Seems to be stating the obvious DLSS isn't as good as native 4k...well duh. No one expects any ray traced game to be playable at 4k native and DLSS assists with that, while providing a better image than 1440p native so RTX owners don't have to settle for just 1440p RTX on like we initially did with Battlefield 5.

With RTX on: 4k DLSS > 1800p upscaled > 1440p native.


Just last year the usual haters were jizzing over the fact RTX was playable only at 1080p. Then grudgingly still dismissed RTX when 1440p became playable with RTX on. Now DLSS makes 4k playable even if not native. But, Hardware Unboxed gotta keep these same peasants clicking their videos. Once they said checkerboard rendering would give roughly the same quality it became clear they just wanted the hater clickbait. Digital Foundry did a more indepth look into 4k DLSS and came out more impressed (and every other site for that matter since the new DLSS patch).

It doesn't look better than 1800p upscaled in a majority of those scenes, though - that's the problem.

When people on Rage say they're running games at 4k with DLSS and RTX what they really mean is they are upscaling a lower resolution to 4k and using image quality killing machine learning trickery to do it.

Doesn't look worse either, its comparable according to this video. Which means DLSS is actually doing its job, giving you a better image than 1440p by upscaling to 4k so you don't have to run in 1440p RTX natively. Why mess with a custom resolution if you can just tick a box?

Also a big point is that you cannot use RTX with 1800p custom resolution with Metro Exodus.

you can't really tell what 4k dlss looks like from a 1080p youtube video :bleh:

Instead of pushing DLSS, why don't we just have the option to change the resolution scale .. ?? An option that has existed for years now. In some of the comparisons it does look significantly worse, most notably the shimmering on the cable in 6:55. That is egregious to me, and I'm curious why it's only appearing with DLSS enabled and not the native, 1800p upscaled, or sharpened settings. It just seems like people are OK with 4K DLSS, but those same people would never have run 4K @ 80% resolution scale, which is what DLSS appears to be comparable to. 4K DLSS on is not 4K. Might as well say you're gaming at 1440P :bleh:

I've seen it in person and played it, pre-patch and post-patch. It's still blurry, but definitely getting better. It was also on a 3440x1440 monitor, which apparently doesn't play as nice with DLSS as the 16:9 resolutions.

Well if people would stop gatekeeping and actually post screenshots so we can all compare and see for ourselves it might be coo. That way we don't have to rely on youtubes.

You must have missed the part where DF's Alex says it still pretty trash and that you should just use native res or the the internal resolution scaling.

https://youtu.be/eiQv32imK2g?t=1295

He's full of shite, DLSS works very well now that the vaseline was removed. The FPS boost is worth the minimal IQ distortion (if any).

Yeah DLSS isn’t that bad. It certainly loses a good amount of clarity (still, even post patch) but at least it’s usable. DLSS prepatch was really, really bad. The FPS boost is worth it, but I think the question comes down to .. if DLSS and resolution scale are doing the same thing, why was DLSS pushed on us when we’ve had this option available for years.

The 1800p compairsons in that video looked better, imo. I’ll have to try it in person next time I’m home.

There’s no way you can claim the IQ distortion isn’t there though. I’m sorry but it’s blatantly more blurry than native 4K, as it should be considering it’s not 4K. It does seem to work better at 1440P though, which is interesting..

And 1440p is what I play at, not making any claims about 4K. :)

At 1440P, I’m surprised you even bother with DLSS. FPS should be good enough for DLSS off, no? Even with RTX maxed.

Again, nobody is making the claim it looks as good as native 4k because obviously it isn't native 4k. But you CAN'T play the game at native 4k RTX Ultra without acceptable framerates, so DLSS gives the option of an image quality between 1440 and 4k with a performance boost.

The image quality from native 4k is minor and a better option than just running 1440p native. Me and Bill both know this because we both have 4k monitors.

The DLSS resolution you're looking at isn't even 4k, it's 1440p widescreen. Find yourself a native 4k monitor and test, because DLSS is trained for each unique output.

