• 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.

really getting fed up with the posts stating RTX/DLSS does not work this gen

Phixsator said:
Not buying it, both native and DLSS are rendering what appears to be foggy weather, although the DLSS version seems slightly thicker, that said it shouldn't cause the kind of loss of detail in the DLSS rendering as it does in his video. It's just a bad excuse to justify what is clearly an inferior result. There are other places where long distance Geometry seems worse on DLSS quality like at 10:37.

Fc5f0fH.png
Click to expand...

You don't buy it? Despite all the reviews saying that both FidelityFX and DLSS 2.0 look better than Native. Did you watch his video, did you actually listen to him? Or Go to his Youtube channel and read his comments. Have you played the game? did you even look at the DLSS performance from 4.17 on? You can see it happening.

It's the dynamic weather that's affecting that's causing the differences you are seeing. Whether you buy it or not, that's the facts.

I will repeat it again. The take from reading all the reviews and watching all the videos is that both DLSS 2.0 and FidelityFX are better than native and offer improved performance. DLSS 2.0 seems to have more artifacting but less aliasing while FidelityFX seems to be sharper but more jaggies.
 
Not much good if fog is causing that kind of difference in IQ. I wouldnt say DLSS with more fog vs native was an apples to oranges comparison, more like granny smith to golden delicious. Since the fog causes that much loss of definition, we dont really know what that does to the fps especially with the loss in detail on that waterfall. we would really need to compare the scenes with the same weather as much as possible to see what's really going on. It's just guesswork otherwise. IT's good to see such a big performance jump regardless though, that's pretty encouraging.
 
james.miller said:
Not much good if fog is causing that kind of difference in IQ. I wouldnt say DLSS with more fog vs native was an apples to oranges comparison, more like granny smith to golden delicious. Since the fog causes that much loss of definition, we dont really know what that does to the fps especially with the loss in detail on that waterfall. we would really need to compare the scenes with the same weather as much as possible to see what's really going on. It's just guesswork otherwise. IT's good to see such a big performance jump regardless though, that's pretty encouraging.
Click to expand...

If you look at the DLSS performance from 4:17 in that video, you will see it better. There is no loss of framerate when it clears up or jump in frame rate when it blurs. It's not like the fog that you would associate with other games. Maybe loss of details are the wrong words to use. The details aren't been lost, we just can't see them properly because of the weather/clouds/lighting.

It would take hours and hours to get the same weather and lighting on all 3 recordings. It's hard enough to do on normal games without constantly changing weather.
 
Briefly looked at TPU’s Death Stranding review. These guys did a good job and labelled things properly. They did not just say native, but labelled it TAA. Comes over a lot more honest. If the words native are to be used for the resolution one should put + TAA or + FXAA etc. That clarifies things, is a lot more honest and informative. Calling it just native is dishonest and a marketing trickery tactic.

Before I am labelled a hater or something else, I would like to clarify that I do like DLSS 2.0 and currently swinging towards picking up a RTX 3070 on release (will likely use it when playing Cyberpunk 2077). Sure that may change, but it is unlikely.
 
TNA said:
Briefly looked at TPU’s Death Stranding review. These guys did a good job and labelled things properly. They did not just say native, but labelled it TAA. Comes over a lot more honest. If the words native are to be used for the resolution one should put + TAA or + FXAA etc. That clarifies things, is a lot more honest and informative. Calling it just native is dishonest and a marketing trickery tactic.

Before I am labelled a hater or something else, I would like to clarify that I do like DLSS 2.0 and currently swinging towards picking up a RTX 3070 on release (will likely use it when playing Cyberpunk 2077). Sure that may change, but it is unlikely.
Click to expand...

not really but I understand what you mean

native = the game is rendering 8 Millions pixels in real time with no up sampling - using TAA doesn't change the fact that it's native. But in games where you can turn TAA/FXAA off you should 100% turn it of before comparing to DLSS, it will make DLSS look better but that's your prerogative. In. Death stranding the game looks much better in motion with TAA on than off so by removing TAA it just makes DLSS look even better lol
 
The best case scenario usually lies in the middle. On my 4k monitor I've found that 75% resolution scale plus CAS yields the best results and a nice boost to performance. 50% resolution scale plus CAS results to a noticeable loss of quality. I've yet to try DLSS though.
 
NZXT30 said:
The best case scenario usually lies in the middle. On my 4k monitor I've found that 75% resolution scale plus CAS yields the best results and a nice boost to performance. 50% resolution scale plus CAS results to a noticeable loss of quality. I've yet to try DLSS though.
Click to expand...

Do you set that within the game itself or can it be done in control panel?
 
TNA said:
Briefly looked at TPU’s Death Stranding review. These guys did a good job and labelled things properly. They did not just say native, but labelled it TAA. Comes over a lot more honest. If the words native are to be used for the resolution one should put + TAA or + FXAA etc. That clarifies things, is a lot more honest and informative. Calling it just native is dishonest and a marketing trickery tactic.

Before I am labelled a hater or something else, I would like to clarify that I do like DLSS 2.0 and currently swinging towards picking up a RTX 3070 on release (will likely use it when playing Cyberpunk 2077). Sure that may change, but it is unlikely.
Click to expand...

Everybody should take the screenshots, marketing info etc from any company with a massive pinch of salt, that's for sure.

I don't think you are one of those conspiracy nut jobs who think that Nvidia is controlling everything. Or maybe you do!! :p Because these pictures and screenshots are mostly coming from review sites. So, how is it marketing trickery? If I enable 16x anisotropic filtering in my review should I disable it? That's not native according to you. If we are strictly talking native then you have to turn off every graphical setting.

