DLSS 5 - Generative AI

[KazeoHin]

On the flip side too many people seem to think "optimization" is a magic tree that you just shake and FPS falls out of for free. Not that it takes time, effort, money, and often the way you "optimize" is by reducing quality.


It's totally fair when a game runs like shit, particularly when it runs like shit even on a high end system turned down. I remember reviewers skewering Borderlands 4, and I haven't seen it as part of any benchmarking suites because ya: Not well done.

However...

I don't feel like that is accurate. Most games run, and look, fine when you scale them down. DF often does something where they'll match roughly PS5 performance settings and when they do, game runs well and looks good on lower end hardware. The problem is you have to make the same concessions the PS5 does: Lower resolution/more upscaling, 60ish FPS, little/no RT, lower quality textures/shadows, etc. It looks completely fine, and many gamers enjoy the game like that because they do have a PS5. But I see a fuckton of whining that it isn't good because it won't run at higher rez, or faster FPS, or higher settings, etc, etc.

I mean shit, the amount of people I see demanding native rendering or nothing is insane, given that consoles haven't done that for decades in almost any game. They just used a shitty linear filter to upscale, rather than a good neural network. But no, if a game can't run at 4k native and fly, clearly it is "unoptimized".


It absolutely isn't, of course it also is literally in only one title, everything else is by definition user modded. But no, I haven't found it worth it, though I might in Hitman 3, we'll see when I get back to it. Even on a 5090, the ask is too much right now. However, two important things there:

1) The ask, high though it is, still actually DOES fit in a 60fps output in most cases. While I get people want more than that, I am people who want more than that, we also can't pretend like that is an unplayable framerate. Most people play at 60fps, or lower, it's doable.

2) There's a big difference between saying "This is cool, but not worth it at this point," and getting all ass blasted at nVidia for introducing it and acting like they are awful because it isn't fast enough. At this point it is basically a future technology. If you have the highest end cards (a 5090 or MAYBE a 5080 but only at 1440) then you can play with it at playable speeds. Anyone else, it is very much something for later. I'm fine with people who say "Ya DLSS 5 isn't for me right now." I'll call out those that just bitch about it as though nVidia just shouldn't have done it. If you want tech to move forward, there is a period where something new happens and isn't super usable. It takes time to work on it.


However you also have to be clear as to what you are optimizing for, because often one thing happens at the expense of another. You can optimize lighting by making it static, and optimize it more by fixing camera position. If you give an artist a completely fixed scene, they can make it look very realistic... but then it is fixed, and takes a lot of artist time. It'll be fast, but static. Likewise you can optimize code to be readable and moddable, particularly by using scripting languages to do as much as possible, but that comes at the cost of performance. Or you could write it all in assembly (if you can afford the few experts who are able to do that) but then it is extremely inflexible.

It's not as clear as "just do this and it is all better." Yes, sometimes there are algorithms that are just plain faster that get the same results, and when there are, they tend to get universally adopted. But often in coding, and game design, you have to choose what you are optimizing for and there are tradeoffs. If you want more X, it costs more Y kind of thing.

Good points overall.

re: optimisation I think especially with Machine learning-based algorithms, there is a LOT of 'free' performance that is on the table with larger and longer training datasets and better narrowing of results, so I think specifically with DLSS5, it will get quicker and more performant.

But While DLSS/ML type upscaling is good I think a LOT of developers/publishers are using it as time saving on optimisation. Upscaling should be BONUS performance, not the baseline. And if you look at PC requirements for ANY major game recently, they list DLSS/FSR as the baseline for recommendation, which doesn't sit right with me.

Though I think the general animosity towards Nvidia is coming from a standpoint that GPUs and overall performance per-dollar hasn't been moving for a while, and often going backwards. A 5060 isn't THAT much faster than a 3060, and generations are taking longer and longer. So before when a game released with some crazy high-end performance requirements, it was one GPU upgrade away from being able to run it, and that upgrade was 12 months away at worst. Going from a GTX770 to a GTX970 meant the games you couldn't run at all before are now able to be run at max settings without issue. Someone on an RTX 5060 nowadays is still not really turning on Ray Tracing effects in 4 year old games and getting decent performance and that 5060 isn't really giving them the huge, generational boost to performance. When RT was first introduced with the RTX 20 series, it was one of those features that were only really for the top-tier 20-series RTX cards... and it still is only a feature seriously used by top-tier cards 3 generations later... So I think a lot of people see the writing on the wall that Incremental 20%-per-generation upgrades (accompanied with a proportionate increase to the price) on the mid-tier X60 and X70 series cards isn't enough to realistically imagine running these games transformatively any time soon.