From what i can see here, nobody is listening to actual Turing owners like myself, Acroig, Jimbobob, Omega, and Bill and just want to jump to their own conclusions. How about yall buy your own 2080tis and see fo:lol: yourself? NYCDarkness has plenty to go around, and for cheap!

I have seen it for myself. Acroig games at 1440P (thought he had a 4K monitor) and I’ve already stated DLSS seems to perform better with less IQ loss @ 1440p; something I’m still curious about. The scenes in the videos all look better at 1800p. Again, if resolution scaling is giving us the same performance and IQ as 4K DLSS, then what’s the point of DLSS considering resolution scaling has existed for years and is pretty common?

There is no jumping to my own conclusion. I’ve played it myself, I’ve looked at numerous videos comparing DLSS on/off at multiple resolutions, and nothing about it is impressive or groundbreaking. It’s doing exactly what resolution scaling would do, and while I haven’t had a chance to test it out myself to see in motion with a lower resolution scale w/ DLSS off, I’ll be able to do that in a week or two.

It has nothing to do with hating or jealousy as you keep trying to make it out to be. I’m genuinely curious what the hell the point of DLSS is if all it’s doing is replacing a feature we’ve had in most modern game engines released in the past 5 years ..

Nobody is listening because you gatekeep and don't post screen shots to prove the video evidence wrong. Instead you tell us skeptics "it just works" and to go spend money without seeing proof that "it just works"

There is a 20+ PFS boost and in certain areas it's badly needed, especially with tessellation turned on.

Screenshots is not the way to analyze DLSS, you have to see it in motion.

But the youtube videos are a lie according to some.

You mean like here where I go through all the trouble for you to say nothing?

http://www.rage3d.com/board/showthread.php?t=34048531

Also, you're all up in these forums posting anything negative regarding Turing from since Battlefield 5. I posted my indepth analys there too, including showing 1440p 60fps was playable with RTX on.

I can do the same for Metro Exodus specifically for 4k, but look someone else did it for me...

https://wccftech.com/metro-exodus-up...t-nvidia-dlss/



He meant as in see in motion for yourself, not some youtube video where you pick and choose someone else's opinion to represent yours, and dismiss other contrasting videos as "shills".

Well you can't run Metro Exodus with RTX at custom 1800p for one.

Two, DLSS isn't about just upscaling. It's taking a 1440p image, taking a 4k image, comparing the two and brute force learning how to approximate the 4k image. That's different than just 1800p upscaling and has the potential to offer better performance and better IQ. You can already see this in Port Royal, DLSS looks better than 1800p upscaled. So this has the potential to transfer over to games. THAT is the point of DLSS and something much more promising than the simple upscaling you've been doing for years. We haven't even seen DLSS 2x yet which takes the native resolution for AI learning.

You keep saying the 1800p videos look better, but that's not what HW concluded with. They said it was on par. Like I and others have said before, 4k DLSS is offers a great performance boost at minor detail loss. My specific words were: I thought I'd run into performance issues with RTX Ultra/ Advanced Physics/Hairworks on at 4k but so far I'm surprisingly locked at 60fps. The minor detail lost with DLSS is not noticeable on my 65" screen unless you walk right up to the screen to look at intricate cloth detail you won't see at 3-5 feet anyway. Even then it's not even a blur, its as sharp as you would expect 1440p upscaled to 4k to be, with the benefit of virtually zero aliasing present.

Have you tested DLSS on a native 4k screen?

I downloaded and looked at the images you posted in that thread compared them side my side by switching between them and comparing DLSS to native 4k the DLSS ones looked blurry and ****.

Also I did give you an :up: for doing so. At the time it was probably the most I could do when I posted because I was dealing with family issues then. Sorry for not following up with a more indepth thanks for posting.

As for BF 5 you said yourself the Nvidia might have flubbed the DLSS training cause it still sucks and many tech reviewers have said the same thing as per the videos I posted.

As for Metro and seeing it for myself that's right back to the spend money suggestion on something that multiple tech reviewers have said isn't worth it compared to using the in game scaling options with no DLSS. Looking at the shot's posted on wccftech post patch it still looks like poop so I guess we're at an impasse.

