Surely that's not FSR2 - it looks absolutely horrible and even FSR2 when standing still shouldn't look like that.
Surely that's not FSR2 - it looks absolutely horrible and even FSR2 when standing still shouldn't look like that.A quick stop frame benchmark again. Starfield this time. 4070ti 4k ultra. Native res vs fsr2 lowest resolution.
41fps at native with 225W power draw. 60fps with fsr2 and 112W power draw. The game is completely unplayable at 4k native on the 4070ti while it's buttery smooth with fsr2.
I don't know, is native really 113W better looking?
View attachment 85235
View attachment 85236
Also 1GB less vram for fsr2, which in percentage is 18% less. And yeah, 8gb is enough once again, on a very high caliber AAA game, but that is a subject for another thread. I have many more screenshots for that specific matter, which will be posted soon.
Since this is a Nvida card, I assume you mean DLSS 2? Also check the settings. MW2 tries to set my base resolution to 720p and turns on DLSS. Since I can run that at native fine, I don't need it. If I did need it, I'd try 1080p first. Anyway, second pic isn't horrible, but not great for slower moving game where 'atmosphere' matters. I play mostly shooters.A quick stop frame benchmark again. Starfield this time. 4070ti 4k ultra. Native res vs fsr2 lowest resolution.
41fps at native with 225W power draw. 60fps with fsr2 and 112W power draw. The game is completely unplayable at 4k native on the 4070ti while it's buttery smooth with fsr2.
I don't know, is native really 113W better looking?
View attachment 85235
View attachment 85236
Also 1GB less vram for fsr2, which in percentage is 18% less. And yeah, 8gb is enough once again, on a very high caliber AAA game, but that is a subject for another thread. I have many more screenshots for that specific matter, which will be posted soon.
Since this is a Nvida card, I assume you mean DLSS 2? Also check the settings. MW2 tries to set my base resolution to 720p and turns on DLSS. Since I can run that at native fine, I don't need it. If I did need it, I'd try 1080p first. Anyway, second pic isn't horrible, but not great for slower moving game where 'atmosphere' matters. I play mostly shooters.
Yes it is fsr2, with the lowest resolution available. I mentioned that in my post. There's no other way for 4k ultra, even for a 4070ti.Surely that's not FSR2 - it looks absolutely horrible and even FSR2 when standing still shouldn't look like that.
Upscalers being mandatory or else a game is unplayable is a terrible place to be. This is the result of the collective failure of low-level APIs, along with the push to ray tracing (though the latter doesn't apply to Starfield).My other option was "do not play"!
There's no other way for 4k ultra period. The 4090 cannot hit 60FPS average on 4K ultra with FSR disabled.There's no other way for 4k ultra, even for a 4070ti.
Are you sure that you selected FSR2 and not just CAS (or nothing)? I mean, that looks like basic spatial upscaling to me. Jaggies everywhere and effective resolution is no where near native. Just look at the windows. It can't be using FSR2Yes it is fsr2, with the lowest resolution available. I mentioned that in my post. There's no other way for 4k ultra, even for a 4070ti.
fsr2 is a little weird in this game. I mean it does not have quality,balanced, performance or whatevs settings. It has a slider that you move around.
I posted this specific location to show the difference, in both performance and power draw. At 112W you can assume there is quite a lot of leeway for higher upscaler setting. Yeah until you go outside. Maybe I will do a comparison there as well.
Having played for around three hours, I can atest that fsr2 is doing a great job. My other option was "do not play"! It only gets annoying in some high contast pixels, where you can see some shimmering while moving. I guess this wouldn't be an issue with DLSS. This game really misses a DLSS balanced setting.
You are planning to test the DLSS mod for Starfield, right?This game really misses a DLSS balanced setting.
Upscalers being mandatory or else a game is unplayable is a terrible place to be. This is the result of the collective failure of low-level APIs, along with the push to ray tracing (though the latter doesn't apply to Starfield).
None of these games look significantly better than the best rasterized DX11 titles. And aside from a few outliers like Doom Eternal and Tomb Raider Shadow, the former perform vastly worse than the latter.
