Editorial NVIDIA DLSS and its Surprising Resolution Limitations

[Super XP]

Yeah, it is looking that way - the extra FPS might be nice but I am doubting the value given the blurriness it gives to the game.

I am sure they will fix this issue, but don't count on it. Something that gives you faster performance without Picture Quality Compromise? That is a very difficult task, one which I can't see happening.
To give you an example of hype, I remember when AMD released in its drivers the Morphological Filtering. It was kind of a hype way back. Its still available in the Drivers, but when I enable it, the Picture Quality doesn't look right. lol

 

[MaZz7]

Softbank knew this all along and pullout from this Bulsh*&(

 

[notb]

Really? How many posts come along with people asking how to increase my fps? Or 'X review had 82fps but I only have 75fps, what's wrong?' I would say the vast majority of 'gamers' chase fps regardless if it even benefits them.

People on this forum (any PC forum) are not representative for the whole population.
With this kind of logic one could think that everyone has big desktops and overclocks (and let's be honest: that is a popular belief among TPU forum members).

First thing you have to accept is that most people don't even know how many fps they're looking at. Maybe they checked it once to learn if their hardware is good enough.
By contrary, a lot of people on forums like this one constantly game with PC monitoring in the corner (not just fps, but also temperature, load and so on). Are you doing it by chance?

It's also subjective. Screenshots of BV5 look like hot trash (to me). It looks like anything that has a reflection is a mirror. Not everything that has a reflection is a mirror. I understand these were likely shortcuts to get the tech out there. But again, what incentive is there?

It really isn't. Ray tracing is the best way computers of today can replicate how light behaves in reality (in macro scale, at least).
You have to understand what we're seeing now in BV5 is not what RTRT is meant to do.
You're seeing all these unrealistic reflections because it's the most basic result - it uses the least hardware and is easiest to implement.
It's just the first step.

Light interacts with matter. Apart from the simple reflection, ray tracing takes care of scattering, diffusion, absorption and refraction. But to make it all work, all textures and materials have to be parametrized. It's a lot of work. But that's the work we'll have to do if we want RTRT to create photorealistic results sometime in the future.
Today RTX does just a fraction of what it can do and RTX cards offer just a fraction of computing potential they'll have to offer. But this tech will constantly improve.

 

[moproblems99]

It really isn't.

So are you saying that what looks good and doesn't isn't subjective?

 

[EarthDog]

Not sure if this was posted earlier... words from nvidia...

DLSS is designed to boost frame rates at high GPU workloads (i.e. when your framerate is low and your GPU is working to its full capacity without bottlenecks or other limitations). If your game is already running at high frame rates, your GPU’s frame rendering time may be shorter than the DLSS execution time. In this case, DLSS is not available because it would not improve your framerate. However, if your game is heavily utilizing the GPU (e.g. FPS is below ~60), DLSS provides an optimal performance boost. You can crank up your settings to maximize your gains. (Note: 60 FPS is an approximation — the exact number varies by game and what graphics settings are enabled)

To put it a bit more technically, DLSS requires a fixed amount of GPU time per frame to run the deep neural network. Thus, games that run at lower frame rates (proportionally less fixed workload) or higher resolutions (greater pixel shading savings), benefit more from DLSS. For games running at high frame rates or low resolutions, DLSS may not boost performance.

 

[Super XP]

Still does not negate the fact DLSS makes the PQ look horrible.

 

[bug]

Still does not negate the fact DLSS makes the PQ look horrible.

Again, so does JPEG. Yet JPEG is everywhere.
Because not everything you can see in a review at 200% magnification, you'll see in motion.
You don't like it? Don't use. But it is a tool to boost your FPS.

 

[Super XP]

Again, so does JPEG. Yet JPEG is everywhere.
Because not everything you can see in a review at 200% magnification, you'll see in motion.
You don't like it? Don't use. But it is a tool to boost your FPS.

What I am saying is just simply disable this feature till Nvidia fixes it. Its an interesting feature, by boosting FPS, I will give them that, but need to FIX IT.

 

[EarthDog]

It isnt broken.

 

[bug]

What I am saying is just simply disable this feature till Nvidia fixes it. Its an interesting feature, by boosting FPS, I will give them that, but need to FIX IT.

It can't be fixed in the way you think it should. It's designed to downgrade IQ, but it's designed so it will do it so you won't notice while playing.

 

[moproblems99]

What I am saying is just simply disable this feature till Nvidia fixes it. Its an interesting feature, by boosting FPS, I will give them that, but need to FIX IT.

Fix what? Seems to do what it is supposed to.

 

[jabbadap]

Not sure if this was posted earlier... words from nvidia...

