• 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

chris85oc said:
So a sharpening filter with a small upscaling benefit (FFX), heck even DLSS which does way more, is better than HDR? Guess you haven't seen HDR on a proper TV and/or in games that use it properly then.

Hell, resolution isn't even that relevant when a game is trying to convince you it looks real or tries to go for that pixar cgi look with a vast amount of color shades and contrast. You can have 1080p and great HDR which will beat 4k 60 SDR anytime.

Then again if you're gaming on a low-end HDR tv or an "HDR" monitor i can see where the issue lies easily. Those aren't real HDR-capable displays.
Click to expand...

It is all down to personal preference. I don't agree about the resolution vs. hdr thing but i do game in 1080p due to headache issues at higher resolutions.

I have a 65inch Sony A1 which I have just run a 7m cable to (i needed a new cable for this) and an Eizo IPS (144hz) on my rig, both screens are well regarded for colour and motion reproduction, I did the side-by-side tests this evening - in the dark. HDR on/off FidelityFX on/off.

imho Death stranding is the best looking game I have ever seen in motion and its just fine at 60hz on the Sony, most games i play need 100hz.

Using the A1 with the 5700xt set at 4k with HDR and FidelityFX on, both features make a difference. HDR is a wonderful technology but you need to be in a light controlled room to see its full impact, i don't have this.

FidelityFX/DLSS 2.0 just gives you so much more detail, day-to-day all under circumstances and that edges it for me as a technology over HDR but you really, ideally need both. When i return to my Eizo, sure, losing HDR is a bummer but i would miss the resolution/oversample bump that i get more and that is just the way i feel about it.

Like i say, its all down to personal preference.
 
TNA said:
It has been my experience that whenever I see an comparison the AA method used for native is not stated. Here is one example directly from Nvidia: https://developer.nvidia.com/dlss

Here is video from them also, an example of how not to do it:



Here is an example from them with it done right:

Click to expand...

You have gone on and on and on about been compared to native as dishonest and marketing trickery. Yet, every review that has done a comparison of DLSS 2.0 has listed either the settings used or labelled the screenshots.

For the first link, did you see the webpage that you posted from? It's the developers site.

For your second two videos, they sum exactly my point. Neither you, nor anyone else complained about the phrase been "compared to Native" until DLSS 2.0 came out.

TNA said:
I still remember when Grim5 did a comparison where the "native image" turned out to be one where he used FXAA on. Lol.

So yeah, maybe now you can see where I am coming from now? I am not saying the whole web is doing this, but just the places I came across. Hence when I saw the TPU article it felt refreshing!
Click to expand...

Go back and look at the thread. When DLSS 2.0 came out, certain people were calling DLSS 2.0 blurry and crap and the screenshots looked terrible. That's when Grim posted the screenshots but labelled backwards. Oh, how those people crowed about how bad DLSS 2.0 was. Even Shankly. Then Grim stated that the screenshots were actually in reverse. Only Shankly came back and said he got it wrong and didn't realise that DLSS 2.0 was such a big improvement over DLSS, respect to that man. Those images weren't for the neutral. They were just to prove that some people were hating DLSS 2.0 just because it's from Nvidia.

Nope, still don't see where you are coming from. Did you only read one review? All the reviews of DLSS 2.0 that I have read have stated the settings or labelled the images.

TNA said:
I definitely answered this one before. What you seem to be struggling to grasp is most people buying graphics cards are not enthusiasts like me and you. To us it is obvious, to them not so much. Again, how hard is it to just put down on each comparison image or video what aa is being used? Why let people assume?
Click to expand...

So you think they type of people who will be looking up info about DLSS etc won't know what Native resolution is? Do you think people that are that clueless even care? But, it doesn't matter, because all the reviews of DLSS 2.0 state this information.

Just a word on here on Native, because it seems you are very confused. If your monitor is 1440p and you are playing a game at 1440p, then you are playing the game at native resolution no matter what visual effects are applied. 1440P is native on a 1440p monitor. Playing at a game at 4K on 4K monitor is playing the game at native 4K, the effects applied doesn't change that. Saying compared to native is completely accurate.


TNA said:
A better question would be, why do I have to have had and outrage for my current point to stand?

I did not need to, DLSS on release was poor and I made that amply clear!
Click to expand...

But you don't have a point, reviews already state this information. And If DLSS 2.0 is better than Native with or without TAA/FXAA then how can there be anything wrong with the phrase?

So tell me why sudden change when DLSS 2.0 was released? Why does the phrase "compared to native" bug you so much all of a sudden? DLSS has been compared to native since it's launch nearly 2 years ago.

I made it perfectly clear that DLSS 1.0 was rubbish too. Or do you forget that? But that's not the point. It seems like as long DLSS was worse than Native you didn't care what it was compared to.

TNA said:
Yes, because you do not want to see. Too invested in your own point of view to be impartial (disappointed to see that from you btw).

It is super simple what I am saying yet you look for things I said to strawman
Click to expand...

Invested in my own point of view? No, what I am is completely and utterly baffled by the trouble you are having with the phrases. Compared to Native or better than native.

Other people, I understand, because they are completely AMD biased. But You are acting like "better than Native" is a big deal. If native was so good we wouldn't need any new and improved ways to improve image quality.
 
So, from what I can gather; TNA wants accurate labelling - and you want.... I'm not sure what you want? It doesn't even look like you're trying to convert him to the church of nVidia - just incessantly picking a fight :? Would it perhaps be wise to just drop it and move on ?
 
Howling said:
So, from what I can gather; TNA wants accurate labelling - and you want.... I'm not sure what you want? It doesn't even look like you're trying to convert him to the church of nVidia - just incessantly picking a fight :? Would it perhaps be wise to just drop it and move on ?
Click to expand...
Yeah, I give up on him. Apparently wanting accurate labeling makes no sense and he does not get it, so not point me wasting my time replying to him. All he can do is strawman at this point which is as good as admitting he lost the argument as far as I am concerned.

What made me laugh most about his post was arriving to the conclusion that what Grim5 did was a win somehow, when all he managed to do was embarrass himself by applying FXAA to the native image when comparing to DLSS. Apparently he "tricked us", when you can look back and see I actually said the imaged looked like it had FXAA on it, turns out I was right! Lol.
 
Howling said:
So, from what I can gather; TNA wants accurate labelling - and you want.... I'm not sure what you want? It doesn't even look like you're trying to convert him to the church of nVidia - just incessantly picking a fight :? Would it perhaps be wise to just drop it and move on ?
Click to expand...

Lol. Sad but true. Some guys on here need to give over with this superior complex, its a forum - try to help one another. Just remember, there's always someone out there smarter or knows more than you; you just may not have met them yet. :D
 
Th0nt said:
Cant see any raytracing. Definitely no DLSS - maybe Grim5 et al can bring me up to speed on it? :D
Click to expand...

Not the best scene to show it off as the lighting is quite muted but it is full path tracing all light shading. Seems to be a fair bit of noise and temporal sample artefacts though - most so than Quake 2 RTX.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom