Nvidia RTX DLSS/Ray Tracing Discussion

[Exposed]

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).

[Nunz]

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

[Exposed]

Originally Posted by Nunz

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

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.

[bill dennison]

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

[Seyiji]

Originally Posted by bill dennison

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

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.

Originally Posted by Exposed

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).

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

[acroig]

Originally Posted by Seyiji

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).

[Nunz]

Originally Posted by Exposed

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.

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

Originally Posted by bill dennison

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

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.

[Jay20016]

Originally Posted by Exposed

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.

Or you know, just run it at the resolution you want to claim you do.

The entire thing of DLSS to me is just one amazing example of how people still haven't mastered the idea of garbage in, garbage out. There is no way that you are going to ever have parity between an up scaled resolution vs. native resolution. There may be some trickery to go with it; you'll see some canned examples of how it is near perfect in the form of synthetic demos, but it will not be quick enough in any actual "gameplay" to be on that same level as simply running it at the resolution you want to claim it is.

4k DLSS isn't 4k. It is a marketing gimmick plain and simple.

[Exposed]

Originally Posted by Jay20016

Or you know, just run it at the resolution you want to claim you do.

The entire thing of DLSS to me is just one amazing example of how people still haven't mastered the idea of garbage in, garbage out. There is no way that you are going to ever have parity between an up scaled resolution vs. native resolution. There may be some trickery to go with it; you'll see some canned examples of how it is near perfect in the form of synthetic demos, but it will not be quick enough in any actual "gameplay" to be on that same level as simply running it at the resolution you want to claim it is.

4k DLSS isn't 4k. It is a marketing gimmick plain and simple.

It amazes me how people who don't own the card want to make decisions for people who do own them.

I have a choice between native 4k 30-40fps, 1440p native at 60+, or 4k DLSS at 60+. 4k DLSS looks better than 1440p to me so yeah, that is the choice EYE make.

Also, I like how we're constantly reminded how 4K DLSS isn't native 4k, as if its some unknown revelation only now revealed by the last person who said it.

[NWR_Midnight]

Originally Posted by Exposed

I have a choice between native 4k 30-40fps, 1440p native at 60+, or 4k DLSS at 60+. 4k DLSS looks better than 1440p to me so yeah, that is the choice EYE make.

This example right here, pretty much demonstrates that 4k DLSS is just 1440p being upscaled and both raytracing and DLSS are being performed at 1440p before the upscale.. otherwise, you wouldn't be able to go fro 30fps-40ps native 4k, to 60fps at 4k with DLSS (the identical performance you get at 1440p native resolution). The math just doesn't add up any other way. Sorry!

[Seyiji]

Originally Posted by Nunz

Now that is a well done video!

Judging by that video, 4K DLSS isn't that far off from 4K, but it really does seem like it's just .. not 4K. Running 4K DLSS seems to mean you're not running at 4K and it's just a lower resolution; which is obvious because it's upscaling, but can you really claim you're gaming at 4K with DLSS on? 6:55 vs 7:01 is a good comparison -- the 4K Native is far sharper than the 4K DLSS, but even the 1800p clip appears sharper, plus no shimmering on the wire that 4K DLSS seems to be plagued with.

What is DLSS really accomplishing if it's just making the screen look like a lower resolution? Can you really claim you're gaming at 4K while running DLSS? As of right now, it looks as if you could just run a lower resolution and have the same IQ + performance. The 1440P DLSS looks like it wasn't losing as much clarity compared to 4K DLSS, so maybe there's a win somewhere?

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.

[SIrPauly]

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.

[NWR_Midnight]

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.

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.

[kboye]

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!

[Exposed]

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight

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.

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.

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!

[NWR_Midnight]

Originally Posted by Exposed

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!

Why would I get a vacation? I have done nothing wrong except state a different opinion that is not in agreement with yours, so please stop with your "vacation" threats.

I was countering you comment about "what happened to the 'it won't be playable above 1080p' " comment, which you just admitted that it can't be done at 4k, as well as admitting it isn't true 4k.. so my comment stands that raytracing is only viable at 1080p fully utilizing it. Not the water down versions that we see in Battlefield V and Metro. Also, in battlefield 5, they removed the amount of ray traces being done per frame (If I remember correctly, it as more than a 50% reduction in what is being ray traced) not just the back and forth lighting etc. That was their answer to optimization.

[Exposed]

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight

Why would I get a vacation? I have done nothing wrong except state a different opinion that is not in agreement with yours, so please stop with your "vacation" threats.

Your baited statements like these have been reported:

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

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


Essentially you dropped in with those statements with the clear intent to troll/bait.

