Discussion [WCCFTech] What’s Up With The Missing NVIDIA DLSS Support In AMD Sponsored FSR Titles?

Page 8 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Jul 27, 2020
17,967
11,710
116
Go AMD!

Kill DLSS!

Am I a rabid AMD fan?

No, I'm just more interested in balance and fairness.

Funny how the nGreedia whiners can't deal with a small number of games lacking DLSS.

Oh, you thought paying for nGreedia garbage entitled you to everything? You don't even get DLSS3 if you have RTX 3000. Why don't you sad people whine and cry about that?
 

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,262
5,259
136
Go AMD!

Kill DLSS!

Am I a rabid AMD fan?


No, I'm just more interested in balance and fairness.

Funny how the nGreedia whiners can't deal with a small number of games lacking DLSS.

Oh, you thought paying for nGreedia garbage entitled you to everything? You don't even get DLSS3 if you have RTX 3000. Why don't you sad people whine and cry about that?



When one is so biased, they don't notice when their biased ranting is going off the extreme end of the scale.
 

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
3,385
7,151
136
Even it made financial sense (it doesn't), NVidia couldn't lock every developer into partnership deals without inviting some kind of regulatory intervention.
Since when has the threat of regulatory intervention stopped Nvidia from doing whatever they wanted to do in the gaming space? If we are to believe that Nvidia will not prevent, block, or stop developers from implementing FSR into Nvidia sponsored games, I don't see how it would invite regulatory remediation. To me, seems like Nvidia didn't really care for outbidding AMD to get DLSS into Starfield, which wouldn't surprise me given that Starfield isn't the technical showcase that promotes the things Nvidia wants to promote a la CP2077.
 

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,807
11,161
136
All I'm getting from this thread is that CapFrameX and some others are stirring the pot needlessly.

AMD hasn't released any features that make it impossible to use nVidia hardware. This is not a Gameworks-type situation.

AMD hasn't gone on the record saying that they are paying developers to drop DLSS support. One AMD dev HAS gone on the record saying that they aren't paying developers to drop DLSS support, though that isn't an official company statement.

nVidia hasn't gone on record claiming that AMD is paying developers to drop DLSS support.

It seems pretty obvious that developers can implement DLSS and FSR2 pretty easily, though this says nothing about the time/effort necessary to properly test those features.

In the end, we have no direct evidence of any unfair practices whatsoever, though the idea that a 10% marketshare "leader" would "flex their muscle" with their historically-small budget to bully developers into excluding poor scrappy 90% marketshare "outsider" nVidia from getting full hardware support seems ridiculous.
 

Ranulf

Platinum Member
Jul 18, 2001
2,409
1,309
136
Starfield, a game which is locked at 30 FPS on consoles because of CPU limitations, will likely have no DLSS 3, let alone DLSS 2, because AMD's intent is to block competitor technologies from appearing in games bearing their stamp of approval.

Its a Bethesda game. That would be my first indication the dev's are just being lazy and or cheap.
 

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
3,385
7,151
136
Maybe they should. Naturally you would back that, just like you back AMD doing it?
I don't know where you got the idea that I'd back AMD blocking DLSS or vice-versa.

This entire thread, I've been trying to make a few points:

1) We should not assume that AMD intentionally blocks DLSS just from what we've read from that WCCFTech article. For that hypothesis/speculation to be fact, there needs to be beyond a reasonable doubt, ideally from a first hand source like game developers, that it happens. There's multiple hypotheses that have varying degrees of validity that could explain what we're seeing from the consumer side of things, but to treat the one with the highest degree of validity as fact is not how things work because people assign validity in a highly subjective manner. This isn't me trying to defend AMD; it's me defending journalistic integrity and how the scientific method works. One does not look at something from only a limited number of angles and then conclude that one's observations must be true, especially when one knows there are other angles to look from; one must rule out all other possibilities for the ones that remain to be true.

For example, say you and I were disagreeing on the exact length of an object and you claimed that by putting your hand next to it, you could infer it's length because you know the size of your hand. If we had a ruler next to us, why not use it instead of ignoring it and going by what you claim is the size of your hand?

