Remnant 2: DLSS vs FSR vs XeSS Comparison

[Sithaer]

These upscaling shenanigans need to make their way to the trash asap. Building rigs with top end hardware and monitors only to destroy the imagine quality with upscaling is one of the most oxymoronic trends I’ve ever witnessed.

Its helpful for ppl with weaker hardware, personally I can hardly tell the difference between native and DLSS Quality in most games I've tried with and actually prefer it over the TAA image in most cases. 'yes even on my 2560x1080 res monitor to me its looks good enough or better than TAA'
Imo stand still images are hardly a good comparison, sure you can find issues on pictures/zoomed in but during actual gameplay I would have a hard time noticing any of those unless theres bad ghosting like FSR has in Cyberpunk. 'unless its fixed by now idk'

Before you say yes I do wear glasses all the time else the entire world is smeared in TAA/blur for me.

I don't have any problem with the existence of these upscalers, they can be useful and its always better to have more options in case its needed for whatever reason.
Now using it as an excuse for bad/lazy optimization thats another story but I wouldn't blame the upscalers for that..

 

[evernessince]

There's actually some artifacts on the DLSS side as well. Looking at the support center right:

Top is DLSS, bottom is FSR.

At 1080p DLSS has slightly better stability and AA although you'd not notice the difference unless you are pixel peeping. FSR is a tad over-sharpened but appears to have very slightly better fine detail in certain areas.

Overall pretty good, well done across the board. They could make some tweaks but PC gamers should be happy they can play on any brand graphics card and use upscaling without too many compromises.

 

[InVasMani]

I think people are so used to seeing smearing FXAA/TAA over the years they've become conditioned to equate blur with good AA lol.

There is no reason to use either of those imo when CMAA2 exists and can be injected into any game easily enough. It does a way better job overall. It's the closest thing to sparse grid supersampling I'd argue w/o nearly as heavy overhead. I'll definatly check out CMAA3 if Intel decides to develop it further in some manner because I've been rather impressed with CMAA/CMAA2 as a whole.

 

[ZoneDymo]

lose from everything, I think its pretty amazing how willingly we all jump on this marketing....I am still of the opinion that ideally nobody uses DLSS or FSR or Xess and hardware can just push the pixels needed...aka native.

Its great to have this tech to give your older hardware some more life, especially FSR, but for the rest......

 

[oxrufiioxo]

lose from everything, I think its pretty amazing how willingly we all jump on this marketing....I am still of the opinion that ideally nobody uses DLSS or FSR or Xess and hardware can just push the pixels needed...aka native.

Its great to have this tech to give your older hardware some more life, especially FSR, but for the rest......

It's gotten to a point that TAA is so bad I prefer DLSS in a lot of games. There is tradeoffs with using or not using all these techniques. I mean my 4090 doesn't require upscaling in most games but I've come to prefer using DLSS or DLAA over no AA or TAA

 

[wolf]

Once again AMD fans mistake extra sharpening for image quality/details Don't get me wrong, FSR 2 isn't bad but both XeSS and especially DLSS are just superior. If you want more sharp image with either of those two, just add sharpening yourself, easy.

If only more people understood this, if I want sharpening, I'll choose that value myself.

I think people are so used to seeing FSR be over sharpened by default they've become conditioned to equate sharpness with detail lol.

 

[NesteaZen]

any time I see FSR DLSS pics, I think in a blind test I would pick FSR 8/10 times. I also gravitate towards the darker tones. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
In motion I probably would side with DLSS but who knows.

For whatever reason in my screenshot collage the FSR looks worse. in TPU's slider I prefer the FSR one.

also @ optimization and games in general I got this recommended a few days ago:

he somehow reminds me of Terry Davis ^^;

 

[wolf]

These upscaling shenanigans need to make their way to the trash asap.

be prepared for personal disappointment then, it's here to stay for the foreseeable future. Just don't turn it on I suppose?

Next time try to use your glasses

Don't need them, my vision is great, and I game on a 4k120 OLED, pretty confident in the results I see - I don't need you to tell me how DLAA looks, I've used it many times and stand by my statement.

