The very bad news is, Nvidia says turning DLSS 5 on will currently reduce performance by 50-60%. And that’s across the board—no matter the game.
i miss when GPUs just rendered the game, and that was all.
None of this upscaling, AI graphics altering bullshit that is there ultimately to distract from the impotent promises of 4k gaming, which is unnecessarily ridiculous to begin with.
While I do agree, upscaling is nice when your primary monitor is 4k, because playing 1080 on a 4k monitor looks like a pixel art game.
This is kinda weird since 4K monitors have no trouble drawing at 1080p and don’t look worse than 1080 monitors doing so.
Depends on the scaling algorithm. Most renderers are probably going to apply some filtering causing the whole image to be a blurry mess, rather than use a crisp nearest neighbour.
This just isn’t even slightly true. I have 2 4K monitors and a 1080p one. I can visibly see that using either 4K monitor looks similar to the 1080p other than having slightly superior color fidelity on the 4K. That is the 4K looks BETTER than the 1080p.
Intuitively I feel like you can trivially draw 1080p on a 4K panel by literally drawing 4 pixels for every 1 in the source whether that is the exact mechanics or not it is just plainly obvious that this isn’t so. I feel like people are thinking of older monitors drawing at non-native resolutions which are not exact multiples of native. I have literally never seen anyone’s 4K display be blurry displaying games running at 1080p which is common for performance reasons.
Part of the reason why I don’t do 1080 screens above 22"
And I mean you bought the 4k monitor, so for it not to be a good choice for gaming needs to be addressed. Can’t have that money go to waste. Not your fault you fell for the marketing again.
At least movies will look good on it.
Pretty L sarcastic take tbh. I work on my pc, I also have 3 screens at my pc, 4k is invaluable as I can get so much more done more easily when I don’t spend my time scrolling through code. Working on anything below 1440 feels cramped.
I guess movies could look good, I wouldn’t know tho.
Cool, yet my point on gaming still stands. Most places I installed screens at had us (mostly done by the roll up software) turn the res down (so people can read it). You can use 4k I am sure, knock yourself out, but we are in crazy land where your need to have 4k has left us all in a nightmare of shit performance and fake frames.
“Such a L take” is funny from the people with more money then sense who always seem to revert to a “get gud” defense when confronted with the idea that maybe spending more is not always a good idea.
If you had to turn the res down so people can read it then you failed at basic computer usage. Resolution doesn’t dictate font size.
HA! But it does! try setting your 4k display to 1080p… Look! Bigger letters!
Keep in mind this was also due to most places wanting the same settings with all pcs, so hey the shittiest res becomes everyones! YAY!
Your favorite desktop OS has scaling settings which uses more pixels to draw the same characters bigger whilst letting you enjoy a smoother and better looking desktop
Eh, okay dude, sure thing, I usually have my browser set by default to 80% zoom on lower res screens and my font is quite small on the 4k, I also disable any kind of scaling.
Believe it or not, not everyone sees the world like you do.
It sounds like you made up your mind though, which is cool for you I guess.
I appreciate advances in tech, especially stuff like display tech, you kind of remind me of my dad the time he told us we’d never need a hard drive bigger than 2gb, lol.
I’m just gonna go be gud over here, you do you over there…
I’ll also add that anti aliasing is not as important nowadays because realistically, it was a way to hide lower resolutions by smoothing edges, now edges can be smooth at native resolutions without it. (there’s nuance to that ofc) I’m not sure if you hated AA too.
You have literally disabled the feature that makes fonts look correct on 4k and further shrunk the text by setting zoom to 80%. It’s not really a matter of opinion you are just wrong.
What feature is that? Tons of assumptions and assholes around here.
I’m also super interested in what “correct” is?
Believe it or not, not everyone sees the world like you do.
Heyyyyy look good advice!
Literally sees differently because he’s disabled scaling and set browser zoom to 80% both of which make everything smaller on 4K
I wasn’t belittling others over my own views. But anyway, I’m done engaging with you, peace ✌️
4k monitors look fine rendering 1080p
If you have a pixel
1
A 4K monitor can in the same physical space draw
1 0 0 1
Showing more real detail it can also display in 1080p mode
1 1 1 1
Yes, thank you for explaining that. No I will not buy a 4k smart TV, as I don’t care and like my 1080p (and even old tube 480p tvs) the way it looks.