2) Gamers love to mudsling and jump to conclusions when they don't get what they want. Look, I get it. DLSS does better than FSR at upscaling, and there's a LOT of Nvidia RTX GPU owners out there. I do not deny that. These gamers paid more money for an Nvidia card, so they have an expectation that they'll be able to use DLSS, but we have to understand that an expectation is not a guarantee. Do you agree? For AMD to "block" Nvidia, there must be an attempt for Nvidia to put DLSS in the game. If Nvidia never had any intention of getting DLSS in the game, why should it be treated it as a block? Have we ruled out the possibility that Nvidia was never interested in sponsoring Starfield? If not and people are assuming AMD did something intentionally malicious to simply piss DLSS users off, then that hatred is misplaced in my opinion. Why do people blame AMD for sponsoring games, which for the record both companies have been doing for ages, when A) we haven't confirmed that Nvidia tried to get sponsorship first, B) expectations of DLSS in every AAA title aren't guaranteed by Nvidia, and C) developers making poorly optimized games that can mitigated by good upscaling (read: DLSS) cannot conclusively be determined at the moment to be AMD's fault.

To directly answer your question, no. I don't want either company to exclude one technology over the other. But what I want isn't how the real world works and there's no point in getting pissed off when some video games don't support certain technologies because I have the maturity to know that it says nowhere on the GPU box that DLSS/FSR is guaranteed on the games I want to play. I have no horse in this race between AMD or Nvidia (for the record, I sold all my AMD shares earlier this year). The only thing I ask is for people to be rational and not jump to conclusions because it fits their buying/GPU vendor preferences.

Edit: Honestly, I laugh at gamers who are pissed off at this. No offense to people who treat gaming as a serious hobby, but it is literally just a hobby. I am at a point in my life where I don't let self-imposed high expectations influence my mood, because all this grievance to me seems to be coming primarily from those who are Nvidia GPU owners getting all uppity. People with AMD GPUs don't even get to use DLSS to begin with, so why would they be pissed. If I were an Nvidia GPU owner, I personally wouldn't give a crap that Starfield doesn't have DLSS and the reasoning for that is simple. If it's an unmitigated mess, then I simply don't buy the game. I'm not over here praying that the game comes with DLSS so that I can now finally enjoy the video game. I have other hobbies and more important things in life to keep me occupied. Life is too short to be setting myself up for failure with high self-imposed expectations and then lashing out at corporations when they don't meet said expectations, especially for something so frivolous as video gaming.
 
Last edited:

Heartbreaker

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2006
4,262
5,259
136
I don't know where you got the idea that I'd back AMD blocking DLSS or vice-versa.

This entire thread, I've been trying to make a few points:

1) We should not assume that AMD intentionally blocks DLSS just from what we've read from that WCCFTech

It's not the messenger. It's the content of the message, and preponderance of the evidence. Everything in the article lines up, and AMD coming out and announcing their "Exclusive" with Starfield, is the final nail in that coffin.
Edit: Honestly, I laugh at gamers who are pissed off at this. No offense to people who treat gaming as a serious hobby, but it is literally just a hobby.

It's just business as usual really. It's more the reaction of the AMD fans rushing to defend AMD and coming up with weird alternative theories why AMD isn't doing it, that is keeping this going.

I'm on another forum where it came up, and the reaction was essentially: "Yeah, probably, but so what", and it died off in a few post.

But here in the land of die hard AMD fans it just can't be AMD, so it's really Microsoft that wants to kill DLSS, or other oddball theories. It just can be the White Knight AMD doing anything less that perfect...
 
Jul 27, 2020
17,967
11,710
116
Let's suppose AMD is desperate to claw back some tiny percentage of the marketshare it has lost to nGreedia/Intel so it starts doing shady exclusive deals to sell more Radeons. Would nGreedia have done anything different in AMD's shoes?
 

Hitman928

Diamond Member
Apr 15, 2012
5,603
8,807
136
It's not the messenger. It's the content of the message, and preponderance of the evidence. Everything in the article lines up, and AMD coming out and announcing their "Exclusive" with Starfield, is the final nail in that coffin.

There is no preponderance of evidence. There’s no real evidence at all. There is some correlation, but correlation is not evidence. In fact, the claim that AMD requires a developer to agree to not implement DLSS in order to receive AMD sponsorship can be disproven with a single example where an AMD sponsored game has DLSS as well. We have 3 games listed in the very article where this is the case so the evidence in the article already disproves this claim. If you want to argue that it’s only in most cases but not every case that they require this, then you need to be able to show why the three counter examples given were exceptions.

