AMD accused of (and implicitly admits) preventing sponsored Games from supporting DLSS

[IkeaGnome]

1 hour ago, Nissash said:

 

4. DLSS is NVIDIA-exclusive technology only for GeForce.

 

And not even supported by all Nvidia graphics cards. Even Nvidia gains more from FSR than DLSS…

[porina]

25 minutes ago, IkeaGnome said:

And not even supported by all Nvidia graphics cards. Even Nvidia gains more from FSR than DLSS…

Does FSR run on every AMD GPU? There will still be some age cut off somewhere. I view FSR as neutral in impact in that sense. nvidia would be no better or worse off if FSR didn't exist, outside of exclusivity deals if they exist. In engine upscalers existed before that and still does.

 

New features will always take time to grow as old hardware can stick around for a while. From Steam Hardware Survey June 2023, looking at nvidia only, RTX makes up 48% so it will make the majority soon. Of the whole market it will take longer with RTX currently holding just over 30%. Ampere by itself is bigger than everything AMD combined.

[IkeaGnome]

34 minutes ago, porina said:

Does FSR run on every AMD GPU? There will still be some age cut off somewhere.

I’m sure there’s a cut off. For 2.0 AMD days 4xx and 10 series and newer. 
 

Spoiler

I don’t have a way to test it on older hardware without getting way too old. However, it’s worth noting that AMD hasn’t updated that page. FSR works on 7000 series and 40 series since that came out as well as Intel graphics cards. 
 

The limit on what can support it should be based on DX11/12 and Vulkan support. 
https://gpuopen.com/fidelityfx-superresolution/
 

I hate the mobile editor. The spoiler below isn’t going to go away….

Spoiler

[starsmine]

2 hours ago, porina said:

I'll throw in this question: would you be ok with XeSS support in an AMD sponsored title? XeSS is not limited to Intel, it also works on AMD and nvidia. It is also open. 

 

Even if nvidia made DLSS open, it still wont benefit AMD as AMD just don't have the hardware to use it. Intel is a maybe, with sufficient modification. But Intel already came up with XeSS in that role. For PC gaming as a whole, I feel the best solution is to offer all options in a game for the user to pick if they want. Implementing one does not block implementing others at a technical level. 

I think it' would be very weird under what my suspicion is on what is actually happening. 

Lets say game has budget it costs budget to implement any form of these AI upscalers. AMD gives them budget to do it, or rather does it for them. Now studio is able to move money around and implement XeSS/DLSS because AMD subsidized them to do that.

Like I honestly think that is what AMD has done in their contracts, to not prevent DLSS/XeSS from being put in, but to say don't move resources around to implement competing upscalers that you were not already including inside of your game. Its more of a soft block than a hard block, its kind of a dick move of the devs to do that even if its not in the contract. The problem is this soft blocking is nuanced, trying to explain something nuanced to gamers is... not productive. 

If AMD was contractually making the devs rip out DLSS implementations already there or preventing them from adding in DLSS post-launch, then yea AMD is doing something really scummy, but at launch? I still don't understand why a consumer wants both other than being misled by Nividia marketing hype. FSR runs on more Nvidia GPUs and does not force you to get a new GPU to use the technology. 

[porina]

24 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Like I honestly think that is what AMD has done in their contracts, to not prevent DLSS/XeSS from being put in, but to say don't move resources around to implement competing upscalers that you were not already including inside of your game. Its more of a soft block than a hard block, its kind of a dick move of the devs to do that even if its not in the contract. The problem is this soft blocking is nuanced, trying to explain something nuanced to gamers is... not productive. 

That would be an interesting scenario. I'm no game dev, so I don't know the real costs or efforts involved. To my understanding, the main effort is implementing the hooks to make any of FSR2/DLSS/XeSS work at all. Once the hooks are in place, the incremental work to implement the others is much smaller. Not zero, but it isn't like doing it all over again. Someone has to add the option in the menu, and QA might have more work to check each of them does what they're supposed to.

 

24 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I still don't understand why a consumer wants both other than being misled by Nividia marketing hype. FSR runs on more Nvidia GPUs and does not force you to get a new GPU to use the technology. 

