That's pretty cool. You think they are trying to form a connection to setup Quake 5? There are rumors going around ID is working on another Quake game.

Looks like a great re-master. Have Quake 1 remaster. Beat the original Quake back like 25 years ago. But even with the re-master graphics looked dated with Quake 1. But with Quake 2 it's different basically anything after 1998 when the second generation GPU's started to hit the market like Voodoo 2 is when the graphics started to get significantly better. Quake 2 was one of the first ones two show case second gen GPU's. I remember all the PC Hardware and PC Gaming magazines benchmarked Quake 2 to death on all the different GPUs at the time. It was to go to benchmark for GPUs. Don't know why some people still like Quake 1 over Quake 2. I will admit Quake 1 was unique when it came out graphically with it's Lovecraftian theme, even John Carmack stated that Quake 1 was "brown" every level seems to look brown with no diversity. Quake 2 took it to another level not just graphically. Ironically beat Quake 2 exactly 20 years ago in the summer of 2003.

Back to the re-master like that they kept the original look and feel with better textures, lighting, etc. without too much deviating from the original ambiance and look of the original. My type of re-master. I think changing the game too much takes it away from the the original art style and ambiance. Started playing expansion Reckoning about 7 years ago with mod to play it at 1080P but stopped at Unit 1. Perfect timing to go back and play the expansions with better graphics. I wonder how much of difference it really is the expansions since those were the ones I didn't play through. The new expansion made by Machine Games look good too.

It's sad the state of gaming where I am more excited about 25 year old re-master of a game then newer AAA games.

$700 for 20GB VRAM 7900 XT is a damn good price.

Actually, I wouldn't consider myself "get the best GPU at whatever cost". I only got it since I was using 1080P from 2011 starting with HD 6950 bios flashed to HD 6970 all they way to GTX 1060 6GB (10 years on the same resolution, time to upgrade, no?) This was my first really, really high end GPU that cost's $1500. Never got a GPU over $1000. Hence, I was mostly AMD user from 2008-2017. Basically from the HD 4870 to the R9 390X before switching to nVidia with GTX 1060 6GB. I would go for most bang for the buck hence the use of AMD as AMD would get close to nVidia's performance or draw it at a lesser price using traditional rasterization.

The issue becomes that since I went to 4K with Ray Tracing every frame counts. Especially, considering that I would want the best "image quality" with the best frame rates anything other than 3090 was the only option. Now, I know some people wouldn't mind the "lesser image quality" and get something like 6900 XT and play it at 4K with FSR (which is fine) but with DLSS it would hard for me to go back since the image quality is slightly better at 4K.

Now, I do like AMD (even got called AMD fanboy on these forums) when I was defending AMD when it had the best price/performance. But right now it's clear if you want to play at 4K with max settings with Ray Tracing and the "better image quality" nVidia seems to be the only choice. Having said that I am not going to discourage others from getting AMD even if they want to play at 4K as long as they are okay with slight deprecation with image quality when using FSR.

I will definitely be open to AMD in the future if they can get their image quality up to par with nVidia, if the rumors of AMD using ML/AI for future updates for image upscaling comes true.

I feel like we are back to the late 90s early 2000's when different vendors had different "image quality" with their GPU's in games until we got to the point in the later 2000's where image quality was pretty much the same between AMD/nVidia.

We may get to that point where all the GPU vendors have reached image quality parity in the future since DLSS/XeSS/FSR are still in it's infancy.

As for tax for the slightly image quality, probably max $200. I kind of "cringe" at the thought since that's how much I used to pay for GPUs (my XFX 7600 GT cost $200) hence I am paying the extra $200 just for image quality alone.

Which goes back to nVidia. As much as I hate to say it they really seems to know their customers quite well, hence they are charging the extra $200 over the 7900 XTX since they know they have the slightly better feature set with DLSS 3 and frame generation. That's only for the high-end which already has good amount of VRAM. For the mid-end (less than $500, which I find it kind of ridiculous, since $500 would have gotten you high end GPU 10 years ago). Things become more muddier. It would be hard for me to justify getting something like 8GB card in 2023 from nVidia when I could spend the same money and get something like 12 GB GPU from AMD at the same price). In that case I would take the "lesser image quality" since I would want to future proof my GPU with the extra VRAM.

