Discussion in 'Frontpage news' started by Deleted member 255716, Feb 11, 2019.
dlss option is there but greyed out and off for me?
OMG, Just saw the images on my 5k monitor, DLSS just looks like Console Graphics Emulator!
Can't believe it's the selling point of RTX.
Is a driver update required containing the DLSS algorithm?
Edit: Just read Nvidia Driver 417.71 which supports BFV DLSS.
Now take that 1440p resolution DLSS ON and increase internal rendering resolution till fps moves from 67 down to 47 you had without it.
Compare apples to apples, please.
Sry, what's the point about that? Aren't DLSS made for making "RTX ON" playable?
You do not have a RTX card?
Be more realistic people. It is something new.
Wait for proper drivers and profiles. Plus, you have free performance jump. Wtf is wrong with you?
Is dlss magic? You expected more frames with the same or better image quality? Grow up kids.
But Nvidia themself made ppl think that it will with their 3dmark Port Royal Demo:
But as you can see in BF V the effect is opposite- with DLSS image is blurry with less details:
I mean is it really 'free" when it blasts the image quality down? lol
Nvidia has always compared DLSS to TAA. TAA implementations are not all the same - Port Royal's happens to be atrocious and since it's a static demo it's the best case scenario for an auto encoder like DLSS.
As for BF5, it's hard to say if it's worth it. In screenshots it's easy to say DLSS makes the image quality worse but BF5's TAA implementation, which you can't disable, is known to be decent when the image is still but not so great when there is heavy motion. Should also point out that DLSS doesn't look nearly as damaging in QHD as 1080p.
What are you blabbering about? There's internal resolution scaler in almost all new games. Just reduce slider from 100% to 90 or 80% and you have same "free performance" jump and reduced image quality and don't need to pay RTX tax.
Honestly the good DLSS are: VSR or DSR,and a little Reshade set.TAA or TXAA are worst.
(Meaning better get higher hardware resolution than software implementation of AA)
Do you guys actually play your games or do you just sit in front of walls looking for a few blurry textures to complain about?
Benchmarkers vs graphics designers,
final score 0-1.
It's not the same. Scaling reduction gives a much more blurrier experience. It's an unfair comparison. AI image processing is another story.
It is AA method. Compare it to all other Comparable AA methods. That's if you want to know which provides best IQ at given performance cost.
If you do not care about fair comparison, you can always white whatever you want. But then there is no reason to show comparison images.
Funny this is what console people used to say. Now PC users say the same thing. Nvidia really brainwashed PC gamers into accepting inferior console quality graphics.
I think he's talking about RTX as a whole, not specifically AA. The talk was that the performance hit of ray-tracing would be alleviated by the performance jump of DLSS. It's now apparent that not only is there no big performance jump but that image quality suffers, making DLSS a complete dud (and making RTX a dud as well).
It is almost like discussion fallacy. Using one tech's issues to assassinate another one.
If someone brings scenario I did describe multiple times and DLSS fails there, then it is failed technology. I'll describe it again:
- Any resolution of choice is used and fps baselinge for given scene is established without DLSS.
- Enable DLSS and increase internal rendering resolution till fps is same.
- Compare resulting IQ of both images at same fps and declare better AA method.
If DLSS (with all extra effort to make it work) looks worse at same fps, then it is failed technology. But till it is done, nobody really can claim that it makes things worse. Unless they do it just for purpose of "hating" on this technology.
Any of you guys playing in 4k ? How is DLSS with RTX on at 4k ? Why are you even using DLSS at 1080P with an RTX card.