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

[Blademaster91]

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

I am not surprised, but I am disappointed, that this forum seems to side with AMD when they are doing something blatently anti-competetive.

It is quite the opposite actually, people defend companies like Nvidia quite a lot here, particularly for things like RTX or DLSS.

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

Paying a company to not use something from your competitor, is never okay. If these allegations are true, and even if FSR is really close in terms of DLSS performance, it's still not okay to pay money to a company to have them ignore your competitors product.

Except we don't know if AMD is paying the devs to not use DLSS, AMD could just be paying them to add FSR and the logo, and thats it, or they could be paying them to not use DLSS, we don't know yet.  People insist there is an AMD bias, yet there is a lot of jumping to conclusions that AMD went and pulled an Nvidia.

And the funny thing is Nvidia does this all the time with their proprietary features, yet it isn't in the news.

25 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If FSR is so close in performance then just let devs implement that and be done with it. There is no need to forcefully block then from implementing DLSS unless the developers feel like spending the time implementing it in addition to FSR is worth it. 

Please be realistic, that won't happen because Nvidia pays devs to use DLSS, devs aren't going to spend extra time adding FSR as that would cost more even though FSR is a more available tech, especially for gamers with older GPU's.

Edited June 30, 2023 by Blademaster91

[LAwLz]

9 minutes ago, starsmine said:

We still dont even know that is what is happening. All AMD has said was "No Comment". I gave a possible other reading of the situation. 

Paying a studio to NOT add dlss is different than Telling a studio to not use resources given to them by AMD for the use of adding DLSS.
One of these situations leaves the door open to either before AMD was involved or after the game release including DLSS. 

There could be other variations as well not brought up.... Or amd is actually preventing games from supporting DLSS, we dont know yet.

Yes, which is why I said:  

17 minutes ago, LAwLz said:

If these allegations are true

 

There are a few people in this thread who are defending AMD while also assuming the allegations are true, and that's really, really dumb in my opinion. As I said, paying a company to exclude your competitor is never okay.

[Avocado Diaboli]

So let me get this straight, some games that AMD sponsor don't get DLSS but most that Nvidia sponsor get FSR support. And people are surprised? Guess how many consoles support DLSS. Now guess how many support FSR and do the math why all DLSS enabled games also support FSR but not the reverse. 

 

I highly doubt AMD is paying companies to specifically not implement DLSS into their games and I see nothing to make that assumption in the first place. 

[strajk-]

4 hours ago, starsmine said:

Ima be honest.
I dont see any reason to have both DLSS 2 and FSR 2 support in a game.

Just do FSR 2, it runs on my Nvidia cards. If AMD is giving a dev team extra resources, why spend divert that money to add DLSS 2? 

There can be a simple reason for it, performance.

If DLSS performs better on nvidia cards both in terms of frames and quality, then why not?

 

If developers want to implement both in order to give the best possible experience to as many customers as possible, then I see it as an inherently bad thing if a competitor is attempting to sabotage development by denying customers access to certain features.

 

If FSR was superior to DLSS on nvidia cards, then I could accept AMD's approach, since it could be seen as "goodwill" to save them development time and focus on other matters instead.

[LAwLz]

5 minutes ago, strajk- said:

If FSR was superior to DLSS on nvidia cards, then I could accept AMD's approach, since it could be seen as "goodwill" to save them development time and focus on other matters instead.

Even if FSR was better in every possible way, I still don't think it would be justified to tell developers they were not allowed to implement DLSS.

If FSR was better then developers would not spend the time and effort implementing DLSS anyway. They wouldn't have to be forced to disregard DLSS.

 

I feel like a lot of people have been caught up in some argument about whether or not FRS is better/worse than DLSS and are missing the bigger issue, that AMD might be paying one company to not use a product from a different company. That is bad in every single situation, regardless of which companies are involved and which technologies/products are being blocked. It is never justifiable to tell one company to not use something from a competitor. That exact thing has been grounds for several anti-trust cases before. 

 

This whole thing reminds me of when Microsoft gave away Internet Explorer for free, and told PC makers to not ship their computers with Netscape Navigator.

