RTX and DLSS in Shadow of the Tomb Raider

[sutyi]

Hmm... and what are your expectations?
I'm not even asking about RTX. Generally, what direction would you like gaming graphics to take?

Art direction is one thing, how technologies are implemented and are worth using is another.

RT Shadows in this game mostly look like a glorified Ambient Occlusion in some places or straight up overblown soft shadows. For a close to 50% performance hit you expect something that enhances graphical fidelity in a worthwhile manner, and for me and meany others this ain't it sadly. The only implementation where we get something nice currently is when refractions are done with RT.

 

[swirl09]

Well this is a first. RTX is underwhelming and DLSS is a winner here.

RTX has been making more of an impression on me than I thought it would, not that I dont like or believe in it, just I feel its a feature that is really going to take some time before its impact is real - ie a good range of games supporting it and running on hardware that doesnt exist yet. I have liked what its achieved in the few other games that is supported. But its very limited on the visual impact in this game and absolutely not worth the performance hit unless youre on a future gen with FPS to burn. Im playing at 4K maxed out and would rather be comfortably over 60FPS TBH.

DLSS on the other hand is a feature I was excited about and has been giving varying amounts of disappointment thus far, until now. I actually like the DLSS in this game!

 

[laszlo]

is quite interesting that sun light is diffused with rtx on which in my opinion is not realistic as light without any obstacle in front of it should pass and hit the ground through tree leaves...

best to see this in above 2 pictures bottom left and near lara at right... seems to me that rtx is adding clouds in front of the sun good job nv!

 

[notb]

To me the drop in detail was very noticeable
I play maxes eye candy, (but no DoF or motion blur).

The detail is definitely lessened with DLSS.

Keep in mind there are 2 different reasons why you may see "less detail".

1) Some of the blur comes from efficiency problems. Too little rays mean graphics have to be heavily processed (e.g. denoised - much like in digital photography). This will improve over time with better implementations and hardware.

2) Some of the blur comes from more realistic light modelling. The tree shadow issue mentioned above is a good example. Ray tracing adds a natural blur coming from light effects. The image is less detailed, but more realistic. You can choose what you like more.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I’m amazed that some people are seeing the same screens with DLSS as I am. How can clearly blurry implementation be great, or a winner?

 

[AmioriK]

I can't tell any meaningful difference between DLSS on and off in this game. depending on the scenery, DLSS may look slightly sharper or softer on moving objects which I think is due to the motion blur effect because on none moving objects sharpness is almost always the same between DLSS on and off which is amazing. I'm really exited to try DLSS on my GTX1080.

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but doesn't DLSS require the use of Turing 20-series's Tensor cores?

 

[Nikita]

Techpowerup made a mistake. DLSS isn't just supported with 2560x1440 and 3840x2160. 21:9 resolutions like 2560x1080 and 3440x1440 are also supported.

3440x1440 looks much sharper than 2560x1440 with DLSS on. It seems like there might be something wrong with the implementation of DLSS at 2560x1440.
However the difference between 2560x1080 with DLSS on / off is by far the most profound.

I’m amazed that some people are seeing the same screens with DLSS as I am. How can clearly blurry implementation be great, or a winner?

The implementation at 2560x1440 seems to be bugged. At least at 21:9 resolutions like 2560x1080 and 3440x1440 the image is quite a bit sharper than with TAA.

 

[swirl09]

I’m amazed that some people are seeing the same screens with DLSS as I am. How can clearly blurry implementation be great, or a winner?

I probably sounded overly enthusiastic about it. A case of conditioning maybe, considering the other games with DLSS support have been so bad. If I needed to find some performance, it still wouldnt be my first choice, but at least Id consider it an option here after trying X and Y, which is an upgrade from the other games where its a flat out no. Seems to suffer more at the lower res point too, judging by the previous posters images.

 

[Nikita]

To me the drop in detail was very noticeable
I play maxes eye candy, (but no DoF or motion blur).

The detail is definitely lessened with DLSS.



Side note

At 4K+ DLSS is not a good thing on quality

I have yet to see it not compromise the visual quality. My uneducated eye tells me it’s at a lower resolution and no longer 4K. The monitor says it’s 4k but the image is “lessened”

Honestly, I think there is something wrong with the implementation at 16:9 resolutions. If you look at the images I posted of the 21:9 resolutions, DLSS is clearly preserving much more detail. Especially, at 2560x1080, the difference is quite dramatic. At least at 21:9 it seems like DLSS provides the better image quality.

