Question I'm dumb. Is DLSS supposed to be used or not?

[Stg-Flame]

From what I've read, it appears to be similar to V-Sync in that if you don't need it, don't use it, but I've heard so many differing opinions on a game-by-game basis that I'm thoroughly confused now. Granted, 99% of my information is coming from users on Reddit and Steam discussions and I'm aware that different hardware configurations will change a user's experience so I take everything I read with a massive grain of salt but I'd like to understand whether or not this option is good or not. For a game like Escape From Tarkov, I don't see any noticeable improvement to FPS with or without DLSS and a lot of users report they see a significant boost without it enabled. For Cyberpunk, I saw a very slight increase to performance but it seemed like some of the graphics appeared blurry or out of focus in some sequences after enabling it. I had a similar effect with Tarkov when DLSS was enabled, some of my movement made certain scenery objects appear to have a "warp-speed" effect if I turned too sharp. However, when I was playing Dying Light 2, the graphics appeared sharp and much more clear with DLSS enabled while not seeing any change to my FPS.

I've been out of the graphical loop for over a decade so I never kept up with this feature but I kept hearing people rave about DLSS cards and I honestly can't tell the difference when playing a game. Can someone break this down for me? Hardware is in my signature (I just got my new PSU back from EVGA so I need to stress test the absolute **** out of my machine tonight to see if my past crashing issues were in-fact PSU related).

Edit: All my games are being played at 4K resolution (3840X2160) @ 144hz G-Sync.

 

[igor_kavinski]

The are flooding the internet with misleading comparisons like this:

That's still a huge jump in FPS. Would you rather that this performance jump not be available to gamers, who would be OK with settling for whatever visual quality compromises need to be made to enjoy the FPS boost? How is this different from lowering graphical settings which lots of gamers will do in the pursuit of higher FPS without complaining too much?

 

[Leeea]

That's still a huge jump in FPS. Would you rather that this performance jump not be available to gamers, who would be OK with settling for whatever visual quality compromises need to be made to enjoy the FPS boost? How is this different from lowering graphical settings which lots of gamers will do in the pursuit of higher FPS without complaining too much?

Input lag degrades the experience. The way DLSS 3 works is actively harmful to the user.


Remember, most people enabling DLSS 3 are not going to be running rtx4090s, they are going to be running rtx4050s and rtx4060s. They might not understand why it feels grating, but they will be turned off by it.


Take your above example. No DLSS = 22 avg fps, or specifically 45 ms frame lag. Humans perceive at about 13 ms, but 40 ms is the magical number. Exceeding 40ms on response is jarring and unpleasant to most human brains.


Enabling DLSS2 would be a good improvement for the user, yielding 48 fps or 20 ms lag. Gets under the magical 40 ms cut off line. Big improvement.


Enabling DLSS3 now makes it hold that extra frame, to first render the frame between. Lets look at the timings on that.
frame 1 displayed to screen 0 ms
frame 2 rendered, but held at 21 ms
DLSS 1.5 fake frame rendered and displayed at 31.5 ms
frame 3 rendered and held at 41 ms
frame 2 displayed at 41 ms
DLSS frame 2.5 displayed at 52 ms
frame 4 rendered at 63 ms
frame 3 displayed at 63 ms

Noticed how with DLSS3 the user response time is now exceeding 40 ms? But it is displaying every a rendered frame 21 ms, and a DLSS frame between every rendered frame. Inputs are 41+ ms behind (also need to factor in monitor response time etc), but a new frame is perceived every 10.5 ms. So the user is going to see 2 misleading frames before the game reacts to the users input. A distortion or disorientation of the users experience.

Most people who flip that toggle as presented by nvidia is going to have an unpleasant experience and not know why. This is bad for both PC gaming and gaming in general.


DLSS 2 had a purpose, DLSS 3 actively harms the experience.

How is this different from lowering graphical settings which lots of gamers will do in the pursuit of higher FPS without complaining too much?

If a user lowers the graphics settings in a game it will drop them below that users response time threshold and yield a far more enjoyable experience.


DLSS 3 is a trick, it presents an illusion that is harmful to the users experience.

 

[igor_kavinski]

DLSS 3 is a trick, it presents an illusion that is harmful to the users experience.

