Wednesday, February 12th 2025
![TechPowerUp](https://tpucdn.com/images/news/tpu-v1739213381396.png)
Upscaling Beats Native Resolution 55-45 in TechPowerUp Frontpage Survey
User preference to super resolution technologies such as NVIDIA DLSS, AMD FSR, and Intel XeSS, beat playing games without them, at native resolution, in the latest TechPowerUp Frontpage Poll. Spanning nearly a month of polling and over 29,260 votes, the poll provides an interesting insight into the minds of today's gamers. It suggests that gamers are willing to explore super resolution technologies to make their games playable with higher eye-candy, as opposed to playing at native resolutions with watered down settings. The question we asked was what setting of super resolution do gamers use, with "native" suggesting a lack of super resolution. Native could include presets such as DLAA or FSR Native, which render the game at native resolution while using the upscaler to work like an AA technology, smoothing out edges.
Native resolution scored 13,024 votes, or 44.5% of the votes. It is the single largest response, but given that every other response is tied to some form of super resolution, it becomes a minority response. Native is followed by "Quality" preset at 38.8% or 11,341 votes. The "Balanced" present, which tends to be the default super resolution preset in most games, trails "Quality" by a significant margin, scoring just 8.9% of the vote, or 2,593 votes. Only trace sections of our users pick "performance" and "ultra performance" presets that tend to render the game at significantly lower resolutions to make it playable. "Performance" got 4.7% (1,376 votes), followed by "Ultra Performance" at 3.2% or 930 votes.The voting patterns suggest that gamers do want to use super resolution, and are willing to pick either "Quality" or "Balanced" presets, leaning greatly toward "Quality." Native remains the single largest mode, and a significant minority of 44.5% wants GPUs to be able to play today's games without the crutches of super resolution tech. The split between "Quality" and "Balanced" suggests that when enabling super resolution technologies, gamers do tend to take the time to manually pick the preset to "Quality" from the default "Balanced," suggesting that they don't just flick super resolution on, and are conscious of what kind of super resolution they want. If you were to club "Native" with "Quality," they make an overwhelming 83% of the vote—people want their experience to be either at native or as close to native as possible.
However, considering how terribly some game releases in 2024 ran, upscaling if often the only solution for playable frame rates, especially on systems with weaker GPU hardware. Last but not least, DLSS and FSR are activated by default in many games, which might affect a lot of gamers who just select a settings profile and don't look closer whether they have upscaling enabled or not.
Native resolution scored 13,024 votes, or 44.5% of the votes. It is the single largest response, but given that every other response is tied to some form of super resolution, it becomes a minority response. Native is followed by "Quality" preset at 38.8% or 11,341 votes. The "Balanced" present, which tends to be the default super resolution preset in most games, trails "Quality" by a significant margin, scoring just 8.9% of the vote, or 2,593 votes. Only trace sections of our users pick "performance" and "ultra performance" presets that tend to render the game at significantly lower resolutions to make it playable. "Performance" got 4.7% (1,376 votes), followed by "Ultra Performance" at 3.2% or 930 votes.The voting patterns suggest that gamers do want to use super resolution, and are willing to pick either "Quality" or "Balanced" presets, leaning greatly toward "Quality." Native remains the single largest mode, and a significant minority of 44.5% wants GPUs to be able to play today's games without the crutches of super resolution tech. The split between "Quality" and "Balanced" suggests that when enabling super resolution technologies, gamers do tend to take the time to manually pick the preset to "Quality" from the default "Balanced," suggesting that they don't just flick super resolution on, and are conscious of what kind of super resolution they want. If you were to club "Native" with "Quality," they make an overwhelming 83% of the vote—people want their experience to be either at native or as close to native as possible.
However, considering how terribly some game releases in 2024 ran, upscaling if often the only solution for playable frame rates, especially on systems with weaker GPU hardware. Last but not least, DLSS and FSR are activated by default in many games, which might affect a lot of gamers who just select a settings profile and don't look closer whether they have upscaling enabled or not.
32 Comments on Upscaling Beats Native Resolution 55-45 in TechPowerUp Frontpage Survey
But I have to question the merit here a bit. Using an upscaler at 1080p looks like a mess. They seem to work better at the 2k at the very least, but mostly 4k. But you shouldn't have 'jaggies' at those resolutions if your monitor is below 29''. The pixel density would be insane.
It feels like users of lower SKUs are somewhat forced to use upscaling to compensate for the weakness of those cards.
It would be great to carry out a follow up poll and make a break down on different cards.
I use 7900XTX and have never felt any need to use upscaling in 4K gameplay.
But, in another system there is 6800XT and there is need to use upscaling.
It's better to think of developers like artists. They're always interested in honing their craft and making their game look as great as possible - within resource budgets dictated by consoles - they're just funded and directed by corporations. Because that's what a studio is when managed by a AAA publisher.
What they want to do (perfect it forever like Kojima) and what they're allowed to do (release on this deadline no matter what) are completely different things. I am aware of Threat Interactive, but "Optimization" is another term thrown around on social media without understanding what it entails. Notice how it only entered the lexicon as consoles got more PC-like?
Optimization is being referenced like a magic spell. Not everything that can be optimized is affordable to do or worth the ROI to the publisher. When it happens, its like how Frostbite has been optimized for Veilguard and now future uses will be more impressive.
I hope that TI guy uses his 'tism to fix PC graphics with his upcoming game though. I truly wish him well. Upscalers are a nice tool that I agree is a nice band-aid for lower spec GPUs. I wouldn't underestimate what people who are used to console-quality graphics/framerates will call high quality. Remember some people can't see the difference between 30 and 60fps.
If Steam surveys say most people are using 3060s, I'd bet money they're used to prior-gen games which have great graphics and find modern-gen games with upscaling acceptable. I would expect no less from those who have yet to experience exceptional. The only way to push technology forward is to use it. Remember when clouds sucked because skyboxes? Horizon Forbidden West says hi.
I'd rather have upscalers than not. I look forward to seeing what they can do, especially given their progress so far.
What upscaling has "replaced" isn't locked away forever. I hope more studios make games like we got in 2018/2019. Thankfully Kingdom Come Deliverance 2 is a thing.
Obviously it's marketing, but I don't see it as a problem, unlike saying that frame generation increases performance.
I don't see a case where I wouldn't use DLSS anymore. I play on a 4K TV, so even DLSS2 Quality looked amazing and better than native TAA (especially in terms of distant detail). With the new transformer model, even Performance mode looks indistinguishable from DLAA to my eyes during gameplay. I'd use it to lower power consumption even if I had enough performance to spare.
petrakeas.medium.com/dlss-image-quality-they-have-been-testing-it-wrong-3aa3d07c4c3e