DLSS Performance on 4K vs Native 1440p: Image Quality Comparison on 32-Inch Monitors

[cooper512]

Hi everyone,

I currently have a 27-inch 1440p monitor, but I’m looking to upgrade to a larger screen, ideally 32 inches. My GPU is an RTX 4070, which isn’t really designed for native 4K gaming in modern titles while maintaining high performance.

Given this, I’m debating between getting a 32-inch 4K monitor and relying on DLSS, or sticking with a 32-inch 1440p monitor for native resolution gaming.

My main concern is image quality. Specifically:
How does the image quality of a 32-inch 4K monitor running a game in DLSS Performance mode (rendering at 1080p and upscaling to 4K with the latest version of DLSS) compare to the image quality of a 32-inch 1440p monitor running the game at native 1440p resolution?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, experiences, or advice on this!

Thanks in advance for your help.

Best regards,

 

[Zach_01]

This (below) is only 1 game and showing some static screenshots that are not telling the whole story because you need movement too, to assess any upscaling tech but will give you maybe some idea.
You can search on line yourself too. The more you find/see the better.

I have only experienced the FSR version of upscaling and only in quality mode and personally I dont really care of any "mistakes" that can happen on distance usually. Its a nice work around as long as the game supports the upscaler properly.
Given the fact that DLSS is better than FSR I think its ok to use it. I cant really comment on the fact that you want to use it in performance mode with the 4070 12GB.
You can use it (in performance mode) right now with your 1440p monitor and see how it looks. Whatever you see, it will be better (the same performance mode) on a 4K monitor. How much I dont know.

 

[cooper512]

This (below) is only 1 game and showing some static screenshots that are not telling the whole story because you need movement too, to assess any upscaling tech but will give you maybe some idea.
You can search on line yourself too. The more you find/see the better.

I have only experienced the FSR version of upscaling and only in quality mode and personally I dont really care of any "mistakes" that can happen on distance usually. Its a nice work around as long as the game supports the upscaler properly.
Given the fact that DLSS is better than FSR I think its ok to use it. I cant really comment on the fact that you want to use it in performance mode with the 4070 12GB.
You can use it (in performance mode) right now with your 1440p monitor and see how it looks. Whatever you see, it will be better (the same performance mode) on a 4K monitor. How much I dont know.

Thank you for the feedback. Does the DLSS algorithm cause a much greater FPS loss depending on the target resolution (1080p to 1440p vs 1080p to 2160p), considering what a 4070 can produce with its Tensor Core capabilities?

 

[nguyen]

4K DLSS.Balance will give roughly the same FPS as 1440p Native and the Image quality of 4K DLSS.Balanced is miles better.

With the 4070 you will need to lower game settings to High in combination with 4K DLSS.Balanced in the latest games, but overall the experience with 4K DLSS will be better than 1440p.

The only reason to stick to 1440p monitor is if you play online competitive games

 

[Macro Device]

I'd go for a 4K display even disregarding this question because you're not gonna rock a 4070 forever, are you? You'll upgrade your GPU at some point and then unleash the whole potential of a 4K display, also receiving all the advantages it brings you outside gaming right from the start.

Since I never had a chance to personally look at DLSS newer than late 2023 releases I can only tell DLSS P at 4K was mostly worse than native 1440p across the board but the difference was very hard to tell. DLSS4 might even look better at 4K@Performance than 1440p looks at its finest. All in all, 4070 is a pretty good GPU and it can oftentimes handle DLSS Balanced or even Quality if the title isn't that hard to run. Which will definitely look nicer than whatever 1440p can do for you. Worst case scenario you resort to lowered settings, DLSS at P and that's roughly the same image quality. With a significant, yet little bit of artifacting going on.

 

[cooper512]

I'd go for a 4K display even disregarding this question because you're not gonna rock a 4070 forever, are you? You'll upgrade your GPU at some point and then unleash the whole potential of a 4K display, also receiving all the advantages it brings you outside gaming right from the start.

No, I don’t plan to change my graphics card in the next 3 or 4 years. Back then, a GTX 1080 was considered 4K-ready, so...

4K DLSS.Balance will give roughly the same FPS as 1440p Native and the Image quality of 4K DLSS.Balanced is miles better.

With the 4070 you will need to lower game settings to High in combination with 4K DLSS.Balanced in the latest games, but overall the experience with 4K DLSS will be better than 1440p.

