News Nvidia Says Native Resolution Gaming is Out, DLSS is Here to Stay

[spongiemaster]

Well greed on nVidia's part and AMD not wanting to compete with it's own APUs. As long as AMD is making APU's I don't expect them to sell any low end GPUs.

Exactly, one side is greed the other is a "business decision." There is hypocrisy everywhere, but man, if it isn't just a way of life for the AMD backing crowd.

 

[InvalidError]

Well greed on nVidia's part and AMD not wanting to compete with it's own APUs. As long as AMD is making APU's I don't expect them to sell any low end GPUs.

Except AMD doesn't officially offer any remotely decent AM5 APUs, only the mobile SoCs get the decent stuff. The bare-minimum IGP in Ryzen 7k is less than 20% as fast as an RX6600 and even the top-end 780M is still only about half as fast.

 

[Order 66]

Except AMD doesn't officially offer any remotely decent AM5 APUs, only the mobile SoCs get the decent stuff. The bare-minimum IGP in Ryzen 7k is less than 20% as fast as an RX6600 and even the top-end 780M is still only about half as fast.

Wow, didn't realize that that meant that it's about as fast as my old RX 550. The RX 550 is about 18% as fast as the 6600.

 

[citral23]

I found FSR useful when I was stuck with a 5600G during the covid GPU pricing madness, and can still tolerate it to enhance resolutions just below native. But generally I'd rather lower shadows and maybe fps rather than use it.

What I don't like however is Nvidia's constant <Mod Edit>.

 

[Zerk2012]

I got a good one how about we just release optimized games instead of just pushing them out to start making the money back.

 

[hotaru.hino]

I got a good one how about we just release optimized games instead of just pushing them out to start making the money back.

Except what does "optimized" even mean? "Must run good" isn't a performance requirement because it's not emperically testable

 

[S31FER]

I like the idea of DLSS, but then only for lower end machines. Let's say you have a "work" computer (i.e., not a gaming rig) with a discrete graphics driver. No chance that'd run a high end game, but with DLSS it can run it. A great trade off for low end gamers and people just not into gaming but would like to give certain titles a go.

I don't know if this is the case or not, but it seems like DLSS is often used as a band-aid for poorly optimized games. Not sure if that's the case, but I can see it quickly becoming a "work around" for big studios pushing out unoptimized messes and then claiming "Designed for DLSS".

 

[InvalidError]

I like the idea of DLSS, but then only for lower end machines. Let's say you have a "work" computer (i.e., not a gaming rig) with a discrete graphics driver. No chance that'd run a high end game, but with DLSS it can run it. A great trade off for low end gamers and people just not into gaming but would like to give certain titles a go.

It may be good enough for single-player games and stuff that doesn't depend much on input-to-screen lag. For more latency-sensitive stuff like competitive multi-player games, frames generated without input feedback can be very distracting when the base frame rate is too low.

If you look at low-end GPU reviews with frame generation enabled, lots of reviewers say it feels horrible in competitive games.

 

[Zerk2012]

Except what does "optimized" even mean? "Must run good" isn't a performance requirement because it's not emperically testable

Optimized in computing
rearrange or rewrite (data, software, etc.) to improve efficiency of retrieval or processing.

Edit of course that takes time and time is money.

Instead of putting out crap that you need a high end PC to use brute force to run.

 

[palladin9479]

Except AMD doesn't officially offer any remotely decent AM5 APUs, only the mobile SoCs get the decent stuff. The bare-minimum IGP in Ryzen 7k is less than 20% as fast as an RX6600 and even the top-end 780M is still only about half as fast.

I know, I've been waiting and seeing if a DDR5 one popped up. The DDR4 ones are pretty good, use a 7600G 5600G in my HTPC.

 

[Order 66]

The DDR4 ones are pretty good, use a 7600G in my HTPC.

7600G?

 

[palladin9479]

Exactly, one side is greed the other is a "business decision." There is hypocrisy everywhere, but man, if it isn't just a way of life for the AMD backing crowd.

Umm this isn't hypocrisy, AMD does make "low end" GPU's they just happen to bundle them with low end "CPUs" and sell them as a unit. NVidia won't even offer them as their current business model is to funnel / unsell customers towards the halo product 4090. This is extremely common in other business markets, go buy a car and watch how the sales person tries to get you to purchase a higher model or more options.

 

[hotaru.hino]

Optimized in computing
rearrange or rewrite (data, software, etc.) to improve efficiency of retrieval or processing.

You need a performance requirement or baseline before you can say something is improved. Again "must run good" is not an actual performance requirement because it's not empirically testable

In addition, many algorithms have a tradeoff between compute and memory complexity; it's an either-or slider.

 

[palladin9479]

7600G?

Had to check, it's 5600G with dual DDR4 3000. Pretty much the definition of "low power", what we would expect on a xx30 series type card.

I've been waiting for them to release a 76xx or similar APU, but DDR5 is still expensive which ruins the whole concept of a lightweight, low power, noiseless computer in the living room doing media stuff.

 

[Order 66]

Had to check, it's 5600G with dual DDR4 3000. Pretty much the definition of "low power", what we would expect on a xx30 series type card.