Internet Explorer was free and arguably as good if not better than Netscape Navigator, but they were still not allowed to tell companies like Compaq "You are not allowed to ship Netscape Navigator". If Compaq wanted to foot the bill and pay to ship another browser in addition to Internet Explorer, despite Internet Explorer being better, they should be able to. That's not just my opinion but was also the opinion of the US legal system at the time.

[porina]

5 hours ago, starsmine said:

I dont see any reason to have both DLSS 2 and FSR 2 support in a game.

The incremental effort probably isn't significant. It isn't zero either. To my understanding the hooks into the game engine required to implement FSR2, DLSS or XeSS are essentially the same, which is why modders can do it when games themselves don't. There may be some additional verification and a bigger setting in the menu is needed. Basic scaling like NIS and FSR1 are even simpler.

 

COD MWII is an example they can implement everything if they want:

 

5 hours ago, starsmine said:

AMD has NOT admitted, they just explicitly did not comment.

I'm in two minds about this. For rumours and speculation, typical company policy is a "no comment" because you could eventually work out what is going on by looking at what isn't denied. However at times it is better looking to give a straight answer like nvidia did in this instance. Just outright say it.

 

On the flip side, if AMD is doing as claimed, they could also just be open about it. Exclusivity deals are not a new thing. There will be give and take as part of sponsorships.

 

Another possibility is there is an NDA saying neither can discuss terms like this in the open.

 

4 hours ago, AlTech said:

I think the emphasis was on NEW. GTX and GT Nvidia cards work on FSR whereas they don't on DLSS.

May 2023 Steam Hardware Survey, of individually listed GPUs, RTX GPUs made up 31% of everything. While still not a majority, it is significant, and continues to grow. Non-RTX nvidia 33%, and all AMD 10%. All Intel 7%.

[sodapone]

Honestly yeah, AMD could've just let the developers add DLSS to their games but have them pay the development cost out of pocket--the more involved process and smaller applicable userbase would probably make them less likely to do it anyway.
 

This is just bad PR for no appreciable gain, presumably all out of AMD's fear.

[leadeater]

1 hour ago, Blademaster91 said:

And the funny thing is Nvidia does this all the time with their proprietary features, yet it isn't in the news.

Nvidia doing it isn't new so isn't "news" and people hold a belief that AMD wouldn't do it which makes it "news".

[Spotty]

1 minute ago, leadeater said:

Nvidia doing it isn't new so isn't "news" and people hold a belief that AMD wouldn't do it which makes it "news".

It baffles me how there are still people out there that still have this "AMD vs Nvidia" mindset and think of these companies as "the good guy" or "the bad guy" who would be surprised that AMD would do this.

 

What would be AMD's end goal here? Have people think that Nvidia's DLSS isn't worth it because not all games support it? Create the illusion that developers aren't going to support DLSS making AMD a better choice? Maybe it'll work, but honestly just seems like a desperate move if it's true.

 

I haven't used either DLSS or FSR. My GPU is old and the games I play are older. Is FSR 2 that much worse than DLSS 3.0 when run on Nvidia cards? If it was Nvidia preventing games from supporting AMDs FSR then I would see that as a bigger issue since it would lock AMD cards out of upscaling features. It might be more of an issue if the rumours that AMDs FSR 3.0 is going to be limited to AMD cards only are true and developers in the future only support FSR 3 locking out Nvidia cards from upscaling and frame generation.

 

If games not supporting DLSS really bothers you then complaining about AMD isn't going to change it. Get on social media and hound the developers of those games to add DLSS support to their games. Boycott the AMD sponsored games that don't support DLSS. The developers of those games probably might not add DLSS (especially if their existing deal with AMD prohibits it) but if the wider market tells developers that DLSS is important to them and refuses to buy those games developers won't take the deal with those terms.
But of course in the real world everyone will say they're going to boycott stuff then they'll be rushing to buy it the day pre-orders become available thinking that their  one purchase won't matter and before you know it the game will be setting new sales records. Gamers

[Stahlmann]

6 hours ago, AlTech said:

Damnit AMD, when you do stuff like this it does tend to undermine people viewing you as consumer friendly or caring about gamers.

