FSP Hydro PTM Pro (1200W PSU) review
ASUS ROG Radeon RX 6750 XT STRIX review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Sapphire Radeon RX 6650 XT Nitro+ review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6950 XT Sapphire Nitro+ Pure review
Sapphire Radeon RX 6750 XT Nitro+ review
MSI Radeon RX 6950 XT Gaming X TRIO review
MSI Radeon RX 6750 XT Gaming X TRIO review
MSI Radeon RX 6650 XT Gaming X review
Deepcool AS500 PLUS CPU Cooler Review
Battlefield 2042 will get DLSS and Nvidia Reflex support (but not raytracing?)
EA announced that Nvidia will be their PC launch partner for Battlefield 2042, thus supporting DLSS and Nvidia Reflex, which would significantly improve the gaming experience for GeForce RTX graphics card users.
DLSS technology allows the image to be rendered in a resolution lower than the target resolution and then rescaled by artificial intelligence using the Tensor Cores of GeForce RTX graphics cards, increasing FPS rates for a greater advantage in competitive games.
Nvidia Reflex allows you to speed up the rendering process of each frame, helping to reduce latency to half the latency normally obtained, allowing you to see your enemies faster and register your movements faster.
Kinda weird but neither of the companies mentioned Ray-Tracing, so it appears that the new Battlefield installment will not include this technology.
EA has also announced the Microsoft alliance as a console partner, which offers Xbox series S/X exclusive improvement. The advantages compared to the Playstation 5 were not detailed, although the next EA Live on July 22 may know this information. Battlefield 2042 is coming October 22 to PC, Playstation 4/4 Pro, Playstation 5, Xbox One / One X, and Xbox Series S / X.
Battlefield 6 is Battlefield 2042 (updated & announced) - 06/10/2021 09:53 AM
Stemming from a leak on the Discord of the well-known leaker Tom Henderson, the next game developed by DICE and EA will be called Battlefield 2042 , moving in between 1942 and the futuristic title of ...
Free to grab: Battlefield 4 through Amazon Prime - 06/03/2021 08:40 AM
Electronic Arts is giving away the base version of Battlefield 4 to those users who are part of Amazon's Prime Gaming service . From today until June 21, you can access this link to get a redeemable ...
Battlefield 6 to be announced on June 9 - 06/02/2021 08:15 AM
It seems the trailer of the next installment Battlefield 6 got leaked. Electronic Arts only suggested a few weeks ago that the reveal would be in June, without commenting on the repeated leaks....
Battlefield Demo imminent this week (updated) - 05/11/2021 10:16 AM
It's not a secret that later this year Battlefield 6 will make its entrance. So the viral and marketing campaigns are already waring up. 2 images of the expected trailer got 'leaked' on Reddit....
EA confirms Battlefield 6 to arrive end of the year in an unprecedented scale - 02/04/2021 10:33 AM
The marketing hype has already begun. During Electronic Arts' fiscal 2021 third-quarter earnings call, Andrew Wilson CEO of EAm shared some news about the upcoming Battlefield and revealed that the n...
Dragam1337
Senior Member
Posts: 3897
Joined: 2017-11-23
Senior Member
Posts: 3897
Joined: 2017-11-23
#5926402 Posted on: 07/03/2021 03:21 PM
Lol it's Battlefield.. Battlefield has never been a game where I intentionally lower settings to get better performance. CS1.6/Source/GO? All low, playing at half my monitors native res with a custom config that lowers the quality even more than what's offered in game. Siege, same thing - everything low but I actually ran it in native 200+fps. Valorant? Optimized for the start for 200+ fps because even on high it looks mediocre. Those are actual competitive games that are worth extracting every bit of performance out of if you're playing in a league.
Battlefield? I want awesome looking explosions, photogrammetric textures, beautiful sweeping Vistas, high quality assets, incredible lighting etc - and the great part about Battlefield, historically, is that even with all the settings turned up and the top end graphics card, you still get 70fps+. Which is more than enough to have people calling me a cheater whole game. I didn't play BF5 because Battlefield gameplay is so stagnant, but with my 3080 I have no problems hitting 70+fps with RT on without DLSS. And it's a DXR 1.0, first tier iteration of RT reflections only. Games now are running multiple RT effects with better optimization across the board. There's no reason why DICE can't do better given their track record. Not to mention that six months after the game comes out we'll probably be getting a whole new generation of RT cards.
