robot zombieWhen you put everything about these technologies under the looking glass, try to take samples that encapsulate what it's doing, they tend to fall short. With all of the effects, their core strength is in what they push out of the way. If you look for overt or earth shattering, you often find boring and strange instead. It's a matter of missing the full context of those elements within the entire space. The main strength of RT effects is in the way they sneak in and up the overall plausibility factor. It's just less of a strain to believe you're there.

Couldn't agree more, what I've found with excellent RT implementations, think Metro Exodus EE or Dying Light 2, is that the lighting is so natural and realistic (relatively), that people playing may not actually find it striking or impressive, but what's happening there is of course extremely impressive. I also agree it can come off pretentious, I've certainly had people react badly and I suspect that's why, but I think that's the truth of the matter. Some gamers of course couldn't care less about realism, or even graphics much in general (take this recent post about it), but for those that do, RTRT is clearly amazing when done well and here to stay. DLSS and tech like it certainly helps along the way, especially when matured like it is now and in most cases for me at 4k, is downright preferable to native+TAA

sepheronxOne way to disparage the shit flinging is provide links and videos talking about if it's good or if it's bad.

Anecdotal evidence isn't evidence in either case.

I believe TPU already provides those, from time to time.

dir_dIn theory wouldn't Nvidia making DLSS 3 insert Black frames do the same thing?

Black frame insertion is to reduce blur, it actually halves the frame rate.

wolfthat people playing may not actually find it striking or impressive, but what's happening there is of course extremely impressive.

What a strange argument. The reason people don't find it impressive is because they can't even tell what it does.

"It's amazing, I know you can't tell but it's amazing, trust me."

The only reason I can tell when a game is using RT is because I know specifically what to look for, like out of screen space reflections and bounce lighting but if it wasn't for my intricate knowledge of graphics I would never be able to tell. I imagine the vast majority of people don't have a clue what those things that I mentioned even mean, they're extremely subtle, so to what benefit is this to the majority of users when they can't even potentially spot the differences is beyond me. We spent decades to fake what RT does and we've gotten so good at it the returns from actually having RTRT are now diminishingly small.

Artificially generated frames from artificially upscaled frames just so you can see something that you can't even tell it's on. That's just great, isn't it.

Vya DomusWhat a strange argument.

It's not an argument, it's an observation.

TomTomTombreaking news! inserting fake frames increases frame rate! more on this after the break.

okay, but how does it LOOK?

Check 7900 XT/XTX vs 4080/4090 sales on mindfactory.de and see that most users don't bite the DLSS3 nonsense.

If someone is really into interpolated frames (something, I'm sorry, my TV can do, oh and I have a device that can print labels, so I can print "AI" label and slap it on the back of my TV too!!!) it will shortly (and inevitably) appear in the next FSR.

robot zombieI'm all on the side of bashing nvidia for their practices, but I honestly can't say anything bad about the tech.

Tech doesn't exist in a vacuum.

Look at those people with G-Sync monitor. No innovation (variable framerates were a thing in notebooks since ages), customer lock in.

Making DLSS3 4xxx exclusive is another way to harm customers, a bit more obvious one.


So what do we get as a result of the proprietary crap pushing? Ruined PhysX, ruined G-Sync, lots of wasted effort, locked out customers.

Can we get some benchmarks

4k Psycho RT. DLSS 3.0 + DLSS 2.0 quality vs FSR 2.0. 4090 vs 7900xtx.

I think 4090 is 3x-4x faster.

nguyenNvidia already offered the solution to the input latency problem

Merely caught up with AMD's Radeon Anti-Lag, which NV initially claimed to have and at the same time that they need to look at what it was... :D

A lovely trick to only apply anti-lag to the last test...

mrnagantWhen you are getting 20fps with DLSS off

Maybe you should switch RT off. (I was told RT stands drastic-ReducTion-of-fps)

medi01If someone is really into interpolated frames (something, I'm sorry, my TV can do, oh and I have a device that can print labels, so I can print "AI" label and slap it on the back of my TV too!!!) it will shortly (and inevitably) appear in the next FSR.

I have nothing against frame interpolation, I've been waiting for this to become a thing for many years. Computing optical flow costs no more than 2-3 ms per frame on a GPU, probably even less these days, interpolating frames doesn't require any ML, it can be done all in software fairly easy, far from perfect but passable.

Nvidia is simply lying when they claim this only works on 4000. And that's where the main problem lies, Nvidia is simply the worst when it comes to adding new features, it's always locked proprietary software used exclusively for marketing purposes. They don't want to improve the experience their customers get, they just want to use it to sell their 4000 series cards. Pay 900-1000 dollars minimum for a 4070ti to use frame generation in whatever .01% games that are gonna have that in the next years ? Sounds amazing, classic Nvidia move.