How I translate that, is that Turing GPU can't do shader and tensor math at the same time. Thus it's doing rendering first(Raster+RT) and DLSS with tensor cores then within the frame. Which bring us back to that Turing Frame pic:

Spoiler

It probably takes some ms to do DLSS in that frame, which will be added to rendering time. If we take i.e. RTX 2080 ti supported resolutions and look the performance numbers from tpus tests it shows that on supported resolutions rendering time is for non-DLSS native res. 1440p RTX on ultra 1/66.9 = 14.95 ms. Now if DLSS takes some fixed amount of time from the frame that should be added to rendered frame time from the rendering resolution. Let's say DLSS takes fixed arbitrary 2ms frame time: now at RTX on ultra@1440p DLSS rendering frame time is from 1080p: 1/90.5 = 11.05ms -> 1440p DLSS is now 11.05ms+2ms = 13.05ms or 1/13.05ms = 76.6 fps. So quite hefty uplift in performance. But how about if we take non supported 1440p rtx off numbers from that test: 1440p rtx off 1/117.9 = 8.48ms and imaginary DLSS on rendering at 1080p 1/147 = 6.80ms -> 1440p DLSS 6.80ms + 2ms = 8.8ms or 1/8.8ms = 113.6 fps. Which is lower than native.

 

[15th Warlock]

How I translate that, is that Turing GPU can't do shader and tensor math at the same time. Thus it's doing rendering first(Raster+RT) and DLSS with tensor cores then within the frame. Which bring us back to that Turing Frame pic:

Spoiler

It probably takes some ms to do DLSS in that frame, which will be added to rendering time. If we take i.e. RTX 2080 ti supported resolutions and look the performance numbers from tpus tests it shows that on supported resolutions rendering time is for non-DLSS native res. 1440p RTX on ultra 1/66.9 = 14.95 ms. Now if DLSS takes some fixed amount of time from the frame that should be added to rendered frame time from the rendering resolution. Let's say DLSS takes fixed arbitrary 2ms frame time: now at RTX on ultra@1440p DLSS rendering frame time is from 1080p: 1/90.5 = 11.05ms -> 1440p DLSS is now 11.05ms+2ms = 13.05ms or 1/13.05ms = 76.6 fps. So quite hefty uplift in performance. But how about if we take non supported 1440p rtx off numbers from that test: 1440p rtx off 1/117.9 = 8.48ms and imaginary DLSS on rendering at 1080p 1/147 = 6.80ms -> 1440p DLSS 6.80ms + 2ms = 8.8ms or 1/8.8ms = 113.6 fps. Which is lower than native.

No, tensor cores in charge of DLSS work independently from rasterizing cores and even RT cores.

The tensor core takes over the frame rendered by the raster cores and RT cores before sending the end frame to your display, but that doesn't mean raster cores and RT cores are waiting for the tensor core to do it's job to render more frames, and that's the reason DLSS can actually reduce performance at high frame rates, and waste raster efficiency.

What the explanation means, and techpowerup got right in this article is, you don't want your raster performance to be affected by waiting for the tensor cores to apply DLSS to a frame, when you're already pushing more than 60FPS, so in a nutshell, at high frame rates, tensor cores can become a bottleneck, with no return in IQ, hence, DLSS is disabled at lower res on high end GPUs.

Good job in posting this article before we got official confirmation from Nvidia

 

[londiste]

How I translate that, is that Turing GPU can't do shader and tensor math at the same time. Thus it's doing rendering first(Raster+RT) and DLSS with tensor cores then within the frame. Which bring us back to that Turing Frame pic:

Spoiler

The problem is not with Turing being unable to do shader and tensor math at the same time, it can do that just fine. Problem is that DLSS is effectively a postprocessing thing - it needs the frame to be otherwise complete before it can do what it needs.

 

[ratirt]

DLSS is to lower the image quality. It has been designed for RTX due to the fact it can't handle Ray Tracing that well and you need to speed things up. Maybe in the future when the cards get faster but the limitations are still there.

 

[bug]

DLSS is to lower the image quality. It has been designed for RTX due to the fact it can't handle Ray Tracing that well and you need to speed things up. Maybe in the future when the cards get faster but the limitations are still there.

Quite the opposite. DLSS is about enhancing the quality of a low resolution image so it looks like a higher resolution image (or close enough). It has no relation to RTX.

 

[ratirt]

Quite the opposite. DLSS is about enhancing the quality of a low resolution image so it looks like a higher resolution image (or close enough). It has no relation to RTX.

