More DLSS...

It doesn't really need tensor cores. That cat was let outta the bag with Control's initial DLSS 1.9 implementation that ran on shaders just fine. Plus it's well known that pre-trained AI's are not hard to run.
 
I guess you could do without tensor cores if you want to sacrifice speed. They ultimately exist to accelerate certain types of math that the inference heavily uses.

DLSS will quickly get less impressive if you add just a couple more milliseconds to its runtime.
 
TrunksZero said:
It doesn't really need tensor cores. That cat was let outta the bag with Control's initial DLSS 1.9 implementation that ran on shaders just fine. Plus it's well known that pre-trained AI's are not hard to run.
Click to expand...
It does to run how quickly it runs.
 
Not really. It ran just fine in Control. Perfectly fast and one of the better looking versions of DLSS 1 before they updated it to DLSS 2.0.

As to if DLSS 2.0 could be done without tensor cores. The closest we got is UE5's Temporal Super Resolution. Doesn't appear to be entirely the same, as I don't think it's using an pre-trained AI, but it looks reeeeeal close.
 
Exactly my point. UE5 TSR is extremely impressive (like DLSS2, and unlike FSR) and runs on shaders.
 
TrunksZero said:
It doesn't really need tensor cores. That cat was let outta the bag with Control's initial DLSS 1.9 implementation that ran on shaders just fine. Plus it's well known that pre-trained AI's are not hard to run.
Click to expand...
The difference in result between the 1.x and 2.x DLSS implementation of Control do seem large too:


If I am not misleading before 2.0 DLSS had to be trained for your specific exact game that would ran it and learn for the specific game, 2.x is a major step in term of intelligence because it is a general training not specific to the game that is used. The much better result seem to be at the cost of running slower has well, so it is a bit speculative, that the millisecond cost would still be perfectly fine on the regular shaders.
 
Hi. I have a question about Control game.
Using 1440P DLSS 960P. When i am standing in the some spots place in game,nothing happens. Gpu load just fluctuate between83-90% and fps jumping between83fps-90fps. I am not touching mouse or keyboard just looking. That doesnt happen without DLSS, without DLSS fps is steady like 81fps and steady 99% gload. Thx IS this normal?




I have Gigabyte Rtx 3090 OC ( stock ) and 10850K stock ,32gb ram.
 
Last edited:
I guess you're teetering at the edge of becoming CPU limited with DLSS enabled.
 
mgty23 said:
cpu too weak?
Click to expand...
Just think about that you're using essentially the fastest GPU made that also doesn't scale well at lower resolutions and you're running a pitifully low 960p so of course the GPU usage is not going to be pegged and fluctuate in areas that aren't needing that much graphics power at such a low resolution. There's not a CPU in the world that can keep a 3090 fully pegged at all times at that resolution.
 
jobert said:
Just think about that you're using essentially the fastest GPU made that also doesn't scale well at lower resolutions and you're running a pitifully low 960p so of course the GPU usage is not going to be pegged and fluctuate in areas that aren't needing that much graphics power at such a low resolution. There's not a CPU in the world that can keep a 3090 fully pegged at all times at that resolution.
Click to expand...
ah oki
 
Wait. I Restarted game and 98% gpu usage with DLSS on the same scene without ,nothing happening on screen. Any ideas? Now have 90FPS with 98% usage with DLSS 960P
I just restarted game. Maybe it was some memory leak or something? tested the same place identical. Before i restarted game i had 85%gpu usage and 80fps. Now have 100fps with 95% usage.Why?


To get back gpu usage to normal i must just restart game. Any ideas? I dont have any background programs.
 
Last edited:
Last edited:
DLSS was really poor in B4B during beta. I hope they applied a more recent version for launch, because the ghosting artifacts were really noticeable, albeit not too distracting.
 
chameleoneel said:
Wow, 10 games added DLSS. That's a big drop!
Click to expand...
I almost want to install Rise again to see what it looks like with DLSS at 4K. I still have Shadow installed; so will be neat to see what DLSS does for that game. I remember playing it on my 2080Ti and it looked like crap with DLSS 1.0... so much so, it was better just playing with RT off.
 
DooKey said:
DLSS is definitely coming into its own. It won't be going away anytime soon.
Click to expand...

With the strong current trend (tv maker and all around people that push resolution over a lot of things) I think you are right, even if VR does not catch up, we can expect 6 or even 8K to be pushed by the tv industry and the game developer pushing limits in a way that upscaling will continue to be done in some way or other a lot and the best one will have value.
 
I am more impressed with DLSS than FSR, first real time with FSR at 4K in FarCry 6 was a letdown. Very nice new game lineup plus I am replaying the Tomb Raiders so may come in handy having DLSS 2.x in them. What is striking with DLSS is the AA part, top notch and better than any TA I've seen. Only issue I've seen with DLSS is the ghosting around moving edges, also the occasional noticeable update/improvement of a scene making it not invisible to the player, meaning a visual processing step which can be distracting such as a sign that is blurry then suddenly becoming clear. Control had flashing textures and some edges would flash, artifacting, which was unusable in my case. Still, DLSS looks like it has a lot of room to expand and improve due to the AI (processing) part in it.

Now that FSR is out, it may have invigorated Nvidia to push DLSS in more games which is good. It would be very nice if an API level type of DLSS (AI based) was adopted for both Vulkan and DX12.
 
It wouldn't makes sense for this to be part of DX12/Vulkan as they are super low level and not concerned with stuff like this. But I do think having it in the Nvidia/AMD drivers would make sense.

AMD did this for RIS and it was so so quality, but it worked in every game. And you can get mods to add FSR to any game as well, but I haven't check this out yet. The quality should be okay aside from text and UI.
 
III_Slyflyer_III said:
I almost want to install Rise again to see what it looks like with DLSS at 4K. I still have Shadow installed; so will be neat to see what DLSS does for that game. I remember playing it on my 2080Ti and it looked like crap with DLSS 1.0... so much so, it was better just playing with RT off.
Click to expand...
Rise of the tomb raider is still a really demanding game on max settings. And to me there are some areas where it actually looks better than shadow of the tomb raider.
 
jobert said:
Rise of the tomb raider is still a really demanding game on max settings. And to me there are some areas where it actually looks better than shadow of the tomb raider.
Click to expand...
I'd agree... I thought I read somewhere that Rise used 4K textures for Lara where Shadow did not... but I don't know for sure. I do agree Rise does look better on many occasions.
 
DooKey said:
DLSS is definitely coming into its own. It won't be going away anytime soon.
Click to expand...
Personally I'm hoping scaling will get incorporated into APIs and GPU vendors will handle the implementation in their drivers and hardware. So a game just turns scaling on in DirectX, Vulcan, etc. and the vid card driver does the rest. If NV wants to do DLSS you get DLSS. AMD can do FSR or something else if they feel like it. If the driver doesn't support scaling but the shader model is new enough you get something like FSR implemented by the API, like how FSR works now. Part of why I want this is I'd like to see display res just go ahead and take off. I'm currently running a 43" 4k screen because I want the real estate. I'd like an 8k or 16k screen which I would run with desktop scaling enabled, but without scaling I'd need 4x the power of a 3080, etc. just for 8k and DLSS, FSR, etc. look better than just running a monitor at 1/2 or 1/4 resolution.
 
III_Slyflyer_III said:
I'd agree... I thought I read somewhere that Rise used 4K textures for Lara where Shadow did not... but I don't know for sure. I do agree Rise does look better on many occasions.
Click to expand...
Okay - it's not just me then. I actually thought Rise looked better most of the time, especially in the cinematic character-focused vignettes, and yes, especially Lara. But it wasn't just textures IMO, it was shading - shadow often just looked flat and unrealistic, while Rise usually looked pretty amazing.
 
OutOfPhase said:
Okay - it's not just me then. I actually thought Rise looked better most of the time, especially in the cinematic character-focused vignettes, and yes, especially Lara. But it wasn't just textures IMO, it was shading - shadow often just looked flat and unrealistic, while Rise usually looked pretty amazing.
Click to expand...
I would bet its because Rise was a timed exclusive on Xbox 360 and Xbox One. Xbone is a fair bit less powerful than PS4. They probably payed special attention to optimizing the art and assets, to make sure the game looked good while it was exclusive to the least powerful platform.
 
DooKey said:
DLSS is definitely coming into its own. It won't be going away anytime soon.
Click to expand...
I wouldn't count on that. Given what EPIC has managed to pull off with UE5's Temporal Super Resolution, you might not see many UE5 engine based games bother to turn on DLSS 2.X.
 
Last edited:
So UE5 looks good, but it's not as good as DLSS. It looks great in static shots, but in heavy motion there are dis-occlusion artifacts and blurring. See this video I recorded.

It's on 1080p native monitor with scaling at 50% (so an actual render resolution of 960x540). It does look very nice considering for 540p. But notice as I spin the camera around, there is a halo around the character.




This is common with temporal based solutions, and probably can't be fixed completely. DLSS is also temporal based, but it's more complex and the artifacts are definitely less noticeable than Unreal 5.
 
cybereality said:
So UE5 looks good, but it's not as good as DLSS. It looks great in static shots, but in heavy motion there are dis-occlusion artifacts and blurring. See this video I recorded.

It's on 1080p native monitor with scaling at 50% (so an actual render resolution of 960x540). It does look very nice considering for 540p. But notice as I spin the camera around, there is a halo around the character.




This is common with temporal based solutions, and probably can't be fixed completely. DLSS is also temporal based, but it's more complex and the artifacts are definitely less noticeable than Unreal 5.
Click to expand...

That was pretty bad on the edges, motion blur did not hide them either. I play without motion blur and DLSS also has edge artifacts but not as bad as that. I've also found DLSS looks better the faster the framerate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top