I really don't understand this attitude. It doesn't have to be one solution for everyone. DLSS is generally accepted as better than FSR2. Implementing DLSS in addition to FSR does not harm the experience for FSR users. If there is no support for DLSS but there is for FSR, sure, I'll take it as better than nothing.

 

Again I'll bring up XeSS. It runs on newer GPUs from all three sides. It is open source. Would that be acceptable alongside FSR? If yes, why not DLSS too? If no, I'll stop wasting my time as it is pointless arguing with AMD fanboys.

 

My dream is like this example in COD MWII. Give us everything.

 

[IkeaGnome]

11 minutes ago, porina said:

Again I'll bring up XeSS. It runs on newer GPUs from all three sides. It is open source. Would that be acceptable alongside FSR? If yes, why not DLSS too? If no, I'll stop wasting my time as it is pointless arguing with AMD fanboys.

I think it all depends on where the money comes from and the terms of the contract.

I agree that it would be nice for every game to be like MW2. 

I also agree that AMD shouldn't give money to developers that then gets used on a technology they can't use. This would be like Apple giving Ford money to work on their infotainment center only for Ford to have Android car play instead. If Ford, or the game developers, are allowed to use their profits to later on add Android car play, or DLSS, then I see no problems with it. If Apple has Ford sign a contract that says "You can never put Android car play in cars that use this infotainment center", then it's anti consumer. I used Apple as an example here and am not saying they do that.

54 minutes ago, starsmine said:

I still don't understand why a consumer wants both other than being misled by Nividia marketing hype. FSR runs on more Nvidia GPUs and does not force you to get a new GPU to use the technology. 

Why can't I want to use a better option that is available with my graphics card while also rooting for open source implementations that help most everyone? Guess I bought into the "marketing hype"...

[cooky560]

44 minutes ago, porina said:

That would be an interesting scenario. I'm no game dev, so I don't know the real costs or efforts involved. To my understanding, the main effort is implementing the hooks to make any of FSR2/DLSS/XeSS work at all. Once the hooks are in place, the incremental work to implement the others is much smaller. Not zero, but it isn't like doing it all over again. Someone has to add the option in the menu, and QA might have more work to check each of them does what they're supposed to.

 

I really don't understand this attitude. It doesn't have to be one solution for everyone. DLSS is generally accepted as better than FSR2. Implementing DLSS in addition to FSR does not harm the experience for FSR users. If there is no support for DLSS but there is for FSR, sure, I'll take it as better than nothing.

 

Again I'll bring up XeSS. It runs on newer GPUs from all three sides. It is open source. Would that be acceptable alongside FSR? If yes, why not DLSS too? If no, I'll stop wasting my time as it is pointless arguing with AMD fanboys.

 

My dream is like this example in COD MWII. Give us everything.

 

There was once a time when this was the case, I still have a big box copy of the 1998 game Half-life and I can choose to render it using software, open gl, or direct x. It seems that this idea has been dropped and it's nice to see it back in a fashion with mwII.

[Nissash]

1 hour ago, porina said:

I'll throw in this question: would you be ok with XeSS support in an AMD sponsored title? XeSS is not limited to Intel, it also works on AMD and nvidia. It is also open. 

 

Even if nvidia made DLSS open, it still wont benefit AMD as AMD just don't have the hardware to use it. Intel is a maybe, with sufficient modification. But Intel already came up with XeSS in that role. For PC gaming as a whole, I feel the best solution is to offer all options in a game for the user to pick if they want. Implementing one does not block implementing others at a technical level. 

XeSS not constraining gamers to buy only intel GPUs. So implementing this won't benefit only single Intel but all GPU manufacturers.

 

Even if AMD cant use DLSS now it doesn't mean that in case of DLSS going open source, they won't find a solution.

Open sourcing will give many companies a new point of look on the technology from their perspective, and I am sure there will be very significant progress in development.

 

It's okay to keep your technology for yourself only, but you must not expect companies like Intel or AMD to pay for it!

 

For example, let's look at three hypothetical cases when Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA invest in games (let's say they have in return the same amount as invested):

1. Intel sponsoring the game "A" giving 150$.

   Game developers implement these technologies:

      XeSS (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA compatible) - 50$ returned to Intel (0% profit).

      FSR (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA compatible) - 50$ returned to Intel (0% profit).

