Starfield to use FSR2 only, exclude DLSS2/3 and XeSS: concerns and implications *spawn*

DavidGraham said:
There were two incidents in the past regarding this, with the release of Batman Arkam Asylum (sponsored by NVIDIA) in 2009, the game locked MSAA to NVIDIA GPUs only, AMD cards couldn't access that feature, AMD complained about this move in a blogpost, and declared their GPUs perfectly capable of running the new MSAA, following that, there was a huge uproar on the internet, enough that NVIDIA and the developer caved in and allowed MSAA to run on AMD cards with no problems.

The logic behind this was a bit unusual though, NVIDIA came forth and stated they helped develop the MSAA implementation in the game, as the game used UE3 with deferred rendering which is incompatible with MSAA, and the developer couldn't make traditional MSAA to work with the game, so NVIDIA stepped in and helped them make it, the developer then locked it to NVIDIA's GPUs. The developer reiterated this narrative as well. Stating they probed AMD on the matter but AMD didn't care enough to make MSAA work on their hardware, before the launch of the game.
Click to expand...
Actually no, they didn't. There was back and forth NVIDIA saying it's devs/publishers code they don't care and devs/publisher saying it's NVIDIAs code so they can't.
Only GOTY version could run it on AMD, the original not even when patched to the latest version. Only way to run it on AMD on the original release was fooling it to think you had NVIDIA card.
Also AMD wasn't quiet, they did offer them code to do MSAA. The problem was, it was the same what NVIDIA had already given, minus vendor lock, because it was supposedly the standard way of doing it in deferred UE3.
GOTY can be considered separate game release, which apparently allowed the change.
(also you forgot the part where all cards were forced to do some steps only required for said MSAA support even when MSAA wasn't or couldn't be used)

DavidGraham said:
The second incident happened in 2008, with the release of Assassin Creed, the game was sponsored by NVIDIA and supported DX10, but then Ubisoft added DX10.1 support in a later patch, at that time DX10.1 was a rare occurrence, and it was only supported on AMD HD3000 GPUs.

With DX10.1 the game worked faster on AMD GPUs, but then Ubisoft stepped in and suddenly removed DX10.1 in a following patch, there was another uproar on the internet and people pointed fingers at NVIDIA and claimed they pressured Ubisoft to remove DX10.1, Ubisoft denied the allegations, and so did NVIDIA, it was later revealed that DX10.1 altered the image quality of the game, and removed some post processing effects, which is why it worked faster on AMD GPUs, this was reproduced by testings from independent media, Ubisoft removed DX10.1, but never cared to fix it or add it back later. The entire ordeal was transparent from start to finish though, with NVIDIA and Ubisoft responding directly to the press, and denying any kind of deal, also AMD never made any accusations or complaints about this matter.

In fact, In both incidents, NVIDIA and the developers came forth and made official statements that clarified their position, unlike the radio silence we have now, despite the massive uproar.
Click to expand...
It's a shame I can't find those old comparisons, since I'm almost willing to put my head on plate claiming that every single rendering mode in Assassin's Creed except DX10 looked the same in those supposed "glitches", but only DX10.1 was removed.
 
Kaotik said:
Actually no, they didn't. There was back and forth NVIDIA saying it's devs/publishers code they don't care and devs/publisher saying it's NVIDIAs code so they can't.
Click to expand...

There was so much banter between AMD and NVIDIA reps at that time, that it deteriorated into something worse than forum fanboys wars.

AMD even claimed NVIDIA didn't care about DX11 or Tessellation, because NVIDIA isn't advocating for them hard enough! Fermi was delayed 6 months during that period so naturally NVIDIA didn't talk much about DX11, but after Fermi got released with it's strong Tessellation performance, NVIDIA was all over DX11 and Tessellation, and AMD was the one who isn't advocating Tessellation hard enough.

