NVIDIA RTX owners only - your opinion on DLSS Image quality

[wolf]

i mean imho
i think rollercoaster tycoon 3 running at 1080p
vs planet coaster max (720)
i would take rct3

Yeah I mean that's also just one example, but I can see what you mean. For me it's always case by case too, but I'd say generally for new release games I'd rather see their bells and whistles rendered @1440p than without @4k assuming FPS would be ~same. I can see how some people would be the opposite to that.

If I could of used DLSS on the V
which imo is basically setting 1080p with improved textures. I wouldn't of upgraded.

I thought the Titan V had Tensor cores, do they now allow use of DLSS only?

 

[purecain]

There are a few settings only offered by the 30 series, resizable BAR for the memory subsystem and DLSS 2.0.

 

[wolf]

There are a few settings only offered by the 30 series, resizable BAR for the memory subsystem and DLSS 2.0.

Pretty sure you're spot on with BAR, but DLSS 2.0 works on 20 series too, after all it launched before the 30 series.

 

[dogwitch]

Pretty sure you're spot on with BAR, but DLSS 2.0 works on 20 series too, after all it launched before the 30 series.

sadly bar hit pretty hard on games atm to. so that a thing to.

 

[purecain]

sadly bar hit pretty hard on games atm to. so that a thing to.

ahh not for the Titan V though...

 

[dogwitch]

ahh not for the Titan V though...

idk whith tha. seeing it was ref on bar being tested with 3k series.
but i will put it blunt. it seems nvida really rush everything out. far to early for the consumer.
amd less so thru.
is it fun to pay a $$$$ beta tax on hardware.

 

[wolf]

but i will put it blunt. it seems nvida really rush everything out. far to early for the consumer.

I put it in a similar bucket to RTX, where they first get the hardware capability out there and then refine the software around it. Indeed they rushed to get BAR done because AMD had something they didn't, but from here on in I don't see it getting worse overall, at least in theory support and gains etc should only get better.

Paying to be a beta tester is one take, I like to have bleeding edge technology/gadgets/graphics, even if it means it's not 100% ready to blow minds level polished yet. For me at least there is enjoyment directly derived from riding that wave.

 

[las]

The main downfall with 4K was that 1440p144hz provides better gaming experience than 4K60hz. That advantage is now gone when Ampere is totally capable of 4K120hz across the majority of games.
I have the LG CX 48in and 4K is barely sharp enough, so 1440p is a big no-no (I sit 70cm away from the TV ).

DLSS just make 4K120hz more accessible than ever, I mean 2 years ago the 2080Ti was barely capable of 4K60hz and DLSS 1.0 was crap, so who in their right mind would spend 2500usd on 4K144hz screen back then? Also the LG C9 and CX are dirt cheap now, making Ampere and LG OLED a match made in heaven .

And yeah I would choose 4K120hz over 1440p240hz screen every time.

For competitive or serious fps gaming, I'd choose 1440p at 240 Hz myself

I mostly use the TV for single player and slower paced games, it can't match my Asus PG279Q in fast paced shooters at all (screen is too big anyway - can't focus and input lag is higher on TVs, even the best ones are around 3 times higher input lag compared to gaming monitors, 120 Hz vs 165 Hz is very noticable for me.

I'm looking to replace my PG279Q with a 1440p/240 Hz IPS when more models are out. For me, more fps is always better and I can easily spot (and feel) the difference between 100 and 200 (even on a 165 Hz monitor).

I love my OLED TV's but mostly for watching movies, series, console and slower paced pc gaming. Never ever getting a LCD/LED TV again, but for PC monitors (laptops and gaming monitors), I probably still prefer IPS..

1440p/144Hz/IPS and VRR is perfect sweet spot for most and very optainable today, good 4K/UHD gaming monitors are still much more expensive than these.

 

[nguyen]

For competitive or serious fps gaming, I'd choose 1440p at 240 Hz myself

I mostly use the TV for single player and slower paced games, it can't match my Asus PG279Q in fast paced shooters at all (screen is too big anyway - can't focus and input lag is higher on TVs, even the best ones are around 3 times higher input lag compared to gaming monitors, 120 Hz vs 165 Hz is very noticable for me.

I'm looking to replace my PG279Q with a 1440p/240 Hz IPS when more models are out. For me, more fps is always better and I can easily spot (and feel) the difference between 100 and 200 (even on a 165 Hz monitor).

I love my OLED TV's but mostly for watching movies, series, console and slower paced pc gaming. Never ever getting a LCD/LED TV again, but for PC monitors (laptops and gaming monitors), I probably still prefer IPS..

