PC gaming ia turning into hocus pocus gimmicks instead of really re defining hardware. They also robbing people with gimmicky features that ruin games. 😂😢 pc master race bro!!!! Half of these pc guys haven't lived and experienced the true age PC gaming , the 90s and early 2000s.
@@SimonePavano .... crysis was 07 Oblivion Quake 4... youre mostly right though... your new cards would only be good for 1.5 years.. then be crushed by new games crushing pixels, pushing ha4dware... It definitely plateaued 2014 ONWARD
There are positives in those technologies because they help indie devs/small studios to produce acceptable games within shorter timeframes. The problem is that even AAA companies are being lazy with optimizations just because we have the techs and to increase profit margin. That's one of many reasons why you see more indie games getting successful and more AAA games failing recently.
This is exactly what's happening with Unreal Engine too. It's an overall easier engine for developers to use, which is great for indie and solo developers who can quickly put together a game. However, many of them create games with strong concepts but neglect optimization. Why? Because they know technologies like DLSS, FSR, and Frame Generation exist. What does that mean for us? We get games that look decent most of the time, but with DLSS and Frame Generation, you might only hit 90-110 FPS at 1440p on a powerful GPU like the RTX 4080. Big gaming companies aren’t doing much better. Instead of focusing on game optimization, they put in most of their effort on monetization, expensive battle passes, cosmetics, and micro-transactions. So, what’s the future of gaming looking like? At a hardware level, we could be stuck at the performance level of a 3090 because developers will increasingly stop optimizing games and instead focus on ways to monetize. That means, when it comes to boosting FPS, it’ll all be left to driver-level features like DLSS and Frame Generation. This also means that 4K gaming with high frame rates might still be a long way off, especially when the next big game with "groundbreaking visuals" isn’t properly optimized. Even with DLSS and Frame Generation, you’re still struggling to hit 80-90 FPS at 4K. To be clear, DLSS/FSR, Frame generation- any sort of driver level optimizing the fluidity of the game isn't the issue in on itself, but it does open the Pandoras Box for all the issues that we are facing today. I would rather have Nvidia make the 5000-series be 2X-3X better in pure rasterization than the AI trained model.
@@PLAYSTATIONUNIVERSE-sj4ij I think you might not have played them that much or just played AAA games if you didn't hear about them. Palword which is under an indie studio is an example. Stray? Zau? Lethal Company? Balatro? Phasmo? And a lot more. Cuphead is also an indie I think. A lot more good indie games are being released faster under UE5 which is primarily why UE was made but unfortunately, AAA companies now utilize it and even abandons their own game engines. Remember, indie games being successful doesn't mean it should be a lot more popular than AAA games. They don't have the reach/marketing that AAA companies have.
@@devinegamingtv3427 I agree with this. All these technologies are just tools at the end of the day. The real problem is the misuse of them, primarily by AAA companies that wants to increase profit due to shareholders.
I myself not a really big fan of framegen both from nvidia and amd. Now talking about DLSS quality, thats what i can live on with because me myself i dont really spot differences between native and dlss quality (1440p res). We just have to deal with the fact that raster era will die slowly and we will be forced to rely on "AI" stuff, otherwise we can stick with older gpus but the games that come out are really trash optimized thanks to engines like UE5 and in the end we are still kinda forced to upgrade at some point..
I've been building gaming PCs since 2003. I remember a lot of instances of high-end hardware of the time struggling to run games at even 30fps on max settings. Do people not remember how games like Doom 3, Far Cry, and Crysis brought PCs to their knees? Do people not remember their graphics cards literally being obsolete and not usable in new games after 2 to 3 years? PC gaming now is much better than it was 20 to 25 years ago.
I've been building gaming PCs since 2003, I remember building big 20-30 pound hunking beasts in preparation for games like Far Cry, Doom 3, Half Life 2, etc. Of course, a low end 6 ounce modern smart phone can run circles around those PCs, but it was exciting at the time. And thats the thing, PC hardware hasnt been exciting and interesting in a long time from my perspective. I think AI generation combined with traditional rendering is very exciting. It makes ultra high refresh rate gameplay possible, it makes real-time path tracing possible. I can only imagine that physics simulations and AI dialog will be 100x better once devs leverage AI. The traditional bump in raster performance every generation year after year for two decades was getting really boring.
I can live with the fake frames scam, but trouble is I buy a card today, it barely gives me 80-90 FPS in some games with FG on, in 2-3 years the same card will struggle to go over 50 FPS again with FG. Either make more powerful GPUs, make them cheaper or optimize games better. Of the three only the last one seems feasible, but that won't happen either. We're at this point where all the GPUs they offer are pretty good, but the experience is not nearly worth the amount of money they want for them.
7000 series has ai cores just unused, i dont get how fsr4 won't be able to run on 7900xtx ( we know it'll work cause if im not mistaken the ps5 pro uses rdna 3, maybe 3.5 )
never mind i looked it up and it's exclusive to 9000, mind blown cause i dont understand how sony can get their last gen gpu to work well with scaling but amd cant get their own cards to work.
FG works best from at least a 50-60fps Really that's the only time i'll use it when i'm already getting a good experience, it was made in the first place i'd imagine to enhance the experience of a 60fps Going by tests I've done frametime is smoothed out if you're doing it from 60fps Not actually to make up the fps to go from 30fps to 60fps when already using FSR or DLSS Developers need too keep this in mind and it's actually why UE5 is an issue in some games
i appreciate a lush painting that draws me into a fantasy and for me amd does that although i think nvidia does a great job too but it loses that allure somewhat , it almost feels like i would hurt myself on those bushes in nvidias "world" or theyre dried out like pressed dried leaves that crickle whereas with amd they look feathery, alive and satin like vs nylon in some areas. Why dont the developers and nvidia and Amd collaborate on what parts of the world suit sharpening and what dont i.e buildings distances etc and lushness and softness for certain fauna and landscape ,trees grass etc, and not just paint an overall world sharpness filter to everything. Possibly A.I might be able to be trained for that
Like I have said before, the only two things that can improve this are if consumers refuse to buy these overpriced gimped hardware scams and strong competition.