I was one of those 'serious' gamers who got SLI Titan X graphics sards and was first in line for a Threadripper 1950X because I wanted the absolute bestest of the best, but even then, my entire PC including the multi-rad watercooling setup, cost less than a single 5090 now, and the 5090 is the only card this generation that saw a truly generational jump over the last generation. Everything else was a 20% boost (except the 5070 which is as fast as a 4090 /s), so slowly stagnating GPU generations, rising costs, and games that are running worse while looking like the games of yesterday at lower resolutions... People are pessimistic.

 

[littlegreenmenfromhome]

Upscaling should be BONUS performance, not the baseline.

The brute force age ended long agao, DLSS looks better than native and is the most preffered option and console have beeing doing upscaling for years too.
You entitlement is nothing but that...entitlment.

https://videocardz.com/newz/compute...referred-over-fsr-and-native-in-all-six-games
I could repeat my previous post, but I will just boil it down for you:

When nothing could ryn Crysis at MAXIUM setting, we made made about "But can it run Crysis?"
Toaday, we have people like you crying due to entitlement and a naive notion that "native should run maxed out!!"....when it never did.


Stop crying.

 

[Sycraft]

But While DLSS/ML type upscaling is good I think a LOT of developers/publishers are using it as time saving on optimisation. Upscaling should be BONUS performance, not the baseline. And if you look at PC requirements for ANY major game recently, they list DLSS/FSR as the baseline for recommendation, which doesn't sit right with me.

I mean... I don't know that is realistic without limiting either resolution, performance, or quality. Again: Low resolutions have been the norm on consoles since forever. Games would want to look shinier, so the devs would crank down the resolution and upscale it. Sometimes they both crank down the render AND output resolution if it is needed. Gets even more true every time we want to go up in rez, since it increases pixels a ton. The DIFFERENCE in pixel count between 4k and 1440p is more than double the TOTAL pixel count of 1080p. It's an awful lot to ask these higher resolution natively, and then pile on high FPS on top of that. 1920x1080 at 60fps, which let's face it looks perfectly good and is perfectly playable (and something many people do play at on both console and PC) requires only 6.25% of the pixels per second that 3840x2160 at 240fps requires. Assuming no other changes, you are asking a card to do 16x the work to achieve it. Modern high rez, high refresh, screens are just not something there is a realistic way to drive with native rendering unless you want it to be REAL simple.

Even if you leave the higher frame rate desire aside, 4k is 4x the pixels of 1080p. So asking something to render 4k at a given framerate is like asking it to do 1080p with 4x SSAA. So when something "only" runs at like 60fps 4k native... that's really not bad at all, even on a high end card.

Though I think the general animosity towards Nvidia is coming from a standpoint that GPUs and overall performance per-dollar hasn't been moving for a while, and often going backwards.

While some of that is their fault for cashing in, a lot of that is not their doing, it is physics and engineering on the chip side. If you have time to kill and are interested, go look in to the insane R&D that went in to making the EUV lithography machines, and the insane engineering required to build one. It is an expensive as fuck proposition, and it has raised what a wafer costs a lot. What's worse? It doesn't scale well, we are nearing the end of what will be commercially feasible with shrinking the process. Put simply, that means that we don't get more power for "free" like we used to. Used to be a new node came out, it was a lot smaller than the old one, and the per-wafer costs weren't a whole lot more so you literally got more transistor for less money. That is done, and it isn't because of nVidia, and it isn't even because of greed, it is because of physics. Unless we come up with some different way to do lithography (like massively parallel electron beam or the like) that is cheaper/faster, we aren't going to get the cost reductions we used to. Further, even if we do, we aren't all that far away from hitting more physics limits in terms of just not being able to make things smaller and still functional.

Hence why non-native rendering is even more important these days: We can't just brute force it. Chips aren't going to improve enough, and they are already so big, so power hungry, that we are hitting limits to how much we can get with doing more with more.

