Why is the availability of Intel Arc GPUs so terrible in India?

[Tracer_Bullet]

Has anyone tried the LSFG? It looks great compared to FRS and DLSS. It's possible that 8gig GPU can produce 60+ FPS on 1440p high. Guys, please share your thoughts and experiences on this.

This has a large impact on existing frame rates to produce fake frames. So it will likely feel worse.
I think its best suited for cpu bound games or games with oob frame limit like emulators.

Amd has universal framegen at driver level. That might run better but probably faces same issues.

 

[altair21]

lol, dont give nvidia ideas

imo, no. RT definitely not for these cards.
DLSS, unclear, FSR4 seems to be very good and better than DLSS3 but not 4. Also since they moved hardware to AI upscaling, any future improvements you should get.

If i had to choose, i would take either 9060xt or 9070xt in current market in India.
See this - It has Price per frame for indian prices. Ideally we want high frames and then good price
9060xt and 9070xt are clearly best options. 5070 is ok too but with less vram.

Nvidia rt/dlss features are still miles apart from AMD, unless you are on a tight budget or are gunning for vfm option, I would rather pay for a 5070ti personally, considering price difference is just 15k

Has anyone tried the LSFG? It looks great compared to FRS and DLSS. It's possible that 8gig GPU can produce 60+ FPS on 1440p high. Guys, please share your thoughts and experiences on this.

issue with 8gig gpus isnt perf, its vram limitation, lossless scaling is just Frame Generation, and unless fps is by default high, frame generation atleast for me works like ass

 

[PunkX 75]

yep, and I wont recommend anything below 3090 if you are really going for a second hand card

The 3090 was one of the biggest scam GPUs Nvidia has ever launched under the guise of a "gaming GPU". Sure, it has 24 GB of VRAM, but it was ideally supposed to be a bit more of productivity-grade GPU, as the TITAN series was.

VRAM aside, it was only 18-20% faster than a 3080 for almost double the price.

Even now, you will rarely find a used, out-of-warranty 3090 for less than 60 K. You may as well save up 8-10K and get a 9070XT.

 

[altair21]

The 3090 was one of the biggest scam GPUs Nvidia has ever launched under the guise of a "gaming GPU". Sure, it has 24 GB of VRAM, but it was ideally supposed to be a bit more of productivity-grade GPU, as the TITAN series was.

VRAM aside, it was only 18-20% faster than a 3080 for almost double the price.

Even now, you will rarely find a used, out-of-warranty 3090 for less than 60 K. You may as well save up 8-10K and get a 9070XT.

I dont know about pricing but yeah at 60k its nonsense, it would make more sense at 40k-ish.

 

[OMEGA44-XT]

Is RTX 3070 8GB enough for 1440p gaming in 2025?
For how much one can get a 2nd hand card now?
RTX 3080 10GB & 3080 Ti 12GB cards are priced at 25k & 32k respectively in OLX.
So when investing 25k or 32k means if we can add another 12k or 5k we can buy 9060 16GB. That's why I am still in dilemma.
And RTX 3080 or 3080 Ti cards available all are out of warranty cards and if anything goes wrong then I am ****ed.

• Depends on the price, 17-18k is good - will hit 8GB VRAM limit in some games, situation will get worse with time but can't argue for 18k
• 17-18k is good, not worth it above that, get 3060Ti at 15-16k
• Good prices but can be scam
• Yes, new 9060XT 16GB at 36-37k is good, although performance is inferior to 3080 but you get more VRAM
• Always the risk with used GPUs, hence don't recommend 3080 at 30k+, many people are still buying it for some reason

The 3090 was one of the biggest scam GPUs Nvidia has ever launched under the guise of a "gaming GPU". Sure, it has 24 GB of VRAM, but it was ideally supposed to be a bit more of productivity-grade GPU, as the TITAN series was.

VRAM aside, it was only 18-20% faster than a 3080 for almost double the price.

Even now, you will rarely find a used, out-of-warranty 3090 for less than 60 K. You may as well save up 8-10K and get a 9070XT.

Yes, a new 9070XT is always a better choice for gamers over used 3090. But there are some delusional gamers who will still pick 3090 even though they won't do any productivity stuff on it.

 

[altair21]

• Always the risk with used GPUs, hence don't recommend 3080 at 30k+, many people are still buying it for some reason

exactly, a 4080 might be worth it but not a 3080

 

[OMEGA44-XT]

exactly, a 4080 might be worth it but not a 3080

I'd personally prefer a new 9070XT for 70k over a used 4080 at 70k (likely a realistic price, will have warranty). Too high cost to buy used GPU for me.

 

[GauravDas]

Has anyone tried the LSFG? It looks great compared to FRS and DLSS. It's possible that 8gig GPU can produce 60+ FPS on 1440p high. Guys, please share your thoughts and experiences on this.