The truth is GPU manufacturers have hit the node wall and we cant expect much faster GPUs in the near future. Nvidia cannot improve performance without increasing price and power consumption anymore, so no wonder they try to use AI gimmicks to improve framerate and image quality. Given how well DLSS technology works I dont mind using it. I get better image qality than native TAA and performance improves. I wasnt sure if I will like DLSS FG, but this technology is usable. Sure, the real frame rate will always be better, but being able to play at 90fps instead of 50fps is a huge improvement. I always have FG on, because I no longer notice dips below 60fps, and I also get a much better image quality, because on sample and hold displays, higher fps improve motion clarity. X4 FG sounds like a little too much though😂, but I want to test it before making definitive conclusions. Who know's myabe X4 FG will be usable and I will like it.
We need both hardware and software development. My fear is that companies will focus on software trickery to mask hardware deficiencies but I don't think we are there yet. Never under estimate the rage of a lagging gamer.
I also noticed there´re quite some games where color seturation looks way better on AMD gpus than on nVidia, with nVidia some colors just look a bit off to my eyes.
@@SapiaNt0mata I´m pretty sure the RX 480 I had didn´t had a Vivid Gaming checkbox, if it had I had unchecked it. I despite this "Vivid" color option in software everywhere, always way to bright and looking like it´s an LED light (red, blue, orange etc) instead of just color, the opposite of nVidias slightly too pale colors. Never seen that option done any good in 20 years I´m playing on pc.
I experienced that upscaling/frame generation implementation on playstation ported games on pc look much better than the games that were launched on pc with these tech.
I think we are hitting the limits with silicon, and that is why we are side stepping to AI. Good upscaling is much more of a free meal than frame generation. With frame generation, it is not clear cut, and has to be managed as to whether you want to use it based on the game you are playing. The key difference between real frames and generated frames, is real frames improve the responsiveness of controlling your game, and generated frames slightly hurt it.
You guys forgot that these companies are trying to sell game streaming. 😂😂😂. They're simply refining the process with AI. Fake frames lowering the cost of server farms. Refining the image qualify and the final point is reducing latency. This is just a stop gap.😅
We're Old School Gamers. You Push a button,the Computer Turns on,It displays an image. You click a icon and the Game launches again displaying an image. We typically do not have this narcissistic fixation about tree branch fuzz 100 yards out. ALSO you're NOT going to get that perfect SHARP CHRISP image unless you spend Big bucks to Mask that TAA that's used to hide the imperfections.
At some point, there will be no distinction between path-tracing/denoising/inferred Rendering - that will just 'be' how every frame is drawn - and a 'frame' will just be imperceptibly fast splotches of clouds of saturated pixels sent to display when 99% of all pixels have all of their 8-32 reflections calculated. If it's not input-laggy, blurry, or muddy, it's probably 'fine', and if any upscaling or inferred rendering gets to a point where the it's mathematically lossless over a RAW path-traced and fully baked image of equal resolution, so much the better. For benchmarks, for as long as it's still measurable by conventional means, I still want to see RAW frame rates.
I usually run games Raw with a 7900XTX, no upscaling, frame gen though, it does make the games feel more smooth, so if I can turn that one whiles till running at 4k native then I may do that. I am not seeing it as a bad thing honestly. The problem im actually seeing is lazy developers, dropping a billion polygon model into unreal and saying it's good instead of optimizing the 3d models first removing unneeded polys and backfaces.. devs need to also go back to old school texturing methods that were more optimized, also devs need to stop with all the crazy unneeded camera filters. Also they need to go through each game level and check for drops in frame rate and optimize those areas.
not necessary. If those fake frames will give me buttery smooth gameplay i dont mind. Everyone focusing on frames only but the truth is you can have battery smooth experience even on 70 80 fps if it is properly developed and optimised. High frames is not all 1% low is way more important and frame time to get consistent and buttery smooth image. So again if those fake frames will give me 70fps but buttery smooth fps i dont care if it is fake or not fake.
We get slight raster uplift on next gen GeForce cards. If we choose next gen Radeon cards, then we'd have to deal with insane power draw , and poor UE performance. PC gaming is SCREWED! 🤷
true but for me it's that Vram & Memory Bus & Bandwith . Even with AI it's good to have a solid foundation of power so that way your software can perform . I rather have more physical Vram .
I lay blame squarely with the video game creators. They need to stop being lazy and properly optimise their games before release. Employ AI to do the optimisation which will be quicker, cheaper, and do a better job of it. AI game optimisation will reduce the need for frame generation by GPU manufacturers in an effort to make poorly optimised games acceptable, especially on low and mid tier cards.