 

[KazeoHin]

I mean... I don't know that is realistic without limiting either resolution, performance, or quality. Again: Low resolutions have been the norm on consoles since forever. Games would want to look shinier, so the devs would crank down the resolution and upscale it. Sometimes they both crank down the render AND output resolution if it is needed. Gets even more true every time we want to go up in rez, since it increases pixels a ton. The DIFFERENCE in pixel count between 4k and 1440p is more than double the TOTAL pixel count of 1080p. It's an awful lot to ask these higher resolution natively, and then pile on high FPS on top of that. 1920x1080 at 60fps, which let's face it looks perfectly good and is perfectly playable (and something many people do play at on both console and PC) requires only 6.25% of the pixels per second that 3840x2160 at 240fps requires. Assuming no other changes, you are asking a card to do 16x the work to achieve it. Modern high rez, high refresh, screens are just not something there is a realistic way to drive with native rendering unless you want it to be REAL simple.

Even if you leave the higher frame rate desire aside, 4k is 4x the pixels of 1080p. So asking something to render 4k at a given framerate is like asking it to do 1080p with 4x SSAA. So when something "only" runs at like 60fps 4k native... that's really not bad at all, even on a high end card.


While some of that is their fault for cashing in, a lot of that is not their doing, it is physics and engineering on the chip side. If you have time to kill and are interested, go look in to the insane R&D that went in to making the EUV lithography machines, and the insane engineering required to build one. It is an expensive as fuck proposition, and it has raised what a wafer costs a lot. What's worse? It doesn't scale well, we are nearing the end of what will be commercially feasible with shrinking the process. Put simply, that means that we don't get more power for "free" like we used to. Used to be a new node came out, it was a lot smaller than the old one, and the per-wafer costs weren't a whole lot more so you literally got more transistor for less money. That is done, and it isn't because of nVidia, and it isn't even because of greed, it is because of physics. Unless we come up with some different way to do lithography (like massively parallel electron beam or the like) that is cheaper/faster, we aren't going to get the cost reductions we used to. Further, even if we do, we aren't all that far away from hitting more physics limits in terms of just not being able to make things smaller and still functional.

Hence why non-native rendering is even more important these days: We can't just brute force it. Chips aren't going to improve enough, and they are already so big, so power hungry, that we are hitting limits to how much we can get with doing more with more.

Once again, good points! I think the current AI-craze puts a lot of pricing specifically into a very abnormal context, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant or the effects on pricing isn't effecting general gaming sentiment right now.

The EUV manufacturing is downright witchcraft and I understand exactly why that has a hand in chips getting expensive, but also every chip designer (AMD, Intel, Nvidia) have increased their profit margins significantly, not just profit from selling a more expensive product, but the cut of that price that is pure profit. I know this is just supply and demand, only one company can etch the wafers, and Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Apple are all in a constant bid-war to secure their allocation, so prices everywhere, for enterprise, corporate and consumer go up, and as demand is high, the suppliers have more bargaining power to ask for higher levels of profit.

As for high resolutions, I follow the low-medium-high philosophy of 1080p is low spec, 1440p is medium spec, and 4K is high spec. 4K is a luxury, and people on a mid-range card should expect to use upscaling to reach 4K at 60FPS if at all. I also agree with you that 60FPS is an honest target (for me, a gaming experience is good if 60FPS is the minimum FPS and I aim for 120FPS as my maximum/average) and anything above that is expected that you'll trade some visual flair or resolution (DLSS or otherwise). I don't think anyone is playing a modern, high-profile game at 4K 240FPS without some kind of DLSS, even with a 5090. So saying that because 4K is demanding that upscaling should be standard is understandable, but the vast majority of PC gamers aren't playing at 4K. Even so, modern games expect mid-range cards to use upscaling (and sometimes aggressive upscaling such as DLSS 'performance') to reach playability at 1440p.