And worst case scenario you just TURN IT OFF. By your logic why even include "Very High" settings or whatever it's called in BF? Why include any setting that lowers performance? Texture Detail High? Have fun dying, said no one ever.
Issue isn't fps - issue is that raytracing + dlss introduces quite a bit of lag, which you dont want in an online shooter, regardless of you wanting it to look good.
Bf5 doesn't get the lag with rt, cause its "rt" solution doesn't use the rt cores.
Lol it's Battlefield.. Battlefield has never been a game where I intentionally lower settings to get better performance. CS1.6/Source/GO? All low, playing at half my monitors native res with a custom config that lowers the quality even more than what's offered in game. Siege, same thing - everything low but I actually ran it in native 200+fps. Valorant? Optimized for the start for 200+ fps because even on high it looks mediocre. Those are actual competitive games that are worth extracting every bit of performance out of if you're playing in a league.
Battlefield? I want awesome looking explosions, photogrammetric textures, beautiful sweeping Vistas, high quality assets, incredible lighting etc - and the great part about Battlefield, historically, is that even with all the settings turned up and the top end graphics card, you still get 70fps+. Which is more than enough to have people calling me a cheater whole game. I didn't play BF5 because Battlefield gameplay is so stagnant, but with my 3080 I have no problems hitting 70+fps with RT on without DLSS. And it's a DXR 1.0, first tier iteration of RT reflections only. Games now are running multiple RT effects with better optimization across the board. There's no reason why DICE can't do better given their track record. Not to mention that six months after the game comes out we'll probably be getting a whole new generation of RT cards.
And worst case scenario you just TURN IT OFF. By your logic why even include "Very High" settings or whatever it's called in BF? Why include any setting that lowers performance? Texture Detail High? Have fun dying, said no one ever.
Issue isn't fps - issue is that raytracing + dlss introduces quite a bit of lag, which you dont want in an online shooter, regardless of you wanting it to look good.
Bf5 doesn't get the lag with rt, cause its "rt" solution doesn't use the rt cores.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13713
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13713
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5926416 Posted on: 07/03/2021 04:09 PM
Issue isn't fps - issue is that raytracing + dlss introduces quite a bit of lag, which you dont want in an online shooter, regardless of you wanting it to look good.
Bf5 doesn't get the lag with rt, cause its "rt" solution doesn't use the rt cores.
The latency of a frame with RT/DLSS at 100fps is almost identical to one with just RT or even no RT at 100fps given that every thing else is the same.
It 100% uses the RT cores if they are available - there is a reason why it runs significantly faster on RT enabled hardware than not.
Issue isn't fps - issue is that raytracing + dlss introduces quite a bit of lag, which you dont want in an online shooter, regardless of you wanting it to look good.
Bf5 doesn't get the lag with rt, cause its "rt" solution doesn't use the rt cores.
The latency of a frame with RT/DLSS at 100fps is almost identical to one with just RT or even no RT at 100fps given that every thing else is the same.
It 100% uses the RT cores if they are available - there is a reason why it runs significantly faster on RT enabled hardware than not.
Dragam1337
Senior Member
Posts: 3897
Joined: 2017-11-23
Senior Member
Posts: 3897
Joined: 2017-11-23
#5926417 Posted on: 07/03/2021 04:12 PM
The latency of a frame with RT/DLSS at 100fps is almost identical to one with just RT or even no RT at 100fps given that every thing else is the same.
It 100% uses the RT cores if they are available.
Have you tried running cyberpunk / metro exodus / control with raytracing? Deffo alot more lag with raytracing enabled vs disabled, even when the fps is higher due to dlss.
The latency of a frame with RT/DLSS at 100fps is almost identical to one with just RT or even no RT at 100fps given that every thing else is the same.
It 100% uses the RT cores if they are available.
Have you tried running cyberpunk / metro exodus / control with raytracing? Deffo alot more lag with raytracing enabled vs disabled, even when the fps is higher due to dlss.