Yeah this "component" is more powerful that the Xbox 360 and the PS3. Seems like you don't as the other PC Gamers in here pointe out the significance. This was more powerful than those two GPUs combined...LMAO. Yes, hermits care about frames and resolutions that's why we shell out the money for it to get you know a better experience.

That's a good question. Honestly, I didn't make much of weight for DLSS. All I know was that nVidia had better Ray Tracing and I wanted to play games in Ray Tracing (yes I am a graphics w*ore). I got a 4K monitor and there was no way I was going to get descent frame rates in games like Cyberpunk 2077 at 4K with Psycho max graphics settings even with my 3090. So, having DLSS was a must.

Fact of the matter is 4K at max settings with Ray Tracing is demanding even for a high end GPU like the 3090 so having DLSS is a must. In certain games you can get away without using DLSS and play games like Forza Horizon 5 without DLSS which I did at 4K max without issues. But when you start using Ray Tracing DLSS is a must. Noticed that with Control too. Was pretty laggy in certain parts without DLSS having tested it myself on the 3090.

Intel hired the guy which helped develop DLSS at nVidia when they started building their GPU division. Hence their good quality upscaling Xess, AMD should have hired him. My guess is that they thought they didn't need him and their version of upscaling with FSR was "good enough".

You are right FSR @4K is pretty good. Don't know if it's enough for me to switch from nVIDIA to AMD.

AMD really needs to come up with something like nVidia using Tensor Cores for AI implementation of Upscaling/Super Sampling. There were rumors that AMD was working on such things on their future GPUs. While FSR is great but not quite DLSS, some may argue that it's not noticeable. But having used DLSS at 4K I was very impressed by the quality. It would hard for me to switch back to AMD.

Nvidia really shouldn't have any excuses for being stingy with certain products at the price they are charging. RTX 4070 having 12 GB is laughable at the price they are charging. When I was played Cyberpunk at 4K with Psycho graphics with everything set to max on my RTX 3090 it easily took up 12-13 GB. That's one thing that's annoying about nVidia, they are trying to protect their margins while handicapping their great graphics cards.

My GTX 1060 6GB could have easily play Red Dead 2 maxed out at 1080P but it stutters when compared to the RX 580 because the 6GB buffers gets full in certain scenes and it has lower 1% framerates compare to the RX 580 which has 8GB. Granted this didn't affect me as I got a RTX 3090 but it's another example.

@pclover1980 said:

@04dcarraher said:

Also I would like to suggest that more recent 8gb vram limitation increase in games has one common thread.... these newer AMD sponsorship titles.....(STAR WARS Jedi: Survivor,Resident Evil 4, THE LAST OF US etc) Is AMD purposely influencing developers to inflate vram requirements to make their gpu's look better? AMD holding back RT effects in sponsored games to cater toward their shortcomings? AMD Goaded Nvidia over vram ahead of RTX 4070 launching ..... All these things seem a bit fishy in being hypocritical in supporting "open source" yet cutting/limiting features.

I feel like this is a bit too tinfoil hatty for me, but it may be the case too. Or devs are really, really just lazy. Looking at TLOU1 on PC, there's a noticeable difference in terms of VRAM usage from launch and the latest patch. Also with the case in Forspoken.

Forspoken is known for their piss-poor optimization.

Having said that it would be really dumb to not include DLSS since it's superior to FSR in Starfield.

GTX 460 was good but the HD 5850/HD 5870 was the better overall GPUs since you could get good performance with good power consumption and ran cooler. HD GTX 400 series was notorious for their heat and power. It became a meme on the web with people calling it Thermi which was poking fun at the codename of GTX 400 series which was called "Fermi".

My first high end GPU too. Got mine HD 4870 for $200, also was stuck to the mid-end or budget GPU's too. The one prior being the 7600 GT. It destroyed the PS3 and Xbox 360. Especially since consolers where hyping the "Cell" processor as it's something the best thing since sliced bread. The HD 4870 could push HD 1080P on certain games while the Xbox 360 or the PS3 was still stuck at 720P. :P

I have doubts we will get back to those. AMD seems to be comfortable with selling GPU's at the price to protect their profit margins they don't seem to care about trying to cut costs as much to get market share like they did with the HD 4800 series. They reached up to 40% GPU share. Now they are half that. Only thing I can see is intel pushing them. It's essentially a duopoly now.