More DLSS...

Maddness

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Oct 24, 2014
Messages
1,253
Yeah, I have almost 1,000 games, I'll never finish.

But I do take time to play new releases like Control or Metro Exodus.

Got caught up on Far Cry, still trying to catch up on Assassin's Creed (up to 3 now).

That's dedication there, 1,000 games wow. I have maybe 20 at best and with kids and a full time job and also have to make sure there is time for the wifey and me, I find it difficult having enough hours in the day and night.
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,733
That's dedication there, 1,000 games wow. I have maybe 20 at best and with kids and a full time job and also have to make sure there is time for the wifey and me, I find it difficult having enough hours in the day and night.
Judging by the years of release he has stated for games he is playing + "1,000 games" = Likely has a ton of games from back when Steam sales were crazy good and not just good - pretty good.

---

Hopefully all of those newly announced games actually get DLSS implemented. And hopefully Nvidia takes the time and care to make sure it is implemented well. I only own one DLSS game, Death Stranding. And the implementation there does not seem to be as good as some other games, based on youtube comparison videos. But as I noted in my own video, those can sometimes skip over clear issues. I was looking at Monster Hunter World comparisons and the DLSS in that definitely has a blurry quality to it and the AA isn't stellar, either. Even though it is said to be DLSS 2.0.
 
Last edited:

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,733
Do you live under a rock? This s*** has already been covered in depth on places like digital foundry and again it is a 100% goddamn fact that dlss 2.0 in quality mode looks better overall and runs better than native resolution. That goes for Wolfenstein Youngblood, Control, and Death Stranding.
Digital Foundry's video did not highlight the issues which I highlighted, with DLSS in Death Stranding.


I do not have any other games with DLSS. But, after Digital Foundry's coverage of DLSS in Death Stranding, I am now suspect of any other DLSS comparison videos.

Indeed, DLSS delivers excellent anti-aliasing in Death Stranding. But, it also compromises some key visual effects. Such that it looks like lower graphical settings and even lower color depth. The vegetation in the terrain also does not look quite as good as native res and certainly not better. But to be fair, most of the vegetation in Death Stranding is pretty simple stuff, anyway.

It also seems like DLSS results can vary from game to game. I'm not sure if that's an issue of care during development, or specific visuals in specific games not fairing as well. But, I recently looked at some Monster Hunter World comparisons, and even the ant-aliasing was NOT nearly as good as I am used to see in DLSS comparisons, for other games.


I finally made a video about Death Stranding's DLSS implementation. Digital Foundry only noted one real visual issue and when I try to talk about it, people usually respond with something like "what issues? what are you talking about?"
 
Last edited:

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,487
Digital Foundry's video did not highlight the issues which I highlighted, with DLSS in Death Stranding.


I do not have any other games with DLSS. But, after Digital Foundry's coverage of it, I am now suspect of any other DLSS comparison videos.

Indeed, DLSS delivers excellent anti-aliasing in Death Stranding. But, it also compromises some key visual effects. Such that it looks like lower graphical settings. The vegetation in the terrain also does not look quite as good as native res and certainly not better. But to be fair, most of the vegetation in Death Stranding is pretty simple stuff, anyway.

I can get you control if you'd do an in-depth side by side, imho it is the best implementation of DLSS 2.0, it still doesn't seem quite right.

As for DF, I've always found reviewers will avoid the level of deep dive required to actually compare a upscaler like DLSS to the original image, and will instead focus on the running gameplay as that will be enough for most users. The details you highlight are hard to notice and imho many users would overlook them for the performance gain.

I don't believe that Ricky T has any interest in acting in good faith, they just want to pollute the AMD thread. Though maybe they will buck up and continue the discourse here in the appropriate thread.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,457
I liked DLSS in Control. I disagree that it looks better than native, that is marketing BS. You do see some blurry text, or sometimes halos and strange artifacts.

But it looks "good enough" and worth the performance boost. Especially since ray tracing is not viable at high refresh without DLSS or lowering settings so much that it sucks.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,487
I liked DLSS in Control. I disagree that it looks better than native, that is marketing BS. You do see some blurry text, or sometimes halos and strange artifacts.