I've been waiting for them to release a 76xx or similar APU, but DDR5 is still expensive which ruins the whole concept of a lightweight, low power, noiseless computer in the living room doing media stuff.

cheapest DDR5 is a 16gb kit for $35, doesn't seem that expensive to me. Maybe compared to DDR4 sure.

 

[Avro Arrow]

should I ignore the user? Are you going to?

I already have. People who show such shattered logic aren't worth the effort of conversation.

How many people were in the poll? (if you can find out)

It says 22,928 votes (and you can only vote once). I'm not suprised because TechPowerUp is a major tech site and forum like Tom's Hardware and Techspot.

 

[Order 66]

I already have. People who show such shattered logic aren't worth the effort of conversation.

It says 22,928 votes (and you can only vote once). I'm not suprised because TechPowerUp is a major tech site and forum like Tom's Hardware and Techspot.

so about 2063 people have zen4 x3d 3209 have zen 3 x3d 10776 running non x3d ryzen bringing total of people using AMD cpus to 16048 and Intel a measly 6880. Interesting didn't think that AMD CPUs were that popular, let alone zen 4 and x3d.

 

[palladin9479]

cheapest DDR5 is a 16gb kit for $35, doesn't seem that expensive to me. Maybe compared to DDR4 sure.

That's now, back when they were releasing those it was still new and expensive. I'm hoping the next generation of APU will have a desktop release that isn't only for OEMs.

 

[Avro Arrow]

so about 2063 people have zen4 x3d 3209 have zen 3 x3d 10776 running non x3d ryzen bringing total of people using AMD cpus to 16048 and Intel a measly 6880. Interesting didn't think that AMD CPUs were that popular, let alone zen 4 and x3d.

Oh I did. The AM4 platform was a devastating blow to Intel's market share. Everyone who wasn't a die-hard Intel fanboy had been praying for AMD to come back with something great. We all had an inkling that it would be great because the chief architect of the Zen microarchitecture was Jim Keller, the father of 64-bit computing. He was the chief architect of the AMD Athlon 64, the first 64-bit CPU that was backwards compatible with x86. His instruction set, AMD64, is the instruction set used by all x86-type CPUs and is more commonly known as x64 or x86-64.

Believe it or not, Intel had to pay AMD for the cross-licence to use AMD64 because Intel was still using the i386 32-bit instruction set. That's why Windows XP couldn't use more than 4GB of system RAM. The i386 32-bit instruction set couldn't address more than 4GB. Of course, when i386 was introduced, we were still measuring RAM in megabytes so it wasn't called 4GB, it was called 4,096MB and it seemed impossibly huge at the time. Just wait until we're using terabytes of system RAM. That'll be something, eh?

cheapest DDR5 is a 16gb kit for $35, doesn't seem that expensive to me. Maybe compared to DDR4 sure.

Yeah, but the thing is, these days, 16GB isn't enough anymore. When I'm playing Hogwarts: Legacy or Starfield with Firefox open in the background, my PC is using over 20GB of RAM. I know that it's not VRAM spillover either because the RX 7900 XTX has 24GB of VRAM. To be fair, it uses only about 12-14 if I close Firefox but that's still a HUGE chunk of RAM being used and who wants to have to keep their browser closed when gaming? I sure don't.

 

[HyperMatrix]

It's like watching an old man yelling at a cloud...

He doesn't even seem to realise that AMD will never go out of business because while nVidia is dominant when it comes to GPUs, AMD is dominant when it comes to CPUs. TechPowerUp had a poll asking about how many people had X3D CPUs and the result was:

9% - Running a Zen4 X3D
14% - Running a Zen3 X3D
47% - Running an non-X3D Ryzen
30% - Running an Intel CPU
(22,928 votes cast, only one vote per user allowed)

Ten years ago, those numbers would've been reversed. AMD isn't going anywhere no matter what some crazy weirdo says on Tom's Hardware.

Nobody is saying that AMD is going anywhere, or wishing that they don't succeed. The issue here is that you're not wrong about those poll numbers. But those poll numbers indicate very clearly that the type of feedback you receive on certain websites is going to be heavily biased towards AMD. You're seeing 70% AMD to 30% Intel, for example, while Steam Survey results show 65.8% Intel to 34.2% AMD.

AMD has definitely been picking up steam lately with their X3D and Intel being slow to put out a new socket/node. In fact I personally have been recommending the 5800X3D and 7800X3D to the majority of people non-overclockers I talk to because it's the simplest and cheapest way of getting great gaming performance. But in the enthusiast overclock communities I'm in, most people are still using Intel chips. And the performance difference in Starfield between Intel and AMD shows why. Intel chips use more power, sure, but with proper cooling and properly tuned memory, they do offer fantastic single threaded performance. And while Intel's market share has dropped, the big decline has nearly stopped and sales numbers seem to be holding steady. And that's a good thing. Competition is good for all.