I think the best thing really is how good DLSS performance modes are getting and even FSR 4 Performance mode looks great So what i've been doing is using Performance mode DLSS to make sure you're getting over 60fps in those heavier games with Path tracing and looks great Performance modes can make your GPUs last longer for pretty much the same image quality That's why DLSS impressed me the most on Nvidia and not the DLSS FG Although it can be great in some games if smoothes out the Frametime But really I think more ppl should try the performance modes next gen since both upscalers look great for it DLSS 4 will be even better and FSR 4 looks top
But look, to me, it honestly seems strange that many people have only noticed it now... honestly, it's not where we're going, we've been here for a few years already. It's the same situation as the 4000 series (think that even frame generation has managed to arrive on consoles, so I'd say there's no going back, we're already in it). Then, well, of course, CES and the announcements of the new generation are followed by people who maybe don't follow things that much. I'll give an example: what are they doing with this generation? What they did with the last generation with the 4060ti, a GPU that in raster differs very little from the previous generation, only 20-25% but with frame gen is a huge jump. The Steam survey just came out, where is that card? Damn, it's climbing the ranks and is already dominating among the top? Why? Because frame generation is widespread and it's a GPU that allows you to play everything ultra 150+ (the 16GB version). Even if many hadn't noticed, we've been in it for too long, and maybe many just hadn't looked around and hadn't noticed until now. But let's say frame generation x2 (those of the 4000 series) has changed everything. I would go so far as to say that it might have had a greater impact than the introduction of ray tracing... and indeed now in this generation, all their marketing focuses on this..
Lol optimization has never really been a thing outside of a very few handful of devs. People don't remember PC gaming from 20 to 25 years ago. It was a time where you could buy a high-end flagship graphics card, and 2 years later it would barely run a new game at low settings. PC gaming of today is in much better shape than it was in the past. I mean a GTX 1060 which is 9 years old can still run most games, maybe not particularly well in all instances, but the game will at least boot up and render. That kind of longevity never existed back then.
as ive said before, they can go at any pace in this ai thing, but for where its at now, it needs to be sidelined, nvidia can come up and show hey we got this or that feature now to blow people's mind but it should not come at a stagnation of raw performance(i mean the 5070 specsheet looks awful compared to 4070s)
As much as I don't like it now, I think frame generation is here to stay, but I also think it's still in it's infancy. When AI cores are more important than cuda cores that's when game development will switch as well. Who knows what that might look like but in 5 years but I have a strong feeling it will be superior to rasterization. Sure we call them fake frames now, but once game development is produced completely on AI cores will it really matter? Latency is a temporary problem that we have to muddle through until the tech matures. I do love my 7900xtx but I'm also slowly accepting the fact that sooner or later I might not even have a choice to choose.
I have seen a interview with AMD dev. He stated RDNA 4 had little raster uplift but ai cores which you need for FSR 4(sorry 7000series) more ai frames,ai RT. No wonder AMD run away lol All on a 16gb ddr6 card. Rdna 2 won people back hard,Years of massive raster and future proof size ram is gone. AI is the future....until the software is outdated, then you have to upgrade.
no they are not good enough to replace hardware. DLSS 4 is a good thing, but after all this time I was expecting something way better. In shooters you shouldn't use frame generation at all. Also, a while ago I noticed in Horizon Forbidden West that FSR on dynamic resolution seemed to have better image quality than FSR Quality even when the performance dropped to the exact same frame rate; I thought that was weird.
PS4 launch titles like Killzone Shadowfall still kook better than a lot of current gen efforts and thet game is 11 years old now and trapped at 1080p 60 fps. If it ever got a 4k patch, the insanely detailed texture work would still put most gamee to shame.
Latency should be the measure of the performance of a GPU. Not FPS for me; this feels very misled as a measure a GPU performance use of frame generation. As a gamer, I find frame generation can make games feel sluggish at times, and for upscaling, I do feel that it is better tech, but it is still 2-3 generations off matching native visual performance. So for me, Native is still the best way to play. The issue is Moore's Law is dead; in effect, the development of hardware has slowed down, and the generation improvement has decreased. So if you look at GPUs in this generation compared to the last generation, there is little improvement. So software to make use of new AI technology that is going to develop in next few generations, and some of this software will need dedicated hardware to run it, and this is what I think will start to happen over the next generation of GPUs. Now good news is older hardware from the last 2-3 generation will stand the test of time
Because incompetent developers (most of them) will use FG and upscaling to hit performance targets, instead of enhancing your performance. So you won’t get 4K 60 by default, you’ll need DLSS/FSr + FG to hit performance targets”4K 60” and it’s going to look and feel like garbage. Source: any unreal engine 5 game
@@realdripmeister The same can be said about TAA, low shadow resolution, simplified mesh or draw distance. If you use them in excess to reach 60 FPS, the graphics will be ugly too. What is the difference between these optimizations methods and DLSS.
@@MiKesh1986 100 percent. If people want to know how things would be if they went just old methods with everything just being super high res they can play like GTA 5 at 4k with msaa x8. If they have a 4090 they will stay above 60fps most of the time. And that would simulate how games would look and run.
BTW i'm 100% sure AMD will be releasing their own Multi FG soon, you just watch It's at the stage now where AMD & Nvidia will be trying to out do each other with how many frames you can get & software stuff
2000 dollars on nvidia stock could yeild up to 6000 dollars by June following exactly like it did last year after the CES stock boom, then you can get a 5090 instead of 5080. I will get a 5080 , and I want to try Cyberpunk with Ultra everything , 8k , with multi frame gen turning 30 fps up to 120 fps. lol Just for fun. I will spend hours testing all settings and Maybe do some videos. Thank you for the good video fun Frog, I gave it a like :)
Ai upscaling even on console now. And that will goes everywhere. We need to forget native and all this bollocks we from now on only see what they want us to see. Gaming is dead!
Do we have a choice. If cyberpunk is 27fps maxxed ..to get that to raster it is still 2 generations away with 50% increases. I dont even lile fg, but yes whats the choice if games keep getting more demanding games by 100% and we only get 30-40% increaes in cards.
The problem is this its not the graphics cards there plenty powerful itsthe tanes not being optimized for these cards so they could sell more cards it will never stop there salarys are immense they have to keep selling cards thats all, any 53 terabytes computation can move any heavy graphic game.talking too a computer engineer.
