AMD Tries to Explain Lack of NVIDIA DLSS Support in AMD-Sponsored FidelityFX Super Resolution Titles: “We Believe in an Open Approach”

[Tsing]

Many gamers are starting to believe that AMD is holding PC gaming back by brokering deals that prevent some of today's hottest games (e.g., Star Wars Jedi: Survivor) from adopting support for NVIDIA's DLSS technologies, and while the intricacies behind all of that are yet to be uncovered, AMD clearly isn't sure how to approach the subject, having delivered a canned response yesterday after a publication shared a sizable list of triple-A, AMD-sponsored games that only include support for its own upscaling technology, FidelityFX Super Resolution. "…we give developers the flexibility to implement FSR into whichever games they choose," AMD said, which sounds pretty cool in itself, but completely evades the actual concern. "AMD is anti-consumer & anti-gamer," one critic says.

See full article...

 

[Dan_D]

This really shouldn't be a surprise. The real question is whether or not AMD prevented the developers from implementing DLSS to get the sponsorship or not. My guess is the answer is "yes" and that is anti-consumer. Not surprising in the least, but I would call that anti-consumer. NVIDIA pulls stuff like that all the time and has done far worse such as trying to co-opt the vendor brands and hold them hostage and lock them out of producing AMD hardware under the same branding.

NVIDIA trying to decide what ASUS or GIGABYTE can do with ROG and Aorus respectively is far worse than AMD sponsored titles not implementing DLSS. Especially when NVIDIA cards generally support FSR as well.

 

[Brian_B]

I dunno - helping subsidize development of a feature in exchange for some exclusivity isn’t a big ask.

Now if they were making anyone who implemented FSR do this, that would be one thing - but if you want “free” dev assistance, and the price is that you can’t include DLSS… that I think is fair

 

[Stoly]

I love that when nvidia does its evil things people inmediatly go grab a pitchfork, but when AMD does it, its ok, because nvidia is evil.

 

[Marees]

I love that when nvidia does its evil things people inmediatly go grab a pitchfork, but when AMD does it, its ok, because nvidia is evil.

FSR works across all cards & doesn't discriminate between cards in terms of features/performance etc.

 

[Peter_Brosdahl]

I know this could open up a whole other can of worms for debate but the one game/series on the list I do play are the Resident Evil games and while I'd like them to have DLSS I've also found that the REngine is dynamic and efficient enough that it doesn't really need it. That brings up the question of optimization. How many of these AMD "only" titles are optimized well enough that DLSS might not provide much of a benefit? Obviously, The Stutter Protocol doesn't apply but what about the others? At a glance, I don't think I have any of them so I can't say but I do wonder about it.

The issue of developers leaning on DLSS as a crutch to compensate for poor optimization has been brought up before. I like DLSS and have enjoyed using it but I've played plenty of games that needed a lot more to get them up to par after launch so there is that to consider. I'm still mixed on frame generation though.

 

[Stoly]

FSR works across all cards & doesn't discriminate between cards in terms of features/performance etc.

Except its IQ is clearly behind DLSS.

I recall some people blamed nvidia when FSR first came out as it took quite a while to get adopted (and still lags behind DLSS in game support) claiming nvidia blocked developers from implementing FSR. Go figure...

 

[Brian_B]

Except its IQ is clearly behind DLSS.

Hmm..

That's fair.

But DLSS doesn't help anyone with an AMD or Intel card, so better IQ versus working at all for those folks

I'd also argue: it's better to not need FSR/DLSS in the first place, it's a crutch no matter what you are looking at. So the fact that one crutch is a bit better than the other is not really a good position to be in no matter how you look at it.

 

[Stoly]

Hmm..

That's fair.

But DLSS doesn't help anyone with an AMD or Intel card, so better IQ versus working at all for those folks

I'd also argue: it's better to not need FSR/DLSS in the first place, it's a crutch no matter what you are looking at. So the fact that one crutch is a bit better than the other is not really a good position to be in no matter how you look at it.

BTW AMD is also blocking XeSS which is crossplatform

 

[Zarathustra]

Don't get me wrong, I have an Nvidia GPU and I appreciate when I can use DLSS technology, but I do agree with AMD.

The entire market is harmed when proprietary solutions are used. Lets have more open standards for accomplishing this stuff. The GPU makers should compete on performance, not on features. If they compete on features they accomplish nothing but breaking compatibility.

 

[Stoly]

Don't get me wrong, I have an Nvidia GPU and I appreciate when I can use DLSS technology, but I do agree with AMD.