But back to my main point. Sometimes what you end up with is a twitter like situation. Where a very vocal minority give the impression of being much larger than they really are. And the problem is that people are biased. Almost anyone who has an AMD GPU, for example, would spend all their time hating on DLSS 2 as being garbage, blurry, vaseline, until FSR2 came out. DLSS Frame Generation was called fake frames and they'd be posting pictures of any artifacting/anomalies they saw from it until AMD announced FSR3 and now they're all very excited about the technology. AMD users often talk about how RT is bad or not worth it or they can barely notice it and it's useless, until consoles started offering the feature. And as soon as AMD puts out more capable RT accelerated hardware, they're going to be big fans of it. So there is always going to be bias. This is how humans think and behave. Not just with GPUs. But everywhere. Look at sports team rivalries where fans who have nothing to do with either team trash talk the other for some odd reason.

At the end of the day, there are feelings, and then there are facts. I'm not anti-AMD. I even built my work PC with a 5950X when it had come out because I felt it offered me more than Intel at that time. And if it happens again in the future, I'll give them another shot. But there's no point trashing tech just because you don't have access to it at the moment. It's like me saying 3D V-Cache is crap because of X and Y simply because I'm trying to defend my own purchasing decision.

Intel's CPU Market Share Grows by 23%, AMD Drops by 5.3% in Q2 2023 | Hardware Times

Intel had a fructuous Q2 as PC sales recovered, reaching 53.6 million units, up 17% over last quarter but down 33% year-over-year. Net iGPU shipments (CPUs with integrated graphics) rose 14% quarter-over-quarter to 49 million units but declined 29% year-over-year. By 2028, iGPU penetration in...

www.hardwaretimes.com

Steam Hardware & Software Survey

Intel/AMD x86 computer CPU market share 2024 | Statista

In the third quarter of 2024, 63 percent of x86 computer processor or CPU tests recorded were from Intel processors, while 33 percent were AMD processors.

www.statista.com

 

[spongiemaster]

Umm this isn't hypocrisy, AMD does make "low end" GPU's they just happen to bundle them with low end "CPUs" and sell them as a unit. NVidia won't even offer them as their current business model is to funnel / unsell customers towards the halo product 4090. This is extremely common in other business markets, go buy a car and watch how the sales person tries to get you to purchase a higher model or more options.

Sorry, an APU is not a substitute for a lower end dGPU. They serve different markets. As someone else pointed out, you can't even buy an APU with a current gen CPU, so AMD is no better than Nvidia in this category. AMD fastest desktop APU is garbage compared to their slowest RDNA3 card the 7600. Still the 7600 has an MSRP for $270 which is only $30 cheaper than Nvidia lowest current gen 4060. There is ample room for a dGPU below a 7600 that will not come close to encroaching on the APU/performance range, and you know why AMD doesn't make one? It doesn't make financial sense to them. You're perfectly fine with AMD not offering anything below $270, but Nvidia is greedy because they offer nothing below $300. Hypocrisy.

 

[Order 66]

Believe it or not, Intel had to pay AMD for the cross-licence to use AMD64 because Intel was still using the i386 32-bit instruction set. That's why Windows XP couldn't use more than 4GB of system RAM. The i386 32-bit instruction set couldn't address more than 4GB. Of course, when i386 was introduced, we were still measuring RAM in megabytes so it wasn't called 4GB, it was called 4,096MB and it seemed impossibly huge at the time. Just wait until we're using terabytes of system RAM. That'll be something, eh?

Man, I would love to have terabytes of RAM so that I can create a RAM disk and store all the games I play in it. (Starfield) did the poll say how many people had a zen 4 CPU in general?

 

[renz496]

No thanks, nVidia.

I had a longer rant, but you know what... It boils down to: I do not want a future where nVidia is the sole provider of technologies to make games look good. If nVidia wants a pass, they need to make this not just accessible to other GPU vendors, but maybe include them as standarised API access across all engines. The Industry does not need another "Glide 3D" moment.

Been there, done that and hated it.

Regards.

As much as you hate it consumer are the one that ultimately bring this to themselves haha.

 

[-Fran-]

As much as you hate it consumer are the one that ultimately bring this to themselves haha.

Initially, yes. At the end of the day it's all of us, regular consumers, that actually feed the beast.

On the other hand, it's the beast themselves, when well fed, go after each other if conditions allow it: back then it was Microsoft that, quite ironically, came to save the day with DirectX and then Khronos Group came with OpenGL attacking a slightly different sector/industry.

I hope all technologies around Ray Tracing one day become ubiquitous across vendors, so no matter what hardware company wants to try, can do so without an already hard to climb wall. I mean, getting into most hardware businesses is already super tough, but GPUs in general is just bonkers from where I stand.

Regards.

 

[Order 66]

Yeah, but the thing is, these days, 16GB isn't enough anymore. When I'm playing Hogwarts: Legacy or Starfield with Firefox open in the background, my PC is using over 20GB of RAM. I know that it's not VRAM spillover either because the RX 7900 XTX has 24GB of VRAM. To be fair, it uses only about 12-14 if I close Firefox but that's still a HUGE chunk of RAM being used and who wants to have to keep their browser closed when gaming? I sure don't.

You are correct that 16GB isn't enough anymore I knew that which is why my PC has 32GB, but the OP was talking about a pc to do media things which hopefully wouldn't require 32GB of RAM