I think there is a considerable lack of effort by modern game developers to optimise, Monster Hunter Wilds was another game that looked okay at launch (not at all groundbreaking) but ran like absolute garbage, and a publisher looked at the performance, the requirements, the visual result and said "that's done" and shipped it. Were people really so wrong to ask "WTF is going on here?". The recent joke of Lego Batman's recommendations using FG to reach 30FPS is another one (though, its a damn Lego game, I don't think it's in the tripple-A category), or the fact that most everyone can spot an Unreal Engine game not by the visual quality but by periodic 30ms stutters... On the flip-side: I don't see anyone complaining or screaming about cyberpunk's RT overdrive or PT modes: because Cyberpunk provides something quite amazing for the level of performance it can offer. It looks good even at medium. Not many people question that the highest settings are going to destroy even the top-end PCs of today. The visuals and presentation command respect and the general sentiment is that Cyberpunk 2077 is REALLY well optimised, I know people who are HAPPY to run the game on medium, because Cyberpunk's medium looks and runs better than a lot of later games' 'ultra'.

Even my comparison to Crysis holds up: EA re-released Crysis a few years back, and it ran and looked worse than the original! I loaded up my boxed copy of Crysis after a few generations of graphics card upgrades (originally ran it on my Radeon 4830 back in the day, it was a mess!) and could run through the whole game on High or Very high at 60+ FPS 1440p (except the Tank and VTOL missions), yet years after, EA releases the same game that runs worse. It's a trend.

So this sentiment that "gamers are poor and entitled" is abit of a stretch. A lot (not all) of games today do not look good enough to justify how much they demand from your PC at any resolution. Pointing that out isn't entitlement, it's free market comparison.

Sorry for derailing the thread, this is specifically about DLSS5, which as I said, is cool but kind-of useless as a gaming technology right now, but I agree it will become better and better with official releases and better, more optimised training.

 

[littlegreenmenfromhome]

Once again, good points! I think the current AI-craze puts a lot of pricing specifically into a very abnormal context, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant or the effects on pricing isn't effecting general gaming sentiment right now.

The EUV manufacturing is downright witchcraft and I understand exactly why that has a hand in chips getting expensive, but also every chip designer (AMD, Intel, Nvidia) have increased their profit margins significantly, not just profit from selling a more expensive product, but the cut of that price that is pure profit. I know this is just supply and demand, only one company can etch the wafers, and Nvidia, AMD, Intel, Apple are all in a constant bid-war to secure their allocation, so prices everywhere, for enterprise, corporate and consumer go up, and as demand is high, the suppliers have more bargaining power to ask for higher levels of profit.

As for high resolutions, I follow the low-medium-high philosophy of 1080p is low spec, 1440p is medium spec, and 4K is high spec. 4K is a luxury, and people on a mid-range card should expect to use upscaling to reach 4K at 60FPS if at all. I also agree with you that 60FPS is an honest target (for me, a gaming experience is good if 60FPS is the minimum FPS and I aim for 120FPS as my maximum/average) and anything above that is expected that you'll trade some visual flair or resolution (DLSS or otherwise). I don't think anyone is playing a modern, high-profile game at 4K 240FPS without some kind of DLSS, even with a 5090. So saying that because 4K is demanding that upscaling should be standard is understandable, but the vast majority of PC gamers aren't playing at 4K. Even so, modern games expect mid-range cards to use upscaling (and sometimes aggressive upscaling such as DLSS 'performance') to reach playability at 1440p.

I think there is a considerable lack of effort by modern game developers to optimise, Monster Hunter Wilds was another game that looked okay at launch (not at all groundbreaking) but ran like absolute garbage, and a publisher looked at the performance, the requirements, the visual result and said "that's done" and shipped it. Were people really so wrong to ask "WTF is going on here?". The recent joke of Lego Batman's recommendations using FG to reach 30FPS is another one (though, its a damn Lego game, I don't think it's in the tripple-A category), or the fact that most everyone can spot an Unreal Engine game not by the visual quality but by periodic 30ms stutters... On the flip-side: I don't see anyone complaining or screaming about cyberpunk's RT overdrive or PT modes: because Cyberpunk provides something quite amazing for the level of performance it can offer. It looks good even at medium. Not many people question that the highest settings are going to destroy even the top-end PCs of today. The visuals and presentation command respect and the general sentiment is that Cyberpunk 2077 is REALLY well optimised, I know people who are HAPPY to run the game on medium, because Cyberpunk's medium looks and runs better than a lot of later games' 'ultra'.