      DLSS (Nvidia exclusive) - 100$ returned to NVIDIA (100% profit).

      Intel returned 100$

      NVIDIA - 100$ (they didn't spend any money)

2. AMD sponsoring the game "B" giving 150$.

   Game developers implement these technologies:

      XeSS (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA compatible) - 50$ returned to AMD (0% profit).

      FSR (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA compatible) - 50$ returned to AMD (0% profit).

      DLSS (Nvidia exclusive) - 100$ returned to NVIDIA (100% profit).

      AMD returned 100$

      NVIDIA - 100$ (they didn't spend any money).

3. NVIDIA sponsoring the game "C" giving150$.

   Game developers implement these technologies:

      XeSS (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA compatible) - 50$ returned to NVIDIA (0% profit).

      FSR (Intel, AMD, NVIDIA compatible) - 50$ returned to NVIDIA (0% profit).

      DLSS (Nvidia exclusive) - 50$ returned to NVIDIA (0% profit).

      NVIDIA returns 150$

Result from all 3 games:

Intel - 100$ (150$ invested)

AMD - 100$ (150$ invested)

NVIDIA - 350$ (150$ invested)

 

Well, I am not a finance manager but the result must be around the same. No matter how you look, only NVIDIA get all bonuses. In a world where implementing all three methods is a must NVIDIA literally can earn money without spending a cent (competitors paying for it), just by benevolently giving an opportunity to implement DLSS with NVIDIA fanboy's hype when it is absent.

 

I own games that have DLSS support but not an FSR or XeSS.  And never heard such a hipe (as today's topic) from NVIDIA users about injustice and other technologies. The truth is they just don't care.

 

Moving DLSS to an open source won't profit NVIDIA and most of all will bring some losses. But I am not an NVIDIA employee, or Intel or AMD. I am a buyer and gamer, and I want all technologies to be accessible at the same level. Offering all options in a game for the user to pick if they want, is the best solution, but they must be offered on equal terms.

[porina]

24 minutes ago, Nissash said:

I own games that have DLSS support but not an FSR or XeSS.  And never heard such a hipe (as today's topic) from NVIDIA users about injustice and other technologies. The truth is they just don't care.

I can't comment on your $ numbers. Either you're way more intelligent than I am such that I can't comprehend it, or it doesn't make sense.

 

As for the games that support DLSS but not others, we have to keep in mind nvidia introduced DLSS in early 2019. FSR1 wasn't released until mid 2021, and FSR2 as a rough equivalent to DLSS wasn't until 2022. For over 2 years those early games couldn't support FSR at all because it didn't exist yet, and it was another year before there was a more comparable technology. Before you say AMD could have given game devs a preview under NDA, nvidia would have given devs access to DLSS before launch too, so we're likely still looking at the same time difference.

 

If games released after FSR1 or FSR2 were available, but not supporting them, for sure let the devs know if you want it supported.

[KaitouX]

1 hour ago, Nissash said:

I own games that have DLSS support but not an FSR or XeSS.  And never heard such a hipe (as today's topic) from NVIDIA users about injustice and other technologies. The truth is they just don't care.

The issue isn't that FSR/DLSS/XeSS is the only option in some games, the issue is that AMD is supposedly forcing DLSS and XeSS out of the games they're sponsoring.

Nvidia was clear when they said they don't block alternative technologies in games they sponsor, and that can easily be seen from the amount of Nvidia sponsored games that support FSR and XeSS, and the issue on AMD side isn't limited to DLSS, from a quick check I did, 66% of the games Nvidia sponsored since FSR was released include FSR and 33% include XeSS, while 33% of the games sponsored by AMD include DLSS and only 15% include XeSS.

[HenrySalayne]

3 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

If Apple has Ford sign a contract that says "You can never put Android car play in cars that use this infotainment center", then it's anti consumer. I used Apple as an example here and am not saying they do that.

A "only FSR" clause is somewhat different. AMD is not taking anything away from Nvidia users. They get the same experience as everyone else. That's undeniably equality.

I think it's quite hard to mark it as clearly anti-competitive or anti-consumer. You can only argue that a subset of the customers of a game are not getting a better experience than the other customers. DLSS is a more mature technology (but the gap gets smaller). Is this hindering technological progress? Or does it even has the opposite effect and it creates an incentive to improve FSR and its open approach?