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

Not convinced by DLSS, but the RTX shadows do look a lot less artificial. They are way too sharp for tree shadows without RTX.

Not saying you can't fix that without having to use RTX, but it takes quite a bit of extra effort from the deves if they have to go through every scene in a large world game and fix the shadows or bake in better lighting.

Also one of the other advantages will be in dynamic (time of day, weather, etc) worlds where you can't bake in as much lighting.

 

[AmioriK]

Not convinced by DLSS, but the RTX shadows do look a lot less artificial. They are way too sharp for tree shadows without RTX.

Not saying you can't fix that without having to use RTX, but it takes quite a bit of extra effort from the deves if they have to go through every scene in a large world game and fix the shadows or bake in better lighting.

Also one of the other advantages will be in dynamic (time of day, weather, etc) worlds where you can't bake in as much lighting.

Shadows in dying light and gta5 use PCSS and they look better than this with RTX. So basically you're OK with having your FPS halved because devs are too lazy and CBA to make their games look the best, and run the best? ok.

Both those worlds do dynamic lighting and day/night and weather just fine without Ray tracing, and without the insane perf impact. If you're going to Ray Trace, at least do Illumination and Reflections, just doing it for shadows is a waste of computational power.

 

[rtwjunkie]

I probably sounded overly enthusiastic about it. A case of conditioning maybe, considering the other games with DLSS support have been so bad. If I needed to find some performance, it still wouldnt be my first choice, but at least Id consider it an option here after trying X and Y, which is an upgrade from the other games where its a flat out no. Seems to suffer more at the lower res point too, judging by the previous posters images.

Fair enough!

 

[GorbazTheDragon]

Shadows in dying light and gta5 use PCSS and they look better than this with RTX. So basically you're OK with having your FPS halved because devs are too lazy and CBA to make their games look the best, and run the best? ok.

Both those worlds do dynamic lighting and day/night and weather just fine without Ray tracing, and without the insane perf impact. If you're going to Ray Trace, at least do Illumination and Reflections, just doing it for shadows is a waste of computational power.

I'm not saying I favour one over the other, but it should be very apparent that if devs don't have to spend as many resources baking lighting into scenes they can spend more time on other parts of the experience.

I don't by any means think that this is really showing what RTX/DXR is capable of, however I think it would be really foolish to go down your route of just endlessly bashing attempts to make significant technological advantages that are capable of delivering pay off in the long run.

 

[AmioriK]

I'm not saying I favour one over the other, but it should be very apparent that if devs don't have to spend as many resources baking lighting into scenes they can spend more time on other parts of the experience.

I don't by any means think that this is really showing what RTX/DXR is capable of, however I think it would be really foolish to go down your route of just endlessly bashing attempts to make significant technological advantages that are capable of delivering pay off in the long run.

ehm.... no. i praised RTX in exodus and BF5 because it actually looks good? lol these RT shadows look garbage and the FPs hit is unnacceptable.

 

[pottu]

you look at the first screenshot, the RTX side is a blurry mess, and the shadowmap of the tree and leaves is crisp and dark. You could say its 'more refined' but really, it lacks the detail to call it that, its just not as dark. Its an additional shadow quality setting I think describes it best: in some places, it creates scenes that are harder to play, in others its dynamic nature adds to the immersion, and in yet again others the quality is considerably more blurry and less defined than a precooked shadowmap.

For blurriness there would be easy fix of using less realistic size for sun, pretty sure they currently use ~0.5 degrees which blurs shadows quite fast with distance. (~40cm wide blur after 5 meters from occluder, if my math is correct.)

 

[Crap Daddy]

Wow i came into this expecting some pretty awesome graphics but wth, that is really pants. the FPS drop for that is ridiculous. I won't blame RTX itself or the Turing GPUs, i blame a potato implementation in this game, looks like an afterthought, and as some have said, in outside scenes it looks basically the same.

20 series really aren't that attractive based on what we've seen of RTX so far, but it's early days. All tech has to start somewhere. (but i fear by the time it is ready, 20 series will already be obsolete for Ray Tracing).

