Recent content by Benetanegia

A 0.2% percentile is not a particularly useful metric to represent performance of a card or gaming experience. 2 out of 1000 frames being half as fast says very little, even @100 fps we're talking about just 2 frames every 10 seconds being "half speed" vs 50% longer on the 6900), and @65fps (as...

Who said that you don't need to train it in a supercomputer? But individual devs don't need to do anything, nor does Nvidia need to update it further for it to work on future games as perfectly as it does on today's games. The model they have right now, already works wonderfully in games as...

No, you don't... Yes it does. No training is required, no ML expertise, juat a single guy capable of providing the low resolution frames and motion vectors as inputs for DLSS.

DLSS 2.0 and TAA have literally the same requirements (annoyances as you call them) to be implemented in a game: bunch of previous frames + motion vectors.

I said 9-15 fps for the 41-60fps range which is the low 41 and average 60 fps (and as I said I may have been slightly off due to misshandling rounding). We already corrected that 9 to 6 for the low 41 (yeah 6 not 5, if you're going to nitpick so will I :) ). That still doesn0t mean it's going to...

Not really, it depends on the final framerate. For a 2060 DLSS is a fixed 3ms frametime cost after the rendering is done*. This cost is not in any way related to how fast frames can be rendered, it's 3ms at 5 fps and 3ms at 1000fps, it "only" depends on the output resolution, in this case 4K. So...

It does, so thanks a lot for taking the time.

It may confuse him more tho. What we know here is performance with DLSS ON, so 10ms would be with DLSS inlcuded, 10ms - 3ms = 7ms instead ot the other way around (10ms + 3ms) edit: You did add another data point in the middle tho :) for 77 fps with DLSS on it's 100 fps (+23 fps). Haha

It's 6 not 5 frames by your own number. That's for 41 fps. For 60 FPS it's 15 frames. For 100 FPS it's 43 frames.

It is 100% correct. If a 2060 is taking 10 ms (100fps) to render a frame with DLSS ON in a particular game/scene, it's doing the rasterisation part in 7 ms, which would translate to 143 fps. Not only that, DLSS ON is more than likely doing at least part of all the post effects at full resolution...

Not sure if you're kidding here or... (don't make me say it) 100 frames-per-second times 10 milisecods-per-frame = 1000 miliseconds = 1 second. 142 frames-per-second times 7 milisecods-per-frame = 994 miliseconds ~ 1 second. No, it's average framerate which drives gaming experience mostly and...

Yes depending on the frametime it makes a huge difference. 100 fps is 10 ms frametime and 10-3 = 7ms frametime equates 142 fps just as an (extreme in this case but not actually that extreme) example. in regards to 47 to 50 I may have made a typo or bad rounding somewhere, not tha it makes a...

Except that's not true, because DLSS takes up to 3ms to run which takes away from the frametime that rasterisation can take place in. In other words, if the card didn't have to do DLSS pass after the rasterisation pass, it would be much faster. Instead of doing 41-60 fps, it would do 50-75fps...

It was like 10% of Turing's SM area, so less than 5% of the GPU, you could double or even quadruple the amount before it becomes cumbersome, considering the superior output vs alternatives (i.e external scalers). Assuming modern custom design, as you did in the previous post, i.e Ampere...

I don't have the game but I suspected that from some videos. That's an improper/lazy implementation of DLSS by devs imo, DLSS should be applied before any post effects. (edit: as guidelines dictate)