PC & Video Games

AMD fighting the good fight for everyone!

  • Last Updated:
  • Jun 17th, 2021 3:20 pm
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
2637 posts
3812 upvotes

AMD fighting the good fight for everyone!

AMD finally unveiled their AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution. Their competitor to DLSS. Launches June 22nd.



It's completely open source, non-proprietary unlike nVidia, and it's compatible with damn near everything AMD currently offers for the past several generations. Of course it will be available for the Series consoles (Series S could be a great benefactor), and maybe PS5. It even works on flipping nvidia's 10 Series GPUs to their current ones! They've enabled Super Resolution, when nVidia doesn't even provide DLSS to their own 10 series.

We'll have to see if the image quality is anywhere near comparable to DLSS or if it's not as good (like DLSS 1.0). For example the 1060 FSR image is not as good as the original, but it's not set to the highest quality setting. But even if it's not on the same level as DLSS, damn, props to AMD for just doing this as it's to the benefit of everyone. With GPU prices as they are, people with older stuff could get some extra life out of their current hardware.

IF the image quality is comparable though, this is a game changer.

Image

Image

Image

45 replies
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
3948 posts
4160 upvotes
GTA
It sounds like a good idea. Having used PC's for a good while now, I always liked ATI/AMD video graphics, especially the ATI days when they were still Canadian.
But the biggest drawback with their graphics solutions has plagued them since forever - the software support side, as It kinda sucks.
If game devs are relying on them to provide stable drivers and patches, this is where I see a weak spot. If that's not a factor here, then giddyup.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
8020 posts
1533 upvotes
BernardRyder wrote: It sounds like a good idea. Having used PC's for a good while now, I always liked ATI/AMD video graphics, especially the ATI days when they were still Canadian.
But the biggest drawback with their graphics solutions has plagued them since forever - the software support side, as It kinda sucks.
If game devs are relying on them to provide stable drivers and patches, this is where I see a weak spot. If that's not a factor here, then giddyup.
ATI days... good ol' All-In-Wonder 9800 and x800 XT were the days Face With Tears Of Joy
Soon after I remember they were just notorious for running extremely hot so I switches to NVidia and never bought another ATI/AMD. However, things are changing lately, and mostly in favor of AMD
STEAM-XBL-PSN: CFRTim
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
8397 posts
3365 upvotes
However, things are changing lately, and mostly in favor of AMD
I don't really agree. Over the past 5-6 years in the GPU market AMD has been known for its paper launches, poor driver quality and Nvidia still retains the performance crown by a long shot. Look at a Steam hardware survey sometime, it ain't pretty for AMD. Despite a huge push over the last few years they gained all of a single market share percentage on the GPU side, Nvidia dominates the market with 74% and consistently dumptrucks money into ongoing R&D, ensuring they are always a step ahead.

It is good to have alternatives but AMD is constantly trailing Nvidia and much of this is seemingly by choice. They gutted the driver team years ago and never fully restaffed it. They do poor outreach with AIB partners, seem to care more about procuring supply for consoles and are consistently behind Nvidia's various software innovations. I'm not a fan of proprietary implementations from Nvidia but it's hard to argue with when they're leading the market, often 1-2 years ahead of imitation efforts that never pick up momentum. I find Nvidia a frustrating company who treats its customers dubiously but at the end of the day they deliver on features, software and performance which is all I care about on the PC side.

In the CPU market obviously it's different story, AMD has done well there and I'm using one quite happily.

Anyways it'll be nice to have a DSR implementation for the next gen consoles so I welcome the news, although on the PC side I'm not sure it means much. I wasn't a fan of DLSS 1 but DLSS 2.0 is pretty darned amazing and AMD has its work cut out for it.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 12, 2007
2296 posts
1200 upvotes
Toronto
Redmask wrote: seem to care more about procuring supply for consoles
Can't say that's a bad move. Despite the gains PC gaming has made in the last 10ish years, consoles are still very mainstream. Between trying to break Nvidia's hold on pc gaming or basically making yourself indispensable to the next PS(x) Xbox whatever, I'm just surprised team red is still even trying - and thankful too, because true monopolies are good for nobody.

