Nvidia DLSS turns out to be a failure.

As most have heard by now of Nvidia's DLSS feature on their RTX cards. Nvidia claimed the difference between a native 4K image and an upscale DLSS image was negligible. Turns out that was all a lie and even 1440p in many cases looks far superior.

https://youtu.be/3DOGA2_GETQ

Image quality is greatly dependent on the display device, not the resolution.

@heirren: so tell me on which display would DLSS look superior to native res?

@nfamouslegend:

Im sorry what?

Yep, 1440 looks better and gives better performance:

>from MikjoA

@heirren: pretty straightforward question. You're the one who claimed it is display dependent.

I feel bad posting this image:

All jokes aside, people need to remember both Ray-tracing & DLSS are in the early stages and the tech has to start somewhere down the line but it's clearly not ready for prime time but I give it 3 more years before developers get the hang of it until the tech matures enough.

One thing I love about Jensen is he's trying to be "the first guy who has done it" but he's ahead of his own time lol. Those 3000 series sounding to be really good right about now don't you think Jensen?

@rmpumper: Until this whole thing blows, I'll be staying in 1440p for a very long time.

Tech is still in its infancy. Give it some time.

Worst case scenario, it was a valiant attempt and we got some great video cards out of it. Best case scenario, this is a start to a beautiful future.

And, hey, still better than console! :P

Alienware AW3418DW going to stick with me for me for a looooooooooooong time.

They have to train the algorithm per game, per resolution.

So you basically need to make sure you have the latest drivers, and hope they have trained it sufficiently on your desired resolution.

It's also worth noting that the more input pixels you have the better the result.

I wouldn't call it a failure yet. It's something that should be left off unless your frame rate is struggling.

Dat blur though...

There's nothing new with pixel reconstruction AA.

Yup it isn't looking good. The only "saving grace" I can see is if nvidias claim that it'll improve over time turns out to be true. Not optimistic about it though, but the ray tracing performance without dlss is looking good.

bahahah..i've said this and i'll say it again...anyone who thought that this was going to pan out in the first generation didn't know their GPU history. Ray tracing and rendering methods like DLSS will take some time.

@davillain- said:

I feel bad posting this image:

All jokes aside, people need to remember both Ray-tracing & DLSS are in the early stages and the tech has to start somewhere down the line but it's clearly not ready for prime time but I give it 3 more years before developers get the hang of it until the tech matures enough.

One thing I love about Jensen is he's trying to be "the first guy who has done it" but he's ahead of his own time lol. Those 3000 series sounding to be really good right about now don't you think Jensen?

RTX's ray-tracing-raster hybrid method is not new.

http://cdn.imgtec.com/sdk-presentations/gdc2014_introductionToPowerVRRayTracing.pdf

PowerVR's ray-tracing tech is based on BVH search engine accelerator similar NVIDIA's RT cores.

NVIDIA's RTX argument

Nvidia: "4K and 60FPS are possible through DLSS"

Reality: DLSS uses internal 1440p renderer

WHAT THE **** !!!!?

I don't really understand what people were expecting this to be. It's just a fancy upscaler that might look 10% better in best case scenario as it might deal with AA if a different way.

Although I do find it funny how much performance it takes away that you are better off with upscaling by other methods.

Deep Learning Super Smearing is what I'm gonna call it.

Again, as with any feature, it depends on implementation.

In Battlefield it is rushed and terrible, just like the ray tracing.

Ray tracing in Metro is perfect

DLSS in FFXV is perfect.

If devs are lazy and dont take the time to implement properly based on their engine and pipeline..........thats on them.

Same reason why TAA is good in some games but terrible in others.

Ray Tracing in Metro isn't perfect, as they are seeing the same negative 50% FPS results, although I think they are fixing it. DLSS is also broken in Metro, and it really is; I tried it and it looks horrid. Lol

https://steamcommunity.com/app/412020/discussions/0/3658515990045811621/

"15. DLSS is not working 100% as intended. Produces blurrier image.

16. Ray Tracing takes away 40-50% of ingame framerate. Same issue Battlefield V had upon launch with ray tracing implementation. "

At this point I'd rather take jaggies over blur.

If the only option a game is giving me is FXAA, I turn AA off.

DOF, Motion Blur, shitty AA options ... BLUR OVERLOAD !!!!!!101101

I have a 2080T ti so the hit is about 30-35% for me, but still substantial.

DLSS is broken in metro, but as you posted the devs said it is not as they intended. The implementation isnt good but they are fixing it.

They are also working to update the RTX performance like battlefield.

When i said perfect, i meant it works as intended. It was broken in battlefield, not just performance.

Oh yeah, it definitely makes a huge difference in lighting. It's working, just not at optimal level. I'm already fairly happy with the performance and graphic detail at 3440x1440, but I'd happily take an extra 15 fps if they can improve it.