Imo we all have this backwards. It was bound to happen. The ceiling is coming and we have to keep pushing through it with raster. Its not sustainable for raster. But really it's the game engines and devs ruining things not the gpu. We have the option to not use frame gen or dlss. The issue is engines like unreal. Bringing so many devs over just to cut corners and make it easier on them. Thwy don't scrub like they used to. They rely on anti aliasing algorithms all to much. They have loop holes for devs to make games much faster but its making performance take way to big of a hit. The problem isn't the gpus it's the engines and devs giving up and wanting things easy. They could make a game like red dead again but they choose not to with performance. Instwad rhey go deal with it.
Man after the nvidia showcase you were so mad you called upscaling and this sort tech for consoles 😂. Consoles dont even have fg..they wish they had it. We get this all on pc..we should embrace it.
Why? 4000 series have still more horse power then 3000 in just rasterisation. 3090 is 35tflops and 189 pixel rate. 4090 is 82tflops and 443 pixel rate. It's more then twice the power
My first GPU I ever had was a 3dfx voodoo 2 back in 1999, was the top card back then, probably pulled no more than 100w max, I've had alsorts over the years, geforce 2 pro, nividia 6800gt, 980 in sli, r9 290's in crossfire, rtx 3080, rtx4080.... anyway I've had more GPUs than most.... one thing for sure is that as the years go on the power consumption goes up.... the "It's fake frames though" bros really can be a bit silly imo. Raster has seriously hit a ceiling, we need the AI to progress otherwise we will all have 4000w psu's in another ten years time, also news flash for anyone counting AI generated frames as fake.... we are about 2 generations away from all frames done by AI not just the ones in between.
FG never bothered me. I know a lot of people on the r/amd sub was highly against FG until FSR FG released and (got better after the awful launch) now the sentiment changed, where a lot of people use and like FG. We see a literal parallel where people are now hating multiple FG (2x +), but those who can use it will probably love it. I'll definitely enjoy it, at least. EDIT: [60 x 4 = 240], [80 x 3 = 240], [120 x 2 = 240]. I already use FG in games like Cyberpunk or Wukong from 70ish FPS and it's pretty decent, and if you can get extra frames via FG with little added to latency over x2 then I think it'll be nice. Also Froggy, when you do get your 5080/9070 XT can you please try out Warhammer Darktide with maxed out Ray Tracing?
Please dont look into deferred rendering and how games have using half and quater res lighting samples, shadows, reflections, normal maps(actual depth of textures), post processing ect. The samples are dithered togther with temporal image reconstruction. Been this way for well over a decade. I dont like frame gen because it removes the benefits of reflex. Daniel Owen tested it in cyberpunk. 35ms total system latency with no frame gen and reflex on. 50ms with reflex and frame gen. 70ms with no reflex and no frame gen. Using frame gen with reflex would be almost as bad as no frame gen without Nvidia Reflex.
You've not been around the pc gaming scene long enough to have experienced this, but it's only been the past while that GPU's have rendered images to the screen via the same method. Before this we had a whole host of different techniques; driver hacks. We had different API's - glide/3DFX, open GL etc. *ALL* frames are "generated" by the drivers running on the pc combined with the data coming from the game. This is no different than the world we are in now. IF all of the sudden AMD comes out with some and we're getting way more frames without latency/issues. No one will care. I won't get to test this out until the 60 series as there's really no compelling reason to upgrade from a 4080. But new tech is always interesting, nvidia isn't exactly new at this. There's pretty much 0 shot this new version of DLSS+multi frame gen isn't *considerably* better than running FSR FG + AFMF (which to be clear, I can't stand). What I'm curious about is what exactly does AMD have to compete this generation? Outside of being cheaper why do you grab an AMD GPU over nvidia with this new tech?
PC gaming ia turning into hocus pocus gimmicks instead of really re defining hardware. They also robbing people with gimmicky features that ruin games. 😂😢 pc master race bro!!!! Half of these pc guys haven't lived and experienced the true age PC gaming , the 90s and early 2000s.
The early to mid 2010s were the peak of gaming hardware and graphics development, now we're at an all time low in that regard
@@SimonePavano
.... crysis was 07
Oblivion
Quake 4...
youre mostly right though... your new cards would only be good for 1.5 years.. then be crushed by new games crushing pixels, pushing ha4dware...
It definitely plateaued 2014 ONWARD
There are positives in those technologies because they help indie devs/small studios to produce acceptable games within shorter timeframes.
The problem is that even AAA companies are being lazy with optimizations just because we have the techs and to increase profit margin.
That's one of many reasons why you see more indie games getting successful and more AAA games failing recently.
This is exactly what's happening with Unreal Engine too. It's an overall easier engine for developers to use, which is great for indie and solo developers who can quickly put together a game. However, many of them create games with strong concepts but neglect optimization. Why? Because they know technologies like DLSS, FSR, and Frame Generation exist.
What does that mean for us? We get games that look decent most of the time, but with DLSS and Frame Generation, you might only hit 90-110 FPS at 1440p on a powerful GPU like the RTX 4080.
Big gaming companies aren’t doing much better. Instead of focusing on game optimization, they put in most of their effort on monetization, expensive battle passes, cosmetics, and micro-transactions.
So, what’s the future of gaming looking like? At a hardware level, we could be stuck at the performance level of a 3090 because developers will increasingly stop optimizing games and instead focus on ways to monetize. That means, when it comes to boosting FPS, it’ll all be left to driver-level features like DLSS and Frame Generation.
This also means that 4K gaming with high frame rates might still be a long way off, especially when the next big game with "groundbreaking visuals" isn’t properly optimized. Even with DLSS and Frame Generation, you’re still struggling to hit 80-90 FPS at 4K.
