How good or bad DLSS is is subjective, but it is objectively always worse than native even if you happen to prefer it over native.
Didn't you just get DLSS confused for native 9 posts back?
How good or bad DLSS is is subjective, but it is objectively always worse than native even if you happen to prefer it over native.
Yes, and? Worst oversharpening ever on TAA being mixed with DLSS doesn't change anything regarding that.Didn't you just get DLSS confused for native 9 posts back?
Your comparison is flawed. It would be same as putting Britney on top of sales charts because you happen to prefer it, despite it not selling as well as other artists. Subjective vs Objective. I like it > Sales vs Sales = Sales. I think it looks the same > Same res/settings vs Same settings for everyoneThere is no point debating subjective matters. This discussion always goes same route. I hate dlss, I rather lower settings, I rather this and that. Let those people and reviewers recommend dlss who find it useful and pleasurable. There is no perfect realtime graphics. Trying to argue from theoretical pov just doesn't match real life experience when playing real life games. Some games have really good dlss, some don't. Some peopl find dlss artifacts off putting, some people find graphics better than native.
It's as silly as forcing everyone to listen britney spears. Some people love, some don't. Don't know if britney is dlss or not.
Your comparison is flawed. It would be same as putting Britney on top of sales charts because you happen to prefer it, despite it not selling as well as other artists. Subjective vs Objective. I like it > Sales vs Sales = Sales. I think it looks the same > Same res/settings vs Same settings for everyone
Yes, and? Worst oversharpening ever on TAA being mixed with DLSS doesn't change anything regarding that.
It's only about objective graphs with same settings for everything, not subjective "it looks about the same" random settings per card.
You actually managed to buy one? Lucky you.I have a 3080 coming in so i will be able to comment on dlss based on my experiences soon
You actually managed to buy one? Lucky you.
Realistically we aren't getting any huge fps boost anymore from process technology. We need smartness over brute force or graphics will stagnate. DLSS like algorithms is one way to combat this. Chip in 1080ti is about 4 years old and 3080 is barely 2x faster. Like it or not, brute force is not going take us forward. If someone wants native pixels they are in a world of hurt if they go look how much compromises and hacks and less than full native resolution rendering game engines already do. Native doesn't really even exist if you break it down to rendered elements.
Do we really want to be in place where 4 years from now we play same games with double the framerate or do we want smarter things to happen to get better scaling? That better scaling can happen with existing hw already,... Ray tracing is one of those smarter things to increase quality by allowing realtime gi, better shadows, better reflections in essence allow accurate simulation of light. Ray tracing being new technology can see good scaling as there likely is more room to optimize hw&sw implementation than there is fat in rasterization/compute side. DLSS like algorithms is another avenue for better scaling.
edit. Hopefully unreal5 is one of those smart things that allows scaling beyond what flops suggest. DirectStorage also might help by removing memory limitations.
Objectively always worse than native, subjectively it can be better, just like I said already several times?So not always worse than native then?
Objectively always worse than native, subjectively it can be better, just like I said already several times?
Reviews are supposed to be objective, even playing field for everyone tested with same settings. Not subjective where some random person decides what settings look similar enough to be put in same graphs.
So does supersampling "objectively always better" than native then?Objectively always worse than native
It's what the devs actually intended the game to output at given settings.How do you define objectively better? What's the basis for concluding this?
SS is essentially just higher resolution native scaled down, it can be considered better (as downsampling doesn't suffer from same issues as upsampling) and obviously shouldn't be mixed in same graph with results not using Supersampling.So does supersampling "objectively always better" than native then?
So it doesn't matter at all how it is scaled down? Point sampling would be better than native too?SS is essentially just higher resolution native scaled down, it can be considered better (as downsampling doesn't suffer from same issues as upsampling) and obviously shouldn't be mixed in same graph with results not using Supersampling.
...and obviously shouldn't be mixed in same graph...
Of course results can vary based on method, "can be" != "is". One needs to accept whatever method the dev chooses to be their method of choice to be the optimal.So it doesn't matter at all how it is scaled down? Point sampling would be better than native too?
And what if it's somehow resulting in a higher performance?
Not sure if I have seen any reviewers do it, but I've seen several people suggest they should (not in this particular branch of discussion or even forum in all cases).You’ve mentioned this a few times. Are there examples of reviewers comparing DLSS 4K vs native 4K and pretending they’re the same thing? I’ve never seen that.
It's what the devs actually intended the game to output at given settings.
So supersampled image can be worse than native? "Objectively" or not.Of course results can vary based on method, "can be" != "is". One needs to accept whatever method the dev chooses to be their method of choice to be the optimal.
But regardless of anything else, it like any other such feature should only be used when it's used on everything. Same settings for everyone, not different subjectively worse/better/similar settings for anyone.