All Channels
Popular
170°

How well does MLAA looks in PC games

Thanks to the recent release of the implementation of MLAA in AMD HD Radeon 5XXX videocard series, you can now see how well does MLAA works in PC games, here you can see some comparison images of various games that don´t have AA versus the option of MLAA implementation, and the difference is MIND BLOWING!

And for those who have any AMD HD RADEON 5XXX videocard series, it is available the installation driver as well in the news.

Read Full Story >>
translate.google.com.ni
Aggesan5699d ago

I'll try this out with my new 6870 :)

JsonHenry5699d ago

Well, I won't use it because it is obviously an inferior form of AA. HOWEVER, for those with lesser rigs this could be a pretty sweet option since the performance hit is not as steep.

Bhai5699d ago

...consoles pioneered in a tech(gow3, lbp2, kz3-maybe) and now that's being brought to PCs. 2 years from now, PC fanboys will say that the amazing MLAA was brought first on PCs and only a PC hardware can handle it ;)

evrfighter5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

ouch MLAA barely makes a difference. Think i'll stick with the real deal and not that blurry mess.

but that's why I have a 5870. So I don't have to settle for a poor mans AA.

The only thing that's been confirmed is that MLAA is about 2xAA. which is laughable considering how the ps3 fanboys were like "ZOMG ITS LIKE 16xAA!!!!!!111!!!"

siyrobbo5699d ago

it first appeared on the saboteur on PS3

OpenGL5699d ago

MLAA was actually developed by Intel years before it was used in God of War 3.

Cool idea, but MLAA only makes sense on a console where real anti-aliasing creates a massive performance hit. I'd rather have 8x adaptive anti-aliasing any day of the week, but more anti-aliasing options are nice.

fossilfern5699d ago

I think this is aimed at people with less powerfull rigs who want to eliminate the Aliasing without any real performance hit. I personally dont think ill use it but it suits the console, PC im not so sure.

+ Show (1) more replyLast reply 5699d ago
aliveinboston5698d ago

Console implementations have shown far superior results.

meetajhu5699d ago

One of the worst techniques now available on PC.

ZombieAssassin5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

I think Temporal anti-aliasing is a worse technique, just my opinion though but any type of AA is a good thing.

Digital-_-Smoke5699d ago

Explain yourself this is freakin sweat tried it with SC2 and it looks marvelous

Sarcasm5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

Are you smoking crack?

http://media.bestofmicro.co...

It's all about performance. Those with high end cards that can afford 32x 60fps need not apply.

But those with modest GPUs will be able to enjoy double the frame rate with near 4x AA quality. Look at the performance hit from no AA to MLAA. And at 1920x1080 resolution to boot.

ct035699d ago

MLAA is crap, it's nothing more than a post process filter. Of course the performance hit is tiny.

raztad5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

Unexpected comment but I'm not surprised.

I was hanging at Neogaf and those guys over there are extremely excited with the results MLAA provides at very low cost performance wise. Not to mention this is a very early implementation and it is working unofficially on 5xxx. So things could improve.

Are you talking based off real experimentation meetahjhu?

@nickjkl

Bro, I think you fvking nailed it. No all of them are so reactionary tho. As I said above PC dudes at GAF/Beyond3D have been testing several games with it.

Seems like GTA4 runs with MLAA. Also Dead Space and it is confirmed Mass Effect will get support.

Funny stuff MLAA didnt originate on PS3. MLAA was developed by intel (if I remember correctly), GoW3 just proved MLAA works and works extremely well.

nickjkl5699d ago

i think hes saying it because it originated on consoles and hes one of those pc elitist that thinks consoles are crap compared to every pc in existence

ProjectVulcan5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

Worst techniques? Dont be silly. Considering that MLAA should work with game engines that do not support MSAA or have trouble with it because of deferred render techniques, its just another weapon in the armory for PC gamers. Dead space looks massively better with it, and GTA4 does too.

The only way to get functioning AA on games like that involve Super Sampling, which is ridiculously costly only the very fastest cards and insanely expensive machines can afford to apply it. Whereas a mid range card can get as good as if not better results for little performance hit with MLAA.