To be clear, DLSS/FSR, Frame generation- any sort of driver level optimizing the fluidity of the game isn't the issue in on itself, but it does open the Pandoras Box for all the issues that we are facing today. I would rather have Nvidia make the 5000-series be 2X-3X better in pure rasterization than the AI trained model.
Name 1 succesfull indie game 💀💀💀🐑
@@PLAYSTATIONUNIVERSE-sj4ij I think you might not have played them that much or just played AAA games if you didn't hear about them. Palword which is under an indie studio is an example. Stray? Zau? Lethal Company? Balatro? Phasmo? And a lot more. Cuphead is also an indie I think. A lot more good indie games are being released faster under UE5 which is primarily why UE was made but unfortunately, AAA companies now utilize it and even abandons their own game engines.
Remember, indie games being successful doesn't mean it should be a lot more popular than AAA games. They don't have the reach/marketing that AAA companies have.
@@devinegamingtv3427 I agree with this. All these technologies are just tools at the end of the day. The real problem is the misuse of them, primarily by AAA companies that wants to increase profit due to shareholders.
I myself not a really big fan of framegen both from nvidia and amd. Now talking about DLSS quality, thats what i can live on with because me myself i dont really spot differences between native and dlss quality (1440p res). We just have to deal with the fact that raster era will die slowly and we will be forced to rely on "AI" stuff, otherwise we can stick with older gpus but the games that come out are really trash optimized thanks to engines like UE5 and in the end we are still kinda forced to upgrade at some point..
Ok so he was loving amd, shitting on nvidia, to going back to loving nvidia and now shitting on both amd and nvidia.
The good old days of real frames and no upscaling. Good optimization
You can't afford real frames. I promise
I've been building gaming PCs since 2003. I remember a lot of instances of high-end hardware of the time struggling to run games at even 30fps on max settings. Do people not remember how games like Doom 3, Far Cry, and Crysis brought PCs to their knees? Do people not remember their graphics cards literally being obsolete and not usable in new games after 2 to 3 years? PC gaming now is much better than it was 20 to 25 years ago.
@03chrisv Yes people have short memories.
9 yrs ago a 1080ti was 700$. Thats no bargain at all.
MMMM multi-GPU goodness.
@@03chrisv
"Remember?"
Yes... but i had 7900gtx when crysis dropped, i was ready
I've been building gaming PCs since 2003, I remember building big 20-30 pound hunking beasts in preparation for games like Far Cry, Doom 3, Half Life 2, etc. Of course, a low end 6 ounce modern smart phone can run circles around those PCs, but it was exciting at the time. And thats the thing, PC hardware hasnt been exciting and interesting in a long time from my perspective. I think AI generation combined with traditional rendering is very exciting. It makes ultra high refresh rate gameplay possible, it makes real-time path tracing possible. I can only imagine that physics simulations and AI dialog will be 100x better once devs leverage AI. The traditional bump in raster performance every generation year after year for two decades was getting really boring.
I can live with the fake frames scam, but trouble is I buy a card today, it barely gives me 80-90 FPS in some games with FG on, in 2-3 years the same card will struggle to go over 50 FPS again with FG. Either make more powerful GPUs, make them cheaper or optimize games better. Of the three only the last one seems feasible, but that won't happen either.
We're at this point where all the GPUs they offer are pretty good, but the experience is not nearly worth the amount of money they want for them.
Amd admits fsr4 is so heavy load at the moment it cannot run on 7900xtx so it is early days for them
7000 series has ai cores just unused, i dont get how fsr4 won't be able to run on 7900xtx ( we know it'll work cause if im not mistaken the ps5 pro uses rdna 3, maybe 3.5 )
never mind i looked it up and it's exclusive to 9000, mind blown cause i dont understand how sony can get their last gen gpu to work well with scaling but amd cant get their own cards to work.
"AMD says that FSR 4 might not be an RDNA 4 exclusive after all" as of one day ago, never mind amd themselves dont know if they can do it lmao
@@nickjones1609 it is not that ml upscaling will not work it is because fsr4 is not optimised at the moment.
FG works best from at least a 50-60fps
Really that's the only time i'll use it when i'm already getting a good experience, it was made in the first place i'd imagine to enhance the experience of a 60fps
Going by tests I've done frametime is smoothed out if you're doing it from 60fps
Not actually to make up the fps to go from 30fps to 60fps when already using FSR or DLSS
Developers need too keep this in mind and it's actually why UE5 is an issue in some games
i appreciate a lush painting that draws me into a fantasy and for me amd does that although i think nvidia does a great job too but it loses that allure somewhat , it almost feels like i would hurt myself on those bushes in nvidias "world" or theyre dried out like pressed dried leaves that crickle whereas with amd they look feathery, alive and satin like vs nylon in some areas. Why dont the developers and nvidia and Amd collaborate on what parts of the world suit sharpening and what dont i.e buildings distances etc and lushness and softness for certain fauna and landscape ,trees grass etc, and not just paint an overall world sharpness filter to everything. Possibly A.I might be able to be trained for that
Like I have said before, the only two things that can improve this are if consumers refuse to buy these overpriced gimped hardware scams and strong competition.
the average consumer don't give a damn cause they know nothing. more fps = good.
The truth is GPU manufacturers have hit the node wall and we cant expect much faster GPUs in the near future. Nvidia cannot improve performance without increasing price and power consumption anymore, so no wonder they try to use AI gimmicks to improve framerate and image quality. Given how well DLSS technology works I dont mind using it. I get better image qality than native TAA and performance improves. I wasnt sure if I will like DLSS FG, but this technology is usable. Sure, the real frame rate will always be better, but being able to play at 90fps instead of 50fps is a huge improvement. I always have FG on, because I no longer notice dips below 60fps, and I also get a much better image quality, because on sample and hold displays, higher fps improve motion clarity.
