So what does the Ada release by Nvidia mean to you

[AusWolf]

What do you mean my monitor does?

I'm telling you dlss improves image quality MASSIVELY when you target the same framerate as native. That's not really up for debate, the screenshot up there kinda proves the point.

What I mean is that your games look better because you have a new monitor, and not because you enabled DLSS. So DLSS adds nothing to your 1440p image quality - it takes away from your 4K one. You just find that trade-off better than 1440p native, that's all.

The screenshot only proves that 4K is better than 720p, even with DLSS. There's nothing new or shocking about that.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Nah 1080p is absolute trash compared to 1440p and up. Horrible visuals with 1080p. 1080p can only be saved with DLAA or DLDSR with 4K downsampling. Sadly you can't use that.

AMD 100% has inferior support and worse drivers + very often lacks day one drivers for new games. Features are way worse in general. You keep denying this and say you don't use or need them. Duh, you can't use DLSS/DLAA/DLDSR that is why you hate instead. It is like having a SDR TV and claim HDR is a joke. FOMO in full force. You are in denial to justify your purchase. Human nature, I know.

5700XT is one of AMDs best selling GPUs of all time. Along with RX480/470/580/570 Stop being clueless. Radeon 6000 series sold like crap compared to these GPUs. Go take a look at Steam HW Survey top GPUs (which is dominated by Nvidia). Radeon 6000 and 7000 series are barely present here.

Nvidia drivers don't reset after an update, sigh

FYI I have tested 6700XT, 6800XT and 7900XT as well.

Most >1080p users on Steam are using laptops with inferior hardware, meaning DLSS/FSR is highly relevant. You either get bad performance or find a balance.
Or they play eSport Games using 360-500 Hz 1080p panels.

1080p for regular PC AAA gaming is absolutely horrible compared to 1440p and up. Terrible image quality. You must be half blind if you think 1080p is actually great in 2023. 1440p/144 Hz IPS panels are literally cheap as dirt.

Hold on... You are ACTUALLY USING 1080p @ 60 Hz? This is a joke right?

Two thirds of gamer's minimum use 1080p you should re-evaluate your angle.
To some 60hz just can't be done, none the less your way isn't THE way HIS is, Typically.

 

[R0H1T]

Probably a lot more, most don't even use steam or EPIC to play games so anyone thinking 1080p or 60fps don't matter isn't really serious about what they're claiming!

 

[Vayra86]

Did I not just say that I also have a 2070 sitting on a shelf that I was actively using for about 2 years, including for Cyberpunk 2077? Why am I bothering with this conversation if you can't be asked to read my replies?

Don't feed the...

 

[las]

No. Your monitor does. DLSS only lets you play on that monitor's native resolution with an acceptable frame rate while decreasing image quality. If you find that decrease acceptable, or even better than your old monitor's native, that's up to you.

We've established earlier that upscaling is way more useful at higher resolutions, so I don't know why we have to run the same circles again.

DLDSR improves image quality like crazy on 1080p and 1440p monitors and you can throw DLSS/DLAA on top if you want.

You know DLSS can improve image quality right? DLSS has built in AA and sharpening that easily beats most native AA methods in games -> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/outriders-dlss-performance
Just look at the sharpness with DLSS applied here. More details, not less.

Read Techpowerups Starfield DLSS Mod test if you are still in doubt. They mention this as well and DLSS beats both in-game AA and FSR.

If you want SUPERIOR IMAGE QUALITY and don't care about more performance at all, you simply use DLAA instead of DLSS. It's a preset of DLSS now. DLAA is ONLY focussing on improving visuals and no other AA solution comes close for now, it takes 2-5% performance but looks better than any other AA solution. Sharp, crisp and detailed with no shimmering or jaggies. 1440p panel with DLAA can look like native 4K or close.

1080p with DLDSR downsampling from 4K looks amazing compared to native 1080p and only requires GPU power around 1440p-1800p and then you can use DLSS Quality mode on top and you will be able to run close to 4K visuals in most games on 1080p monitors, even using mid-end GPUs.