MSAA, SSAA, CSAA. Mix them up, add in MLAA for the future. Picking the best method for each game and your own machine. Flexibility is the name of the game for PC.

meetajhu5699d ago

Technically your are very advanced as i can see from your reply. MLAA is a post processing effect and not a polygon edge sharping and only when a game makes use of the tech it knows where to morph edges as developers will script it and which is impossible for the gpu to determine where it should smooth the edge. Screenshots never justify quality of a game unless u see a game in action, jaggies are found only when u see something in motion as it applies to Dead Space.

MLAA = smoothing of edge, which is actually Ati's response to Nvidia's 32x CSAA.
MSAA,CSAA,SSAA- Are sharping of edges.

ProjectVulcan5698d ago (Edited 5698d ago )

All the methods i mentioned are Anti aliasing, their goal being to reduce stair stepped edges or aliasing in games by sampling the pixels around them. Then altering the colour of a pixel or pixels between boundaries of polygon edges, although MLAA is a full scene effect which means its NOT restricted to just polygon edges. It'll anti alias the whole scene.....

Its not impossible for it to distinguish where smoothing should be applied as it isnt added earlier in the render pipeline, being a post process filter.

The screens seen quite clearly show the quality of the AA applied, this isnt temporal AA. You dont need to see the game moving to realise how good it can be. What is even better news is that MLAA can be used in conjuction with other anti aliasing techniques. It isnt exclusive. You could use 4 X MSAA and then throw MLAA on top to clean up what is left. The results have the potential to be spectacular.

ct035698d ago (Edited 5698d ago )

I know of another great method to do anti-aliasing on an entire frame. It's called gaussian blur. Works really well at killing all types of aliasing.

Of course MLAA is a slight bit smarter than that, but it still removes detail because it has to guess which sections need smoothing. And then the smoothing itself is nothing but a localized blur (averaging the surrounding pixels).

Disagree all you want, even AMD's own comparison shows clearly how blurry things become (6th post down):
http://forum.beyond3d.com/s...

Here's an actual ingame shot from Half-Life 2. MSAA looks crisp where MLAA looks very blurry (just look at the hotel sign or the trees):
http://www.neogaf.com/forum...

nickjkl5698d ago (Edited 5698d ago )

isnt the curren implementation of mlaa on atis graphics cards forced into it

also cto3

that one post from the first link is an image being zoomed in on an image rather than what you would see if it was zoomed out

either way it doesnt change the fact that ati is just now using an early experimentation of mlaa on graphics cards compared to the kind of mlaa that santa monica used with gow3

Ju5697d ago

Of course it is a compromise. And of course all AA methods interpolate colors. And of course the best method would be using the highest super sampling possible and use it on edge detection only (which still does not solve the problem of overdrawing using a lot of transparency).

But what you can achieve with MLAA for the performance cost is outstanding. No doubt about that.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5697d ago
+ Show (3) more repliesLast reply 5697d ago
raztad5699d ago

8X is the number you are looking for.

I wish this MLAA thing matures. I'm thinking to buy a 5770 card (fits my budget) so to run games with no performance hit and MLAA sounds like a dream.

ct035698d ago

Uh-huh, and the noise reduction in cheap point & shoot digital cameras is like a 16 megapixel DSLR. No really. I swear.

Nihilism5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

"comparison images of various games that don´t have AA versus the option of MLAA"

What a pointless comparison, why not try it with games that do support MSAA for comparison so we can show the console gamers just how much they are overhyping yet another post processing effect that blurs the image....just like in SC2.

Look how blurry the ground textures in HL2 become with MLAA on, I wouldn't let that $#!+ touch my games. The colours and textures in SC2 with MLAA on look duller, the backback thing on FFXIV lack the definition of the no AA shots with MLAA on, and that says something. It's just like quincux, the smoothing is not worth the blurring.

32CSAA does the trick better than MLAA ever could, and without the blurring.

@DS

Did I say it takes a hit?, I didn't mention performance, I said MSAA looks better ( better smoothing, and no blurring ), what is there to not get? most modern games can be run with 8aa at 1080p on a mid range card or above (5850, ot gtx460 ) so I really don't see why anyone would use MLAA...

They have a picture of Dragon Age with MLAA...again with the blurring, when I run 32CSAA and 8xsupersampling and still get 60frames...the MSAA hit is not as much as people think.

Here are some of my 'inferior' MSAA screneshots...

http://img2.imageshack.us/i...
http://img203.imageshack.us...
http://img146.imageshack.us...
http://img88.imageshack.us/...

Digital-_-Smoke5699d ago

MLAA doesn't take a hit on performance

Letros5699d ago

http://www.tomshardware.com...

