Frame generation was a mistake

[Carlton BEaEnkEs, no E]

Too many studios are using it as a crutch

[Deatheye]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stormbleidd:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Deatheye:

Show me a video by Digital Foundry or Gamers Nexus proving your point and I will believe it.

Thats the thing though, your a 1080ti user right? good card, that was my card until i upgraded to 4070ti. No offence, but your gonna say that until you experience it with your own eyeballs.

Wouldn't rely on a video to show the difference between native and dlss quality. 95% of the time, your gonna use dlss over native. Why? because its identical to native for starters, and secondly, because it saves your pc turning your room into a sauna because it doesn't work as hard. And yes, in some games dlss is superior, most recent game i tried that had superior dlss was Horizon: Forbidden West. Hell, even Ready or Not, a UE5 game, is identical to native. I don't need FG in that, i lock fps at 100 and you don't need any more than that.

Frame generation is the only thing that makes things looks a little weird, "glittery". But that apparently is if you activate FG under 60fps. Whereas if you get a stable 60fps at native, before you turn on dlss and fg, that "glittery" effect completely disappears. And then you have an extra 80fps on top of what you already had at native.

Point being, don't judge until you use your own eyeballs. I was amazed at what dlss has become.
Everyone and their mother will be using it, because as i said before, they cba having their pc generating heat while they play.

I understand the advantages of upscaling technologies, especially DLSS, and I think that's a pretty damn nice thing to have.
But as long as I don't have an actual technical explanation of how lowering the resolution and upscaling it again looks better than native resolution, I simply can't believe it.

Edit: Yes I'm running a (for this game) overclocked 1080Ti, i7 8700K (yet to OC) and 16GB auf DDR4 RAM.

[-VG- Napster]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Deatheye:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stormbleidd:

Thats the thing though, your a 1080ti user right? good card, that was my card until i upgraded to 4070ti. No offence, but your gonna say that until you experience it with your own eyeballs.

Wouldn't rely on a video to show the difference between native and dlss quality. 95% of the time, your gonna use dlss over native. Why? because its identical to native for starters, and secondly, because it saves your pc turning your room into a sauna because it doesn't work as hard. And yes, in some games dlss is superior, most recent game i tried that had superior dlss was Horizon: Forbidden West. Hell, even Ready or Not, a UE5 game, is identical to native. I don't need FG in that, i lock fps at 100 and you don't need any more than that.

Frame generation is the only thing that makes things looks a little weird, "glittery". But that apparently is if you activate FG under 60fps. Whereas if you get a stable 60fps at native, before you turn on dlss and fg, that "glittery" effect completely disappears. And then you have an extra 80fps on top of what you already had at native.

Point being, don't judge until you use your own eyeballs. I was amazed at what dlss has become.
Everyone and their mother will be using it, because as i said before, they cba having their pc generating heat while they play.

I understand the advantages of upscaling technologies, especially DLSS, and I think that's a pretty damn nice thing to have.
But as long as I don't have an actual technical explanation of how lowering the resolution and upscaling it again looks better than native resolution, I simply can't believe it.

it doesn´t look better but it is sometimes so good that you simply cannot notice the difference anymore because its so miniscule.

alltough doing that on a 1080p native resolution is vastly different then doing this on higher native resolution screens simply because of the resolution it get´s upscaled from.
like on 1080p quality mode you would upscale from 720 base resolution on a 1440p screen qulity your base resolution that gets upscaled from would be higher.

Iam not a fan of it since iam still on a 1080p screen and more often than not it does not look good upscaling from in that scenario imo.
its also a very hit or miss depening on the game some games look utterly terrible with upscalers.

EDIT: at least when we talking about DLSS and not FSR or XESS or TSR

[*D4rKsKy*]

Frame-gen is the worst tech ever made in my opinion. It makes the image quality slight more vaseline and it brings more input lag to the table aswell with fake framerates. DLSS quality without frame-gen is much more clearer still not perferct but better then frame-gen.

[c0Zm1c]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Deatheye:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Madi92:

Look up some comparison then, can you even tell the difference?

I watch a lot of tech videos, and a lot of times they mention that dlss quality looks just like native or even better in some cases. Now I some games it can be worse, but not much.

Show me a video by Digital Foundry or Gamers Nexus proving your point and I will believe it.

There's this but to me it's a mixed bag. Some aspects look better there in native and others when upscaled. TAA isn't helping the native there but without it there would surely be more aliasing when zoomed in like that. It is an old video though and DLSS has improved over the years.

[Wari]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von *D4rKsKy*:

Frame-gen is the worst tech ever made in my opinion. It makes the image quality slight more vaseline and it brings more input lag to the table aswell with fake framerates. DLSS quality without frame-gen is much more clearer still not perferct but better then frame-gen.

whats your gpu?

if its good implemented with DLSS 3,5 you dont really see much of a difference...

[ExplosiveBolts]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Mortilla:

Was UE 5 not designed around the use of upscaler technology? It is what it is. What matters is that it looks good.

No.

[Wari]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von c0Zm1c:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Deatheye:

Show me a video by Digital Foundry or Gamers Nexus proving your point and I will believe it.