Even my comparison to Crysis holds up: EA re-released Crysis a few years back, and it ran and looked worse than the original! I loaded up my boxed copy of Crysis after a few generations of graphics card upgrades (originally ran it on my Radeon 4830 back in the day, it was a mess!) and could run through the whole game on High or Very high at 60+ FPS 1440p (except the Tank and VTOL missions), yet years after, EA releases the same game that runs worse. It's a trend.

So this sentiment that "gamers are poor and entitled" is abit of a stretch. A lot (not all) of games today do not look good enough to justify how much they demand from your PC at any resolution. Pointing that out isn't entitlement, it's free market comparison.

Sorry for derailing the thread, this is specifically about DLSS5, which as I said, is cool but kind-of useless as a gaming technology right now, but I agree it will become better and better with official releases and better, more optimised training.

Sample size of one "remaster" is a bad foundation.
And CyberPunk 2077 disproves your claim..
At low setting it can run on a potato.
At max settings @ 4K it punishes any GPU to date.

Same can be said for a lot of games

You are getting into the Dunning-Kruger realm with your claims.
Learn to use settings and stop crying.

 

[Captain Newmackwa]

I might be alone with this opinion but, I wasn't particularly wowed by the graphics of Crysis back then but I was blown away with Half Life 2, Doom 3 and Far Cry when those came out. I was also impressed with Battlefield 1 and The Last of Us Pt. 1 so on. Admittedly, at first glance, path tracing to me just looks like a subtle improvement not worth the performance cost but when I start comparing fully rasterized games from before the ray tracing era, that's when I realize how much grounded, correct and realistic the lighting and reflections look with it.

I think DLSS 5 is a graphically transformative leap that wowed me, at least with some of the better examples I've seen. While it's not perfect, it's had the effect of making a lot of games look dated to me, particularly for the faces. In the end, it's all subjective to the individual and I'm aware that other people don't share my opinion.

I consider technologies like DLSS,FSR and XeSS as innovations that also improve efficiency over brute force rather than crutches for unoptimized games. Imagine if Crysis had DLSS 4.5 back then. It would have been possible to run very high, even ultra settings on mid range GPUs and the "Can it run Crysis?" meme wouldn't have been a thing. I don't understand why for some people, these technologies don't count when discussing the performance of bleeding edge graphics technologies like path tracing. They're supposed to be used together. FWIW, DLSS has come so far that there's very little downside to using it for better performance or making higher graphics settings more accessible. As long as it looks good and performs well, who cares how it's done. I guess I've become half full glass kind of person when it comes to game graphics techology advancements after seeing how far we've come in almost 30 years I've been a PC gamer. I can't believe I used to play PC games at 640x480 at 15-20fps on the family's expensive PC back then and I wasn't complaining about it on the internet.

edit: I am, by the way, a patient gamer ever since. I don't have the FOMO to play games at launch in a broken and unoptimized state so I tend to pick them up when they're on sale and have been patched up to fix most of their issues and such.

 

[Sycraft]

Once again, good points! I think the current AI-craze puts a lot of pricing specifically into a very abnormal context, but that doesn't mean it isn't relevant or the effects on pricing isn't effecting general gaming sentiment right now.

Yes, and I exclude the current insanity when thinking about prices. Right now they are in "monkey-fuck retarded" territory but even before that, they were getting more expensive for what you got. That is somewhat caused by profiteering on nVidia's part but mostly just by cost increases. They are paying a lot per wafer AND they are making bigger chips, meaning less yield per wafer which means higher costs. Likewise high bandwidth memory is expensive.

We've just reached the point where exponential scaling isn't happening anymore in chips, and it means that we aren't going to get the massive increases we used to.

As for high resolutions, I follow the low-medium-high philosophy of 1080p is low spec, 1440p is medium spec, and 4K is high spec. 4K is a luxury, and people on a mid-range card should expect to use upscaling to reach 4K at 60FPS if at all. I also agree with you that 60FPS is an honest target (for me, a gaming experience is good if 60FPS is the minimum FPS and I aim for 120FPS as my maximum/average)

While I'm with you on wanting more than 60 and really liking 120+, I also realize that is something that is more demanding than in the past, and while it is something I WANT it isn't NEEDED to make a game playable. I can see why tradeoffs are chosen that lower FPS but make things more shiny.

Some console developers found out a long time ago is that while people say like higher FPS, for most kinds of games they'll take 30fps and more shinines instead of 60fps. Hence why so many console games were 30fps back in the day, and so many now offer a "quality" mode that caps to 30 with better visuals.