Very little performance drop even with 8xAA, where everything is CRISP and not a jagged edge in sight.

SuperM5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

Benchmark tests from games clearly show that turning on AA takes a big hit on performance in alot of games. MLAA is the most efficient use of AA there is, almost having no impact on performance at all. If you got good enough hardware to run all games at 60fps with full MSAA or CSAA or whatever then good for you. But eventually, games will come out where you can no longer keep a good framerate using those kinds of AA methods. Then you are either gonna want to use MLAA or buy yourself a new computer.

LostDjinn5699d ago

@ Nihilism: Looks about right. Still, don't you know where you are? You're in the place where people make crap up to defend the product they own. ;)

OT: This just goes to show how ATI cards lack the performance to match it with N'vidia cards when it comes to process heavy applications.

ChronoJoe5699d ago

I'm not really into this discussion but man, the DAO shot in the article looks better than any of your 4.

This is just an observation. I could care less about your MLAA vs MSAA argument.

OpenGL5698d ago

You really should have uploaded those image in a format like .png instead, as the compression makes it difficult to see how good or bad the anti-aliasing really is.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5698d ago
Letros5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

Ugh, Makes everything look blurry, f that...in terms of quality SSAA>MSAA>MLAA>NO AA

I want actual polygon anti-aliasing, not this post processed crap.

thehitman5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

MLAA doesnt make things look blurry if it does it just wasnt implemented correctly.

http://ps3media.ign.com/ps3...

If som1 can show me a better quality AA than that right there Id like to see it. BTW amd said MLAA is better than SSAA already they admit it on their own site.

STONEY45699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

Pictures are an awful way to show how jaggy or sharp a game is, because it's still depending on the resolution. Of course when you're only playing at 720p, you're not gonna notice how blurry MLAA actually makes things at the higher resolutions, where MSAA will look godly in comparison. And MSAA isn't even near the best, there is still Q and SSAA. And downsampling... O.O

"MLAA doesnt make things look blurry if it does it just wasnt implemented correctly."

Implemented? IT'S AA. There is no "implementation". MLAA even doesn't have variable settings like 4X or 16X, because it's a post processing effect. It's not like 4XMSAA will look better than 4XMSAA in another, it's the same exact AA system.

"If som1 can show me a better quality AA than that right there Id like to see it. BTW amd said MLAA is better than SSAA already they admit it on their own site."

And Appliance Direct still says they have the lowest prices. -_- Of course they'll want people to try their stuff, but seriously, in-game tests prove otherwise. MLAA is NOT better than SSAA, not by a looong shot. Not even MSAA.

And best kind of AA? Downsampling. While not actual AA, it works extremely well, and probably looks better than any AA system.

Letros5699d ago

Yea blow that image up some(which is how you'd see it on a TV) You can see it is blurred. MLAA is just a post processed effect, a blend filter, I don't know if there is a wrong way to implement it, possibly intensity of the blend...?

SSAA is the best AA possible for quality, it renders the game at a higher resolution and then downsamples the output resolution. However it is often never used because performance is bad.

I'm currently installing the 5XXX modded drivers to enable MLAA, will get some comparison images up as my GoW 3 disk won't work on my rig =)

thehitman5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

what your talking about lol. There isnt a 4xMLAA or w/e but there is a lvl of quality that MLAA is being used I know because there was an interview about the GoW team developing MLAA for their game and how they said when they first started with MLAA it was as bad as 4xMSAA then it developed to 16xMSAA they have multiple interviews stating this I think 1 is even on GT. Also pictures become blurry when their texture quality are horrible like what that Nihilsm posted crap looking game will look crap no matter what the AA is lol.

Also i have the GoW lol and there is ABSOLUTELY no jaggies in the game whatsoever period or blurriness.

@TABSF yes but every other source says its better too if AMD is slipping or not doesnt make it less false of a statement. All direct comparisons come out with MLAA being better still waiting for som1 to link me to a comparison where something looks better than MLAA (besides something running in like x32).

-Side note i have a i7 930/HD5850/6gig ram system and will get some direct comparisons to show off when i get time.

Also I would like to say just because you throw on a higher AA for example x8-16 AA doesnt mean you will get a better running/looking game. AA affects performance and MLAA allows you to reach x16 MSAA without it recking havoc on your performance which means running at higher frames with much higher settings. Even if the images are slightly more blurred the difference between performance is so great you wont notice any of that while your actually PLAYING the game which cant be said the other way around.

