Let's not kid ourselves, AMD could well be promising the jump wrt the worst performing RDNA card out there as opposed to say the most
efficient one ~ which btw is inside a
Mac not PC
So you didn't read the end notes in the slides then? Efficiency numbers are 5700 XT vs. 6800 XT. The 5700 XT is the least efficient RDNA 1 GPU, true, but the 6800 XT is by no means a best-case scenario - that would be the heavily binned, limited availability 6900 XT at the same power (which they incidentally listed as having a 65% improvement over the 5700 XT). So no, this doesn't seem like a "best v. worst" comparison.
At 20-25 years old you absolutely know what DLSS is and if it fits your needs or not.
Uh ... only if you actually care about that kind of stuff. Which the average gamer does not whatsoever. This is quite limited enthusiast knowledge. Most gamers' level of knowledge about technical features is more or less on the level of "does the game run on my hardware, y/n?".
The point is AMD cherrypicked some benchmarks (that's absolutely normal in a marketing presentation) and you cannot say "it is 18% faster" without a proper review.
No cherry picking here. The
only reason not to trust AMD's data here is that they themselves did the testing. The games used, settings used and hardware setups used are all publicized in the slide deck, if you bothered to read. There's no indication that the games they picked are disproportionately favoring AMD GPUs - shown at least partly by the relatively broad span of results in their testing, including games where they lose. Could you imagine Nvidia showing a performance graph from a game where they weren't the fastest? Yeah, there's a difference of attitude here, and AMD marketing for the past couple of years (since Raja Koduri left RTG and Dr. Su took over control there, at least) has been impressively trustworthy for first-party benchmarks.
That is quite different than "any 20-25 years old know about DLSS".
Actually, it isn't. You effectively said "at age X, you absolutely know what ABC is and if it fits your needs or not". So, that's two statements in one: that at age X you know what ABC is, and that at age X you have the breadth of knowledge and judgement skills required to know if it fits your needs or not". So whether you meant to or not, you did in effect say that "by the age of 25, everyone knows what DLSS is".
It's obvious there are young tech enthusiasts who know what DLSS is, though at age 14 I sincerely doubt there are more than a handful of tech enthusiasts worldwide with the reasoning and temperament to not just be outright screaming fanboys and fangirls - that's not their fault, they just lack the biological and experiential basis for acting like reasonable adults. But still, inferring that "above a certain age anyone knows about [obscure technical term X]" is way, way out there.
As for Fortnite being full of 14-year-olds: that's a given. No, the majority aren't 14 - that would be
really weird. But there are
tons of kids playing it, and likely the majority of players are quite young. Add to that the broad popularity of the game, and it's safe to assume that the average Fortnite player has
absolutely no idea what DLSS is. Heck, there are likely more people playing Fortnite on consoles and phones than people in the whole world who know what DLSS is.
Thanks for sharing.
