So you forget the conversation where you told me that FSR and DLSS has uses outside of RT.
So DLSS/FSR is only useful when using RT. Or do you have none RT examples?
-
Competitor rules
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.
Fidelity Super Resolution in 2021
- Thread starter Grim5
- Start date
So DLSS/FSR is only useful when using RT. Or do you have none RT examples?
Re-read the above posts carefully again.....
Good to see you can't read.
And once again, all completely pointless peoples hate towards FSR/DLSS
- sooner people realise they have a choice to use fsr/dlss, the better, no one is forcing anyone to use it, perfectly free to lower graphical settings to meet your res and FPS needs.... Whether people like it or not, FSR and DLSS is here to stay for the foreseeable future
Appropriate gif time, "deal with it"
Accept that bolded line has nothing to do with my position on FSR/DLSS. The only thing you need to deal with is the stories you are making up in your head.
So no examples. So its hopes and dreams. cool.
Edit: Oh it seems like you managed to find two games. So what FPS do you get without DLSS/FSR? Which affects have you now been able to crank up.
Last edited:
Again how is this even a question? go play something like CP2077 on a 2060 and see the difference even without enabling RT in the combinations of features, resolution and frame rate you can work with.
Oh and whilst we're at it, explain again why ray tracing games aren't allowed 
Or are you still one of these people with fingers in the ears "ray tracing isn't going anywhere!!!!" despite:
- there being a solid chunk of games with it now, both new and remasters being done
- sony and microsoft both putting it in the majority of their games going forward (guessing you didn't see microsoft game show?)
Then why does it bother/hurt you so much that people like/use the upscaling techniques? Or is this just another classic case of you loving to make a mountain out of a molehill....
Think more a case of you needing to remove your fingers from your ears tbh
Fingers in ear again I see.....
Can metro etc. hit a "constant" 100+ fps at 3440x1440 without ray tracing?
Can cyberpunk hit a "constant" 100+ fps at 3440x1440 without ray tracing?
Can control hit a "constant" 100+ fps at 3440x1440 without ray tracing?
Not to mention some also struggle to maintain 60 @ 4k
What about rdr 2? Didn't realise it had ray tracing, oh wait.....
Guess this doesn't fit your narrative though eh.....
You also ignoring the fact that games with dlss turned on look better than games where you have crappy AA implementations such as TAA in no mans sky?
Or are you still one of these people with fingers in the ears "ray tracing isn't going anywhere!!!!" despite:
- there being a solid chunk of games with it now, both new and remasters being done
- sony and microsoft both putting it in the majority of their games going forward (guessing you didn't see microsoft game show?)
Then why does it bother/hurt you so much that people like/use the upscaling techniques? Or is this just another classic case of you loving to make a mountain out of a molehill....
Think more a case of you needing to remove your fingers from your ears tbh
Fingers in ear again I see.....
Can metro etc. hit a "constant" 100+ fps at 3440x1440 without ray tracing?
Can cyberpunk hit a "constant" 100+ fps at 3440x1440 without ray tracing?
Can control hit a "constant" 100+ fps at 3440x1440 without ray tracing?
Not to mention some also struggle to maintain 60 @ 4k
What about rdr 2? Didn't realise it had ray tracing, oh wait.....
Guess this doesn't fit your narrative though eh.....
You also ignoring the fact that games with dlss turned on look better than games where you have crappy AA implementations such as TAA in no mans sky?
If you want to talk about the benefits on older cards then yeah i agree they are beneficial but most of the time we are talking about the latest and greatest GPUs. Considering how people who are buying £600+ (pre mining
) cards are using this as reason to sway their purchases i will judge them on their usefulness for such cards.If you want to talk about their usefulness for low end cards, then it is a slam dunk for FSR because everyone can use it.
Exactly.
It's people with the weaker/older gpus who really benefit, good luck playing any of those games with max settings at acceptable res. and frame rates (even with RT turned off)
Basically means everyone can keep their gpu for a lot longer now.
Depends a bit on game but even on my 3070 - with RT disabled or not supported - DLSS allows me to turn up feature levels at resolutions like 4K that it would otherwise struggle with in some newer games. That said I'd still only take DLSS/FSR as a compromise to get RT effects and if I was really wanting to play some of these games at 4K and higher frame rates with everything turned up I'd buy a higher end card (ignoring availability).
Soldato
Some games are already very demanding at 4K max settings for my 3080 so DLSS can be useful even without RT.
I've actually been surprised by how much punching power the 2060 really has, it does very well. I would say that DLSS without RT makes even MORE sense because DLSS excels with static geometry especially (it's why it works so well with Death Stranding), but falls apart with effects like RT Refl., same as we've seen with TSR & Nanite. 2060's main weakness is really vram, which is why the 3060 is such a great card (at least with the theoretical msrp). Great budget card for 4K particularly if you ignore turning on heavy RT.
you said it has benefits outside of RT. So far you've named No mans sky and RDR2.Oh and whilst we're at it, explain again why ray tracing games aren't allowed
there is literally only one person (who i am aware of) who thinks this on these forums. Stop making stories up in your head and trying to pass them off as reality.