Besides every review I have seen has mentioned the AA method used. And they all call it native, whether AA is applied or not.

And maybe they call it native because that's what the resolution is. And TAA is on because that's what they are comparing it against. If you add a sharpening filter that's not an in game setting, surely that's more dishonest? As you aren't comparing TAA/FXAA with DLSS or Native without any AA applied.

As I have said many times before, reviews sites are comparing DLSS against TAA and FXAA as that's the level of AA it's replacing. Several sites have also mentioned that it's better than Native without any AA applied. The YouTube video from the last page is an example. He says it several times.

Not they should need to tell anybody this. Native without AA is a jaggie mess!!

EDIT: I just want to add, that nobody had a problem with the statement "compared to native" when DLSS looked worse than native with TAA/FXAA applied.
 
Grim5 said:
not really but I understand what you mean

native = the game is rendering 8 Millions pixels in real time with no up sampling - using TAA doesn't change the fact that it's native. But in games where you can turn TAA/FXAA off you should 100% turn it of before comparing to DLSS, it will make DLSS look better but that's your prerogative. In. Death stranding the game looks much better in motion with TAA on than off so by removing TAA it just makes DLSS look even better lol
Click to expand...

melmac said:
Everybody should take the screenshots, marketing info etc from any company with a massive pinch of salt, that's for sure.

I don't think you are one of those conspiracy nut jobs who think that Nvidia is controlling everything. Or maybe you do!! :p Because these pictures and screenshots are mostly coming from review sites. So, how is it marketing trickery? If I enable 16x anisotropic filtering in my review should I disable it? That's not native according to you. If we are strictly talking native then you have to turn off every graphical setting.

Besides every review I have seen has mentioned the AA method used. And they all call it native, whether AA is applied or not.

And maybe they call it native because that's what the resolution is. And TAA is on because that's what they are comparing it against. If you add a sharpening filter that's not an in game setting, surely that's more dishonest? As you aren't comparing TAA/FXAA with DLSS or Native without any AA applied.

As I have said many times before, reviews sites are comparing DLSS against TAA and FXAA as that's the level of AA it's replacing. Several sites have also mentioned that it's better than Native without any AA applied. The YouTube video from the last page is an example. He says it several times.

Not they should need to tell anybody this. Native without AA is a jaggie mess!!

EDIT: I just want to add, that nobody had a problem with the statement "compared to native" when DLSS looked worse than native with TAA/FXAA applied.
Click to expand...

I disagree. There are different forms of AA and in some games TAA is worse then others. How is it hard if you want to be honest to say Native + TAA or Native + FXAA? Surely there is a difference between the two yes? Why not clarify which is being used?

As I say, I really like DLSS 2.0, but will stay neutral and say it as it is. I do not think what I am saying is unreasonable. What you guys are doing sounds like you are defending DLSS, when really there is nothing to defend as DLSS 2.0's results as of late speak for itself (not tried it myself but everything looks good from what I am have seen).

I mean the fact that melmec would even think that I am thinking Nvidia controls everything, what does that have to do with anything? That did not even cross my mind, to me making that statement suggest he cannot grasp what I am saying or he is simply strawmaning ;)
 
JediFragger said:
Ok thanks :)

Been a little while since had AMD and wondered if they'd added something funky into CP :)
Click to expand...
Lol Jedi, it used to be boomstick that changed his GPU’s all the time, seems you are giving him a run for his money. Every time I look at your sig it is a different GPU. Do you still have your 2080Ti? :)
 
TNA said:
Space Invaders?
Click to expand...

Nah the card has been solid, fan controller issue. Hoping they send the same card back tbh, it's been that good.

If I wasn't so 'me' I'd plug it in and run it at 1440p for a couple of years and wait for the next-next-gen to drop like a normal person, but I know I'm not capable of that so best to sell it while it's still worth a fair bit :D

This 5700XT is epic though tbh, lovely card at 1440p but it's h00000000000000000000000ge!!!!!!!
 
TNA said:
I disagree. There are different forms of AA and in some games TAA is worse then others. How is it hard if you want to be honest to say Native + TAA or Native + FXAA? Surely there is a difference between the two yes? Why not clarify which is being used?

As I say, I really like DLSS 2.0, but will stay neutral and say it as it is. I do not think what I am saying is unreasonable. What you guys are doing sounds like you are defending DLSS, when really there is nothing to defend as DLSS 2.0's results as of late speak for itself (not tried it myself but everything looks good from what I am have seen).

I mean the fact that melmec would even think that I am thinking Nvidia controls everything, what does that have to do with anything? That did not even cross my mind, to me making that statement suggest he cannot grasp what I am saying or he is simply strawmaning ;)
Click to expand...

You disagree? What are you disagreeing with? These images are from reviews sites, and they do state what AA versions are been used. Most of the Video reviews mention it and most of the video reviews say that DLSS 2.0 and Fidelity FX are better than native with or without TAA/FXAA.

There are better AA methods but these are GPU intensive and maybe in time DLSS and FidelityFX will surpass those methods but at the moment they are getting over the problem of the soft/blurry look that FXAA and TAA introduce while trying to improve performance.

I was joking when I said that you think Nvidia controls everything. Just made the joke because you said it was marketing. How can it be marketing, the images are from Review sites? Nvidia's own slides and info about DLSS 2.0 and DLSS 1.0 are compared against TAA/FXAA and labelled as such. Although DLSS 2.0 images are been mostly compared again DLSS 1.0 images.

You continue to say it's dishonest. But yet you had no problem what so every when DLSS 1.0 was been compared to Native, no matter what way it was labelled.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom