Nvidia DLSS 1 and 2 antialiasing discussion *spawn*
- Thread starter DavidGraham
- Start date
-
- Tags
- nvidia
The what now?
Yes, and where exactly do you see that "iso-performance" you claimed? I said I rather drop few settings to get the performance I want, than use DLSS with it's artifacts or other resolution scaling techniques. Nothing about iso-performance with DLSS.
Onus is on **you** to show us a list of settings you would use on native/TAA 4K to make it iso-performance with DLSS 4K. This is because many of us believe that your stance is ridiculous -- to get native/TAA to be iso-performance with DLSS, you would have to make *dramatic* cuts to quality, and not minor cuts "here and there" as you keep claiming.
Last edited:
When I haven't made the claim it's not on me to show such things. You need to stop putting words to peoples mouths.
Am I the only one here who don't understand how lowering of settings here and there compares to DLSS though?
You can lower settings here and there with DLSS too if that wasn't obvious.
You can lower settings here and there with DLSS too if that wasn't obvious.
What the heck? I literally quoted your post, and you literally re-iterated your point 2 posts back. You keep saying you're willing to drop settings to get the FPS you want instead of using DLSS. And I keep saying that you're going to have to drop a hell of a lot of settings to get to the FPS that DLSS gets you.
The only way I can logically reconcile these statements with your disagreement is if "DLSS gives you way more FPS than you want"?!?? I'm really grasping at straws here.
How damn hard can it be? "Get the FPS I want" is not the same as and doesn't have anything to do with "ISO-performance with DLSS", which you claimed I had said. Stop making up lies about other forum users, please.
I get FPS that's enough for me, depending on game it can be anything from 30'ish to 144'ish, where I'll meet the limits of my monitor.
Of course you can, but why would I enable feature that introduces artifacts that when I don't need to?
If someone doesn't care about them, that's all fine, enable DLSS and enjoy it, but don't expect everyone to think the same way just because you or even many others happen to prefer it.
Cause you need to? Which is exactly why everyone likes DLSS so much.
Also it's been said many times already - TAA causes more "artifacts" than DLSS.
Easy there. Nobody's making up lies, everything I stated was linked to specific posts. We're all just trying to precisely understand each other.
To that end -- are you now declaring that "FPS I want" is guaranteed to be dramatically lower than DLSS performance (otherwise, again, there is no way you can reduce settings and get there)?
Yeah I think this is an important point. If DLSS's sole use were to boost framerates to eleventeen-hundred fps it wouldn't be that appealing. Instead, it's enabling modern games to reach meaningful performance targets (e.g., 4K/60fps) that they simply couldn't have reached otherwise (without dramatic compromises in quality).
To be clear I'm a fan of reconstruction in general. It's just that DLSS 2.0 is the best we've seen so far. The fact that it uses ML is a bonus that makes it extremely intellectually intriguing to me. I'm sure we'll see even better approaches (ML-based or otherwise) moving forward. Good times!
High frame rates is super appealing. If I can get consistent 120fps with DLSS instead of 80 at native, regardless of the resolution, I'm turning it on.
arandomguy
Regular
This is somewhat on topic but what I've felt for awhile now is we could benefit from some double blind tests done to get a better impression of what people actually feels subjectively "looks better" (and looks better in this case should take into account motion as well). Not sure who'd have the resources to do something like that nowadays however.
Comparing things like raw numbers and zoomed in stills can be interesting from a more academic discussion stand point, but nowadays I'd question how applicable it is in terms of how much that actually translates into a difference of "enjoyment" levels between end users.
Comparing things like raw numbers and zoomed in stills can be interesting from a more academic discussion stand point, but nowadays I'd question how applicable it is in terms of how much that actually translates into a difference of "enjoyment" levels between end users.
Yes this is a good idea. They should also include some control resolutions like 1080p and 1440p just to make sure the people watching are really seeing a difference and not just imagining one. And of course cap the frame rate.
DLSS 2.x will always win. 4K@DLSS Performance is >2x faster than 4K with TAA. The difference in "feeling" is much bigger than in image quality. And most people wont even see a real difference between both.
I'm not guaranteeing any specific performance, just that so far I've gotten enough performance in every title I've played and at worst I've had to turn couple settings down a notch or two.
If some day I'll hit a wall where I can't get FPS I'm happy with without DLSS or other resolution scaling methods, I'll reconsider using them, but until then I don't want the artifacts from DLSS.
Xuan-Yuan Sword VII – DLSS 2.0 & Ray Tracing Benchmarks
November 1, 2020
https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-perfor...an-sword-vii-dlss-2-0-ray-tracing-benchmarks/
November 1, 2020
https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-perfor...an-sword-vii-dlss-2-0-ray-tracing-benchmarks/
ok i'll explain : He wants a certain level of performance which is not the same as "I want the same performance as dlss"
New update adds DLSS to War Thunder
November 17, 2020
https://www.nvidia.com/en-us/geforce/news/november-2020-rtx-dlss-game-update/
November 17, 2020
