"I think what is becoming increasingly clear to gamers and observers alike is that the Android operating system is beginning to move beyond the realm of smarphones and tablets and into the realm of becoming a viable way to play games." | Explosion.com
NVIDIA rolled out the DLSS 4.5 update at CES last week, adding 2nd Gen Transformer-based Super Resolution technology for all RTX GPUs. The performance scaling varies wildly across the older (RTX 20/RTX 30) and newer (RTX 40/RTX 50) GeForce RTX lineups. We tested NVIDIA’s next-gen upscaling solution across Cyberpunk 2077, Black Myth: Wukong, Oblivion Remastered, and KCD 2.
I've been surprised by this, the difference between 4 and 4.5 is very noticeable. It's almost completely or has removed that weird dark ghosting that you'd get in foggy games like Silent Hill 2... and Cyberpunk mixed with a high res texture pack is jaw dropping in ultra 4k.
Also if anyone doesn't know I recommend DLSS swapper, it allows you to inject the latest DLSS version into older games.
Quite amazing. But, this does probably mean devs will depend on ai even more for their supposed optimizations lol.
no offense to AMD, but this sort of stuff shows that they are always going to be playing catchup. I guess Nintendo can take advantage of some of these features.
With the Switch 2? NVidia can easily lock their proprietary tech to their latest GPUs and the Switch 2 will be stuck on 3.5 for 5 more years at least
4 and 4.5 are available on 2 and 3 series cards right now. The Switch GPU is based on 3 series architecture, meaning it has access to some of those features. Obviously not as much as the higher end cards, but still some.
"Better than native."
Native 4K in nearly all games nowadays is actually native resolution with forced temporal anti-aliasing.
TAA smears and blurs frames together to soften jagged edges.
Of course DLSS makes games look "better than native" because native alone without any competent AA methods makes games look horrible.
FSR 4 was a substantial improvement to AMD’s upscaling solution. It reduces ghosting, improves finer mesh retention, and particle effects. In most cases, it delivers similar visual quality to DLSS 4’s CNN model, but slightly worse than the newer transformer model.
Since FSR is open-source and nvidia's DLSS isn't, I'd personally always prefer FSR.
Frankly, I think all these differences are nice to know (and notice) about if you're playing at DF level. And I totally respect that very small need to max out performance.
But given the prices, I don't think any nvidia GPU advantage justifies paying 1000+ bucks. I don't see any game(s) exclusively (or not) available on PC that offer a fundamentally different and innovative gameplay experience.
There's never a good reason to own any products from Nvidia. They are one of the most destructive and anti-consumer companies that's ever existed.
Anyone buying and using Nvidia is only contributing to the downfall and end of gaming as we know it now.
With the rise of Nvidia all we've seen is price gouging while their products that continue to become less power efficient and their performance gains are so miniscule you'd need a 100x microscope to notice the AI upscaling. Pathetic really.
Why do you need to pay 1000 bucks for an Nvidia GPU? You can find one that is faster than the PS5 Pro at 400 bucks, RTX 5060 ti 16GB, and it has better upscaling, more VRAM, multiframe generation and RT.
Exactly. Headline says FSR looks like last gen. Implying it's years behind the competition. Article says it's slightly behind.
Examples shown, the difference are barely discernible.
I dont know about anyone else, but I've never had 2 screens playing at the same time to know the difference in performance of a given game. It's like those TV screen comparisons, virtually nobody in the real world engages does this, lol. Performance seems comparable to me. Besides Nvidia is no longer interested in the gaming products, its full steam ahead with "AI".
Yeah, but the gaving division is still 8.5% of their global revenue, and they just made 30% YoY topline growth per quarter. A 11.35 billion business is absolutely massive, and this will continue to increase. That means there's 11.35bn reasons why they won't stop the gaming business, nor lose their focus on it. It's also their pivot if things do not go as well in the AI race. By end of 2026, they have DOUBLED the gaming division business in 5 years.
FY 2025 $11.35 billion 8.6%
FY 2024 $10.45 billion 15.2% (approx)
FY 2023 $9.07 billion -7.5% (approx)
FY 2022 $9.82 billion (approx) 49.6% (approx)
FY 2021 $6.5 billion (approx) 61.1% (approx)
I've been lucky enough to get a new 5090 build in March, glad I went with Nvidia. Cyberpunk looks amazing.
The 9070XT matches or beats Nvidia's much more expensive 5080 in CoD: BO7 benchmarks. A rare win for AMD. The article also takes a closer look at 9600X vs 9800X3D performance.
Why does the article use misleading terms like "Crushes" and "The 9070 XT "HANDILY BEATS" the more expensive RTX 5080" ? It even admits it at the end of the article, yet keeps the terms lol
Looking at the graph, the difference is only 4-19fps, depending on the settings.
I would hardly call a 4-19fps difference, "crushes" or "handily beats" and no one is going to buy a 9070 over a 5080 for COD alone. How does the 9070 fair in other games compared to the 5080?
I think they exaggerate because people like when a product punches above its weight, especially from an underdog, but yeah it's not a huge difference. There are plenty of games where the 5080 is significantly faster.
That is basically what the 5090 does compared to the 4090. I dont consider it crushing either and decided to keep my 4090 over geting the 5090 with its small increase of FPS.
That's a no brainer, the 5090 is definitely the fastest card on the market but the 4090 is the second fastest, so it's still extremely powerful.
Because it's hell cheap.
It's not necessarily the O.S., but the way devs chose to handle generating money on that O.S. In game purchasing took a huge step forward on Android. It carried itself onto other platforms as well, but the handheld/tablet market is where it has taken off.
Cant count Apple out here as well, but they have a closed system on two devices. Android took it a step further
3 reasons for developers
Its free to develop on Android
There is 100s Millions of Smartphone owners now
Development cycles are weeks or months not years
2 reasons for consumers
Fun games on the go
Cheap so little risk if they're crap
I still don'r see how mobile games replaces dedicated handhelds, but I will admit to enjoying Minecraft and Words With Friends on my phone from time to time.
funny because it is really easy to pirate with android...