This Is How DLSS 5 Actually Performs (According to Nvidia)

[Scorpus]

Nvidia's first official DLSS 5 benchmarks promise enormous frame rates, but the underlying render performance tells a very different story, with Neural Rendering looking exceptionally demanding.

Read the full article here.

This Is How DLSS 5 Actually Performs (According to Nvidia)

 

[yRaz]

Can't say I'm surprised. I'm sure with tweaking we and some developers that actually care about their game, we can take the advantages of DLSS5 and not utilize the crap that is, well, crap. My bing problem with it is that RT was sold to us as a technology that would make its way to low end hardware to a couple of generations. Well, it didn't. We have mid ranged cards that cost more than titan did 4 generations later and they still can't utilize it properly.

 

[human7]

If DLSS5 made Doom look like GTAVI in fidelity (or some such upgrade), it would be interesting. As it is, I don't really see the point, it's not dramatic enough of an upgrade to do much for truly older titles, let alone modern ones.

 

[yRaz]

If DLSS5 made Doom look like GTAVI in fidelity (or some such upgrade), it would be interesting. As it is, I don't really see the point, it's not dramatic enough of an upgrade to do much for truly older titles, let alone modern ones.

I don't understand the obsession with making everything look like real life. Live action sequels to cartoons and stuff just doesn't seem right. There was something fun about graphics and I'm going to weight on escapism here, that actually helped take you to another world. The art style helped you escape into the world that games were trying to make by leveraging your imagination. Thats not to say that bad graphics are better, just that if everything looks photorealistic the games stop having art style.

 

[Stingy McDuck]

I'm not sold on this. Many on the lighting improvements we see here could probably be done by adding some hero lighting to the rendered characters. It would be "cheating", yeah, but it would be way more performant.

 

[airbornex]

I don't understand the obsession with making everything look like real life. Live action sequels to cartoons and stuff just doesn't seem right. There was something fun about graphics and I'm going to weight on escapism here, that actually helped take you to another world. The art style helped you escape into the world that games were trying to make by leveraging your imagination. Thats not to say that bad graphics are better, just that if everything looks photorealistic the games stop having art style.

I agree to an extent, not everything has to be photorealistic, but some can be, and when intended, that's the next step needed apparently.

This looks promising IMO, just impossible to render for actual smooth gameplay with current GPUs...

 

[yRaz]

I agree to an extent, not everything has to be photorealistic, but some can be, and when intended, that's the next step needed apparently.

This looks promising IMO, just impossible to render for actual smooth gameplay with current GPUs...

Pre-raytracing, software was trying to keep up with GPUs for 10 years. We're now near 8 years of top end GPUs not being able to play games

 

[Dreadcthulhu]

With human models, this filter is giving me a real uncanny valley effect. I mean on a technical level it might be closer to "realistic" but that just means small irregularities stand out even more. I suppose it may be useful for anyone making a horror game. Plus the performance hit just does not seem to be worth whatever visual benefit we are supposed to be seeing here.

 

[Lew Zealand]

So: 227 FPS at native 4K falls to 62 fps at 1080p with DLSS5 before upscaling and frame gen.

Lol, no.

 

[MSIGamer]

So instead of releasing a video that showcases dlss which is all about 'improving' graphics, they release a few graphs with what essentially could be made up numbers, while actual performance and latency are atrocious.
Nvidia really sucks.

 

[Eldrach]

I have a strong suspicion DLSS 5 was originally intended to be an launched at the same time they revealed a new generation of cards specifically adept at using it - but since they’ve decided to ditch consumers and focus on the enterprise market..the software engineers have instead been tasked with a PR nightmare based on current architecture

 

[NumberNine]

They don't want good, they want easy.
I don't pay for easy. I can do easy.

 

[nnguy2]

Nvidia in 5 years: "12K @ 540fps upscaling from 4 pixels with 250x Frame gen using DLSS10 for $10k RTX8050ti"
Fanbois- "Shut up and take my money"

 

[b3rdm4n]

My big problem with it is that RT was sold to us as a technology that would make its way to low end hardware to a couple of generations.