I really wish AMD would move sooner with FSR3 and turn frame interpolation into something widespread that's actually relevant and not locked down proprietary garbage.

medi01Merely caught up with AMD's Radeon Anti-Lag, which NV initially claimed to have and at the same time that they need to look at what it was... :D

A lovely trick to only apply anti-lag to the last test...


Maybe you should switch RT off. (I was told RT stands drastic-ReducTion-of-fps)

AMD Anti lag is a POS next to Reflex, only comparable to Nvidia NULL, but I know you don't know any better ;)

F£#@ the degree's of copium in this thread.

Few have even tried it, there's nothing to try it on and few can, yet many an opinion on how acceptable it is.

I won't join in the hypocrisy, until I try it, but I want to see a 360° spin not a guy stood still image.

I'll probably prefer sub 15ms latency though 50 sounds like the cloud.

PunkenjoyYes 3D rendering is just a bunch of way of cheating and trying find way of doing things that are cheaps but the end results look good enough.

Those who say this is just a cheat don't know shit about how games are done, a lot of the parallax effects in 80s and 90s videogames were just compositions over different layers between background and sprites because the actual hardware couldn't do that. Transparency effects were made using the defect in composite video by justapoxing pixels and they wont work on rgb video. Cheating the engine to make it look good is baked in the essence of videogames since its inception, and people who are raging becase these are not "real" frames should start reading about videogame history.

TartarosThose who say this is just a cheat don't know shit about how games are done, a lot of the parallax effects in 80s and 90s videogames were just compositions over different layers between background and sprites because the actual hardware couldn't do that. Transparency effects were made using the defect in composite video by justapoxing pixels and they wont work on rgb video. Cheating the engine to make it look good is baked in the essence of videogames since its inception, and people who are raging becase these are not "real" frames should start reading about videogame history.

I mean, they aren't 'real' frames. They are generated. The expectation when getting higher frame rates is typically smoothness and better input response.

Frame Generation only delivers on the former, which is fine if you're already getting a reasonable framerate (50+) without frame generation. However, if you're only getting 20-30 FPS without frame generation but with it your PC says you're getting 50 FPS, it's still going to feel like you're playing at 20-30 FPS, or even worse (frame generation increases input latency).

I expect when we see low end cards release, we'll see how miserable of an experience frame generation will be with low FPS.

All that being said, it's probably fine on high end cards because they're already getting high FPS, so you get a little bit of an added visual smoothness, at the cost of a small amount of input latency.

TheoneandonlyMrKF£#@ the degree's of copium in this thread.

Few have even tried it, there's nothing to try it on and few can, yet many an opinion on how acceptable it is.

I tend to agree, I've seen it and tried it and it was highly impressive, but on the spec sheet alone people write it off and draw an arbitrary line that it surely must be unacceptable to them.

Virtually anything involving input latency and visual fidelity is a highly personal thing to judge, and I would simply recommend people "don't knock it 'till they try it".

Of course it's not going to be amazing all the time every time and be suitable for every kind of game, same even applies to FSR/DLSS, RTRT, Ultra settings and so on.

wolfI tend to agree, I've seen it and tried it and it was highly impressive, but on the spec sheet alone people write it off and draw an arbitrary line that it surely must be unacceptable to them.

Virtually anything involving input latency and visual fidelity is a highly personal thing to judge, and I would simply recommend people "don't knock it 'till they try it".

Of course it's not going to be amazing all the time every time and be suitable for every kind of game, same even applies to FSR/DLSS, RTRT, Ultra settings and so on.

I am not suggesting we all buy 4### series GPU, try this then report back.

There's reviews, in shop trials etc.

And as for people not knocking what they haven't tried this forum would be a death zone in that case.

I'm more baffled by those defending it, that have not tried it because they can't.

I'm fine with people expressing an opinion or doubt about a new tech just be clear where you stand.

I don't like the look of this because I didn't much like what dlss did when I spun 180° in CB2077, I have doubts about this.

But I agree it is unfair to go all in hate without further information, testing.

Dlss isn't for me in most games niether is fsr though and the latency doesn't sound appealing to me.

RT is exactly like physx, you buy in then find out f all shows it's worth as much as you hoped and few games even bothered, and fewer still did it well.

EatingDirtIt will be increased latency input compared to if you were actually getting the FPS displayed on the FPS counter.

For example, with DLSS + No Frame Generation, let's say you're getting 20 FPS.

With DLSS + Frame Generation, you may be getting 35 FPS, but the input latency will still be at the 20 FPS latency or a bit higher (it takes time to insert generated frames), because those 15 extra frames you're getting are all generated between the 20 frames the game is actually rendering.

