A Clearer Look at DLSS 5...

You'll have to forgive my use of AI, aside from it being "appropriate", I haven't reinstalled my editing software after recently reinstalling the OS...

It feels like an eternity since the ill-fated DLSS 5 reveal, back in March(?!!) but time has moved on and we a) now have the first implementation in a game, and b) have a slew of modded games and modding community integrations for inserting DLSS 5 into almost any and all games. We also have testing from the reviewer industry and a whitepaper from Nvidia (which is a little light on details). So, let's take a look at what I wrote in my first impressions, last time, and what all current data tells us, now...

Playstation's Sixth Sense...

Well, this week has certainly been a doozy! Sony's Playstation has been doing everything they seemingly possibly can to alienate users. First they say that they're closing down the digital stores for PS3 and Vita and in the same announcement state that, from January 2028, there will be no more physical games. Then, they issue a press release saying that PS+ is increasing in price. 

 

Yay, Playstation?!

The DLSS 5 lie...

A tongue-in-cheek header image...

 

DLSS 5 has exploded into our lives the last couple of days and it's been one hell of a ride. However, I think a lot of this comes from not understanding the tech because Nvidia's CEO keeps lying...

Next Gen PC gaming requirements (2025 update)

On time, again!

It's that time of year where "best of" lists start falling like cats and dogs. So, here's my contribution to the year round-ups: trending of the recommended game requirements for games released this year...

So, What's Next...? The rate of advancement in gaming performance... (Part 2) Is PC gaming dying?!

A couple of years ago, I looked at the rate of advancement of GPUs over time. It's the only way of tracking how the user experiences technological advancement. Recently, we've seen a lot of movement in the industry of various commentators reaching the same conclusions I did, way back when... Or, maybe I'm a particularly pessimistic person and these thoughts are the logical conclusion that people will come to, given enough time and data.

But given that I was ahead of the curve, I feel I have a little more to give than even the current trends in discussion...

Next Gen PC gaming requirements (2024 update)

This year, I'm on time...

Snow is falling, winds are blowing, and it's that time to look back over the year and trend the night away! 2023 was a bit of a disappointment but I've got a good feeling about this year*...

*Okay, let's be honest, I've already seen the data!

Analyse This: Simulating the PS5 Pro... (Part 2)

It's the power of...

The Playstation 5 Pro talk is really hogging the headlines but I really wasn't 100% happy with my prior look/simulation of the device. So, I'm back here, today, putting together a quick look at a simulated PS5 base versus a simulated PS5 Pro - with PC parts!

As a side benefit of this, we also get a chance to look at the effect of changing GPU architecture and a potential sly look at an upcoming blogpost where I look at the differences between monolithic RDNA3 versus RDNA 2.

So, let's jump in...

We Need to Talk About FPS Metrics Reporting... (Part 2)

There's a well-known idiom that's often said: "There's lies, damn lies, and then there's statistics...". This implies that the "statistics" in question are another, worse form of lie that is somehow obfuscated from the receiver of the information.

We also have multiple well-known sayings which revolve around the concept of, "you can make the statistics/data say anything you want". It seems readily apparent that people, in general, do not like or trust "the statistics".

I experience this, in my own way, in my day-to-day work. Scientists are currently not the most trusted of individuals - for whatever reason - and one of those reasons, in both cases, is a lack of understanding on the part of the consumer of the results of data analysis, both within and outside of scientific circles.

In the same way people say "science is hard", people say "statistics" is hard... and this is for good reason - though it might not be for the specific reason that might immediately spring to mind!

Statistics is not that difficult once you know what you are doing (at least in my opinion). The difficult part is knowing which statistical test to apply when and where. Yes, the difficulty, as when designing scientific experiments, is understanding the context, limitations and biases of what and how you wish to test.

This is why there are many statistical tests where the number of data points needs to be below or above a certain limit; why it is important to know the relationship between the individual data points and the set as a whole; and how the interpretation of the result of the analysis might be changed based on myriad factors.

Hence, we come to today's topic for discussion: hardware performance testing in games!

Last time, I attempted to communicate the shortfalls and incorrect analysis being performed in the industry at large. Admittedly, I was unsuccessful in many ways and was roundly dismissed by most parties...

Today, I will try a different tack.

RTX 40 series - aka "Did Nvidia jump the shark"...

Yes, I *splashed out*...

Now that Nvidia have essentially completed their consumer RTX 40 series cards, it's time to look back at the releases and take stock of what's happened. 

We've seen the now usual range of responses: from cynical and jaded gamers and games media, to acceptance from those who are coming to terms with the price to performance ratio Nvidia is now asking. 

Bundled up in all of this has been, for me, the question of whether Nvida pushed too far, too fast? Let's take a look...

The problem with 'dumb' metrics (An argument against using GPU busy)...

With the recent release of the new updated beta version of Presentmon by Intel to include their new metric, GPU Busy, many people have become excited about the potential for it to have some sort of positive impact on the game review and user diagnostic testing landscapes.

However, if you follow me on Twitter, you may have noticed how I've not been impressed by the execution surrounding this metric - something which I think many people might have missed in the hubbub for something new and meaningful in system performance assessments.

