Stop using DLSS and other upscaling technology

[FKA]

DLSS, FSR, and upscaling technology in general is trash technology. I still have no idea how the hell Nvidia and AMD managed to convince so many people who play their games on PC that DLSS and FSR are worth turning on. Dude, if you can't run the latest games without this trash technology turned on, then it's time for you to upgrade your PC. It's ridiculous that PC gamers have come to accept serious visual downgrades like artifacting and ghosting to make their games run slightly better.

Nvidia must absolutely love the fact this garbage technology is being pushed so hard, even by the community, to the point where it became a selling point for their products. Nvidia are actually geniuses. They managed to put FOMO on a garbage feature for their products. "You don't buy an Nvidia video card? You're missing on the great trash that is DLSS". It's hilarious just how many people, especially people who are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on video cards, are deciding their purchase mostly on whether or not a video card has DLSS.

To this very day, I have not seen a single game where DLSS and especially FSR (that is even worse than DLSS) is worth turning on. On COD, the ghosting is hilariously bad with DLSS and the quality is ♥♥♥♥ with FSR on every preset. Even on the flagship games that are constantly used with these technologies, it's noticeably worse and it is NOT worth turning on.

STOP accepting and normalizing ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ visual fidelity. YOU'RE. ON. THE. PC. PLATFORM. You came here, because one of the reasons was superior visual quality compared to the alternatives like the PS and Xbox. If you're not getting the desired performance from your PC, either save up for an upgrade or before you upgrade, save up more money to get a higher tier video card.

[Nani!?!?]

Originally posted by Raytraced:

Originally posted by Oddy:

dlss was designed for raytracing, raytracing isn't in starfield, therefore i wont use dlss even though itll be modded in

simple mafs

It wasn't

i trust you, your name makes me trust you on this matter.

[M]

Originally posted by vonbleak:

No thanks - I like DLSS 2.0...

On quality mode it looks great and makes games run better, it means people have to upgrade their PC less frequently which saves money, its a no brainer dude...

you have thought wrong. its merely this way:

where companies further were aiming at 30 FPS without scaling, they aim now for 30 FPS with DLSS/FSR. you didnt really think, devs would do more, as they should, do you?

[Raytraced]

Originally posted by Oddy:

i trust you, your name makes me trust you on this matter.

Thanks, appreciate it

[Nani!?!?]

Originally posted by Raytraced:

Originally posted by Oddy:

i trust you, your name makes me trust you on this matter.

Thanks, appreciate it

de nada

[vonbleak]

Originally posted by M:

Originally posted by vonbleak:

No thanks - I like DLSS 2.0...

On quality mode it looks great and makes games run better, it means people have to upgrade their PC less frequently which saves money, its a no brainer dude...

you have thought wrong. its merely this way:

where companies further were aiming at 30 FPS without scaling, they aim now for 30 FPS with DLSS/FSR. you didnt really think, devs would do more, as they should, do you?

On consoles maybe sure... But if you are already getting 60fps native without DLSS then you turn on DLSS on quality mode you get more fps and the image quality is basically the same, whats not to like...?

Or if your PC is a little older/weaker and you are struggling to hit 60fps, again turn on DLSS and now you might get 60fps - How is that a bad thing...?

Its not going away anytime soon - so why not embrace it...?

[M]

Originally posted by vonbleak:

On consoles maybe sure... But if you are already getting 60fps native without DLSS then you turn on DLSS on quality mode you get more fps and the image quality is basically the same, whats not to like...?

and thats again not correct. DLSS means scaling. Im a graphics designer and I learned very quick, that any form of upscaling looks worse, than native resolution. maybe Im too old to understand, that DLSS upscaling enhances the image, so I start thinking "why dont they do this with native resolution to make it look crisper?". in my opinion its the same dream bubble as back in the day, when they were trying to sell us 30 FPS as a better solution, a "cinematic experience". in the end, its all advertisement.