Frame generation input latency will be less noticeable, and probably mostly negligible, if you're already getting 60+ FPS without it.

Your last sentence sums it up perfectly.
If you were getting 20fps nothing is going to help you. If I'm already getting 80fps in cyberpunk for example with everything cranked up and now I'm getting 160 then it looks and feels great. Believe me I'm looking at it right now. Latency in the upper 20s. For this type of game that's beyond acceptable. For an eSports title that is way less demanding you would never use this technology because you would get so many frames anyway and latency is no issue.

robot zombieI'm all on the side of bashing nvidia for their practices, but I honestly can't say anything bad about the tech. This tech itself is great. DLSS has been good in most games since like 2.1. Yes, it does alter the image, but at high resolutions, in actual play... not that noticeable, and ends up being comparable to your typical AA solutions, if not a little more natural-looking across the whole image, in terms of the net changes to the overall image. To me, the frame rate boost and ability to run what are, the these days, much more refined and better understood RT techniques than before, make it worth trying out. The biggest problem was that only quality or *sometimes* balanced mode was really any good outside of 4k. That's changing too, though.

And I KNOW it sounds pretentious. I don't really expect people to just believe me, but perhaps you can at least see how it's possible in a logical sense. When you put everything about these technologies under the looking glass, try to take samples that encapsulate what it's doing, they tend to fall short. With all of the effects, their core strength is in what they push out of the way. If you look for overt or earth shattering, you often find boring and strange instead. It's a matter of missing the full context of those elements within the entire space. The main strength of RT effects is in the way they sneak in and up the overall plausibility factor. It's just less of a strain to believe you're there. Many different kinds of games can benefit from these things. While lighting has always been faked, RT is the better way to fake things.

The DLSS tech goes hand in hand with that. The challenge has always been having the grunt to get enough throughput for practical amounts of real-time accuracy (or at least, correction.) Correction is more attainable right now. It's not ideal. And there are tradeoffs. But from every experience I've ever had with it, it's hard for me not to see it as very worthwhile tech. Bridging that performance gap through sneaky unburdening approaches, allows for an increase in overall plausibility, at the cost of that last layer or two in image fidelity.

And you know what? That IS subjective. I think it's fair to not like what you lose in the images. But I think in time that could change, and I don't think what it offers in impact is worth entirely discarding. RT is pretty interesting as a tool, and who knows what other uses devs might find for it. To me, if it allows for better fidelity of conveyance, more convincing expression in the visuals... to me that stands out as something very valuable. It doesn't automatically make a games visuals better. But it DOES make for a better platform to convey visuals that are fundamentally good better. For instance, some classic games really look great with a proper RT conversion, and the reason they look so good is because the RT is in concert with very good visual design.

Anything that has the potential to elevate the experiences possible in games is worth keeping on-radar at the least. It's prohibitively expensive - that's worth some outrage. I can't even use this... I'll be stuck with my 3060ti for a while... and I only got lucky that a friend cut me a deal on a spare he happened to snipe out. Nvidia really, really is not a great company. I really don't care about DLSS or RTX as brands. But the technology itself is good, has IMO proven its worth, and to me, shows promising future potential. If tricks like machine learning super scaling and frame generation can open the door to it, I can't see that as a bad thing. The only bad thing about it is the absurd cost/availability.

is this from chat- GPT?

redeyeis this from chat- GPT?

Is this your idea of a clever insult?

robot zombieIs this your idea of a clever insult?

upscaling good.
RT faked, but good.
DLSS good, but tough to do
RT adds realism, but has to be designed in
eye candy in games is good.

does that sum it up?

redeyeupscaling good.
RT faked, but good.
DLSS good, but tough to do
RT adds realism, but has to be designed in
eye candy in games is good.

does that sum it up?

Not even. But based on these two posts, Im not interested in discussing it with you. Youve given me zero reason to be charitable towards you.

please block me, then.
OMG, are you really living in Florida?

i am sorry.

Brevity is the soul of wit.

There's being witty, and the there's being reactionary. You chose the latter.

robot zombieThere's being witty, and the there's being reactionary. You chose the latter.

I chose latte?… if given a choice, i’ll pick a latte. and i will drink a café Americano, or espresso over coffee.
(no choice at home, so coffee it is.)

redeyeis this from chat- GPT?

Hi,
Doubt it seeing he has better punctuation :laugh:

ThrashZoneHi,
Doubt it seeing he has better punctuation :laugh:

Not by much sometimes! Kinda scary. Maybe one day I really *can* use it to write posts for other people to take oafish swats at and save even more time.