This is the power of RTX and what you pay extra for. Features that improves the games, in terms of both performance, sharpness and/or better visuals + superior anti aliasing. Your choice. Very few games looks better in native resolution than with these features applied. DLAA beats native FOR SURE every single time.

 

[AusWolf]

DLDSR improves image quality like crazy on 1080p and 1440p monitors and you can throw DLSS/DLAA on top if you want.

You know DLSS can improve image quality right? DLSS has built in AA and sharpening that easily beats most native AA methods in games -> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/outriders-dlss-performance
Just look at the sharpness with DLSS applied here. More details, not less.

Read Techpowerups Starfield DLSS Mod test if you are still in doubt. They mention this as well and DLSS beats both in-game AA and FSR.

If you want SUPERIOR IMAGE QUALITY and don't care about more performance at all, you simply use DLAA instead of DLSS. It's a preset of DLSS now. DLAA is ONLY focussing on improving visuals and no other AA solution comes close for now, it takes 2-5% performance but looks better than any other AA solution. Sharp, crisp and detailed with no shimmering or jaggies. 1440p panel with DLAA can look like 4K native or close.

1080p with DLDSR downsampling from 4K looks amazing compared to native 1080p and only requires GPU power around 1440p-1800p and then you can use DLSS Quality mode on top and you will be able to run close to 4K visuals in most games on 1080p monitors, even using mid-end GPUs.

This is the power of RTX and what you pay extra for. Features that improves the games, in terms of both performance, sharpness and/or better visuals + superior anti aliasing. Your choice. Very few games looks better in native resolution than with these features applied. DLAA beats native FOR SURE every single time.

Hm... I might pop in my 2070 to have a go at it. But I doubt I'll find it revolutionary enough to pay extra £50-100 for it in the future.

 

[R0H1T]

This is the power of RTX and what you pay extra for.

Coming to an iPhone near you

While "ray tracing" is a nice feature to have, just like DLSS, Nvidia & presumably Apple will continue to charge extortionist rates for it!

iPhone 15 sports hardware-based ray tracing for realistic games

Apple's latest flagship, the iPhone 15 Pro, promises the best gaming experience on any smartphone with hardware-based ray tracing, thanks to changes Apple's made to the A17 Pro powering the device.

appleinsider.com

 

[las]

Two thirds of gamer's minimum use 1080p you should re-evaluate your angle.
To some 60hz just can't be done, none the less your way isn't THE way HIS is, Typically.

1080p/60Hz with a 500+ dollar GPU is not typical, I can assure you. Most people on steam uses low end hardware, or laptops. This is why 1080p or lower has 60% and DLDSR still is magic for these people, if they actually have the power overhead. A laptop using 1080p IPS panel with a RTX GPU and then adds DLDSR on top will get noticably better image quality.

Hm... I might pop in my 2070 to have a go at it. But I doubt I'll find it revolutionary enough to pay extra £50-100 for it in the future.

2070 is not fast enough to do 4K DLDSR -> 1080p. It is a 6 year old card. You might be able to do 1440p downsampled.

I have used DLDSR in tons of games at 1440p. Close to 4K visuals. I can easily compare quality with my native 4K OLED TV and 1440p with DLDSR looks close to identical in terms of sharpness and details.

DLDSR is magic for me, as a 1440p/280Hz IPS user. Allows me to get 4K visuals or close, while keeping my 280 Hz refresh rate. Removing bandwidth limitations.

On my 4K OLED monitor, I output 4K/144Hz native and then adds DLSS Quality if needed (pretty much only with heavy ray tracing this is needed) or DLAA if I just want best image quality possible. No DLDSR needed in this case. I could downsample 8K but it's almost pointless when DLAA already adds BETTER than 4K visuals.

 

[R0H1T]

And while I can't see the future the way GPU's are being priced for the last few gens it will create a massive entry barrier for PC gaming, since no one's bothering to realize great $200-300 cards with most of the bell's & whistles! What the likes of Nvidia & even AMD don't get is this is pushing the casual gamers away slowly but surely. No one cares about your damn 4090 when 95% of the world will not be buying those insanely priced cards

And Apple's probably going to be a big beneficiary, even if not immediately.