Hopefully in the future nvidia gets it right before technology advances a gen or 2 and dlss becomes obsolete and abandoned which might come sooner rather than later since as you and others have said the faster games get with RTX the less DLSS is gonna be needed. Coupling that with the part where iirc the faster the game runs the more jank using DLSS on would get it doesn't bode well for it having much sticking power.

EDIT:
Just saw you above post I didn't realize you're using a 65 inch 4k tv of course you're not gonna see a noticeable difference since you're using a device that post processes and filters out most of the jank and crap you would get when looking for ****ery with the image.

Well why didn't you post your thoughts up? That's why I stopped no one added anything of substance for me to go through all that again. Besides you don't think I know you're trawling now with that response? :lol:

Tell you what, I can do the same for Metro. Only if serious though. :bleh:

RTX doesn't work with the resolution scaling available in Metro options? Because HWU seems to have it working fine. Custom resolutions are a thing of the past, almost every modern game engine is offering resolution scaling as part of graphic options.

It has the potential, yes. DLSS may look better in Port Royale but that is a scenario that is exactly the same every time. No game will ever offer that and it's impossible for DLSS to perform the same way it does in a synthetic benchmark as actual real-world gaming. DLSS 2x may be the way of the future, sure.

Weren't you just complaining that people are just parroting what the clickbait videos are saying? Now I'm wrong for having a different opinion than those hater videos :bleh: come on. Looking at the video itself and taking some time to really look at the comparisons, the 1800p slides were flat out better. Added with some sharpening, and now we're really talking. Maybe it has to do with Youtube quality, that could certainly be it. I will try the scaling myself next time I'm home so I can do my own testing on it, and I'll post back.

I mean, at that screen size, and that distance, I have a hard time believing you'd find much issue with the image even with MLAA or some other blur-ridden form of AA. You're kind of the best scenario for DLSS - the detail you're losing with DLSS on @ 4K isn't noticeable because you're too far from the screen to see it even when it's there. For those on the ~30" monitors @ 4K, who are sitting at a normal viewing distance .. I'm not sure it's the same case scenario for them. Would love to see a pic of your setup :up:

I'd agree it's less of a blur, especially post-patch in Metro. It feels more like ... a smudge, I suppose. DLSS seems to be more effective on smaller resolutions (referring to 1440p, not sure about 1080p?) than it does at 4K. 1440p w/ DLSS looks like actual antialiasing, with no blur added; it's impressive, if anything DLSS is adding sharpness, rather than taking it away as it appears to @ 4K.

No. I've only tried it @ 3440x1440, which it does seem to do a decent job; at least in terms of clarity post-patch, it gives a sharper image than what DLSS seems to be doing @ 4K per videos.

I'm not trying to bash DLSS or make it out to be a useless feature. DLSS 2x certainly will be impressive. My only argument is that DLSS is being pushed out in a form that doesn't really do much that we didn't already have available to us in terms of resolution scaling. I know you have said that custom resolutions break RTX, but using the in-game resolution scaler isn't breaking RTX, at least from the HWU video. Does BF5 react differently? If so, that's more an issue with Frostbite/DICE.

Nvidia RTX DLSS/Ray Tracing Discussion
 

Lets talk about the implementation and worth of DLSS and Ray Tracing!

Strange! I was seeing really good numbers @ 3440x1440 w/ everything maxed, DLSS off. Maybe it was the area I was in? It was still early in the game, but outdoors. On my setup @ 1440p (can't compare w/ you because TITAN X (Pascal)) I'm still pretty early in the game as well and I'm capped at 82 usually with some drops into the 70s at times. DX11 performs better than DX12, as usual though .. lol

There are certain portions in the desert area and others where the FPS tanked to the upper 40's at max without DLSS on.

Oh hi gais!

Oi wots going on is dis thread...

Like I said in my reply I was dealing with family issues at that time.

Also no trolling just 15+ years of being with Nvidia clouding my resolve :bleh2:

Gotcha! Can’t wait to see those areas. Not sure why but I’ve been playing small amounts at a time. The game just hasn’t held my attention and really sucked me in the way the other two did.

Metro won't allow RTX/DLSS together outside of their supported resolutions. Thats why their comparisons were DLSS only.



