What annoys me is not that you are wrong, but that LTT made same big claim, while acknowledging that Valve said “with FSR” in same sentence about 4k at 60. No one ever said “native 4k 60”. And yes, maybe you need to drop target resolution to as low as 1080p or 900p to achive that target, but it still achivable, hence not a lie.
On top of that, AMD released INT8 (I assume) FSR4.1 at same day, that supports this hardware, so quality wise it will be manageable. PS5 often used upscaling not based on ml and still looks okay.
And another thing — if new downgraded by AMD FSR4 won’t suffice, you can use full version of FSR4. On Linux it’s a thing, you can just drop FS4 dll to the game, add launch params to steam and use Proton-GE or Proton-Cachyos, those have patch for FSR3 override. I tested it on 7900xtx and ryzen z1extreme (apu), in both cases it performs better than FSR3 quality wise, while still providing perf uplift compared to native resolution.
Okay, Triple-A.
What is one advantage or genuine improvement that Triple A has done on gaming in general that isn’t just “yet another change to make things more realistic”?
Asset streaming, huge worlds, hell the Nintendo 64 can do it.
We have so much computing power available on your mom’s Dell Pavilion she uses at work that is just not even used to its full potential, just for the sake of “number go big” because Nvidia or AMD or Intel needs to sell more chips.
My computer has a Xeon E3-1220 V3 with 16 GB of RAM
I do Gamedev, work development (with Rust AND C++ cross-compiling to both Windows and Linux), embedded development (ESP32), 3D modelling on Blender and more.
Its Firefox with multiple tabs + YouTube running for music, VS Code, and whatever toolchains/compilers I need, on a dual monitor setup (fair its only dual 1366x768 but still two framebuffers)
And I really need to push the computer through hell to make it stutter.
Why the fuck does gaming needs that much compute? What the hell are the devs doing that a fucking 6600 XT, which is a absolute behemoth with 2048 Cores and 8 fucking Gigs of memory struggles with?
Hell, I’ve made a fucking Dreamcast, which is a console from 2001 have 1:1 Parity with a fucking Linux game I made using Raylib with a full blown 3D 6DOF(6 Directions of Freedom) Flight racing game, loading and generating 3D geometry and calculating physics on the fly in runtime
And that fucking thing predates the whole concept of graphics pipelines and shaders, it only has a PVR.
AAA titles work just fine at 1080p, possibly even on 1440p at optimised settings (and games come with optimised settings on Stream). The 4k claim was a lie.
Try something AAA made in this decade, on a monitor made in this decade. Valve also isn’t marketing this as a retro console.
They said 60fps at 4k.
They lied.
What annoys me is not that you are wrong, but that LTT made same big claim, while acknowledging that Valve said “with FSR” in same sentence about 4k at 60. No one ever said “native 4k 60”. And yes, maybe you need to drop target resolution to as low as 1080p or 900p to achive that target, but it still achivable, hence not a lie.
On top of that, AMD released INT8 (I assume) FSR4.1 at same day, that supports this hardware, so quality wise it will be manageable. PS5 often used upscaling not based on ml and still looks okay.
And another thing — if new downgraded by AMD FSR4 won’t suffice, you can use full version of FSR4. On Linux it’s a thing, you can just drop FS4 dll to the game, add launch params to steam and use Proton-GE or Proton-Cachyos, those have patch for FSR3 override. I tested it on 7900xtx and ryzen z1extreme (apu), in both cases it performs better than FSR3 quality wise, while still providing perf uplift compared to native resolution.
Okay, Triple-A. What is one advantage or genuine improvement that Triple A has done on gaming in general that isn’t just “yet another change to make things more realistic”? Asset streaming, huge worlds, hell the Nintendo 64 can do it.
We have so much computing power available on your mom’s Dell Pavilion she uses at work that is just not even used to its full potential, just for the sake of “number go big” because Nvidia or AMD or Intel needs to sell more chips.
My computer has a Xeon E3-1220 V3 with 16 GB of RAM I do Gamedev, work development (with Rust AND C++ cross-compiling to both Windows and Linux), embedded development (ESP32), 3D modelling on Blender and more. Its Firefox with multiple tabs + YouTube running for music, VS Code, and whatever toolchains/compilers I need, on a dual monitor setup (fair its only dual 1366x768 but still two framebuffers) And I really need to push the computer through hell to make it stutter.
Why the fuck does gaming needs that much compute? What the hell are the devs doing that a fucking 6600 XT, which is a absolute behemoth with 2048 Cores and 8 fucking Gigs of memory struggles with?
Hell, I’ve made a fucking Dreamcast, which is a console from 2001 have 1:1 Parity with a fucking Linux game I made using Raylib with a full blown 3D 6DOF(6 Directions of Freedom) Flight racing game, loading and generating 3D geometry and calculating physics on the fly in runtime And that fucking thing predates the whole concept of graphics pipelines and shaders, it only has a PVR.
You don’t have to sell me, I agree with you. I use a 3600 and a 6600XT and I play indies mostly.
…but that’s not what the mainstream wants. They still want their giant blockbuster AAA pretty games and they’ll pay for it. They’ll have to lmao.
AAA titles work just fine at 1080p, possibly even on 1440p at optimised settings (and games come with optimised settings on Stream). The 4k claim was a lie.
*FSR enabled