 

[Vayra86]

DLDSR improves image quality like crazy on 1080p and 1440p monitors and you can throw DLSS/DLAA on top if you want.

You know DLSS can improve image quality right? DLSS has built in AA and sharpening that easily beats most native AA methods in games -> https://www.rockpapershotgun.com/outriders-dlss-performance
Just look at the sharpness with DLSS applied here. More details, not less.

Read Techpowerups Starfield DLSS Mod test if you are still in doubt. They mention this as well and DLSS beats both in-game AA and FSR.

If you want SUPERIOR IMAGE QUALITY and don't care about more performance at all, you simply use DLAA instead of DLSS. It's a preset of DLSS now. DLAA is ONLY focussing on improving visuals and no other AA solution comes close for now, it takes 2-5% performance but looks better than any other AA solution. Sharp, crisp and detailed with no shimmering or jaggies. 1440p panel with DLAA can look like native 4K or close.

1080p with DLDSR downsampling from 4K looks amazing compared to native 1080p and only requires GPU power around 1440p-1800p and then you can use DLSS Quality mode on top and you will be able to run close to 4K visuals in most games on 1080p monitors, even using mid-end GPUs.

This is the power of RTX and what you pay extra for. Features that improves the games, in terms of both performance, sharpness and/or better visuals + superior anti aliasing. Your choice. Very few games looks better in native resolution than with these features applied. DLAA beats native FOR SURE every single time.

I can't help but laugh a bit when I see you posting about this. Omfgwtfbbq these upscaling techs, if I stack five of them on top of each other the image looks better when I use a magnifying glass! Nvidia rullzz!

Grasping at straws, comes to mind. I still don't care one bit, even after having seen some results, when the game is in motion and you're actually playing it, all these minute differences turn to completely irrelevant. But its a great way to spend many hours tweaking around in games, its another way to have fun, I get that, and I guess this is what Ada means to you since we have to stay on topic. So many upscaling methods, its a whole game of its own!

 

[las]

And while I can't see the future the way GPU's are being priced for the last few gens it will create a massive entry barrier for PC gaming, since no one's bothering to realize great $200-300 cards with most of the bell's & whistles! What the likes of Nvidia & even AMD don't get is this is pushing the casual gamers away slowly but surely. No one cares about your damn 4090 when 95% of the world will not be buying those insanely priced cards

And Apple's probably going to be a big beneficiary, even if not immediately.

You don't need a 4090 to use these features. Lower end RTX GPUs gets more out of it actually...

 

[R0H1T]

And where are they priced at? You do know 4060/Ti are probably the worst xx60 class GPU's ever wrt price/perf or even memory!

 

[las]

I can't help but laugh a bit when I see you posting about this. Omfgwtfbbq these upscaling techs, if I stack five of them on top of each other the image looks better when I use a magnifying glass! Nvidia rullzz!

Grasping at straws, comes to mind. I still don't care one bit, even after having seen some results, when the game is in motion and you're actually playing it, all these minute differences turn to completely irrelevant. But its a great way to spend many hours tweaking around in games, its another way to have fun, I get that, and I guess this is what Ada means to you. So many upscaling methods, its a whole game of its own!

I understand you deliberately wants to deny these features are awesome, because you can't use them. Once again, it's like seeing a 1080p SDR TV owner claiming that 4K HDR OLED is just a gimmick.

Hours of tweaking? Literally takes seconds.

AMD has no AA solution that comes close to DLAA.
AMD has no upscaling that comes close to DLSS.
AMD has no downsampling that comes close to DLDSR.

Facts for you. And every single person with proper RTX experience knows this is true. Or you can read the 1000's of tests that confirm it.

Techspot compared DLSS2 with FSR2 and FSR2 did not win in a single game. DLSS2 easily won in pretty much every one of them, about 26 different titles.