This is just more “please buy our shit” sort of crap we have to deal with way way too much these days.
Given a reasonable amount of horsepower it makes sense to run your games in 4K. I was just pointing out that you CAN run a given game in 1080p if you don’t have enough juice and it won’t look worse than if it was running on a 1080p monitor. 4K is in fact great.
Pretending that it doesn’t actually look better is just pure copium. It’s no more real than the flat earth.
You don’t have to be wiling to spend on it but it makes little sense to pretend its not better.
When did I state any of that?
And no it is not “better” other then being more pricey, there are pros and cons.
You just said it wasn’t better other than being more expensive then said there are pros and cons. Did you glitch chatGPT?
4k is only ridiculous if you play games seated at a desk. Videogames are still ultimately a livingroom toy at their heart, and there are people who’ve graduated from game consoles to PCs and still want to play on the couch. That means distance from your TV, which means the TV has to be pretty large. Lower resolutions on a TV that size do not look good.
The relationship between screen size and distance to viewer decides at what resolution you won’t be able to notice more detail at a higher resolution. 4K on a desktop monitor can make the same amount of sense (or not) as on a TV (or phone, or any other device with a display really).
That’s not true at all. 1080p on an appropriately large tv at a proper viewing distance will be far worse as those pixels are stretched out. The subpixel aliasing on that would be absolutely brutal.
Either I’m greatly misunderstanding you, or you have that completely backwards. The further you are from a screen the smaller the pixels are in your field of view, and the less jagged the image will look. If you are closer to your screen the easier it is to see individual pixels, thus they need to be smaller to get a smoother image.
You’re thinking of spatial aliasing, which can be improved by sitting further away from the screen. The problem here is temporal aliasing, which has more to do with the resolution and size of the display, and is not improved by sitting further away.
Temporal aliasing gets worse the larger individual pixels are and the lower the pixel density is, which is why it will more negatively affect the TV viewer even if they appropriately match TV size and distance.
And then you also have to consider the fact that they don’t make 1080p or 1440p for that matter TVs at the size you’d need to view from the average livingroom distance. So playing a game at 1080P means your TV has to scale that 1080p across its native resolution which will result in a blurry picture.
Here’s a video that discusses the issue
Ummmm 4k is way less important at couch distance compared to desk distance. Most of us don’t have TVs that occupy the same field of view from the couch as a monitor does at the desk. For example I have a 32 inch monitor at my desk 1.5 feet away and a 65 inch TV about 10 feet away. Sure the TV has 4x the viewing area but my viewing distance is more than 4x so the picture is not as crisp.
You are almost right. It depends on viewing distance as you correctly noted the given viewing distance and screen sizes its pretty easy to tell the difference between 1080p and 4K in most people’s living room especially since big ass screens are cheap and big ass houses expensive.
If you were watching a movie you might be right, but that won’t compensate enough for how low that pixel density is on that size of a TV on a video game. The subpixel aliasing will be notably worse on the TV.
Which is bull, because we’ve been playing games from our couches for like 40 years and there were beautiful, amazing, wonderful graphics long before the 4k propaganda.
Here is what gaming looked like 40 years ago hint it looked like dogshit but we loved it
Modern gaming looks fantastic in 4K.
Using one of the most popular and beloved games of all time and calling it “dogshit”… that’s one way to win an argument I guess.
Ya it absolutely looks like dogshit. It was amazing at the time. I imagine that in 40 years our current games will be comparatively shit.
Sure buddy.
This is what I played as a kid and now I have 4K monitors can confirm
I mean… no?
I’m not sure what else to say to that.
No, I think you denying reality because of sunk cost fallacy has said enough.
Weapons grade copium on your part lol
Sure Pal.
You know it, buddy.
Your dismissiveness of reality doesn’t change the reality
Pretty sure lots of old games still look great. Why else would there be modern pixel art games still coming out? The graphics of yore may not have been advanced but they had an art style which is more important than graphics and more than most modern AAA games.
you have a big stache of C O P I U M.
You’re projecting lol
Oh projecting-ception! Nice!
Reality bites.
For fucks sakes, I don’t want “realistic” graphics, I want high and smooth FPS, they have been calling their games “realistic” for the past 20 years. Just make the game with a unique art style and optimise it.