No it doesn't enhance the quality. Where did you get that one from? It boosts FPS but reduces the quality of an image. Ray Tracing and DLSS were released together and it's not a coincidence.

BTW: look at the comparison of the TAA and DLSS here on TPU then you will see DLSS's "Image quality" boost.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Battlefield_V_DLSS/

 

[londiste]

No it doesn't enhance the quality. Where did you get that one from? It boosts FPS but reduces the quality of an image. Ray Tracing and DLSS were released together and it's not a coincidence.

BTW: look at the comparison of the TAA and DLSS here on TPU then you will see DLSS's "Image quality" boost.
https://www.techpowerup.com/reviews/Performance_Analysis/Battlefield_V_DLSS/

Depends on how much you let yourself be distracted by the stupid marketing.
DLSS "4K" is actually 1440p + DLSS.
1440p + TAA is likely to look worse at a slightly better performance.
4K + TAA will naturally look better but the performance difference is huge.

 

[ratirt]

Depends on how much you let yourself be distracted by the stupid marketing.
DLSS "4K" is actually 1440p + DLSS.
1440p + TAA is likely to look worse at a slightly better performance.
4K + TAA will naturally look better but the performance difference is huge.

Maybe there's something there what you said and I hope somebody will make a comparison of this. Anyway the fact is that DLSS is reducing the image quality giving higher FPS and that was my point.

 

[londiste]

Maybe there's something there what you said and I hope somebody will make a comparison of this. Anyway the fact is that DLSS is reducing the image quality giving higher FPS and that was my point.

There will definitely be new comparisons now that Metro and BFV DLSS are out.
Comparisons were done on the early demos of FFXV and Infiltrator (Unreal Engine). They found exactly what I described above. With regards to TAA, the general impression was that despite some parts leaning here or there, 1800p + TAA is practically equal to 1440p + DLSS in both image quality and performance.

LIke I said "reducing image quality" is a viewpoint thing. It reduces image quality when compared to 4K image that the marketing bullshit implies or explicitly says. It increases the image quality when compared to 1440p image that DLSS is technically based on.

 

[bug]

Maybe there's something there what you said and I hope somebody will make a comparison of this. Anyway the fact is that DLSS is reducing the image quality giving higher FPS and that was my point.

No, the fact is you don't really understand how DLSS works, but at the same time you don't have a problem judging it. It's your right, just don't confuse that with "fact".

 

[ratirt]

There will definitely be new comparisons now that Metro and BFV DLSS are out.
Comparisons were done on the early demos of FFXV and Infiltrator (Unreal Engine). They found exactly what I described above. With regards to TAA, the general impression was that despite some parts leaning here or there, 1800p + TAA is practically equal to 1440p + DLSS in both image quality and performance.

LIke I said "reducing image quality" is a viewpoint thing. It reduces image quality when compared to 4K image that the marketing bullshit implies or explicitly says. It increases the image quality when compared to 1440p image that DLSS is technically based on.

guess we will have to wait for more comparison done but I'm still not convinced that depending on the resolution the DLSS enhances the image quality comparing to TAA. Waiting for the comparison is a better way to find out : )

No, the fact is you don't really understand how DLSS works, but at the same time you don't have a problem judging it. It's your right, just don't confuse that with "fact".

You really give me nothing bro just telling me that I'm judging and I don't understand. That's what I see and that's how I take it. Try explaining if I'm wrong or I don't understand or point something for discussion.

 

[bug]

You really give me nothing bro just telling me that I'm judging and I don't understand. That's what I see and that's how I take it. Try explaining if I'm wrong or I don't understand or point something for discussion.

I did try that. You rejected my attempt in your next post.

 

[ratirt]

I did try that. You rejected my attempt in your next post.

In your previous post you said I'm wrong that all and that the DLSS has nothing to do with RTX. I don't know what you tried but it is definitely not explaining anything. On top of that. Saying that DLSS enhances low quality image is crazy. It's been said that DLSS reduces the res of the image in comparison to TAA and that's what longdiste wrote.

Depends on how much you let yourself be distracted by the stupid marketing.
DLSS "4K" is actually 1440p + DLSS.
1440p + TAA is likely to look worse at a slightly better performance.
4K + TAA will naturally look better but the performance difference is huge.

Quite the opposite. DLSS is about enhancing the quality of a low resolution image so it looks like a higher resolution image (or close enough). It has no relation to RTX.

So if you have a low res image and you still go for less than that how is that enhancing an image quality ?

 

[londiste]

So if you have a low res image and you still go for less than that how is that enhancing an image quality ?

DLSS is intended for upscaling the image.
It could be used as an antialiasing method (referred to as DLSS 2X) but we have not seen this type of application yet.