Sometimes i envy people for their naivety. AMD isn't any more pro consumer or "pro gamer" than Nvidia, Intel, Gigabyte or any other company. They're pro investor first and foremost.

 

6 hours ago, starsmine said:

Ima be honest.
I dont see any reason to have both DLSS 2 and FSR 2 support in a game.

Just do FSR 2, it runs on my Nvidia cards. If AMD is giving a dev team extra resources, why spend divert that money to add DLSS 2? 

Because DLSS is the better product. It's not open-source, but when both are implemented the DLSS variant always looks better than FSR, not to mention the frame generation feature of 3.0 can help to almost double the fps of Nvidia users. Come to think of it, that's probably why AMD doesn't want DLSS in these games. The frame generation feature will make Nvidia cards look much, much faster in comparisons between DLSS 3 and FSR 2.

 

5 hours ago, starsmine said:

To FSR 1.0 yes... But DLSS 2.0 is also vastly superior to DLSS 1.0 as well. 

Its a hair better than FSR 2.0, but not enough to split hairs over given the fact they ALL inherently look worse than native. If you cared about how much it looks you would not be using any of them. IMO its not worth the investment to put in DLSS AND FSR when DLSS only works with Nvidia and FSR works with nvidia, intel and AMD. 

While FSR might be supported by more GPUs, there is no doubt that DLSS is currently always the better option on GPUs that support it. So you cannot deny that AMD is intentionally handicapping their compeitiors with this move. Whether you're advocating for Nvidia, Intel or AMD, you should never endorse anti competitive behavior like this.

[Stahlmann]

8 minutes ago, Spotty said:

Get on social media and hound the developers of those games to add DLSS support to their games.

Alternatively people like PureDark will just mod DLSS or FSR into a game that doesn't support it natively.

 

In the end no amount of complaining on reddit or twitter will make AMD stop trying to handicap their competition as this is a business decision, not a moral one.

[Blademaster91]

35 minutes ago, leadeater said:

Nvidia doing it isn't new so isn't "news" and people hold a belief that AMD wouldn't do it which makes it "news".

It would be news as this is news on a upcoming game title, however I don't see how this is news for two reasons, AMD hasn't confirmed it, and the second being its a WCCF article. I really wish people would stop using clickbait rumor sources as news.

49 minutes ago, sodapone said:

presumably all out of AMD's fear.

Fear of what though? If both DLSS and FSR are options, reviewers with a bias for Nvidia still complain that FSR sucks.

[starsmine]

11 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Sometimes i envy people for their naivety. AMD isn't any more pro consumer or "pro gamer" than Nvidia, Intel, Gigabyte or any other company. They're pro investor first and foremost.

 

Because DLSS is the better product. It's not open-source, but when both are implemented the DLSS variant always looks better than FSR, not to mention the frame generation feature of 3.0 can help to almost double the fps of Nvidia users. Come to think of it, that's probably why AMD doesn't want DLSS in these games. The frame generation feature will make Nvidia cards look much, much faster in comparisons between DLSS 3 and FSR 2.

 

While FSR might be supported by more GPUs, there is no doubt that DLSS is always the better option on GPUs that support it. So you cannot deny that AMD is intentionally handicapping their compeitiors with this move. Whether you're advocating for Nvidia, Intel or AMD, you should never endorse anti competitive behavior like this.

Every time someone brings up DLSS 3, I question them. 
why do you want more FPS? Is it not for input latency? Is it not so the action you do on your controller of choice, to be shown on screen sooner?

Why would anyone want a feature for games that makes your input latency worse? Cool, you have 80 visual fps but now you have the input latency of 40 fps and visual artifacts while with DLSS 2.0 you could have just had the input latency of 60 fps. 

At the frame rate needed for DLSS 3 to work well is also at the point where DLSS 3 is not needed. 

[Stahlmann]

5 minutes ago, starsmine said:

Every time someone brings up DLSS 3, I question them. 
why do you want more FPS? Is it not for input latency? Is it not so the action you do on your controller of choice, to be shown on screen sooner?