The recent joke of Lego Batman's recommendations using FG to reach 30FPS is another one (though, its a damn Lego game, I don't think it's in the tripple-A category),

Ya but that wasn't real. I have no idea how they arrived at that stupid chart, but when HUB tested it you most certainly did NOT need framegen for good FPS, much less 30 fps. Game ran fairly well and, more importantly, scaled well in that if you turned down detail it got faster and still looked fine. It wasn't an example of a game sucking, it was an example of the Internet getting mad at something without adequate evidence.

So this sentiment that "gamers are poor and entitled" is abit of a stretch. A lot (not all) of games today do not look good enough to justify how much they demand from your PC at any resolution. Pointing that out isn't entitlement, it's free market comparison.

I think that there are less than you think, it is just those that get lots of screaming and lots of coverage. There's plenty that run quite well. A good example is the one that all this DLSS 5 crap would be based around: NBA 2k26. While it looks like the typical rehashed-ass sports game that nobody should buy, it runs well and looks just fine with DLSS5 off. Looks like about 124fps average on a 5070 at 4k native max settings. One that I (or rather my GF) has played so I can speak about first hand that's good is Black Flag Resync'd. Looks fantastic and runs well. Even cranked all the way up a 5080 can do 70fps at 1440p native and if you turn RT off, it still looks good and now even a 4070 is getting over 60fps at 1440p native. Turn on balanced upscaling and that 4070 can get 60fps in 4k. Forza 6 Horizon is another one that looks like it runs quite well. You can crank everything in including RT all the way up and still get 78fps at 4k native with a 5090. Turn off RT and a 4070 will do over 60fps at 4k native, drop down to the high preset and 1440p native and even an Arc B580 is good to just shy of 100fps.

I'm not trying to say there aren't shit optimized games out there. There 100% are. There always have been though. It's not new. However I think there is a confounding from some about what is bad optimization, and what is just "You want more out of this than your system can handle." The Digital Foundry guys actually talked about that recently about what can developers do to address the issue of people who get mad if everything can't be run on "ultra". Do they do like Avatar and lock settings away with a commandline to unlock "unobtainium"? Do they just make games look less flashy and rename "medium" to "Super Mega Ultra"?


Also in general with regards to people being hostile to upscaling, I think it is extremely misguided because back in the CRT days the answer if you couldn't run something fast enough was "turn down your rez bro." I think most of us gamed at a lower resolution than our desktop at least some of the time, if not most/all of the time. Well, upscaling is just doing that, but better. Rather than everything getting all pixelated it is still high rez, just not quite as clear, or stable. It also hasn't taken away the option of turning down the rez. You can 100% do that still.

 

[littlegreenmenfromhome]

When HardOCP was active, there used to be this thing called "Playable Settings".
https://hardforum.com/threads/h-ardocp-and-force-unleashed-testing-methods.1270366/#post-1032015786

It seems that "art" has been forgotten on these very forums and now we have crying over not being able to max settings on potato hardware at 2160p instead.

 

[pendragon1]

When HardOCP was active

curious, whats your old username?

It seems that "art" has been forgotten on these very forums and now we have crying over not being able to max settings on potato hardware at 2160p instead.

i dont think anyone is saying that, except you, over and over

 

[Prince Valiant]

Upscaling is for people who don't want to turn down other settings.

 

[kram182]

While I'm with you on wanting more than 60 and really liking 120+, I also realize that is something that is more demanding than in the past, and while it is something I WANT it isn't NEEDED to make a game playable. I can see why tradeoffs are chosen that lower FPS but make things more shiny.

Now with freesync/gsync as well, for single player games, I'm willing to let FPS fall below 60 to at least/most what the baseline of my monitors freesync/gsync range is (48FPS)

 

[AVATARAT]

Sample size of one "remaster" is a bad foundation.
And CyberPunk 2077 disproves your claim..
At low setting it can run on a potato.
At max settings @ 4K it punishes any GPU to date.

Same can be said for a lot of games

You are getting into the Dunning-Kruger realm with your claims.
Learn to use settings and stop crying.

“Cyberpunk 2077” was developed using REDengine 4—CD Projekt's proprietary game engine. That's exactly why it runs well on low settings.
But tell me, which game created with UE5 can do that? So please, don't try to compare them.