 

Spoiler

Disclaimer: I have a DLSS capable Nvidia GPU.

 

[IkeaGnome]

26 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

A "only FSR" clause is somewhat different. AMD is not taking anything away from Nvidia users. They get the same experience as everyone else. That's undeniably equality.

People really are bad about only reading parts of posts here....

4 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

I think it all depends on where the money comes from and the terms of the contract.

 

4 hours ago, IkeaGnome said:

If Ford, or the game developers, are allowed to use their profits to later on add Android car play, or DLSS, then I see no problems with it.

 

26 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

I think it's quite hard to mark it as clearly anti-competitive or anti-consumer

It's not hard to mark it. It's only difficult because we won't see the terms of contracts unless someone actually goes after AMD. 

 

27 minutes ago, HenrySalayne said:

You can only argue that a subset of the customers of a game are not getting a better experience than the other customers.

What card can run DLSS that can't run FSR? None. They get the same experience. You or I aren't worse off if FSR is implemented in a game but DLSS isn't. 

The only variables behind this being anti consumer are behind closed doors to us currently. Are game devs deciding to spend more time on the game than implementing 2 upscaling technologies? Not anti consumer. Is AMD telling devs for sponsored games not to implement DLSS because they don't want both technologies in the same game? Anti Consumer, and at that point, why aren't we talking about Sony? 

[Nissash]

17 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

The issue isn't that FSR/DLSS/XeSS is the only option in some games, the issue is that AMD is supposedly forcing DLSS and XeSS out of the games they're sponsoring.

You said it yourself "...they're sponsoring." Why AMD or Intel must give money to NVIDIA? They can spend their money as they want. And it's not like game developers have no choice (they know what they are signing).  So you can blame developers for the same "evil" thing as AMD.

20 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

Nvidia was clear when they said they don't block alternative technologies in games they sponsor, and that can easily be seen from the amount of Nvidia sponsored games that support FSR and XeSS, and the issue on AMD side isn't limited to DLSS, from a quick check I did, 66% of the games Nvidia sponsored since FSR was released include FSR and 33% include XeSS, while 33% of the games sponsored by AMD include DLSS and only 15% include XeSS.

The answer is

Quote

FSR is not really a "competitor technology", NVIDIA can use this as well, there is no point in blocking it at all. DLSS, on the other hand, their own technology that can be used on their-exclusive GPUs, of course,  support, tools, technologies, etc. will be provided! They will make a huge profit out of DLSS!

...

NVIDIA... While looking all good and benevolent outside it simply states that we will not restrict any already open source technology while you use our-exclusive DLSS and we make money on it!

More games supporting FSR or XeSS is really a logical decision. What will you choose, to invest money and time in FSR or XeSS that will work with Intel, AMD and NVIDIA or invest the same money and time in DLSS that will work only with NVIDIA?

XeSS is newer so there are fewer games but I am sure there will be more.

 

Ps. My opinion on the Hardware Unboxed brainwashing video about this situation.

       One of the worst videos I saw on a youtube tech channel! So biased toward AMD! It feels like NVIDIA fanboy hate speech! I was like "How much NVIDIA paid you?". It is so one-sided and biased, ignoring all the negative factors on the part of NVIDIA, making it an absolutely innocent victim covering themselves with gamers.
It feels like real brainwashing! Let's say it's just bad.
Oh, and there is an ongoing anti-AMD holy war (with burning people) on their Twitter account!

 

It's better to look for a List of games that support high-fidelity upscaling it will be more interesting.

[leadeater]

On 7/4/2023 at 7:31 PM, porina said:

Option B is essentially what we have now. We already have the APIs to the functionality, the problem being they're separate APIs. Streamline would provide a consistent API front end for everyone.

It's not essentially the same since they aren't direct plugins to the game engine using common standard meaning you don't have to make one for each game engine. Do that and Streamline does become absolutely unnecessary. That's how OpenXR works for example. You can also use OpenXR or Windows Mixed Reality natively in Unity or Unreal with no middle layers required.

 

Streamline is offering the above capability and end result that is not currently being offered despite both companies saying if you implement one upscaling technology using either engine adding another is minimal effort.