I was countering you comment about "what happened to the 'it won't be playable above 1080p' " comment, which you just admitted that it can't be done at 4k, as well as admitting it isn't true 4k.. so my comment stands that raytracing is only viable at 1080p fully utilizing it. Not the water down versions that we see in Battlefield V and Metro. Also, in battlefield 5, they removed the amount of ray traces being done per frame (If I remember correctly, it as more than a 50% reduction in what is being ray traced) not just the back and forth lighting etc. That was their answer to optimization.

All of your comments are wrong and your issue you won't admit being wrong even with facts presented directly to you. Such as the case when you had all sorts of misinformation about Deep Learning itself and others had to correct you on numerous occasions.

As I said before, Battlefield 5 removed ray tracing on objects that didnt need them, like leaves. Did you see any reflections on leaves before the RTX performance patch? No, so that wasteful resource was eliminated. And there was an RTX rendering bug that allowed a large number of light bounces that they fixed.

I feel I am repeating myself here. There are videos from Digital Foundry and Dice themselves on the specific improvements in the other Battlefield 5 thread. Go have a gander.

If all you wanted to say was ray tracing is only really playable in 1080p "fully utilized", then that is yet another wrong statement...just for the fact that Battlefield 5 was fully playable at 1440p 60fps BEFORE any performance patches. Again, I feel I'm repeating myself here, this was posted in the Battlefield 5 RTX thread.

[bill dennison]

Originally Posted by NWR_Midnight

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.

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.

only DLSS is at lower res

you can have RT at full 4k 30 to 45 FPS


It's fun to watch all the non RTX owners with their sour grapes

………...
is it perfect no is it better than anything AMD has now oh hell yes


and my 2080 ti runs division 2 beta cranked up to max at 4k well witch is the main reason I got it (to run games at 4k) not for DLSS or RTX they are just a bonus

sorry AMD has no card that will run games at 4k well when they do I will buy one but till then Vega 2 is a joke so NV is the only game in town .

[acroig]

Originally Posted by Exposed

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

Originally Posted by bill dennison

It's fun to watch all the non RTX owners with their sour grapes

sorry AMD has no card that will run games at 4k well when they do I will buy one but till then Vega 2 is a joke so NV is the only game in town .

I figured you two would respond so I stayed out.

[NWR_Midnight]

Originally Posted by bill dennison

only DLSS is at lower res

you can have RT at full 4k 30 to 45 FPS


It's fun to watch all the non RTX owners with their sour grapes

………...
is it perfect no is it better than anything AMD has now oh hell yes


and my 2080 ti runs division 2 beta cranked up to max at 4k well witch is the main reason I got it (to run games at 4k) not for DLSS or RTX they are just a bonus

sorry AMD has no card that will run games at 4k well when they do I will buy one but till then Vega 2 is a joke so NV is the only game in town .

If it was only DLSS that is being done at low rez, and then upscaled, why has it been demonstrated that 1800p to 4k, without DLSS can be upscaled giving exactly the same performance and a better picture? There is no way that you can take raytracing NO DLSS that results in low fps and magically turn on DLSS and magically increase the frame rates substantially.. The only reasonable explanation is that both raytracing and DLSS is being performed at a lower resolution and then upscaled. Even in one of your past examples when 3dmark dlss benchmark was released you showed without DLSS your fps being.. 17fps if I remember correctly, yet magically increased substantially with DLSS..

Now, I may be wrong, but that is my take on it.

[LordHawkwind]

Originally Posted by bill dennison

only DLSS is at lower res

you can have RT at full 4k 30 to 45 FPS


It's fun to watch all the non RTX owners with their sour grapes

………...
is it perfect no is it better than anything AMD has now oh hell yes


and my 2080 ti runs division 2 beta cranked up to max at 4k well witch is the main reason I got it (to run games at 4k) not for DLSS or RTX they are just a bonus

sorry AMD has no card that will run games at 4k well when they do I will buy one but till then Vega 2 is a joke so NV is the only game in town .

I played the first part of the Division 2 yesterday and was getting between 80 -90 fps with everything cranked up at 1440p. More than enough for me.

BTW forget about ray tracing on the latest tomb raider it's now available on game pass for the Xbone. Can't see them being bothered update from hereon-in.

[bill dennison]

Originally Posted by LordHawkwind

I played the first part of the Division 2 yesterday and was getting between 80 -90 fps with everything cranked up at 1440p. More than enough for me.

BTW forget about ray tracing on the latest tomb raider it's now available on game pass for the Xbone. Can't see them being bothered update from hereon-in.

https://schedule.gdconf.com/session/...-nvidia/865256

[SIrPauly]

Considering how critical Hardware Unboxed was of earlier iterations of Dlss and now sees the potential with Dlss maturity, speaks volumes of improved quality and flexibility.

[Napoleonic]

Originally Posted by Exposed

The new DLSS implementation does work with 21:9



However, so far only Wolfenstein Youngblood and Deliver Us to the Moon has the new DLSS implementation. Doom Eternal will have it as well, though I don't think that game will have problems with framerates to begin with.