1440p/144Hz/IPS and VRR is perfect sweet spot for most and very optainable today, good 4K/UHD gaming monitors are still much more expensive than these.

uh, you are supposed to change the input icon on the OLED TV to PC mode to reduce the input delay. After changing to PC mode, the input delay on LG CX is 6.7ms and only 5.3ms on the C1, mind you even the best 1440p240hz IPS screen have 6.6ms input delay

Also the pixel response time with OLED screen are only 2ms at worst and for IPS screens are 4.5ms

so yeah, unless you are playing competitive CSGO, OLED TV are quite suitable for competitive battle royal titles like Fortnite and Warzone.

 

[las]

uh, you are supposed to change the input icon on the OLED TV to PC mode to reduce the input delay. After changing to PC mode, the input delay on LG CX is 6.7ms and only 5.3ms on the C1, mind you even the best 1440p240hz IPS screen have 6.6ms input delay

View attachment 199547

Also the pixel response time with OLED screen are only 2ms at worst and for IPS screens are 4.5ms
View attachment 199548

so yeah, unless you are playing competitive CSGO, OLED TV are quite suitable for competitive battle royal titles like Fortnite and Warzone.

I'm using it in game mode with all interpolation disabled and it feels slower than my PC gaming monitor, also a TV is way too big for these kind of games if you ask me. When you have to turn your head you already lost, thats why most serious fps gamers are NOT going ultra wide or using big screens, you won't stand a chance vs good players. None of them are using tv's for sure. Most console players that play competitive (or are serious) even uses pc monitors instead of tv's to get an edge. Focus and reaction is much better on a smaller screen that's 100% in your vision at all times.

I don't like my TV for fast paced shooters and nothing will change this fact. Simply feels off. For slower paced 3rd person shooters it works very well. But yeah mostly uses it for single player games tbh.

 

[wolf]

It's interesting you say this @las, I've sent about 10-12 hours gaming on an LG CX65 and found input response in shooters (admittedly talking about various games in halo MCC) to be very responsive. Albeit, I am far from a competitive gamer, I just play SP/CO-OP shooters on very hard difficulties.

 

[las]

It's interesting you say this @las, I've sent about 10-12 hours gaming on an LG CX65 and found input response in shooters (admittedly talking about various games in halo MCC) to be very responsive. Albeit, I am far from a competitive gamer, I just play SP/CO-OP shooters on very hard difficulties.

It's not bad, pretty much best in class for tv's but I just feel that my Asus PG279Q is faster and more responsive than both my C9 and G1 OLEDs, keep in mind that I use 165 Hz

 

[MagnyCours]

Combined with sharpening, image quality is pretty dang good I'd say. DLSS 1.0 was terrible, though, glad they've improved the implementation leaps and bounds with 2.0++.

 

[las]

Combined with sharpening, image quality is pretty dang good I'd say. DLSS 1.0 was terrible, though, glad they've improved the implementation leaps and bounds with 2.0++.

Yeah sadly many people still spread missinformation based on what they read about DLSS 1.0 back in the days

 

[nguyen]

It's not bad, pretty much best in class for tv's but I just feel that my Asus PG279Q is faster and more responsive than both my C9 and G1 OLEDs, keep in mind that I use 165 Hz

You are feeling more responsive with the Asus PG279Q because you are getting higher FPS at 1440p than 4K, once you are getting the same FPS at 4K as you do on 1440p, the responsiveness will be the same (or better on the LG OLED).

I have been playing PUBG on my LG CX 48in and the advantages of having a massive and responsive screen are undeniable. Before I had the LG 34GN850-B screen which is 3440x1440 160hz and the LG CX is just superior in every way. And yes I play PUBG with low settings, which give me the same FPS at 4K/1440p because of CPU bottleneck.

Yeah sadly many people still spread missinformation based on what they read about DLSS 1.0 back in the days

If anyone think DLSS is the same as upscaling, show them this

 

[phanbuey]

uh, you are supposed to change the input icon on the OLED TV to PC mode to reduce the input delay. After changing to PC mode, the input delay on LG CX is 6.7ms and only 5.3ms on the C1, mind you even the best 1440p240hz IPS screen have 6.6ms input delay

View attachment 199547

Also the pixel response time with OLED screen are only 2ms at worst and for IPS screens are 4.5ms
View attachment 199548

so yeah, unless you are playing competitive CSGO, OLED TV are quite suitable for competitive battle royal titles like Fortnite and Warzone.