X4 FG sounds like a little too much though😂, but I want to test it before making definitive conclusions. Who know's myabe X4 FG will be usable and I will like it.
We need both hardware and software development. My fear is that companies will focus on software trickery to mask hardware deficiencies but I don't think we are there yet. Never under estimate the rage of a lagging gamer.
AI in gaming is the future, like it or not. I'm sure in a few years, we will demand it.
I also noticed there´re quite some games where color seturation looks way better on AMD gpus than on nVidia, with nVidia some colors just look a bit off to my eyes.
AMD gpu software has Vivid Gaming option in the software that enhance brightness and colorfulness. that's why in games colors look better than Nvidia.
@@SapiaNt0mata I´m pretty sure the RX 480 I had didn´t had a Vivid Gaming checkbox, if it had I had unchecked it. I despite this "Vivid" color option in software everywhere, always way to bright and looking like it´s an LED light (red, blue, orange etc) instead of just color, the opposite of nVidias slightly too pale colors. Never seen that option done any good in 20 years I´m playing on pc.
I experienced that upscaling/frame generation implementation on playstation ported games on pc look much better than the games that were launched on pc with these tech.
I think we are hitting the limits with silicon, and that is why we are side stepping to AI. Good upscaling is much more of a free meal than frame generation. With frame generation, it is not clear cut, and has to be managed as to whether you want to use it based on the game you are playing. The key difference between real frames and generated frames, is real frames improve the responsiveness of controlling your game, and generated frames slightly hurt it.
You guys forgot that these companies are trying to sell game streaming. 😂😂😂. They're simply refining the process with AI. Fake frames lowering the cost of server farms. Refining the image qualify and the final point is reducing latency. This is just a stop gap.😅
We're Old School Gamers. You Push a button,the Computer Turns on,It displays an image. You click a icon and the Game launches again displaying an image. We typically do not have this narcissistic fixation about tree branch fuzz 100 yards out. ALSO you're NOT going to get that perfect SHARP CHRISP image unless you spend Big bucks to Mask that TAA that's used to hide the imperfections.
For real my friend visuals have greatly improved from where we started playing games.
@Frogboyx1gaming Yes sir. The days of Big Blue and the IBM AT Motherboards are well remembered😊.
That's called depth of field?
O.o
@@kevinerbs2778 Possibly. You can call it whatever false reality you have :)
I’ve never slowed down my gameplay 5x and zoomed in 30x, just so I can complain.
At some point, there will be no distinction between path-tracing/denoising/inferred Rendering - that will just 'be' how every frame is drawn - and a 'frame' will just be imperceptibly fast splotches of clouds of saturated pixels sent to display when 99% of all pixels have all of their 8-32 reflections calculated.
If it's not input-laggy, blurry, or muddy, it's probably 'fine', and if any upscaling or inferred rendering gets to a point where the it's mathematically lossless over a RAW path-traced and fully baked image of equal resolution, so much the better.
For benchmarks, for as long as it's still measurable by conventional means, I still want to see RAW frame rates.
Nvidia are the ones in the drivers seat and creating all the problems. AmD is forced just to follow suit.
I usually run games Raw with a 7900XTX, no upscaling, frame gen though, it does make the games feel more smooth, so if I can turn that one whiles till running at 4k native then I may do that. I am not seeing it as a bad thing honestly. The problem im actually seeing is lazy developers, dropping a billion polygon model into unreal and saying it's good instead of optimizing the 3d models first removing unneeded polys and backfaces.. devs need to also go back to old school texturing methods that were more optimized, also devs need to stop with all the crazy unneeded camera filters. Also they need to go through each game level and check for drops in frame rate and optimize those areas.
not necessary. If those fake frames will give me buttery smooth gameplay i dont mind. Everyone focusing on frames only but the truth is you can have battery smooth experience even on 70 80 fps if it is properly developed and optimised. High frames is not all 1% low is way more important and frame time to get consistent and buttery smooth image. So again if those fake frames will give me 70fps but buttery smooth fps i dont care if it is fake or not fake.
We get slight raster uplift on next gen GeForce cards.
If we choose next gen Radeon cards, then we'd have to deal with insane power draw , and poor UE performance.
PC gaming is SCREWED! 🤷
true but for me it's that Vram & Memory Bus & Bandwith . Even with AI it's good to have a solid foundation of power so that way your software can perform . I rather have more physical Vram .
I lay blame squarely with the video game creators. They need to stop being lazy and properly optimise their games before release. Employ AI to do the optimisation which will be quicker, cheaper, and do a better job of it. AI game optimisation will reduce the need for frame generation by GPU manufacturers in an effort to make poorly optimised games acceptable, especially on low and mid tier cards.
I think the best thing really is how good DLSS performance modes are getting and even FSR 4 Performance mode looks great
So what i've been doing is using Performance mode DLSS to make sure you're getting over 60fps in those heavier games with Path tracing and looks great
Performance modes can make your GPUs last longer for pretty much the same image quality
That's why DLSS impressed me the most on Nvidia and not the DLSS FG
Although it can be great in some games if smoothes out the Frametime
But really I think more ppl should try the performance modes next gen since both upscalers look great for it
DLSS 4 will be even better and FSR 4 looks top
But look, to me, it honestly seems strange that many people have only noticed it now... honestly, it's not where we're going, we've been here for a few years already. It's the same situation as the 4000 series (think that even frame generation has managed to arrive on consoles, so I'd say there's no going back, we're already in it). Then, well, of course, CES and the announcements of the new generation are followed by people who maybe don't follow things that much. I'll give an example: what are they doing with this generation? What they did with the last generation with the 4060ti, a GPU that in raster differs very little from the previous generation, only 20-25% but with frame gen is a huge jump. The Steam survey just came out, where is that card? Damn, it's climbing the ranks and is already dominating among the top? Why? Because frame generation is widespread and it's a GPU that allows you to play everything ultra 150+ (the 16GB version). Even if many hadn't noticed, we've been in it for too long, and maybe many just hadn't looked around and hadn't noticed until now. But let's say frame generation x2 (those of the 4000 series) has changed everything. I would go so far as to say that it might have had a greater impact than the introduction of ray tracing... and indeed now in this generation, all their marketing focuses on this..