Letros5699d ago (Edited 5699d ago )

Ok I just tested it but screenshots won't work, I think it's because MLAA is a post-processed effect.

My impressions?

Annoying that everything is just blurred, even the Steam UI is blurred, you can still see the physical jaggies, but they are blurry...not really reduced.

It currently does not work in anything but DX9 as well...so I guess right now for me it's only good for UE3 titles and games which don't support AA natively, and Crysis DX9 mode...which performs good anyway

Also MLAA disables triple buffering...fail.

MSAA is just so much better overall IMO, however, nice of AMD to include MLAA for specific situations. And it is great for PS3 which has a very weak GPU compared to its CPU.

BTW Hitman SSAA is downsampling...it's the first AA method known to man.

thehitman5699d ago (Edited 5698d ago )

Im not at my comp so I cant test but i have DX11 and will test it with SC2 and maybe pushing more than you might have, ill PM you when I get chance with some comparisons hopefully I wont have same problem with screenshots. Also these games were not designed for MLAA in mind which is also something to take into account.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 5699d ago
Show all comments (48)
60°

Next-Gen Xbox on Track for 2027 Release According to AMD

AMD has mentioned that the next-gen Xbox is on track for release in 2027, which means we might be in the final year of the Series X|S.

116d ago
KicksnSnares115d ago

Xbox is dead. How are they making another console? Fake news lol

fr0sty115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

They might think taking a crack at the PC/console hybrid approach might work out for them... but with PS6 delayed until 2029 at least, there went the power advantage that paying all that extra money was supposed to afford them once PS6 does launch. Also, releasing a console right now is stupid with RAM prices as high as they are. Either we're gonna be forking out $1200-1500 for this thing, or it's going to get downgraded. It costs over $700 to put 64GB of RAM into a PC right now because all the AI datacenters are buying up ALL the RAM.

Maybe a select few gamers will be willing to fork out that much $ for a system that is more powerful than PS5 Pro, but most gamers are only just now feeling like PS5 is hitting its stride and still has a few years of life left in it before we need to move on to a new generation. Plus, by the time PS6 does launch, RAM prices will be stablizing, so PS6 will be able to put much more of its overall budget towards a more powerful GPU and CPU vs. having to spend such a large chunk of the budget just on RAM like the new Xbox will, assuming it does drop next year while still in the midst of this RAM crisis.

Reaper22_115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

People said the same thing about xbox 360 launching early but it turned out pretty good. Microsoft's R&D is much larger and more cash rich than Sony's. They have the money to do it. One of the reason Sony is waiting because they arent ready to spend billions more on hardware and the PS5 is still selling and that would definitely hurt their sales. Plus they just released Ps5 pro.
The series x isn't selling well so for Microsoft its a good time to get ready for next gen. The next console from xbox is gonna be for core gamers and no matter when sony launches it probably wont have many advances over Magnus if any at all. Im confident it will be on par or better than the next Playstation. Even the series x does features that ps5 or the pro still cant do. Sony shouldn't of released the PS5 pro. Imo its not needed and underwhelming. They could of used what they spent on that for the PS6

salis844115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

First, no one actually said that PS6 is delayed.

The rumor started with Tom Henderson saying he thought PlayStation might consider delaying the PS6 due to RAM prices. He specifically did not say that he heard that they were going to delay it or anything like that, it was 100% speculation, and he never implied otherwise.

That said, let them delay it, the PS5 Pro especially with FSR 4 coming in the next month or so, will be more than sufficient. There isn't going to be any publishers, including Microsoft, willing to skip PlayStation's user base, especially when publishers seem eager to put games on Switch 2 which is a significant step down even from the base PS5. So, the idea that having more power is really going to shift things in their favor is extremely hard to believe.

Microsoft can make as many consoles as they want, the issue is convincing people to buy them.

Both the PS5 and the Switch 2 sold double the amount of consoles in December that the SX sold in the entire year of 2025. And I doubt that a super expensive co-pilot box is going to help them, especially if you look at the lackluster sales AI equipped PC's have seen.