[ZombieHunter]

DLSS is scaling and by definition does not contain more detail than the equivalent native render. That is just graphics 101. What it does do is try to pick the texels from one frame buffer and put them in the final frame buffer to make it look good. However it does not have more detail than the original. In a frame buffer that is 1920x1080 you can only get a set resolution. You cannot get more without filtering which is less detail and you can't get less without doubling up pixels which is also less detail. Ok you can get more detail in 1920x1080 but only if you are on the CSI show. Somehow they can. :)

Upscaling / downscaling is NOT more detail and never will be. Anyone in graphics design or graphics programming understands this. What it allows companies to do is market that their card can do 4K at good FPS using filtering techniques. But if you read between the lines what it means is our card cannot handle native 4K so we use gimmicks to make it so. Then our marketing department uses advertisement speak and gas lighting to sell it as a better feature than native 4K. It isn't. But it does allow your card that cannot handle a certain resolution to handle it via 'tricks'. But it is not better.

It does allow cards to handle resolutions they might not be able to b/c ...they can't handle the native resolution...so they change parts of the frame buffer so it isn't pure native resolution. If DLSS changes texels off in the distance you probably won't notice it at all. But if you use DLSS on any kind of text display that is in front of you such as those on Cyberpunk you will be unable to read them b/c it is filtering and blurring. Is it a really big deal? Nope. Use it if it helps and you can handle the change in image quality. My eyes cannot handle it. I see portions of the frame buffer popping into and out of various levels of detail and pixel resolution and it bothers me.

But people think it gives better FPS. It does but not b/c of better detail. It does it b/c of less detail but less detail in strategic portions of the frame buffer. Most of the time people might not notice it at all. It also depends on how the game uses it and so on. I find it quite jarring in most games and cannot use it. Of course I have AMD so DLSS isn't a thing but I also can't use FSR. I try to turn off all the frame gimmicks and just run it as is. That includes motion blur and depth of field.

[vonbleak]

Originally posted by M:

Originally posted by vonbleak:

On consoles maybe sure... But if you are already getting 60fps native without DLSS then you turn on DLSS on quality mode you get more fps and the image quality is basically the same, whats not to like...?

and thats again not correct. DLSS means scaling. Im a graphics designer and I learned very quick, that any form of upscaling looks worse, than native resolution. maybe Im too old to understand, that DLSS upscaling enhances the image, so I start thinking "why dont they do this with native resolution to make it look crisper?". in my opinion its the same dream bubble as back in the day, when they were trying to sell us 30 FPS as a better solution, a "cinematic experience". in the end, its all advertisement.

I never said looks better or even the same - I said you can hardly tell the difference, or at least i cant and thats using DLSS 2.0 on quality mode... And i know what DLSS does lol... Perhaps re-read what i actually wrote before replying again...

[M]

Originally posted by vonbleak:

And i know what DLSS does lol... Perhaps re-read what i actually wrote before replying again... :cozybethesda:

sorry, I didnt mean you dont understand. I just catched the phrase and quickly responded tagging you, but I had different things in mind.

[Engels78]

Originally posted by Blonde:

DLSS, FSR, and upscaling technology in general is trash technology. I still have no idea how the hell Nvidia and AMD managed to convince so many people who play their games on PC that DLSS and FSR are worth turning on. Dude, if you can't run the latest games without this trash technology turned on, then it's time for you to upgrade your PC. It's ridiculous that PC gamers have come to accept serious visual downgrades like artifacting and ghosting to make their games run slightly better.

Nvidia must absolutely love the fact this garbage technology is being pushed so hard, even by the community, to the point where it became a selling point for their products. Nvidia are actually geniuses. They managed to put FOMO on a garbage feature for their products. "You don't buy an Nvidia video card? You're missing on the great trash that is DLSS". It's hilarious just how many people, especially people who are willing to spend hundreds of dollars on video cards, are deciding their purchase mostly on whether or not a video card has DLSS.

To this very day, I have not seen a single game where DLSS and especially FSR (that is even worse than DLSS) is worth turning on. On COD, the ghosting is hilariously bad with DLSS and the quality is ♥♥♥♥ with FSR on every preset. Even on the flagship games that are constantly used with these technologies, it's noticeably worse and it is NOT worth turning on.

STOP accepting and normalizing ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ visual fidelity. YOU'RE. ON. THE. PC. PLATFORM. You came here, because one of the reasons was superior visual quality compared to the alternatives like the PS and Xbox. If you're not getting the desired performance from your PC, either save up for an upgrade or before you upgrade, save up more money to get a higher tier video card.