Moot point though. The chip shortage is such that upgrading/building a new PC is basically more hassle than it's worth at this point. I feel for the folks who are working with GPUs from a few generations back who can't find reasonably priced upgrade parts.
Steam: Sir Boors
PSN: Sir_Boors

It's a great time to be a nerd.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
3948 posts
4160 upvotes
GTA
Redmask wrote: I don't really agree. Over the past 5-6 years in the GPU market AMD has been known for its paper launches, poor driver quality and Nvidia still retains the performance crown by a long shot. Look at a Steam hardware survey sometime, it ain't pretty for AMD. Despite a huge push over the last few years they gained all of a single market share percentage on the GPU side, Nvidia dominates the market with 74% and consistently dumptrucks money into ongoing R&D, ensuring they are always a step ahead.

It is good to have alternatives but AMD is constantly trailing Nvidia and much of this is seemingly by choice. They gutted the driver team years ago and never fully restaffed it. They do poor outreach with AIB partners, seem to care more about procuring supply for consoles and are consistently behind Nvidia's various software innovations. I'm not a fan of proprietary implementations from Nvidia but it's hard to argue with when they're leading the market, often 1-2 years ahead of imitation efforts that never pick up momentum. I find Nvidia a frustrating company who treats its customers dubiously but at the end of the day they deliver on features, software and performance which is all I care about on the PC side.

In the CPU market obviously it's different story, AMD has done well there and I'm using one quite happily.

Anyways it'll be nice to have a DSR implementation for the next gen consoles so I welcome the news, although on the PC side I'm not sure it means much. I wasn't a fan of DLSS 1 but DLSS 2.0 is pretty darned amazing and AMD has its work cut out for it.
Totally agree, AMD CPU's are pretty good and it's often been an exchange for first place between them and Intel. Their GPU's, well, I'm a lot less confident about. I'm currently trying to find a decent (...affordable) gaming laptop for my daughter's upcoming birthday and am looking for a decent Ryzen/GeForce combo. Not really keen on going full ATI!

And you're right, they are more interested in major contracts such as consoles, which is not a bad strategy. Hopefully it means their version of DLSS will be supported decently on consoles. As for PC's, I imagine it will be more of a feature they can throw on a comparative list against Nvidia's offerings, but is never well implemented.
c'mon get happy!
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
8397 posts
3365 upvotes
BYan wrote: Can't say that's a bad move. Despite the gains PC gaming has made in the last 10ish years, consoles are still very mainstream. Between trying to break Nvidia's hold on pc gaming or basically making yourself indispensable to the next PS(x) Xbox whatever, I'm just surprised team red is still even trying - and thankful too, because true monopolies are good for nobody.

Moot point though. The chip shortage is such that upgrading/building a new PC is basically more hassle than it's worth at this point. I feel for the folks who are working with GPUs from a few generations back who can't find reasonably priced upgrade parts.
Yeah, they gotta pay the bills and that division needs to justify itself, I get it. I'm not a fan of Nvidia or something, I hate brand loyalty and frankly Nvidia is a company that is often hard to like. They're just really strong on the GPU side and AMD has been inconsistent at best.

The supply situation really sucks right now for sure, even the consoles are often difficult to obtain. This semiconductor shortage is expected to continue for at least a year and Intel recently predicted even 2-3 years, ugh.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Dec 1, 2004
8020 posts
1533 upvotes
@Redmask

Agree with you, what I was trying to say is things are looking better with AMD than it did years ago when people bought their video cards to warm up their homes. Last time I built a rig Intel/Nvidia was a must, no questions asked. Seeing how AMD can now compete with Intel, maybe they can do the same with Nvidia; we need competition, it's a good thing
STEAM-XBL-PSN: CFRTim
Deal Addict
User avatar
Mar 12, 2007
2296 posts
1200 upvotes
Toronto
Redmask wrote: Nvidia is a company that is often hard to like.
Nah, nobody actually likes them. Team red or green, it's more like they're holding our hobbies hostage behind tech only they have. If they really wanted to do something consumer friendly, their money/resources can end the scalper problem easier than a freaking Thanos fingersnap. Yet, just look at all the nothing nobody is doing in that area. Green just announced a bunch of new cards that nobody will be able to find, at prices that nobody will actually be able to buy at. I thought the first crypto boom was crazy but this last year or two has basically made me determined to continue gaming at 1080p and wait for the bubble to burst (if ever).
Steam: Sir Boors
PSN: Sir_Boors

It's a great time to be a nerd.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
2637 posts
3812 upvotes
Yeah nVidia needs the competition, not just in terms of performance, but to keep them honest. Outside of their prices, the amount of BS they've tried to pull on consumers, reviewers, and media these past years is brutal.

They're a company you support because of their performance, but don't want to support because they're just a horrible company.