Denial
Senior Member
Posts: 13713
Joined: 2004-05-16
Senior Member
Posts: 13713
Joined: 2004-05-16
#5926420 Posted on: 07/03/2021 04:24 PM
If that's true (I don't think it is) then you're argument is even worse.
In this post you're saying RT always adds latency whether DLSS is on or off.. but in the previous post you're saying BF5 has some magical RT implementation that does not add latency ever. So which is it? Does RT add latency or is there a way to add RT without latency? Why can't BF2042 use this magical no-latency, no RT core, RT that DICE has previously created?
I've played Metro/Control and now Doom with RT. I play on a 144hz monitor and I've previously played games at fairly competitive levels (CS in both CEVO-M, CAL-P in 1.6) I'm older now but I still play Siege and other competitive shooters maintain better than average levels, so I'm still sensitive to latency and prefer higher framerates in these titles. Outside of lowering the framerate (which is always going to increase latency), I don't notice any significantly induced latency to the frames. I've also never seen any evidence of increased latency in the frame by anyone else (if you have a source I'd love to read it and learn about it).
Either way I'm not sure why it's relevant to the discussion here. Simply increasing framerate lowers frame latency - so why not argue that there should be no high quality settings? Why not demand the game be optimized for 200fps+ like other competitive shooters? The reason why no one cares is because there are lots of people that like Battlefield games to have great graphics. For people that want performance, low latency less "lag" they can just
Have you tried running cyberpunk / metro exodus / control with raytracing? Deffo alot more lag with raytracing enabled vs disabled, even when the fps is higher due to dlss.
If that's true (I don't think it is) then you're argument is even worse.
In this post you're saying RT always adds latency whether DLSS is on or off.. but in the previous post you're saying BF5 has some magical RT implementation that does not add latency ever. So which is it? Does RT add latency or is there a way to add RT without latency? Why can't BF2042 use this magical no-latency, no RT core, RT that DICE has previously created?
I've played Metro/Control and now Doom with RT. I play on a 144hz monitor and I've previously played games at fairly competitive levels (CS in both CEVO-M, CAL-P in 1.6) I'm older now but I still play Siege and other competitive shooters maintain better than average levels, so I'm still sensitive to latency and prefer higher framerates in these titles. Outside of lowering the framerate (which is always going to increase latency), I don't notice any significantly induced latency to the frames. I've also never seen any evidence of increased latency in the frame by anyone else (if you have a source I'd love to read it and learn about it).
Either way I'm not sure why it's relevant to the discussion here. Simply increasing framerate lowers frame latency - so why not argue that there should be no high quality settings? Why not demand the game be optimized for 200fps+ like other competitive shooters? The reason why no one cares is because there are lots of people that like Battlefield games to have great graphics. For people that want performance, low latency less "lag" they can just
TURN THE FEATURES OFF. It's really that simple.
Click here to post a comment for this news story on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 13713
Joined: 2004-05-16
Lol it's Battlefield.. Battlefield has never been a game where I intentionally lower settings to get better performance. CS1.6/Source/GO? All low, playing at half my monitors native res with a custom config that lowers the quality even more than what's offered in game. Siege, same thing - everything low but I actually ran it in native 200+fps. Valorant? Optimized for the start for 200+ fps because even on high it looks mediocre. Those are actual competitive games that are worth extracting every bit of performance out of if you're playing in a league.
Battlefield? I want awesome looking explosions, photogrammetric textures, beautiful sweeping Vistas, high quality assets, incredible lighting etc - and the great part about Battlefield, historically, is that even with all the settings turned up and the top end graphics card, you still get 70fps+. Which is more than enough to have people calling me a cheater whole game. I didn't play BF5 because Battlefield gameplay is so stagnant, but with my 3080 I have no problems hitting 70+fps with RT on without DLSS. And it's a DXR 1.0, first tier iteration of RT reflections only. Games now are running multiple RT effects with better optimization across the board. There's no reason why DICE can't do better given their track record. Not to mention that six months after the game comes out we'll probably be getting a whole new generation of RT cards.
And worst case scenario you just TURN IT OFF. By your logic why even include "Very High" settings or whatever it's called in BF? Why include any setting that lowers performance? Texture Detail High? Have fun dying, said no one ever.