 

On 7/4/2023 at 7:31 PM, porina said:

You couldn't miss the point harder if you tried. I'm thinking specifically about allowing more possible 3rd party injection without needing a second of extra game dev time.

 

For example, say one of the new Chinese GPU makers came up with an implementation optimised for their GPU, it would be a challenge to get game devs to add yet another variation. With a common front end, this could just be slotted in place.

I did not, you aren't getting my point. If you have a standard format that everything MUST use i.e DirectX and every DirectX sub feature you do not need a middle layer, everything speaks DirectX. All you need is a GPU driver and beyond that everything works. There is no Nvidia DirectX, AMD DirectX, Intel DirectX etc. You just have DirectX.

 

If Upscaling was a DirectX feature, like DXR, then all you need is support within the game engine for it and that is simple since it's entirely standardized, like DXR. You can however right now go in to Unreal Engine, go to plugins, search FSR and simply enable the plugin and you have FSR 2 feature support. This plugin was created by AMD/GPUOpen. On the Nvidia side the DLSS 3 plugin for Unreal Engine is and is now only Streamline. Why pick Streamline in Unreal Engine to implement FSR when there is a native FSR Plugin?

 

You don't need nor is real time ray tracing part of Nvidia GameWorks, there is no "Streamline" for DXR because it's not required. GameWorks has OptiX but that's not DXR/RTX Ray Tracing for games. Every part of GameWorks and OpenGPU is to implement non standard features or provide tools within the game engine to optimize assets and custom shader programs for their architectures.

 

There is no DirectX Upscaling features, there is no DXR equivalent for DLSS/FSR/XeSS. All of this is non standard and not part of DirectX or Vulkan.

 

So tell me again why Streamline is actually necessary? Everything I am seeing is Streamline exists purely and only due to deficiencies elsewhere that don't have to exist. Why is it a good idea for this to be anything other than natively in DirectX and Vulkan?

Edited July 5, 2023 by leadeater

[porina]

42 minutes ago, leadeater said:

There is no DirectX Upscaling features, there is no DXR equivalent for DLSS/FSR/XeSS. All of this is non standard and not part of DirectX or Vulkan.

 

So tell me again why Streamline is actually necessary? Everything I am seeing is Streamline exists purely and only due to deficiencies elsewhere that don't have to exist. Why is it a good idea for this to be anything other than natively in DirectX and Vulkan?

You answer your question in 2nd paragraph with the line immediately before it. MS could define that standard interface, but they haven't. Likewise whoever runs Vulkan. Nvidia took the initiative.

 

I stand by my previous post to you. As has happened before it seems to have a disconnect in what we're talking about, and I'm not in the mood to try and unravel that.

[leadeater]

12 minutes ago, porina said:

You answer your question in 2nd paragraph with the line immediately before it. MS could define that standard interface, but they haven't. Likewise whoever runs Vulkan. Nvidia took the initiative.

 

I stand by my previous post to you. As has happened before it seems to have a disconnect in what we're talking about, and I'm not in the mood to try and unravel that.

You should check my edit I just made. TLDR Unreal Engine requires a plugin to use either. To use DLSS 3 you must and can only use Streamline Plugin. There is however an native FSR plugin. Why would you use the Streamline Unreal Engine plugin over using the native FSR Unreal Plugin?

 

Name the benefit to the game developer.

 

I cannot see what Streamline is actually offering here, a plugin that supports a plugin to do a thing that can be done with an existing plugin that is not maintained by any game developers or the game engine developers either. This could all be brought in native to the engines like I said but it's not right now and I do not see what Streamline is actually addressing right now other than Intel not having to develop and maintain it's own XeSS plugins for the game engines but instead for Streamline. So sure it cuts down having to make a plugin for Unreal, Unity, Forstbite etc but Intel doesn't already have these and multiple years of them, AMD does so Streamline is offering something to Intel that isn't the same for AMD.

 

What Nvidia is offering only looks good on paper and in marketing type slides. There is no current or ongoing issue with upscaling support within game engines other than probably Intel and only because it's so new. So I really do not understand why it's a criticism for AMD to not be getting "onboard" with something not necessary to them. If they want to do all the work and provide all the plugins for the game engines let them, the industry does not benefit from them adopting Streamline since they aren't the ones doing the work in the first place.