DX12 is nine years old yet even in latest Baldur's Gate 3, the recommendation is still to switch to DX11 because it often runs better than Vulkan.
Yep, and that's only half the story. The other half is frame generation. A lot of games mask the upscaler settings or automatically attach them to presets (e.g Hogwart's, Starfield). You really have to look closely to figure out what's happening.It starts off being a tech that allows you to extend the life of an older card or to turn on some computationally expensive settings on a weaker card and it ends up being a requirement to get playable frame rates on appropriate hardware (so 4090 needs it for 4k output, 4070s need it for 1440p output and 4060s need it for 1080p output)...
Oops. My density is showing.
You are stuck at thinking that rasterisation, which is in itself is just as fake as frame interpolation, is the only true way to render graphics (and at native resolution only). Ray tracing is the future and it will solve many issues and makes things simpler. Denoisers need to improve but it looks like NVIDIA has pretty much solved that.NV has totally blurred the lines with what a frame and pixel even mean anymore, and this is by design. Create a solution nobody asked for ("wray traycing"), then "solve" the very problem they created with "aye eye".
Unfortunately, without some clever 'tricks', as is done in raster, the amount of hardware needed to go full on RT is pretty high. IMHO, the 4090 is the first GPU to be able to handle the kind of RT rendering level that is needed - but still not at 4K yet. I also think that raster will always be important, there are just parts of scene rendering that are easy to render fast at high quality - we'll see I guess.You are stuck at thinking that rasterisation, which is in itself is just as fake as frame interpolation, is the only true way to render graphics (and at native resolution only). Ray tracing is the future and it will solve many issues and makes things simpler. Denoisers need to improve but it looks like NVIDIA has pretty much solved that.
Yes 100%, but I was messing around with settings, so there could be a bug. I will recheck. It doesn't look that bad to me, all things considered (increased performance with half the power draw). I play at 4m on a 55''' screen, so this works fine for me.Are you sure that you selected FSR2 and not just CAS (or nothing)? I mean, that looks like basic spatial upscaling to me. Jaggies everywhere and effective resolution is no where near native. Just look at the windows. It can't be using FSR2
I've heard that it has some problems, but yeah a comparison test would be great. I'll see to it.You are planning to test the DLSS mod for Starfield, right?
Performance wise, the last thing Starfield needs is to bounce one ray. The very poor game engine performance probably exacerbates the DLSS backlash, whereas nobody really has the guts to ask for RT in the most anticipated slideshow of the year.Starfield makes for an interesting comparison regarding upscaling and raytracing I think. IMO, there's a huge backlash across plenty of forums regarding its lack of DLSS, whereas the complaints about it missing raytracing is very minor in comparison.
I hope someone digs into their debug console or something. Must be a setting hidden somewhere. May result in some 4090 owners with old PCIe connectors getting welcomed with the smell of something burningPerformance wise, the last thing Starfield needs is to bounce one ray.
Starfield RTX Remix when?Performance wise, the last thing Starfield needs is to bounce one ray. The very poor game engine performance probably exacerbates the DLSS backlash, whereas nobody really has the guts to ask for RT in the most anticipated slideshow of the year.
Judging by https://www.techpowerup.com/review/starfield-fsr-2-2/ test, it might be just how the FSR2 looks like in this this game. It can look surprisingly bad at times, even when everything is still, which is rather weird.Yes 100%, but I was messing around with settings, so there could be a bug. I will recheck. It doesn't look that bad to me, all things considered (increased performance with half the power draw). I play at 4m on a 55''' screen, so this works fine for me.
However, I was testing Rachet & Clank the other day, on my 3060ti. For some strange reason, the game launched with dlss enabled. 1080p, 32'' screen there, right in front of my face. I didn't notice anything bad and I actually had to go to the settings to see that DLSS was enabled.
Personally I am very happy with how upscalers have progressed.
So here are my findings for now.You are planning to test the DLSS mod for Starfield, right?
Starfield makes for an interesting comparison regarding upscaling and raytracing I think. IMO, there's a huge backlash across plenty of forums regarding its lack of DLSS, whereas the complaints about it missing raytracing is very minor in comparison.