AMD don't even have a feature to counter DLAA or DLDSR, or DLSS 3 or 3.5 for that matter. Reflex, yeah no. You pay less to get less. If AMD was just as good or better, they would have higher marketshare.

When you had DLSS, DLDSR and DLAA for years, you simply don't accept what AMD is offering, even if you can save 100 bucks on average. Simply not worth it when resell value is lower for AMD hardware anyway (less demand and AMD lowers prices alot over a generation)

 

[AusWolf]

1080p/60Hz with a 500+ dollar GPU is not typical, I can assure you. Most people on steam uses low end hardware, or laptops.

This is why I don't s%&$ on people who play at lower resolutions and/or use lower end hardware. I feel thankful that I can at least afford this 500+ dollar GPU.

Budget gaming is a wonderful thing, actually, but that's besides the point here.

2070 is not fast enough to do 4K DLDSR -> 1080p. It is a 6 year old card. You might be able to do 1440p downsampled.

It's probably enough to at least see how it affects visual quality.

I understand you deliberately wants to deny these features are awesome, because you can't use them.

Hours tweaking?

AMD has no AA solution that comes close to DLAA.
AMD has no upscaling that comes close to DLSS.
AMD has no downsampling that comes close to DLDSR.

Facts for you. And every single person with RTX experience knows this is true. Or you can read the 1000's of tests that confirms it.

Techspot compared DLSS2 with FSR2 and FSR2 did not win in a single game. DLSS2 easily won in pretty much every one of them.

AMD don't even have a feature to counter DLAA or DLDSR, or DLSS 3 or 3.5 for that matter. Reflex, yeah no. You pay less to get less. If AMD was just as good or better, they would have higher marketshare.

When you had DLSS, DLDSR and DLAA for years, you simply don't accept what AMD is offering.

I think the point was not the quality, but the usefulness of these features.

As for DLSS vs FSR, people have different opinions. Reviews can tell you which graphics card is faster, but they can't tell you which image is objectively better, as the topic itself is a subjective thing.

 

[Deleted member 232534]

Ada release by Nvidia means nothing to me, because those are overpriced cards

regretfully, because i'm stuck with nvidia graphic cards, because dell refuses to release firmware enabling freesync on my monitor

i'm mostly using linux now and nvidia is very bad experience,

 

[las]

This is why I don't s%&$ on people who play at lower resolutions and/or use lower end hardware. I feel thankful that I can at least afford this 500+ dollar GPU.

Budget gaming is a wonderful thing, actually, but that's besides the point here.


It's probably enough to at least see how it affects visual quality.


I think the point was not the quality, but the usefulness of these features.

As for DLSS vs FSR, people have different opinions. Reviews can tell you which graphics card is faster, but they can't tell you which image is objectively better, as the topic itself is a subjective thing.

Zero people claim FSR beats DLSS, because its not true. Read TechSpots recent test if you are in doubt. DLSS wins easily.

Whats wonderful about running games in 1080p at 60 Hz? Like I said, 1440p/144Hz IPS monitors are dirt cheap and have been for years. You could almost have bought a 1440p monitor with a 6800XT and got same performance with superior visuals thanks to 80% more pixels on 1440p and the 144 Hz uplift from 60 Hz is like night and day as well.

You should really go 1440p/144+ Hz ASAP.

Ada release by Nvidia means nothing to me, because those are overpriced cards

regretfully, because i'm stuck with nvidia graphic cards, because dell refuses to release firmware enabling freesync on my monitor

i'm mostly using linux now and nvidia is very bad experience,

View attachment 313447

Linux is free if your time has no value. Solve it.

Linux for desktop use and especially gaming is a joke 99% of the time. Why on earth would you run Linux and buy a gaming GPU.

I have used Unix/Linux for over 20 years. For servers. Debian and Arch mostly. For desktop, naah. Pointless when software rarely runs natively. Barely any developers cares about a OS with sub 1% marketshare, hence no native apps or proper optimization.

 

[JustBenching]

What I mean is that your games look better because you have a new monitor, and not because you enabled DLSS. So DLSS adds nothing to your 1440p image quality - it takes away from your 4K one. You just find that trade-off better than 1440p native, that's all.