But hey if ya'll like the sharpened look that's fine, AMD's approach genuinely balances that relatively well, especially at cursory glances of screenshots rather than rendered live before your eyes during gameplay. Personally I prefer by-default no sharpening , and I can add as much or little as I like for my taste, rather than have it decided for me.

 

[Keivz]

For the DLSS 3 complaint, do people really want to render frame rates higher than their monitors in a title like this? Even if your monitor is capped to 60 hz, any higher and you'll just get tearing. I never try to get frame rates higher than my monitor's max at all and always have my max frame rate set 3-4 fps below my monitor's maximum Hz.

 

[wolf]

Holy moley this is atrocious, but hey it's got more detail sharpening so it's better right?

 

[Gica]

any time I see FSR DLSS pics, I think in a blind test I would pick FSR 8/10 times.

Buy your glasses from an unaffiliated merchant. Those from AMD give errors.
From the same capture you used. The area is wide enough to have a strong visual impact during the game.
Using FSR, you start to wonder if the ophthalmology consultation can be postponed any longer. The year is approaching when AMD promises FSR 3. Maybe then there will be terms of comparison with DLSS. For now, FSR is a workaround for those who can't activate DLSS.

 

[nguyen]

Holy moley this is atrocious, but hey it's got more detail sharpening so it's better right?


View attachment 306459View attachment 306461

No wonder AMD is paying studios to block out DLSS and XeSS, at this point though AMD would be doing gamers a big favor by allowing XeSS into their sponsored titles.

 

[Redwoodz]

Holy moley this is atrocious, but hey it's got more detail sharpening so it's better right?


View attachment 306459View attachment 306461

They all look like a game from 2008. Pure crap.

 

[wolf]

They all look like a game from 2008. Pure crap.

Be that as it may, one looks significantly different to the other two, crunchier than trail mix.

 

[rv8000]

be prepared for personal disappointment then, it's here to stay for the foreseeable future. Just don't turn it on I suppose?

Don't need them, my vision is great, and I game on a 4k120 OLED, pretty confident in the results I see - I don't need you to tell me how DLAA looks, I've used it many times and stand by my statement.

But hey if ya'll like the sharpened look that's fine, AMD's approach genuinely balances that relatively well, especially at cursory glances of screenshots rather than rendered live before your eyes during gameplay. Personally I prefer by-default no sharpening , and I can add as much or little as I like for my taste, rather than have it decided for me.

Oh I don’t, I just think it’s wild how many apologists there are for what’s always a worse image. It’s even more amusing when 90% of the people defending DLSS own a 4090 in which very few games require DLSS or FG for 4K 120.

 

[the54thvoid]

Holy moley this is atrocious, but hey it's got more detail sharpening so it's better right?


View attachment 306459View attachment 306461

These don't show the same 'differences' from the OP pics. The example you're providing looks extreme (and bad), but I have to question what settings you used to create that because none of the OP shots show such a terrible sharpening.

As far as the comments regarding the OP pics, people are very quick to make 'fun' of others preferences for a sharper look, but there is a flipside and that is some people are professing a preference for over-smoothing, i.e. making the image look creamy smooth from a distance. Neither is wrong, so you can all stop being so zealous about the brands you all so commonly defend/attack.

No more belittling other people because of a preference. And please, some of you, some drinking the green or red kool-aid.

 

[wolf]

I started out that way here (in general) @the54thvoid, and have slowly been, to some extent, beaten down to be more like the other 'provocateurs' that are somewhat made up of the 'loud' regulars. It's not me being my best self, but it's the honest truth. You kinda of get sick of putting your best foot forward, to receive terrible arguments or takes in response (often not even willing to agree to disagree), or even personal insults like "try using glasses" and those appear to be celebrated for it by like minded individuals that seem to assume because they agree, they are correct and have the only correct viewpoint, and it makes me a shill or incorrectly attempting to validate my purchase decision. So I have found myself becoming less willing to accept as my fate on this forum that I really enjoy, and I suppose 'fight fire with fire' with a more sardonic take or response myself.

If your message was aimed at, including but not limited to, me, I'll happily tone it down, and would also very much appreciate others doing the same.