Good points. But that begs the question: if it's so bad for the user experience, isn't Nvidia marketing hurting themselves more by ruining the enjoyment of their customers? What I think is that DLSS3 will be used more in games where the input lag won't matter much. The average user would be none the wiser that some trick is giving them higher fps. I think this is what Nvidia intends too.

 

[CP5670]

They are both useful features and are good to have available. It's just that there is a visual tradeoff, whether that is worth or not depends on the game and person. I like DLSS 2 in games that are mainly indoors (if they don't already run at the refresh rate) but for outdoor non-RT games with long viewing distances, I reduce graphics settings instead of using DLSS. The difference between high and ultra settings is often miniscule and less noticeable than the impact of DLSS 2 in these games.

Actually, if DLSS was so perfect then it would be in Nvidia's interest to downplay it. People would stop upgrading their video cards if it was that good.

 

[Mopetar]

Actually, if DLSS was so perfect then it would be in Nvidia's interest to downplay it. People would stop upgrading their video cards if it was that good.

You may not have noticed but NVidia is pretty good at making sure there's a reason that the older cards can't get the latest and greatest version of DLSS or that the titles they sponsor to include their technology are only including the latest versions of it.

AMD extending FSR support to Pascal cards was in part a way of getting developers on board due to the wider install base, but I think they were also spitting in the face of NVidia at the same time as well and in part doing it to spite them.

I'm wondering to what extent Sony and Microsoft start looking at this technology for their console refreshes. Consoles have always used upscaling to compensate for the weaker hardware, but now it seems like they've got way to really stretch the performance and their marketing. Why buy a GPU that costs twice as much as a console when that console can deliver a perfectly playable "120 FPS 4K experience" that PC gamers have been saying isn't noticeably different than having the functionality turned off.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I'm wondering to what extent Sony and Microsoft start looking at this technology for their console refreshes.

I can't think of a reason why FSR wouldn't work on PS5 and Xbox Series S/X. Maybe they are busy working out the kinks at this very moment.

 

[CP5670]

You may not have noticed but NVidia is pretty good at making sure there's a reason that the older cards can't get the latest and greatest version of DLSS or that the titles they sponsor to include their technology are only including the latest versions of it.

AMD extending FSR support to Pascal cards was in part a way of getting developers on board due to the wider install base, but I think they were also spitting in the face of NVidia at the same time as well and in part doing it to spite them.

I'm wondering to what extent Sony and Microsoft start looking at this technology for their console refreshes. Consoles have always used upscaling to compensate for the weaker hardware, but now it seems like they've got way to really stretch the performance and their marketing. Why buy a GPU that costs twice as much as a console when that console can deliver a perfectly playable "120 FPS 4K experience" that PC gamers have been saying isn't noticeably different than having the functionality turned off.

That's true, but if the older versions are "good enough" then at some point people will still stop upgrading.

Sony/MS have already moved to a model where the console is more of a way to get people into their subscription service and ecosystem. Even if they can't sell any new consoles, people will keep paying for the service. The consoles are sold at a loss anyway. Nvidia is trying to do that too with Geforce Now.

 

[Mopetar]

The console business model is different from the PC market in a few ways, but in a different thread I recently went through the explanation that the console hardware probably isn't sold at a loss, even initially. The sale price may require something like selling 30 million units to be able to spread the upfront development costs out enough to make it overall break even for the initial hardware, but they'd have to flop pretty hard not to do that over the lifecycle.

I have a feeling that around the time the consoles start embracing this technology we'll see PC gamers start to move away from it (or at least their positive assessment of the feature) in order to maintain superiority over the filthy console peasants. I just think it'll be funny seeing the same people who've said that you can't really notice any difference between the upscaling or even the outright fabricated frames suddenly trying to explain how it's obvious that their $4,000 gaming PC is better than a $500 console.

 

[Heartbreaker]

The console business model is different from the PC market in a few ways, but in a different thread I recently went through the explanation that the console hardware probably isn't sold at a loss,

Sold at a loss has a specific meaning. Unit Production costs > Selling price.

That doesn't include R&D/Tooling an other upfront costs. It it did, everything would be sold at an initial loss.

A lot of consoles are sold at a loss initially, until a cost reduction refresh is done. Though some consoles eek out a small unit profit right from the beginning.

Whether it's a small loss or small profit is kind of inconsequential. The money making is generally NOT from the HW, but from software sales.

