THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
DLSS 5 - Generative AI
- Thread starter sharknice
- Start date
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,243
doesn't seem to be
- Joined
- Mar 20, 2017
- Messages
- 441
He specifically mentioned that for game play. For broadcast style close ups, he implied it did.
After watching it, it made me think if there was a way for DLSS 5 to be dynamically turned on or off for those kinds of games. On only for cut scenes/cinematic scenes and off during gameplay, particularly when the difference isn't that obvious. That said, I have seen some examples where DLSS 5 was transformative even during gameplay so it would be a case to case basis thing.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,716
Ok so I got DLSS5 setup in Control Resonant. So unlike the UE5 games, this game with DLSS5 actually looks fine even if DLSS is used instead of DLAA before the NR step, maybe it's because this game has proper path tracing along with RR 4.5 while Stalker 2 and Dawnwalker do not? I believe those two games are software lumen only and no RR support so maybe that's why using upscaling doesn't play very nicely with DLSS5 but I could be wrong.
Anyways, with full path tracing + DLAA + no DLSS5 at 1440p I can get about 70fps, turning on DLSS5 drops me below 60 but then using DLSS Quality I then get the same frame rate as path tracing + DLAA + no DLSS5. Kick on 2x FG and I'm at about 130fps, and since image quality doesn't take a significant hit this time around I've decided this is how I'll play the game (Path Tracing + DLSS Quality + DLSS5 + 2x FG). The DLSS5 upgrade definitely feels less significant in this game which is not what I was expecting since I thought giving it a path traced image is supposed to yield even more of an uplift as opposed to just pure raster. Here's a quick look:
View: https://youtu.be/SUAqLaXK-g8
Anyways, with full path tracing + DLAA + no DLSS5 at 1440p I can get about 70fps, turning on DLSS5 drops me below 60 but then using DLSS Quality I then get the same frame rate as path tracing + DLAA + no DLSS5. Kick on 2x FG and I'm at about 130fps, and since image quality doesn't take a significant hit this time around I've decided this is how I'll play the game (Path Tracing + DLSS Quality + DLSS5 + 2x FG). The DLSS5 upgrade definitely feels less significant in this game which is not what I was expecting since I thought giving it a path traced image is supposed to yield even more of an uplift as opposed to just pure raster. Here's a quick look:
View: https://youtu.be/SUAqLaXK-g8
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 25, 2012
- Messages
- 2,573
So far seems like UE5 games are the ones that are making the most of DLSS5 in the IQ department.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,243
"DLSS-NR-on-AMD Developer Delivers 74% Performance Boost On Radeon GPUs In A Single Day"
https://wccftech.com/dlss-nr-on-amd...ormance-boost-on-radeon-gpus-in-a-single-day/
littlegreenmenfromhome
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2025
- Messages
- 468
If you do not fuck up your settings, by tweaking stuff to 2.0 and 10 x passes DLSS 5 does wonders in games:
But that's how you have to use filters! The only option is turned all the way up. Here's my Satisfactory running with HDR, I put on the brightness adjustment and turned it up to max, because that is how it was meant to be used, right? 
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,212
It think we need to get performance at a more acceptable level. Ray Tracing is already a huge performance hit, and this on top of that makes it a luxury feature only for those who want to spend 5K on a video card...
That's its real issue at this point. nVidia is working on it, we'll see what they are able to do. If they can get it integrated with the upscaler it may become a lot more useful.
littlegreenmenfromhome
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2025
- Messages
- 468
Unustified entitlement these days.
People want their entry level GPU to do max settng with PT @ 4K and cannot lower settings to macth their hardware oh not it must be "bad optimization".
No GPU could run Doom3 at maxium settings at a high resolution monitor on release.
Neither couldCrysis.
Or the Witcher 3.
But now we have generation entitlement crying all the time.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,716
After playing around it for quite a bit, I can see why Nvidia currently chose not to run NR before upscaling. Heck, in some games just even using upscaling at all but still running NR on the final output resolution results in worst image stability compared to DLAA. Once they managed to improve things which I'm sure they will, then I will go back to a 4K monitor. But man I gotta say 1440p with DLAA preset M already looks so clean, I haven't gamed on a 1440p display since 2018 and thought I would never be able to go back once going 4K but the latest DLAA has really proven me wrong. I've been happily gaming at 1440p + DLAA + NR for the past 3 weeks and it's been amazing.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,243
looks goodBut that's how you have to use filters! The only option is turned all the way up. Here's my Satisfactory running with HDR, I put on the brightness adjustment and turned it up to max, because that is how it was meant to be used, right?
