DLSS?

[Purzifal]

since they went to the trouble to ad RTX to the game why did they miss out DLSS? it would greatly improve the performance especially at 4k

[Makaki]

DLSS is usally compared to TAA, or any other anti-aliasing or super-sampling method.

I never seen it compared to both off. I still think both off is faster.

[V I D A L]

Originally posted by Makaki:

DLSS is usally compared to TAA, or any other anti-aliasing or super-sampling method.

I never seen it compared to both off. I still think both off is faster.

You may be misunderstanding the purpose of DLSS. It's not just an alternative to AA, but a reconstruction mode.

If you have a 4k screen and is running the game in 4k, you know how demanding this game is in 4k. On a RTX 2080ti I get only 20fps at 4k. (everything maxed out).

If I reduce the resolution to 1440p, I get 60fps, but then image quality is poop.

In theory, DLSS would give me an image quality close to native 4k, but with the performance of the 1440p. In fact, the game would be running internally in native 1440p and the image would upscale to 4k... The AI of DLSS try to "guess" what the 4k image should look like and will reconstruct it to look like 4k.

[ecidemon]

In practice though 4k dlss (1440p internal render) has been shown to have same performance as 1800p TAA and as such 1800p TAA delivers better image quality and texture sharpness.

[V I D A L]

Originally posted by ecidemon:

In practice though 4k dlss (1440p internal render) has been shown to have same performance as 1800p TAA and as such 1800p TAA delivers better image quality and texture sharpness.

You sound like someone who read stuff online but never even tried a 4k monitor.
First of all, 1800p is not really a real thing. No game supports it, it won't show up by default in any resolution settings of any game. You have to create as a custom resolution on your Control Panel to force it... and even if you do, it doesn't scale correctly to a 4k screen and look like poop.

It works well on consoles such as PS4 pro, because the console do their checkerboard magic to upscale it to 4k.
1800p is not really an option... and 1440p is too low for my screen and doesn't look good enough. So even if DLSS can make it look like 1800p, it would be a good deal anyway.

[ecidemon]

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Originally posted by ecidemon:

In practice though 4k dlss (1440p internal render) has been shown to have same performance as 1800p TAA and as such 1800p TAA delivers better image quality and texture sharpness.

You sound like someone who read stuff online but never even tried a 4k monitor.
First of all, 1800p is not really a real thing. No game supports it, it won't show up by default in any resolution settings of any game. You have to create as a custom resolution on your Control Panel to force it... and even if you do, it doesn't scale correctly to a 4k screen and look like poop.

It works well on consoles such as PS4 pro, because the console do their checkerboard magic to upscale it to 4k.
1800p is not really an option... and 1440p is too low for my screen and doesn't look good enough. So even if DLSS can make it look like 1800p, it would be a good deal anyway.

Well actually I have a 2080ti and I game in 4k on a 65" tv.

I did my own testing in Anthem, Shadow of the Tomb raider and also FF15 and was checking performance with Afterburner using onscreen histogram.
And it's easy enough to create a custom resolution of 1800p to compare against.
Anthem was really good to test with actually since you can change resolution on the fly very fast, and DLSS is disabled unless it resolution is set to native 2160p so switching to 3200x1800 you instantly see the difference in texture detail as it will then revert to TAA.

Any game that doesn't rely on arbitrary resolutions will happily support a custom resolution reported by windows.

Yes, many console games use checkerboard rendering meaning its half the resolution, A temporal AA solution is needed to reconstruct the image but you do get artifacts visible in motion because of it. if it's then running at 1800p checkerboard which many of the ps4 pro games do, then they also have to contend with the upscaling from 1800p to 2160p with is achived with your typical bilinear filtering just like a PC Gpu and Displays will do, all that together gives a very soft look, even more so than a native 1800p image upscaled to 2160p

And I do have a ps4 pro as well so I know what checherboard rendering looks like and it's limitations in motion.

The point of DLSS is to derive a higher resolution output from a lower resolution input.
It works ok and can some times look good too. It's not temporal based so if a given peice of geometry or texture isn't visible in a pixel then it can't be processed and no AI information can be derived from it in that frame either. Thin lines such as cables and fences is a clear limitation where this is very obvious.
It's also not performance free compared to 1440p no AA.

4k DLSS (1440p frame buffer) typically looks better than 1440p TAA at the cost of some performance.

At 1800p with TAA you typically have the same performance as 4k DLSS in all the games I've compared with with a rather clear advantage of sharper image quality.

Another rather interesting detail of DLSS is for it to work nvidia has to train the neural network for it to work and that result may vary depending on the weighting I suppose. There was a difference in DLSS quality in Anthem when the support was released compared to a later driver update.

[Patriot03]

Originally posted by V I D A L:

Originally posted by ecidemon:

In practice though 4k dlss (1440p internal render) has been shown to have same performance as 1800p TAA and as such 1800p TAA delivers better image quality and texture sharpness.

You sound like someone who read stuff online but never even tried a 4k monitor.
First of all, 1800p is not really a real thing. No game supports it, it won't show up by default in any resolution settings of any game. You have to create as a custom resolution on your Control Panel to force it... and even if you do, it doesn't scale correctly to a 4k screen and look like poop.

It works well on consoles such as PS4 pro, because the console do their checkerboard magic to upscale it to 4k.
1800p is not really an option... and 1440p is too low for my screen and doesn't look good enough. So even if DLSS can make it look like 1800p, it would be a good deal anyway.

3200 X 1800p is a standard upscale resolution and is what AMD's VSR Supports out of the box for 2560x1440 Resolutions for ideal scaling. It is supported by every game and as with any alternate resolution contrary to your display without DSR/VSR which will support it you'll have to create the custom resolution which is easy.

+ it will work with all games, DLSS will not.

DLSS is still very interesting, and I would like to test it in more games, I have some AI Driven Image enhancing software on my PC and the results can be AMAZING, however the type of Image you want to upscale needs to be in exactly the right format, and it needs to be made low resolution via a specific compression method and then if it's not quite familiar it might think your image was meant to be a painting in which case it gives some rather artistic results. (This particular AI was trained to recognize artwork)

In other words AI solutions can work like magic when they're operating specifically under ideal conditions that it was trained on, meaning for gaming it needs more training but the tech should advance!

[phurtive]

To answer the OP's question: It's because of costs. Every game that implements DLSS, which is proprietary to nVidia, has to go through many long hours of deep research learning via nVidia's super computers. So it is costly due to power consumption, manpower (machine operators), component wear and tear, but mostly because there are only so many nVidia super computers that they are in high demand.

DLSS, for now, is mainly for major titles that nVidia is more certain to gain market exposure and thus financial gains from.

Implementing ray tracing from scratch, on the other hand, while no easy task, doesn't require super computers for deep research like DLSS, and it is not a burden taken on by nVidia. It is done by the developers of the game. nVidia provides the technology, the developers provide the ray tracing engines to utilize the RTX technology. However, there is often some interaction with nVidia to help smooth things out, thus we get new driver releases.

In this particular case of Quake II, 90% of the ray tracing work was already done by a lone person, Christoph Schied, who initially came up with the idea to implement ray tracing into Q2. Bethesda simply picked up where Christoph left off and cleaned it up a bit for minimal cost. DLSS would have been very expensive to implement. They would have lost money since this is free.

[Kuro]

Super sampling makes no sense with regards to ray tracing, you would simply be increasing the amount of rays rendered. If you oversample with any other technique, you are defeating the point of ray tracing.

[SkacikPL]

Most likely because EVERYTHING in this renderer is temporal, there is also TAA.
All of that is simply not compatible with what DLSS is.