 

[Leeea]

But that begs the question: if it's so bad for the user experience, isn't Nvidia marketing hurting themselves more by ruining the enjoyment of their customers?

People are not going to be upset at Nvidia, but given a sour taste toward computer gaming as a whole. This does not harm Nvidia's market share.

But that begs the question: if it's so bad for the user experience, isn't Nvidia marketing hurting themselves more by ruining the enjoyment of their customers?

Nvidia is in a bad spot.

They have made big buys at TSMC, ordering lots of product they have to pay for. TSMC is not letting them out of the contract.

They can scale back future product orders to offset reputational damage, if any. For now, they need to sell the product they already committed to buying.


Bad numbers on next quarterly report will devastate the stock price. Everyone at Nvidia with stock options and shares (aka management) would see their personal wealth hit hard. This is late stage capitalism, all that matters for Nvidia now is the next quarters sales figures. Need to justify that stock price. They need to justify those big TSMC buys.

Most importantly, they need to keep market share by any means necessary, even if that means burning the market down.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Nvidia is in a bad spot.

They have made big buys at TSMC, ordering lots of product they have to pay for. TSMC is not letting them out of the contract.

They can scale back future product orders to offset reputational damage, if any. For now, they need to sell the product they already committed to buying.


Bad numbers on next quarterly report will devastate the stock price. Everyone at Nvidia with stock options and shares (aka management) would see their personal wealth hit hard. This is late stage capitalism, all that matters for Nvidia now is the next quarters sales figures. Need to justify that stock price. They need to justify those big TSMC buys.

I think that's just an unsubstantiated story people like to believe because big bad NVidia is getting taken down a peg.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Most importantly, they need to keep market share by any means necessary, even if that means burning the market down.

My brainputer failed at this statement. Cannot compute further

 

[Mopetar]

Market share is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I'm reminded of the charts/graphs from several years ago where Apple had something like 15% of the global smartphone market, but we're getting almost 100% of the profit because everyone else was too busy slitting their own throats to try to gain a little bit more market share that they weren't making any money.

 

[Khanan]

You may not have noticed but NVidia is pretty good at making sure there's a reason that the older cards can't get the latest and greatest version of DLSS or that the titles they sponsor to include their technology are only including the latest versions of it.

AMD extending FSR support to Pascal cards was in part a way of getting developers on board due to the wider install base, but I think they were also spitting in the face of NVidia at the same time as well and in part doing it to spite them.

I'm wondering to what extent Sony and Microsoft start looking at this technology for their console refreshes. Consoles have always used upscaling to compensate for the weaker hardware, but now it seems like they've got way to really stretch the performance and their marketing. Why buy a GPU that costs twice as much as a console when that console can deliver a perfectly playable "120 FPS 4K experience" that PC gamers have been saying isn't noticeably different than having the functionality turned off.

Microsoft already uses FSR 2 with the Xbox, I'm not sure if it's in use with the PS5, as I've didn't hear about it yet, explicitly. Microsoft is a bit more "friends friends" with AMD than Sony is.

 

[Dribble]

Microsoft already uses FSR 2 with the Xbox, I'm not sure if it's in use with the PS5, as I've didn't hear about it yet, explicitly. Microsoft is a bit more "friends friends" with AMD than Sony is.

All FSR does is upscale, consoles have always had upscaling and all console manufacturers put a lot of effort into doing it well and optimising it for their hardware. Whatever Sony/MS have had for the last few years is almost certainly at least as good and probably better then FSR.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Market share is pretty meaningless in the grand scheme of things. I'm reminded of the charts/graphs from several years ago where Apple had something like 15% of the global smartphone market, but we're getting almost 100% of the profit because everyone else was too busy slitting their own throats to try to gain a little bit more market share that they weren't making any money.

-AMD has done this to themselves more times than I can count.

 

[BFG10K]

That's still a huge jump in FPS.

There's no "huge jump in FPS"; framerate doesn't increase at all. They just average out two existing frames and put the result between them, then monitoring tools pick up the extra buffer flips/presents.

Virtually any TV made in the last decade can do it, no "aye eye" needed, yet nobody ever claimed TV motion interpolation increases game performance.

On top of that, it increases input lag substantially, they just try to hide some of it behind Reflex. Notice how it almost never seems possible to compare Reflex with and without DLSS 3.0 in the same game.

