F1 2020 Gets NVIDIA DLSS Support, 4K-60 Max Details Possible on RTX 2060 SUPER

[btarunr]

Codemasters announced that the year's edition of the official Formula One game, F1 2020, receives NVIDIA DLSS support through an update. When enabled, DLSS (Deep Learning Supersampling) unleashes massive gains in performance by rendering the game at a lower resolution than your display's native resolution, and restoring details back into the game through AI supersampling. With DLSS and maximum game settings, even a $400 GeForce RTX 2060 SUPER is capable of playing F1 2020 at 4K UHD resolution with over 60 fps. The RTX 2070 SUPER manages roughly 75 fps, and the top RTX 2080 Ti over 100 fps. There are also handy performance uplifts to be had on the 1440p and Full HD (1080p) resolutions.

"We wanted F1 2020 to be the most authentic and immersive F1 game to date," said Lee Mather, F1 Franchise Game Director at Codemasters. "This required a laser focus on all aspects, from the My Team feature through to every pixel on the screen. NVIDIA DLSS gives users the performance headroom to maximise visual settings, resulting in realistic, immersive graphics."



View at TechPowerUp Main Site

 

[Anymal]

Amazing.

 

[ZeroFM]

Yap we see what dlss(BLUR) can in Metro ^.^

 

[john_]

Benchmark cheating perfected?

...or is it a really useful feature?

 

[Aretak]

"at 4K UHD resolution"

Except it's not, is it? That's the entire point. It's a much lower resolution with extra-fancy upscaling. Claiming it's "4K" is just dishonest.

 

[Verpal]

No matter how enthusiast of certain brand complain, as long as most gamer/user doesn't notice the difference between DLSS 2.0 and pure raster graphic, this will become the new norm.
As far as I concern, benchmark clearly state that it is 4K DLSS instead of just saying it is 4K, how is it being '''dishonest''?

 

[wtfbbqlol]

Benchmark cheating perfected?

...or is it a really useful feature?

Definitely makes benchmarking trickier, but also definitely a useful feature.

In many cases, it makes casual inspection vs native resolution look similar. There are some temporal artifacts for sure, but is largely saved by the large performance gain and still looking much better than alternative solutions at the same performance level.

Here's a quick example of Control being run at 1280x800 upsampled to 1920x1200, one with MSAA applied and one with DLSS 2.0

And of course much more detailed static screenshot comparisons done here at Techpowerup and other sites:

Spot the difference between Death Stranding and its DLSS 2.0 tech

We take a closer look at Death Stranding's DLSS 2.0 tech on PC, and we bet you can't tell the difference.

www.rockpapershotgun.com

Death Stranding Benchmark Test & Performance Analysis

Death Stranding is one of the most successful titles on the PlayStation. This week, Kojima has released it for PC. We took a detailed look at the graphics that this port can deliver and tested it on 27 graphics cards at three resolutions. DLSS comparison images are included, too.

www.techpowerup.com

Yap we see what dlss(BLUR) can in Metro ^.^

Yeah the original version of DLSS (now called DLSS 1.0) was a real disappointment. I thought DLSS was a dead feature until nvidia really turned it around in a good way with DLSS 2.0.

 

[ratirt]

benchmark clearly state that it is 4K DLSS instead of just saying it is 4K, how is it being '''dishonest''?

I think you don't understand the concept of the DLSS. While it says 4k DLSS it is not 4k any longer and some people have problem with this. 4k DLSS can be 1080p resolution upscale to 4k which is not 4k resolution. It's like watching a 1080p movie on a 4k screen. Kinda though.

 

[ZoneDymo]

I think you don't understand the concept of the DLSS. While it says 4k DLSS it is not 4k any longer and some people have problem with this. 4k DLSS can be 1080p resolution upscale to 4k which is not 4k resolution. It's like watching a 1080p movie on a 4k screen. Kinda though.

Well hence it says "4k DLSS"
If it said "4k upscaled" would you complain that "its not true 4k!!"....no you would'nt because that is why the "upscaled" part is added.
Read the title of the article carefully as well:
F1 2020 Gets NVIDIA DLSS Support, 4K-60 Max Details Possible on RTX 2060 SUPER
4k detail possible, the detail level of 4k, not running it at 4k.

Next to that people need to give DLSS a lot more credit, if you watch some of Digital Foundry's vids on it you will see there is a lot of value in it and even in areas it surpasses native genuine 4k in visual videlity.


Somewhat unrelated: AMD really needs to start doing something similair because this is one of those things that will leave them in the dust.

 

[ExcuseMeWtf]

"at 4K UHD resolution"

Except it's not, is it? That's the entire point. It's a much lower resolution with extra-fancy upscaling. Claiming it's "4K" is just dishonest.

Perhaps.

