After its big splash, today we're taking a second look at Nvidia's DLSS 3 technology to see what has changed and improved in previous games and new releases that have arrived with integrated support.
Nvidia DLSS 3 Revisit: We Try It Out in 9 Games
- Thread starter Scorpus
- Start date
WhiteLeaff
Posts: 467 +853
No, it is not acceptable for such an expensive GPU to need these tricks to deliver the expected performance.
Neatfeatguy
Posts: 1,611 +3,043
It's not that these expensive GPUs are not delivering expected performance based on their specs; It's the bullcrap that Nvidia is using DLSS3 to pad the numbers of what these GPUs can do to make them look better than they really are.
We've all seen those graphs Nvidia has pushed out, claiming upwards of 3x the performance of a 3090Ti (but in tiny writing at the bottom of the graphs it tells you that the Ada cards are using DLSS 3 and the Ampere aren't using anything other than basic rasterization performance). Marketing gimmicks at their best.
DLSS 3 is a waste, if you ask me, but I'm certain there are hardcore Nvidia fans that will defend it with their lives. Much like how people are like RT!!!! OMG! RT! Nvidia does it so well over AMD. The problem is, I don't know who to feel worse for: AMD for being behind what Nvidia can do when it comes to RT performance or for Nvidia for having dedicated cores for RT and they still stuck at it.
Avro Arrow
Posts: 3,721 +4,821
I'm really beginning to think that Tim Schiesser is a masochist. To go over something as uninteresting as DLSS 3.0 so meticulously has got to be about as fun as shagging your ear with a screwdriver.
I look forward to watching this latest Australian Shiesser video on HU.
I look forward to watching this latest Australian Shiesser video on HU.
letsgoiowa
Posts: 197 +353
You realize rasterization itself is a series of clever tricks? Heck, so is ray tracing: it isn't doing a million rays per pixel as that would be stupid!
Engineering is all about clever tricks.
PEnnn
Posts: 1,285 +1,853
The DLSS pushers are still hard at work.
Still not interested.
Still not interested.
Hodor
Posts: 765 +512
I think many people would disagree that game graphics testing is boring:
https://coburgbanks.co.uk/blog/friday-funnies/the-40-most-boring-jobs/
(they forgot to add "accountant" to the list)
Hodor
Posts: 765 +512
In fact, our entire world is a set of clever tricks. Electrons aren't really circling the atoms, as they would in a real world. Instead, their trajectory is replaced by a random number generator with a realistic spatial distribution. Same goes for most of things at the lowest resolution level of our world. We call them "quantum effects" and "dual wave-particle behavior" but it's nothing else than a very clever cheat to mask the loss of resolution. Replacing complex calculations with RNG and approximations to save on compute resources. So, no wonder game devs are doing the same.
ScottSoapbox
Posts: 1,030 +1,794
Nobina
Posts: 4,499 +5,491
FSR/DLSS is great for certain situations but not using them is even better. I don't want upscaling to become the standard because it does look worse. Maybe if it becomes unnoticeable, but that's not happening for a while.
Stingy McDuck
Posts: 300 +268
With a base frame rate of 100 to 120, I wouldn't need to enable DLSS 3. I think good motion blur is a better alternative to frame generation.
Thatsdisgusting
Posts: 231 +286
I dunno how can you suggest these techs nice at all. I have awfull sun glares flickers in CB77 even with DLSS2 (3080Ti), and overall picture quality is a bit worse than native when looking at it at 34" 1440p, dunno how awfull it looks at native 4K. Like, in details it's kind of the same, but when looking overall, native is "crispier".
P.S. I guess you can call DLSS usefull in games that already have *shiet* render methods and engine, smth like Dying Light 2 or numerous UE4 projects.
