Nvidia GPU scaling bad quality

Because i've seen many panels that don't fit a low res picture at all, they just display 1:1.

 

That's scaling too. A low res signal has to somehow be converted to the native panel res. Adding black borders around it is just another form of scaling.

 

A 1080p image in the center of a lcd screen drawing at 1:1 is not scaling

 

From the monitor's perspective, it is. The input is a 1080p signal. A 1440p panel cannot do anything with it. It needs to be converted to a 1440p signal. That conversion is simply called "scaling", even though the image itself is not being resized. A scaler is needed to convert any non-native resolution signals to the panel's native resolution. In this case, the scaler adds black pixels as needed to feed the panel with the required amount of pixels.

 

This is not correct, panels can have simple blitters for doing 1:1 vesa output.

 

Where would such a blitter be implemented other than in the scaler chip? (Where things like overdrive or DP/HDMI signal decoding are also implemented.)

I really fail to understand how a monitor can even function without a scaler.

 

Ah, i think we're having a breakdown in terminology.

All LCD panels have a TCON that will map pixels to the LCD panel, should a scaler be absent it does this 1:1 without any attempt to approximate upwards, the TCON can be directly programmed or via a driver board which also may or may not have a fully functioned scaler

A scaler may be full range or VESA only, ie, Gsync panels which offer Display scaling for VESA compatibility but GPU only for extended mode resolutions.

 

AH
Now it makes sense

 

hello everyone i have an 7700k and a 1070ti on a aoc g2460PF monitor and after the 461.92 version the display scaling just disapear leaving Gpu scaling so.. i tested all new ones and still missing . i still using the old version maybe placebo

 

Have an RTX 2080 with a BenQ Zowie XL2546 (240hz) monitor, while playing FPS competitively.

I generally get more kills in-game while using Display Scaling. This holds true across VALORANT, CSGO, and older FPS games.






Advantages to Display Scaling:

• Precise movement mechanics are a lot easier to pull off
• Counter-strafing is a lot easier
  
• Noticeably snappier aim

Issues with Display Sclaing:

• Occasional issues with inconsistency
• Not all monitors support Display Scaling
  
• "ALT TAB" = universally slower than GPU Scaling
• "ALT TAB" = can bug out entirely sometimes, or flicker when you try, in some games or programs
• More / Less blurry = depends on native resolution, in-game resolution, and which game you play

Advantages to GPU Scaling:

• "ALT TAB" works much faster, and has far less issues than Display Scaling
• More consistent experience compared to Display Scaling
• Almost all GPUs and monitors will support GPU Scaling
• Less random issues in general

Issues with GPU Scaling:

• May have more than 5ms increased input latency
• Often feels less snappy or less responsive than Display Scaling
  
• Stretches FPS games to your native resolution, rather using the aspect ratio set in-game
• More / Less blurry = depends on native resolution, in-game resolution, and which game you play

 

Out of curiosity... Why don't you set the game to native resolution and drop the quality settings as low as needed to reach the desired fps (which should be the top of your refresh rate range, or more precisely the fps cap value you set just slightly below that) and avoid all issues around scaling (latency included). Even if your fps gets somewhat lower, the overall latency might still be lower (slightly higher frametimes due to lower fps but lower total latency with the scaling latency omited - whichever scaler you use)

 

It's very often preferable to drop the resolution rather than the graphics details. 1440p is a 78% higher resolution than 1080p, so the perf difference is huge. For example if 1080p gives me 50% better FPS compared to 1440p, I would have to drop graphics settings quite a lot to achieve that at 1440p. Like setting shadows to low or disabling SSAO or reflections.

If you compare upscaled high settings 1080p vs native 1440p low settings, the 1080p one can look much better. And with sharpening it can be very difficult at times to tell the difference between 1080p and 1440p unless I stop and inspect the image carefully.

Things like blocky or missing shadows or shadow pop-in are very apparent. A lower resolution is not that apparent and doesn't distract you while playing.

 

What do you set above "Perform Scaling on:" ? No scaling or default Aspect ratio?

 

nice load of crap

 

The guy over at Blur Busters said there is hardly any difference in ms between GPU and Display scaling. If anything he said GPU is slightly faster with modern GPUs but it's miniscule. You're never going to notice it without logging equipment.

I've honestly saw no differences between alt-tabbing between both modes. CS:GO is another issue.

 

Different displays can have different scalers. One display may scale completely lag free, another might have some latency. Display reviews do not test this, so nobody knows the scaling latency of different displays.

 

There's a huge and immediate, noticable difference in alt-tabbing when using GPU Scaling vs Display Scaling, as GPU Scaling is literally at least 3 seconds faster in most cases.

It's instant with GPU Scaling, wheras Display Scaling takes a few seconds, even with very high end CPU + GPU specs.


This holds true in all games that you play in fullscreen, but won't apply for games running in borderless fullscreen & windowed modes.





The latency in-game due to GPU scaling vs Display Scaling is a lot more subtle, and depends more on your specific hardware & monitor.That I can see people not noticing or really caring... as even a lot of the current professional players use GPU Scaling.

Further, as I said before, it can vary depending upon the game in question, it seems.

However, the ALT-TAB difference is definitely not subtle.

Most of us don't use 4:3 resolutions like 1280x960 or 1024x768 for performance reasons, nowadays at least.


In the past that was true that a lot of us would use a lower resolution to get higher FPS in-game, especially in the time period of pre-2014 for example. Before 2014, a lot of the competitive FPS titles were difficult to get 200+ FPS on 1920x1080.

But the largest reason that 4:3 helped with character models in the past. However, this doesn't really apply nowadays, or help in most FPS games.





Still... we there is one huge factor that I do not seem to see most people talk about, or mention, nowadays.


A common sentiment among a lot of us who played FPS competitively in 2009-2015 was that using a 4:3 stretched resolution simply feels more "natural" and "smoother" than using a 16:9 resolution.


In my experience this feeling held true in 2009-2015.





Even with more than 400 FPS in all the games that I play nowadays, with both native 16:9 and 4:3 stretched... this still holds true today.


All FPS games feels more natural on 4:3 stretched. I aim better, and I perform much better than I do on 1920x1080.

Sure, you're totally right...


What would I know, as a player who has competed in FPS games on PC for over 10 years, right?


CSGO players who currently use 4:3 resolutions

• S1mple
• Sh1ro
• ZywOo
  
• Niko
• Woxic
  
• Device
  
• Coldzera
• etc
  

% of CSGO pros using 16:9
= 13%

% of CSGO pros using 4:3
= 75%



I rest my case.

 

This depends on the display. Some are faster when switching modes, some are slower. I had a monitor many years ago that was switching modes almost instantaneously.

With GPU scaling, there is no mode switch. No matter what resolution you use, the monitor will always stay at its native resolution mode.

 

Sorry, wrong thread, lol.

 

I totally forgot about that from the CRT days. You'd hear the clunk switching from game to desktop when alt-tabbing.

The Blur Buster part on post #7. https://forums.guru3d.com/threads/nvidia-gpu-scaling-on-or-off.431731/