I remember back in the day though, when I used to still play on PC. I think my best achievement was modding my ATi Radeon 9500 into a 9700, and then OCing it to compete with the 9700 Pro. Damn that felt good.
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
8537 posts
5426 upvotes
Toronto
CFRTim wrote: ATI days... good ol' All-In-Wonder 9800 and x800 XT were the days Face With Tears Of Joy
Soon after I remember they were just notorious for running extremely hot so I switches to NVidia and never bought another ATI/AMD. However, things are changing lately, and mostly in favor of AMD
X800XT was the last ATI/AMD product I owned as well which had great performance and TV in/video capture which was pretty amazing for the time but the drivers were always atrocious. I switched to Nvidia, never looked back and over the past 8-9 years I've noticed the majority of the time that people report issues with any particular game, it's mostly AMD users having a driver issue while the game work fine for Nvidia users with a few exceptions of notoriously broken ports not working well for either.

Also I'm not saying I'm a fan of NVIDIA or anything either but it's just that AMD hasn't been a viable option for a long time now if you want a hassle free experiences with most games. They may be cheaper and perform better on paper in benchmarks, but the actual real world experience with games seems to be poor.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
3948 posts
4160 upvotes
GTA
johncraven wrote: Also, AMD GPUs have better picture quality out of the box; I believe it is possible to calibrate to GeForce cards to match the quality and color, but it is non-trivial: https://www.reddit.com/r/Amd/comments/n ... fferences/

Hopefully this advantage in PQ compensates for a worse DLSS implementation...
ATI cards always had awesome PQ and colours compared to Nvidia. But Nvidia has almost always had the horsepower and ability to push the envelope in terms of performance and technology. That R&D of theirs is a game changer.
I miss 3Dfx... Too bad they couldn't stay competitive.
c'mon get happy!
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
8397 posts
3365 upvotes
I'm not a huge fan of either company, I just buy the best value at the time when I need a new card. I recall AMD starting the day and date embargo nonsense 5 years ago, have been playing the paper launch game long before COVID and like Nvidia have been caught cheating on numerous benchmarks in the past. Their constant driver issues are inexcusable at this point and they've a lot of time to work with the industry for outreach and optimization. A constant refrain from developers is that getting help regarding anything from AMD is difficult or time intensive whereas Nvidia has an entire department dedicated to it. To me, AMD is simply Nvidia without the resources and clout. I suspect if they were on top we would not be seeing open source APIs but regardless, it is welcome and we definitely need competition to keep Nvidia honest. Current market price of a 3090 is the literal cost of my entire previous rig including video card, insane in the membrane.

My last AMD card was ATI branded, I feel old :)
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
3948 posts
4160 upvotes
GTA
Redmask wrote: Current market price of a 3090 is the literal cost of my entire previous rig including video card, insane in the membrane.
While the market prices for their top hardware is always a premium, these current ridiculous prices are more a reflection of what is going on in the world. Even the used card market by either manufacturer is Too Damned High. Pretty much anything PC related seems overpriced.
I wonder if there will be a card crash in a few years, like the prices will drop all across the board. At least in the used market.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Addict
Jul 14, 2014
1282 posts
625 upvotes
Toronto, ON
Graphics cards manufacturers have been fueling an arms race in the gaming market for ever. Developers create games with ever increasing power needs, gamers want to play their games with the highest possible graphic settings, which leads them to want to upgrade to the latest and greatest graphics cards every year. And there are also bragging rights.

How is it that you can play with the same Playstation or Xbox for an entire generation (6 or 7 years), with only a minor hardware upgrade mid generation, but you've got to upgrade your GPU every two years because you can't live with performance at less than 100fps and graphics below ultra settings ?
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
8537 posts
5426 upvotes
Toronto
Niklasky wrote: How is it that you can play with the same Playstation or Xbox for an entire generation (6 or 7 years), with only a minor hardware upgrade mid generation, but you've got to upgrade your GPU every two years because you can't live with performance at less than 100fps and graphics below ultra settings ?
because with PS and Xbox last gen you were accepting a relatively low standard of quality right from the jump for the next 6-7 years with mostly low detail 1080p/30fps across the board and still missing that low metric in many games. Meanwhile I'm still playing new releases to this day at 1080p to 4K/high detail/60-120fps on a 9 year old PC from 2012 which I've upgraded twice for $100-200 and it's useful for a lot more than gaming. If I was ok with comparable PS4/X1 performance, I would've never needed to upgrade at all as it was always far better than that.

