You're not keen on reading, are you.
Value of Hardware Unboxed benchmarking *spawn
- Thread starter Phantom88
- Start date
I read a ton actually. Is there something I got wrong or are you just going to waste both our time with this needless prattle? Responses like this proves you're not here for any constructive discussion.
Then maybe you can just read my replies above instead of just barging into the conversation with your insight?
Dear lord. YOU are the one who replied to me! Oh my god. lol
Though I'm not surprised you're unwilling to actually engage in any actual talking points and will just continue to just waste both of our time with worthless non-sequiturs.
Well DLSS ultra performance probably looks better than FSR 2 quality but that's a separate issue.
It's not if you will be able to play the game at PS5 level thanks to that.
And you've decided to not read anything after that. God and all.
1440p DLSS performance is doable in this game. It starts to exhibit some of the shimmering you see in FSR, but it's not nearly as bad. With a lower end card you'd pretty much have to go that route to maintain 60 fps and it'll still look good. Setting the sharpness in the ini helps.
You cannot be serious.
What you said was directly in response to my comment. There was no 'in between' context that I missed.
Are you just trying to distract from the actual the discussion or something? Trying to deflect enough to where we argue about this ridiculousness so you dont have to actually address any specific talking points that are constructive to the discussion? Like, what the hell man? This is asinine. If your next post literally cant address the actual conversation that was being had, I'm just going to report you to the mods for trolling.
I think these distinctions should be kept separate from performance comparisons.
They affect performance comparisons directly. There are many reasons why people aren't happy when DLSS isn't included in some release while FSR2 is and this is one of such reasons.
I agree it makes the comparison more difficult and open to subjectivity. However the reality is that the different upscaling techniques really can produce very comparable results at different internal resolutions and so when discussing the end user experience it's important we don't ignore that.
For actual performance comparisons then of course we should equalise everything including internal res and upscaling method. But I don't think anyone is seriously suggesting at this point that a 2060/S is equal to the PS5 in pure raster performance generally, and specifically in Alan Wake. So given that fact is already established, the more interesting question at this point IMO is whether the 2060/S can provide a similar, or perhaps even better experience to the PS5. That after all is the more relevant real world question.
So I'd be asking:
1. Can the 2060 or 2060S match the PS5's framerate at DLSS Performance? (This isn't a given).
2. Does 1440p DLSS Performance look at least as good as 1440p FSR Balanced? What about DLSS Ultra Performance?
I can at least answer number 1 - will check it out when I can.
Personally I think even DLSS Performance looks better than FSR2 Quality. I have done many tests regarding this.
So if a 2060S is able to achieve PS5 Performance on PS5 settings and with DLSS Performance at 1440p, then nobody should be able to say it's unplayable. Not even HUB. That'd be an extremly good experience in my opinion.
It really annoys me HUB is trying to put Turing and RDNA1 in the same basket by dismissing the 2060S performance as being unplayable.
It's Remedy's fault. Clearly, Post Processing should be set to low when using the low preset.
So if a 2060S is able to achieve PS5 Performance on PS5 settings and with DLSS Performance at 1440p, then nobody should be able to say it's unplayable. Not even HUB. That'd be an extremly good experience in my opinion.
It really annoys me HUB is trying to put Turing and RDNA1 in the same basket by dismissing the 2060S performance as being unplayable.
Yes, it's set to high in their benchmarks. To be fair though, that is not their fault. They benchmark a dozens of different GPUs and likely don't have the time to figure out key performance settings like that.
It's Remedy's fault. Clearly, Post Processing should be set to low when using the low preset.
Last edited:
The time of apple to apple is over. Alone RayReconstruction can give nearly 30% more performance over these other denoisers - this here is from my current save game in native 3440x1440 with DLAA:
< 30% more performance and nearly 10% less power consumption. Only through a different software approach for denoising. Why has nVidia to suffer and be in a disadvantage because they have developed better solutions for solving problems?
In this scene DLSS Quality and full Raytracing provides more FPS than native 3440x1440 without Raytracing:
With a nVidia GPU you have the choice how to you want to play Alan Wake 2. This is PC gaming at its core.
< 30% more performance and nearly 10% less power consumption. Only through a different software approach for denoising. Why has nVidia to suffer and be in a disadvantage because they have developed better solutions for solving problems?
In this scene DLSS Quality and full Raytracing provides more FPS than native 3440x1440 without Raytracing:
With a nVidia GPU you have the choice how to you want to play Alan Wake 2. This is PC gaming at its core.
Subtlesnake
Regular
I don't think that was in dispute. DegustatoR's claim was that you could achieve the same performance at a similar quality level by going with a lower DLSS preset, due to DLSS having better reconstruction.
GhostofWar
Regular
I figured if I was gonna take a petty shot at someone I could at least do the right thing and take it to the right thread to save any headaches for the mods, so without further adieu.
What are HUB gonna benchmark then?
arandomguy
Regular
I figured if I was gonna take a petty shot at someone I could at least do the right thing and take it to the right thread to save any headaches for the mods, so without further adieu.
What are HUB gonna benchmark then?
You'd just benchmark at what is considered max settings which for reasons doesn't actually set all settings to maximum.
Similar threads
- Locked