Every single “realistic graphics” game looks shit after 5 years while Mario is over here still looking great decades after release.
No the games have to look like real life don’t you get it? Nevermind that fortnite and Minecraft, the two biggest games out there have cartoonish graphics and literal pixelated cubes no! We need to be able to see the reflection in a drop of sweat! And more AI!
Games should have “style” and “performance”? Bah. What poppycock I say, another billion to the AAAA games! For the investors! /s
I’m playing 10 year old games that go for realistic graphics, and they look just fine.
They don’t look like a film, they look like generated graphics. It’s not really a problem for immersion anyway.
Yeah, Same here honestly
You know, I don’t particularly care about having the need to see every freaking pore on someone’s model. I hate graphic purists.
I’ve always been a firm believer that the better a game looks, the worse the game will actually be overall. While not always true, but I’d much prefer the focus on fun rather than how close to real life it can look… if I wanted to see shit that looks that good I’d go interact with the outside.
So traumatised by AI ads on YouTube that I think this post is a tai chi ad.
Hey, wanna get rid of that stubborn belly fat? Try this chair tai chi.
Wait, what is even the point of using an upscaling technology if it makes your game run slower than without it? Why wouldn’t I just run native res at that point? Is their only point that “it looks better” in their minds?
You can make black people look white in your games.
Wonder if it could also make female protagonists look like men, might be useful for the sort of people who complain that a game is woke when there is a women
Don’t forget about making Cloud, a Japanese inspired character, look like Scarlett Johansson.
are you blind? Cloud is clearly already inspired by Scarlett Johansson
Well, gonna be real gay when that transgender protagonist is now in a romantic scene with a dude.
No worries, we’ll just undude the dude in the romantic scene as well and oh shit now we have two transes
Yes, their only point is that it looks better “in their minds”, as you say. This feature in particular isn’t meant to improve performance.
Personally I think the more subtle application of it can look pretty good, but it seems hard to control and does more harm than good. And that is even ignoring the massive performance impact that almost guarantees it to be unusable. Nvidia published some performance numbers that looked impressive, but that was using pretty agressive upscaling and 6X frame gen which is stupid because for frame gen to be decent you need a high base frame rate, which they didn’t get on anything other than the 5090 and arguably the 5080, or by pairing the GPU with a lower resolution that doesn’t really make sense for them (like you wouldn’t normally buy a 5070Ti for 1080p).
So it’s closer to an ML shader than actual supersampling?
Instagram filter for your games is a term I’ve heard to describe what it is. They put all their crappy new features under the DLSS brand now, little to do with supersampling. At least personally I wouldn’t call frame-gen supersampling either, but this is even worse.
Yes, I think that’s a pretty accurate way to describe it.
What’s the point of running 4k over 1080p?
Yes. It does make the game look better at the cost of framerate…
???
I think you’re missing the point of the question here. DLSS was meant to “fake” performance, i.e. you could have the game run at an upscaled 4k, when your PC can’t do native 4k. Now it’s reducing the performance at those upscaled 4k again, so you could just run native 4k at the same FPS.
is there a good guide to the different levels of dlss? what if I want to fake better performance to a degree because, i don’t know, maybe my potato got moldy and stardew is getting choppy
When will they realize that good graphics does not equal a good game?
Not anytime soon since gamers are still overwhelmingly indicating they will pay out the nose for the latest graphics.
Ehhhhh have you seen the numbers lately? People seem to be moving away from AAA titles more and more.
Yeah, life has infinite graphics and it’s a 3/10 at best.
That’s if you even consider AI generated frames to be “good graphics”.
I love beautiful graphics. I’m not picky about them and don’t insist on photorealism only (Valhala is a beautiful game and uses this strange mix of high and low fidelity graphics), but I do love me some good photorealistic rendering.
I’m not interested in this “AI tries to predict the pixels between actual rendered ones”. It’s just a push towards average, like everything else big data, when it works well. And maybe this one does work well but I still dgaf because I don’t want slop frames.
And I suspect that’s a reason you don’t see true frame to frame comparisons between AI upscaling and that same frame fully rendered at the higher resolution. It’s difficult for random reviewers to get the exact same frame rendered like that so I mostly see frames taken from the same viewpoint, but you can’t do apples to apples comparisons because the scene is dynamic and things other than the camera have changed. But nvidia could generate the same frame both ways for a direct comparison but only seem to want to show comparisons like DLSS off (at low res) vs DLSS on (at high res) or different DLSS versions against each other, which I think is telling.