The misconception that you need to upgrade every 2 years to the latest and greatest hardware is mostly perpetuated by people with poor understanding of hardware or no context of performance metrics while the Steam hardware stats prove that the vast majority of PC gamers run on older cheap hardware.
Deal Addict
Jul 14, 2014
1282 posts
625 upvotes
Toronto, ON
ReeGee wrote: because with PS and Xbox last gen you were accepting a relatively low standard of quality right from the jump for the next 6-7 years with mostly low detail 1080p/30fps across the board and still missing that low metric in many games. Meanwhile I'm still playing new releases to this day at 1080p to 4K/high detail/60-120fps on a 9 year old PC from 2012 which I've upgraded twice for $100-200 and it's useful for a lot more than gaming. If I was ok with comparable PS4/X1 performance, I would've never needed to upgrade at all as it was always far better than that.

The misconception that you need to upgrade every 2 years to the latest and greatest hardware is mostly perpetuated by people with poor understanding of hardware or no context of performance metrics while the Steam hardware stats prove that the vast majority of PC gamers run on older cheap hardware.
Well, that, and as I said people want high FPS, high settings, and get lured into buying 4K monitors which require a lot of horsepower to run games with decent FPS. Recently, I've been reading a lot of comments on Reddit that state the RTX3070 and its 8GB or VRAM won't be good enough to play games on ultra settings within a year or two... If you play at 4K, yeah I agree, but the RTX3070 was never marketed for 4K gaming but rather for 1440p. And for that resolution at ultra or very high graphic settings, I'm pretty sure 8GB will be more than enough for years to come, barring a few exceptions.

People get fearmongered into buying GPUs that are way more powerful than they really need. And also bragging rights. Don't underestimate bragging rights.

Now, I think that with the prices of the latest 3xxxTi GPUs, we are getting into dangerous territory for Nvidia, but also for AMD. I'm hearing increasing numbers of people saying they're going to pause their PC gaming and switch to the latest PS5 and Xbox consoles until things become more reasonable. I have to say, while the price of PC parts, and particularly GPUs and CPUs has been creeping up a lot lately, consoles have remained at pretty much the same price compared to the last generation, while offering top performance.
Deal Fanatic
Oct 23, 2004
8537 posts
5426 upvotes
Toronto
Niklasky wrote: as I said people want high FPS, high settings, and get lured into buying 4K monitors which require a lot of horsepower to run games with decent FPS. Recently, I've been reading a lot of comments on Reddit that state the RTX3070 and its 8GB or VRAM won't be good enough to play games on ultra settings within a year or two...
I get that and my point is the people who think like that are the enthusiast niche minority that don't really represent how most people play PC games. The most popular GPUs on the Steam hardware survey are older mid range budgets cards like 1050, 1060, 1650 etc. The people going out of their way to keep up with the top of the line GPUs every other year are the exception not the rule as most people play on modest budget hardware that still outperform consoles for years. Of course it's a different story now with GPU prices generally being insane and new high end consoles that just launched are being sold at a loss.
Deal Addict
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
3948 posts
4160 upvotes
GTA
Niklasky wrote: Well, that, and as I said people want high FPS, high settings, and get lured into buying 4K monitors which require a lot of horsepower to run games with decent FPS. Recently, I've been reading a lot of comments on Reddit that state the RTX3070 and its 8GB or VRAM won't be good enough to play games on ultra settings within a year or two... If you play at 4K, yeah I agree, but the RTX3070 was never marketed for 4K gaming but rather for 1440p. And for that resolution at ultra or very high graphic settings, I'm pretty sure 8GB will be more than enough for years to come, barring a few exceptions.

People get fearmongered into buying GPUs that are way more powerful than they really need. And also bragging rights. Don't underestimate bragging rights.

Now, I think that with the prices of the latest 3xxxTi GPUs, we are getting into dangerous territory for Nvidia, but also for AMD. I'm hearing increasing numbers of people saying they're going to pause their PC gaming and switch to the latest PS5 and Xbox consoles until things become more reasonable. I have to say, while the price of PC parts, and particularly GPUs and CPUs has been creeping up a lot lately, consoles have remained at pretty much the same price compared to the last generation, while offering top performance.
I'm not sure all the GPU thirst is from PC gamers. A lot of the latest frenzy purchasing for high-end GPU's is for mining. Couple that with chip shortages, and you get what you have now. The next big hit mining will supposedly hit is storage, and that could affect both PC's and consoles.
There are people who move away from PC every time a new console launches. Right now though, those who want to switch will be faced with the same challenges as finding a GPU - finding a console in stock.
c'mon get happy!

Top