Also reminds me of other software. A web browser bloats up to a GB or so and nobody seems to remember, they were under 100MB not far back.

Recommendation? They go for around 650 coins in my country with a rather crappy design (generally no good quality PCB) vs. around 900 coins for a 7900 XTX with a generally better PCB design and 25-30% more performance. I feel it is pretty much a "draw" here if it comes to value. The 7800 XT is "only" around 500 coins with around 10-15% lesser performance, so it is actually a even better value. Finally AMD simply was trying to make every card a somewhat good value. There is no "excessive robbery price" for the flagships in a way Nvidia is handling it. Nvidia can afford it because they do not even need gamers anymore... their flagships get "sold out" in the AI-digital-industrial-complex for prices most people can barely even spell out its numbers... numbers like 40 000 a card is pretty realistic, the price of a new shiny car. With some previous generations it was probably half of that but the industry got more coins now thanks to the old cards. So even 3000 a flagship is "a small price" for them. It is another league... it seems. The only reason those flagships "only" cost 3000 is because they kinda use "defective AI server GPU chips" which are lacking the finest quality... and because Nvidia simply is unable to charge even more (the gamers bag is usually more limited). Of course, gamers will not get any of them unless the AI-industry is saying "we are full... now... but come back again very soon".

No worry.. the 5080 and 5070 will use another chip... because no sufficient amount of "broken Cuda and Tensor-cores" could deliver the required degrading; although it still can keep up with AMDs offers... so no need to lose to much tears because of excessive sweat or heat.

AMDs stance is clear: The Porsche drivers has already been served on a silver platter, so we are gonna serve the "big mass", so no need for a new flagship anymore... lets just barely beat the broken "alternate GPUs" at the midrange market from Nvidia and try to make a better price doing so. Intel almost same but their customers are "SFF" (small form factor) or "LBC" (low bag capacity)" users... so the market is now pretty much "solved".

As for me, nope, not interested into the new generation for now... as a customer... because the prices will most likely be crazy and my old card is still going sufficiently strong thanks to suitable performance and sturdy design, so i can "afford" it not to lose even more coins and "just wait for a better offer"... probably in about a year, who knows. The pricey PS5 pro as a backup was serving my current needs better than a even better card.

Yes, as in recommended by Jayztwocents. Send him a message if you want to question his recommendation, or talk in general. I have no interest.

We both got not interest because for me the matter is clear and for you as well... pointless post it seems.

Yeah the 9th generation of gaming is the worst era of optimization right now... Developers went too far with upscaling in this generation we are going back to PS2 resolutions lol. We had realistic graphics back in the late 2000s on a PS3 at full native 720p 2x MSAA in Killzone 2. It's impressive how good that game still looks today... and now we have 436p upscaled games on a Xbox Series S, a console much more powerful than the PS3.

Why do we need blurry TAA, upscaling, and frame generation in 9th gen games when we already had realistic graphics back in 7th gen with games like Crysis, Mirror's Edge, and Killzone 2 that still looks great today without all that blurry stuff? Things like this is why old graphics in 2005-2013 sometimes look better than shiny new modern graphics in 2024.

And with enough optimization, you could fit a high end game into low end hardware. For example the Wii version of the cancelled Star Wars Battlefront 3 game from Free Radical was not the standard definition PSP/PS2 versions, but it's the high defintion PC/PS3/X360 versions with all the content just with reduced graphics and it has space to ground battles. It would have been the most impressive Wii game ever made if it wasn't cancelled. Games like STALKER 2 and Immortals of Aveum could fit on a PS4/XONE with enough optimization and reduced graphics.

Well, this is the gamers opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fz1oMAMisgE

In short: He thinks that we nowadays got almost no native game resolution anymore and that a native resolution is still "the optimum".

I do agree... as long as a hardware is able to run it smoothly, which is not the case anymore on way to many games. I do think that some AI technology such as DLAA (deep learning anti aliasing) is the best quality possible = native combined with AI. However, the thing usually done is to scale up a very low res up to the monitors native resolution... which is basically the main work done by the AI. This is not per se a "image quality enhancer" but a method in order to gain more performance. It is even better "improving" a native res picture instead of improving stuff which is 480P or just a bit higher than this.

Some methods may involve "interpolation" which is adding lag and ghosting, or at least vulnerable to it... and upscaling is in general vulnerable to artifacting. If the game engine is not perfectly tuned for it... i think there are always some "faulty" objects inside a game, although the overall quality can still be great.

RT is in general vulnerable to "grittiness" which could result into a slightly more blurry image. In order to counter it a lot of powerful technology may have to be used... and this means "even more performance demand": RT is, even in the rather far tuture... a very demanding thing.

And this is the industries opinion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1EhcFMKoIU

In short: Mark Cerny thinks that the traditional rasterization is not increasing a lot anymore and ML (machine learning) combined with upscaling is the future. PSSR is his biggest projekt he ever was part with and indeed... the PS5 Pro in this case is kinda a "Beta platform" for the PS6 and up.