The entire market is harmed when proprietary solutions are used. Lets have more open standards for accomplishing this stuff. The GPU makers should compete on performance, not on features. If they compete on features they accomplish nothing but breaking compatibility.

don't think for a second that AMD uses open standards because of their good heart. It's simply because they won't dedicate resources/time to make a propietary one, also because they don't have the marketshare to push their own.

And hey, lets settle for an inferior technology since its open...

 

[Brian_B]

don't think for a second that AMD uses open standards because of their good heart.

You are absolutely right about this - it's purely a "Hey, we are stuck in second place" play - they know they don't have the market share or pull to enforce anything too proprietary, so play the good guy.

That said, I'm with Zath. I tend to support open standards over even superior proprietary ones - because I hate seeing vendor lock-in. It never turns out good for the consumer in the end.

 

[Stoly]

You are absolutely right about this - it's purely a "Hey, we are stuck in second place" play - they know they don't have the market share or pull to enforce anything too proprietary, so play the good guy.

That said, I'm with Zath. I tend to support open standards over even superior proprietary ones - because I hate seeing vendor lock-in. It never turns out good for the consumer in the end.

Yeah its not like CUDA help catapult nvidia to a trillion dollar company..., but hey there's openCL

I used to favor open standards, but I just like the technology that works better even if its propietary, after all competition makes things better, also sometimes the open standards catchup like freesync vs gsync so in the end the consumer wins.

BTW, eventually FSR3 will be released and its rumored to only work with RDNA3. will it still be ok if AMD continues to block DLSS and XeSS?

 

[Brian_B]

BTW, eventually FSR3 will be released and its rumored to only work with RDNA3. will it still be ok if AMD continues to block DLSS and XeSS?

Well let's not take this out of context - AMD isn't blanket blocking DLSS and XeSS. They are only requesting that in exchange for development help / assistance and promotion. If you want to have FSR and DLSS and XeSS in your title - you are free to do so. But if you want development and marketing money from AMD, you need to sign on the dotted line.

 

[Stoly]

Well let's not take this out of context - AMD isn't blanket blocking DLSS and XeSS. They are only requesting that in exchange for development help / assistance and promotion. If you want to have FSR and DLSS and XeSS in your title - you are free to do so. But if you want development and marketing money from AMD, you need to sign on the dotted line.

So they are blocking them

In contrast nvidia sponsored games are free to use FSR/Xess

 

[Uvilla]

Open standards are very important for a good deal of things, like pcie, usb,... I don't think something like dlss needs to be open.
Well amd should work hard at better hardware, and at supporting more codecs with their gpus.

 

[Zarathustra]

Yeah its not like CUDA help catapult nvidia to a trillion dollar company..., but hey there's openCL

I used to favor open standards, but I just like the technology that works better even if its propietary, after all competition makes things better, also sometimes the open standards catchup like freesync vs gsync so in the end the consumer wins.

BTW, eventually FSR3 will be released and its rumored to only work with RDNA3. will it still be ok if AMD continues to block DLSS and XeSS?

The financial success of these companies is none of my concern.

It is actually part of th eproblem. Often time there are bigger bucks to be earned by being anti-consumer than by competing fairly.

I'd rather see Nvidia crash and burn than embrace their proprietary standards.

don't think for a second that AMD uses open standards because of their good heart. It's simply because they won't dedicate resources/time to make a propietary one, also because they don't have the marketshare to push their own.

And hey, lets settle for an inferior technology since its open...

Totally agreed. I'm not praising AMD here. They could and probably would pull the same **** if they were in the position to do so.

The proper pipeline is for industry working groups to define industry wide compatible approaches, and for the GPU makers to compete at who implements them the best for the best amount of performance.

When everything goes proprietary, the consumer is the one that loses out through such things as lock-ins, lock-outs and other foul play.

If they had their way, they would each own the entire market, nothing would be compatible. You'd buy a ready built box. with either an Intel CPU and an Intel GPU and other proprietary interconnects, or an AMD CPU and GPU and proprietary interconnects, or an Nvidia CPU and GPU and proprietary interconnects. Essentially they'd be Console PC's.

None of them would work together. None of them would be upgradeable, everything would be proprietary. You'd be stuck with only GSync screens if you bought the Nvidia box, etc. etc.

This is a hellscape that I would not want to be a part of.

What has driven competition in the PC industry has been the inter-compatibility, meaning consumers can and will switch out parts to the latest and greatest at the best price whenever they feel like it, forcing the market players to be competitive or lose.

A proprietary computer market would be an absolute nightmare, and it needs to be discouraged no matter what.

Can you imagine if every TV maker had their own proprietary HDMI cable in the name of "competition" claiming theirs was "better" and thus forcing you to buy all of your peripherals specifically for that TV while they charge the peripheral makers license fees for using their cable standard? They'd be laughing their way to the bank, while it would be an absolute nightmare for the consumer.