All the hallmarks of fraud are there, just like DLSS 2.0. To this day it's still extremely rare to be able to control its built-in sharpening filter, which is where the "looks better than native!" nonsense comes from.

 

[igor_kavinski]

Virtually any TV made in the last decade can do it, no "aye eye" needed, yet nobody ever claimed TV motion interpolation increases game performance.

Interpolated motion looks bad coz our brains can detect that something funny is happening. Is this the case with DLSS 3.0 too? Can a gamer tell in a side by side comparison without any onscreen FPS indicator which display is showing a game with DLSS 3.0 turned on, assuming fps > 60 in both cases?

 

[JustViewing]

Interpolated motion looks bad coz our brains can detect that something funny is happening. Is this the case with DLSS 3.0 too? Can a gamer tell in a side by side comparison without any onscreen FPS indicator which display is showing a game with DLSS 3.0 turned on, assuming fps > 60 in both cases?

I love motion interpolation in movies with SVP. First it may look funny, but if you get used to it, you can't live without it. Without it, movies get very jerky(In my opinion only, I know most people prefer 24/30Hz). The ironic thing is, AMD GCN had a motion interpolator (can watch using Bluesky plugin for MPC) but they removed it with RNDA. SVP has more clearer image, but GCN has more smooth motion. Of course it is limited 60FPS and no 10bit support.

 

[igor_kavinski]

I love motion interpolation in movies with SVP. First it may look funny, but if you get used to it, you can't live without it. Without it, movies get very jerky(In my opinion only, I know most people prefer 24/30Hz). The ironic thing is, AMD GCN had a motion interpolator (can watch using Bluesky plugin for MPC) but they removed it with RNDA. SVP has more clearer image, but GCN has more smooth motion. Of course it is limited 60FPS and no 10bit support.

I could only tolerate Sony's Trumotion interpolation. It was so good that once I was looking outside the window of the taxi I was in and something seemed familiar about the way the cars were moving. It suddenly dawned on me that I had seen this exact motion on my Sony X900E with Trumotion on

Sadly, Sony is too expensive and ruins the experience with other quirks so I had to settle for LG C8 OLED with NO interpolation (nothing special about their implementation and prefer to keep it off).

 

[Leeea]

Interpolated motion looks bad coz our brains can detect that something funny is happening. Is this the case with DLSS 3.0 too? Can a gamer tell in a side by side comparison without any onscreen FPS indicator which display is showing a game with DLSS 3.0 turned on, assuming fps > 60 in both cases?

If they are playing the game it is apparently quite easy to tell if the frame rates are low. Just watching the game is harder, but on some games the visual corruption is obvious, others less so.

Once the frame rate goes over a 200 fps or so apparently it becomes more difficult to tell the difference.

 

[Racan]

Not bad

NVIDIA DLSS 2.5.1 Review - Significant Image Quality Improvements | TechPowerUp

 

[BFG10K]

Not bad

It's funny how each current version purports to be "better than native", yet the next version has no trouble finding obvious artifacts to fix.

 

[Tup3x]

They should do this for all. Some are oversharpened, some are undersharpened. Both are annoying.

DLSS 2.5.1 deprecated sharpness setting. It no longer does anything which is great. No more sharpening related issues and completely neutral image. That version also fixed some visual artifacts and now it looks really, really good. In Uncharted 4 DLSS quality looks better than native (if you use 2.5.1 - it also solves the issues with the sharpness slider). Combine it with custom resolution so that it actually is rendering at native resolution and quality is going to be fantastic. It will handle motion much better than the in-game TAA (which also happens to have annoying oversharpening). Also subpixel detail in static scenes is better.

 

[Tup3x]

With auto, it depends on how well your GPU is doing. If you have a slower card that struggles, its more likely to go to a higher performance (lower quality) preset. But if you have a card that otherwise hits the required framerate without issue, it will go to the highest quality mode.

But different people notice different things. Where I tend to notice upscaling is around character hair. Both DLSS and FSR will often struggle in this area where there will be a fuzziness around it. And for me, it drives me nuts. But others may not notice it at all. Another places is if there is some sort of fencing or the like that has lots of openings, upscalers can do a poor job there too. It will end up flickering.

That's basically FSR issue. In general DLSS handles that better than native TAA implementations. Uncharted 4 is a good example, especially with version 2.5.1.