The only reason to stick to 1440p monitor is if you play online competitive games

Reading your message, it gives the impression that playing at 1440p and 2160p has no impact on FPS performance thanks to DLSS, which is obviously false. Playing with a 1440p monitor will allow me to keep my graphics card much longer. DLSS is also available for target resolutions at 1440p. The quality of the DLSS result primarily depends on the choice of the rendering resolution before upscaling. Your argument seems more like a marketing strategy aimed at encouraging consumers to upgrade their GPU with each generation, as Nvidia does.

 

[Macro Device]

in the next 3 or 4 years

That's the point. By 2030, you'll have a more powerful GPU, this will make your 4K experience even better. Getting stuck with a 1440p display will feel wasteful at this point.

 

[cooper512]

That's the point. By 2030, you'll have a more powerful GPU, this will make your 4K experience even better. Getting stuck with a 1440p display will feel wasteful at this point.

This type of argument was already used during the era of the GTX 1080 to promote 4K displays. Clearly, you are missing the essential point of the argument.

 

[Frick]

That's the point. By 2030, you'll have a more powerful GPU, this will make your 4K experience even better. Getting stuck with a 1440p display will feel wasteful at this point.

This really depends on the individual. I'm seriously considering looking into trading my 32" 4K monitor for a 32" 1440p monitor, some of it due to games but some of it because scaling issues.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

I prefer 1440p DLAA over 4k balanced/performance but i don't have apples to apples displays to compare my 4k displays are 48/65 Oled and my 1440p displays are 27/34 inch Oled/VA/IPS

I think I'd personally like 4k 32 inch with dlss quality over 1440p native with TAA i never cared for DLSS balanced even at 4k.... I hate TAA though in almost every game.

It seems Nvidia has improved dlss further for all cards so 4k with perfomance DLSS might be even better soon.

I don't currently care for DLSS at 1440p even quality I only enable it if I have no choice at 4K I used it even when I didn't need the extra fps.

 

[cooper512]

Yes, I agree with this, especially since the current screen resolutions, with high PPI, such as a 27-inch 1440p, already achieve a satisfying level of photorealism in terms of definition.
However, the real challenge lies in improving geometry, with more detailed models and the use of dynamic tessellation. The integration of ray tracing is essential to simulate realistic lighting, natural reflections, and accurate shadows. Additionally, the simulation of complex materials, refraction effects, and physical phenomena, such as fluids and fabrics, also requires progress to achieve an authentic rendering. Advanced post-processing effects, such as motion blur, HDR, and other visual techniques, also play a key role in enhancing visual quality. While this list could be extended to many other technical aspects, it is clear that it is more sensible to prioritize optimizing the GPU rendering pipeline, rather than unnecessarily consuming processing power by excessively increasing resolution.

It is important to emphasize that the perceived pixel density (real PPI) is what truly influences visual quality, and this depends on a delicate compromise between several often opposing factors, such as screen size, resolution, viewing distance, and optimal viewing angle. This compromise is especially crucial in gaming, where a smooth and immersive experience is paramount.
Even when focusing on resolution, which remains extremely secondary as mentioned earlier, and taking all these factors into account, it is not so obvious that a 27-inch/1440p ratio is qualitatively much inferior to a 32-inch/4K ratio, especially for gaming.

What is certain, however, is that the computing power devoted to generating 4K images could be much better invested in optimizing the GPU rendering pipeline. This would allow for greater progress towards true photorealism, an objective that remains far from being achieved despite technological advancements.

 

[Macro Device]

during the era of the GTX 1080 to promote 4K displays

Look at 4K results of this bad boy. These scream, "please daddy, stop doing that to me!"

GTX 1080 was launched at $600 which is $800 in today's money. Or 4070 Ti Super level money.

This is what you get with this GPU at 1440p native, or 4K + DLSS Balanced (which looks better than 1440p native in at least 95% games).

Upcoming 5070 Ti is going to be even faster. Not by much but still. 4K gaming stopped being something in a rich language. Now it's a reasonable thing if you can afford spending $600+ on a GPU, and really a way to go if you can afford 4080+. Not to mention 4K displays themselves became much cheaper than back in a day.

DLSS won't stop evolving, GPUs won't stop progressing, too. I happily use a 4K display with my 6700 XT which is even worse than your 4070. Of course some games are a total slide show but I can either play them at 1080p (got a 1080p170 display for that matter) or wait till I upgrade my GPU and enjoy stellar graphics. Not that I'm in a rush or something. Games won't suddenly vanish.