So if my monitor is a 3440x1440 one, would I be able to use DLSS to render supported game at higher res than 3440x1440?

So is DLSS = DSR + better performance?

[the_sextein]

I asked that earlier on this page. You can only use DLSS to upconvert lower resolutions than the one you are gaming on. So if you are at 4K you need to use 1440P. Or if you are at 1440P you would need to use 1080P. DSR is still the go to for rendering things higher than your monitor supports. DLSS is for rendering things lower than your monitors native resolution to increase FPS.

[Exposed]

Actually no, if you have a 1440p monitor (or 1440 widescreen), you choose 1440p in the game settings. Then turn on DLSS and everything is done internally. The output is still going to be 1440p even though a lower internal resolution is used, because the reconstructed output will be in 1440p, not the lower resolution. There's no reason to use DSR at all and it offers no benefit over DLSS 2.0 (which supports 1440p widescreen out of the box).


Also decided to check out DLSS 2.0 for myself, seems alot of people here (myself included) were basing what they were seeing from youtube screenshots or videos.

I didn't realize Wolfenstein youngblood was part of Xbox game pass, downloading that right now. It's not a game I'm interesting in playing, but since its free as part of gamepass, hey might as well check it out.

I did buy Deliver Us to the Moon because it is a game I want to play. In the beginning area now. Game looks fantasic with Ray Tracing set to EPIC, but it tanks performance considerably at 4k.

I turned on DLSS and took these screenshots.

So, regardless of your opinions on DLSS in the past, who can tell me which screenshot is native 4k and which one is DLSS 4k? I mixed them up on purpose. Also, there is a significant performance difference when turning on / off DLSS. The game is not all that playable as I would like with RTX set to EPIC and DLSS off.






Not a youtube screenshot, just a direct screen capture from the game itself so there should be zero affects from lighting, contrast, etc. Hopefully the host doesn't compress the image too much, if at all. Which looks different, better, etc?

[the_sextein]

His question was could he use DLSS to render higher than his monitor supports. So that would be no right? He would need to use DSR to render 8K down to 4K. DLSS set to 1440P would upconvert 1080P to 1440P. Otherwise it would be a waste of time right? Setting DLSS at 4K will upconvert 1440P to 4K.

EDIT:
The top screenshot looks darker. It's shadows look slightly more thick and it's lighting looks a little less punchy. The details on the suit and text look sharper on the bottom image. There are differences between the image but the real question is what is it supposed to look like? Getting the developers intended look of the lighting and sharpness is more important. Anyone can apply a sharpness filter or offset the contrast on their monitor so it's really not important which one is which, only that there is a difference between the two. Also what they look like in motion. For example, sharpness filters can cause shimmering problems in motion sometimes.

[Exposed]

Well, technically he could use DSR to set to some kind of 4k widescreen mode and then turn on DLSS. I don't know if that will work in practice though, DLSS 2.0 does support widescreen but there's no actual 4k widescreen monitors, only 1440p.

Even if it was possible though, seems kinda pointless to jump through those hoops. Better off just using 1440p DLSS from the getgo, or use the games internal scalar. DSR is just basically super sampling and then you have to mess with sharpness.

[Exposed]

Originally Posted by the_sextein

EDIT:
The top screenshot looks darker. It's shadows look slightly more thick and it's lighting looks a little less punchy. The details on the suit and text look sharper on the bottom image. There are differences between the image but the real question is what is it supposed to look like? Getting the developers intended look of the lighting and sharpness is more important. Anyone can apply a sharpness filter or offset the contrast on their monitor so it's really not important which one is which, only that there is a difference between the two. Also what they look like in motion. For example, sharpness filters can cause shimmering problems in motion sometimes.

The developers said DLSS and ray tracing implemented in their game is exactly how they wanted it to be. They offer 3 modes for each. I'm using ray tracing set to EPIC and DLSS set to quality mode.

But, not going to reveal just yet until more people compare for themselves. What I can tell you though:

- The difference in performance is significant. With DLSS off at native 4k with TAA High the game just likes to hang around the 30fps mark, especially in areas with lots of reflections. With DLSS on I'm pretty much close to 60fps all the time, no noticeable lag in performance. I am still in the beginning areas though.

- There's no shimmering in motion in either 4k TAA or 4k DLSS. There is bad, eye bleeding shimmering though at native 4k with no AA applied. The screenshot I took is with 4k native at TAA High.

- There's no apparent or even subtle differences in lighting or contrast that I can see in motion or standing still with either mode when actually in game (DLSS can be turned on /off on the fly). I'm gaming on an LG 65" 4k HDR display with their best color technology from 3 years ago when I bought it brand new.

[Exposed]

Bumping this up for SuperGeil


One image is native 4k, the other is DLSS 2.0 4k. Can you tell which is which?