yeah its a pretty good cpu, and dont call me shirley
-
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.
NVIDIA 4000 Series
- Thread starter MrClippy
- Start date
I don't really understand why DLSS 3 is dismissed as fake frames. Does it really matter if you don't notice? I can run Cyberpunk with DLSS Quality and no frame gen at around 60 FPS, while balanced is always above 70 FPS but frame generation definitely feels better to play with despite the added latency because it gets rid of the visual judder which is still there when in the 60-90 FPS range (on an OLED with instant pixel response time, the difference between 100 FPS and 60 FPS is night and day). I notice the judder of the 'real' frames much more than a fake frame which requires me to tilt the mouse in a particular angle, look real close to the screen and watch a moving object go by with a trail of the fake frame. Even then I have to actively go out of my way looking at it to see it.
I guess on an LCD, the judder of the 'real' 60-90 FPS is masked by the motion blur so frame generation just doesn't look better while adding latency so maybe that's where some are coming from. On an OLED, the judder of 60 'real' FPS is horrible.
I guess on an LCD, the judder of the 'real' 60-90 FPS is masked by the motion blur so frame generation just doesn't look better while adding latency so maybe that's where some are coming from. On an OLED, the judder of 60 'real' FPS is horrible.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,246
Which card, which system? Comparing a 4090 (top of the line) to something on the cheap isn't really "fair".
I voted $200. If they're fine with silly high prices, I'm fine with silly low prices.
Probably because is only truly efficient at high enough frame rates. However, depending how sensitive you are, could be fine even at lower than 60fps (that's final FPS with frame gen active).
Last edited:
Caporegime
- Joined
- 18 Oct 2002
- Posts
- 31,179
Value them for what though? Far as I'm concerned the tech gives much better framerates and a better gaming experience. Visually it all looks great and is a win win really regardless of what's technically happening under the hood.
Visually those frames look awful. The question is if you value them better than no frames.
Smoothness to me is all about input lag (once you get to reasonably high framerates) and not fps. You can't influence what can happen on those extra frames as the CPU and inputs are ignored.
Last edited:
yea at high enough framerates you can't see fake frames unless you are actively looking for them.
the motion though is 2x smoother and it reduces display motion blur by a lot so everything is way sharper.
on an oled screen it looks great.
the motion though is 2x smoother and it reduces display motion blur by a lot so everything is way sharper.
on an oled screen it looks great.
Last edited:
DLSS 3 is one of those weird technologies that kind of straddles reality and magic mushroom categories imo.
If you think about things in general way the gpu is producing frames to be shown on the screen based on data from the game, dlss 3 is kind of doing the same although it's using secondary hardware rather than the primary 'gpu' to create said imagery. So in some respects you could say it's allowing a dual processing of the game for showing on the screen.... hell in some respects you could even argue it's in a similar place to ray tracing hardware (we don't 'need' rt, it's a nice to have) when it was first released, it's just new technology that isn't quite as powerful as it needs to be to fully useful.
Should DLSS 3 be used as the 'improvement' from the previous gen... hell no, should it be included in marketing, yes because it could allow a game to go from unplayable to playable on the same hardware with minimal loss of quality etc... or just smooth out the framerate relative to the refresh rate.
I'd rather have dlss 3 available as an option than not have it but I'd still prefer real world gains of the primary gpu hardware.
If you think about things in general way the gpu is producing frames to be shown on the screen based on data from the game, dlss 3 is kind of doing the same although it's using secondary hardware rather than the primary 'gpu' to create said imagery. So in some respects you could say it's allowing a dual processing of the game for showing on the screen.... hell in some respects you could even argue it's in a similar place to ray tracing hardware (we don't 'need' rt, it's a nice to have) when it was first released, it's just new technology that isn't quite as powerful as it needs to be to fully useful.
Should DLSS 3 be used as the 'improvement' from the previous gen... hell no, should it be included in marketing, yes because it could allow a game to go from unplayable to playable on the same hardware with minimal loss of quality etc... or just smooth out the framerate relative to the refresh rate.
I'd rather have dlss 3 available as an option than not have it but I'd still prefer real world gains of the primary gpu hardware.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Aug 2009
- Posts
- 3,246
If you have to look for it frame by frame as you wouldn't notice otherwise, well... that's pointless.
It isn't the same as extra hardware power producing the extra frame like a shader would. A shader pipeline would require information from the CPU and therefore inputs. FG ignores both which is why it can increase frame rates even when CPU bottlenecked.
Say you ran a game at 120 fps. I then inserted identical frames twice and called it 240 fps, would you call it 240fps?
DLSS3 is doing that with some interpolation. There is no additional information it is using to render those frames. Your mouse click will not register in that frame. Physics in the game will not update in that frame. If you actually look at those frames, they are degraded heavily.
Let's say in a 60fps game, FG increases it to 120fps. What if FG had a setting to increase it to 180fps by generating 2 extra frames (nvidia could do this if they wanted). Is that now a 180fps gaming experience where two of the frames are a blur of real frames?
Last edited:
obviously you can't compare it to actual frames but it is an option that is nice to have, it's not being forced in games.
Last edited:
Im not saying it should be an option to be removed. But someone above claimed it looks the same as rasterising the same fps.