Why would anyone want a feature for games that makes your input latency worse? Cool, you have 80 visual fps but now you have the input latency of 40 fps and visual artifacts while with DLSS 2.0 you could have just had the input latency of 60 fps. 

It doesn't really make latency worse. I'm amazed people still don't get it.

 

It's true that a game running 120 fps using DLSS 3.0 frame generation will feel similar to a 60 fps game. But how is that a downside when the DLSS off performance is 60 fps anyway? You're just getting the same latency, but smoother motion. In most singleplayer games you really don't need lower latency than what 60 fps offers, but double the motion smoothness will still deliver a better overall visual experience.

 

Take other games for example that are locked to 30 or 60 fps (console to PC ports for example). Would you prefer to play them at 30 fps with 33 ms of latency or play them at 60 fps with the same latency. I will always prefer the 60 fps version in this example.

 

Yes, getting 120 fps by using DLSS 3 feels worse than native 120 fps, but you're not getting 120 fps by disabling it.

[starsmine]

6 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

It doesn't really make latency worse. I'm amazed people still don't get it.

 

It's true that a game running 120 fps using DLSS 3.0 frame generation will feel similar to a 60 fps game. But how is that a downside when the DLSS off performance is 60 fps anyway.. You're just getting the same latency, but smoother motion. In most singleplayer games you really don't need lower latency than what 60 fps offers, but double the motion smoothness will still deliver a better overall visual experience.

 

Take other games for example that are locked to 30 or 60 fps (console to PC ports for example). Would you prefer to play them at 30 fps with 33 ms of latency or play them at 60 fps with the same latency. I will always prefer the 60 fps version in this example.

In EVERY game tested it made Latency worse. 

Im amazed people still dont get that. Its literally how it works. 
If you want to run DLSS to boost FPS, stay with 2.0, and avoid 3.0

[porina]

5 minutes ago, starsmine said:

In EVERY game tested it made Latency worse. 

What is being measured and presented? The selling point of DLSS3 is that with it on, the latency is should still be better than native rendering. Upscaling part reduces latency more than the frame generation part increases it. If you're comparing frame generation on/off with upscaling on both, it can only be worse.

 

Edit: since you edited in charts after I quoted, those charts do support what I said above. DLSS3 is lower latency than native.

[Blademaster91]

10 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Sometimes i envy people for their naivety. AMD isn't any more pro consumer or "pro gamer" than Nvidia, Intel, Gigabyte or any other company. They're pro investor first and foremost.

AMD isn't any more pro-consumer than Nvidia, although Nvidia has become completely out of touch with the gaming market since the RTX 30 series, and cares more about AI than the gaming market.

This is probably a hot take, but adding FSR makes a lot more sense as FSR will run on a decent majority Of GPU's, while DLSS does not.

10 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

Because DLSS is the better product. It's not open-source, but when both are implemented the DLSS variant always looks better than FSR, not to mention the frame generation feature of 3.0 can help to almost double the fps of Nvidia users. Come to think of it, that's probably why AMD doesn't want DLSS in these games. The frame generation feature will make Nvidia cards look much, much faster in comparisons between DLSS 3 and FSR 2.

While DLSS does looks slightly better, it doesn't look better enough to buy a 4070 over a 6900XT. 

Also DLSS3 is only available to RTX 40 series cards, and I personally wouldn't trust any reviewer that makes a comparison of DLSS3 with frame gen to FSR 2. In my opinion using frame gen should only be used if the card can't run a game sufficiently with only upscaling, because adding frame gen impacts latency and image quality too significantly it should be only used as a option for low end cards.

11 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

While FSR might be supported by more GPUs, there is no doubt that DLSS is always the better option on GPUs that support it. So you cannot deny that AMD is intentionally handicapping their compeitiors with this move. Whether you're advocating for Nvidia, Intel or AMD, you should never endorse anti competitive behavior like this.

Then people shouldn't be advocating for DLSS or other anti-competitive things that purposely limit the technology to a single brand.

[Stahlmann]

2 hours ago, starsmine said:

In EVERY game tested it made Latency worse. 