Also, exclusive sponsorship doesn’t mean what you seem to be implying. It just means that the developer won’t take on additional sponsorships, thus only AMD will be presented as a partner in marketing material and probably on a splash screen in the game itself. An exclusive sponsorship by itself does not mean the developer can’t then implement non-AMD technology into the game on their own. What it does mean is they can’t take any form of sponsorship from Nvidia/Intel to motivate the developer to include their technology inside the game alongside AMD’s even though there is no technical reason preventing them from doing so.

This is not the same situation as we had with Gameworks which mostly came as a black box and made it difficult to integrate additional technologies from other sources. From everything I’ve seen, it’s a pretty straight forward case of AMD putting in enough resources to get an exclusive partnership such that the developer had no motivation to spend their own resources bringing in additional technology that only a fraction of their customers can even use or care about.

There is no evidence that I’ve seen to imply anything more than this. If you or anyone else has any actual evidence for AMD forbidding sponsored developers from using DLSS or other technology, then let’s see it and I’ll gladly call them out on it.
 
Last edited:

Saylick

Diamond Member
Sep 10, 2012
3,385
7,151
136
Guys, let's just agree to disagree and let this topic die... I'm already irked enough that one stinkin' no-good WCCFTech article got so much traction, and I despise them more than any one of these hardware companies.
 

dr1337

Senior member
May 25, 2020
385
639
136
b). will leave it disabled due to the image quality problems. Not that I expect AMD to come out and say that FSR 2.0 has image quality problems, but let's be honest, we all know it does.
FSR quality looks just fine to my eyes. In performance mode DLSS is better but still I wasn't really impressed with how much it compressed the look in portal RTX. For these scaling techniques I would much rather sacrifice some frames than quality. Just because DLSS works better in extreme cases doesn't make every FSR setting worthless.
 
Jul 27, 2020
17,967
11,710
116
Yeah. If you are paying more attention to little graphical details and/or glitches than actually playing the game, you got bigger problems.

Things used to be so much simpler when all you could do to improve the quality was anti-aliasing.

DLSS is fake. FSR is fake. This discussion is fake. Everyone's worked up over fake computer generated pixels.

Us lot are sad.
 

Leeea

Diamond Member
Apr 3, 2020
3,702
5,433
136
Let's suppose AMD is desperate to claw back some tiny percentage of the marketshare it has lost to nGreedia/Intel so it starts doing shady exclusive deals to sell more Radeons. Would nGreedia have done anything different in AMD's shoes?
That doesn't actually work though.

FSR works just fine on nvidia cards, intel cards, etc. It gives AMD no competitive advantage. It would be a pointless move from a marketshare standpoint.


DLSS on the other hand, that is exclusive as it gets. It is so exclusive it makes you feel extra fuzzy wuzzy inside, and the subjects computer gives off a holy incense that smells a bit like leather jacket when it is engaged.
 
Last edited:
Jul 27, 2020
17,967
11,710
116
DLSS on the other hand, that is exclusive as it gets. It is so exclusive it makes you feel extra fuzzy wuzzy inside, and the subjects computer gives off a holy incense that smells a bit like leather jacket when it is engaged.
It compels the subjects to engage in raging debates on the mere existence of FSR as an option.

Frothing at the mouth, they exclaim, "How dare this abomination invade the holy space of DLSS, the answer to all our prayers! Dear Jensen, our savior in the most urgent hour of our needs, we beseech thee to smite FSR off the face of your glorious domain, our Mother Earth and deliver us from the evil brought forth by AMD, verily the Devil in disguise, intent on capturing the hearts of fools and sullying the idea of the pristine image quality that only DLSS can muster. In Jensen we believe and DLSS we trust to keep our faith strong and the thirst of our eyes forever quenched with the cup of RTX."
 

tamz_msc

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2017
3,865
3,729
136
Graphics programmer at Nixxes, the company that was bought by Sony to develop their PC ports, stating how easy it is to add other upscaling technologies once you add one of them:


Still the AMD stans here would say that "oh you don't know how easy/difficult it is for devs" or "it needs validation that devs are unwilling to go through" or "just because it works on Unreal Engine it doesn't mean that it also works in other cases".

Lame defense. Like the developer says, "inexcusable".
 

gdansk

Platinum Member
Feb 8, 2011
2,492
3,387
136
No excuse and yet there are also still games which only have DLSS despite it supporting fewer cards than XeSS and FSR.
Until you get some actual proof there is no point complaining about how easy things that are.

