100°

Titanfall Adding 4K Support on PC

Expect Titanfall running at 4K resolution on PC soon, said Nvidia.

XiSasukeUchiha4367d ago

Nice let the 4K revolution begin!

kx114366d ago

begin ??

started around mid-2012 and going higher

ATi_Elite4367d ago

4K = eye burning gaming!

(if you got $5000 fora 4K tv)

how about Oculus Rift support now that would be fancy!

thezeldadoth4366d ago

actually really cheap ones are coming out next month for about 700 dollars some less

http://www.techpowerup.com/...

Audiggity4366d ago

I did some research on these, buyer's beware - if they sound too good to be true, they probably are.

The biggest issue with these 4k Dell displays is how they will work in real world situation. Particularly gaming. The refresh rate is a concern last I read.

However, they should be available now and I'm sure that reviews can support/deny this. If the work for gaming, I'm all over these.

Get triple screens @ 4k and run triple SLI'd 7 or 8 series Nvidia GPU's... then add up the price of all that and laugh.

Activemessiah4366d ago

Eye burning? don't know about that but my pockets are on fire just reading that. 5K? good lord.

JsonHenry4366d ago

4k is cool but I think the "not quite 4k but UHD" monitors/TVs are gonna be the sweet spot for higher end gaming on PCs for a while to come. Mostly because UHD monitors have both much higher resolutions while still maintaining decent gtg timing (usually ~5ms or less) and being low in price. You can get some UHD monitors in 29 inches starting as low as $549.

specialguest4366d ago

Bu-but what about 1440p gaming?? I still haven't fully experience it yet, and now 4k is already here? Wow, I'm not ready yet.

loganbdh4366d ago

um if they are adding 4k support for the pc then 1440p will be on there automatically.

specialguest4366d ago (Edited 4366d ago )

Yes I know that. That wasn't my point. What I was expressing was that 1440p is amazing in itself and 4k is surprisingly soon in a good way..

SuperWeeb4366d ago

So the Xbox version is like, 720p and the PC version is 4k?
I don't even want to get this game on my PC, but you'd have to be an idiot to get the arguably inferior version.

Audiggity4366d ago

Or someone who likes playing a multiplayer only game with their friends on Xbox Live.

I would pay for their copies out of pocket if I could, but, to run TF @ 4k, you'd need some serious hardware.

The texture pack alone will probably be massive. Unless they are just bumping the max output to 4k, which would look nice, but probably wouldn't require such a large investment in hardware.

king_of_N4G4366d ago

Um...yeah...for the handful of people that are able to run this game at 4K and have a 4K display and don't forget that some 4k displays and tvs max out at 30fps.

What a totally valid comparison..

Allsystemgamer4365d ago

But but but the xbox version is best (according to reps awns and ms)

Show all comments (17)
40°

DLSS 3.8 vs 4.0 vs 4.5: Ultra Performance as Good as Native 4K

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.

Read Full Story >>
pcoptimizedsettings.com
MrDead50d ago

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.

batiti9349d ago

totally useless since NVIDIA app release last year... It does force latest DLSS to global settings if you ask the app to do so.

MrDead49d ago

The NVidia app doesn't let you choose which version of, DLSS Frame Gen and DLSS Ray Reconstruction like DLSS Swapper does.

Goodguy0150d ago

Quite amazing. But, this does probably mean devs will depend on ai even more for their supposed optimizations lol.

Neonridr50d ago

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.

badz14949d ago

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

Neonridr49d ago (Edited 49d ago )

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.

TheDreamCorridor48d ago (Edited 48d ago )

"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.

150°

NVIDIA DLSS 4 vs AMD FSR 4 Compared: Ray Reconstruction Makes FSR 4 Look Last-Gen

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.

Read Full Story >>
pcoptimizedsettings.com
dveio90d ago

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.

Notellin90d ago

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.

Tapani89d ago

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.

Gamersunite88090d ago

DLSS will always be better. FSR sucks.

__y2jb90d ago

The examples given look essentially identical.

babadivad90d ago

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.

derek90d ago

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".

Tapani89d ago (Edited 89d ago )

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)

MrDead90d ago

I've been lucky enough to get a new 5090 build in March, glad I went with Nvidia. Cyberpunk looks amazing.

Show all comments (11)
100°

AMD's RX9070 XT crushes Nvidia's RTX 5080 in Call of Duty: Black Ops 7 benchmarks - Story Mode

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.

Read Full Story >>
storymode.info
wesnytsfs144d ago

No ray tracing might be why.

Runechaz143d ago

Ray tracing is useless in a fps

thecodingart143d ago

Came looking for dumb comments - found them

Zenzuu143d ago

Not every game needs to have ray tracing.

Darkseeker143d ago

I'd even say no games need to have it. It's just a ressource hog.

Blad3runner00143d ago (Edited 143d ago )

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?

OpenGL143d ago

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.

wesnytsfs143d ago

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.

OpenGL142d ago

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.