It all depends your perspective at the end of the day. Plenty of you tubers can tell me how bad FSR is. However if I try it and it looks great I’m going to use it. And no I won’t be blowing up an image in paint shop pro and counting pixels. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
-
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.
Poll: How do you game? Upscaling or native? (updated poll choices - 24/12, revote!)
- Thread starter Nexus18
- Start date
Soldato
Depends on the game, however if frame gen + DLSS is providing me with a smoother experience with next to no IQ loss, then I don't care what is under the hood.
DLSS + FG could make the 40 series last well past 2024, however I'm sure Nvidia will gimp it some way that makes a move to a 50 series required.
DLSS + FG could make the 40 series last well past 2024, however I'm sure Nvidia will gimp it some way that makes a move to a 50 series required.
Last edited:
Well yeah exactly, you should always try yourself to come to your own conclusion as shown, what matters in IQ, FPS and so on is extremely subjective and people value different things. Still screenshots in the grand scheme of things are rather pointless as it's in motion where FSR and native with no TAA fall apart in terms of temporal stability so that's why I will always take a TAA/DLSS output over a non TAA output i.e. this video shows why and where TAA produced images are awful:
But as also shown/explained, nowadays, sad reality is that games depend on TAA and gaming without some form of TAA is a no go unless you can get past the issues with shimmering, aliasing and jaggies (which some people don't mind and prefer over a softer image)
If you need upscaling you either need a new GPU, the game needs optimising, or you got too ambitious with your resolution
What gpu do you buy when even a 4090/7900xtx isn't providing high fps on a high res display? (3440x1440 @ 175hz and 4k60 are my displays) And it's not just for RT/PT but as shown, also plain old raster games. Or should we be dropping to 1080P monitors with such gpus to achieve high fps with high/max settings?
EDIT:
And either way, as shown, it's subjective, based on what I value for IQ, DLSS is the better way forward as it has the least issues compared to native with poor AA implementations so it's not even really a case of "need" from my POV, more a case of want or if there is no need for extra perf. then DLDSR + DLSS to get the best across the board.
Last edited:
On this video, appears that blurbusters is also pushing this to be better addressed on the TAA basics:
Soldato
Because considering it's provided gratis, you're always complaining it's not good enough, it's not paywalled, their Frame Gen isn't pay walled, it's all FREE to use and just because YOU don't need to use it, there is a massive user base that uses FSR-consoles inc the NV powered Switch, handhelds, anyone on non DLSS support...
Despite only using DLSS and never having the need for FSR, you complain over multiple threads expecting a FREE solution to compete head to head with a premium paid for solution.
Why shouldn't it be a conversation?
You are even using AMD Frame Gen to play CP on your 3080, and still complain.
Couldn't care less, I didn't pay for FSR.
Where as I bought and paid for the DLSS premium with my 2070/3070/3080/4070, I'd have to be an absolute moon howler to not expect it to be considerably better than the free version.
That's a you problem, I buy both.
I can't speak for anyone else, but my 79XTX is absolutely smashing high refresh 4K 65" QD-Oled FREEsync Premium couch gaming.
For RT/PT, that's what DLSS is designed for, upscaling playable frame rates.
Last edited:
Man of Honour
This is b8If you need upscaling you either need a new GPU, the game needs optimising, or you got too ambitious with your resolution
Also to add :-
What's your preferred DLSS config?
In the past few months, DLSS has evolved into a suite of technologies that extend beyond mere "upscaling" NVIDIA users: we're curious... if a game fully supports all the available options, which ones would you choose? DLSS Upscaling, to achieve higher FPS, but with a lower render resolution...www.techpowerup.com
And this just proves most people still don't fully understand proper upscaling or are stuck in the past when upscaling was trash and that has never left their mindset, so this circles back to the first part of this line, they don't understand upscaling.
Last edited:
It's really like the old Crysis days, the game was the issue not the hardware. Turn down a few settings...in fact given the crazy prices it would almost make more sense to buy a lower res monitor just for those poorly optimised games.
Each to their own though, I just have my opinion, you do you and enjoy the fruits of your labour in whatever form is most enjoyable for you.
Well here's the thing, it's not locked to specific gpus but at the end of the day, you are still technically paying for it, what do you think amd does with the profits they make? They invest it into R&D and where do you think these solutions come from? And what do you think funds their engineering efforts? Also, the fact that they "advertise" on the box and on the product pages means you are buying into the whole package, yes to use nvidias feature like dlss, you have to buy a capable gpu but it's foolish to think that amd aren't packaging the cost into the overall price of their gpus otherwise they would cease to exist, making software is not cheap/free.
BTW, you never answer when asked this, maybe this time though, how many games on the ps 5 and xbox have fsr implemented? Just I'm only aware of 3 titles?
My problem? So you mean to say I should buy an inferior product (imo) and hope that some day amd provide a good solution? Doesn't make much sense but ok....
Unless you have a special 79xtx, doesn't look like it would be doing the job to my eyes with some of the recent games I've played:
4k and 3440x1440
Another recent title with little/light RT and UE 5 (which is becoming ever more common now) and the best "optimised" UE 5 title to date yet no gpu at native is still enough:
Of course, could reduce settings but then that's my point, reduce graphical settings and run native TAA and get a worse experience as shown? No thanks.
Fully agree, it's almost like a certain pc master race snobbery i.e. we're elite, we don't need any cheap software tricks!!!!
I fully get where people come from and at the end of the day, it is your hardware, run things how you want to but the fact that people prefer/use native and diss upscaling tech for said reasons then continue to use TAA @ native (which as shown in that video posted above, is the most common and usually the only AA method nowadays as well as there being no option to turn it off unless you go through config files and even then....) is hilarious.