I can certainly accept (as previously stated in this thread) that the tuning of FSR appeals to some people as it involves a non-removable sharpening pass ("AMD's approach genuinely balances that relatively well"), and that as an out of the box / single checkbox type setting it's easy and valid. I just prefer to add that sharpening myself first. And as you've probably read me say before, it's difficult to accept vocal, forceful, know-it-all opinions about, for example, upscaling technology from people that don't and can't see it rendered before their very own eyes. Seeing is believing, and I can readily accept they see an image they like, which should not come at the expense of diminishing my personal experience.

Of course, as thought out, well presented and providing competent rationale these articles are, there is no substitute for playing the game on your own setup, testing it yourself and seeing it with your own eyes.

Oh I don’t, I just think it’s wild how many apologists there are for what’s always a worse image

That's where we differ, not only have I seen it with my own eyes, multiple reputable publications have demonstrated that DLSS can exceed the image quality of Native+TAA.

 

[Sithaer]

And as you've probably read me say before, it's difficult to accept vocal, forceful, know-it-all opinions about, for example, upscaling technology from people that don't and can't see it rendered before their very own eyes. Seeing is believing, and I can readily accept they see an image they like, which should not come at the expense of diminishing my personal experience.

Of course, as thought out, well presented and providing competent rationale these articles are, there is no substitute for playing the game on your own setup, testing it yourself and seeing it with your own eyes.


That's where we differ, not only have I seen it with my own eyes, multiple reputable publications have demonstrated that DLSS can exceed the image quality of Native+TAA.

This is also what I'm saying in general, I've tested it myself in various games/settings and it doesn't matter to me what some ppl who probably never tried for whatever reason say that every upscaler is shit and shouldn't exist.
Personally I'm more bothered by the look of TAA/bad native image stability nowadays than any of the negative side effects DLSS or DLAA could have. 'tbh I'm yet to see any negatives to DLAA other than the performance hit'
I do prefer a slight sharpening in general but even 0 sharpening DLSS Quality is more comfortable for my eyes than TAA.

 

[wolf]

This is also what I'm saying in general, I've tested it myself in various games/settings and it doesn't matter to me what some ppl who probably never tried for whatever reason say that every upscaler is shit and shouldn't exist.

I suppose in this vein, my desire is to present the alternative perspective, and call attention to how the lack of experience lends to a less credible opinion on the matter. All too often the vocal crowd who it's clear many others don't want or can't be bothered engaging with or having a fruitless argument with, end up with just their (negative) take being the only one represented on a public facing forum.

That notion doesn't sit well with me, I'll pipe up just to offer that I disagree, if only for it to be for the benefit of less savvy peoples coming across it, then they know that there is, at the very least, divided opinion on the matter.

 

[Pepamami]

No wonder AMD is paying studios to block out DLSS and XeSS, at this point though AMD would be doing gamers a big favor by allowing XeSS into their sponsored titles.

I bet nobody pays to lazy game devs, they just too lazy to implement more stuff, since game consoles does not support dlss. And Intel management is too lazy to promote their new stuff, I ll be not surprised, if they suddenly close their GPU department.

 

[the54thvoid]

I'm using an NV card, and I prefer native. I don't like the smearing effect of DLSS (because it does 'smooth' out detail). I doubt I'd use FSR either. I find it as tiring as @wolf finds it frustating, that people champion any of them as a win for their team. There is no win to be found here, just a progressive slide toward compromise because developers are focused on 30/60 fps consoles.

I think it's appalling that Remant II brings a 4090 to its knees. That's not the cards fault - that's just horrendously lazy coding. Think about it - the 4090 is an incredibly powerful gaming GPU, arguably the best ever built. But if you buy into the mantra that DLSS/FSR/XeSS is here to make it all better; then I do think that's a terrible attitude. If we're asked to spend 'X' on hardware, whether it's an overpriced 4090, or an overvalued XTX, then we should expect the hardware to be compellingly competent at handling anything in the current generation.