115d ago
Eonjay115d ago

The next Xbox issaid to have 36 GB of memory so the price short from ram should not be as apocalyptic as a 64 GB kit. With the PS6 coming in with 30 GB, the RAM should not be what makes the Xbox cost so much more. Of course without Microsoft subsidizing the console the actual MSRPs may diverge wildly.

fr0sty115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

32GB of DDR5 still costs in the neighborhood of $250-300 for the super cheap stuff, $450 for the name brand. That's what entire consoles used to cost. That eats up a huge chunk of the budget that was supposed to be paying for the CPU and GPU, which means that the cost of this system will be driven farther north than previously anticipated, and it was already expected to be above $1k. Releasing a console in the middle of an industry-wide RAM shortage is stupid. Even GPU makers are scaling back production because of it, and focusing their remaining stock and production towards selling to datacenters. Some memory manufacturers have dropped consumer products entirely and now only make chips for datacenters. Nvidia is scaling back its consumer GPUs, no longer offering the super series of some GPUs, for instance.

For MS to pull the trigger now means releasing at a very risky price point against a PS5 that is simply on fire, even outselling the Switch 2 in many cases. It's coming at a time where the Xbox brand is at its weakest ever, and consumer confidence in the brand is at absolute rock bottom. Nobody wants to drop $1500 on an Xbox when they can play the same games on their PS5 Pro for half the price already, or even cheaper if using a base PS5. Only a select few enthusiasts will bother to fork out that kind of money... by the time this product reaches a price point where it can have mass-market appeal, the PS6 will be dropping... but by that time, RAM prices will be dropping, so PS6 will now be able to, assuming it does delay until 2029, invest more into upgrading its architecture over the previously released spec, invest in more RAM than the new Xbox will have, a better CPU & GPU, etc.

As for nobody saying PS6 will launch in 2029, nobody said it would come sooner either, not officially, at least. As of now all we have to go by are rumors based on internal information that could easily change at a moment's notice. Even the design of the chip itself could change as it has not yet entered into production. They could easily opt to include a few more CUs, more RAM, more CPU cores, etc. between now and when it does officially enter production. So, MS could drop a new Xbox now, but it wouldn't be wise, at all, for them to do so if they plan on even holding a candle agains the juggernaut that will be PS6. PS5 will most likely mop the floor with it due to its price point alone.

And that's assuming MS even gives the green light to start manufacturing the console to begin with. We'll see in the coming months if production even happens. Microsoft's shareholders damn sure aren't going to be willing to subsidize anything at all after they just dumped $100b into buying game publishers, expecting to see a ROI, and not seeing it anywhere near as fast as they'd hoped, which is why we're now playing Xbox games on PS5.

As for MS sitting on RAM, they are sitting on some, but Xbox is sitting on none. Microsoft knows good and well they will make far more money putting that RAM into datacenters than they ever would putting it into a console that is already at a huge disadvantage before it even launches, and has little hope of generating a lot of sales.

+ Show (2) more repliesLast reply 115d ago
Neonridr115d ago

It'll end up being a Windows based machine that utilizes an Xbox ecosystem as well to play their game library on. But you'll end up being able to buy games from places like Steam as well more than likely.

Would make the most sense honestly. Best of both worlds.

Agent75115d ago

Microsoft should just ditch Xbox and cash in on PC and PlayStation games, maybe even Switch 2. Apparently, they make a loss on hardware, so what's the point?

Reaper22_115d ago

How can this be? Xbox died already.

115d ago Replies(1)
mkis007115d ago (Edited 115d ago )

What Xbox was is dead. Long live Xbox. I mean Halo and fable are coming to PlayStation this year. Gears and forza are already there. I'm here for it. I will absolutely give MS publishing my money if they make good games.

115d ago Replies(1)
Elda115d ago

My XBOX Series X is my first & my last XB console.

Show all comments (21)
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
dveio177d 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.

Notellin177d 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.

Tapani177d 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.

Gamersunite880177d ago

DLSS will always be better. FSR sucks.

__y2jb177d ago

The examples given look essentially identical.

babadivad177d 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.

derek177d 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".

Tapani177d ago (Edited 177d 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)

MrDead177d 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
wesnytsfs231d ago

No ray tracing might be why.

Runechaz231d ago

Ray tracing is useless in a fps

thecodingart231d ago

Came looking for dumb comments - found them

Zenzuu231d ago

Not every game needs to have ray tracing.

Darkseeker231d ago

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

Blad3runner00231d ago (Edited 231d 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?

OpenGL231d 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.

wesnytsfs230d 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.

OpenGL230d 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.