Why we can't trust Nvidia users anymore. DLSS.

[Skkooomer Lord]

"4070S is a 4K card"


Lists all games using DLSS..

So none of them are 4K.

In the comments, "no but I consider it 4K because of final image."


Cognitive dissonance and software reliance for performance, not GPU horsepower.

The new delulu.

https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/1duz20n/blown_away_by_how_capable_the_4070s_is_even_at_4k/

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

Similar, not the exact same; which is why FSR looks significantly worse than DLSS. We'll have to see how FSR4 does with the RX8000 series.

FSR is exactly the same thing as DLSS. It renders at a lower resolution then uses the video card to composite it at the target resolution. Exactly like DLSS. The way they go about doing it is slightly different, and Nvidia has hardware on the cards to accelerate this while AMD does not.

But the base technology premise of rendering at a lower resolution then scaling it up is exactly the same thing for both FSR and DLSS.

[r.linder]

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

Similar, not the exact same; which is why FSR looks significantly worse than DLSS. We'll have to see how FSR4 does with the RX8000 series.

FSR is exactly the same thing as DLSS. It renders at a lower resolution then uses the video card to composite it at the target resolution. Exactly like DLSS. The way they go about doing it is slightly different, and Nvidia has hardware on the cards to accelerate this while AMD does not.

But the base technology premise of rendering at a lower resolution then scaling it up is exactly the same thing for both FSR and DLSS.

...That's why they aren't exactly the same technology, DLSS uses an AI algorithm that requires an RTX GPU, whereas FSR doesn't use AI at all, it uses an open-source spatial upscaling algorithm. This difference is why DLSS functions better than FSR and why that'll pretty much always be the case as long as AMD doesn't change FSR to use their own AI algorithms which are more effective than spatial upscaling.

The result of higher performance is similar but the two technologies work differently to get results. It's AMD's rough equivalent but they are not the same thing.

[PopinFRESH]

r.linder eredeti hozzászólása:

It's probably still not going to hold a candle to DLSS 3.5+, FSR is unlikely to ever catch up unless NVIDIA just stops updating DLSS

Eventually it will come to a point where DLSS should be able to increase image quality beyond native resolution while still increasing performance

I'd concur, and it is already there in some situations. I forget where the interview was but IIRC it was with Bryan Catanzaro (Nvidia's VP of deep learning research) they said their immediate focus for DLSS is further improving image quality and stability (in context with reducing latency and/or further increasing frame rate).

AMD messed up in ignoring using AI for FSR when it started and was already almost 2 generations behind DLSS. The same is true regarding ray tracing, and they know they can't continue to downplay Nvidia's RT quality and performance advantage by touting their rasterization performance. That is why they are trying to shift gears to those with RDNA4 and future FSR implementations.

[Bing Chilling]

i mean i've seen DLSS vs native at 4k and tbh it's kinda crazy how similar it is for what you gain in performance.

that said, you can tell a difference if you look closely, i'd say it's worth the trade off though.

Also it looks alot better then FSR. FSR isn't bad but compared to DLSS its not even close.

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

r.linder eredeti hozzászólása:

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

FSR is exactly the same thing as DLSS. It renders at a lower resolution then uses the video card to composite it at the target resolution. Exactly like DLSS. The way they go about doing it is slightly different, and Nvidia has hardware on the cards to accelerate this while AMD does not.

But the base technology premise of rendering at a lower resolution then scaling it up is exactly the same thing for both FSR and DLSS.

...That's why they aren't exactly the same technology, DLSS uses an AI algorithm that requires an RTX GPU, whereas FSR doesn't use AI at all, it uses an open-source spatial upscaling algorithm. This difference is why DLSS functions better than FSR and why that'll pretty much always be the case as long as AMD doesn't change FSR to use their own AI algorithms which are more effective than spatial upscaling.

The result of higher performance is similar but the two technologies work differently to get results. It's AMD's rough equivalent but they are not the same thing.

That's exactly what I just said. Do note where I wrote "The way they go about doing it is slightly different". I literally just wrote that right there where you quoted me. Why are you quoting me then parroting the same thing I said like a broken record?

[PopinFRESH]

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

Similar, not the exact same; which is why FSR looks significantly worse than DLSS. We'll have to see how FSR4 does with the RX8000 series.

FSR is exactly the same thing as DLSS. It renders at a lower resolution then uses the video card to composite it at the target resolution. Exactly like DLSS. The way they go about doing it is slightly different, and Nvidia has hardware on the cards to accelerate this while AMD does not.