If we accept software fixes that deteriorate quality, then we shouldn't accept paying such huge sums for hardware that isn't required. Frankly, I'd not be surprised if all of this is a subversive shunt toward the edge of the cliff that is cloud gaming. Overpriced hardware delivering 'so-so' results (game dependent), with software 'fixes' becoming more and more applicable. I mean, surely it'd be cheaper just to get a monthly subscription and play the way NV meant us to be played?

 

[Gucky]

I am looking from a 1080p monitor right now from work.
1. In the stills I can't see any major difference between the upscalers. Performance gets a bit grainy at the building, but it isn't that noticeable while playing/not zooming...
2. TAA looks worse, DLAA looks worse then any upscalers in the stills.
3. In the Video XeSS and FSR show temporal artefacts with the fallen leafs.

the 4090 is an incredibly powerful gaming GPU, arguably the best ever built.

Yet...

People liking FSR is people liking what they are used to.

I normally play without Upscaling, but 36FPS in unplayable in the game with DLAA, even barely 60FPS with DLAA and FG is not that nice. That is why I play with DLSSQ and FG for 100+ FPS...
But to be honest, while playing I don't see the difference in picturequalily. And yes I am using glasses with -2.5...

 

[nguyen]

I bet nobody pays to lazy game devs, they just too lazy to implement more stuff, since game consoles does not support dlss. And Intel management is too lazy to promote their new stuff, I ll be not surprised, if they suddenly close their GPU department.

Simple devs don't get to decide what to include/exclude from the game, it's the decision from the managements.

Remnant 2 probably has 1/10th the budget of AAA games, didn't stop their lazy devs from including Frame Generation along with DLSS/XeSS/FSR. Despite some people saying Remnant 2 is poorly optimized, game has a lot more players than recent AAA games

 

[JustBenching]

Nvidia is the best, clearly that texture was supposed to be smeared metal. Jensen did say that creating more new pixels from less information will definitely provide better image quality!

/s

These upscaling shenanigans need to make their way to the trash asap. Building rigs with top end hardware and monitors only to destroy the imagine quality with upscaling is one of the most oxymoronic trends I’ve ever witnessed.

If you think DLSS destroys image quality then you are using it wrong. Say I have a 4070ti and a 4k monitor, my card only gets 40 fps in X game at native. So my choices are dropping to 1440p, or use DLSS Q, both will deliver similar framerates, but 4k DLSS Q looks way, way, way WAY better than native 1440p.

I'm using an NV card, and I prefer native. I don't like the smearing effect of DLSS (because it does 'smooth' out detail). I doubt I'd use FSR either. I find it as tiring as @wolf finds it frustating, that people champion any of them as a win for their team. There is no win to be found here, just a progressive slide toward compromise because developers are focused on 30/60 fps consoles.

I think it's appalling that Remant II brings a 4090 to its knees. That's not the cards fault - that's just horrendously lazy coding. Think about it - the 4090 is an incredibly powerful gaming GPU, arguably the best ever built. But if you buy into the mantra that DLSS/FSR/XeSS is here to make it all better; then I do think that's a terrible attitude. If we're asked to spend 'X' on hardware, whether it's an overpriced 4090, or an overvalued XTX, then we should expect the hardware to be compellingly competent at handling anything in the current generation.

If we accept software fixes that deteriorate quality, then we shouldn't accept paying such huge sums for hardware that isn't required. Frankly, I'd not be surprised if all of this is a subversive shunt toward the edge of the cliff that is cloud gaming. Overpriced hardware delivering 'so-so' results (game dependent), with software 'fixes' becoming more and more applicable. I mean, surely it'd be cheaper just to get a monthly subscription and play the way NV meant us to be played?

There is another way to look at it. I have a 4090, never have I played anything natively. If I get high enough framerate natively, I use DLDSR to render at higher resolution and then DLSS Q on top. Better image quality than native. Nowadays there is no point ever to play natively, whether you care about framerate or image quality, DLSS is just better.

 

[Pace]

Looking at the video alone, the only visual problem that is distracting to me are the smearing trails on the black leafs and those are much worse on XeSS. In addition DLSS and FSR both seem to have more detail compared to the XeSS image.