The difference between these two screens is 20fps.. *cue Dynashit and Lumpnuts3*

[Remij 4,823]

 

 

 

Load them up in photoshop and zoom guys!!!  

[lynux3 2,245]

Give it up, dumbshit. DLSS flopped.

[Playstation Tablet 1,770]

I can see a difference between 1440p and 1800p. But motherfuckers argueing about different solutions to getting 2160p, even the most baseline checkerboarded shit are insane.

[Twinblade★ 4,061]

I do like these comparisons because they show that I got the same visual experience as the DLSS users with their much more expensive video cards.

[lynux3 2,245]

14 minutes ago, Team 2019 said:

I can see a difference between 1440p and 1800p. But motherfuckers argueing about different solutions to getting 2160p, even the most baseline checkerboarded shit are insane.

This is just a more efficient way to super sample an image, but at a cost. The cost being IQ. There's no checkerboard as far as I know. 

[Playstation Tablet 1,770]

1 minute ago, lynux3 said:

This is just a more efficient way to super sample an image, but at a cost. The cost being IQ. There's no checkerboard as far as I know. 

Just making a point of even an inferiour solution, differences being fairly trivial.

[Remij 4,823]

15 minutes ago, Twinblade said:

I do like these comparisons because they show that I got the same visual experience as the DLSS users with their much more expensive video cards.

Really, at what framerate?

[lynux3 2,245]

8 minutes ago, Team 2019 said:

Just making a point of even an inferiour solution, differences being fairly trivial.

It's all trivial bullshit, but Remij is an NVIDIA fanboy and we got to ruffle his feathers once in a while when we get the chance.

[Remij 4,823]

So... looking at those images fullscreen... which one is DLSS and which one is native? 

[JonDnD 2,816]

Not on the 2060 because you are forced to have rt .

 

And it is more blurry 

[Remij 4,823]

13 minutes ago, Jon2B said:

Not on the 2060 because you are forced to have rt .

 

And it is more blurry 

Eh, 1080p DLSS and 1440p DLSS were always going to be more noticeably blurry.  It works best at higher resolutions.. everyone knows that.

 

So which is which?

[JonDnD 2,816]

You told me 1080p would look like 1440p . I'm on my phone .

 

Forcing RT instead of letting you just use DlSS . Only 2 games .

 

The rtx cards are good but your paying for features you can't even use on the lower end cards , and they are bad in execution .

 

You're the only one who supports dlss.  It's a FLOP

[Remij 4,823]

6 minutes ago, Jon2B said:

You told me 1080p would look like 1440p . I'm on my phone .

 

Forcing RT instead of letting you just use DlSS . Only 2 games .

 

The rtx cards are good but your paying for features you can't even use on the lower end cards , and they are bad in execution .

 

You're the only one who supports dlss.  It's a FLOP

The imposed limitations are stupid, for sure.  I don't agree with RT needing to be enabled to enable DLSS.  I've never defended that... only explained why it's likely the case.

 

When I told you that, I told you what it looked like in Port Royale... in fact.. I showed you.  

 

This was an implementation that was extremely bad just a few days ago, and is now extremely comparable.

 

I'm not always trying to be combative with you fucks.  Since I can't test 1080p DLSS vs 1440p, I'd like YOU to post a couple screenshots showing what you say you are seeing.  I'm not defending DLSS at 1080p or 1440p, and in some cases it's better, and others it's not..  A lot of it depends on the quality of the AA solution already in the game, as well as the art of the game.  I stand by the fact that it will get better in time, as well.

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

2 hours ago, Remij_ said:

So... looking at those images fullscreen... which one is DLSS and which one is native? 

This is more of a cherry pick because there's some masking elements in the image but you can still tell. 

 

It's less obvious because there's a lot of foliage and subsequent noise from it, lack of depth to the environment, lack of visible environmental geometry and a lack of ideally lit environment. The top image however is the native render.

 

Even the crossbow alone which is front and center gives away the bottom image as being DLSS, a ton of detail is lost on the weapon.

 

 

Edited February 23, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,823]

8 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

This is more of a cherry pick because there's some masking elements in the image but you can still tell. 

 

It's less obvious because there's a lot of foliage and subsequently noise from it, lack of depth to the environment, lack of geometry and a lack of ideally lit environment. The top image however is the native render.

 

 

No, this shot represents a stress test for the technology.. the foliage and noise from it is precisely what is hard for DLSS to keep up with, while maintaining sharpness and clarity.

 

Yes.. there's a tiny bit of difference...   In many cases the foliage actually looks better and sharper on the DLSS image.  Yes.. you were right, the top is native and 2nd is DLSS.  To truly see any appreciable difference in fullscreen, which couldn't just be attributed to change of the shadows and lighting from the dynamic TOD... you have to zoom in.

 

This is even less so while playing.  And again, this technology is early... there's lots of potential for improvement here.  Game to game will see different results... I'm certain that other games without the fine micro details and noise, DLSS will provide a better quality still.  That second pic is 4,608,000 less pixels rendered...

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

2 minutes ago, Remij_ said:

No, this shot represents a stress test for the technology.. the foliage and noise from it is precisely what is hard for DLSS to keep up with, while maintaining sharpness and clarity.

 

Yes.. there's a tiny bit of difference...   In many cases the foliage actually looks better and sharper on the DLSS image.  Yes.. you were right, the top is native and 2nd is DLSS.  To truly see any appreciable difference in fullscreen, which couldn't just be attributed to change of the shadows and lighting from the dynamic TOD... you have to zoom in.

 

This is even less so while playing.  And again, this technology is early... there's lots of potential for improvement here.  Game to game will see different results... I'm certain that other games without the fine micro details and noise, DLSS will provide a better quality still.

I don't know what you're going for here, are you just going to keep posting screen shots hoping for a "Gotcha!" moment? I mean it's still obvious, I can see the difference clearly in every image. 

Edited February 23, 2019 by DynamiteCop!

[Remij 4,823]

4 minutes ago, DynamiteCop! said:

I don't know what you're going for here, are you just going to keep posting screen shots hoping for a "Gotcha!" moment? I mean it's still obvious, I can see the difference clearly in every image. 

What... did you think the comparison ends with one game, or one set of screens?

 

It's hilarious how much TAA quality can vary between games...and even scenes within games... and yet you're here acting like that wont be the case for DLSS rofl...

 

And yes.. I'll keep posting pics which prove my point.  Just like Nvidia will keep improving the technology.  Keep raging on about something that nobody ever said would be the case... which is that it would look better than native.  

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

1 minute ago, Remij_ said:

What... did you think the comparison ends with one game, or one set of screens?

 

It's hilarious how much TAA quality can vary between games...and even scenes within games... and yet you're here acting like that wont be the case for DLSS rofl...

 

And yes.. I'll keep posting pics which prove my point.  Just like Nvidia will keep improving the technology.  Keep raging on about something that nobody ever said would be the case... which is that it would look better than native.  

They don't prove your point, they prove that you're wrong, can't accept it and we can continually point out deteriorated image quality and loss of detail. 

[Remij 4,823]

Just now, DynamiteCop! said:

They don't prove your point, they prove that you're wrong, can't accept it and we can continually point out deteriorated image quality and loss of detail. 

Yes they do prove my point.  Your arguing a strawman you created dude.

[DynamiteCop 2,108]

1 minute ago, Remij_ said:

Yes they do prove my point.  Your arguing a strawman you created dude.