They've capitulated. The devs are wildly incompetent. Optimisation is a thing od the past.
Lol optimization has never really been a thing outside of a very few handful of devs. People don't remember PC gaming from 20 to 25 years ago. It was a time where you could buy a high-end flagship graphics card, and 2 years later it would barely run a new game at low settings. PC gaming of today is in much better shape than it was in the past. I mean a GTX 1060 which is 9 years old can still run most games, maybe not particularly well in all instances, but the game will at least boot up and render. That kind of longevity never existed back then.
@@03chrisv Dx11 was a golden age A.P.I honestly.
as ive said before, they can go at any pace in this ai thing, but for where its at now, it needs to be sidelined, nvidia can come up and show hey we got this or that feature now to blow people's mind but it should not come at a stagnation of raw performance(i mean the 5070 specsheet looks awful compared to 4070s)
gtx 1080 ti was the last nvidia gpu that was "profitable" to buy brand new
As much as I don't like it now, I think frame generation is here to stay, but I also think it's still in it's infancy. When AI cores are more important than cuda cores that's when game development will switch as well. Who knows what that might look like but in 5 years but I have a strong feeling it will be superior to rasterization. Sure we call them fake frames now, but once game development is produced completely on AI cores will it really matter? Latency is a temporary problem that we have to muddle through until the tech matures. I do love my 7900xtx but I'm also slowly accepting the fact that sooner or later I might not even have a choice to choose.
I have seen a interview with AMD dev. He stated RDNA 4 had little raster uplift but ai cores which you need for FSR 4(sorry 7000series) more ai frames,ai RT. No wonder AMD run away lol
All on a 16gb ddr6 card. Rdna 2 won people back hard,Years of massive raster and future proof size ram is gone. AI is the future....until the software is outdated, then you have to upgrade.
no they are not good enough to replace hardware. DLSS 4 is a good thing, but after all this time I was expecting something way better. In shooters you shouldn't use frame generation at all. Also, a while ago I noticed in Horizon Forbidden West that FSR on dynamic resolution seemed to have better image quality than FSR Quality even when the performance dropped to the exact same frame rate; I thought that was weird.
PS4 launch titles like Killzone Shadowfall still kook better than a lot of current gen efforts and thet game is 11 years old now and trapped at 1080p 60 fps. If it ever got a 4k patch, the insanely detailed texture work would still put most gamee to shame.
Latency should be the measure of the performance of a GPU. Not FPS for me; this feels very misled as a measure a GPU performance use of frame generation. As a gamer, I find frame generation can make games feel sluggish at times, and for upscaling, I do feel that it is better tech, but it is still 2-3 generations off matching native visual performance. So for me, Native is still the best way to play. The issue is Moore's Law is dead; in effect, the development of hardware has slowed down, and the generation improvement has decreased. So if you look at GPUs in this generation compared to the last generation, there is little improvement. So software to make use of new AI technology that is going to develop in next few generations, and some of this software will need dedicated hardware to run it, and this is what I think will start to happen over the next generation of GPUs. Now good news is older hardware from the last 2-3 generation will stand the test of time
Nobody forces us to use DLSS or FSR. So where problem?
Because incompetent developers (most of them) will use FG and upscaling to hit performance targets, instead of enhancing your performance. So you won’t get 4K 60 by default, you’ll need DLSS/FSr + FG to hit performance targets”4K 60” and it’s going to look and feel like garbage. Source: any unreal engine 5 game
@@realdripmeister
The same can be said about TAA, low shadow resolution, simplified mesh or draw distance. If you use them in excess to reach 60 FPS, the graphics will be ugly too. What is the difference between these optimizations methods and DLSS.
@@MiKesh1986 100 percent. If people want to know how things would be if they went just old methods with everything just being super high res they can play like GTA 5 at 4k with msaa x8. If they have a 4090 they will stay above 60fps most of the time. And that would simulate how games would look and run.
BTW i'm 100% sure AMD will be releasing their own Multi FG soon, you just watch
It's at the stage now where AMD & Nvidia will be trying to out do each other with how many frames you can get & software stuff
currently you can see amd 4x mult gen in the video.
2000 dollars on nvidia stock could yeild up to 6000 dollars by June following exactly like it did last year after the CES stock boom, then you can get a 5090 instead of 5080. I will get a 5080 , and I want to try Cyberpunk with Ultra everything , 8k , with multi frame gen turning 30 fps up to 120 fps. lol Just for fun. I will spend hours testing all settings and Maybe do some videos. Thank you for the good video fun Frog, I gave it a like :)
I don’t like frame generator but complaints against dlss is less valid.
Ai upscaling even on console now. And that will goes everywhere. We need to forget native and all this bollocks we from now on only see what they want us to see. Gaming is dead!
9070XT in RT 7900XTX in Path Tracing 5060
Do we have a choice. If cyberpunk is 27fps maxxed ..to get that to raster it is still 2 generations away with 50% increases.
I dont even lile fg, but yes whats the choice if games keep getting more demanding games by 100% and we only get 30-40% increaes in cards.