I have used LSFG for a little indie game called Stoneshard. It has a bizarre engine limitation of 40 FPS, so I used the 3x multiplier to get to 120 Hz. There is very obvious artifacting when scrolling text as well as disocclusion artifacting with the bottom skillbar UI, but the reduced ghosting is well worth it.

LSFG is great for games with weird engine FPS limits. It does bring additional input lag, but it is okay for a turn-based game like Stoneshard. I wouldn't want to play FPS games or action games with LSFG however. The overall Lossless Scaling app itself is great for pixel art games, though Stoneshard doesn't need it as it already does xBR scaling natively.

This has a large impact on existing frame rates to produce fake frames. So it will likely feel worse.
I think its best suited for cpu bound games or games with oob frame limit like emulators.

Amd has universal framegen at driver level. That might run better but probably faces same issues.

I have used AMD's AFMF on Stoneshard and it is better than LSFG. It is limited to a 2x frame-gen multiplier, but completely gets rid of text scrolling artifacts seen with LSFG.

 

[immolationepoch]

The 3090 was one of the biggest scam GPUs Nvidia has ever launched under the guise of a "gaming GPU". Sure, it has 24 GB of VRAM, but it was ideally supposed to be a bit more of productivity-grade GPU, as the TITAN series was.

VRAM aside, it was only 18-20% faster than a 3080 for almost double the price.

Even now, you will rarely find a used, out-of-warranty 3090 for less than 60 K. You may as well save up 8-10K and get a 9070XT.

I'd argue the 3090Ti was a bigger scam

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

Nvidia rt/dlss features are still miles apart from AMD, unless you are on a tight budget or are gunning for vfm option, I would rather pay for a 5070ti personally, considering price difference is just 15k

FSR4 is good enough probably, its better than 3 which was good enough for me ( at 4k quality ). And future updates will be available.

RT - AMD is close, atleast for the money, if not considering PT.
I strongly prefer to play at 90+ FPS now. Even 60 feels sluggish for faster games. Raster with new techniques or optimized RT can be good enough.
imo RT is very highly overrated. Biggest impact is either on old games which lack modern raster or with full blown PT that is too slow to run. Metro Exodus was probably an exception.
Proper HDR, oled contrast makes a much bigger impact without performance impact. ( ofc you can have both )

That said, i can see some people preferring 5070ti and pay the premium for it. Esp if you need nvidia specific work stuff.
I wouldn't touch 50 series myself because Nvidia seems to have not bothered with it too much.
AMD also has much better drivers on linux which is a factor for me for future gpu purchase now.

 

[GauravDas]

FSR4 is good enough probably, its better than 3 which was good enough for me ( at 4k quality ). And future updates will be available.

RT - AMD is close, atleast for the money, if not considering PT.
I strongly prefer to play at 90+ FPS now. Even 60 feels sluggish for faster games. Raster with new techniques or optimized RT can be good enough.
imo RT is very highly overrated. Biggest impact is either on old games which lack modern raster or with full blown PT that is too slow to run. Metro Exodus was probably an exception.
Proper HDR, oled contrast makes a much bigger impact without performance impact. ( ofc you can have both )

That said, i can see some people preferring 5070ti and pay the premium for it. Esp if you need nvidia specific work stuff.
I wouldn't touch 50 series myself because Nvidia seems to have not bothered with it too much.
AMD also has much better drivers on linux which is a factor for me for future gpu purchase now.

Very similar to my own reasoning to buy a 9070 XT over 5070 Ti:

• FSR4 is good enough; with Optiscaler helping for game support (and honestly is a fun little tool to mess around with)
• RT performance is good enough; and 5070 Ti's PT performance not being good enough at high resolutions (the new doom update will be interesting though)
• Wanting to run Linux as my primary OS where AMD has better driver support (prefer Linux for the dev work I do)
• No interest in compute / local AI stuff (never did any CUDA stuff in last 12 years of Nvidia)

And I mentioned Stoneshard in my last post. This game does gamesaves very weirdly and I lost 1.5 hours of game-time due to driver instability with my old RTX 2060. I don't tend to bring this up, because drivers might have improved in the last 2 months, but IMO this should also be a purchasing factor (it was for me).

 

[altair21]

FSR4 is good enough probably, its better than 3 which was good enough for me ( at 4k quality ). And future updates will be available.