Poor bait, does not deserve Jester awards 😛

P.S. Yeah better go back play GTA V for another 1.2k hours...

[Raytraced]

Originally posted by ZombieHunter:

DLSS is scaling and by definition does not contain more detail than the equivalent native render. That is just graphics 101. What it does do is try to pick the texels from one frame buffer and put them in the final frame buffer to make it look good. However it does not have more detail than the original. In a frame buffer that is 1920x1080 you can only get a set resolution. You cannot get more without filtering which is less detail and you can't get less without doubling up pixels which is also less detail. Ok you can get more detail in 1920x1080 but only if you are on the CSI show. Somehow they can. :)

Upscaling / downscaling is NOT more detail and never will be. Anyone in graphics design or graphics programming understands this. What it allows companies to do is market that their card can do 4K at good FPS using filtering techniques. But if you read between the lines what it means is our card cannot handle native 4K so we use gimmicks to make it so. Then our marketing department uses advertisement speak and gas lighting to sell it as a better feature than native 4K. It isn't. But it does allow your card that cannot handle a certain resolution to handle it via 'tricks'. But it is not better.

What a pile of nonsense. Had a good laugh reading about "picking texels from a frame buffer"😂. Looks like you've just learned a bunch of cool words and now trying to look smart.

Anyway, regarding DLSS ability to produce results more detailed than native image. It absolutely can and it does it frequently. I've literally provided a real example couple of posts ago.

[Raytraced]

Originally posted by M:

Originally posted by vonbleak:

On consoles maybe sure... But if you are already getting 60fps native without DLSS then you turn on DLSS on quality mode you get more fps and the image quality is basically the same, whats not to like...?

and thats again not correct. DLSS means scaling. Im a graphics designer and I learned very quick, that any form of upscaling looks worse, than native resolution. maybe Im too old to understand, that DLSS upscaling enhances the image, so I start thinking "why dont they do this with native resolution to make it look crisper?". in my opinion its the same dream bubble as back in the day, when they were trying to sell us 30 FPS as a better solution, a "cinematic experience". in the end, its all advertisement.

That is the most common misconception about this tech that stems from thinking about it as an "upscaler". It has literally zero in common with image upscaling that conventional image editors do. Real-time rendering is a continuous process where DLSS has access to loads more information than a single static image making much more advanced stuff possible.

Originally posted by M:

"why dont they do this with native resolution to make it look crisper?"

First off, they do. It is called DLAA (for whatever reason). Which is literally DLSS rendering at native resolution internally. And secondly there are a bunch of considerations based on the temporal nature of DLSS where quality increases with FPS making it a balancing act. In fact, there are certain cases where paradoxically you can get a decrease in overall quality despite higher internal resolution depending on the frame's raw computational complexity. Not to mention that higher performance is simply always desirable.

[Karlin]

I see. Now that I think of it, I didn't really benefit from DLSS at all, and the ghosting does bother with the immersion during gameplay. Your insight is surely something to keep in mind for next games I play. Thank you for sharing. 🙂

[Archon]

I think you're speaking pure ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥♥. DLSS (not framegen) is so good it's extremely difficult to notice when it's on. I'd like to see you placed in front of several games with it on and with it off, and see if you can actually tell which ones have it. In some cases DLSS can look better than native, so please go back under your bridge, troll.

[wtiger27]

Originally posted by Blonde:

Originally posted by Jimmi Stixx:

DLSS 3 looks great to me.

Looks better, runs faster. Are all high end video cards a gimmick too?

I have 20/20 vision and I can notice the tiniest of changes when it comes to graphics, I am also highly susceptible to motion changes like ghosting. If you can't notice it, that would be amazing, because there would only be upsides for you.

It doesn't matter what you can see. It matters what others can see. I never pretend I can look thru another person's eyes. When I was young, my vision was 20/10, as tested by a doctor. I could and do enjoy playing any video games in the 30 - 60 fps just fine. 60hz monitor is good enough for me.

DLSS in The Witcher 3 Next Gen update, made a very noticeable improvement in visuals in that game. Esp set to Quality and using RT. The low fps, ( spikes of below 30 fps ) where less. So fps in the 50 - 60 fps ( I had it capped at 60 fps ) where clearly much more consistent.