Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Hilbert Hagedoorn, Feb 13, 2019.
Exactly what I expected..... the blur on DLSS is ridiculous
The performance boost is undeniable.
But image quality is worse. Blurry.
Because they aren't going to do that on all games? I mean people have had 4K monitors for years now - do you really think they are all playing every single game at 4K?
Gonna check these updated graphs now. Thanks Hilbert. This and Metro to read up on. Love your reviews. I'll now take my lips off your ass.
that's because people are ignorant...
Or they just want a choice to play certain games in 4K.. like how is having more options ignorant?
You buy a 2080Ti, some games will be playable at 4K at good FPS, some games won't - you now have the option to use DLSS, hopefully to get near 4K image quality with better FPS (obviously that's not panning out).
What is the issue with that? How is that ignorant?
I have a 2K monitor and a 4K monitor. Games that can't play in full 4K, I play on the 2K monitor.
mine game keeps crashing at start-up so unable to test
I completely agree. No point in having a nice 4k monitor if you are going to degrade its display capabilities. I can do 5200x2880 in VSR--but I find it looks considerably worse than the native 3840x2160, of course--while running considerably slower, too. Yep, I fail to see how practically cutting the frame-rate in half in order to come up with demonstrably inferior image quality is worth a premium--or really much of anything, actually.
My two cents about the whole RTX thing is it's something all n00bs to 3d gaming go through--and we all went through it--most certainly I am including myself in that category. It takes time to sort the wheat from the chaff in terms of the marketing GPU makers use to to pimp and push their products into the marketplace. It's experience that is the great teacher about these things (not to leave out HH and G3d, of course!)--it's always been that way. It's an expensive way to learn and accumulate knowledge, but it is the only real way to do it, imo. Hands-on, etc. Some of a manufacturer's claims are factual and accurate--some of them run the gamut between inaccurate, exaggerated, all the way to completely false. Basically, the only real protection any of us has is ourselves--caveat emptor.
As I've consistently opined and believed since day 1 of the entire RTX debacle, the fact that nVidia refuses to ship its RTX products with any actual demonstration software, save a 2d videoclip compiled on non-RTX hardware in anything *but* "real time" says it all--that alone negates anything nVidia can say to me about this issue--speaks volumes. As a consumer, you just have to listen carefully and skeptically to grandiose claims any GPU manufacturer is making--but sometimes the marketing is so loud and crass, even false, that it drowns out common sense and good judgment, and inexperienced people may leap before they look.
I find it very amusing that JHH has been working for ten years to produce a GPU that "just works"... Bravo, nVidia! Glad to know you finally made a GPU that just works! But, I think on balance I'm going to have to pass on RTX. Who knows, though? In another ten years, nVidia might even be able to produce something that "just works better." I can hardly wait. *cough*...! Talk about lame, non-committal marketing, RTX takes the cake in trying to claim "revolutionary" hardware without making any claims at all aside from "it just works."...! nVidia is walking a thin line there!
Since when does DLSS cut the framerate in half?
because people think its actual 4k = ignorance...
even the text under the pictures guru3d posted is a misleading because its not really 4k
also nvidia markets their overpriced 2xxx series under some "revolutionary" technology while you can probably achieve similar image quality with regular upscaling + post process aa + post process sharpening method and run it even better than dlss does while not being confined to their new cards....
It's stupid because 1440p upscaled to 4K doesn't look as good as 1440p on 1440p monitor. So you are paying more for 4K monitor, playing many games upscaled, instead of saving money and buying 1440p monitor and playing all games at crisp native resolution without having to rely on dirty upscaling tricks.
I actually think FXAA might be better image quality wise (?)
Yea, let's forget that there is software out now, from third parties, that's an actual demonstration of raytracing and DLSS capabilities
Of course, they both do it. If you do it the same way as DLSS - it means you will lower the resolution from 4k to FHD.
Something is off here.
In all previous DLSS implementations, DLSS was generally better and crisper than TAA. That's why Nvidia used this in their promo material.
But not here.
In BF5 DLSS is clearly much more blurrier than TAA. So either BF5 has excellent TAA or crappy DLSS or it's a combo.
Would be pretty embarrassing if they implemented DLSS over TAA.
That's because it was demonstrated on demonstrations that repeat themselves in a predictable way (basically the same video over and over). AI can basically memorize this and predict where pixels need to be. However, actual gameplay isn't the same everytime, which results in a lot more guesswork/errors from the AI implementation.
I have a feeling actual gameplay will always be blurrier than native.
Yes, it was obvious. FF had a horrible TAA implementation, a great target to push DLSS. This shows DLSS in its true colors vs a proper AA implementation
DLSS is pretty good but because Nvidia wants to say its superior DLSS upscales the image based on the algorithm.
obviously native 4K will look better than 1440P upscaled, no matter how well the AI does.....
Not sure if that's even possible considering that TAA is a temporal technique, and DLSS is trained AA.
Maybe TAA over DLSS...