Im amazed people still dont get that. 

 

All the following comparisons i make talk about native vs. DLSS quality + frame gen.

 

In Cyberpunk the latency stays the same but fps are almost tripled:

Spoiler

 

In flight sim you're losing 11 ms while gainingalmost double the fps:

Spoiler

 

 

In F1 you're lower than native while getting over double the fps:

Spoiler

 

You should really have a look at this article: Nvidia DLSS 3: Fake Frames or Big Gains? | TechSpot

 

 

[starsmine]

1 minute ago, porina said:

What is being measured and presented? The selling point of DLSS3 is that with it on, the latency is should still be better than native rendering. Upscaling part reduces latency more than the frame generation part increases it. If you're comparing frame generation on/off with upscaling on both, it can only be worse.

In most games, DLSS 3 will have better latency then native but that's not guaranteed. spiderman is known to not. DLSS 3 only adds latency, it uses DLSS 2 and reflex to bring it down and uses that budget of latency to do the frame generation. Idealy without adding more to be more then native. I would imagine how often its worse than native and how much is going to be system dependent. 

[starsmine]

2 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

 

Somehow the DLSS performance + frame gen is lower performance than native in Cyberpunk:

  Hide contents

 

In flight sim you're losing 10 ms while gaining over double the fps:

 

  Hide contents

 

 

In F1 you're lower than native while tripling fps:

 

  Hide contents

 

You should really have a look at this article: Nvidia DLSS 3: Fake Frames or Big Gains? | TechSpot

 

 

So the conclusion is, stay with 2.0. 3.0 loses most of the gains you made with 2.0.

Take f1 22, now you made the game FEEL like its running at around 100fps, which yes is better than the 76 fps at native, but now the game LOOKS worse, and you could have just used DLSS 2.0 and had the game feel like 130fps. 

Just turn down the settings at that point. 

[porina]

4 minutes ago, starsmine said:

In most games, DLSS 3 will have better latency then native but that's not guaranteed. spiderman is known to not. DLSS 3 only adds latency, it uses DLSS 2 and reflex to bring it down and uses that budget of latency to do the frame generation. Idealy without adding more to be more then native. I would imagine how often its worse than native and how much is going to be system dependent. 

Generally agreed. I haven't seen Spiderman results but everything that I have seen up to this point does show DLSS3 latency below native. Exceptions are always possible. Without looking up that result, a small latency increase for a bigger increase in fps might still be worth the tradeoff for some.

[Stahlmann]

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

AMD isn't any more pro-consumer than Nvidia, although Nvidia has become completely out of touch with the gaming market since the RTX 30 series, and cares more about AI than the gaming market.

This is probably a hot take, but adding FSR makes a lot more sense as FSR will run on a decent majority Of GPU's, while DLSS does not.

While DLSS does looks slightly better, it doesn't look better enough to buy a 4070 over a 6900XT. 

I agree FSR is a great addition for legacy support. And it's fair to want to buy a natively higher performance card. Still, that's no reason to handicap GPUs that would be capable of running DLSS 3 if the game supports it.

 

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Also DLSS3 is only available to RTX 40 series cards, and I personally wouldn't trust any reviewer that makes a comparison of DLSS3 with frame gen to FSR 2. In my opinion using frame gen should only be used if the card can't run a game sufficiently with only upscaling, because adding frame gen impacts latency and image quality too significantly it should be only used as a option for low end cards.

Please read my post that i created right after yours where i show a few examples about latency.

 

I think it's fair to compare DLSS 3 to FSR 2, but the reviewer has to explicitly state that and also take image quality into conisderation.

 

8 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Then people shouldn't be advocating for DLSS or other anti-competitive things that purposely limit the technology to a single brand.

I'm advocating for DLSS as a very useful feature for Nvidia cards. However, also wouldn't advocate adding DLSS at the cost of FSR.

[Stahlmann]

3 minutes ago, starsmine said:

So the conclusion is, stay with 2.0. 3.0 loses most of the gains you made with 2.0.