Here's my simple and Hanlon's razor compatible theory:
1. AMD helps add FSR in a straightforward way without a wrapper to allow pluging in other upscaling APIs.
2. The developers didn't bother to create their own wrapper around what AMD developers did to add FSR.
3. The developers have a hard time getting priority for the task to do so because FSR already works on everything.
 
Last edited:

DrMrLordX

Lifer
Apr 27, 2000
21,807
11,161
136
FSR quality looks just fine to my eyes. In performance mode DLSS is better but still I wasn't really impressed with how much it compressed the look in portal RTX. For these scaling techniques I would much rather sacrifice some frames than quality. Just because DLSS works better in extreme cases doesn't make every FSR setting worthless.
Fair enough. I don't bother with upscaling tech though, it doesn't seem worth it to me. At least FSR 2.0 works on a lot of cards so it has that going for it.
Graphics programmer at Nixxes, the company that was bought by Sony to develop their PC ports, stating how easy it is to add other upscaling technologies once you add one of them:


Still the AMD stans here would say that "oh you don't know how easy/difficult it is for devs" or "it needs validation that devs are unwilling to go through" or "just because it works on Unreal Engine it doesn't mean that it also works in other cases".

Lame defense. Like the developer says, "inexcusable".
That would be more compelling if you had a statement from a developer claiming that AMD had paid them to disable DLSS. Your statement is largely irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
 

Spjut

Senior member
Apr 9, 2011
928
149
106
Programmers have said it's easy to add support for Vulkan too if the game already supports DX12, so people complaining about this game lacking DLSS could create noise about that too. Vulkan even has the benefit of being supported on more platforms than DX12.

But easy to add is not the same thing as easy to support. DLSS being added but then broken by a new update would need Nvidia's involvement to be fixed. FSR2 can be changed directly by the developers themselves.
 

Mopetar

Diamond Member
Jan 31, 2011
8,011
6,454
136
A while ago similar useless and endless ego-guided discussions at beyond3d were so annoying that mods had to put it to an end, finally.

Kind of sad because there was a lot of great discussion there and some great posters. But yeah there were some people that just had to stir the pot time and again.
 
sale-70-410-exam    | Exam-200-125-pdf    | we-sale-70-410-exam    | hot-sale-70-410-exam    | Latest-exam-700-603-Dumps    | Dumps-98-363-exams-date    | Certs-200-125-date    | Dumps-300-075-exams-date    | hot-sale-book-C8010-726-book    | Hot-Sale-200-310-Exam    | Exam-Description-200-310-dumps?    | hot-sale-book-200-125-book    | Latest-Updated-300-209-Exam    | Dumps-210-260-exams-date    | Download-200-125-Exam-PDF    | Exam-Description-300-101-dumps    | Certs-300-101-date    | Hot-Sale-300-075-Exam    | Latest-exam-200-125-Dumps    | Exam-Description-200-125-dumps    | Latest-Updated-300-075-Exam    | hot-sale-book-210-260-book    | Dumps-200-901-exams-date    | Certs-200-901-date    | Latest-exam-1Z0-062-Dumps    | Hot-Sale-1Z0-062-Exam    | Certs-CSSLP-date    | 100%-Pass-70-383-Exams    | Latest-JN0-360-real-exam-questions    | 100%-Pass-4A0-100-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-300-135-exams-date    | Passed-200-105-Tech-Exams    | Latest-Updated-200-310-Exam    | Download-300-070-Exam-PDF    | Hot-Sale-JN0-360-Exam    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Exams    | 100%-Pass-JN0-360-Real-Exam-Questions    | Dumps-JN0-360-exams-date    | Exam-Description-1Z0-876-dumps    | Latest-exam-1Z0-876-Dumps    | Dumps-HPE0-Y53-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-HPE0-Y53-Exam    | 100%-Pass-HPE0-Y53-Real-Exam-Questions    | Pass-4A0-100-Exam    | Latest-4A0-100-Questions    | Dumps-98-365-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-98-365-Exam    | 100%-Pass-VCS-254-Exams    | 2017-Latest-VCS-273-Exam    | Dumps-200-355-exams-date    | 2017-Latest-300-320-Exam    | Pass-300-101-Exam    | 100%-Pass-300-115-Exams    |
http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    | http://www.portvapes.co.uk/    |