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

[Heartbreaker]

You'd think if they've actually been spending money like this for at least two years, that they would have figured it out by now?

Partnerships, or as AMD has started calling them "Exclusives" are more than just scaling tech.

But only strings attached from AMD would result in a partner/exclusive game, having FSR, + XeSS, but excluding DLSS.

In no other scenario does it make sense to pick those two, of the three scaling technologies.

Even if you were going to make the specious argument, that you only have the resources to do two of the scalers, XeSS would be the one that was skipped, since Intels GPU market share is practically statistical noise at this point.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Moves made in desperation, are often bad moves.

AMD must really be insane to keep making bad moves.

RDNA2. Bad move?
RDNA3. Bad move?
Zen4 and V-cache SKUs. Bad move?

Wow. I'm surprised that they are making so much profits from servers and data center products that they can keep making bad moves in the consumer market. Just five more years of making bad moves until Intel beats them in the server market.

Keeping fingers crossed!

 

[DooKey]

nGreedia started this trend. AMD only followed suit. Then nGreedia came up with frame generation. Anyone see the pattern? They are taking the lead in fooling gamers by giving them fake pixels. I bet next, they will come up with some sort of real time AI scene generation that will generate worlds based on a scene description language. Killing the jobs of artists. Then everyone will be forced to play games that look like frickin' dreams or nightmares or even hallucinations!

This has to be a parody account.

 

[hardhat]

Perhaps it isn't AMD restricting developers from using DLSS in their sponsored titles, but instead that Nvidia refuses to provide developer resources for adding DLSS to AMD sponsored titles.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Even if you were going to make the specious argument

I'm not, but thanks for setting up strawmen anyway.

Perhaps it isn't AMD restricting developers from using DLSS in their sponsored titles, but instead that Nvidia refuses to provide developer resources for adding DLSS to AMD sponsored titles.

Possible, but again we can't prove that either. We're in the realm of speculation. Despite what nVidia has done in the past, there's no way to be sure.

 

[biostud]

I assume this means CapFrameX will refuse to benchmark Starfield due to lack of DLSS.

View attachment 82335

Someone might gift it to him

 

[biostud]

Why not just add DLSS as a $5 DLC?

 

[Thibsie]

Someone might gift it to him

Why would anyone give anything to such an , huh... 'super smart guy' ??

 

[coercitiv]

Someone might gift it to him

I didn't say buy, I said benchmark. The game will be available via Game Pass anyway.

I was serious though, I respect his stance: if NO DLSS means no buy, I hope he sticks to his guns and ignores the game in terms of coverage. Personally I would have hoped to see such a reaction for other games and other types of development decisions, such as micro-transactions on fully priced AAA games and/or gambling mechanics, but each of us is free to sanction whatever they deem more important for the future of PC gaming. (or maybe even all of them)

 

[coercitiv]

I didn't say buy, I said benchmark. The game will be available via Game Pass anyway.

Damn, it's getting worse. /s

AMD to bundle Starfield with Ryzen 7000 CPU series - VideoCardz.com

Newegg website reveals potential Launch of AMD Game Bundle featuring Starfield AMD is set to announce a new game bundle featuring Bethesda’s Starfield. In a recent discovery made by one of our diligent readers, a new game bundle page has emerged on the Newegg website. This development serves as...

videocardz.com

 

[igor_kavinski]

Someone might gift it to him

That idiot won't be able to resist. He's gonna need to buy the game to do his typical AMD bashing.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Why not just add DLSS as a $5 DLC?

Hey! Don't insult the green gamers. They spend more than that on their coffee. It will be something like $25 or more.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Damn, it's getting worse. /s

AMD to bundle Starfield with Ryzen 7000 CPU series - VideoCardz.com

Newegg website reveals potential Launch of AMD Game Bundle featuring Starfield AMD is set to announce a new game bundle featuring Bethesda’s Starfield. In a recent discovery made by one of our diligent readers, a new game bundle page has emerged on the Newegg website. This development serves as...

videocardz.com

I wonder if AMD has found a way to cripple Starfield on Intel CPUs?

 

[biostud]

I didn't say buy, I said benchmark. The game will be available via Game Pass anyway.

I was serious though, I respect his stance: if NO DLSS means no buy, I hope he sticks to his guns and ignores the game in terms of coverage. Personally I would have hoped to see such a reaction for other games and other types of development decisions, such as micro-transactions on fully priced AAA games and/or gambling mechanics, but each of us is free to sanction whatever they deem more important for the future of PC gaming. (or maybe even all of them)

Personally I buy and play games because I enjoy them, not whether they support some specific hardware technology or not. But sure everyone to his or her taste.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I wonder if AMD has found a way to cripple Starfield on Intel CPUs?

-Have the game actually use multiple threads and load the CPU. Watch has millions of Intel CPUs with inadequate cooling choke.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I wonder if AMD has found a way to cripple Starfield on Intel CPUs?

Of course they have. It's called AVX-512

 

[Ranulf]

I wonder if AMD has found a way to cripple Starfield on Intel CPUs?

If they haven't, Bethesda will be up for that challenge. Todd Howard always says, "it just works". Hmm, maybe he and Jensen are in cahoots.

 

[H433x0n]

nGreedia started this trend. AMD only followed suit. Then nGreedia came up with frame generation. Anyone see the pattern? They are taking the lead in fooling gamers by giving them fake pixels. I bet next, they will come up with some sort of real time AI scene generation that will generate worlds based on a scene description language. Killing the jobs of artists. Then everyone will be forced to play games that look like frickin' dreams or nightmares or even hallucinations!

Started what trend? Upscaling? Frame Generation? So you think we'd all be better off if PC graphics just remained in 2016 forever and never changed or added new features?