It matters more how much of difference there is in terms of image quality between native 4K and that method of upscaling.

 

[ratirt]

Well hence it says "4k DLSS"
If it said "4k upscaled" would you complain that "its not true 4k!!"....no you would'nt because that is why the "upscaled" part is added.
Read the title of the article carefully as well:
F1 2020 Gets NVIDIA DLSS Support, 4K-60 Max Details Possible on RTX 2060 SUPER
4k detail possible, the detail level of 4k, not running it at 4k.

Next to that people need to give DLSS a lot more credit, if you watch some of Digital Foundry's vids on it you will see there is a lot of value in it and even in areas it surpasses native genuine 4k in visual videlity.


Somewhat unrelated: AMD really needs to start doing something similair because this is one of those things that will leave them in the dust.

I'm not complaining I'm just explaining.

Perhaps.

It matters more how much of difference there is in terms of image quality between native 4K and that method of upscaling.

True that. The DLSS 2.0 looks pretty good especially if you compare it with DLSS 1.0.

 

[Vya Domus]

As far as I concern, benchmark clearly state that it is 4K DLSS instead of just saying it is 4K, how is it being '''dishonest''?

You can't deny there is some nifty wordplay at work, including "4K" implies 3840x2160 pixel for pixel rendering which this is not. If I run a game at 1080p and use normal GPU scaling to output a 4K image am I running the game at 1080p or 4K ? I think the answer to that is clear, so why refer to this as being "4K" then ?

Technically, by Nvidia's own admission of how DLSS works this is 1440p (or whichever native resolution this is) plus DLSS.

AMD really needs to start doing something similair because this is one of those things that will leave them in the dust.

You mean like Physx, Gameworks and all that ? Imagine how ridiculous would be to have these two companies compete for who can run games upscaled the fastest. AMD is ironically the only thing keeping objective performance metrics relevant.

 

[Calmmo]

Not a fan, ive tried almost every game with DLSS, both versions. Even the best have issues with occasional blurry scenes and most importantly for someone who hates aliasing - it enhances or even creates more aliased objects. Perhaps its ok with full 4k, not at 1440p if you're anywhere near as demanding as me when it comes to picture quality.
Havent tried control (only the original 1.0 implementation, but i somehow i doubt it will fix how extremely blurry the game looks even without dlss)

 

[ZoneDymo]

You mean like Physx, Gameworks and all that ? Imagine how ridiculous would be to have these two companies compete for who can run games upscaled the fastest. AMD is ironically the only thing keeping objective performance metrics relevant.

Again, I would really advice you to look at Digital Foundry's vids on the tech, this is nothing at all like PhysX or Gameworks, not even remotely close.
Its about getting sometimes better then 4k quality while running at a much lower res, its just something that is going to be really hard to compete with if AMD does not do something similair.

Imagine haveing to pay 700 dollars for a new high end AMD gpu when a (currently believed 400 dollars) RTX3060 will give you better looks and performance, that is going to be a tough sale.

The only thing that makes the situation not yet that dire is that games have to support DLSS and it not just natively working, but who knows what will happen if and when Nvidia just streamlines the entire process.

Not a fan, ive tried almost every game with DLSS, both versions. Even the best have issues with occasional blurry scenes and most importantly for someone who hates aliasing - it enhances or even creates more aliased objects. Perhaps its ok with full 4k, not at 1440p if you're anywhere near as demanding as me when it comes to picture quality.
Havent tried control (only the original 1.0 implementation, but i somehow i doubt it will fix how extremely blurry the game looks even without dlss)

DLSS 2.0 is apperently miles better then 1.0, but shouldnt the games you have tried now also be on DLSS 2.0? maybe worth giving another look.

 

[Endeavour]

I've tried some games in 4K with DLSS on... I noticed immediately the lower quality/detail. IMHO not worth it.

 

[Calmmo]

DLSS 2.0 is apperently miles better then 1.0, but shouldnt the games you have tried now also be on DLSS 2.0? maybe worth giving another look.

everything besides control, dont buy the paid youtube propaganda, it absolutely is inferior to native.

 

[Vya Domus]

Imagine haveing to pay 700 dollars for a new high end AMD gpu when a (currently believed 400 dollars) RTX3060 will give you better looks and performance, that is going to be a tough sale.

Nvidia developed their ability to manipulate public perception over the years, the next step is obviously rendering performance metrics useless with things such as DLSS and RT so that people no longer even have a reference point of what they're buying and go off the brand alone.

Brilliant and it's clearly working, I don't think it's going to matter what AMD has for 700 dollars.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Good to have it, but stating that it's 4K is a bit misleading, it upscaled/machine learnt 4K but not true 4K.

I've tried some games in 4K with DLSS on... I noticed immediately the lower quality/detail. IMHO not worth it.

