theouto1440p dlss quality is not 1080p btw, it's closer to 900p

Also, I am astonished to report that: they all look meh, I am a bit surprised actually, it's higher res sure, but it retains many weaknesses of the native 1080p image, such as this, which looks to be AO stairstepping
(see what I said about it making things not look that much better than you may think?) (dlss 4k perf on the left, 1080p on the right)

(1440p dlss q on left, native 1080p on the middle, 4k dlss perf on the right) I actually find this particle effect to look better on native 1080p than 1440p dlss quality because of what I mentioned before, it looks noticeably more blocky on dlss, it's also why the transparent window looks argueably nicer on native 1080p compared to dlss @1440p, and hell, I'd say it looks better than in the 4k dlss perf image because there it looks incredibly out of place, because it's trying to upscale an effect (the smudgyness of the window) that is dependent on the internal resolution, but still upscales it to 4k in the same way that the particles or ssr would be, so it looks jarring by comparison.

I guess the lines themselves are sharper, sure, but texture quality does not feel quite crystal 4k (which is a problem I've had in many games back when I ran dlss, textures never feeling quite right, now weather it's because of incorrect use of negative bias or just dlss, that's not my problem)
I'd also argue that Cyberpunk 2077 is not the best game to test this with, since that game has easily one of the worst TAA solutions I've seen any game have, spiderman might be a better go tbh, specially with SMAA

Anyway, I think I'll be sticking to 1080p thank you, low res, but not jarring (though the TAA is terrible, so I'll just not look at this game)

This was pointless

fevgatosThe point isnt whether you are going to play at 1440p in a 4K monitor. The point is you can supersample and then use dlss. Say you have a 1440p monitor, you use dldsr to play at 4k and then upscale with dlss. Render resolution is still 1440p, which is your monitors native resolution, but the image quality is way above native.

fevgatosI can post you 2 screenshots running at similar framerate and you tell me which is the native on. Deal?

Also that's not what I said at all, read again. I said 4k dlss q looks better than native 1440p while it performs similarly.

Random_UserNobody dies. It's just hurts your personal feelings. since you have too much entanglement with Nvidia corporate mentality. No offence. Nvidia won't cradle you before bed. :laugh:
BTW. As you seems to be an avid NV fan, did you ever seen the Nvidia logo? At least one glance? :rolleyes:

Spoiler

Not to rub your wounds, however...

Spoiler

Now, here goes real punch :D

fevgatosWell here you go, not a blind test since I have the names, but doesn't need a blind test. In my eyes the 4k DLSS performance is by far the best one but performance drops a bit, 1440p DLSS Q and native 1080p have same fps but the DLSS is apparently better. Retains more details on pretty much everything. Sadly even imgbb compressed them a bit, original images were 25mb, imgbb hosted them at 10mb.

i.ibb.co/swbznGb/4k-dlss-performance.png
i.ibb.co/M2RJqs6/1080p-native-1.png
i.ibb.co/JFztSLy/1440p-DLSS-Q-2.png

dj-electricEveryone who witnessed RTX 40 series cards' initial launch and seen that many of them are made of slightly cut down core complexes of their own full-core configs.
This road has been paved from the very start, really. Competition-less, NVIDIA is used to making 2 product generations out of 1 architecture.

Prima.VeraIsn't the RTX 50x0 gen supposedly to be launched next year??

Dr. DroThe question that needs be asked is why is that. Why has Ryzen in the 5 years that it exists as a brand/product/series is considered to be positive and Radeon despite existing since 2000 isn't.

fevgatosWell here you go, not a blind test since I have the names, but doesn't need a blind test. In my eyes the 4k DLSS performance is by far the best one but performance drops a bit, 1440p DLSS Q and native 1080p have same fps but the DLSS is apparently better. Retains more details on pretty much everything. Sadly even imgbb compressed them a bit, original images were 25mb, imgbb hosted them at 10mb.

i.ibb.co/swbznGb/4k-dlss-performance.png
i.ibb.co/M2RJqs6/1080p-native-1.png
i.ibb.co/JFztSLy/1440p-DLSS-Q-2.png

lexluthermiesterExactly! This not something people should be surprised about nor whine and complain about.

AusWolfWould you consider playing at 1080p on your 4K screen? Is that why you bought it, to play at 1080p on it with a 4090? I don't think so, that's why this kind of comparison is pointless.

fevgatosYeah, 1080p native looks obviously better. LOL

theoutoYes, and I mean it, sorry to disappoint, but you are wrong, I didn't pick the dlss image even when performance is very similar, but maybe this helps you to see why people might prefer native rendering, even at a lower resolution.

fevgatosNot going to argue, if you think the native looks better more power to you. You happen to disagree with every single reviewer who tested it (and not even with performance equalized) but okay, whatever.

It's very common for people with amd cards to not like dlss.

theoutoConveniently forget the fact where I mentioned that I have used dlss for years when I had a 2070, and yeah, I disagree with the reviewers, I don't need someone to tell me what to think, but agree to disagree man, we all have different reasons for liking and disliking things

FoulOnWhiteunfortunatley as long as there are people who will pay the outlandish prices, it won't stop.

stimpy88. I will use my brain instead and wait for the 50x0 series.

SOAREVERSORThe prices are not "outlandish".

The raw reality is that the constant screaming for better graphics, physics, and more is the problem. To do that cards go up in cost massively. So each GPU itself is going to cost more each generation just for better graphics. Not only that but the cost of the PCBs and all the components on them are going up.

You want prices to drop? There's a good way to do that. No more graphics advances at all, ever again. Instead demand worse graphics in everything and no more physics at all. Scream at the companies that you want to go back to Doom 3 and Half Life to and never moved beyond that, ever again. Scream that 4k, high refresh, and all of that should go away and never come back. You'll get GPUs then that are super cheap to make!

GPU companies didn't do this. Gamers who care about graphics as the end all be all did this. It's all their fault.

fevgatosSure but market prices are dictated by sales. If nobody buys amd gpus of course prices will drop. That's not the point. If you want to compare greediness between companies, you have to compare msrps.

That is just not true. 10 years ago Radeon had over 40% of the marketshare. That's because they were making good cards. Now they arent

How is ryzen a highly esteemed name? It's a much newer brand than Radeon. Obviously because they made good products. Radeon has stopped doing that for many many years. Thinking that nvidia sells because of brand name is just full copium.

Starting from the pascal era (2015) amd has been nonstop failing. Too late to the market, not competitive with nvidias high end cards, exorbitant prices, very limited availability. They are not selling cause they are failing on multiple fronts

neatfeatguyHuh....

I can't honestly say that I know of anyone that's wandering around complaining of the lack of GPUs that are priced at over $1k and would be excited to have another one added to the list.

As of right now, locally, the cheapest 4080 I can get is $1200 and the cheapest 4090 is $1650. Probably going to see the current 4080 drop to $1100, the 4080 Super come in at $1399 while the 4090 maintains its even more outlandish price.

I miss the pricing of the good old days, I'll just have to keep those fond memories alive and avoid paying for this crap.....980Ti was only $650, I'm just saying.