Most people don't think that current visual improvements are worth the performance cost; therefore it is not a selling feature of current gen cards. (Yes i am aware that some people disagree)
Then why does it bother/hurt you so much that people like/use the upscaling techniques? Or is this just another classic case of you loving to make a mountain out of a molehill....
Think more a case of you needing to remove your fingers from your ears tbh
This is a classic case of you making up stories in your head again. try not to lose grip with reality.
I am not bothered that people like or use upscalers. I think it is nonsense that it is a selling feature on a £600+ (pre mining) card. I've only mentioned this about twice in this thread (and not in much detail) and only in specific circumstances. So you are making a mountain out of a mole hill. A phrase that you love to use incorrectly.
So now it is a feature for widescreen gaming at 100+ fps on a single player game. Okay.
You are wrong, in another thread i acknowledged that it is a great AA method. Maybe we should be discussing how game developers can implement better AA methods rather than upscaling.
Apart from the ones already named which ones are they? what affects are you now able to turn up because of DLSS?
That's Donald Trump load of BS.
Original DLSS was complete garbage water colour filter producing worser results than generic upscaling.
DLSS is like a strong blur filter has been applied. Texture detail is completely wiped out, in some cases it’s like you’ve loaded a low texture mode, while some of the fine branch detail has been blurred away or even thickened in some cases...
It gets worse though, and we’ll switch to a different scene for this one. Here is a comparison between DLSS and our 78 percent resolution scale, roughly 1685p, which we found to perform exactly the same as DLSS. It’s a complete non-contest. The 1685p image destroys the DLSS image in terms of sharpness, texture detail, clarity, basically everything.
Just look at the quality difference between these two areas, when zoomed in. The 78% scaled image preserves the fine detail on the rocks, the sign, the sandbags, the cloth, the gun, everywhere! With DLSS, everything is blurred to the point that this detail is lost. And we’re not talking about a situation where DLSS is noticeably better at anti-aliasing, the 1685p image is already using Battlefield’s TAA implementation which is quite good.
There are some instances where DLSS is smoother, looking at extremely fine detail when zoomed reveals less aliasing in the thin tree branches, but this has come at the complete loss of detail in the foliage and everywhere else. And we only spotted this when zoomed in... This leaves DLSS looking like Vaseline has been smeared on the display.
That last scene was particularly bad for DLSS, but there’s a common theme throughout the areas we tested. And we’re not even talking about DLSS versus native 4K here, we’re talking about DLSS versus a 1685p image upscaled to 4K, both of which deliver the same performance. 1685p is a little behind native 4K in terms of sharpness as you’d expect from upscaling, but DLSS is miles behind either of them.
So enabling DLSS in a real-world game like Battlefield V is actually worse than using simple resolution upscaling that’s been available in games for decades.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1794-nvidia-rtx-dlss-battlefield/
It gets worse though, and we’ll switch to a different scene for this one. Here is a comparison between DLSS and our 78 percent resolution scale, roughly 1685p, which we found to perform exactly the same as DLSS. It’s a complete non-contest. The 1685p image destroys the DLSS image in terms of sharpness, texture detail, clarity, basically everything.
Just look at the quality difference between these two areas, when zoomed in. The 78% scaled image preserves the fine detail on the rocks, the sign, the sandbags, the cloth, the gun, everywhere! With DLSS, everything is blurred to the point that this detail is lost. And we’re not talking about a situation where DLSS is noticeably better at anti-aliasing, the 1685p image is already using Battlefield’s TAA implementation which is quite good.
There are some instances where DLSS is smoother, looking at extremely fine detail when zoomed reveals less aliasing in the thin tree branches, but this has come at the complete loss of detail in the foliage and everywhere else. And we only spotted this when zoomed in... This leaves DLSS looking like Vaseline has been smeared on the display.
That last scene was particularly bad for DLSS, but there’s a common theme throughout the areas we tested. And we’re not even talking about DLSS versus native 4K here, we’re talking about DLSS versus a 1685p image upscaled to 4K, both of which deliver the same performance. 1685p is a little behind native 4K in terms of sharpness as you’d expect from upscaling, but DLSS is miles behind either of them.
So enabling DLSS in a real-world game like Battlefield V is actually worse than using simple resolution upscaling that’s been available in games for decades.
https://www.techspot.com/article/1794-nvidia-rtx-dlss-battlefield/
So FSR is far superior to original DLSS.
Sure it can never show all the same details as native resolution rendering, but at least it doesn't rape image completely like original DLSS did and at moderate scaling with enough source data looks detailed and sharp.
Can you give some context on that screenshot such as actual image settings at natve for example and a link so we can do our own research? I see plenty of these comparisons done with low quality TAA or FXAA at "native" so that DLSS looks better but the reality is the native is well below what most people would use. I also remember you called my 1080p DOD2 FSR vs Native wrong, because you assumed wrongly that the more detailed image was the native and the blurry one was FSR. So by your own standards, FSR already has "done that".
Last edited:
