4 ms·

It doesn’t “double” anything except a number in the corner of your screen. The frames you’re getting are not based on gamestate, so they’re just fake placebos.

by wredue 3y ago

It doesn’t “double” anything except a number in the corner of your screen. The frames you’re getting are not based on gamestate, so they’re just fake placebos. This is why it’s curious to me that gamers by and large have completely accepted DLSS to the point that they’re actually completely okay with losing rasterization perf as long as a numbers in the corner of their screen is sufficiently faked.

giobox 3y ago
DLSS doesn't mandate frame generation (added in DLSS 3) it can still be used to upscale without frame generation, and indeed this is how DLSS 2 works as it had no frame generation. Even in games supporting DLSS 3, there is to best of my knowledge and experience almost always a separate configuration option to turn frame generation on or off, allowing you to use DLSS solely to render non-"placebo" frames and upscale the output. This absolutely allows you to run at a lower internal resolution, get higher "real" FPS and enjoy a reasonable upscaled output image. Sure it won't be as dramatic a difference as with frame generation, but it doesn't have the drawbacks of non-gamestate frames either. I've found DLSS for upscaling (without frame gen) fantastic frankly for getting older Nvidia parts to run new games for budget conscious gamers who don't have hundreds or thousands of dollars to drop on a new 30xx/40xx part.
- wredue 3y ago
  Supersampled images are nothing new. I am specifically discussing the fake frames, which is what Nvidia advertises with (imo this is bordering on straight up lies). Nvidia did slap “Hurr durr AI driven” buzzwords in front of theirs, but supersampling exists super far back. As far as gaming goes, supersampling was probably popularized in super old emulators, particularly zsnes.
  - giobox 3y ago
    Sure, but the quality of DLSS (and AMD's FSR2) has generally been much better than previous super sampling solutions, and this is borne out in virtually all independent testing of the feature. Supersampling algorithms in old emulators are not great in comparison.

by wredue 3y ago

giobox 3y ago

DLSS doesn't mandate frame generation (added in DLSS 3) it can still be used to upscale without frame generation, and indeed this is how DLSS 2 works as it had no frame generation. Even in games supporting DLSS 3, there is to best of my knowledge and experience almost always a separate configuration option to turn frame generation on or off, allowing you to use DLSS solely to render non-"placebo" frames and upscale the output. This absolutely allows you to run at a lower internal resolution, get higher "real" FPS and enjoy a reasonable upscaled output image. Sure it won't be as dramatic a difference as with frame generation, but it doesn't have the drawbacks of non-gamestate frames either. I've found DLSS for upscaling (without frame gen) fantastic frankly for getting older Nvidia parts to run new games for budget conscious gamers who don't have hundreds or thousands of dollars to drop on a new 30xx/40xx part.

wredue 3y ago
Supersampled images are nothing new. I am specifically discussing the fake frames, which is what Nvidia advertises with (imo this is bordering on straight up lies). Nvidia did slap “Hurr durr AI driven” buzzwords in front of theirs, but supersampling exists super far back. As far as gaming goes, supersampling was probably popularized in super old emulators, particularly zsnes.
- giobox 3y ago
  Sure, but the quality of DLSS (and AMD's FSR2) has generally been much better than previous super sampling solutions, and this is borne out in virtually all independent testing of the feature. Supersampling algorithms in old emulators are not great in comparison.