View attachment 828360
littlegreenmenfromhome
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2025
- Messages
- 468
Your posts indicates your are blinded by bias, so your opnion holds very little value in regards to neural rendering
- Joined
- Aug 29, 2025
- Messages
- 286
Apologies for the vague post, I forgot who I was wanting to reply to
I mean it is a first gen tech. I think this popped off well enough for a first go at it. Idk why people are so hung up on it - Is the power draw awful? Yes. Is it performance heavy? Yes. But like isn't that how all new tech is? That is the price you pay as an early adopter. In a gen or 2 this tech will be more usable and eventually solid.
I mean it is a first gen tech. I think this popped off well enough for a first go at it. Idk why people are so hung up on it - Is the power draw awful? Yes. Is it performance heavy? Yes. But like isn't that how all new tech is? That is the price you pay as an early adopter. In a gen or 2 this tech will be more usable and eventually solid.
yes making it work on NVFP4 instead of 8 bbits and at some sort of not on fhe full final resolution could help quite a bit.
It is small enough vram wise (specialy if it can go even lower ot the said "4bits") that it could eventually run on a Groq type portion of the silicon (that can be on a old node) and be extremelly fast. Will see what it look like on Rubin, could already be cut by more than half by then.
sharknice
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2012
- Messages
- 5,183
Yep, you see the consequences of it in games now. Max settings in most games target 60 fps for mid range hardware. And if it isn't people cry that it's "unoptimized".
People praise the new Doom games for being optimized, and they are. The graphics are good for the performance, but it is just that. You remove "for the perofrmance" and the graphics are unimpressive. Things games did a decade ago, ray tracing so scaled back you're not even sure they're using it. A far cry from the brand new next gen real time lighting tech Doom 3 had at the time, along with max settings texture detail that extended beyond top end GPU memory limits.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,716
Funny how back then when new high end graphics features were made with future hardware being able to run it in mind, we were pretty OK with it. Nowadays if some new tech comes out and it doesn't instantly run at 4K 240fps on an RTX 2060 people will get their pitch forks out.
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2004
- Messages
- 33,123
60 FPS was good back when we only had 60 Hz monitors. That time has passed, people are aware of 120 FPS+ now.
DLSS and FG were pretty huge because they allowed for better performance than native and good image quality. Now we're starting to get more crap thrown on top and framerates are dropping again...
I don't have a problem with DLSS5 in theory, but in practice it's not worth the massive framerate loss. We'll see if further iterations are more acceptable. A feature that's only feasible if you have a $5,000+ GPU is not a well-conceived feature.
Or sometime they hide the highest setting and call them unobtanium or wait to release them post launch as many publication will only benchmark the highest setting and for some reason many give importance to those, having some FOMO the moment they do not play at max setting, regardless of what the game actually look like at medium/high.
seem a non brainer that every game should have setting that let you go over any current computer can currently run, so 5-10 years laters you can use them when they require no additional work (like number of rays per pixel, ray bounce, range of LOD views and so on)
that seem a bit of an exageration (of a product of so much of the influencer running 4k monitors to play games).
There is a single game with official support making this a bit hard to tell, but a 5070ti max setting, 1440p was able to run it at 86 fps at launch, 5070 at 1080p was able to run over 100 fps and that without testing if High + dlss 5 look better than max setting instead, which is possible.
It is not currently a really working feature (single game support it, not a selling point for a gpu) of course, but it is one of the most rapid and closer to being workable proof of concept of a major new feature we saw, near movie type real time ray tracing or original DLSS were more rougher than this, this seem a single sram inference away to be way faster than traditional rendering at much higher quality and today it is already okish for a mod type experience.