But it looks "good enough" and worth the performance boost. Especially since ray tracing is not viable at high refresh without DLSS or lowering settings so much that it sucks.
DLSS 2.0 was decent in control, well at least playable, it still looked 'off' like you lost little details in exchange which is what I would expect from upscaling.

DLSS 1 in control was a mess, it looked terrible in motion.

I'll try to get around to doing some recordings and side by sides, shouldn't be that difficult and I have the AWE and foundation expansion to hit up.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,457
Cool. I played Foundation, haven't booted up AWE yet but Control was one of my favorite games of all time (probably top 10).
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,733
I can get you control if you'd do an in-depth side by side, imho it is the best implementation of DLSS 2.0, it still doesn't seem quite right.

As for DF, I've always found reviewers will avoid the level of deep dive required to actually compare a upscaler like DLSS to the original image, and will instead focus on the running gameplay as that will be enough for most users. The details you highlight are hard to notice and imho many users would overlook them for the performance gain.

I don't believe that Ricky T has any interest in acting in good faith, they just want to pollute the AMD thread. Though maybe they will buck up and continue the discourse here in the appropriate thread.

Well...I don't agree that the details I highlighted in Death Stranding, are difficult to notice. The rain effect is very noticeably affected. So much so, the "feel" is very different during rain with DLSS. And most shader effects related to making things look wet or glinting/sparkling light effects, look like lower graphical settings, with DLSS in Death Stranding. Indeed, some people may not notice this. However, I think that many will. Especially now that some youtube channels have re-focused attention on graphical details.
 

TurboGLH

Gawd
Joined
Dec 19, 2002
Messages
663
DLSS 2.0 is literally the same or BETTER image quality than native res. This isn't a compromise. It's progress.

No one here would be touting DLSS as a feature if it wasn't at least on-par or better than the native renderer.

madpistol

You notice that people keep arguing with you, wonder why? The comparisons between native and DLSS have been done with TAA on, which has noticeably smear. It's ludicrous to think that upsampling, no matter how good, is better than the actual resolution you're trying to emulate. Actual detail will always be better than an approximation.
 

noko

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Apr 14, 2010
Messages
5,703
The first issue I'm seeing is with fencing or lines. It is significantly smoother on native. This is one area where DLSS is significantly better.
In motion it seemed to hold up well, better than I expected. Number of lines had aliasing on the still portions but in motion they all seemed to blend in well.
 

Oscar Meyer

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 9, 2009
Messages
325
Before...

awkZxQycqvMRsxT7bTmL7i-1604-80.png




After

call-of-duty-black-ops-cold-war-dlss-november-2020-3840x2160-performance.png




Seeing it in action


 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,733
Performance Mode is running the game internally at 1080p. So that's why the numbers look so good. Additionally, those numbers seem to be a bit cherry picked. I.E. a game scene with a lighter load.

The video you linked is quality mode. Which is at least 1440p. It may even be a bit higher than that. I can't remember what the split is on quality mode. but performance mode is half the vertical and horizontal resolution.
 
Last edited:

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,076
I finally made a video about Death Stranding's DLSS implementation. Digital Foundry only noted one real visual issue and when I try to talk about it, people usually respond with something like "what issues? what are you talking about?"

Building off of this, I posted this in the Control thread:

DLSS seems to have some visual issues. Namely, light reflections on surfaces like floors. With DLSS off it looks normal, and stays still unless you start panning the camera which will change how you view a certain reflection/scattering of the light. With DLSS on, it is constantly scattering. Like running water. It is certainly noticeable and doesn't look very natural. Will you notice this in actual game play? Doubtful. DLSS in Death Stranding seems to reduce water quality in the distance in my experience, read an article which has screen shots showing that happen in that game so DLSS isn't perfect.

Might check around some more after watching your video.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,454
You don't stand still that often in either game - I hadn't noticed the DLSS stuff in control until you mentioned it, and since you're generally moving, you just don't ~see~ it. You only do if you're standing still in a place with the right reflections.
 