[porina]

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

You should check my edit I just made.

As it isn't obvious to me what the changes were, I'm not about to re-read the whole thing to try and find it right now.

 

11 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Name the benefit to the game developer.

I'm not a game dev. I'm going to make the assumption you're not either. What we think they want or do, may not be correct. When reading your latest reply, what you think is happening again doesn't match what I think is happening in how integration works. I'm not confident enough in my position to push that further. 

[leadeater]

8 hours ago, starsmine said:

Lets say game has budget it costs budget to implement any form of these AI upscalers. AMD gives them budget to do it, or rather does it for them. Now studio is able to move money around and implement XeSS/DLSS because AMD subsidized them to do that.

Like I honestly think that is what AMD has done in their contracts, to not prevent DLSS/XeSS from being put in, but to say don't move resources around to implement competing upscalers that you were not already including inside of your game. Its more of a soft block than a hard block, its kind of a dick move of the devs to do that even if its not in the contract. The problem is this soft blocking is nuanced, trying to explain something nuanced to gamers is... not productive. 

Sponsoring a game with funds and development efforts and having a clause that their money is not spent on anything but what is defined in the agreement and also not on "anything else" is or should be standard. That type of thing would be in an Nvidia contract, neither company would want their money spent on the other company's thing no matter what Nvidia statement says on the face of it.

 

So sure no Nvidia contract has or will ever have anything in it directly blocking another thing and their statement is 100% true and factual, doesn't mean that there isn't fine detail difficulties involved. Making sure you can prove to the sponsoring company exactly what their money has been spent on might not be so easy for every developer, I know our project budgeting and accounting couldn't ever hope to do it but we have never needed to do anything like that. I know in the research funding space they do since government grants or industry grants require to show exactly what the money has been spent on and you have to pay back any improperly spent funds not inline with the grant conditions.

 

I fear however that AMD's contract wording might not be up to scratch or is in a way that doesn't look so great which might be more of a problem than Nvidia's. Nvidia has been on the receiving side of public backlash before so they probably know better about that sort of thing. Or there is a release exclusivity clause which would be really stupid and would basically doom any future support since that rarely happens after the fact.

[KaitouX]

50 minutes ago, Nissash said:

You said it yourself "...they're sponsoring." Why AMD or Intel must give money to NVIDIA? They can spend their money as they want. And it's not like game developers have no choice (they know what they are signing).  So you can blame developers for the same "evil" thing as AMD.

They aren't giving Nvidia money, DLSS doesn't cost anything to implement, it would be marketing a Nvidia feature, but that feature is blocked for anyone that doesn't already own a compatible GPU, so it kinda fails as marketing, and it would be completely on the developer to decide if they want to add DLSS and XeSS on the game and for the consumer to ask for support of the one they want. Just like there are non-sponsored games that only include one or other upscaling technique.

Developers obviously have less leverage than AMD in that agreement, plus publishers can also force devs. But the people on developer/publisher side are also guilty of being anti-consumer if they accept an anti-consumer sponsorship.

50 minutes ago, Nissash said:

More games supporting FSR or XeSS is really a logical decision. What will you choose, to invest money and time in FSR or XeSS that will work with Intel, AMD and NVIDIA or invest the same money and time in DLSS that will work only with NVIDIA?

XeSS is newer so there are fewer games but I am sure there will be more.

You ignored the part where AMD sponsored titles have XeSS half as many times compared to Nvidia sponsored. If the developers, or the players want to use DLSS then they should be given the choice, same for XeSS, DLSS is the better option currently and Nvidia GPUs are really popular, so it's obvious many will prefer it, and you act like it's really expensive and time consuming to implement those technologies, when for the most part it isn't, in most cases it's reasonably easy to implement them. You also ignore the fact that Nvidia owns the majority of the market share, so even that "Just Nvidia" is 30% of the GPUs in the market when considering only DLSS compatible Nvidia GPUs, and that number is probably keep increasing as more people upgrade to RTX GPUs.

1 hour ago, Nissash said:

Ps. My opinion on the Hardware Unboxed brainwashing video about this situation.