DLSS 4 breathed new life in 30xx series, dlss 4 performance mode is similar to dlss 3 quality mode, thats how big a difference it is compared with FSR4, AMD has made major leaps with FSR4 but its still miles behind nvidia, and Nvdia FG implementation is also superior to AMD's, you can try that for yourself

RT - AMD is close, atleast for the money, if not considering PT.
I strongly prefer to play at 90+ FPS now. Even 60 feels sluggish for faster games. Raster with new techniques or optimized RT can be good enough.
imo RT is very highly overrated. Biggest impact is either on old games which lack modern raster or with full blown PT that is too slow to run. Metro Exodus was probably an exception.

dunno why peeps parrot this, because honestly (not throwing any shade at you) this is just a copium take, compare Cyberpunk with and without RT (no need for PT), compare Dying light 2, compare Dragon's dogma 2, many games where RT is transformative, its just like people saying raster aint that great when it first came out, RT was meh when it was first introduced, these days? its a very viable feature

That said, i can see some people preferring 5070ti and pay the premium for it. Esp if you need nvidia specific work stuff.
I wouldn't touch 50 series myself because Nvidia seems to have not bothered with it too much.
AMD also has much better drivers on linux which is a factor for me for future gpu purchase now.

all valid points yes

 

[OMEGA44-XT]

DLSS 4 breathed new life in 30xx series, dlss 4 performance mode is similar to dlss 3 quality mode, thats how big a difference it is compared with FSR4, AMD has made major leaps with FSR4 but its still miles behind nvidia, and Nvdia FG implementation is also superior to AMD's, you can try that for yourself

dunno why peeps parrot this, because honestly (not throwing any shade at you) this is just a copium take, compare Cyberpunk with and without RT (no need for PT), compare Dying light 2, compare Dragon's dogma 2, many games where RT is transformative, its just like people saying raster aint that great when it first came out, RT was meh when it was first introduced, these days? its a very viable feature

all valid points yes

Check Hardware Unboxed's comparison of DLSS4 & FSR4. FSR4 is good & is usable at 1080p as well like DLSS4, but sure, DLSS4 is still better.

9070XT performs similar to RTX 5070 in RT with close to 5070Ti like raster perf. In PT, surely much inferior to Nvidia. For its price between 5070 & 5070Ti, it surely is sitting in a sweet spot. Say if 5070Ti costs 10% extra over 9070XT, no reason to buy 9070XT.

RT avg:

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

DLSS 4 breathed new life in 30xx series, dlss 4 performance mode is similar to dlss 3 quality mode, thats how big a difference it is compared with FSR4, AMD has made major leaps with FSR4 but its still miles behind nvidia, and Nvdia FG implementation is also superior to AMD's, you can try that for yourself

yeah, only positive thing from 50 series was dlss 4. Again though from reviews, FSR 4 is close but worse and better than 3 which was already good enough for me.
I cant try it on 30 series. i have tried FSR framegen, and it worked well on Witcher 3. But i dont think ill use framegen on fast paced games.
Anyway i am not buying new gpu anytime soon. If i were to buy, it would be 9070xt. Amd has caught up enough in features that matter for me and Linux is clear victory for AMD.

dunno why peeps parrot this, because honestly (not throwing any shade at you) this is just a copium take, compare Cyberpunk with and without RT (no need for PT), compare Dying light 2, compare Dragon's dogma 2, many games where RT is transformative, its just like people saying raster aint that great when it first came out, RT was meh when it was first introduced, these days? its a very viable feature

Nope, i have tried it on Cyberpunk and its not worth it at all. Maybe PT but i prefer 90+anyday ( 4k + 3080).
Best example i have seen that performed well was Metro exodus.

My point was that i would take higher framerate over RT. If i get 90+ with RT, then maybe yes for some incremental benefits.
Raster is catching up too. RT on witcher 3 worked great over forested areas shading them nicely. But these days you can get similar effects via raster from what i saw ( KCD2 i think).
It probably will be less accurate and have errors here and there, but you get more framerate.

And yes, HDR is much much more impactful that RT. Not even a question for me. Doom eternal is maginficient with it, ori games too.

But anyway different things for different people.
Digital foundry guys for example keep saying that DLSS3 performance is good enough, and it looked awful too me in most games. Blurry in motion.
DLSS4 seems to have improved that yeah. I really dislike blurry graphics Its a disease. Fast and clear for me.

 

[GauravDas]

dunno why peeps parrot this, because honestly (not throwing any shade at you) this is just a copium take, compare Cyberpunk with and without RT (no need for PT), compare Dying light 2, compare Dragon's dogma 2, many games where RT is transformative, its just like people saying raster aint that great when it first came out, RT was meh when it was first introduced, these days? its a very viable feature

I feel that the standard RT with with games like Cyberpunk and Dying Light 2 (haven't played the other game) wasn't transformative enough. Even the first PT implementation on Cyberpunk wasn't good enough, but the update that added ReSTIR GI was what I would call really transformative.

Digital Foundry has a video up with Doom's PT upgrade, and just look how much better reflections on rough materials and emissive lights look. This is what RT upgrades should have looked like in the first place.

• RT performance is good enough; and 5070 Ti's PT performance not being good enough at high resolutions (the new doom update will be interesting though)

Didn't think DF's video would be up so soon. No performance comparisons yet, but interested to see how the 5070 Ti performs.