The only reason to go 1440p over 4K is being utterly terrified and allergic to upscaling.

 

[cooper512]

Look at 4K results of this bad boy. These scream, "please daddy, stop doing that to me!"

GTX 1080 was launched at $600 which is $800 in today's money. Or 4070 Ti Super level money.
View attachment 380550
This is what you get with this GPU at 1440p native, or 4K + DLSS Balanced (which looks better than 1440p native in at least 95% games).

Upcoming 5070 Ti is going to be even faster. Not by much but still. 4K gaming stopped being something in a rich language. Now it's a reasonable thing if you can afford spending $600+ on a GPU, and really a way to go if you can afford 4080+. Not to mention 4K displays themselves became much cheaper than back in a day.

DLSS won't stop evolving, GPUs won't stop progressing, too. I happily use a 4K display with my 6700 XT which is even worse than your 4070. Of course some games are a total slide show but I can either play them at 1080p (got a 1080p170 display for that matter) or wait till I upgrade my GPU and enjoy stellar graphics. Not that I'm in a rush or something. Games won't suddenly vanish.

The only reason to go 1440p over 4K is being utterly terrified and allergic to upscaling.

Definitely, you're missing the point... especially since upscaling is not limited to 4K resolution.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

Look at 4K results of this bad boy. These scream, "please daddy, stop doing that to me!"

GTX 1080 was launched at $600 which is $800 in today's money. Or 4070 Ti Super level money.
View attachment 380550
This is what you get with this GPU at 1440p native, or 4K + DLSS Balanced (which looks better than 1440p native in at least 95% games).

Upcoming 5070 Ti is going to be even faster. Not by much but still. 4K gaming stopped being something in a rich language. Now it's a reasonable thing if you can afford spending $600+ on a GPU, and really a way to go if you can afford 4080+. Not to mention 4K displays themselves became much cheaper than back in a day.

DLSS won't stop evolving, GPUs won't stop progressing, too. I happily use a 4K display with my 6700 XT which is even worse than your 4070. Of course some games are a total slide show but I can either play them at 1080p (got a 1080p170 display for that matter) or wait till I upgrade my GPU and enjoy stellar graphics. Not that I'm in a rush or something. Games won't suddenly vanish.

The only reason to go 1440p over 4K is being utterly terrified and allergic to upscaling.

Although the 600 usd msrp was fake that was when Nvidia started their FE shenanigans with them costing more than the fake msrp the actual msrp was 699 with most cards costing more than that until the 1080ti was released anyways and it got a price cut.

MSI GTX 1080 Gaming X 8 GB Review

MSI's GTX 1080 Gaming X is an overclocked, custom-design variant of the GTX 1080 that doesn't throttle. Its fans are also nearly inaudible in heavy gaming, switching off completely while the card is cool for zero noise output in idle and light gaming.

www.techpowerup.com

2 of them did ok at 4k in games that supported sli which was most big games back then

I had a lot of fun with them anyways...

I scored 13 393 in Time Spy

Intel Core i7-5820K Processor, NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1080 x 2, 16384 MB, 64-bit Windows 10}

www.3dmark.com

 

[Zazigalka]

It will be better than 1440 TAA but worse than 1440 DLAA, DLAA of course running much slower since 1440 DLAA has the same internal resolution as 4K Dlss quality

 

[nguyen]

Reading your message, it gives the impression that playing at 1440p and 2160p has no impact on FPS performance thanks to DLSS, which is obviously false. Playing with a 1440p monitor will allow me to keep my graphics card much longer. DLSS is also available for target resolutions at 1440p. The quality of the DLSS result primarily depends on the choice of the rendering resolution before upscaling. Your argument seems more like a marketing strategy aimed at encouraging consumers to upgrade their GPU with each generation, as Nvidia does.

Wrong, the visual quality of DLSS also depends on the output resolution.

Seems like you already made up your mind with the 1440p screen, no reason to bait people into giving you opinions dude.

Btw you can try 4x DSR + DLSS Performance and see how your games look (basically upscaling from 1440p to 2880p then downscale back to 1440p on your screen).