I'm confused, even the 20 series had low end RT capable hardware, two generations later a 4060 has it too and can indeed use it in games. I've played several games with RT on, using a 6GB RTX A2000, ballpark 3050 8GB / 2060 6GB performance.

Is there some arbitrary performance level they need to meet for it to be acceptable? because the way you phrased it, that's already achieved.

 

[yRaz]

I'm confused, even the 20 series had low end RT capable hardware, two generations later a 4060 has it too and can indeed use it in games. I've played several games with RT on, using a 6GB RTX A2000, ballpark 3050 8GB / 2060 6GB performance.

Is there some arbitrary performance level they need to meet for it to be acceptable? because the way you phrased it, that's already achieved.

There was not a single 20 series card that couldnusnRT over 30FPS. The MineCraft RT showcase ran at 28FPS on a 2080ti. If you pay $5000 for a 5090 would you be happy with 60fps?

Sure, the cards have the instructionsets built into the silicon to process but they don't have what it takes for RT to be playable. Sure, there are a couple games that only use RT shadows and stuff just to say they have Raytracing, but here we are in years later and Ray Tracing is still basically a pipe dream without upscaling and frame gen.

 

[human7]

I don't understand the obsession with making everything look like real life. Live action sequels to cartoons and stuff just doesn't seem right. There was something fun about graphics and I'm going to weight on escapism here, that actually helped take you to another world. The art style helped you escape into the world that games were trying to make by leveraging your imagination. Thats not to say that bad graphics are better, just that if everything looks photorealistic the games stop having art style.

Oh, I don't want Doom or others to look photorealistic per se. All I'm saying is that would at least be a transformative use case for DLSS 5. As it is now, I don't get the point of it.

There was not a single 20 series card that couldnusnRT over 30FPS. The MineCraft RT showcase ran at 28FPS on a 2080ti. If you pay $5000 for a 5090 would you be happy with 60fps?

Sure, the cards have the instructionsets built into the silicon to process but they don't have what it takes for RT to be playable. Sure, there are a couple games that only use RT shadows and stuff just to say they have Raytracing, but here we are in years later and Ray Tracing is still basically a pipe dream without upscaling and frame gen.

I've got the 2080 Ti and the 5090 in separate rigs. The 2080 Ti could do 60 fps ray tracing on the Witcher 3, but at 1440p and not 4k (may have also had to turn down a couple of other settings, but most things were on Ultra). So the 2080 Ti is fine for ray tracing, but you gotta compromise on resolution. In any case, the main reason to get a top tier graphics card from my POV is if you plan to keep it for like 6+ years (which I do), otherwise it's just not worth the money (was also fortunate to buy before the crypto boom with the 2080 ti, and before the tariffs (which turned out to be a non-event really)/memory/AI shot up prices of the 5090s).

 

[b3rdm4n]

Sure, the cards have the instructionsets built into the silicon to process but they don't have what it takes for RT to be playable.

I get what you mean now, but I'll agree to disagree. I see how people want 60+ FPS in AAA titles with low end cards, max settings with zero upscaling, I'd love that too, but I think the performance we get is fine with those cards. If anything I feel CPU's are holding general performance back the most.

 

[yRaz]

Oh, I don't want Doom or others to look photorealistic per se. All I'm saying is that would at least be a transformative use case for DLSS 5. As it is now, I don't get the point of it.



I've got the 2080 Ti and the 5090 in separate rigs. The 2080 Ti could do 60 fps ray tracing on the Witcher 3, but at 1440p and not 4k (may have also had to turn down a couple of other settings, but most things were on Ultra). So the 2080 Ti is fine for ray tracing, but you gotta compromise on resolution. In any case, the main reason to get a top tier graphics card from my POV is if you plan to keep it for like 6+ years (which I do), otherwise it's just not worth the money (was also fortunate to buy before the crypto boom with the 2080 ti, and before the tariffs (which turned out to be a non-event really)/memory/AI shot up prices of the 5090s).

For me it comes down to me being made about display tech not reaching 8k. I play a lot of EvE and bought a 65" 4k TV to use as a monitor just to play it. The thing is that that is really low rez when sitting close. I was hoping to get an 8k one day but RT came out and 8K never got the push. Maybe that's a bit niche but I don't really play a lot of RT games. Most of the RT games I see are mostly just using it as some sort of drug and the gameplay and stories lack depth or something compelling. Doom, CP2077 and Oblivion remastered look great, but I don't really see anything compelling enough to make me shell out that kind of money these days.