For Port Royale, they got DLSS working up to snuff. With a full game, they are going to need alot more processing time.

Keep in mind regular AI upscaling on static images (nothing to do with Nvidia) takes hours/ DAYS with supercomputing. So for a full game that will be ambitious. That's why we will see further patches as the months go by for DLSS with more and more training time and probably why we saw **** results at first because they wanted to get something out.

Remember the neural network isn't running a single algorithm. Otherwise that would just be regular AA. The reason DLSS runs on tensor cores because it needs to run the AI for whatever area/scene you're in.

I don't need to look at youtube videos, I have the game running on my display at 4k. 4k DLSS is superior to native 1440p with RTX on. I don't need to run a custom resolution if 4k DLSS is on par. I'm sure the next DLSS patch will make the image quality even better than it is now.

As for sharpening, well that can be done for any game. Including games already running DLSS, as SirPauly pointed out prior. Which incidentally proved DLSS isn't applying a sharpening filter by the way, but actually running a more robust upscaling implementation.

This is actually the best case for 4k. At 65 inch native 4k I can see intricate 4k details and all AA flaws.

What I'm seeing in motion is that 4k DLSS, even though I know is 1440p upscaled, isn't losing alot of detail compared to 4k native. I had the opportunity to start the game after the post DLSS patch and the first thing I did was check 4k native vs 4k DLSS. Yes 4k native is obviously better, but with advanced physics/RTX/tesselation/hairworks, the 4k performance just slacking a bit. DLSS gave me 60fps locked with much better anti-aliasing and very minor lost of acute details, details not visible unless you put your nose almost right up to the screen, like the cloth detail zoomed in screenshots Seyiji posted earlier.

It's not just me, it's Bill also. And Acroig for his 1440 case. The difference is a molehill, not a mountain.

Any blur should be less noticeable at 4k, simply for the fact there's more pixels to work with. This again is something you would need to see in motion, on an actual native 4k screen.


That's still only 1440p widescreen. Essentially for me to do the same test (which I did), I would need to run 1440p DLSS on my setup. I did that, I could notice a drop off from 4k DLSS. I'm not using a cheap display either, I'm on a high end LG which is better than most computer monitors out there. I don't even think there's a Gsync monitor out yet with the same rich color gamut/HDR.

That would be a question for the developers. I don't know why RTX/DLSS is stringent on resolution, but it kind of makes sense. If traditional image upscaling takes hours/days, then imagine if you "lowered" the resolution on that same image...you'd have to run the upscaling AI network on that image all over again! Presumably similar restrictions would be in place for DLSS.

I really liked it. Same Metro formula but enjoyed the different play areas.

Busy atm and will expand later, but they have slides showing 0.8 resolution scale (the 1800p comparisons iirc, can't watch to double-check right now) with RTX on. I didn't listen to the guy talking in the video because I couldn't give a **** less what they have to say, I just wanted to see their slides and the image comparisons. If I'm wrong please correct me.

Honestly, Metro dlss update just looks like they added a sharpening filter with outlines around everything.

I think DLSS just isn't going to work. It was an inappropriate use of machine learning. There's too much variation in the image data that's generated by a game and it just ends up averaging everything together. It can't come up with some magic filter that can be applied for a better result because it simply doesn't exist.

For some things AI is very effective, for many other things it is absolute crap. In the latter cases there's still no substitute for human intelligence. I think that what DLSS is showing us is that the upscaling and AA techniques that already exist are actually pretty good. There wasn't much hidden room for improvement.

On the other hand, Nvidia has done a great job with its marketing to convince people to simply accept upscaling. So, maybe there is some good in that.

Edit: Also I see the argument that "DLSS isn't just upscaling, it's supposed to do X". It doesn't matter what it's supposed to do. It matters what it actually does. If the technique isn't effective, which is what I suspect, then it really makes no difference if they tried to match an image running in 1,000,000P, it's still not going to work. The truth is sometimes you can crunch a lot of numbers and end up with nothing much at the end...it happens.