       One of the worst videos I saw on a youtube tech channel! So biased toward AMD! It feels like NVIDIA fanboy hate speech! I was like "How much NVIDIA paid you?". It is so one-sided and biased, ignoring all the negative factors on the part of NVIDIA, making it an absolutely innocent victim covering themselves with gamers.
It feels like real brainwashing! Let's say it's just bad.
Oh, and there is an ongoing anti-AMD holy war (with burning people) on their Twitter account!

HUB criticized Nvidia pretty much every launch in the last few years, due to DLSS, RTX, Nvidia trying to block review samples, bad performance and value some times, they also called Nvidia last 2 releases (4060 and 4060Ti) trash and recommended RX6000 GPUs instead.

Also it makes sense that they would criticize AMD, Nvidia made a ridiculous series of bad releases, and AMD still manages to fail to capitalize on it, and have a series of PR fumbles on top of that.

[leadeater]

18 minutes ago, porina said:

As it isn't obvious to me what the changes were, I'm not about to re-read the whole thing to try and find it right now.

I put it in the post as well.

 

As stated and I'll do it again, there is a readily available plugin for all the game engines for FSR, there is also one for Streamline. These are created by AMD and Nvidia respectively.

 

 

AMD either has to create a plugin for Streamline or maintain all existing plugins for all their existing game engines they support. First means doing something new, supporting an Nvidia technology and losing direct control and integration in to game engines because they must standardize on Nvidia's technology. Doesn't sound like a good deal to AMD to me and I don't see how Unreal, Unity or game developers benefit when it's AMD doing all the work in the first place, if they want to keep doing this what is the problem? What is Streamline actually addressing in regards to FSR?

 

Edit:

P.S. Streamline is not supported in Unity yet anyway, at least not as a native part of the engine development tools and plugins etc. I guess you should be able to use it but it's not like the above in Unreal far as I can see.

[porina]

7 hours ago, leadeater said:

As stated and I'll do it again, there is a readily available plugin for all the game engines for FSR, there is also one for Streamline. These are created by AMD and Nvidia respectively.

My probably over-simplified viewpoint:

Without Streamline or similar: devs talk to FSR. devs talk to DLSS. devs talk to XeSS. etc.

With Streamline or similar: devs talk to that

[AlTech]

14 minutes ago, porina said:

My probably over-simplified viewpoint:

Without Streamline or similar: devs talk to FSR. devs talk to DLSS. devs talk to XeSS. etc.

With Streamline or similar: devs talk to that

Sure. Problem is AMD doesn't want anything to do with Nvidia Streamline cos they see it as Nvidia trying to get devs to focus on Nvidia instead of being neutral.

 

If Khronos Group was in charge of Streamline, AMD would be fine with joining but Nvidia is in charge of it so AMD's not gonna join it.

[porina]

41 minutes ago, AlTech said:

If Khronos Group was in charge of Streamline, AMD would be fine with joining but Nvidia is in charge of it so AMD's not gonna join it.

This was covered already. Neither they nor MS for DX have attempted to do similar as far as we know.

[LAwLz]

20 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Here is Tim's take from Hardware Unboxed:

 

 

TL;DW: He is convinced AMD does indeed hinder DLSS implementation because of AMD's behaviour around this whole mess combined with the statistics of FSR vs. DLSS implementations. He said AMD will have to release a genuine and believable statement to convince him of the opposite.

I am usually not a big fan of Hardware Unboxed, but I think that video matches all my current thoughts very well.

 

The amount of benefit of the doubt you have to give AMD at this point to not suspect anything shady and anti-competitive is quite a lot. And I think his comment at around 12:25 kind of nullifies any and all debates about DLSS vs FSR as well. The way to compete is to make a better product and let that win on merits. You don't claim to make a better products, and then use underhanded tactics and backroom deals to make comparisons impossible.

[Nissash]

13 hours ago, KaitouX said:

They aren't giving Nvidia money, DLSS doesn't cost anything to implement, it would be marketing a Nvidia feature, but that feature is blocked for anyone that doesn't already own a compatible GPU, so it kinda fails as marketing, and it would be completely on the developer to decide if they want to add DLSS and XeSS on the game and for the consumer to ask for support of the one they want. Just like there are non-sponsored games that only include one or other upscaling technique.

It`s literally like selling "free DLC", but to play it you must buy the full game. Yes, it is not directly giving money to NVIDIA but indirectly is.