When I got into building computers in the 90s we kind of went backwards on what I envisioned as a dream setup or godbox. I can't argue that RT doesn't look great, just that the RT future stunted progress and increased prices. I also think lots of people didn't buy into RT all the way or were willing to compromise on hirer levels of upscaling because RT just didn't deliver as much as promised

 

[yRaz]

I get what you mean now, but I'll agree to disagree. I see how people want 60+ FPS in AAA titles with low end cards, I'd love that too, but I think the performance we get is fine with those cards. If anything I feel CPU's are holding general performance back the most.

60fos has basically been the standard on midranges hardware since nVidia released the 6000 series in the 2000s. Somehow we have gone backwards and people can't get enough of it.

 

[human7]

For me it comes down to me being made about display tech not reaching 8k. I play a lot of EvE and bought a 65" 4k TV to use as a monitor just to play it. The thing is that that is really low rez when sitting close. I was hoping to get an 8k one day but RT came out and 8K never got the push. Maybe that's a bit niche but I don't really play a lot of RT games. Most of the RT games I see are mostly just using it as some sort of drug and the gameplay and stories lack depth or something compelling. Doom, CP2077 and Oblivion remastered look great, but I don't really see anything compelling enough to make me shell out that kind of money these days.

When I got into building computers in the 90s we kind of went backwards on what I envisioned as a dream setup or godbox. I can't argue that RT doesn't look great, just that the RT future stunted progress and increased prices. I also think lots of people didn't buy into RT all the way or were willing to compromise on hirer levels of upscaling because RT just didn't deliver as much as promised

Yeah, Nvidia overpromised the 20xx series I think. RT at 4k just wasn't really viable (even regular raster rendering was a bit of a stretch at 4k in some titles, at least if you wanted consistent high frame rate). I had a 1440p monitor for those years (2019-2025) because 4k was too expensive and it was the sweet spot for the 2080 ti. With the 5090 I upgraded to a 4k HDR 165Hz monitor (but not OLED b/c I also connect my work laptop to it).

The 8k promises by Nvidia a few years ago disappeared (I think TechSpot recently ran an article on that). It has surprised me that 8k or at least something higher than 4k hasn't become more common in TVs because of the pixel density.

Now RT feels like just another feature in the bag of tricks, with DLSS/upscaling being the "optimization" game developers can use to enable it without any real optimization. I still play native resolution whenever I can, even though the newest versions of DLSS don't introduce that many artifacts, it still ultimately works by starting at a lower resolution, which isn't what I paid for. Misguided sentiment maybe, but whatever.

Agree with you that the prices are over the top. I remember when the top tier GPUs were several hundred dollars. Crypto and now AI have changed things, and no real competition at the top from AMD hasn't helped. AMD went for a market share play but other than price gouging on their products being less they didn't seem to be that much cheaper than Nvidia to go for them this time around.

Maybe if/when the AI bubble bursts/deflates some sanity will return to the market, though I am concerned what DLSS5 will do to the market. Making AAA games has gotten expensive, but good games don't have to be expensive or AAA. DLSS5 maybe makes realistic graphics in reach for more and lowers cost, but at the obsession of making everything look realistic when it doesn't need to be?

 

[yRaz]

Yeah, Nvidia overpromised the 20xx series I think. RT at 4k just wasn't really viable (even regular raster rendering was a bit of a stretch at 4k in some titles, at least if you wanted consistent high frame rate). I had a 1440p monitor for those years (2019-2025) because 4k was too expensive and it was the sweet spot for the 2080 ti. With the 5090 I upgraded to a 4k HDR 165Hz monitor (but not OLED b/c I also connect my work laptop to it).

The 8k promises by Nvidia a few years ago disappeared (I think TechSpot recently ran an article on that). It has surprised me that 8k or at least something higher than 4k hasn't become more common in TVs because of the pixel density.

