Thursday, April 13th 2023
NVIDIA Reveals Some RT and DLSS Statistics
Following the launch of the new GeForce RTX 40 series graphics card, the GeForce RTX 4070, NVIDIA has revealed some numbers regarding the usage of ray tracing (RT) and Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS). Bear in mind that these numbers only come from those users that are willing to share their data with GeForce Experience, so they do not show the complete picture, but, on the other hand, they show a rise in adoption rate. Of course, the number of games supporting RT and DLSS has risen over the last few years.
According to NVIDIA, 83 percent of users running on RTX 40 series graphics cards enabled RT, and 79 percent enabled DLSS. On the RTX 30 series, 56 percent of users enable ray tracing and 71 percent enabled DLSS. According to NVIDIA, the numbers were much lower for users running on RTX 20 series back in 2018, where 37 percent users enable RT and 26 percent of them enable DLSS.
Source:
NVIDIA
According to NVIDIA, 83 percent of users running on RTX 40 series graphics cards enabled RT, and 79 percent enabled DLSS. On the RTX 30 series, 56 percent of users enable ray tracing and 71 percent enabled DLSS. According to NVIDIA, the numbers were much lower for users running on RTX 20 series back in 2018, where 37 percent users enable RT and 26 percent of them enable DLSS.
28 Comments on NVIDIA Reveals Some RT and DLSS Statistics
DLSS 2 have been great so far, recently version 2.51 and later made more resolution DLSS usable, nowadays even 1080P can use DLSS to a reasonable degree.
Thanks to competition from FSR and XESS NVIDIA seems to be working hard on improving DLSS, would be great if they can make it open source, at least it will finally settle the question on how and whether DLSS utilize tensor cores.
So far I like DLSS 2 a lot on Quality setting at least and use it in almost every game that has it even w/o RT turned on, to my eyes it often looks better than native TAA on a 2560x1080 monitor/res.
It also fixes some weird flickering issues I've noticed in some games and also I like the more detailed distance objects like wires and whatnot. 'this I notice a lot easier than the upscaling resolution difference'Thats also pretty much true in most cases. 'Guardians of the galaxy I could run maxed out + RT on high with no DLSS but thats an older game by now'
Tbh I like RT as a tech and it does look good imo in some games like Cyberpunk/Control but its not a deal breaker for me if I can't use it and mainly bought into it cause of curiosity. 'those old retro games with RT rework are kinda cool tho'
Correct me if I’m wrong but don’t optimized settings for some cards based on Nvidias testing auto enable DLSS based on the recommended settings? These numbers are BS on top of BS if a user chooses to let Experience decide graphics settings.
I feel the tech is necessary for lower end cards to give it enough oomph to play at higher detail and higher resolution. But fact that you need it for $2000 cards just to use some effects and make it at a semi playable state, is troubling. Although I'm more inclined to blame game developers on their piss poor optimizing skills than the hardware makers for that.
They're using the user metrics to do marketing for them. "More people turn on RT the newer/faster their card is. If you want RT but have been waiting for consensus results on when it will actually be viable for the mainstream then it's finally here." Is what this says.
As far as all the RTX technologies. Yall realize AMD isn't out there exactly innovating these things. They're like the bollywood of graphics. "OH that's a good idea we should come about 10 months late with something similar."
Current RT implementations are typically, shadows, ao, and reflections, far from a true ray traced experience; no full ray/path traced game can run on existing hardware, or really exist.
DLSS, FSR, XESS are far from solutions. They have certainly gotten better and can serve as a crutch for certain hardware, but ultimately you’re degrading the visual quality of your game in the end. Whether it’s ghosting, increased latency, artifacting, or improperly rendering UI/inserted frames, it will never be as good as a non upscaled frame.
Also, why then do you feel the need to defend Nvidia? How is that different from wanting to complain about something.
I get that I can go into a game and select the setting that turns it on, but is there a way...
nvidia should improve real performance and lower prices.
not interested in fake frames that create on screen glitches.
I don't have an issue with the fact that you are part of the people who would rather have upscaling disappear, but if for you turning dlss off is the honest way of doing things, for a corporation that send the message: "we don't actually believe that DLSS provides an increased framerate with a good image quality " at that point they might as well just give up on the tech. (And they also know that people who are not tech savvy would well...not even know what dlss is, that it exists, and therefore not even try it out. That's always an issue when you implement a new feature. Some software got those pop up telling you try the new features, that people find annoying, but so many people don't bother to read the updates note, and just stick to what they already know)
It's an eternal debate that I'm seeing everywhere: one side think that pure rasterization without upscaling should be the only way until we can somehow use DXR without any performance hit on the first try, at the same level as an offline renderer. And the other side is interested to play around with those new tech.
Nvidia and pure gamers just have a massive conflict of interest since Turing, :D someone at Nvidia strongly believe that making a GPU only good at raster games would not be a good business decision, and that person will not give up
CP2077 is path traced now. Cards can do PT. Just not at 4K like everyone wants to compare with. I checked out CP2077 with PT on my 3090, it's about 50-60fps at 1080p. Not ideal but also not unplayable.
Not really defending them just looking at what they're saying without hate goggles on.
OK, and where are the stats on how many turn it off after?
And the other 17%? Imagine paying for a 40-series card and not using RT...
Your 3090 gets 50 to 60 fps? A 4090 gets sub 30 FPS. Enable DLSS 3 and you’re borderline getting playable fps, which then brings you back to the huge caveat. Why are you paying $1500+ on a GPU for better and more realistic image quality, and then actively making the image quality worse by enabling upscalers. The universal truth being no current hardware is capable of running a path traced game, let alone one that hasn’t been designed from the ground up in an exclusive path traced engine. The idea that it’s anything but is an oxymoron.
Ray tracing is cool, software technologies are cool and interesting, but see it for what it actually is.
But the way it does, doesn't sit well with me. I much prefer the AMD approach where raster is basically what drives the GPU, and there's no supposed special sauce core doing very limited work. I also much prefer the chiplet approach moving into GPUs now. After all, does it really matter if the execution of RT is 20-30% slower if you can offer that much more actual GPU for the money? That's where the real performance win is going to be at if we want generational improvements to actually be and remain more than 'shrink me and add a bigger featureset'. Because that is what Ada is, what Ampere was, and what Turing started. Nvidia needed a shrink at every turn to actually create something new.
For me RT is mostly just a fancy way to absolutely destroy performance so companies get to sell smaller dies at higher cost - and we have the live examples of that as we speak. As long as they're playing that game, I'm not buying a card 'for RT'. Tech will only truly become commonplace if it is in fact supported in common ways.
The Nvidia statistic (or let's say the part of the statistic they used in their favour) just shows that xx% activated RT/DLSS in a given timeframe once. It doesn't tell you how long, the percentage they used it in their whole gaming time. They also don't tell you if they have designed their software in a deceptive way to steer customers into clicking on it. They also don't tell you if they have payed off game dev's into designing their setups/games in a deceptive way to peddle folks into activating given features. Deceptive PR and statistics manipulation is a science, since decades, invented by Edward Bernays.