Discussion in 'Graphics Cards' started by Gregster, Jan 10, 2019.
Yup, they're comparing it to their own stuttering Reference version imo.
The problem AMD would then have is they would be releasing what is effectively an entry level gaming card (2060 perf.) with a whopping 16GB vram which at best would be sat idling but could set a precedent i.e it’s difficult at least in terms of marketing to then reduce this vram amount for future faster models.
People wont notice the different unless examining really closely. There's been one review already that mentioned they could see imperfections but when they examined the native image, it too had imperfections.
I don't know the technical reasons but it's more than simple "upscaling". People are not giving it enough credit IMO, usually those who still justifying to themselves that they must not buy a 20 series .
IMO, if DLSS gives a 25-40% increase in performance for no or little easily noticeable degradation in image quality (unless screenshotting, examining closely), it's a winner. If it improves image quality in some cases, even better.
I'm curious if you'd still be praising it if it was an AMD feature? The way I see it, it's very similar to other "cheating" methods of improving performance with little/no noticeable IQ drop -just as an example AMD reducing tessellation levels. The fact of the matter is, the over tessellation wasn't providing any IQ benefit it was just demolishing AMD's performance (perhaps that was the intent, but we'll never truly know) - however, AMD still got slammed for "cheating" - likely by the same people praising DLSS, which as you say is definitely more than simple upscaling - but upscaling none-the-less.
Personally, I don't mind DLSS - I think it's very clever and I definitely see a lot more performance hacks coming in the future to provide higher frames without affecting IQ. It is definitely interesting to see peoples' reactions to it though.
DLSS does not give better IQ than native 4K but it certainly give less performance hit than native 4K. Techspot compared it to 1800p up-scaled and found similar IQ and almost identical performance.
I have had to correct some people actually mistakenly (and laughably) assuming that DLSS was going to give a free performance boost. I explained what DLSS actually does and provided the link above and clarified that everything has a trade off. They looked perplexed because all the marketing and BS from most tech press seems to imply when it is enabled in games it magically boost performance for free.
I'm disappointed they aren't using the AI to do intelligent filtering of a native resolution image which it should be perfectly capable of with performance benefits.
Anyone that believes lowering resolution doesn't lower image quality needs eyes testing.
DLSS is very much like what playstation has been using checkerboard rendering.
It's also just like using the resolution scale in game from 100 to lower. But the main difference is DLSS does it on the fly based on demand from the GPU.
I don't care who implemented the feature. I'm happy to buy AMD or NVidia or Intel products.
It does of course depend on what it is and how it's implemented. 25-40% is a huge jump in performance and I agree with what some others have said - seeing some screenshots, the DLSS image sometimes looks better than native. But in fast gameplay, you just won't be able to notice the difference unless it's psychological (ie, I hate NV, this DLSS image is rubbish ).
Don't know if already posted but Radeon 7 is slower than both the 2080 and 1080Ti
Happy to keep my undervolted Vega56 and then see what Navi's like.
I expect it to initially compete with the 2070 and then with driver enhancements it should catch the 1080ti, but I also expect the 2070 to catch the ti.
In two games that this article chose to highlight with nice performance tables, then go on to say AMDs card beats the 2080 in other games in the narrative below the Assassins Creed table.
Definitely showing bias in their article. Why only show graphs of R7 losing to 2080?
You're only 12 days into the year that Navi was listed on AMD's roadmap. I'm not expecting anything until Computex, and then August/September release. That's probably why the Radeon 7 was launched now so there's something at the top end (for better or worse) to keep ticking over for another 6 months or so.
Yeah he is doing a video on it soon, can't wait to watch
If you look at @Shaz12 other posts, you'll see he is completely pro nVidia. Just another poster who can't be happy in his choice of GPU and has to put down anything else.
It's a no from me. Not because I think it's a bad product, but not a huge improvement over my 1080. I'd rather upgrade the rest of my system then look at a GPU in another year or so I think. It's very good to see AMD competing with nvidia in the higher end again though.
I voted wait for more info. If the price is lower than 2080 for similar performance then I will contemplate it. If the $699 price is converted to UK prices it is ~£650 inc VAT but of course we will get the inevitable price gouging.
I think the price will naturally tend to stay at levels at which the card will carry at least some interest in it. There is no reason for them to charge too much, so even the few people who are interested, to consider elsewhere.
I have my eyes tested every year as my job demands it, I have to check for microscopic defects in the products we make so good eyesight is important.
DLSS is a swings and roundabouts type of tech, in some ways it looks worse than other optimisations but in other ways it looks better. Overall though I think it looks better than the other options available.
I would not be surprised if AMD come out with their own version of it very soon too.
Separate names with a comma.