidia(tm) hairworks and all that crap...

They just come out as petty here.

hairworks you could just turn off. now go turn on dlss when amd paid to lock it out.

 

[citral23]

hairworks you could just turn off. now go turn on dlss when amd paid to lock it out.

You do realize fsr works on Nvidia?

This is one of the dumbest, saltiest comment I've read in a long while tbh.

But keep on with you proprietary locked stuff pipe dreams, so you can keep buying regressive overpriced gpus that make up for it with dlss marketing

 

[Peter Ferrari]

You do realize fsr works on Nvidia?

Yeah, and is a shimmer festival that lacks trained detail reconstruction.
performance dlss preset has better AA/less shimmer/less thin line breakup/more detail than quality fsr 2.1

Imgsli

imgsli.com

If you don't wanna take my word for it, fine, can't blame you for it, you don't know me or who I am. But go on techpowerup instead, see every dlss vs fsr vs native review they do for each game and read the summary. FSR2 is a shimmering mess.

 

[AgentBirdnest]

Yeah, and is a shimmer festival that lacks trained detail reconstruction.
performance dlss preset has better AA/less shimmer/less thin line breakup/more detail than quality fsr 2.1

Imgsli

imgsli.com

Woah! FSR is so bad that it can't even display the weapon!
(Otherwise, that comparison looks the same to me.)

 

[Peter Ferrari]

Woah! FSR is so bad that it can't even display the weapon!
(Otherwise, that comparison looks the same to me.)

dlss perfromance looks the same as fsr quality to you, nice.
look at the fps/gpu usage difference. mind you, this is capped at 60 fps.

 

[kerberos_20]

Woah! FSR is so bad that it can't even display the weapon!
(Otherwise, that comparison looks the same to me.)

i see difference, with FSR , there are two people, with dlss they rather walked away

 

[AgentBirdnest]

dlss perfromance looks the same as fsr quality to you, nice.
look at the fps/gpu usage difference. mind you, this is capped at 60 fps.

But the images are titled FSRQ vs DLSSP... I'm assuming the Q and P mean Quality and Performance modes.
If DLSS is only running in Performance mode, it makes sense that it wouldn't be working as hard as FSR Quality mode, since performance mode has a lower base resolution.

Or I could be wrong about the meaning of the image titles. That was just the first thought when I saw them.

 

[Peter Ferrari]

But the images are titled FSRQ vs DLSSP... I'm assuming the Q and P mean Quality and Performance modes.
If DLSS is only running in Performance mode, it makes sense that it wouldn't be working as hard as FSR Quality mode, since performance mode has a lower base resolution.

Or I could be wrong about the meaning of the image titles. That was just the first thought when I saw them.

I don't know what you're not understanding. dlss with 720p internal base resolution produces a better image than fsr 2.1 with 960p, so you have both a big performance and also slight quality advantage on dlss 2.5.1 vs fsr2. Hence why (is this an expression, I saw it but now that I wrote it it looks weird) I said I'd rather have dlss2 in starfield, not fsr2 and people suddenly lost their pants seeing this.
I feel like I'm having a stroke talking to dlss vs fsr quality difference deniers here. If IQ is the same (which it isn't, even in screenshots if you look close, let alone in real time when fsr2 has tons of shimmer), isn't it better to run 60fps at 80% gpu usage vs 52fps at 99% ?
This is a computer enthusiast forum, I thought 101 of gaming like what fps is better would not need to be covered.

 

[hannibal]

Bedesha ofcourse save money by using FSR because it works in both Nvidia, AMD and Intel GPUs...
Seems like... "Nvidia if you want DLLS also... Pay as for it"

And I somewhat understand if that is the reason. People still have 1060, 1070, 1080, 1080ti GPU a lot! So if game company wants to support those users, the most sensible way is to make support FSR.
Aka their priority is to support as many customers as they can with as little effort as possible.

 

[Peter Ferrari]

I'd understand it for some one person studio making an indie game, but saving on triple A game is stupid, I'm not buying it if I can't have dldsr+dlss. If they want me to pay this much, I need the best solution implemented.
I'll wait for a hefty discount.

 

[-Fran-]

Ah, I can see the future: disgruntled nVidia fanbois boycott Publishers and Devs which don't include all nVidia technologies and then Publishers and Devs are forced to include them all the time, making nVidia even more of a defacto monopoly. They cannot choose to include other vendor technologies at all because whatever the reason they give, it's always treason against their beloved Company. But they will never demand nVidia open their technologies to other Companies, because that is heresy and only punishable by not allowing them to use nVidia anymore.

Yes... That future... The wet dream for some I'm sure. Le sigh...

Regards.

 

[Peter Ferrari]

Ah, I can see the future: disgruntled nVidia fanbois boycott Publishers and Devs which don't include all nVidia technologies and then Publishers and Devs are forced to include them all the time, making nVidia even more of a defacto monopoly. They cannot choose to include other vendor technologies at all because whatever the reason they give, it's always treason against their beloved Company. But they will never demand nVidia open their technologies to other Companies, because that is heresy and only punishable by not allowing them to use nVidia anymore.

Yes... That future... The wet dream for some I'm sure. Le sigh...

Regards.

why not include all, this game doesn't cost 10eur. for a 60eur game we should be getting fsr+dlss+xess.
I don't get why these days people complain about gpu prices all the time, but will pay 60-70eur for games that cut all sort of corners, not just upscaler choice.
I'd much rather overpay for an awesome gpu, and then give ten lazy studios the middle finger and just play last year's games I bought 50% off on summer sale.
If amd wanna give us real competition, not the illusion, fsr2 needs to match dlss, not lock it out. 7800xt needs to beat 6800xt, not lose to it and then sell only because of planned scarcity.
also, calling other people "fanbois" sounds really stupid seeing your signature.

 

[kerberos_20]

why not include all

blame nvidia/intel for not throwing money on developers to include it

 

[Peter Ferrari]

blame nvidia/intel for not throwing money on developers to include it

why should they ? dlss is free to use. has been for years. there are one-man studio games that have dlss and fsr.

Nvidia’s DLSS is now freely available to any developer who wants it

Any developer can now implement Nvidia’s DLSS into their game, which should hopefully mean more widespread support going forward.

www.rockpapershotgun.com

 

[kerberos_20]

why should they ? dlss is free to use. has been for years.

Nvidia’s DLSS is now freely available to any developer who wants it

Any developer can now implement Nvidia’s DLSS into their game, which should hopefully mean more widespread support going forward.

www.rockpapershotgun.com

so you want them to code for free?

 

[Peter Ferrari]

so you want them to code for free?

why don't you start reading articles I link
dlss takes literally a few hours to implement, but go on, defend lazy devs selling 60eur games and saving literally pennies on excluding dlss support.

Anecdotally, I spotted a developer talking about downloading the SDK on Twitter. A few hours later they tweeted that they’d implemented it in their game.

pathetic. if so many people in this thread alone have attitude like you, we as gamers deserve the crap they give us.

 

[randyh121]

AMD's Frank Azor assures gamers that it is in no way blocking Starfield's development team from using Nvidia's competing DLSS tech in the game.

AMD Claims Starfield Devs Have the Power to Add DLSS Support : Read more

buuuuuuuullll
If the game is going to be playable at ALL it NEEDS DLSS
The best graphics are NVIDIA and NVIDIA only. FSR is just horrible

 

[Peter Ferrari]

funny to read how people who are all for value and fair rivalry see nothing wrong with not bothering to include a feature that's:

1. free
2. almost no work to implement

in a 60eur triple A game as long as it's sponsored by amd.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X51DB4bIT68

 

[deksman]

How much do you want to bet the backroom deal is "You add DLSS, you have to pay us $XXXXXXXX"?

AMD doesn't have the power to demand money from a game maker if they decide to incorporate competitor features.

AMD sponsoring Starfield only gives them priority in terms of hw optimizations and feature implementation from the devs.
Incorporation of competing company features is up to the game devs (AMD has no say in this) after the sponsoring company features and optimizations are in place... so the devs will need to decide if DLSS and XeSS are worth their time/effort (and money) implementing or not.

Since FSR works across all hw and DLSS doesn't, its questionable if Starfield devs will incorporate DLSS (they could if there is big enough demand for it).

XeSS (despite being open source) has minimal presence in the gaming sector, so unless Intel fixes this, its unlikely adoption of XeSS will increase by a high amount.

What I'm curious of though is why did Starfield devs use FSR2.0 as opposed to 2.2 (which fixed most of the issues that people complained about - and that stuff is present in DLSS too).

 

[deksman]

buuuuuuuullll
If the game is going to be playable at ALL it NEEDS DLSS
The best graphics are NVIDIA and NVIDIA only. FSR is just horrible

Your reasoning and logic are flawed.
First off, FSR 2.2 is pretty much on par with DLSS (which also experiences ghosting and artefacting), and most people won't be able to tell the difference.

Second... FSR works across ALL hardware... DLSS doesn't - so if you want the game to be playable by everyone, then FSR is the safer bet as its likely to work across full range of hw out there.

 

[randyh121]

First off, FSR 2.2 is pretty much on par with DLSS

FSR 2.2 is on par with DLSS 1.0, sure. But no one uses 1.0 anymore
They both are very blurry and experience ghosting

DLSS 2.0+ blows FSR out of the water with visuals that are better or on par with no DLSS/FSR

Anyone who has seen FSR in action and cares about visuals would rather have no FSR than FSR.

If you dont care about ghosting and a blurry mess, sure FSR working across all hardware is an advantage. But I dont want my games to look horrible, I want a refined experience which is why I only will ever play with DLSS

 

[deksman]

Why is this statement coming out AFTER I've already preloaded Starfield?

They've had like 3 months to say this. I bet even if AMD said "fine, you can have DLSS" a month ago Nvidia would have had it in by now and have been flaunting the paid PR and customer support.

Saying it so late seems like they are just trying to prove they have been allowing it the whole time.

At the time when people accused AMD of paying Starfield devs to not incorporate DLSS, those were basically assumptions/rumors.

Why exactly should AMD waste its time addressing rumors and baseless assumptions from the general public?

NV jumped at the chance of saying 'we don't do it' as it benefits their PR... but in reality, they've done much worse in the past.
AMD has mostly a clean record in this regard because they usually support open source features that work across all HW.

I don't make a habit of addressing every bit of assumption people make about me. Its time consuming and exhausting.
All that was done was tech publishers getting ahead of themselves and made a stupid assumption that AMD is blocking implementation of DLSS, when AMD as such has no power to do anything like that.