AMD and NVIDIA in Batman Arkham Asylum AA fiasco - who's telling the truth? - Graphics - News - HEXUS.net

m.hexus.net m.hexus.net

Kaotik said:
It's a shame I can't find those old comparisons, since I'm almost willing to put my head on plate claiming that every single rendering mode in Assassin's Creed except DX10 looked the same in those supposed "glitches", but only DX10.1 was removed.
Click to expand...
Rage3D posted a follow-up article noting some very slight image quality anomalies with DX10.1. Other sites, including PC Games Hardware in Germany and the HardOCP, reproduced Rage3D’s findings about performance increases and minor image quality changes in DX10.1.

techreport.com

Ubisoft comments on Assassin's Creed DX10.1 controversy - UPDATED

techreport.com techreport.com

The point is, through both incidents, shots were fired, developers were active in responding to criticism, and both NVIDIA and AMD spoke to the press, in this incident (Starfield and FSR2) we have radio silence from both the developer and AMD, implicating them both.
 
Last edited:
It's going to be *the* technical showcase for the XSX when it launches. May as well get some exclusivity cash from AMD and limit development focus to AMD, and therefore XSS/XSX.

Also, there's no way the exclusivity lasts more than a couple of years post launch. Especially when AMD gets their response to DLSS3 up to snuff.
 
Tkumpathenurpahl said:
It's going to be *the* technical showcase for the XSX when it launches. May as well get some exclusivity cash from AMD and limit development focus to AMD, and therefore XSS/XSX.
Click to expand...
If the aim is to get AMD onboard to help optimise the Xbox Series version then that would be a sensible decision. But as Digital Foundry touched on in a recent weekly podcast, that [without PlayStation being a supported platform] PC Starfield game sales would likely vastly outsell console and Nvidia have a lot more of the enthusiast PC market.
 
DSoup said:
If the aim is to get AMD onboard to help optimise the Xbox Series version then that would be a sensible decision. But as Digital Foundry touched on in a recent weekly podcast, that [without PlayStation being a supported platform] PC Starfield game sales would likely vastly outsell console and Nvidia have a lot more of the enthusiast PC market.
Click to expand...
True. But that's the nature of pushing a platform exclusive with a fixed hardware spec as your flagship.

And given that we've seen Microsoft forgo plenty of direct sales in favour of Gamepass subscriptions, I think it's reasonable they'd do the same with forgoing PC sales in favour of pushing the XSX.

All IMO of course. It may well just be a stupid business decision. Lord knows we've seen stranger things than those within these last few years ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
 
XeSS comes up on top once again! -compared to FSR-

www.techpowerup.com

Remnant 2: DLSS vs FSR vs XeSS Comparison Review

Remnant 2 is out now, with support for NVIDIA DLSS Super Resolution and Frame Generation and DLAA. Also supported is Intel's Xe Super Sampling and AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution. In this mini-review we compare the image quality and performance gains offered by these technologies.
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

Why would AMD users prefer to use FSR over XeSS?
 
Cyan said:
Why would AMD users prefer to use FSR over XeSS?
Click to expand...
Performance? There aren't that many videos that I've seen where they test XESS on AMD hardware. Most of the ones I've watched test with nVidia hardware so they can compare it to DLSS and FSR. But that video from HUB shows that there is, or was at the time, a performance penalty for running XESS on AMD hardware compared to nVidia hardware. FSR's advantage has always been that it's lightweight and broadly compatible.
 
Cyan said:
XeSS comes up on top once again! -compared to FSR-

www.techpowerup.com

Remnant 2: DLSS vs FSR vs XeSS Comparison Review

Remnant 2 is out now, with support for NVIDIA DLSS Super Resolution and Frame Generation and DLAA. Also supported is Intel's Xe Super Sampling and AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution. In this mini-review we compare the image quality and performance gains offered by these technologies.
www.techpowerup.com www.techpowerup.com

Why would AMD users prefer to use FSR over XeSS?
Click to expand...

The DP4a version of XeSS is looks surprisingly good at quality settings. At least IMO.

Perhaps MS should work on a deal to licence XeSS for the Series consoles. It has the potential to be better than FSR, and pushing it out across Xbox might help Intel with adoption of this technology.
 
function said:
The DP4a version of XeSS is looks surprisingly good at quality settings. At least IMO.

Perhaps MS should work on a deal to licence XeSS for the Series consoles. It has the potential to be better than FSR, and pushing it out across Xbox might help Intel with adoption of this technology.
Click to expand...
dunno if AMD deals would prevent that, still it could be a nice substitute for their failed DirectML technology.
 
function said:
The DP4a version of XeSS is looks surprisingly good at quality settings. At least IMO.