Would not be surprising if it is already ready and just waiting for good game implementation before Rubin successor launch (and importantly for other game studio to make their own version with different training set/rewards, trained on their own z-brush high quality model and so on)
Or better image quality at same or better performance, there an array of possiblity with DLSS, better performance at the cost of lesser image quality being just one of them.
it's fine for benchmarking - you're supposed to find the max capabilities of the hardware - you can't do that if you still give the hardware room to breathe - you have to find its limits by going beyond
it's everyone expecting they should be able to achieve ultimate max in new titles at playable frames with even modern hardware that's really not the norm and the problem
Last edited:
I meant that type, when it is not an hardware review but more a game performance review:
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/silent-hill-townfall-performance-benchmark/5.html
they do change resolution for some reason, but not the settings, only ultra and they are not alone (https://www.dsogaming.com/pc-perfor...-townfall-benchmarks-pc-performance-analysis/)
So I could imagine why some studio decide to hide for the futur settings to not be the metric people see a bit everywhere before buying the game or not
even for that I think it's fine because a 'game performance review' like that is just a limited scope 'hardware benchmark review' by a different name and in one specific title - but I get what you mean - there are those who put out 'playable settings' videos etc that are more in line with what you're thinking/want where they try to establish a baseline of settings/HW combos for 'playable frame rate' like Digital Foundry etc (or old [H] playable settings reviews as an example of) - but the problem there is then people taking reviews like the one you posted and seeing 'unoptimized' when they can't hit playable frames with what they got - because unoptimization does exist and is a thing - but it's more indicative when settings/performance don't scale down properly or even 'lowly settings' aren't achievable/playable on more powerful HW that should be capable of etc
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,243
“Enthusiasts have released the open source AMD NR Launcher version 0.3.4.2, designed for automated integration of third-party rendering and scaling technologies into games on video cards
New in 0.3.4.2 (hotfix): the menu in Assetto Corsa: the menu key toggles once per press, clicks shorter than a frame are no longer lost, and the runtime chooser answers to 1 / 2 / Enter / Esc, has a title-bar X and closing the menu counts as Decide later. The runtime chooser no longer opens the menu by itself (one notice instead), the Ray Regeneration section of the Neural tab no longer hides - it is always there and one dim line says why it is not running - and the Wine / Proton text says that Ray Regeneration is a known issue there. AMDNR also accepts one more danielblnc runtime layout, so a newer danielblnc build can be driven without an AMDNR update. Neural Rendering is byte-identical to 0.3.4.1 except that one accepted-layout row (the neural pass, both runtimes and the pak are unchanged): coming from 0.3.4.1 or 0.3.4, replace OptiScaler.dll only; launcher users: it updates for you. Details: CHANGELOG.md. <@264506348232769536>”
https://videocardz.com/newz/modder-...ss-on-navi-32-radeon-rx-7000-gpus-using-zluda
New in 0.3.4.2 (hotfix): the menu in Assetto Corsa: the menu key toggles once per press, clicks shorter than a frame are no longer lost, and the runtime chooser answers to 1 / 2 / Enter / Esc, has a title-bar X and closing the menu counts as Decide later. The runtime chooser no longer opens the menu by itself (one notice instead), the Ray Regeneration section of the Neural tab no longer hides - it is always there and one dim line says why it is not running - and the Wine / Proton text says that Ray Regeneration is a known issue there. AMDNR also accepts one more danielblnc runtime layout, so a newer danielblnc build can be driven without an AMDNR update. Neural Rendering is byte-identical to 0.3.4.1 except that one accepted-layout row (the neural pass, both runtimes and the pak are unchanged): coming from 0.3.4.1 or 0.3.4, replace OptiScaler.dll only; launcher users: it updates for you. Details: CHANGELOG.md. <@264506348232769536>”
https://videocardz.com/newz/modder-...ss-on-navi-32-radeon-rx-7000-gpus-using-zluda
Last edited:
Prince Valiant
Gawd
- Joined
- May 3, 2023
- Messages
- 842
They cover lower settings on the previous page. You can roughly extrapolate from there.
https://www.techpowerup.com/review/silent-hill-townfall-performance-benchmark/4.html
The more that I read this thread the more I would like to try DLSS5. I have a 4090, is it worth my time to try it on a 4090? I have an Asus Tuf 4090 that I was recently offered $2,000 for. I was planning on waiting for the 6090 but that could be a long wait, do I just get a 5090? Lastly could someone try it on BG3 for some Shadowheart images ?
