Nvidia is making some pretty bold claims around DLSS 3, like the ability to 3x-4x performance with RTX 40 GPUs. Let's explore this new technology and see if it's a true next-gen selling point.
Nvidia DLSS 3: Fake Frames or Big Gains?
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
hahahanoobs
Posts: 4,840 +2,782
"The sweet spot where buyers will benefit the most will be around RTX 4070 levels of performance, where good frame rates are achievable and DLSS 3 can provide a boost into the 200 FPS range."
I always thought the purpose of DLSS was to make games playable that weren't before.
I always thought the purpose of DLSS was to make games playable that weren't before.
nodfor
Posts: 333 +608
For me even in dlss 2 only quality mode is acceptable, in the other modes I can easily spot the difference in quality.
Great info on the latency angle of dlss 3, getting more frames without considerably lowering the latency, really not sth you would call amazing...
Great info on the latency angle of dlss 3, getting more frames without considerably lowering the latency, really not sth you would call amazing...
This is, by far, the biggest hurdle to overcome and probably not one that can be - after all, two frames need to be buffered before all three (#1, #2, DLSS frame) appear. The game engine has only cycled twice for three frame presents.
Rebranding! Gotta sell those high end cards somehow, eh?
That "garbled UI in fake frames" (12:06 in the video) looks annoying enough to leave it permanently disabled.
It's not looking great is it? DLSS 3 looks like it really doesn't work very well at all. The generated frames are so poor and the latency issues it introduces too... hmmmm
Great analysys, thanks for it.
In summary this may be a classic "When you can't deliver the performance which you praised, at least pretend it by faking it"?
Better should have called it FFDLSS 0.1, aka FakeFrameDLSS 1 beta version.
I think that media and consumers have to be more careful nowadays and take a stand against this trend.
In summary this may be a classic "When you can't deliver the performance which you praised, at least pretend it by faking it"?
Better should have called it FFDLSS 0.1, aka FakeFrameDLSS 1 beta version.
I think that media and consumers have to be more careful nowadays and take a stand against this trend.
Last edited:
Trapped Nowhere
Posts: 143 +120
Just thinking logically about the technology, I had already come to the conclusion that most of negative aspects of what was said in this article would be the case.
1. You already need to have a better than playable framerate
2. It's really only for high resolution, high refresh monitors
3. It's really just a motion fidelity feature, not a performance feature
4. More frames and increased lag will feel weird, especially in lower rendered frames scenarios
5. You will not want to exceed the refresh rate of your monitor
6. Higher input lag will make it useless for the # 1 users of really high refresh monitors, e-Sports gamers
I just don't see this as a must-have technology. in some ways, you have to ask yourself who its even for. Obviously, Nvidia is going to push it to be implemented with every new DLSS title, the question becomes, if it's harder to implement than say DLSS 2.0, FSR 2.0 or XeSS could DLSS 3.0 actually come back to bite Nvidia now that there are other viable upscaling options?
1. You already need to have a better than playable framerate
2. It's really only for high resolution, high refresh monitors
3. It's really just a motion fidelity feature, not a performance feature
4. More frames and increased lag will feel weird, especially in lower rendered frames scenarios
5. You will not want to exceed the refresh rate of your monitor
6. Higher input lag will make it useless for the # 1 users of really high refresh monitors, e-Sports gamers
I just don't see this as a must-have technology. in some ways, you have to ask yourself who its even for. Obviously, Nvidia is going to push it to be implemented with every new DLSS title, the question becomes, if it's harder to implement than say DLSS 2.0, FSR 2.0 or XeSS could DLSS 3.0 actually come back to bite Nvidia now that there are other viable upscaling options?
Exactly, who the heck is this actually for? I have seen other articles saying around 80 is the sweet spot, but still, that's a more than playable framerate that will already look great in motion. Adding latency and other artifacts for a little bit smoother animation seems ridiculous. Maybe in something like a third person action game, but I always thought the primary reason for high frames was input lag. Most people are just fine with a solid 60fps in just about any title except competitive ones.
It's a visual fidelity feature. Whatever you think of Nvidia and RTX 40, marketing this as increase performance was intentionally deceptive, around my parts, they call that a lie.
DLSS3 is exactly something the marketing department would create.
hahahanoobs
Posts: 4,840 +2,782
It's first version and you're dismissing it as a whole already? Interesting....
No, I'm not - merely pointed out that the issue of added latency isn't likely to be addressed. That latency itself isn't necessarily a problem; in some games, it won't even be noticeable. The frame generation algorithm will certainly improve and the number of the visual issues should decrease in due course.
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 1,270 +2,398
Very interesting info here.
This just reinforces my thoughts about how unnecessary this new version of DLSS is and that Nvidia is using it to help pad the numbers of this new generation of GPUs to help try to push sales.
Maybe in the future Nvidia can figure out how to fix things so it works better, but for now it just seems....well, rather pointless and misleading.
This just reinforces my thoughts about how unnecessary this new version of DLSS is and that Nvidia is using it to help pad the numbers of this new generation of GPUs to help try to push sales.
Maybe in the future Nvidia can figure out how to fix things so it works better, but for now it just seems....well, rather pointless and misleading.
Agree with you, DLSS is the best feature to show BIG numbers.
TheRealSCDC
Posts: 532 +920
It all doesn't matter with the cost of these cards. 3 weeks of groceries costs about as much anymore.
PEnnn
Posts: 1,064 +1,478
Well, what did you expect?? How else can Ngridia convince its fans to buy more of its expensive stuff??
GoldenGoat
Posts: 156 +216
Maybe I am slow, but I don't see any value in those really high frame rates if the input latency is not there. Reviewers use FPS to benchmark graphics cards and it sounds like they found a way to exploit that without really delivering value.
Right, exactly why it's even harder to purchase these. Unless your pay has adjusted for inflation. That has not happened for all of us.
Last edited:
The only value is motion fidelity. Looking like you are running the game at a higher refresh rate so that motion looks smoother. There is no other perceivable benefit and as far as I'm concerned, at least right now, the negatives outweigh the positives.
Eldritch
Posts: 555 +1,051
Here we have it folks, the botox of computer gaming. It is fake and responsiveness is reduced but looks attractive.
Why not just copy paste frames x 10, achieve a frame rate of 1000 fps and sell GPU for $3200. Surely that's what gamers want.
Why not just copy paste frames x 10, achieve a frame rate of 1000 fps and sell GPU for $3200. Surely that's what gamers want.
Nobina
Posts: 4,224 +5,007
If I have over 60 FPS consistently I don't care about DLSS/FSR. DLSS 3.0 seems to smudges your screen for no benefit. And GPUs that need it the most are not supported.
Similar threads