madpistol

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
385
Let's be honest. DLSS does not look as good as native res, at least not in this gen. To me, this is ok, since the main reason to use DLSS is to allow ray tracing to work well. AMD doesn't have a tech similar to DLSS (yet), and as you can see in the RX 6000 cards, turning on any try traced effect, with the exception of shadows, causes a catastrophic performance hit. Rumor is that DLSS 3.0 will no longer require extensive offline training like DLSS 2.0 does, and thus, could work on many different titles (including ones that don't necessarily support it). If this is true, then AMD will be in a lot of trouble as Nvidia will have innovated in such a way that the performance hit due to RT is negligible.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,487
Let's be honest. DLSS does not look as good as native res, at least not in this gen. To me, this is ok, since the main reason to use DLSS is to allow ray tracing to work well. AMD doesn't have a tech similar to DLSS (yet), and as you can see in the RX 6000 cards, turning on any try traced effect, with the exception of shadows, causes a catastrophic performance hit. Rumor is that DLSS 3.0 will no longer require extensive offline training like DLSS 2.0 does, and thus, could work on many different titles (including ones that don't necessarily support it). If this is true, then AMD will be in a lot of trouble as Nvidia will have innovated in such a way that the performance hit due to RT is negligible.

Cafeful, that kind of opinion is likely to get you lynched by some.

Personally I agree, it has light reflection problems, removes small details (rain), has a checkerboarding effect, and various other minor effects.

It does give you a good enough experience and a great frame rate boost.
 

madpistol

Limp Gawd
Joined
May 17, 2020
Messages
385
Cafeful, that kind of opinion is likely to get you lynched by some.

Personally I agree, it has light reflection problems, removes small details (rain), has a checkerboarding effect, and various other minor effects.

It does give you a good enough experience and a great frame rate boost.
DLSS in its current form is "good enough". Personally, I'm excited for the future of this tech. It's still in its infancy, so it will be cool to see where we go in the next several years.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,454
DLSS in its current form is "good enough". Personally, I'm excited for the future of this tech. It's still in its infancy, so it will be cool to see where we go in the next several years.
And I think that’s the point. You can sacrifice some detail that you’ll likely not notice when actually playing, to get more performance for said playing. If you want it to just look pretty, run at native res. You get the option. :).
 

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,733
Let's be honest. DLSS does not look as good as native res, at least not in this gen. To me, this is ok, since the main reason to use DLSS is to allow ray tracing to work well. AMD doesn't have a tech similar to DLSS (yet), and as you can see in the RX 6000 cards, turning on any try traced effect, with the exception of shadows, causes a catastrophic performance hit. Rumor is that DLSS 3.0 will no longer require extensive offline training like DLSS 2.0 does, and thus, could work on many different titles (including ones that don't necessarily support it). If this is true, then AMD will be in a lot of trouble as Nvidia will have innovated in such a way that the performance hit due to RT is negligible.
AMD is working with Microsoft and their Azure cloud computing, on an DirectML (ML = Machine Learning) powered upscaling method. Indication from AMD so far, is that it will be general use (possibly implying a driver level toggle). But it could also be implemented for game specific training. I said in another thread already, that I suspect Microsoft will be doing game specific training, for their exclusives, at the least.
 
Last edited:

chameleoneel

2[H]4U
Joined
Aug 15, 2005
Messages
3,733
And I think that’s the point. You can sacrifice some detail that you’ll likely not notice when actually playing, to get more performance for said playing. If you want it to just look pretty, run at native res. You get the option. :).
It depends on the game and how well the AI training works. The many faults in Death Stranding's DLSS are very apparent. Which isn't to say it necessarily looks bad. But it definitely looks like the game is running at lower settings.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,454
It depends on the game and how well the AI training works. The many faults in Death Stranding's DLSS are very apparent. Which isn't to say it necessarily looks bad. But it definitely looks like the game is running at lower settings.
I’ll admit I have only fired that up once, briefly. Control it works almost perfectly- you only notice if you’re playing with the RT lights instead of actually playing the game- and I’m cool with the extra 30-40FPS
 

LukeTbk

Limp Gawd
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
396
Let's be honest. DLSS does not look as good as native res, at least not in this gen. To me, this is ok, since the main reason to use DLSS is to allow ray tracing to work well. AMD doesn't have a tech similar to DLSS (yet), and as you can see in the RX 6000 cards, turning on any try traced effect, with the exception of shadows, causes a catastrophic performance hit. Rumor is that DLSS 3.0 will no longer require extensive offline training like DLSS 2.0 does, and thus, could work on many different titles (including ones that don't necessarily support it). If this is true, then AMD will be in a lot of trouble as Nvidia will have innovated in such a way that the performance hit due to RT is negligible.
From what I understood that already what DLSS 2.0 brought, it is training itself using generic render (at normal then at 16K ultra quality) on NVidia supercomputers, not using specific game to learn.