The screenshot only proves that 4K is better than 720p, even with DLSS. There's nothing new or shocking about that.

But the screenshot isn't 4k, LOL. It's 720p internal resolution,

 

[AusWolf]

Zero people claim FSR beats DLSS, because its not true. Read TechSpots recent test if you are in doubt. DLSS wins easily.

Why does everything have to beat something else all the time? Why can't things just simply be "good" or "fit for purpose"? I'm sick of this duality, really.

Whats wonderful about running games in 1080p at 60 Hz? Like I said, 1440p/144Hz IPS monitors are dirt cheap and have been for years. You could almost have bought a 1440p monitor with a 6800XT and got same performance with superior visuals thanks to 80% more pixels on 1440p and the 144 Hz uplift from 60 Hz is like night and day as well.

You should really go 1440p/144+ Hz ASAP.

What's wonderful is that I'm running every game at native resolution with max detail settings at fixed 60 FPS, and will probably be able to do so for years to come. But that's not what I meant by "budget gaming". Everybody knows you can play games on high-end hardware, but when you can tweak your settings to run on a 1050 Ti without looking like utter crap, now, that's wonderful!

If I ever upgrade, it'll probably be a curved 3440x1440 ultrawide. I don't see any point in getting a new monitor only for its resolution.

But the screenshot isn't 4k, LOL. It's 720p internal resolution,

Does that matter even one bit?

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

1080p/60Hz with a 500+ dollar GPU is not typical, I can assure you. Most people on steam uses low end hardware, or laptops. This is why 1080p or lower has 60% and DLDSR still is magic for these people, if they actually have the power overhead. A laptop using 1080p IPS panel with a RTX GPU and then adds DLDSR on top will get noticably better image quality.



2070 is not fast enough to do 4K DLDSR -> 1080p. It is a 6 year old card. You might be able to do 1440p downsampled.

I have used DLDSR in tons of games at 1440p. Close to 4K visuals. I can easily compare quality with my native 4K OLED TV and 1440p with DLDSR looks close to identical in terms of sharpness and details.

DLDSR is magic for me, as a 1440p/280Hz IPS user. Allows me to get 4K visuals or close, while keeping my 280 Hz refresh rate. Removing bandwidth limitations.

On my 4K OLED monitor, I output 4K/144Hz native and then adds DLSS Quality if needed (pretty much only with heavy ray tracing this is needed) or DLAA if I just want best image quality possible. No DLDSR needed in this case. I could downsample 8K but it's almost pointless when DLAA already adds BETTER than 4K visuals.

You are expressing an opinion as fact.

Prove 60+% using 1080p are all on laptop's like your saying.

 

[las]

Why does everything have to beat something else all the time? Why can't things just simply be "good" or "fit for purpose"? I'm sick of this duality, really.


What's wonderful is that I'm running every game at native resolution with max detail settings at fixed 60 FPS, and will probably be able to do so for years to come. But that's not what I meant by "budget gaming". Everybody knows you can play games on high-end hardware, but when you can tweak your settings to run on a 1050 Ti without looking like utter crap, now, that's wonderful!

If I ever upgrade, it'll probably be a curved 3440x1440 ultrawide. I don't see any point in getting a new monitor only for its resolution.

Only for resolution ... Haha. 1440p at 144 Hz is a night vs day improvement over 1080p at 60 Hz.

60 Hz is horrible for gaming actually. 60 Hz completely ruins immersion for me. For a console, it is acceptable, when using a TV from distance. On a PC monitor? Naah.

You are expressing an opinion as fact.

Prove 60+% using 1080p are all on laptop's like your saying.

Prove they are not. I am just using logic. You should try it.

People don't buy high end hardware to use 1080p. Especially not at 60 Hz. Completely pointless.

Most GPUs this generation target 1440p and 4K/UHD. Only the lowest end models makes sense to buy for 1080p 60Hz gaming and even a mediocre card like RTX 4060 or Radeon 7600 will handle 1080p 60fps with ease.