There's this but to me it's a mixed bag. Some aspects look better there in native and others when upscaled. TAA isn't helping the native there but without it there would surely be more aliasing when zoomed in like that. It is an old video though and DLSS has improved over the years.

i dont know how much i have to explain this, but 4k DLSS Quality looks way better than native 4k :D

4k Resolution with MSAA or any other AA tech isnt really native anymore...

a pure native resolution without any AA techniques looks super bad, unstable and edgy... im playing games at 4k for 4 years now and most of the games look better in 4k DLSS Quality than anything else... only expection is MSAA, but nearly no new game these days is supporting this anymore because it kills the fps completely...

all these "native looks better" guys are probably playing at 1080p or 1440p... DLSS was mainly designed for 4k...

[Wari]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Stormbleidd:

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Deatheye:

I understand the advantages of upscaling technologies, especially DLSS, and I think that's a pretty damn nice thing to have.
But as long as I don't have an actual technical explanation of how lowering the resolution and upscaling it again looks better than native resolution, I simply can't believe it.

As the above user states, 1080p DLSS isn't very nice. I am a 1440p user, I can get away with using DLSS Quality, which looks identical to native. Balanced starts looking a little fuzzy in some games, Performance mode is a no go.

My bro is on 4K monitor, Quality is no different. Balanced is no different. And then Performance mode is where you notice a slight difference in quality. Because 4K has the more pixels, most of the time, you can get away with using Performance DLSS without really noticing the difference, and you get nice fps boost.

I dont think anyone can give you that explanation unless they are a tech whizzkid who specialises in this kind of thing. I'm just a user and from my use of DLSS since the beginning of 2023, its an absolute game changer :)

If you want the absolute best, then Native + DLAA is absolute bonkers for graphical fidelity.

as a 4k player i can tell you, 1440p DLSS quality looks awful compared to 4k... its super blurry and unstable... its a complete different world, trust me..

DLSS and FG only shines at 4k in terms of visual quality. let me repeat myself, FG and DLSS was mainly designed for 4k with raytracing...

[Vladou]

For Nvidia graphics benchmarks, it’s essential to note that we have two values: without DLSS (upscaling) and with DLSS + DLSS G (frame generation). I believe that DLSS in quality mode will outperform the shaded area shown in Nvidia’s benchmarks. Moreover, if you have enough FPS, why not take advantage of Frame Generation? Of course, using frame generation at a base of 30 FPS can introduce latency, but on a solid base of 50–60 FPS, I experience no input lag at all (thanks to Reflex + G-Sync).

[Madi92]

Dunno, maybe the image quality a bit worse, but only if using dlss and FrameGen can I achive 100+ fps, then I will use them. Is it a good thing, maybe not. But I prefer using them with ray tracing and everything on ultra, then not using them and start lowering settings.

I"only" have a 4070S but for me, anything lower then 90 fps is a no no. I ruined myself sadly. I wish I was sticking to my trusty 60hz 1080 monitor and I would be blissfuly happy.

[MaxxGold]

DLSS is amazing. I run it on every game I play and I'll take the frames and DLSS every day over not having DLSS. Maybe when they first introduced DLSS it was janky, but you can't tell the difference anymore.

[Wari]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Vladou:

For Nvidia graphics benchmarks, it’s essential to note that we have two values: without DLSS (upscaling) and with DLSS + DLSS G (frame generation). I believe that DLSS in quality mode will outperform the shaded area shown in Nvidia’s benchmarks. Moreover, if you have enough FPS, why not take advantage of Frame Generation? Of course, using frame generation at a base of 30 FPS can introduce latency, but on a solid base of 50–60 FPS, I experience no input lag at all (thanks to Reflex + G-Sync).

FG feels buttersmooth without any lags above 120 fps... it mostly gives me like 140-160 fps in games on the 4090 and it just feels awsome, especially in singleplayer games.

[Wari]

Ursprünglich geschrieben von Madi92:

Dunno, maybe the image quality a bit worse, but only if using dlss and FrameGen can I achive 100+ fps, then I will use them. Is it a good thing, maybe not. But I prefer using them with ray tracing and everything on ultra, then not using them and start lowering settings.

I"only" have a 4070S but for me, anything lower then 90 fps is a no no. I ruined myself sadly. I wish I was sticking to my trusty 60hz 1080 monitor and I would be blissfuly happy.

i remember when i bought a GTX zotac 480, it was the fastest GPU at this time... 8 months later BF3 came out and i had like 40-50 fps at 1080p... unly lucky people with dual GPUS had Fps over 60 with ultra settings...

i dont miss these times to be honest... but yea, at this time i thought 60 fps is peak performance gaming.. today 60 fps is unplayable for me.

[Marshal Amim Kagori]

Can't wait for Digital Foundry to release a video finding a new coping mechanism to explain why devs using DLSS the way they have been isn't a crutch and that the games that use it actually perform well without it.

[POPO Sandh]

not fault of the software.

FSR, DLSS, FG and other techniques were made for low end PCs or High end PCs trying to run path tracing, unfortunately devs now use it as optimisation, Stupid Me thinking these techniques will extend the life of my 2080 super in modern games but nothing changed as even 4000 series GPUs now require these techniques to run modern games at 60 fps cause art of optimisation is lost