This is the story of how dangerous undefined metrics can be in the wrong hands...

We Need to Talk About FPS Metrics Reporting...

Recently, I've been on a bit of a tear, running around trying to get people to listen to me about what I believe is a better way to analyse the performance of individual games, as well as the hardware used to run those games than is currently being performed by the vast majority of hardware reviewers in the tech space...

As with all new ideas, things are still developing and I'm still choosing what to keep and what to drop - what works, and what doesn't. Today, I'm going to summarise the conclusions I've come to, thus far, and also introduce a new concept that I feel like everyone in the tech space should be doing. However, some are getting it wrong: wrong to SUCH an extent that it literally took me a while to double check the concept because I can't be the only person to have realised this over the last ten years...

Analyse This: Does RAM speed and latency make a difference for gaming...? (Part 3)

Who runs 3 dimms?!

Over the last two entries, I've taken a look at the effect of RAM speed, latency and bandwidth on a few gaming applications as well as synthetic gaming benchmarks. Across a Zen 3 and Intel 12th gen platform, I found that DDR4 memory optimisation had effectively zero effect on the minimum, average, and maximum fps values in the applications tested.

There were those pesky fluctuations in Unigine's Heaven benchmark scores and random-looking maximum fps waverings in both Spider-man and Assassin's Creed: Valhalla that could be explainable by conventional wisdom; manual-nature of the Spider-man benchmark; run-to-run fluctuation in Valhalla and Heaven's case... but I'm not content with that.

This time, I'm going to try and apply a statistical look at what I've obtained during the testing of Spider-man for all the various memory optimisation testing I performed in order to see whether I am correct in wanting the review industry to take a more statistical approach to reviewing hardware and software.

An ITX Build experience...

I'm pretty sure this is a combination of a Space Marine chapter's colours and a USA college fraternity... i.e. an inauspicious start!

I've been building PCs on my own since the early 2000s and with my father since the early 90s but I've always built in half-size ATX tower cases (and once for my dad in his full-sized behemoth!). Mainly because I like the form factor, space, and options available... plus, the prices for these builds are more standard and thus cheaper because they are produced in larger volumes.

However, over the last couple of years I have had some longing looks at various small form factor (SFF) cases and because of various reasons*, I decided to take the plunge and dip my toes into the now very mature SFF sector... As part of that, I decided to give some feedback on how this sort of experience is in the here and now in 2022, amid semi**-shortages and with a backdrop of huge shipping price increases.

*I was tired of using a 2007-era laptop to watch Netflix and other video content on TV (slowdowns, lack of repsonsiveness were the main complaints)... and I have been working incredibly hard over the last few months and had an itch to build a new PC as a way to reward myself... and my PS4 broke and there are ZERO PS5's to be had in my country below €1000 (still) so I would really like to be able to play games in the living room once again instead of always being at a desk and monitor.

**Not "semiconductor"...

Analyse This: FSR 2.0...

This is not a comment on image quality... it is meant to convey us moving forward to new things!

AMD's FSR 2.0 launched* this week, with its inclusion in Deathloop's latest update and with that comes a multitude of analysis in image quality and performance uplifts. However, while those things aren't really my wheelhouse, there are a few things I thought I'd highlight about FSR 2.0 which are actually publicly available information but appear to be overlooked by many commentators and reviewers out there.

*Whatever "launch" means these days - what with both FSR 1.0 and DirectStorage doing the same thing where you can't actually get the software or source code or documentation unless you're in some sort of super secret partner programme with whoever is developing the software...

The Relative Value of GPUs Over The Last 10 Years...

 

Original by Sergei Tokmakov

There's been a comparison that I've been wanting to do for a long time but I just didn't have the time or the energy to take it on. Finally, I had a bit of a break from work and recharged enough to be able to sit down and focus on this to get it done. 

Below, I'll explore the historic pricing versus the relative performance of each generation of graphics cards from AMD and Nvidia over the period of 2010 - 2020*. From that, I will draw out the generational leaps per performance tier and the relative value of each of those jumps as well as the value within each generation. This will also help us try and understand how the price/performance strategy has changed per generation for both companies.

*Yes, I'm aware that the last ten years are technically 2011 - 2021... but the current generation started in 2020, and some data I would need for 2021 doesn't exist yet!

Fidelity FX Super Resolution's dirty secret... (Updated)

 

AMD have showcased their FSR (Fidelity FX Super Resolution) upscaling technology very briefly this morning to much critical acclaim. It's coming earlier than I had predicted, given AMD's comments at the beginning of the year, and I am optimistic that this will give a boost to AMD's performance in future titles. However, I'm not as bullish on the implementation as others are for two reasons... I believe Paul over at NotAnAppleFan when he says that FSR "has a catch", and I believe that FSR needs driver implementation from the platform vendors. 

Who needs 4K...?