This type of **** needs to be outlawed once and for all. I'm glad the EU are taking some steps here, but they aren't going far enough.

 

[Grimlakin]

What has driven competition in the PC industry has been the inter-compatibility, meaning consumers can and will switch out parts to the latest and greatest at the best price whenever they feel like it, forcing the market players to be comeptitive or lose.

This right here is why there is a move to laptop and handheld/tablet gaming by every game making company out there short of a few big players.

Think about it... dedicated hardware, not changing, generational updates only, locked in systems, very minimal swap on a system for end users to even be able to perform let alone think about performing.

Just as soon as they start making high end gaming laptops in the 2k range, get them funded to only cost 40 bucks a month for end users to 'own' them, (and upgrade them every 30 months.) and have great performance with the capability of equaling desktop performance on 2 4k screens... (or the equivalent). the DIY market will just have a bullet put in it. Attrition through good deals will lead most to not have a desktop.


It's only a matter of time before someone like Nvidia or MS says... "Ok lets make a killer spec light weight laptop that can support external displays, have the best gaming possible and meet the needs of business users. And lets make sure it costs around 1200 bucks (or whatever the market will bare) and let consumers give us RMR for it on top of everything else. Bundle in the Xbox game pass for the non corporate users and make it an option for our enterprise OS's.

They will literally own the market very swiftly. and now that I type it out like that... I could totally see MS doing this 100%.

We on this forum are the freaking minority in such a large way. Even in my company being at the highest level of IT engineering it's freaking hilarious how many people I interface with don't even know what their work laptops can do out of the box. It's just shocking how many users plug a laptop into a monitor and just leave it on duplicate because they don't know any better.

 

[Zarathustra]

This right here is why there is a move to laptop and handheld/tablet gaming by every game making company out there short of a few big players.

Think about it... dedicated hardware, not changing, generational updates only, locked in systems, very minimal swap on a system for end users to even be able to perform let alone think about performing.

Just as soon as they start making high end gaming laptops in the 2k range, get them funded to only cost 40 bucks a month for end users to 'own' them, (and upgrade them every 30 months.) and have great performance with the capability of equaling desktop performance on 2 4k screens... (or the equivalent). the DIY market will just have a bullet put in it. Attrition through good deals will lead most to not have a desktop.


It's only a matter of time before someone like Nvidia or MS says... "Ok lets make a killer spec light weight laptop that can support external displays, have the best gaming possible and meet the needs of business users. And lets make sure it costs around 1200 bucks (or whatever the market will bare) and let consumers give us RMR for it on top of everything else. Bundle in the Xbox game pass for the non corporate users and make it an option for our enterprise OS's.

They will literally own the market very swiftly. and now that I type it out like that... I could totally see MS doing this 100%.

We on this forum are the freaking minority in such a large way. Even in my company being at the highest level of IT engineering it's freaking hilarious how many people I interface with don't even know what their work laptops can do out of the box. It's just shocking how many users plug a laptop into a monitor and just leave it on duplicate because they don't know any better.

I would hate this. I would literally drop out of the hobby if custom built desktops were no longer an option.

I do this for the hardware hobby first. The sense of creating something that is mine is what drives me. I really only play games to have something to do with the hardware configuration I've created.

Luckily, I think there has been a renaissance since about 2015 in the gaming desktop. We aren't as small of a minority as you might think anymore. It's just all hyper-focused on "gaming" these days, rather than more professional applications years ago.

Yeah, your average 35-45-something doesn't know ****, but a huge proportion of Gen Z are really into their desktops. I'd argue many more so than back in the 90's that we remember as the "golden days", and I think they are helping to save the industry.

They are not as technically inclined as we were at that age, as they weren't forced to be, but they still appreciate customizing their own desktops. The generation after that, who knows though.

 

[Grimlakin]

I would hate this. I would literally drop out of the hobby if custom built desktops were no longer an option.

I do this for the hardware hobby first. The sense of creating something that is mine is what drives me. I really only play games to have something to do with the hardware configuration I've created.

Luckily, I think there has been a renaissance since about 2015 in the gaming desktop. We aren't as small of a minority as you might think anymore. It's just all hyper-focused on "gaming" these days, rather than more professional applications years ago.

Yeah, your average 35-45-something doesn't know ****, but a huge proportion of Gen Z are really into their desktops. I'd argue many more so than back in the 90's that we remember as the "golden days", and I think they are helping to save the industry.

They are not as technically inclined as we were at that age, as they weren't forced to be, but they still appreciate customizing their own desktops. The generation after that, who knows though.

Yea get back to me when they have to worry about interrupts to get their cards working or order of loading drivers and how to put your mouse driver into high mem.