Thanks
Thanks
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2000
- Messages
- 78,915
do not part with your 4090....
try it.
try it.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,716
Thank you for this. The difference is subtle and almost imperceptible with a casual glance but it is there and it certainly makes her more life like. It is a testament to the quality of the animation team at Larian but there is no question about how much more natural and alive she looks.
That settles it pendragon, my friend and I are about to start an honor mode run of the game and if the performance is good enough (I mean it should be the game is turn based after all) I will run it with DLSS5.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,716
Performance cost of DLSS5 is actually fixed and is dependent on output resolution. HardwareUnboxed made a chart with the performance costs at 4K and 1440p. The 4090 can run DLSS5 faster than the 5080 can so you can extrapolate the data between 5080 and 5090 and make an estimate on how much the performance cost is going to be for a 4090 and then use that figure to determine how much fps you can target.
If you are playing at 4K, the expected render cost of DLSS5 on a 4090 is going be between 7.9ms and 13.7ms, at 1440p it would be between 3.6ms and 6.1ms so just go with the halfway mark and estimate that the rendering cost would be 10.8ms at 4K and 4.9ms at 1440p. This is the reason why I downgraded from a 4K to 1440p display as DLSS5 literally runs more than twice as fast at 1440p than it does at 4K. Plus I can run just about any game with DLAA at 1440p and remove upscaling from the equation entirely.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2005
- Messages
- 18,243
Injecting DLSS 5 Into The Witcher 3 Remastered Gives Geralt a Much-Needed Facelift
https://wccftech.com/the-witcher-3-remastered-dlss-5-geralt-facelift-performance-cost/
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,212
"If performance is low, I won't use it"
"HOW FUCKING DARE YOU fucking entitled generation of crybabies BACK IN MY DAY... "
littlegreenmenfromhome
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 27, 2025
- Messages
- 468
You sound like someone too stupid to lower settings...aka crybaby entitlement, thanks for proving my point.
No, it is more like "If I can't run all settings completely maxed out I'll cry that the devs suck and it is 'unoptimized garbage' because my ego requires that everything be turned all the way up."
That's the real issue, is that people seem to cry any time something isn't able to be fast on their hardware. That's very different from saying "This is too slow, I'll turn it off," or "This isn't worth the performance cost, I'll turn down the settings." It is basically demanding that setting be capped lower so they can feel better about their system.
The point is that highest settings have long included things that most people couldn't run, or couldn't run fast. This goes all the way back to GL Quake. It had the ability to request multi-texturing where it would do both texture passes, the actual textures and the lightmaps, in one pass. This would increase speed a lot... but at the time it was release the Voodoos that people had couldn't do it. Only the high end Obsidian cards that happened to put a second TMU on board (which the Voodoo 1 supported but didn't require) could handle it. Very niche feature. Now that was a performance increase, not visual increase, but still an example of "Here's an option only for very select few cards." Likewise you take something like Doom 3's uncompressed textures. You could ask it to but textures in RAM completely uncompressed. That resulted in a very minor visual upgrade... at the cost of a lot of VRAM. I don't know if there were any cards that had enough when it came out, certainly not gamer cards, they'd be pro cards if they did. It was very much a "This is a minor quality improvement, really only targeted at future GPUs."
I get being mad if a game REQUIRES technology that makes it run slow, or if turning down settings just doesn't help and the game runs like ass no matter what. That's a situation of either the game being optimized like shit, or just needing a redesign. However there's nothing wrong with features that really push the envelope and are more targeted at the future than the present if they are optional. DLSS 5 is for sure that kind of thing right now. It really only runs usably on a 5090, and even this is a heavy price to pay. Not the kind of thing I would be ok with a game demanding. However a game having it as an option? Sure no problem. Hopefully its speed gets improved in the future and hopefully (someday) we get new faster GPUs and it becomes more feasible to run.