Now RT feels like just another feature in the bag of tricks, with DLSS/upscaling being the "optimization" game developers can use to enable it without any real optimization. I still play native resolution whenever I can, even though the newest versions of DLSS don't introduce that many artifacts, it still ultimately works by starting at a lower resolution, which isn't what I paid for. Misguided sentiment maybe, but whatever.

Agree with you that the prices are over the top. I remember when the top tier GPUs were several hundred dollars. Crypto and now AI have changed things, and no real competition at the top from AMD hasn't helped. AMD went for a market share play but other than price gouging on their products being less they didn't seem to be that much cheaper than Nvidia to go for them this time around.

Maybe if/when the AI bubble bursts/deflates some sanity will return to the market, though I am concerned what DLSS5 will do to the market. Making AAA games has gotten expensive, but good games don't have to be expensive or AAA. DLSS5 maybe makes realistic graphics in reach for more and lowers cost, but at the obsession of making everything look realistic when it doesn't need to be?

I'm not as optimistic about upscaling benefiting the low end. NVs track record has been to only enable it on latest gen to make it a selling point but developers use it as a crutch. I also see some of the laziest developments being in AAA. The publishers want to push out a minimum viable product, everyone hates the developer for it, upscaling carrying the weight and our wallets picking up the pieces

 

[b3rdm4n]

60fos has basically been the standard on midranges hardware since nVidia released the 6000 series in the 2000s. Somehow we have gone backwards and people can't get enough of it.

Midrange cards also come with midrange expectations. I don't expect maxed out with cutting edge visual techniques and zero compromises and 60fps+ in every title, I'd expect to use things perhaps including, lower resolution/upscaling, optimised/midrange settings, etc.

 

[yRaz]

Midrange cards also come with midrange expectations. I don't expect maxed out with cutting edge visual techniques and zero compromises and 60fps+ in every title, I'd expect to use things perhaps including, lower resolution/upscaling, optimised/midrange settings, etc.

I have been following hardware for over 30 years. Mid ranged hardware was able to max most things with reasonable expectations. Now, even the "mid high-end" cards like 5070-5070ti are bordering on a waste of sand for the money. We have seen nVidia increase their profit margins on the 10 series from about 20%, which is a standard profit margin across pretty much every industry, to over 80% on the 50 series. We are not living in a normal world anymore. Dollar per FPS, a stupid metric back in tomhe 2000s, has stayed pretty much the same when it was expected to drop over time. We aren't getting new cards at a similar price and a performance boost. They performance gets better but the price moves perportinally with it.

Now we are at a phase where they just throw numbers at a wall and that's the new price.

 

[b3rdm4n]

I have been following hardware for over 30 years. Mid ranged hardware was able to max most things with reasonable expectations.

Is this an appeal to experience? I've been in it about the same time, and my recollection is vastly different. For much of that time even High end cards have struggled to get 60+ on the AAA's of the day maxed out at their contemporary high resolutions, let alone midrange.

Yes the market has shifted, yes margins have gone up, as has inflation, and the reality is many of the massive performance leaps are now behind us, no matter who is making them.

Perhaps the truth sits in "with reasonable expectations", where yours and mine could well be different.

 

[yRaz]

Is this an appeal to experience? I've been in it about the same time, and my recollection is vastly different. For much of that time even High end cards have struggled to get 60+ on the AAA's of the day maxed out at their contemporary high resolutions, let alone midrange.

Yes the market has shifted, yes margins have gone up, as has inflation, and the reality is many of the massive performance leaps are now behind us, no matter who is making them.

Perhaps the truth sits in "with reasonable expectations", where yours and mine could well be different.

Margins and inflation are not interlinked, do not try to make that link. Margin should move independently of inflation. Companies using inflation as an excuse to increase margins are scumbags. I remember the Asus 6600GT being able to run Oblivion at max settings at 1024x768 for $230. That game is silly these days but it was the Crysis of its time. the 9800GT was a totier card and could be found regularly for under $350. years late, the GTX580, I had 2 in SLI and I paid $500 each for them and even my 1080ti was $700. Now we have $2000+ 80 class cards. The 30 class showed people were will to pay scalper prices and NV wanted a chunk, now the 50 series adoption rate and market share is abmismally low.