That's the shading rate, which is the number of pixels used for a shading operation. 1.0 is 1 to 1 pixel ratio. Less looks worse, more looks better. This is different than running in a lower native resolution, and different from other games' in game resolution scalars. It's called a shading rate and not a resolution scalar for a reason...yet another reason to not listen what they have to say. :lol:


Nvidia has their own implementation on Turing:


https://developer.nvidia.com/vrworks...blerateshading

It's pretty darn effective in Port Royale and a good indication of what a properly implemented DLSS solution will do. But yeah, it could be that for now, games are just way too big and varying in terms of graphics and settings for initial DLSS to be effective.

Maybe we'll see better results with a smaller game like Atomic Heart. Though, the current implementation of Metro is pretty darn good for what it gives us. I'm sure we'll see the same for Battlefield 5 in the next patch they promised.

Agreed.

Don't desire 4k dlss to look like native 4k, but superior while moving. The key is the training image is x64 jittered super-sampled, so the strength, one may imagine is quality with moving with less aa limitations. Needs time and maturity.

It's fun to watch all the RTX 2080ti owners fall for a placebo effect to substantiate their expensive purchase.

First, Battlefield V and metro do not fully implement Raytracing. They are only using it partially, as neither game would be playable at 4k if it was fully implemented, that is why it is only viable at 1080P if fully utilized. Removing and/or reducing what the game is ray tracing doesn't remove that fact.

Second, DLSS and raytracing at 4k is a not 4k, it is a lower resolution (1440p) upscaled, which means the ray tracing (only partially being implemented) and AA is being applied to the lower image and then being upscaled (I originally thought ray tracing was being done after DLSS upscaling, but realized that to gain frame rate with DLSS, it can only be accomplished by also performing ray tracing at the lower resolution before it is upscaled). This means that it will never look as good as a true native 4k implementation. Basically it's the same as a HD 4k blue ray player that upscales standard Blu ray movies to 4k, they may look a bit better than the original resolution, but it will never be true 4k. (infact, if you ran a game at 1440p on a 4k monitor, doens't the monitor already upscale it to display it at full screen on a the 4k monitor?.. I know my 1440p monitor does it for 1080p... does that mean all games are now 4k.... oh wait)

As for the video's that are showing the comparisons side by side being only at 1080p doesn't change anything. Because going from 4k to 1080p in a video will equally effect both the 4k DLSS example and the Native 4k example, so if the video's where indeed encoded and watchable at 4k resolution, the clarity differences noted would be identical to what we see in the 1080p videos as they are both effected equally as it wouldn't just effect the DLSS examples.

But, hey, keep believing in the placebo effect, if it makes you happy and feel better for spending $1300 on a GPU. :D

But right now, this is just smoke and mirrors in it's current form. Will it get better, Yes, at least where Ray tracing is concerned. But DLSS, in it's current form, is really just a fancy name for upscaling more so than AA.

Scaling up and down, basics still apply. Some material can scale both directions, with unsharp-style sharpening filter to clean it up, and still look very, very good. Film/photography scale well being "analogue" in nature, but a pixel sharp digital render not so much when comparisons are made.

If the scene is so heavily processed there's barely any contrast, or the scene has toon-shader style graphics where texture isn't grainy enough, scaling can look very good when sharpened up slightly. Keep text native and GUI in native res, and it might not be so easy to spot any difference.

But a "noisy" (as in lots of pixel detail, not just diffuse colorwith some shading) game like Metro, ....I think I'd keep the res native and turn down settings instead. I'd do anything to keep the game running at native res.

Edit: just hit me, of course it's a personal preference. It's good to have options!

We already know no game is "fully ray traced", that's impossible with current hardware. "Fully ray traced" would be near unlimited rays with near unlimited light bounces.

You must be referring to the performance gained by Battlefield 5. If so, the only thing they removed was the back and forth light bouncing from objects that didn't need to be ray traced, like leaves. That and further bug fixes and optimizations that resulted in much better performance without sacrificing image quality. This is old news and discussed in the Battlefield 5 thread numerous times already.

Also I'm glad you pointed out 4k DLSS is not native 4k. None of us knew that before.

Also keep up that tone, I'm sure a vacation will be in your future if you keep that up!