P.S. I guess you can call DLSS usefull in games that already have *shiet* render methods and engine, smth like Dying Light 2 or numerous UE4 projects.
godrilla
Posts: 1,361 +890
I haven't seen to many defending frame generation. Just an FYI dlss 3 includes 1) frame generation 2) upscaling and 3) reflex. I would say that 2/3 features are useful. Do gamers need frame generation? No, but Nvidia will use it anyway to market it and gain or maintain mindshare. From trying frame generation via DLSS3 on, Cyberpunk, Hogwarts, Darktide and Plagues tail requim even with reflex enabled it still feels leaggy as f*** besides what the frame per second counter is reading. The only exception was Hogwarts where it allows reflex to be set to boost mode with rt on at native resolution with dlaa on but it's far from perfect. I believe Nvidia did a disservice by grouping everything together with DLSS3 because mostly everyone can agree frame generation is useless but some say find the reflex and upscaling techniques in some titles when set to 4k dlss quality and reflex set to boost mode is more useful.
Update in case anyone was interested Darktide rt and dlss is broken and the game is super unstable. Without it have not experienced any crashes since.
Last edited:
passwordistaco
Posts: 572 +1,239
DLSS3 is still only viable if you've got a decent framerate to begin with. In a single player game, I'm OK with 60 FPS and VRR to prevent tearing. Nvidia is still using smoke and mirrors to cover the fact that RT is not ready for prime time on the 3rd generation of RTX cards.
DLSS is such a gimmick; I'll stick to native resolution with full quality rather than reducing the resolution and quality. Emperor's New Clothes: Nvidia edition.
Seems like the diehard DLSS fanboys are finally slowly giving up on "upscaled image can look better than native".
daffy duck
Posts: 237 +180
I have no problem with DLSS@, but to have to resort ot fake frames is a joke. You can see going forward Nvidia is going to care less and less about pure raster and double down on AI trickery to market BS framerates. $1200 card needing this is as you say a joke.
Threadcount
Posts: 73 +76
DLSS4, will predict the whole game, in PowerPoint form, only on RTX 500 series cards so you have to buy the new one. New slogan, NVIDIA the way it's predicted to be played.
b3rdm4n
Posts: 177 +126
DLSS 2.x quality at 4k, still looking better than most TAA implementations, thanks for asking. perhaps it's being said less because more and more people accept it as true.
For such a gimmick, it's funny for the rest of the industry to be so intent to follow.
And that's the catch-22... The best benefit is provided when fps is already high enough that it's not needed.
It's the latest way they are trying to cheat on benchmarks for marketing purposes. Add more frames regardless of quality
I wouldn't enable DLSS3 when the framerates are low because of the increased input lag and I wouldn't increase it when the FPS is high because ... well the FPS is high already
Im not sure I like fake frame, maybe for demanding single player games, def not for multiplayer ones.
However it's a smart feature for people using outdated CPUs because cpu bottleneck gets removed.
Looking forward to "FSR3"
However it's a smart feature for people using outdated CPUs because cpu bottleneck gets removed.
Looking forward to "FSR3"
So the edges are less jagged great but everything else is blurry and introduces artifacts and clipping. Thanks for asking
Developers are adopting it becuase they can be lazy and not optimize the their games.
Well, my experience with HL is that it has plenty of graphic anomalies. Nothing that makes the game unplayable, but I do see flickering of objects and other oddities. And that's without DLSS3 (running on 2070 Super GPU).
As for the DLSS bashing here, I guess people have forgotten what it was like when we got our first graphics accelerators back in the days of Orchid and 3DFx Vodoo. They all had teething pains, but they led us to a better gaming experience.
Will DLSS be the defacto standard for graphics acceleration? Maybe, maybe not, but hopefully that and FSR will bring us a better gaming experience once they mature the technology. As games become more complex, graphically and computationally, it's going to take a lot more hardware to keep up. That presents a couple of problems and a big one is power. The second is cost. You're not going to get 150+ FPS in a $500 GPU. So, something has to address that and the cheapest way to do so is via software.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
Nvidia GeForce RTX 3050 6GB Review: Quiet Release, Dodgy Name- captaincranky replied
-
These credit cards feature OLEDs that light up upon payment- Uncle Al replied