And this is basically "status quo", on a PS5 Pro (which is about mid range compared to PC):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1XYtBP3Tmcs

In short: A game like RE4 Remake is running at a resolution a bit above the PS3 = 720 P resolution and then upscaled using PSSR up to 4k.

That's a good way to sum it up.

Frame generation and upscaling is the biggest scam since FXAA. But consoles have to use any dirty cheap tricks available to make it seem like they are worth it I guess.

And as games these days are made as multi-platform as possible, PC suffers for it too. Gone are the days of dedicated platform ports.

I do not think the PS5/Pro is generating frames, it is based on upscaling. However, on PC both technologies has been used a lot it seems, on newer games. So i can not exactly agree with "especially consoles are in need of it"... i guess everyone is affected by "to weak" hardware and on PC not any lesser than on console. Because on console we have a certain "standard" allowing for better optimization... while on PC due to so many different builds it is way more complicated.

As well, as far as i can say, the PSSR technology is currently more advanced than AMDs FSR, so Sony actually made a better job. Intel is hard to say but i think it totally depends on the game because Intel is still a bit "inconsistent", this is their main issue. Not much to say about Nvidia, they still lead the technology and in overall got the best "AI solution". However... on some optimized content, for example Horizon Zero Dawn Remastered or Stellar Blade i think this (or other) technology made a very good job providing "crispy" pictures. Though, the internal resolution is not "to shabby", it is even way above 1080P in average, on the most demanding setting it is 1800P. Almost as high on Horizon Zero Dawn Remaster, if quality mode is used.

On Horizon Zero Dawn Remaster i do not even know "what they used" exactly, but in general Guerilla Games is one of the most capable developers and they got a lot of "in house" solutions. The game is running internally with 1440P or even higher, on the PS5 Pro, it seems. Scaling technology is unknown.

Sources:

Stellar Blade https://www.resetera.com/threads/df-stellar-blade-ps5-pro-review-one-of-the-best-upgrades-weve-seen.1042971/

Horizon Zero Dawn Remaster https://icon-era.com/threads/df-the-horizon-games-on-ps5-pro-feature-some-of-the-best-upscaling-technology-weve-seen.15144/

Dev goes "this can run on PS whatever at 60 FPS if we use these tricks, optimization done, ship it".
PC with 4090 goes "WHY DOES THIS SHIT NOT RUN PROPERLY?"

Direct correlation as I added in my last post - goal is to make only one version of the game that fits all platforms. Which always means it will be dragged down by the lowest common denominator, that being whatever the current "industry standard" for consoles is.

Well, i'm glad there seems to be some agreement on how UE5 in its self is not bad.

Still, after reviewing Cyberpunk again (got a nice screenie if your interested) I feel mighty interested about what CDPR manages with Unreal Engine themselves

Confusing, because lets say "the game has been dragged down by a Nintendo Switch" because this is the currently lowest industry standard... then it should in theory run like a rocket on steroids on almost any PC.

Well, it does not work like that because in general the devs are optimizing stuff separately on Nintendo. While a PC is usually stick to the limitations of "next gen stationary consoles". The weakest of those is a Xbox Series S, which is as well way weaker than most PCs.... so in theory even a Battlemage-PC should run like a rocket, just without steroids.

Okay... i guess it still does not exactly work this way... reason why PC and next gen consoles alike got a "hard time" in many or most cases.

From what I am seeing, UE does have a TAA issue along with upscalers as well. It seems to be more than a developers fault when most UE games that are being released seems to have optimization issues.

UE is too system intense for what it gives. It hasn't been good since UE3.

That's really all there is to it. The frame generation/upscaling is just a method to squeeze more money out of gpu buyers, nothing more.

I say that as someone who upgraded from a 1080ti to a 6800XT, and while the extra frames are nice, I really don't need them whatsoever. I don't play competitive esports, nor do most people.

Twitch streamers don't count either imo. Twitch is a dying platform. The market for frame generation needs to diminish and the developers need to get better at their jobs.

I can't help but think of the Tim Cain YT video where he wanted devs on The Outer Worlds to program a battle script that took 10 minutes to program, and he was forced to let the developers take 2-3 weeks to do the same thing because they were so bad at their jobs, and he wasn't allowed to do it himself.

That's pretty much modern society.

Well, the question is can this same level of quality be maintained and improved in UE5 without being much more demanding.

I have also attached a screenshot of my own gameplay from today. I ran out of a Ripperdoc to my car and had to appreciate just how good this game can really look at times. The better part is the 70fps which is maintained throughout the city whilst looking this way.

This game is still incomplete in my opinion and lacking so many QOL updates (without mods) but one thing it managed was looking good and running well. If they can improve upon this with UE5 I'll be impressed.

I recall quite a few stories now where independent programmers find solutions that studios couldn't figure out themselves and I wonder why a team of supposed experts is losing to one guy in his bedroom. Some experts just have the title but not the skills, question is how did they get the title then...