Perhaps MS should work on a deal to licence XeSS for the Series consoles. It has the potential to be better than FSR, and pushing it out across Xbox might help Intel with adoption of this technology.
Click to expand...

The other option would be for MS to continue working with AMD to make FSR better. Isn't FSR 3 coming soon ?
 
As soon as AMD come up with desirable tech, we’ll see how open source it’ll be out of the gate.

There‘s a lot of mental gymnastics in these amd exclusivity deals. They’re championing open source by deliberately blocking other tech?

since it’s open source, outside of amd, who’s doing major contributions to improving the tech? So far its just amd tech with an open source moniker.

Its also easier to say use open source as a deflection for inferior tech because trying to pass it off as a value add exclusive to your products will just damage the product’s proposition.

I look forward to the day amd brings out legitimate class leading tech and makes it open source day 1. Given that it took them 6months to get VR working properly on 7xxx series, sit tight.
 
To everybody angry, if your PCs were master race enough you wouldn't need DLSS3. :runaway:

For everybody who can spare about $5, the modder PureDark is aiming to release a DLSS3 mod for Starfield within the early access period. I've been contributing to his Patreon since June. I'm always happy to reward somebody willing to work on a solution to problems.
 
There is a rumor that SF might ship with FSR3.0 and it could be announced at gamescon.

I would assume for AMD there wouldn't really be a bigger place to announce and push this technology and having it in one of the biggest titles of the year would certainly be a marketing coup
 
eastmen said:
There is a rumor that SF might ship with FSR3.0 and it could be announced at gamescon. I would assume for AMD there wouldn't really be a bigger place to announce and push this technology and having it in one of the biggest titles of the year would certainly be a marketing coup
Click to expand...
If AMD are confident about FSR3 and how it performance to DLSS, why not permit Microsoft to include DLSS support in Starfield?

So people can compare the two implementations for themselves.
 
DSoup said:
To everybody angry, if your PCs were master race enough you wouldn't need DLSS3. :runaway:

For everybody who can spare about $5, the modder PureDark is aiming to release a DLSS3 mod for Starfield within the early access period. I've been contributing to his Patreon since June. I'm always happy to reward somebody willing to work on a solution to problems.
Click to expand...
I don't think many really care about frame generation, more so the DLSS2 upscaler technology which is considered to be higher quality than FSR2.
 
DSoup said:
If AMD are confident about FSR3 and how it performance to DLSS, why not permit Microsoft to include DLSS support in Starfield?

So people can compare the two implementations for themselves.
Click to expand...
Don't think anyone said anything about confidence.
Don't believe these kind of deals have much to do with confidence anyway.

I also think this Starfield FSR3 is just hopium. But we will see soon enough.
 
Jay said:
Don't think anyone said anything about confidence. Don't believe these kind of deals have much to do with confidence anyway.
Click to expand...
I did. You quoted me!! What I'm saying is, if AMD want FSR3 to be perceived as being competitive with Nvidia's DLSS tech, which I assume is their technical goal and desire, then they need to demonstrate it is. So we need a title in which both technologies can be compared.

Otherwise, it's just a marketing exercise. Which is what I feel AMD have here. Marketing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jay
DSoup said:
I did. You quoted me!! What I'm saying is, if AMD want FSR3 to be perceived as being competitive with Nvidia's DLSS tech, which I assume is their technical goal and desire, then they need to demonstrate it is. So we need a title in which both technologies can be compared.

Otherwise, it's just a marketing exercise. Which is what I feel AMD have here. Marketing.
Click to expand...
I thought your 'if' was in response to @eastmen, but got what you meant now.

It would be nice if it was comparable from a quality perspective.
But like FSR2 even if it's not, it has a place as the only one that could run on non Nvidia cards.

If it's them that's locking out other scalers then it would be for the same reason as FSR2, where everyone already knows how it compares anyway.
They know it will get modded in and compared.
Can market it as using FSR, if it has them all kind of looses some of that cache even if it's not pro gamer.
Like you said marketing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top