DavidGraham
Veteran
No it doesn't, it relies on DLSS2 to upscale the image spatially, DLSS3 only upscales temproally (between frames).
Nvidia DLSS 3 antialiasing discussion
- Thread starter TopSpoiler
- Start date
Yeah, so better to call it Frame Generation then, as it keeps the same resolution it receives, it does not upscale it at all.
DavidGraham
Veteran
Funny enough, all the games that support DLSS 3 so far have it under the name of: Frame Generation. Yes! It's not called DLSS3 in game. Each game has a toggle called: Super Sampling, and another toggle called Frame Generation.
DegustatoR
Legend
You could argue that temporal data insertion can be viewed as "super sampling" I guess.
DLSS3 is a bundle of technologies coming together, including Reflex. It's a bit odd to call it DLSS3 like it's one single technology, when all the independent techs can be enabled or disabled individually (especially with Frame Generation working on native as well lol!).
Super Sampling for FPS I guess.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Possible rumor ...
wccftech.com
Edit:
If true then it would validate the statement made by the Nvidia engineer that FG could work on Ampere and Turing.
NVIDIA Engineer Says DLSS 3 on Older RTX GPUs Could Theoretically Happen, Teases RTX I/O News
NVIDIA DLSS 3 "Frame Generation" Lock Reportedly Bypassed, RTX 2070 Gets Double The Frames In Cyberpunk 2077
NVIDIA recently introduced its new DLSS 3 technology that adds a new feature known as Frame Generation on supported GPUs.
wccftech.com
Edit:
If true then it would validate the statement made by the Nvidia engineer that FG could work on Ampere and Turing.
NVIDIA Engineer Says DLSS 3 on Older RTX GPUs Could Theoretically Happen, Teases RTX I/O News
Last edited by a moderator:
Good for marketing and the average consumer though because the publishers can just say the game supports DLSS 3, and we know is supports all 3 techs.
Also it's probably easier for NVIDIA to enforce the inclusion of all 3 techs this way (which is also good for consumers).
Some great questions around how it all works in this thread.
The way I hope to see it working on a gsync display is you just turn on vsync globally in the driver and then set a per game frame rate limit as needed which would be low enough for the CPU to deliver good frame pacing. That limit should then be doubled (or close) by frame generation up to the vsync limit. Anything below the vsync limit would be handled by gsync.
So on a 120hz screen, as long as your CPU can handle 60fps then you can cap the game at 60 and get a 120 output.
Cynicalking
Regular
I thought someone from NVidia stated this on Twitter already? It can theoretically be used on previous RTX cards but it won't work correctly (hence the instability and frame drops).
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
The-Nastiest
Newcomer
Great video.
My goodness, I can barely imagine how long that took to create in its totality.
I appreciate the time and effort put into this video by Alex and DF.
At some point in the future I look forward to trying DLSS 3 for myself.
crazy hard and painful to do this one.
Flappy Pannus
Veteran
Just an amazing video. Kept thinking "Ok, so what does that impl-" then Alex answered it by going one step deeper.
The vsync issue is concerning. I understand you can just ramp up settings to stay under it but that won't give you perfectly consistent frame times. I wonder if you can also set a frame rate limit below the vsync limit (say 55fps on a 110hz gsync screen for a solid 110 fps) or whether that would still incur the latency hit.
Yeah, your description there does not really jive at all with what I would say.
I find that a rather extreme appraisal.
For example, the difference in input latency I measured between DLSS2 to DLSS 3 in CP 2077 (Maxed 4K DLSS perfoance Mode) above or below vsync is ca. 10 milliseconds.
As a bit of perspective, 10 milliseconds of latency difference is 1/4th the latency difference between Doom 2016 on console vs. call of duty on console - both of which are 60 FPS games. I really think implying it has unplayable differences of latency being added requires some serious consideration and comparison about latency in games we play, as unless you are hitting Vsync Limit, DLSS 3 is not adding intense amount of visible latency: it is really intl the placebo realm.
DLSS3 is being praised from the next best thing after sliced breat, with a nice option to have as middleground downwards to introducing even more artifact potential and lag.
Coming from the middle ground here, I wonder whether people who really do like DLSS3 would actually pay for this, if it was an optional feature von RTX 4000, like for example in a locked feature in the driver and you pay, say, 5 bucks a month in order to get access to it (GFE-account with payment option). Or, on the other hand, people who really don't like it, would agree to permanently not have this option any more. Both under the premise of the card being a bit cheaper, say, 200$ less.
Coming from the middle ground here, I wonder whether people who really do like DLSS3 would actually pay for this, if it was an optional feature von RTX 4000, like for example in a locked feature in the driver and you pay, say, 5 bucks a month in order to get access to it (GFE-account with payment option). Or, on the other hand, people who really don't like it, would agree to permanently not have this option any more. Both under the premise of the card being a bit cheaper, say, 200$ less.
Do not give Jensen any ideas. The Bean Counters are reading this as we speak.
D
Deleted member 2197
Guest
Agreed. Please no "subscribe to play" schemes.