Same deal as a lot of "ultra" setting in games in general. Many times you'll look at "ultra" quality shadows and the difference between them and high or medium are pretty minor, but the performance impact is larger. Well... don't use ultra then. Nothing is forcing it. It's an option if there's performance left on the table and you'll take the minor quality increase. Otherwise, turn it down. It's only an issue if Ultra looks good but hits hard, and High looks like ass and still hits pretty hard.
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2011
- Messages
- 10,212
That also frustrates me, but there's a knee-jerk reaction from a lot of PC gamers that "optimisation" is just an excuse for people below minimum spec.
There are a lot of noisy people who want everything to run on ULTRA, but in my experience with building gaming PCs professionally for over a decade, people know to turn down settings to meet their performance goals: It's when turning down a game to 'medium' makes it look and run worse than another game's 'ultra', people take notice. Borderlands 4 was a great example. If you showed me a HUD-free screenshot from Borderlands 4, and another from Borderlands 3, and asked me which one was which, or which one had better graphics.... It would honestly be hard to tell. But in motion I can immediately tell which one is which based on performance.
When people say Borderlands 4 ran like shit, it was because the cost/benefit was WAY skewed towards 'cost'. If Borderlands 4 looked amazing, with visuals that were unprecedented and pushed the industry forward, but ran exactly the same as it does now: people would probably not complain about it's performance, because the benefit would be much higher in the cost/benefit equation. You could say "just buy a 5090" but in truth, real-time graphics are pushed forward and improved through innovating efficiencies not brute force. Crysis was incredibly demanding in 2007 (jesus nearly 20 years ago my god I'm old) but it also looked so much better than anything else and most importantly it could actually run on someone's PC. There were tons of innovations in how Crytek developed their engine that made it possible to do things that had never been done. Crysis on 'medium' looked better than every other game on 'very high'. but it also ran decently on the lower settings. A person could understandably see where all of their GPU power was going, even people running the game on low were experiencing a game that was described as "impossible" before it released.
Nowadays, many many MANY modern games are made with VERY low levels of benefit to their performance cost (Borderlands 4 mentioned above). When people claim that a game isn't optimised, often it's because they can't really articulate the actual problem that the game's visuals look underwhelming for the amount of processing power they demand. Some of that is just diminishing returns of fidelity, but a lot of it is factory-mindset game design where making something ship is more important than making it good, horrendous stuttering, framerate dips, requiring a $1000 video card to make the game look barely better than a 10 year old game... the list goes on.
DLSS5 is cool, and I know so many people who were excited to try it, and go 'ooooh' 'aaaah' and then turn it off... because it's just NOT performant. The benefit of DLSS5 isn't worth the cost of the framerate for MOST people. Bringing that up isn't crying that it can't run on their hardware. It's saying "I don't think it runs well enough to be worth the visual result". Which is like someone saying "I don't think that thing is worth the money" or "if that thing was cheaper, I'd buy it". I think if Nvidia wants people to use it instead of being a novel curiosity, they need to decrease the amount of performance required to sacrifice in order to run it...
And you know what those in software development call it when a desired function is reached with newer methods that use less computing resources than previous methods? Optimisation.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,716
DLSS5 will get more performant over time. The current state that DLSS5 is in right now is the worst that it will ever be, it's only going to get better from here. Remember how bad DLSS 1.0 was? It was so ass that you could get better image quality and performance by running your game at 1800p upscaled to 4K with TAA instead of using DLSS 1.0. Now fast forward today and look at how far it's come, 4.5 performance mode rendering internally at 1080p will look better than native 4K + TAA. And if any modern high budget game today ships without DLSS support then you have media outlets like HUB and DF grilling the devs for not having it, could anyone possibly imagine them having that kind of stance back in 2018 with DLSS 1.0? DLSS5 today even in it's unofficial state and being injected into games through mods is actually useable and delivers solid results unlike DLSS 1.0 so personally I'm pretty excited about how much better it's going to be in the future. Once the render cost at 4K gets reduced to around 4ms whether through optimizations or more likely, through the RTX 6090 being twice as fast at NR than the 5090 is, I'll happily start using it at 4K.
Last edited:
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.
- Joined
- Jul 5, 2012
- Messages
- 4,716
Witcher 3 Remastered that just came out today. Just waiting on the new RenoDX HDR mod before I do a playthrough.