By Jedi787plus, from Wikipedia

While I have mentioned that I think it's possible that 4K resolution TVs and monitors might be prevalent in the future (say around 2026-2028) they're a long way from mainstream use in the average person's home at this point in 2017. Worse still, content providers still haven't really settled on a good way to get content to consumers at 4K resolution - Blu Ray discs are too small and streaming 4K content is made difficult by the greedy policies of ISPs worldwide who want to charge both the consumer and provider for passing information over their networks. The UHD disc format is now available but I've never seen a system or disc for sale - the systems themselves are incredibly expensive (think €300+) when you could buy a game console for the same price - none of which support UHD discs. The Xbox Scorpio will have a UHD disc player when it's released but there's no word on the cost of the device as yet and I don't expect it to be cheap* given the specs...

While video content has been filmed at a quality which would allow for recording in 4K resolution before digital cameras were commonly used, the high quality copies were discarded - probably in favour of storage space, though the article linked claims that people they have heard from "didn't realise the format was coming to the public space".

The heart of the issue is "do we need it?" and if so "why do we need it?"

Screenestate: Site redesigns... (Part 3)

"Ahhhhhhhhhhhh..."

So, today (or maybe last night depending on your time zone) Ars Technica finally revealed their revamped 'new' design. The above is not 'it'. Above, you can gaze upon the wonder that is the updated 'white-on-black' theme (which is much easier on my eyes than typical 'black-on-white' themes of websites and windows programmes). 

This is gorgeous to my eyes:

• It's relatively information dense
• Makes use of the horizontal space available quite well with a dual column design
• Minimises the menu bar and empty space between posts
• Is chronological in posting order

This is everything that is good in website design!

Let's take a look at the 'real' website:

Well, you can't win 'em all...

Okay, this obviously isn't my preference. I think this would look great on a touch screen mobile device like a tablet or mobile phone. However, on the desktop it looks pretty terrible:

• Information sparse; not enough posts and too much picture per post
• Minimises the menu bar and empty space between posts
• Makes use of the available width of the screen

I don't really have anything else to say about it. I guess it's functional in the loosest sense of the term... The fact that I can only really see two posts is really a useless site design and makes no sense: reducing usability.

To my sensibilities and my design understanding, it's clear that the first picture shows a site that allows its users to understand what is going on and to navigate effectively. I think it's also clear to whoever designed the Ars Technica website too because they are using something very similar for the mobile site design... counter to what I would expect considering the second image.

Like I said in part 1: It's pretty damming that your mobile site, designed to be read on a 5-7 inch vertically-orientated rectangular screen, is more readable than your default website design for expansive 19-30 inch horizontally-orientated desktop screens. Even worse when you provide a 'hidden' (or at best, not promoted) option to view it similarly on your own website...

I wish there was a thumbs up/down option for the available website designs like there is for the user posts on Ars' site. I think it might be quite telling (either way!).

Screenestate: Site redesigns... (Part 2)

So in Part 1, i discussed what I thought sites were/are doing wrong with UX. I may have levelled the charge that a lot of those sites would be better to navigate and consume on a mobile, vertically-orientated device. So lets see what browsing those same websites on a mobile, vertically-orientated device is.

Knowing where you are:

Like I pointed out last time, humans read across a bit and then down and across again. It works. Whether it's left to right or right to left, that's our thing. Developers of mobile interfaces understand this. It's why we have lots of scrolling on these devices because the viewing space is really limited (maybe 4-7 diagonal inches on average).

Even more telling are the design principles that went into the ergonomics of the iPhone (which was quite innovative at the time) compared to the more common horizontal orientation of the then-competing nascent smart phones. Now, all smart phones and tablets have that primarily vertical orientation for nominal usage, with the option to switch to a horizontal output for more media-friendly viewing. It works really well!

However, just as just before the revolution in interface design that was pushed forward by the iPhone (there were others, but Apple popularised it), we're in an interim period where interface designers have grown up with two familiar systems but are now contending with an explosion in pixel count and screen estate* and it is increasingly apparent that many designers out there do not know how to handle that effectively.

Worse still, there's a not-so-uncommon crossover between different orientations and resolutions when browsing the internet which is terrible. When this occurs, the website is displayed in its entirety on a mobile (small screen, touch) device or takes up a tiny portion of the large 1080p+ resolution display. This is supposed to be 'fixed' in the newer standards to come to the browsing world whereby devices, orientations, resolutions and bandwidth are all detected and adapted to. Unfortunately, much as with the history of the internet, complete adherence to standards can be slow to occur.

Screenestate: Site redesigns... (Part 1)

A week ago I awoke and immediately went to one of my favourite websites on the internet: Ars Technica. I received quite a shock when seeing that the site had been redesigned. The change has since been reconsidered and reverted to the old site design in the face of huge user backlash.

There are several problems with the redesign but let me first talk about the apparently modern/current website design trends and why current UX designers (and UX designers in training) should be shaking their heads at such implementations on desktop.

Regarding this topic specifically, I feel the need to point out that the points I'm making here are from my own personal preferences and biases, except where I'm making an empirical statement - though that doesn't happen often in opinion pieces like this! Normally, I assume people understand this when reading content - however, it seems that few people remember this when reading opinion pieces. I'm making these points in support of my argument and preferences. Other people may have different preferences and so might find these arguments unpersuasive.