The problem is this its not the graphics cards there plenty powerful itsthe tanes not being optimized for these cards so they could sell more cards it will never stop there salarys are immense they have to keep selling cards thats all, any 53 terabytes computation can move any heavy graphic game.talking too a computer engineer.
I hate TAA. But DLSS is ok imo
These new AI Fram Gen cards lack performance on VR
Imo we all have this backwards. It was bound to happen. The ceiling is coming and we have to keep pushing through it with raster. Its not sustainable for raster. But really it's the game engines and devs ruining things not the gpu. We have the option to not use frame gen or dlss. The issue is engines like unreal. Bringing so many devs over just to cut corners and make it easier on them. Thwy don't scrub like they used to. They rely on anti aliasing algorithms all to much. They have loop holes for devs to make games much faster but its making performance take way to big of a hit. The problem isn't the gpus it's the engines and devs giving up and wanting things easy.
They could make a game like red dead again but they choose not to with performance. Instwad rhey go deal with it.
Now i finally agree with you call a spade a spade for both sides
Man after the nvidia showcase you were so mad you called upscaling and this sort tech for consoles 😂. Consoles dont even have fg..they wish they had it.
We get this all on pc..we should embrace it.
Fake frames are garbage frames. I think the 30 series was the last great GPU from NVIDIA.
Why? 4000 series have still more horse power then 3000 in just rasterisation. 3090 is 35tflops and 189 pixel rate. 4090 is 82tflops and 443 pixel rate. It's more then twice the power
30 series has bad thermals compared to 40
Just wait and stop speculating. Everyone is saying fake frames and goes oitt to buy one...
Maybe all the people that agree we need start ur own business and make own gpus.there are way more than enuff of us.
So they’re ruining gaming, but you just made a video yesterday about wanting to buy a 5080? Make up your damn mind.
He's new to PC gaming, a takes a few years to settle down lol.
Every other PC gaming content creator does the same thing
My first GPU I ever had was a 3dfx voodoo 2 back in 1999, was the top card back then, probably pulled no more than 100w max, I've had alsorts over the years, geforce 2 pro, nividia 6800gt, 980 in sli, r9 290's in crossfire, rtx 3080, rtx4080.... anyway I've had more GPUs than most.... one thing for sure is that as the years go on the power consumption goes up.... the "It's fake frames though" bros really can be a bit silly imo. Raster has seriously hit a ceiling, we need the AI to progress otherwise we will all have 4000w psu's in another ten years time, also news flash for anyone counting AI generated frames as fake.... we are about 2 generations away from all frames done by AI not just the ones in between.
Come on now Frogy! Time to try out the Arc B580 and the Arc experience! Mine is really good in 1440p. :)
it's sad that people defend this shit cause of their stupid fanbyism
The future is 549 usd 4090 performance with dlss4 and don't forget dlss4 will get better every year.
AI upscaling = laziness
0:34 literally you in a title 10 hours ago(i havent watched the entire video yet)
nvm got it now
4k 120 on everything is all i want the end
Hope you are recovered froggy from the hacking BS.
So far it seems to be okay. Definitely paying a lot more attention to things.
@ can’t keep a good man down
PC Builder has a really good vid on this topic
FG never bothered me. I know a lot of people on the r/amd sub was highly against FG until FSR FG released and (got better after the awful launch) now the sentiment changed, where a lot of people use and like FG. We see a literal parallel where people are now hating multiple FG (2x +), but those who can use it will probably love it. I'll definitely enjoy it, at least.
EDIT: [60 x 4 = 240], [80 x 3 = 240], [120 x 2 = 240]. I already use FG in games like Cyberpunk or Wukong from 70ish FPS and it's pretty decent, and if you can get extra frames via FG with little added to latency over x2 then I think it'll be nice. Also Froggy, when you do get your 5080/9070 XT can you please try out Warhammer Darktide with maxed out Ray Tracing?
Please dont look into deferred rendering and how games have using half and quater res lighting samples, shadows, reflections, normal maps(actual depth of textures), post processing ect. The samples are dithered togther with temporal image reconstruction. Been this way for well over a decade.
I dont like frame gen because it removes the benefits of reflex. Daniel Owen tested it in cyberpunk. 35ms total system latency with no frame gen and reflex on. 50ms with reflex and frame gen. 70ms with no reflex and no frame gen. Using frame gen with reflex would be almost as bad as no frame gen without Nvidia Reflex.
i think the word is "lush"
NEGATIVE NEGATIVE NEGATIVE.... sheesh silly gamers.
i really think you are jumping the gun on assumptions, for clicks!
The new Xbox running widows... Playing playstation games! 😮😁
Yall either want fg or for them to increase rasterization while significantly increasing the price
You've not been around the pc gaming scene long enough to have experienced this, but it's only been the past while that GPU's have rendered images to the screen via the same method. Before this we had a whole host of different techniques; driver hacks. We had different API's - glide/3DFX, open GL etc.
*ALL* frames are "generated" by the drivers running on the pc combined with the data coming from the game. This is no different than the world we are in now. IF all of the sudden AMD comes out with some and we're getting way more frames without latency/issues. No one will care.
I won't get to test this out until the 60 series as there's really no compelling reason to upgrade from a 4080. But new tech is always interesting, nvidia isn't exactly new at this. There's pretty much 0 shot this new version of DLSS+multi frame gen isn't *considerably* better than running FSR FG + AFMF (which to be clear, I can't stand).
What I'm curious about is what exactly does AMD have to compete this generation? Outside of being cheaper why do you grab an AMD GPU over nvidia with this new tech?
Keep the videos coming bro
Thanks, I'm going to keep doing it!
thang god you said what i was thinking all this time ..................................
Absolutely 💯
God is spelled using a capital G.