Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.
I'll have a look for that setting cheers. I don't need accuracy for what I do so that might do the trick.
I had quite a side by side with DLSS and FSR (FSR 1.0 in fairness) and did find DLSS to be superior. Not a huge amount in it at the quality settings, but as you went lower and lower in settings the difference was quite noticeable, and I'm no pixel peeper.Its similar to the pixel peepers that can tell DLSS is superior than FSR. Like people that have better than 20/20 vision, yes its a thing but the general population cannot tell the difference. I think this topic had a thread years agodiscussingdividing the factions.
When LCDs were first coming in people used to enable digital vibrance on Nvidia cards to make colours pop a bit more. Nowadays the opposite problem is more likely - most monitors are set up too vividly. But left to default I've always found it was monitor dependant, not card - I now use a callibrator and the adjustment was pretty identical between AMD and Nvidia back when I tried both.
Oh, I expect so. I don't think I've ever used DLSS 1.0, it's why I wanted to be clear that I'd only tried FSR 1.0. I can't just pit DLSS 2.whatever to FSR 1.0 and take that forward as a fair comparison for the rest of my days.Depends which iteration you use. As it was a generalisation I imagine you get the point. If you look at say DLSS 1.0 and FSR1.0 let me know how noticeable you find that!
Maybe as I'm using a VA panel a little extra helps. I'm not bothering to be scientific about it, just tweak until it looks good to me.
I think they find people usually prefer vibrant to accurate, just look at Samsung
or British politicsI think they find people usually prefer vibrant to accurate, just look at Samsung
Applies to all politics and especially the mediaor British politics
Older Samsung (TVs) used to be worse iirc. Remember looking at all the TV's at Oxford Street and all the Samsungs stood out. Obviously everyone wanted one. We've got one of their last plasma TVs I think, and that's much more normal.I think they find people usually prefer vibrant to accurate, just look at Samsung
Yes that's exactly what we need to see, some real competition.
You're right to be sceptical, without specifics those claims don't mean much. Double compute, or rasterization or ray tracing or some or all of them? I'd say most likely is in that order, which matters to you most depends on your workload.
That's the interesting thing now. Because they can't just up the clocks or make chips larger they have to be more innovative, makes it much harder to predict the improvements especially if it's a novel approach.