"...DLSS doesn't cost anything to implement..." but it cost time and human resources, and according to NVIDIA SDKs LICENSE you must:

 

1. "...include the NVIDIA Marks on splash screens, in the about box of the application (if present), and in credits for game applications."

2. "...You hereby grant to NVIDIA the right to create and display self-promotional demo materials using the Assets, and after release of the application to the public to distribute, sub-license, and use the Assets to promote and market the NVIDIA RTX SDKs. To the extent you provide NVIDIA with input or usage requests with regard to the use of your logo or materials, NVIDIA will use commercially reasonable efforts to comply with such requests. For the avoidance of doubt, NVIDIA’s rights pursuant to this section shall survive any termination of the Agreement with respect to applications which incorporate the NVIDIA RTX SDK."

 

So no it`s not "... it kinda fails as marketing" it is marketing. (And it is only a small part of 7 pages of text.)

13 hours ago, KaitouX said:

Developers obviously have less leverage than AMD in that agreement, plus publishers can also force devs. But the people on developer/publisher side are also guilty of being anti-consumer if they accept an anti-consumer sponsorship.

I agree with this except for the part about GPU manufacturers having more leverage. Developers, publishers, and GPU manufacturers have the same responsibility if they accept an anti-consumer sponsorship. 

 

13 hours ago, KaitouX said:

You ignored the part where AMD sponsored titles have XeSS half as many times compared to Nvidia sponsored. 

I am not ignoring XeSS. It`s just I am less knowledgeable about the XeSS situation so don't want to speculate too bluntly about it. It is the newest technology and It doesn't have a large amount of games implementation to talk about.

 

But I found Intel XeSS Compatible GPU List:

Nvidia GPU
GTX 10 series
GTX 16 series
RTX 20 series
RTX 30 series
RTX 40 series

AMD GPU
RX 5000 series 
RX 6000 series
RX 7000 series

Intel GPU
Intel Arc GPUs
Intel Xe-LP integrated GPUs (11th generation mobile CPUs and newer)

 

There is a fairly larger amount of games with require older Nvidia GPUs than newer AMD so it is logical that XeSS will prioritize these games.

 

EDIT. And I just found this article, which claims"... that XeSS in its first outing is comparable to NVIDIA's DLSS 2.3 technology rather than AMD's FSR 2.0."

13 hours ago, KaitouX said:

If the developers, or the players want to use DLSS then they should be given the choice, ...

They have a choice. If you accept someone's sponsorship you must act according to the terms. If you don't like terms just don't accept sponsorship.

13 hours ago, KaitouX said:

...you act like it's really expensive and time consuming to implement those technologies, when for the most part it isn't, in most cases it's reasonably easy to implement them.

It depends on a lot of factors. It can take from 3 days with UE4/UE5 to a month or more with other more game-specific engines. So it can be expensive. 

13 hours ago, KaitouX said:

You also ignore the fact that Nvidia owns the majority of the market share, so even that "Just Nvidia" is 30% of the GPUs in the market when considering only DLSS compatible Nvidia GPUs, and that number is probably keep increasing as more people upgrade to RTX GPUs.

Just because they own the majority of the market share doesn't mean we must give them free ads or make others pay (look in the first section of the post) so they can own even more.

13 hours ago, KaitouX said:

HUB criticized Nvidia pretty much every launch in the last few years, due to DLSS, RTX, Nvidia trying to block review samples, bad performance and value some times, they also called Nvidia last 2 releases (4060 and 4060Ti) trash and recommended RX6000 GPUs instead.

Also it makes sense that they would criticize AMD, Nvidia made a ridiculous series of bad releases, and AMD still manages to fail to capitalize on it, and have a series of PR fumbles on top of that.

I never said that HUB is totally on Nvidia's side. I saw the videos about Nvidia, DLSS, and 4060.

I don't like this particular video. It really badly made. Looks like hate speech (and it is). 

The video contains many assumptions, FSR and DLSS compatibility lists are inaccurate. It does not take into account the fault of publishers and developers. It requires the mandatory introduction of DLSS (since it is a proprietary technology, it technically plays on the Nvidia side, see the first section of the post), which generally depends not on AMD but on game developers.

At the same time, I too want to hear a normal answer from AMD about this situation.