Take f1 22, now you made the game FEEL like its running at around 100fps, which yes is better than the 76 fps at native, but now the game LOOKS worse, and you could have just used DLSS 2.0 and had the game feel like 130fps. 

Just turn down the settings at that point. 

And now look at the other 2 games.

 

Would you rather play Cyberpunk at 47 ms 72 fps (DLSS 2.0 quality) or 62 ms 112 fps (DLSS 3.0 frame gen).

That's a +30% latency / +56% fps tradeoff.

 

Or how about flight sim? 

58 ms 60 fps or 72 ms 112 fps?

That's +24% latency / +87% fps compared to DLSS 2.0.

 

Either way, bot are as good or better than native in terms of latency, while offer significant fps boosts. If you're still thinking it's worthless then you are trying really hard to not like it.

 

You're free to make that choice on your own. But by saying people shouldn't care about DLSS 3 you're trying to make that choice for everyone, which was my point.

[porina]

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

This is probably a hot take, but adding FSR makes a lot more sense as FSR will run on a decent majority Of GPU's, while DLSS does not.

It shouldn't be an either-or situation. Why not both for maximum flexibility?

 

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

While DLSS does looks slightly better, it doesn't look better enough to buy a 4070 over a 6900XT. 

I'd take a 4070 over any previous or current gen AMD GPU. The reason is not only DLSS.

 

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Also DLSS3 is only available to RTX 40 series cards, and I personally wouldn't trust any reviewer that makes a comparison of DLSS3 with frame gen to FSR 2.

All the data should be available. DLSS3, DLSS2, FSR2, and whatever else. As long as it is correctly labelled clearly.

 

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

In my opinion using frame gen should only be used if the card can't run a game sufficiently with only upscaling, because adding frame gen impacts latency and image quality too significantly it should be only used as a option for low end cards.

I'll go with part this. I'd first try to run a game native. If I get the performance I want, great. If not, I'll look for upscaling options to try. Only if that is still insufficient, I might look at frame generation. So far only Portal RTX had me trying out FG. Visual quality isn't an issue with it in that instance, FSR2 has more obvious failings.

 

9 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Then people shouldn't be advocating for DLSS or other anti-competitive things that purposely limit the technology to a single brand.

This is a more complex problem. Someone has to introduce new features to make things better. AMD is not that company in the GPU space, and are forever lagging nvidia. Even Intel's Arc hardware has better feature support than AMD.

[starsmine]

  

19 minutes ago, porina said:

Generally agreed. I haven't seen Spiderman results but everything that I have seen up to this point does show DLSS3 latency below native. Exceptions are always possible.

It's not much, 2ms worse, essentially the same you are not going to feel the difference, but the question is why. You now are playing a game that feels like native fps but looks worse. 

17 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

You're free to make that choice on your own. But by saying people shouldn't care about DLSS 3 you're trying to make that choice for everyone, which was my point.

What ever happened to the ultra everything mentality people used to have.
Who cares if its looks 5% better and costs 2x the resources. 
"I will run it at ultra. and then make it look worse and play worse with Frame Gen"

huh? Why anyone thinks that's a selling feature is beyond me. 

If you want more FPS, and not hurt input latency, 2.0 is the selling feature. 

 

  

17 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

And now look at the other 2 games.

 

Would you rather play Cyberpunk at 47 ms 72 fps (DLSS 2.0 quality) or 62 ms 112 fps (DLSS 3.0 frame gen).

That's a +30% latency / +56% fps tradeoff.

 

Or how about flight sim? 

58 ms 60 fps or 72 ms 112 fps?

That's +24% latency / +87% fps compared to DLSS 2.0.

 

Either way, bot are as good or better than native in terms of latency, while offer significant fps boosts. If you're still thinking it's worthless then you are trying really hard to not like it.

 

You're free to make that choice on your own. But by saying people shouldn't care about DLSS 3 you're trying to make that choice for everyone, which was my point.

Cool you just made cyber punk play like a 60fps game with DLSS 3
Cool you just made flight sim play like a 50fps game with DLSS 3

DLSS 3 as I stated before is using the budget gained from DLSS 2/reflex. 
It is literally always worse.