I haven't tried it yet, but from experience whether it's nVidia, AMD or Intel (or any other brand for that matter), marketing is always misleading.
That being said from what I've seen in Digital Foundry, it seems to work but it adds some artifacts, in Control it seems like a sharpened image.
But besides the Marketing lies, it's neat to have it, especially for lower tier graphic cards.

 

[Anymal]

It has, Vega VII

 

[Xaled]

10-15 years ago When LCD TVs were still new there a crazy war between manufacturers about TVs smoothness, saying it is 200-500- or even 1000-2000Hz all of which were cheating but there was nobody who could stop them from doing that lie.
The DLSS thing is just similar. İt is not 4K, and it will never be.

 

[R0H1T]

Well it can be 4k, in the future, though with that DLSS is likely useless anyway. Then of course there's the upcoming 8k or 16k (hype) bandwagon & I'm sure (some) people will love running 1440p upscaled games on their uber expensive $10k displays

 

[ZoneDymo]

everything besides control, dont buy the paid youtube propaganda, it absolutely is inferior to native.

Quite a statement to call digital foundry "paid proganda", do hope you have something to back that up with....
And again, HAVE you tried it with DLSS 2.0? or are you just remembering when DLSS first came out, you tried it, thought it looked blurry, turned it off and never looked again?

Nvidia developed their ability to manipulate public perception over the years, the next step is obviously rendering performance metrics useless with things such as DLSS and RT so that people no longer even have a reference point of what they're buying and go off the brand alone.

Brilliant and it's clearly working, I don't think it's going to matter what AMD has for 700 dollars.

Honestly man, im not sure what you are doing but you have not looked at the video in this time, you are just believing now what you want to believe, its like being willfully ignorant.

here, watch it.

10-15 years ago When LCD TVs were still new there a crazy war between manufacturers about TVs smoothness, saying it is 200-500- or even 1000-2000Hz all of which were cheating but there was nobody who could stop them from doing that lie.
The DLSS thing is just similar. İt is not 4K, and it will never be.

Jeez I cannot believe that I of all people am the one level headed person here actually defending big N of all companies.....
You can have DLSS at 4k as well im sure in the future, then upscaling/image reconstructing from that point to 8k

Also nobody could stop them from that lie because technically it wasnt a lie, otherwise they WOULD have been sued, its like Intel and AMD regarding the TDP, they can change the math to come to an outcome they desire, it means TDP is useless but its not a lie.

 

[Dredi]

here, watch it.

Nice particle effects there at 14:40, not to mention the overall oversharpened look (which is caused by nvidia by training the neural net with lanzcos downsampled images instead of using a clamped lanzcos implementation). It does look a lot better than the previous implementations for sure, but I’d wait for the version where it does not destroy actual details with sharpening artefacts before praising it as a gift from the gods.

 

[ZoneDymo]

Nice particle effects there at 14:40, not to mention the overall oversharpened look (which is caused by nvidia by training the neural net with lanzcos downsampled images instead of using a clamped lanzcos implementation). It does look a lot better than the previous implementations for sure, but I’d wait for the version where it does not destroy actual details with sharpening artefacts before praising it as a gift from the gods.

And I never did praise it as a gift from the gods.... this is only version 2.0, Im saying AMD needs to do something like this of its own to compete otherwise it will be in trouble.
Honestly this sorta tech is something I would have expected more from AMD then Nvidia to begin with but here we are.

More on your comment, im not sure if its just a bias to begin with, but if I look at any videos comparing DLSS 4k vs native 4k I cant say that DLSS looks faked or "oversharpened or looks worse.
And I honestly doubt you would either in a blind test unless you specifically would look for something that looks maybe sharper then it should hence that must be the reconstructed one, completely ignoring the real question of "Would this be an issue if this was the one screen you saw, would you actually stop playing and say: dear lord this is that DLSS crap isnt it? looks horrible!"

 

[Vya Domus]

Honestly man, im not sure what you are doing but you have not looked at the video in this time, you are just believing now what you want to believe, its like being willfully ignorant.

I've probably watched them long before you did, don't worry about that. The only one willingly ignoring glaring issues of this feature is you, I mean you straight up believe DLSS produces quality higher than native. Here, your quote :

Its about getting sometimes better then 4k quality while running at a much lower res

Which means you didn't even watch the videos you told me to look at a million times where you can clearly see the deficiencies of DLSS. How can I even argue with someone who believes that over sharpened images with ghosting look better than native 4K ? You're akin to those people who think over saturated pictures from cameras are of higher quality.

I am going to say it again, Nvidia is very good at manipulating consumers and selling them subpar features and products, you are prime example of that with your conviction that this is the best thing since sliced bread. Good on you, we've got nothing to discuss any further.