Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Deleted member 255716, Feb 11, 2019.
That's my understanding, there's no upscaling with DLSS 2X.
Now, look at foliage in background. And tell me that DLSS foliage is not more detailed and does not have sharper definition of details.
TAA is simply bloody mess in comparison.
Battlefield V is not a game worth waiting for DLSS and RT performance upgrade.
But if they upgrade performance it can be good for some other better games.
I wish to see Unreal Tournament 2004 with RT.
Quake 2 RT is not bad.
I would like to see the Stug added into the game already.
While I'd like DLSS to be a successful, nice features for gamers, in this particular comparison, the background does look "best" with DLSS (probably lower depth of field due to DLSS and not "traditional" post processing?), but the character in the foreground does look the worst out of these screenshots.
DLSS degrades image quality but improves FPS, this is a fact (compare 2 images and you will see).
What i want to see is RTX and DLSS working together, this may be the best compromise.
LOL so many people are celebrating that they'll be able to upscale a game from lower resolution. What happened to PC gamers? It seems no one cares about picture quality any more. As long as people see high FPS number they don't care if picture quality is degraded in achieving this high FPS. Why even bother with PC gaming then? Just get a console.
DLSS 2X is not upscaled, it's naive resolution. At least that is what we have been told.
Not sure why you keep repeating that, as this article is about regular DLSS (non 2X).
From what i have seen you can choose DLSS or DLSS 2X. Pretty simple really.
This is the best DLSS vs TAA comparison I've seen so far. Really shows limitations and disadvantages of DLSS.
Yes indeed, though the only time I've heard that mentioned is in the tech review. They haven't marketed that implementation and so far I'm unaware of (upcoming) game implementations that are pushing it.
That's great if so!
That would only leave the marketing for me to be annoyed with then.
Again my question is: is it the "Best"?
when you consider the fact that it requires dedicated hardware that cannot be used for anything else, ridiculous amount of resources to train for each and every game,the fact that developers need to actively code for it and the fact that it only supports Nvidia turing, no consoles/AMD/Intel/prev gens.
that doesn't sound like a better solution for me even if its superior once its done.
Turing was released back in September and Nvidia said dozens of games will be supported in a few months, currently there are 2 (including BF which is not out yet)
I mean tensors can be used for more than just DLSS - Nvidia talked about eventually shipping image upscaling tools, video upscaling, image reconstruction, etc. I think more importantly though, DirectML can utilize tensor cores - that ships with the next Windows update. Developers choosing to go a vendor agnostic route with that can still leverage the tensor hardware in Turing for all kinds of deep learning applications. I think worst case scenario Nvidia will port DLSS to DirectML and make it available on AMD now that AMD exposed INT8/4 in Vega 7. Nvidia only built NGX because they needed a platform to ship tensor related features on in the meantime. That way it will give developers a reason to use it but they'll still have a whole generation of dedicated hardware to accelerate it and give them an advantage.
I do agree though that the number of games with DLSS currently is not great. Nvidia sold the feature as a value add and so far it's basically non-existent along with RTX. Tomb Raider has been out for how long now with no RTX support?
I don't like the idea of companies selling products, especially at higher prices, but not delivering on various advertised features until later in the products lifespan. Google pulls this crap all the time and it's infuriating.
promised? so what? AMD promised Mantle and TrueAudio(what a freaking joke!)
I don't think Nvidia is likely to open up their RTX software, look at gameworks - still not available for others, still rare and badly optimized.
Closed propriety software just doesn't work, no sane developer is going to spend time optimizing something most of its consumers can't use.
That's true. DLSS damages fine detail tiny bit worse than TAA in case of high contrast noise like textures/shaders.
But it frees GPU resources (higher fps). Increase internal resolution till it has same fps as before and DLSS wins even in fine, noisy details. And I think that nVidia can improve mechanism to not touch those fine details.
Het ready for the blur effect, DLSS is nicely exlaned by the good old gamer.
Source? This doesn't look like any modern game I've seen. Have you even seen DLSS in action first hand? I have, and the IQ improvement vs. TAA is amazing. For those who doubt check out 3DMark Port Royal TAA vs. DLSS. Night and day IQ difference with much better fps.
AMD didn't market those two technologies as the main selling point for an entire series. I'm also not sure why you think someone else promising something and failing to deliver invalidates the point.
Most of the GameWorks libraries are open source now and a bunch of them work on AMD cards now and even before - so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
Nvidia were forced to open source them and still the adoption and performance are bad.... which is my point exactly.