The games still need some work to feed the DSSL (motion vector for the system being able to predict the near future or something like that), even if they do not need extra work to have super resolution texture and so on to make ultra high resolution / ultra high quality image for the learning algorithm.
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,487
I’ll admit I have only fired that up once, briefly. Control it works almost perfectly- you only notice if you’re playing with the RT lights instead of actually playing the game- and I’m cool with the extra 30-40FPS
I played control without RT at about 40fps when it came out because DLSS 1 sucked.

2 is markedly better, but certain things in motion are still not right, mostly to do with the lighting, those flashing glitch balls, the smoke effect when you defeat the hiss, little objects in the distance, just a little off.

Overall I am not surprised most people don't notice these things, they are small and usually not the focus of attention.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,454
I played control without RT at about 40fps when it came out because DLSS 1 sucked.

2 is markedly better, but certain things in motion are still not right, mostly to do with the lighting, those flashing glitch balls, the smoke effect when you defeat the hiss, little objects in the distance, just a little off.

Overall I am not surprised most people don't notice these things, they are small and usually not the focus of attention.
And if you play from the beginning with those enabled you don’t realize that’s not how it’s supposed to look. I haven’t tried with it off; I’m on a 120hz screen at 1440P, wanted it to play well. I honestly thought that’s how it was supposed to look, and you’re so busy not dying...
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,487
And if you play from the beginning with those enabled you don’t realize that’s not how it’s supposed to look. I haven’t tried with it off; I’m on a 120hz screen at 1440P, wanted it to play well. I honestly thought that’s how it was supposed to look, and you’re so busy not dying...
I understand, I'm one of those finicky gamers who constantly tweaks IQ settings just for kicks, especially with something new like DLSS.
 

lopoetve

Fully [H]
Joined
Oct 11, 2001
Messages
30,454
I understand, I'm one of those finicky gamers who constantly tweaks IQ settings just for kicks, especially with something new like DLSS.
I used to. Lord, the time I used to take... now I crank up all the settings, turn on one level of DLSS if it’s there, and go play. :). Now I’m going to have to go try it with DLSS off. How does it run on a 3080 without super sampling?
 

Aireoth

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Oct 12, 2005
Messages
4,487
I used to. Lord, the time I used to take... now I crank up all the settings, turn on one level of DLSS if it’s there, and go play. :). Now I’m going to have to go try it with DLSS off. How does it run on a 3080 without super sampling?
probably good, I was 40's with a 2080 ti, medium rtx settings, 3440/1440 monitor
 

Flogger23m

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Jun 19, 2009
Messages
11,076
I agree that the "better than native" was a stretch, but DLSS 2.0 looks more than "good enough" and with substantially better performance, which we always need. So it's worth it.

Check the video a few pages back for Death Stranding. I'd say the differences a bit more noticeable in the game, will retry myself because I think it will standout more in real time than on youtube. Seems like a decent image quality downgrade. Is the down grade worth it from a frame rate perspective? I suppose so. Kind of like turning down those few effects like soft shadows that you don't see much but tank FPS by 10-15%. But it does affect a lot in Death Stranding. So I suppose if max graphic settings aren't priority for you, it would make sense.

Really depends on the setup, how many frames you're getting and how many you want.

Hopefully the next iteration will be better.
 

cybereality

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 22, 2008
Messages
6,457
Right. Well I'm on 160Hz and can't play any game if it's under 90fps, so DLSS was a must for ray-tracing in games like Control and Metro (haven't got to Death Stranding yet).

So if it is a choice between slightly worse image quality or unplayable fps, well it's DLSS all the way for me.
 

Bman123

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Dec 19, 2007
Messages
4,946
Right. Well I'm on 160Hz and can't play any game if it's under 90fps, so DLSS was a must for ray-tracing in games like Control and Metro (haven't got to Death Stranding yet).

So if it is a choice between slightly worse image quality or unplayable fps, well it's DLSS all the way for me.
I agree with you on this. At 3440x1440 it's hard to get great FPS even with a 3070 sometimes. This is where DLSS really helps out
 
Top