^THIS

I have the Samsung G7 27" sitting in my closet and gaming on my 48" TV instead... the lag difference is perceptible but very very small, whereas the difference in visuals, and gaming experince on a giant 4k 120hz vs a tiny, pixelated 27" at 240hz - no contest the TV is better.

Just wish I knew that within the return period :/

As far as DLSS 2.0 Image quality - it is incredible. I've used it primarily in Cyberpunk to game at high FPS at 4k and the differences are imperceptible, but the framerate difference is absolutely massive. DLSS is an absolute must for me at 4K, not negotiable, I wouldn't be able to have this amazing gaming experience without it.

 

[nguyen]

Well getting to play Sam's Story Enhanced for a couple of hours and the performance of DLSS is superb (+70% with 4K DLSS Balanced) but some weapons produce the trailing artifacts that are noticeable in dark area.
Lightning is looking flawless in the Enhanced edition, there is no fake point light to be seen.

 

[wolf]

Lightning is looking flawless in the Enhanced edition

It's blowing me away honestly, this game truly looks a generation apart to most others now and my framerates are fantastic with DLSS quality 3440x1440.

 

[robot zombie]

I'm just using it for the first time on Control. It definitely improved a lot. Very sharp and not smudgy. The dark haloing is still evident, but it's so much cleaner looking, I'd put it down on the level of artifacting you expect from any moderate or heavy AA. Edges are distinctly darker. No ghosting/flickering or anything like that, though. Things like film grain and motion blur still goof it up, you'll start to see the trails in screen space stuff and 'film grain ray confusion' going on. No biggie. This game already has so much temporal aliasing and volumetric light clumping artifacts, film grain has always been the last thing it needed.

I'm impressed. The performance at 1080p is amazing. My 2060 has struggled to hold 60 below native in certain areas, with any RTX effects on. Old DLSS would let me enable a few, but had a lot of fringing, moire, vanishing lines, so on. It just didn't look the best. It could be okay, but you have too many '...ugh' moments. I'm seeing... well I haven't noticed any yet! I'm sure it's there and I haven't seen the right thing. But before, I would try to turn it on and go back to running at 768p and letting the MSAA pick up the slack. It ran better and looked at least more consistent. That no longer looks as good. I swear, it's pulling a little extra detail out of some images over say, native 1080p with no RTX enabled and maxed settings. Certain textures and details in the edges just pop better. And the performance and appearance of traditionally-processed native res is now surpassed by the DLSS 2.0 in some ways. It's going to be a give and take. I prefer it with the DLSS. Especially with the RT in the mix. That makes it totally worth it. Man.

I mean, really... the main visual benefit is that I now run ALL of the RTX goodness with my settings almost maxed. And my FPS doesn't go below 70 for the most part. I'm running a 165hz monitor at half sync. So I cap out at 82/3 FPS, which is where it tends to stay outside of the absolute heavy zones. The mailroom area is one... with RTX effects it just munches frames ruthlessly. Used to be a 40-50 FPS type of spot for me. Now it's more like 80! What? It will dip as low as 70 at times. But I'm not concerned about that because I have an inkling that frametimes are massively better overall. 1% lows have to be looking good, because even as I'm watching the frame rates fluctuate on the counter, the images remain VERY smooth. Used to be there would be stutter I could see and even feel, even holding flat numbers. But with DLSS 2.0 I'm staying over the waterline and it seems to be keeping the loads consistent enough to avoid stutter, even with 3-7FPS jumps happening.

So yeah... this is pretty great. It's amazing how far this stuff has come. For all of Nvidia's crap, this 2060 keeps on chuggin in my 1080p setup. I'm pleased with this. Metro should be interesting. Apparently this is kind of a big deal lol.

 

[wolf]

I swear, it's pulling a little extra detail out of some images

Appreciate your extended thoughts!, for the part I've quoted specifically, this is one part that blows my mind when I see it, some parts of the image in Control and Metro EE are wildly sharp and detailed with DLSS quality, switch back to Native and that 'wow-factor' or 'pop' disappears.

I agree too there are some possible shortfalls as you mentioned, but nothing really that you don't already see in other AA methods or something it's just an artefact of the engine/rendering anyway. DLSS cops a lot of scrutiny, and rightly so, but it's not as if images we're pixel perfect / have drawbacks with other AA methods anyway. The list of extra positives, like performance and fine details, for example, more than outweigh any negatives imo.

 

[robot zombie]

Appreciate your extended thoughts!, for the part I've quoted specifically, this is one part that blows my mind when I see it, some parts of the image in Control and Metro EE are wildly sharp and detailed with DLSS quality, switch back to Native and that 'wow-factor' or 'pop' disappears.