 

[cooper512]

No, it is indeed the internal rendering resolution that matters, as it determines the amount of data available for the algorithm. The output resolution, on the other hand, is important only in the user context (for example, in terms of perceived pixel density), but it remains a consequence, not a direct cause, of the quality of the image generated by DLSS.
To have an effective debate on this topic, one would need at least a solid theoretical foundation in image interpolation algorithms based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which is clearly lacking here. Like many others, you are confusing a simple correlation with an actual causal relationship.

 

[nguyen]

No, it is indeed the internal rendering resolution that matters, as it determines the amount of data available for the algorithm. The output resolution, on the other hand, is important only in the user context (for example, in terms of perceived pixel density), but it remains a consequence, not a direct cause, of the quality of the image generated by DLSS.
To have an effective debate on this topic, one would need at least a solid theoretical foundation in image interpolation algorithms based on convolutional neural networks (CNNs), which is clearly lacking here. Like many others, you are confusing a simple correlation with an actual causal relationship.

LMAO I have done many comparison between 1440p DLAA vs 4K DLSS.Performance myself
like this video I made 5 months ago

Oh well if you can't afford new GPU every 2-3 years then just stick to your current hardware, why ask for opinions then try to show off your limited knowledge

 

[Zazigalka]

No, it is indeed the internal rendering resolution that matters, as it determines the amount of data available for the algorithm.

Try that in practice and you'll see that is simply not true. Try 1080p DLAA vs 4k dlssp (1080p internal resolution). They are worlds apart.
click the link, go to fullscreen and you'll see how blurry 1080p DLAA is, compared to 4k dlssp. There's a near 30% performance hit when output resolution is changed from 1080p dlaa to 4k dlssp

Imgsli

Imgsli

The only reason to go 1440p over 4K is being utterly terrified and allergic to upscaling.

depends on the quality of display you're buying. 1440p DLAA still looks amazing to me, comparable to 4K dlssq for sure.
I'd prefer to pick a 27" 1440p OLED over 4K IPS if they're similar price.
and hey, I think replying to your post just made me realize that a new monitor will be a better purchase than a new card this round.

 

[JustBenching]

Hi everyone,

I currently have a 27-inch 1440p monitor, but I’m looking to upgrade to a larger screen, ideally 32 inches. My GPU is an RTX 4070, which isn’t really designed for native 4K gaming in modern titles while maintaining high performance.

Given this, I’m debating between getting a 32-inch 4K monitor and relying on DLSS, or sticking with a 32-inch 1440p monitor for native resolution gaming.

My main concern is image quality. Specifically:
How does the image quality of a 32-inch 4K monitor running a game in DLSS Performance mode (rendering at 1080p and upscaling to 4K with the latest version of DLSS) compare to the image quality of a 32-inch 1440p monitor running the game at native 1440p resolution?

I’d love to hear your thoughts, experiences, or advice on this!

Thanks in advance for your help.

Best regards,

The 4k DLSS Q will look way better than native 1440p.Go for it

 

[cooper512]

Try that in practice and you'll see that is simply not true. Try 1080p DLAA vs 4k dlssp (1080p internal resolution). They are worlds apart.
click the link, go to fullscreen and you'll see how blurry 1080p DLAA is, compared to 4k dlssp. There's a near 30% performance hit when output resolution is changed from 1080p dlaa to 4k dlssp

Imgsli

Imgsli

depends on the quality of display you're buying. 1440p DLAA still looks amazing to me, comparable to 4K dlssq for sure.
I'd prefer to pick a 27" 1440p OLED over 4K IPS if they're similar price.
and hey, I think replying to your post just made me realize that a new monitor will be a better purchase than a new card this round.

Sorry, you're mixing everything up, making statements out of context without understanding them, and you're going into a demonstration that has no relevance to the statements made.That said, your comparison remains interesting.Although the result seems otherwise predictable.

 

[ZoneDymo]

LMAO I have done many comparison between 1440p DLAA vs 4K DLSS.Performance myself
like this video I made 5 months ago

Oh well if you can't afford new GPU every 2-3 years then just stick to your current hardware, why ask for opinions then try to show off your limited knowledge

what I dont get about vids like this is, why does the 4k (right side) look better on my monitor as well, which is only 1440p in total? and its not even filling the screen so even on just a portion of 1440p pixels I can discern the difference....but how does that make sense?

Its like listing to recording of a crappy speaker and one super high end speaker and then claiming the high end one sounds better.....but you listened to the entire thing on your limited sound equipement.