Somewhat of topic i.e. not about upscaling but rather all this "fakery", blurbusters take on fake frames but a similar concept on "faking" things which cna be applied to upscaling:
Frame Generation Essentials: Interpolation, Extrapolation, and Reprojection
More frame rate in gaming through various frame generation technologies. There is also talk about lagless and artifactless frame generation technologies.
blurbusters.com
Yesterday, “fake frames” was meant to refer to classical black-box TV interpolation. It is funny how the mainstream calls them “fake frames”;
But, truth to be told, GPU’s are currently metaphorically “faking” photorealistic scenes via drawing polygons/triangles, textures, and shaders. Reprojection-based workflows is just another method of “faking” frames, much like an MPEG/H.26X video standard of “faking it” via I-Frames, B-Frames and P-Frames.
That’s why, during a bit of data loss, video goes “kablooey” and turns into garbage with artifacts — if a mere 1 bit gets corrupt in a predicted/interpolated frame in a MPEGx/H26x video stream. Until the next full non-predicted/interpolated frame comes in (1-2 seconds later).
Over the long-term, 3D rendering is transitioning to a multitiered workflow too (just like digital video did over 30 years ago out of sheer necessity of bandwidth budgets). Now our sheer necessity is a Moore’s Law slowdown bottleneck. So, as a shortcut around Moore’s Law — we are unable to get much extra performance via traditional “faking-it-via-polygons” methods.
The litmus test is going lagless and artifactless, much like the various interpolated frame subtypes built into your streaming habits, Netflix, Disney, Blu-Ray, E-Cinema, and other current video compression standards that use prediction systems in their compression systems.
Just as compressors have original knowledge of the original material, modern GPU reprojection can gain knowledge via z-buffers and between-frame inputreads. And “fake it” perceptually flawlessly, unlike year 1993’s artifacty MPEG1. Even the reprojection-based double-image artifacts disappear too!
TL;DR: Faking frames isn’t bad anymore if you remove the “black box” factor, and make it perceptually lagless and lossless relative to other methods of “faking frames” like drawing triangles and textures
Most games and especially on launch, yes they are definetly the issue as shown in DF video yesterday but games nowadays are just a heck of a lot more demanding too and it's not necessarily because they are poorly optimised. I don't mind turning down settings and usually do with the ones that make no difference although wouldn't sacrifice settings where it makes a drastic difference.
Last edited:
That's the second time I've seen someone declaring "proof" in these poll results where there is none. You're sticking your neck out to flag yourself as being unhappy that the results don't support your angle.
53% of 15000 that visit TPU said they cba, you know nothing factual about what or how they are playing.
Man of Honour
Considering that the Steam survey shows most people game at 1080P, I can safely and confidently say that they don't understand upscaling because those gamers have tried tit at a resolution that isn't optimal for upscaling to work with its true quality potential.
The swatches of videos and screenshots people post is also proof that upscaling works perfectly and in many cases, better than native as shown by high rep outlets in countless tech previews and reviews.
Edit*
FWIW, i don't care at a personal level what the poll results show, I'm just saying what I see and comparing that with my direct experience of using upscaling as well as native/DLAA in everything since day 1 and trying all these things out as a high end GPU user, then sticking with what has the best quality for each thing, which in almost all cases is DLSS/DLDSR.
Last edited:
BTW just on this point, with native and TAA in order to avoid the issues, you really wouldn't even be better of with a 1080p native display as with native AND TAA, you have to run a higher res. in order to compensate for TAA issues i.e. much like FSR, DLSS and XESS where it works best with higher resolutions/higher presets (although as shown, dlss handles this better across lower res. and lower presets but still not ideal given the nature of how this works).
Would recommend watching that video above as it covers it very well:
The poll got you posting that the respondents don't understand except the poll was about actual usage and by your explained opinions, they're not wrong.
So when the poll says most [Nvidia] users play without upscaling that should have been correct in your mind. But you said it was proof they didn't understand. Doesn't match.
Man of Honour
It would then have aligned with my direct observations in actual games so I'd have mostly agreed yes. Why would I say something to the contrary to my direct evidence and experience of the technology right from it's infancy?
I have seen and shown the evidence countless times and professional outlets are saying the same thing as well as demonstrating it to their millions of subscribers. Why would we not stick to our views when the evidence shows we are right.
We already know online polls are no different to just opinions as many vote based purely on their liking or hate for something regardless of whether they've actually used it in broad scope or not, regardless of what the actual poll question is specifically. It's typically people going "upscaling bad native good".
I'm sticking with my view as it's based on actual evidence and direct experience. Nothing will change that.
I have seen and shown the evidence countless times and professional outlets are saying the same thing as well as demonstrating it to their millions of subscribers. Why would we not stick to our views when the evidence shows we are right.
We already know online polls are no different to just opinions as many vote based purely on their liking or hate for something regardless of whether they've actually used it in broad scope or not, regardless of what the actual poll question is specifically. It's typically people going "upscaling bad native good".
I'm sticking with my view as it's based on actual evidence and direct experience. Nothing will change that.
Last edited:
I wonder how many people would choose a 4070ti over a GPU with no tensor cores and instead more cuda in its place that was 30% faster in raster than a 4090 and cost £699 which was the price of the high end before we started seeing all this new tech implemented.
Caporegime
Would never be £699 though. Inflation and soaring costs of smaller manufacturing processes would mean it would probably be closer to a grand I would imagine.
would be about £900 in todays money.
I would take a 7900XTX at £900 if it was 30% faster than a 4090 in raster.