But the base technology premise of rendering at a lower resolution then scaling it up is exactly the same thing for both FSR and DLSS.

No it isn't and moving the goal post from your previous claim doesn't make it any more correct.

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

...Exact same technology in the way it functions.

No, it is not the exact same technology in the way it functions. They have the same goal of upscaling; but they function completely differently. You could make the claim that FSR1 functioned the same a NIS; but it does not function the same as DLSS.

FSR renders a frame at a lower internal resolution and then applies a spatiotemporal upscaling algorithm to scale the image to native output resolution

DLSS uses a trained neural network to generate new color data in order to scale the output image to native resolution.

The difference in function is akin to taking a 1000x1000px image in Photo Shop and scaling the image to 1.5x using dithering verses scaling it via their ML scaling. Both will result in a 1500x1500px image but the latter will look significantly better.

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

AMD messed up in ignoring using AI for FSR when it started and was already almost 2 generations behind DLSS. The same is true regarding ray tracing, and they know they can't continue to downplay Nvidia's RT quality and performance advantage by touting their rasterization performance. That is why they are trying to shift gears to those with RDNA4 and future FSR implementations.

I think you're forgetting something important there: AMD did not use AI acceleration for early versions of FSR because the video cards that they had at the time did not have dedicated hardware to accelerate AI on it. They couldn't use AI to accelerate FSR because their video cards didn't have the hardware to do it. AMD was (and still is) about <- 2 years behind Nvidia with the dedicated hardware that their video cards have for accelerating AI. We finally do have the RX 7000 series that do have dedicated hardware on them to accelerate AI but it's still multiple years behind slower than the AI Acceleration hardware on Nvidia's current video cards.

Now that AMD has committed their video card division to completely ignoring the high-end for the forseeable future that's likely not going to change any time soon either.

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

No, it is not the exact same technology in the way it functions. They have the same goal of upscaling; but they function completely differently.

I covered that by writing in "The way they go about doing it is slightly different".

I see that you're up to your "old tricks" of taking people's words then twisting them around to say something completely different that the person did not say just so you can find some way to continue arguing with them. Also you just demonstrated that this is not a discussion. You're arguing with me. On the internet. You aren't discussing anything. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing to try and anger me. Nice try but it's quite obvious what you're doing. Trolling others and argument baiting is pretty bad.

[r.linder]

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

r.linder eredeti hozzászólása:

...That's why they aren't exactly the same technology, DLSS uses an AI algorithm that requires an RTX GPU, whereas FSR doesn't use AI at all, it uses an open-source spatial upscaling algorithm. This difference is why DLSS functions better than FSR and why that'll pretty much always be the case as long as AMD doesn't change FSR to use their own AI algorithms which are more effective than spatial upscaling.

The result of higher performance is similar but the two technologies work differently to get results. It's AMD's rough equivalent but they are not the same thing.

That's exactly what I just said. Do note where I wrote "The way they go about doing it is slightly different". I literally just wrote that right there where you quoted me. Why are you quoting me then parroting the same thing I said like a broken record?

No, that isn't what you said, you called it the exact same technology when they aren't. You keep calling it the same.

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

FSR is exactly the same thing as DLSS. ... Exactly like DLSS. ...

Using different methods to achieve similar results does not make them the same technology. They are similar, not the same.

[PopinFRESH]

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

No, it is not the exact same technology in the way it functions. They have the same goal of upscaling; but they function completely differently.

I covered that by writing in "The way they go about doing it is slightly different".

I see that you're up to your "old tricks" of taking people's words then twisting them around to say something completely different that the person did not say just so you can find some way to continue arguing with them. Also you just demonstrated that this is not a discussion. You're arguing with me. On the internet. You aren't discussing anything. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing to try and anger me. Nice try but it's quite obvious what you're doing. Trolling others and argument baiting is pretty bad.

No, again you are trying to move the goal post of what you claimed. Again

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

...Exact same technology in the way it functions.

You following that up trying to back peddle in reply to r.linder doesn't change your asertion.

If they were the "exact same technology in the way it functions" then AMD wouldn't be saying this

Jack Huynh - AMD eredeti hozzászólása:

Because FSR2 and FSR3 were analytical based generation. It was filter based. Now, we did that because we wanted something with a very fast time to market. What I told the team was, "Guys, that's not where the future is going." So we completely pivoted the team about 9-12 months ago to go AI based.

How do they "completely pivot" to what Nvidia is doing if they are "already doing the exact same technology in the way it functions"?

