I think most who complain about the lack of DLSS are the same people who claim that DLSS is vastly superior to FSR, so much so that they see FSR as being worthless. In their eyes, it's DLSS or bust.I don't really understand the DLSS complaints. FSR will run on an Nvidia card and most people wouldn't be able to notice the difference between the two and even professional reviewers have said in some games they can't tell the difference at all.
This is why implementing DLSS or an alternate upscaler isn't as simple as just using Streamline, as many like to claim... There's QA/QC involved with each additional upscaler that people assume isn't needed. It is odd that people are willing to overlook that when they download these mods.What's really funny is the people who want to download and run a mod to add DLSS when it's know to have issues and will probably look worse than just using FSR until the mod maker gets all the bugs worked out. That just seems utterly asinine to me.
So here are my findings for now.
Three quick tests.
1) Native 4k Ultra preset 100% res, vs ultra preset fsr2, dlss and xess all at 50% res.
2) Native 4k ultra preset 100% res vs dlss ultra preset 60% res, since that's the best the 4070ti can do for 60fps.
3) Native 4k ultra preset 100% res vs native 4k low preset 100% res
I chose this super hard location for the upscalers, since there are many straight lines on the ceiling and a difficult moire pattern.
1+2)
native 4k. . .
Starfield RTX Remix when?
Might need to compare frames in motion to see more differences between FSR and DLSS...Thanks for taking the time to do this. I agree that native is the clear winner here (though 50-60% res is pretty low).
By my eyes, XESS is the worst with FSR2 and DLSS being roughly equal, each looking better or worse in different ways. DLSS looks a little clearer/sharper to me but also has more jaggies and some minor things that look off compared to the original and fsr2, though it could be the different angle. Overall I would probably pick FSR2 just because of the smoother edges and seemingly closer representation to the original.
Might need to compare frames in motion to see more differences between FSR and DLSS...
About XeSS. The DP4a version doesn't look near as good as XeSS on ARC hardware IME. In the games I have tried both the ARC hardware version is clearly superior.Agreed, my input is totally based on the photos posted.
What is currently sold as ray tracing IS a rasterized image, but the baked lighting is replaced with a rough approximation of real lighting.You are stuck at thinking that rasterisation, which is in itself is just as fake as frame interpolation, is the only true way to render graphics (and at native resolution only). Ray tracing is the future and it will solve many issues and makes things simpler. Denoisers need to improve but it looks like NVIDIA has pretty much solved that.
YES!Can someone help me understand this upscaling better? Is it like for example, if you have a game that won't run so smooth on a graphics card at a specific resolution, let's say Cyberpunk running at 4K, then with nVIDIA's caling technology you can run it at FHD or QHD resolution but still get a somewhat sharp image unlike when you would just change the resolution manually from the game and get a blurry image? so you get the benefut of rendering at a lower resolution for increased performance yet not have a crappy looking blurry image?
Pretty much that. Nvidia's image sharpening algorithm DLSS is quite a bit better than AMD's FSR, and the difference really shows if you're upscaling from say 1080p render resolution. It's not free though, since AMD's cards tend to offer a lot better native resolution performance for the money and not everything has DLSS. FSR is also quite good and close to DLSS quality when upscaling from higher resolutions like 1440p and 1800p while still being a real improvement over native even at 1800p.Can someone help me understand this upscaling better? Is it like for example, if you have a game that won't run so smooth on a graphics card at a specific resolution, let's say Cyberpunk running at 4K, then with nVIDIA's caling technology you can run it at FHD or QHD resolution but still get a somewhat sharp image unlike when you would just change the resolution manually from the game and get a blurry image? so you get the benefut of rendering at a lower resolution for increased performance yet not have a crappy looking blurry image?
1800p??Pretty much that. Nvidia's image sharpening algorithm DLSS is quite a bit better than AMD's FSR, and the difference really shows if you're upscaling from say 1080p render resolution. It's not free though, since AMD's cards tend to offer a lot better native resolution performance for the money and not everything has DLSS. FSR is also quite good and close to DLSS quality when upscaling from higher resolutions like 1440p and 1800p while still being a real improvement over native even at 1800p.
3200x1800. It's the render resolution I usually use for easier to run games like Elden Ring or Yakuza Like a Dragon on my 6700 XT and then use RSR or FSR to upscale to 2160p since I'm running a 4k monitor. Harder games like Cyberpunk or The Last of Us I render 1440p. And then Starfield is so poorly optimized I have to render that one at like 1200p and it looks like crap.1800p??
Am I the only one that thinks the textures and the way all of the flora is rendered look like Far Cry 3 era?
Karagon is almost an indie game, from a small dev that also self published. The rendering is quite superior than Far Cry 3. I tested Far Cry 3 very recently and although it still holds its ground very easily, the superior rendering of UE5 shows, even coming from a small dev.Am I the only one that thinks the textures and the way all of the flora is rendered look like Far Cry 3 era?