I don't get this attitude to aggressively ignore anything other than just rendering frames with a graphics card. You can still turn off all of these features and just render frames with 'real pixels' to your heart's content, so what's the big deal? The argument that this means developers will be lazy with PC ports isn't going to fly. That's been going on for years and pre-dates any type of upscaling.

 

[Dribble]

Perhaps it isn't AMD restricting developers from using DLSS in their sponsored titles, but instead that Nvidia refuses to provide developer resources for adding DLSS to AMD sponsored titles.

Obviously Nvidia would include DLSS in an AMD sponsored title as it would show you are better of playing it with an Nvidia card as DLSS > FSR. Obviously AMD block it as they don't want that happening.

 

[hardhat]

Obviously Nvidia would include DLSS in an AMD sponsored title as it would show you are better of playing it with an Nvidia card as DLSS > FSR. Obviously AMD block it as they don't want that happening.

Neither of those things is obvious.

I don't think that for most gamers having access to either DLSS or FSR is a game changer. That's what the poll on this forum showed.

So I would guess most developers are happy to include the tech in their games if Nvidia and AMD helps them to do it. All Nvidia has to do to discourage developers from being sponsored by AMD is to refuse to help them implement DLSS.

The better question would be what incentive is AMD offering for developers to be AMD sponsored that makes them accept their sponsorship? AMD has to offer more for the developer than having no sponsorship because without sponsorship Nvidia would help them implement DLSS (presumably).

As for why Nvidia doesn't implement DLSS in AMD sponsored titles, that's a decision Nvidia is making not AMD. They probably want developers to go with them because DLSS is better than FSR without any other incentive. That's the cheapest option for them. If they break their stance and just add DLSS anyways they lose the ability to pressure developers not to accept sponsorships for added revenue.

AMD has the worse offering at the moment; they need to kick in more to make it worthwhile for developers to go with them. However, they also don't need to commit more resources to try to make FSR better than DLSS. This probably makes more sense for them as Nvidia already has hardware in their graphics cards that makes DLSS function better than FSR.


I just don't like the presumed conclusion that this thread is jumping to that AMD is being anticompetitive and forcing developers to not implement DLSS when they accept an AMD sponsorship. Both companies have enough reason to do what they are doing without either engaging in anticompetitive activities.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Neither of those things is obvious.

I don't think that for most gamers having access to either DLSS or FSR is a game changer. That's what the poll on this forum showed.

Actually it's quite obvious.

Things like this embarrass AMD:

Block DLSS and you block the comparisons.

Even worse now is that DLSS 3 big frame rate boost keeps getting mentioned in reviews, so another comparison that hurts AMD.

Block DLSS and you block DLSS 3 Frame Generation, from making an appearance in reviews.

AMD has a big incentive to block DLSS, and for the same reason NVidia has a big incentive to include it.

 

[H433x0n]

Neither of those things is obvious.

I don't think that for most gamers having access to either DLSS or FSR is a game changer. That's what the poll on this forum showed.

So I would guess most developers are happy to include the tech in their games if Nvidia and AMD helps them to do it. All Nvidia has to do to discourage developers from being sponsored by AMD is to refuse to help them implement DLSS.

The better question would be what incentive is AMD offering for developers to be AMD sponsored that makes them accept their sponsorship? AMD has to offer more for the developer than having no sponsorship because without sponsorship Nvidia would help them implement DLSS (presumably).

As for why Nvidia doesn't implement DLSS in AMD sponsored titles, that's a decision Nvidia is making not AMD. They probably want developers to go with them because DLSS is better than FSR without any other incentive. That's the cheapest option for them. If they break their stance and just add DLSS anyways they lose the ability to pressure developers not to accept sponsorships for added revenue.

AMD has the worse offering at the moment; they need to kick in more to make it worthwhile for developers to go with them. However, they also don't need to commit more resources to try to make FSR better than DLSS. This probably makes more sense for them as Nvidia already has hardware in their graphics cards that makes DLSS function better than FSR.


I just don't like the presumed conclusion that this thread is jumping to that AMD is being anticompetitive and forcing developers to not implement DLSS when they accept an AMD sponsorship. Both companies have enough reason to do what they are doing without either engaging in anticompetitive activities.

So you think it's Nvidia blocking AMD sponsored titles from having DLSS? How do you square that with this list? Or Nvidia's statement on the controversy? Why wouldn't AMD make a definitive statement in that case? It'd be very easy for them to make a public statement calling Nvidia out if that were true.

Note- Deathloop wasn't sponsored by AMD when it first released, it was later sponsored because it became the title for the FSR2.

 

[sandorski]

So you think it's Nvidia blocking AMD sponsored titles from having DLSS? How do you square that with this list? Or Nvidia's statement on the controversy? Why wouldn't AMD make a definitive statement in that case? It'd be very easy for them to make a public statement calling Nvidia out if that were true.

Note- Deathloop wasn't sponsored by AMD when it first released, it was later sponsored because it became the title for the FSR2.

View attachment 82542

Most Game Developers are being exposed to FSR due to their Console development. That makes FSR a default part of the Game development. DLSS is almost always added, or not, later. That is also why the NVidia titles support FSR so thoroughly. The Code already contained it. Also why so little DLSS on the AMD side, the Game was complete as is.

 

[DrMrLordX]

Actually it's quite obvious.

Things like this embarrass AMD:

Reviewers might care. A lot of actual gamers don't seem to care a whit.

 

[igor_kavinski]

It's not like if the game is dropping below 30 fps, a hint will come up on screen, telling clueless gamers to use FSR or DLSS. I suspect that's also why a lot of non-techie gamers go for the most expensive card, coz then they don't have to fiddle with any settings. It just runs.