I don’t care about or want this technology
You know what AI reminds me of? That Xavier the renegade angel episode where the monks built that machine to do the monk chants for them and all but two monks remained afterwards and the two that were left in the monastery were playing video games and had put on weight. And the monks said something like: surely engaging in western luxuries will not make us lazy.
Edit : ayyyyy full episode https://www.wco.tv/xavier-renegade-angel-episode-11-vibracaust
I gotta re-watch this show now. Such a banger
There aren’t enough drugs in the world to get me to understand that show.
Okay so I figured it out a while back and an old manic-depressive friend always used to tell me there’s no point to that show, it’s a nonsense show; He’s so wrong and always has been, I always tried to tell him if you paid attention to the story line and not the trippy shit, you’ll realize season 1 is about Xavier trying to live the life that he has created for himself through his own previous misfortunes and follows the search for the father’s killer. Season 2, is about Xavier figuring out who he once was and is trying to connect to his past and is on the search for an ultimate connection to his past and inner self until he realizes he’s been insane the whole time.
You’re welcome : https://www.wco.tv/anime/xavier-renegade-angel/?season=all
Well its a good thing no one plays games anymore, its just benchmarking and dick measuring right? Right?
oh no way
all I have to do is tank my gpu performance, and I get a non-deterministic result, plus it looks substantially worse?
dang yo, where do I sign up
It’s deterministic. It looks like ass every time.
If chopping people’s arms off to make them run faster is a strategy then this is equivalent to chopping of someone’s legs to make them prettier.
Imperial China has you covered: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foot_binding (the horrors never cease)
Live service gaming is about to get so much worse when companies start obsessing about adding this.
Probably. I’ll just keep avoiding those I guess.
That’s on the poor suckers that play live service games.
I enjoy playing games with my friends :c
There’s plenty of multiplayer games that aren’t shit.
Not gonna lie, I’d try this in the same way I’ve tried AI for 5 minutes like a morbid curiosity thing. I’m also gonna admit that I can see it working with a very specific category of games, if it didn’t have a performance impact. Those games being the kind of games I have absolutely no interest in; sports games. I can see it for porn games too but I’ve not played more than a few and didn’t really see the appeal, but I can imagine it’d be a cool thing for some people.
None of that has any effect on this being a purely bad thing though, I’d rather stop using technology completely than being forced to use AI in any way.I can see it for porn games too but I’ve not played more than a few and didn’t really see the appeal
I bet someone is already working on using this new technology to project arbitrary celebrities into porn games.
This comment is nonsensical AI hate. It’s a mechanical trick to produce interesting developer controlled detail that is hard otherwise to render directly. It might turn out to cost too much for much practical usage for years or forever or it might be sufficiently accelerated by hardware such that it becomes a mainstay this will be a function of what makes pretty graphics better not your hang ups.
It’s a brute force hack that adds tiny details no one will ever notice during actual gameplay, at the cost of the majority of your frames
No
Mmm, excellent contribution. Gonna really have to have a think on this one
if they had google where you live you could actually see demos of details you can see. Also describing something as a “majority of your frames” makes no sense. You either have enough performance to spare and it makes sense to turn on or you don’t in which it is interesting tech like ray tracing for the overwhelming majority of gamers.
“50-60%” is literally “a majority,” I don’t know what to tell you. Math.
Your math is bad. Your monitor can’t display infinite frames. The majority of monitors can display exactly 60 others can display 144 165. If you have a 60 hz 1080p machine and a good GPU on some games you could still achieve 60 frames eg as much as you can have.
At present with current tech the majority probably can’t turn it on and have acceptable frame rate but there is no reason to believe that the performance cost will be constant.
You see the article in this post right? Did you read it?
I feel like the details add to the game and if I had more than enough hardware to run a given game I would enable the feature and could see my self using it much more so if a later evolution required less of a performance hit.
Saw a Fallout 4 mod that would do this and immediately imagined my PC on fire.
I didn’t realize skeptical (sceptical) had North American (British) variations. That’s my learning for today!
Skeptical is widely used in Britain too, it’s about 50/50