 

[Todestrieb]

I don't know if insulting people playing on 1080p and promoting things (no matter how good you think that thing is) to people who explicitly showed that they don't care about the things you are trying to promote is the way to go, but I digress.

Some 20 years ago I was obsessed on upscaling / throwing sharpening filter on cool car wallpapers to make the car moar cool. Some years later I found myself indifferent and slightly disgusted on the result.

I know DLSS/DLAA is much much much much better than that, but whatever DLSS/DLAA can do may not matter to someone who prefer native stuff. There is a whole lot of subjectivity on picture quality after all. Heck, I tried DLAA for one night, and I'm impressed, but not that impressed. IMO it's only a "nice to have".

PS: I have a physical space constraint that 24inch is the absolute largest monitor I can fit in, limiting myself to 1080p until I move to a new home / set of furniture. There can be some other reasons to stay at 1080p other than laptop if you think hard enough.

 

[TheoneandonlyMrK]

Only for resolution ... Haha. 1440p at 144 Hz is a night vs day improvement over 1080p at 60 Hz.

60 Hz is horrible for gaming actually. 60 Hz completely ruins immersion for me. For a console, it is acceptable, when using a TV from distance. On a PC monitor? Naah.


Prove they are not. I am just using logic. You should try it.

People don't buy high end hardware to use 1080p. Especially not at 60 Hz. Completely pointless.

Most GPUs this generation target 1440p and 4K/UHD. Only the lowest end models makes sense to buy for 1080p 60Hz gaming and even a mediocre card like RTX 4060 or Radeon 7600 will handle 1080p 60fps with ease.

I'm not the one

Suggesting someone else is doing it wrong gaming at 1080p


Or suggesting that I know what 60/68% of the world game on.

I am also not suggesting I know what everyone else does.

But I sometimes game at 1080p because that's what I want to do, I also game at 720 p and 4k so everyone else is doing it wrong if they do differently, no ,I don't think so.

Oh and all of the 8 PC's I built for others so far this year we're lower end 1080p gaming Desktops not laptops and almost all were built with second hand GPU such is the markets pricing.

 

[JustBenching]

Does that matter even one bit?

Yes, it's a clear demonstration that upping your resolution while using dlss improves image quality considerably compared to native while getting similar performance.

 

[AusWolf]

Only for resolution ... Haha. 1440p at 144 Hz is a night vs day improvement over 1080p at 60 Hz.

60 Hz is horrible for gaming actually. 60 Hz completely ruins immersion for me. For a console, it is acceptable, when using a TV from distance. On a PC monitor? Naah.

Here we are, back at square one, with you telling me that your opinion matters more than mine does and insulting my gameplay experience. I just don't know what for.

Prove they are not. I am just using logic. You should try it.

People don't buy high end hardware to use 1080p. Especially not at 60 Hz. Completely pointless.

Most GPUs this generation target 1440p and 4K/UHD. Only the lowest end models makes sense to buy for 1080p 60Hz gaming and even a mediocre card like RTX 4060 or Radeon 7600 will handle 1080p 60fps with ease.

Not being able to prove one thing does not equal being able to prove the opposite.

 

[Deleted member 232534]

Linux is free if your time has no value. Solve it.

only issues i have are connected to nvidia proprietary software and 'wake up from sleep' in particular,

i had to set up scripts to set things manually,

Linux for desktop use and especially gaming is a joke 99% of the time. Why on earth would you run Linux and buy a gaming GPU.

I think this is a good point. Not everyone is capable of setting virtual machine with gpu passthrought.

personally i play dota 2 almost exclusively and it works fine.

I have used Unix/Linux for over 20 years. For servers. Debian and Arch mostly. For desktop, naah. Pointless when software rarely runs natively. Barely any developers cares about a OS with sub 1% marketshare, hence no native apps or proper optimization.

i've used slackware before, now i'm using arch and right now i prefer linux desktop even on laptop. There are 2 engineering apps for PLC programming i run in virtual machines.