I'd get the FE for sure. That's the kind of engineering that impresses me. Unfortunately it'll probably be impossible to purchase. I can't recall seeing and FE models of the 4090 listed on Newegg. Even finding any model 5090 for MSRP should be an interesting challenge. I have access to distributors like D&H and Ingram Micro and they are usually no better than Newegg or Amazon in terms of GPU stock.
I forgot the FE uses liquidmetal. I don't like that. Do we know if the AIB models will also use that?
It's just FP16 math, it isn't specific to any vendor unlike XeSS.
Relevant data, when we're talking about performance comparisons, is NOT changing the software workload to generate incompatible performance results. Comparisons of FSR versus DLSS belong in a journalistic piece focused on upscaling, which abolutely should delve into performance and qualitative analysis -- but not in a physical, bare metal comparison between vendors. We don't change drag races to half miles versus quarter miles because one car happens to have only been optimized for quarter miles versus another for half miles. A journalist with integrity can and should certainly mention the caveats while providing the data, but a consistent set of testing variables to produce a consistent set of results is absolutely required for rational performance comparisons.
They aren't; FSR and DLSS do not generate equivalent video output to native, nor does FG, and you understand this more than so many other people that I'm completely lost on why you even floated such a statement. Reminding us that there are journalists who somehow try to make the data comparisons doesn't make their comparisons right in that regard, and again you know this.
FP16 math is anything but "just". It can be packed, it can run with various output formats and different storage optimizations. It should in fact do all that if the h/w allows for it but then it wouldn't be "the same workload" being executed by all h/w.
Then we should probably remove like 3/4 of reviews from yesterday and today from being a valid assessment of Blackwell's performance.
Because this statement actually make a lot of sense when comparing GFs to other GPUs where DLSS Performance can be close to Quality presets of other upscalers. Should this be mentioned in a good review somewhere probably?
The point of benchmarks isn't "real world usage", they're benchmarks, they almost never reflect actual gameplay realities. The point is to normalize visual quality across a set of GPUs to see how they perform rendering the exact same set of frames.My 4090 neither saw FSR usage nor DLSS performance usage.
Ever.
Neither will my coming 5090.
Those metrics are 100% irrelvant for me.
DLAA, FG, DLSS Quality, RT.
Those matter to me.
DF's video also had some game running with FSR...that was the time I closed the video
This is mentioned in every discussion of DLSS vs FSR ever. This is the exact reason why mixing upscalers is not going to happen lol.
I would wager over half of the 4090 (and 5090) buyers probably use it mostly for random older multiplayer titles. AAA games aren't very big compared to most of the market, and the 'popular' opinion of new AAA titles is that they're bland and uninspired.
It’s actually absurd to claim the 2080 and 3080 weren’t higher performing skus.
www.techspot.com
That's not my experience at all. I've just finished playing CODMW3 campaign and I've used FG and upgraded that to 4.0 mid-campaign. Both options where completely fine with "rapid dynamic movements" (I've played on m+k), base FPS was about 100 and with FG it was locked to 138 all the way, no noticeable change in input lag either. The new FG is a bit better on input lag I'd say (margin of error stuff though), a lot better on frametime health (even on 40 series) and seem to produce different kinds of HUD artifacting - which are generally invisible during normal play anyway.