DLSS5 + UE5 = unplayable games. I bought a 240Hz monitor because I want games to run super smoothly, not like in the old days with 60 FPS games.

Don’t try to tell us how we should play with our game settings, especially people who own the monster 5090.
Because that card is supposed to run every game at massive FPS—and it does, except for that UE5 junk.

 

[littlegreenmenfromhome]

“Cyberpunk 2077” was developed using REDengine 4—CD Projekt's proprietary game engine. That's exactly why it runs well on low settings.
But tell me, which game created with UE5 can do that? So please, don't try to compare them.

DLSS5 + UE5 = unplayable games. I bought a 240Hz monitor because I want games to run super smoothly, not like in the old days with 60 FPS games.

Don’t try to tell us how we should play with our game settings, especially people who own the monster 5090.
Because that card is supposed to run every game at massive FPS—and it does, except for that UE5 junk.

And her ecomes the false entitlement
DLSS5 is out for 1 (ONE!) game.
The rest of games are ALL user-modded
Black Myth Wukong run fine FYI

But do tell me how CyberPunk 2077 run at 4K with DLSS5 on a 5090 for you?

 

[AVATARAT]

And her ecomes the false entitlement
DLSS5 is out for 1 (ONE!) game.
The rest of games are ALL user-modded
Black Myth Wukong run fine FYI

Let's see:

Game Science didn’t use UE5 out of the box. They made extensive custom modifications to the engine over years of development, optimizing it specifically for their game’s needs. The team reportedly spent significant time refining rendering, memory management, and asset streaming.

Unlike many UE5 games that attempt massive open worlds, Black Myth: Wukong uses semi-open levels rather than one enormous seamless world. This allows:
Better asset management and caching
More predictable memory usage
Easier optimization across different hardware configurations

The game uses several performance-enhancing techniques that many UE5 games don’t implement:
Aggressive LOD (Level of Detail) systems with more granular control
Custom occlusion culling that’s more efficient than default UE5
Smart asset streaming that loads only what’s needed
Custom shader compilation to reduce stuttering

And in the end, it just has better FPS on low settings, while on higher settings it runs like any other UE5 mess.

I'm sorry, but I don't use DLSS5—I don't want the extra heat, power consumption, and risk just for a few randomly placed shadows.

 

[littlegreenmenfromhome]

Let's see:

And in the end, it just has better FPS on low settings, while on higher settings it runs like any other UE5 mess.

I'm sorry, but I don't use DLSS5—I don't want the extra heat, power consumption, and risk just for a few randomly placed shadows.

So you are crying about the performance of user-modded technology that you do not use which means I can safely ignore you as that is some next-level retarded entitled crying.

 

[sharknice]

“Cyberpunk 2077” was developed using REDengine 4—CD Projekt's proprietary game engine. That's exactly why it runs well on low settings.
But tell me, which game created with UE5 can do that? So please, don't try to compare them.

DLSS5 + UE5 = unplayable games. I bought a 240Hz monitor because I want games to run super smoothly, not like in the old days with 60 FPS games.

Don’t try to tell us how we should play with our game settings, especially people who own the monster 5090.
Because that card is supposed to run every game at massive FPS—and it does, except for that UE5 junk.

Fortnite, Satisfactory, The Finals, Valorant.

 

[LukeTbk]

but also every chip designer (AMD, Intel, Nvidia) have increased their profit margins significantly,

Not by that much,
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/AMD/amd/profit-margins

AMD is still far from its 2021 crypto-console days of 25% (back up but to 15%), they have better gross but their R&D exploded and had to make giant acquisitions.

Intel is quite down, versus its great 2010s run:
https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/INTC/intel/profit-margins

Nvidia margin are still a bit exceptional in that space, looking more like those of a software company like that is not the norm.

 

[AVATARAT]

So you are crying about the performance of user-modded technology that you do not use which means I can safely ignore you as that is some next-level retarded entitled crying.

Anyone who disagrees with your opinion is a crybaby, and arguments don't matter—I get it, thanks.

*I don't need to eat every piece of junk I see to realize that junk isn't meant to be eaten.
DLSS5 is a technical innovation; it doesn’t need to be tested to see what it offers—there are plenty of videos and technical documentation.