Also, no I'm not arguing with you; I'm correcting your incorrect false assertions in response to someone else on a technical discussion. Just as I also corrected a misconception in r.linder's depiction of the differences between DLSS3.0 and DLSS3.5; notice he didn't try to double down and say "nuh uhhh".

[r.linder]

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

I covered that by writing in "The way they go about doing it is slightly different".

I see that you're up to your "old tricks" of taking people's words then twisting them around to say something completely different that the person did not say just so you can find some way to continue arguing with them. Also you just demonstrated that this is not a discussion. You're arguing with me. On the internet. You aren't discussing anything. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing to try and anger me. Nice try but it's quite obvious what you're doing. Trolling others and argument baiting is pretty bad.

No, again you are trying to move the goal post of what you claimed. Again

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

...Exact same technology in the way it functions.

You following that up trying to back peddle in reply to r.linder doesn't change your asertion.

If they were the "exact same technology in the way it functions" then AMD wouldn't be saying this

Jack Huynh - AMD eredeti hozzászólása:

Because FSR2 and FSR3 were analytical based generation. It was filter based. Now, we did that because we wanted something with a very fast time to market. What I told the team was, "Guys, that's not where the future is going." So we completely pivoted the team about 9-12 months ago to go AI based.

How do they "completely pivot" to what Nvidia is doing if they are "already doing the exact same technology in the way it functions"?

Also, no I'm not arguing with you; I'm correcting your incorrect false assertions in response to someone else on a technical discussion. Just as I also corrected a misconception in r.linder's depiction of the differences between DLSS3.0 and DLSS3.5; notice he didn't try to double down and say "nuh uhhh".

Yeah I don't pretend to be an expert on DLSS, because I'm not, I just understand the basics of what it is and what it does unlike the haters that are mad at NVIDIA for a completely different reason. (They're mad because they can't afford higher end graphics, if they could afford a 4090 they wouldn't be complaining.)

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

r.linder eredeti hozzászólása:

No, that isn't what you said, you called it the exact same technology when they aren't. You keep calling it the same.

Using different methods to achieve similar results does not make them the same technology. They are similar, not the same.

Both AMD's FSR and Nvidia's DLSS both render the image at a lower resolution then composite that image into a target resolution. THEY BOTH DO THE EXACT SAME THING.

Yes the way they go about achieving that end goal is different but they are doing the same thing.

I don't know how else to explain it to you in a way that you can understand. I'm trying but it's like you're intentionally refusing to let yourself understand things on purpose.

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

Ontrix_Kitsune eredeti hozzászólása:

I covered that by writing in "The way they go about doing it is slightly different".

I see that you're up to your "old tricks" of taking people's words then twisting them around to say something completely different that the person did not say just so you can find some way to continue arguing with them. Also you just demonstrated that this is not a discussion. You're arguing with me. On the internet. You aren't discussing anything. You're just arguing for the sake of arguing to try and anger me. Nice try but it's quite obvious what you're doing. Trolling others and argument baiting is pretty bad.

No,

Yes you did. You quoted my words then changed my words in a way to suit your own goals so you can fabricate something that I did not say, did not intend to say and never said all just so you have something to argue about. That's a basic trolling tactic common across the internet.

[PopinFRESH]

r.linder eredeti hozzászólása:

...
Yeah I don't pretend to be an expert on DLSS, because I'm not, I just understand the basics of what it is and what it does unlike the haters that are mad at NVIDIA for a completely different reason. (They're mad because they can't afford higher end graphics, if they could afford a 4090 they wouldn't be complaining.)

I'd say more broadly that you are technically competent in a broad amount of areas within IT and are usually open to new information that may contradict or challenge your current understanding of something if it is presented with competent data / sources.

Also given their last response I'm thinking that is an alt someone who has no clue what they are talking about so I've just blocked them.

[Ontrix_Kitsune]

PopinFRESH eredeti hozzászólása:

Also, no I'm not arguing with you; I'm correcting your incorrect false assertions in response to someone else on a technical discussion. Just as I also corrected a misconception in r.linder's depiction of the differences between DLSS3.0 and DLSS3.5; notice he didn't try to double down and say "nuh uhhh".

It seems you don't realize what you're doing so I'll try to help educate you: "Correcting" someone is the same thing as saying "YOU'RE WRONG!". When you do this you are writing combative comments with the goal of causing them to argue with you. That's what "correcting" people online does and that's why you did it. When you "Correct" people like that you are baiting them into further arguments. You didn't have to write that. You could of just ignored it and moved on. But no. You chose to write those comments. You know writing those comments would upset them and that's why you wrote those comments: Just to get them upset so they will try to argue with you again.