You’re not wrong that DLSS materially improves longevity once it exists, but you’re kind of proving the opposite point when it comes to Nvidia not releasing new GPUs.
The 1080 Ti didn’t age badly because it lacked DLSS. It aged because Nvidia moved the goalposts by tying core performance expectations to proprietary features that older hardware would never get. In 2017 and 2018, native rendering performance still mattered most, and the 1080 Ti absolutely delivered. The fact that a 2017 GPU felt dated by 2020 says more about how fast Nvidia pivoted toward feature gated rendering than about the raw capability of the card itself.
DLSS is not free longevity. It is artificial longevity. It works because Nvidia aggressively pushed adoption and made it the default path forward. That’s great for RTX owners, but it also means Nvidia can slow actual hardware progress and lean harder on software crutches. Which is exactly what we are seeing now with stretched launch cycles and minimal generational raster gains.
Comparing longevity purely through the lens of DLSS support also ignores a key point. Native performance still matters when you don’t get a new GPU every cycle. If Nvidia delays releases and relies on DLSS to prop up older cards, that only works as long as you are okay with permanently running upscaled output. That is not the same thing as genuine performance scaling.
As for AMD, yes their upscaling lagged badly and FSR 2 and 3 were weak. But cards like the 6800 and 7900 series did not age badly in raw terms. They age poorly relative to Nvidia’s software ecosystem, not because the silicon suddenly became incapable. That distinction matters when the discussion is about hardware releases, not vendor lock in advantages.
1080 Ti aged badly because it used a dated arch, lacking features, including DLSS.
A big chip with alot of VRAM means nothing with proper feature support. We have seen this many times before.
Wrong, DLSS is completely free longevity and pretty much all new games has it. DLSS 4 using preset k is literally gold for all RTX owners, especially 2000/3000 users. I know many gamers still using RTX 2000/3000 solely because of DLSS.
AMD is going to same route anyway. UDNA will be AMDs "RTX moment" and RDNA will be left to rot when it happens. AMD already left RDNA1, 2 and 3 to rot when RDNA 4 / FSR 4 came out due to Matrix (AI) cores being present on RDNA 4, which is the biggest difference really.
What Nvidia has been doing since RTX 2000 has paid off massively. They sit at like +90% marketshare, dominates the gaming market without even trying at all, while AMD struggles to keep up in terms of features. Rasterization performance still matters but if you only look at raster perf and VRAM in 2026 you are doing it wrong. Upscaling and frame gen matters big time for longevity.
Again, I would rather have good upscaling than alot of VRAM on a GPU with dated arch, that buckles when RT loads are forced (as in many new games, from 2022 and up)
DLSS 4 works on every single RTX card ever released.
FSR 4 works on Radeon 9000 only. Also, FSR support is massively lacking compared to DLSS. Radeon 5000, 6000 and 7000 owners were abandoned and they need upscaling the most.
= That is all you need to know.
My best friend bought a 7900 XTX. He loved the card in the beginning but felt like an ***** when Radeon 7000 did not get FSR 4. As more and more games gets forced RT elements, he got lower and lower performance. Today he can't push high settings at all in new and demanding games. What do you need 24GB VRAM for, when you can't max out games anyway? He is forced to run medium'ish settings today, with no good upscaling to help. He hate the way FSR 2/3 looks and it is not an option for him. He have seen DLSS 4 on my 4090 and he would use it instantly if he had access to upscaling like this. FSR 3.1 is barely on DLSS 2 level overall, which is 6 years old. DLSS 4 is vastly better than DLSS 2. DLSS have improved alot over time, way more than FSR. FSR 4 is the only big jump and decent version but it is still worse than DLSS 4 for sure, in both image quality and game support.
He runs 3440x1440 and is forced to run medium'ish settings in most demanding games now. With FSR 4 he would have been able to still be at high/ultra with higher fps. No can do, AMD said.
And yes, Radeon 6000/7000 aged badly. Due to rasterization focus only. RT elements destroy performance. VRAM don't matter when chip is weak and with no good upscaling to help.
Proof:
Lets look at an > AMD SPONSORED GAME < using RT elements.
Avatar:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/avatar-fop-performance-benchmark/5.html
3070 8GB beats 6800 16GB even in 4K ULTRA due to better arch (which can handle RT elements) and when you enable upscaling, it will be a homerun for the 3070. DLSS 4 works flawless on 3070, where 6800 is forced to use crappy FSR 3.
And this is why raster perf + VRAM matters very little in the long run, if you don't have access to good upscaling too.
You need it all these days. A capable GPU (with good raster perf, that will do RT without big perf hit), FSR 4 or DLSS 4 support with "enough" VRAM but you can always adjust settings to get around this.
RDNA 1, 2 and 3 aged like milk compared to RTX 2000, 3000 and 4000.
And this has nothing to do with Nvidia. Game engines became more advanced. RT and RT elements is the future. Game developers can't wait to stop doing fake/baked lighting for example. They spend TONS of time doing this. RT eventually will be the ONLY solution and it will be MANDATORY at some point. In just a few years. There is already games that won't run without RT support and AMD GPUs takes a massive hit in these. Only RDNA 4 does decently at RT, and also has good upscaling.
Why do you think AMDs SOLE FOCUS with Radeon 9000 was improving RT performance and deliver GOOD UPSCALING? Simple. Because it is the future.