Glad i didn't get the 2060 i was considering before the 1660 launched lol

anyway thanks for testing it w1zzard, much appreciated

edit: i jumped straight to the comparisons and missed the bit about it being shadows only. Lol that's why it doesn't look all that great. Not worth the performance impact at all, though, the normal shadows look fine

edit2: now i checked DLSS and i think it looks good as W1zzard says in conclusion. I have looked at the comparison sliders and the visual quality is very good and the perf increase from DLSS is definitely going to be noticeable. I thought as much, that DLSS will need time to get better as they tweak and refine it

Well, I really hope the vast majority who bought RTX cards did it for better performance over the GTX 1*** series rather than this ray tracing smoke screen because obviously this generation of cards and the willingness of devs to implement ain't going nowhere. Buying a 1660 over a 2060 should be based on the money you want to spend and whether it serves your purpose. Forget Ray Tracy, there is a massive difference in performance between the two.

 

[Nima]

Forgive me if i'm wrong, but doesn't DLSS require the use of Turing 20-series's Tensor cores?

Oh, you are right. I thought DLSS along with DXR will be enabled on Pascal GPUs but it seems DLSS is not possible on Pascal and the next driver in April will only bring DXR to Pascal not DLSS.

 

[jabbadap]

Honestly, I think there is something wrong with the implementation at 16:9 resolutions. If you look at the images I posted of the 21:9 resolutions, DLSS is clearly preserving much more detail. Especially, at 2560x1080, the difference is quite dramatic. At least at 21:9 it seems like DLSS provides the better image quality.

I'm just wondering what is the rendering resolution for 2560x1080, and what is the performance gap between native+TAA vs DLSS on that resolution.

Why no DLSS + RTX benchmark charts ??

Well that puzzles me a bit too. @W1zzard are performance numbers with RTX on with or without DLSS? DLSS is under RTX umbrella so it could be better of using DXR medium, high and ultra instead of RTX to be clear that no DLSS is in use.

 

[TheGuruStud]

I can see how bad DLSS looks...on my phone. It never fails to impress.

 

[pottu]

Oh, you are right. I thought DLSS along with DXR will be enabled on Pascal GPUs but it seems DLSS is not possible on Pascal and the next driver in April will only bring DXR to Pascal not DLSS.

It should be possible to have compute path to do DLSS, but it certainly would have quite bit higher performance penalty. (It most likely would cost more than rendering game at higher resolution it upscales to. )

 

[Franzen4Real]

I find the differences very subtle with the RTX, but with close observation it is appreciated. DLSS though is krapp. I would definitely not use it if I had an RTX card, I am more about IQ than pure performance.

Am I right that you can run RTX and not turn on DLSS? The settings look that way, and I would prefer not having a blurry mess.

I agree, but think the shadows do look a bit soft. I just don't know that the amount of time they spent implementing it this far after launch justifies the result, or performance impact. I really need to see it being played though as opposed to random still screen shots. (Ganna have to be a Steam sale though, I just don't get into the TR franchise).

So far, I have tried each of the previous RTX games with each different combo of RTX on/off and DLSS on/off and all were an easy pick to go RTX on DLSS off. I was hopeful in DLSS (and still am) after Port Royal, but that best case doesn't seem to be translating to real time rendering, unfortunately.

 

[BarbaricSoul]

I'm just not seeing any big improvement to justify the cost of a GTX **80ti card jumping from $750 to over $1200 in two generations

 

[notb]

I’m amazed that some people are seeing the same screens with DLSS as I am. How can clearly blurry implementation be great, or a winner?

Because that blur can be intended.
You got used to 100% sharp graphics. More importantly, you got used to the fact that when you pay more for your hardware, you're rewarded with even more crisp looks.
But if gaming is going to turn (or at least: fork) to realism, some realistic blur will have to appear.
Suddenly, the more you pay for your GPU, the less shiny and crisp the image could be. And more realistic shadows will make gaming harder (someone already mentioned that in this thread).

I know this may be hard to digest, but... well... realistic games may simply not be for everyone. And most likely you'll still be able to make a choice (raster vs RT) for many years, so don't worry too much.

Look at 20-30 year old movies with high quality CGI, like Jurassic Park. Would you be OK if games looked like that?

Moreover, keep in mind this is not for gaming anymore. We're getting into AR/VR. Would you at least agree that realism will matter in this application?

 

[venturi]

side note, I think folks have missed some points.

AT 4K+

Don't compare DLSS to TAA and discern that TAA seems more detailed, because it is.

rather

Compare DLSS to no AA at 4k and take in the amount of blur it imposes and krappifies the image detail.

When nvidia uses "AI" in their marketing description of DLSS... I would expect equal to or enhanced visual quality - not where they took a 4k sharp image and blur it to to 1920x1080 or 2560x1440 and then say there is a speed boost....

really?

 

[Hockster]

Is this a manual download? I'm not getting the update on my Steam version.