I agree too there are some possible shortfalls as you mentioned, but nothing really that you don't already see in other AA methods or something it's just an artefact of the engine/rendering anyway. DLSS cops a lot of scrutiny, and rightly so, but it's not as if images we're pixel perfect / have drawbacks with other AA methods anyway. The list of extra positives, like performance and fine details, for example, more than outweigh any negatives imo.

I first got it in my head the DLSS could 'recover' details lost to render methods on the game's base pipeline when I saw what it did to CP2077. I can't even run that game without DLSS. And I wouldn't want to, because it actually doesn't look as good. 4k is where people say it has the most noticable effect, but I see it at 1080p too. There are losses there, as well. But it essentially functions as performance-giving AA, so what do you want? The game looks really good with it!

Everything comes with compromises. This is absolutely a net improvement, though. I ticked-off half sync and I can pass 100fps in some spots if I drop down below 720p. For the most part, it's hardly different. 540p starts to get noticeable with things in the distance. And you will see the more contrasted edges "marching" as you move the camera. It's subtle, as though for a frame or two it's still resolving the lower-res source frame. I almost missed it. Not unlike TAA, though with places where you have a lot of fine details partially blocking lights the matrix effect comes through. Most times, you have to look for it - it's not quite like TAA ghosting. More like little jitters.

Honestly, it still looks impressively good at 540p! You'd think it would be completely unusable but outside of a few situations it is as good as the rest for another 20FPS. To me, anyway.

This stuff is pretty cool. This might really be the future, though I'd really like for it to kinda be an industry standard that is available to everyone. It would change everything if only that were true! You can get a lot of things happening with the amount of grunt that frees up. And then as cards get faster and this hardware matures... yeah. If these methods were to get absorbed into everything, we'd be looking at clearing some serious graphical hurdles. I am all for making that power available if it means future games can try previously nonviable graphical things. Less between you and the visual art. More the visual artists can bring to you.

I also really appreciate the value this is bringing to my 2-year-old midrange card. I'm actually getting markedly better performance out of it than when I first got it on some big games! How often does that really happen on such a dramatic level? When I bought it, it wouldn't have been able to run CP2077. Control was pushing it to the absolute limit of 1080/60, with heavier compromises setting in.

 

[wolf]

Honestly, it still looks impressively good at 540p! You'd think it would be completely unusable but outside of a few situations it is as good as the rest for another 20FPS. To me, anyway.

I am legitimately blown away how good "ultra-performance" mode looks, which on my monitor is an input resolution of 1148x480. It's remarkably sharp given the input and side by side against that as a custom resolution there really is no comparison at all, the DLSS version looks phenomenal. The only reason I find it unusable in Metro EE is because at that resolution, no RT setting has a high end sample count to make shadow noise acceptable, it's a crawling dancing mess. But I mean even fine detail and that is simply astonishing to my eyes given what is happening under the hood.

I also agree on the value it has added to an older / slower card, if adoption stays strong or improves drastically, it can really make weaker cards (relative to age, the game etc) keep their head above water for much longer. Especially because, as we see almost universally with DLSS, the lower the starting framerate, the bigger the benefit you get. Like if you start at 100fps on average @ native res, you might see something like quality 120fps, balanced 135fps, performance 150fps. But if you start from 30fps, you might see something more like quality 50fps, balanced 70fps, performance 90fps. So as you can see the % uplift is massively more when the fps starts lower, which in my eyes is all the more incentive to crank up the details.

 

[Mussels]

shoulda put a poll, but i guess the consensus is "the new DLSS is pretty good"

 

[wolf]

shoulda put a poll, but i guess the consensus is "the new DLSS is pretty good"

Couuuuld have put a poll, but I find the answers a bit restrictive which is why I gave some suggestions to base answers around, and most people already just dived into more extended thoughts. Also considerably more chance that someone who doesn't fit my request of the thread could just vote and leave if I've understood the way the polls work.

I'm quite enjoying reading people's thoughts on it, I won't sit here and pretend DLSS 2.0 is perfect, but I do think this thread has shielded us from just needlessly ragging on it because that user is perhaps against NVIDIA, the technological foundations/limitations on paper, proprietary technologies, adoption etc. The comments here are indeed quite positive overall but we're also exploring more of the nuances of performance and image quality more so than just DLSS = good/bad.

 

[Mussels]

i'm just excited for the fact low end hardware (and LAPTOP hardware) is going to be useful many years later, thanks to DLSS