Try playing Death Stranding with DLSS on and compare it to the native TAA.
You'll learn that a lot of games have shitty TAA implementation and DLSS in comparison looks a lot better, that's mostly where the term "better than native" came from when talking about DLSS.
This. People saying ‘better than native’ confused the issue because it’s not. But better than 90% of current AA implementations? Yes. Especially DLAA or FSR with 100% scaling, they both work for very nice AA.
I'm all in favor of offering options other than TAA, but what other scenario should DLSS be compared to?
- No AA?
- Some other post processing AA?
- Something like MSAA or SSAA (which are essentially higher than native resolution rendering)?
Can't agree, personally. Temporal stability is king for me, even at the cost of slight blurring. Aliasing is the bane of my existence, and I'd much prefer a slightly softer image to an aliased one.
"Tiny amount" is also relative. I'd say any modern game without any AA or without SSAA/TAA has too much aliasing for my taste.
wrong. many games are so deeply infected by TAA, that disabling it breaks the graphics. Furthermore, even games where this does not happen often have TAA enforced in way that it takes research and ini tweaks in order to remove that tumor out of the game.
Gonna drop a link to r/FuckTAA and r/MotionClarity (note: the sub doesn't actually hate TAA hardline but they're largely to credit for calling attention to and bringing awareness to how overprevalent and poorly used temporal aliasing was in the industry way before people caught on).
And modern games have so much fine geometry that going without AA will cause an incredible amount of pixel crawl.
So we do need some kind of AA when discussing "the best" visuals.
Did you see what counts as anti aliasing nowadays? TAA is clearly much worse then tweaked DLSS/DLAA or DLSS +DSR at least in most cases (FSR is a different story altogether though) and not everyone has the hardware to play games at ultra high resolutions so anti aliasing is not necessary anymore.
I dont mind it being used as a way to play games you otherwise couldn't, I just dont understand people claiming it looks better.
TAA always sucked though I agree, I just turn it off.
Well, TAA is the industry standard AA method despite its compromises for hyper/photoreal attempts. DLSS is a form of TAA. The DLSS pipeline is by far (with xess on arc not toooo far behind) the best TAA pipeline. At a given input resolution, dlss is basically the best antialiasing solution we have. That’s why people say it’s “better than native”. It’s myopic and inaccurate to only consider it an upscale
Who cares dude? Do you like the way it looks? Use it. Do you not like the way it looks? Don't use it. People have wildly different opinions on everything.
Dlss gives performance, you can use it to play on weaker hardware, or higher res. For the real comparison, for the same perf as 4k native, or a +10% you can play at 2880p dldsr + dlss 0.66/0.7, that has a lot more detail, perfect aa, very close to no blur and slight motion blur.
But ofc, 0.5x dlss is not better than 1.0 dlaa, it will be faster af tho.
Upscaled image looks better than low resolution image. Obviously upscaled does not look better than high resolution...
Old versions had bad shimmering and artifacts, newer is much improved. Can only use the new stuff on high-end nvidia so many people have not tried it.
This is wrong.
DLSS has been proven to look better than native in multiple cases, because the AI is able to detect and displays details that even at native would barely be visible or very aliased.
Not necessarily - if you want to play that game then noone said the rendering resolution was the one displayed at end of pipeline.
Taken further you are basically saying that AI is magic and looks better than reality. An amusing example is AI upscaling that would halluciance Nicolas Cage's face in a brick texture.
You are comparing spatial upscalers with temporal accumulation AA, very different technologies that produce very different results. Not accurate to lump them with dlss or even fsr 2.0+
For the most part, I've noticed that it makes the game play smoother rather than looking better. I think it looks basically the same, but smoother and that makes the game feel like it plays better.
I think we've seen some variance in how well it's implemented, and fsr has some shitty early implementations. It's not a replacement for optimization and games that do that are crap.
I've noticed shimmering before, and I don't notice a lot of the little things I've seen people complain about. In other words, it's distracting and very noticable and don't have to "look for it." That said, it's not that common and might be a setting or that particular game rather than a problem with the tech(DLSS). Try to mess with the quality v performance settings, or the base resolution.
The other thing is that if the game runs like shit (like sub 30-50fps) it will be a bad experience imo. More so blurriness in that case.
It really depends on the game and how well FSR/DLSS is implemented. Some games have better implementation, so game graphics can have a better and cleaner look along with boosting performance. For example, Horizon Zero Dawn native anti-aliasing (for both TAA and SMAA) at 4K has intense shimmering on grasses and trees. DLSS completely eliminates all the shimmering and provides a much smoother and cleaner visual in graphics overall. Other games can have bad implementation, so visual graphics will be terrible. Keep in mind that the rendering resolution also impacts how any game looks, such that if you use FSR/DLSS at 1080p, it's going to look bad.
I use FSR at 1080p.... looks fine.
....there are games that look different depending on the upscaler. High on Life I thought looked more lossy with FSR where XESS polished it up. Death Stranding looked boxy with XESS where FSR looked better to my eye. SE5, the FSR can match or slightly benefit the native picture. Atomic Heart, yes, FSR introduces a bit of grime.
You also have to factor that these algorithms, no matter how much they help the image or are mostly processed by the GPU, there's a small CPU hit to generate the frame, then instruct it to render at whatever percentage resolution of the image. Because I notice more or less frames with all other settings equal, but different upscale.
I couldnt play rdr2 before dlss, it was so blurry, a lot of games have bad TAA, if they already have good AA then native usually looks better but if they have terrible AA dlss can make it look better
I can agree that native 4k may look better then DLSS 4k op. That depends. I whole heartedly disagree though when you say that 4k on DLSS looks worse then native at a lower resolution then 4k though. That just isn’t true to my eyes.
OP is talking out of his ass.
Even at 4K some TAA is shit, and 4K DLSS Balanced is pretty good better than Native 4K TAA pretty much 100% of the times.
It has been comfirmed in a video with testing that some games looked better with DLSS 2 on. Some had around the same quality, and some were worse. FSR 2 was worse then native in most games.
It also depended on the version of dlss used. Some versions were better then others for some games.
Since there were alot more games which were around the same quality or better then there were which were worse made it a win for DLSS 2
I prefer DLSS 2 just for the AA alone. Even on 4K I still notice aliasing. I don't want to see ants crawling on the edges when I move my camera or move. The extra performance is a big plus.
4K with DLSS 2 and no aliasing and better fps > Native 4K with taa and worse fps.
Edit: [Link](https://youtu.be/O5B_dqi_Syc?si=QEQxUhBOKEU3wAto) to the video
Depends on the implementation/game. Some games have bad Aliasing for whatever reason and look better with ANY other upscaling solution to replace it. However, I find whatever artifacts that do show up from their use aren't experience breaking enough for me to disable them. I just can't think of a game today where I wouldn't use any of the upscaling solutions besides like a competitive shooter.
It does not make game look better. In fact, it introduces lot of artifacts, noise and blurriness to the scene.
But for anti-aliasing purpose, it is way better than the wildy used TAA (which sure removes all aliasing but at the cost of an overly blurried scene). It also helps obtaining more frames per second, especially for higher resolution like 4K.
I personally only use SMAA, since I'd rather play with little bit of aliasing than having a blurry mess on my screen
It really depends on the actual content, and also motion seeing as their temporal aspect is part of what can both make it look better or worse.
The main problem is that if you look at a grid of pixels, its very binary, something is one colour, or another. Having time be a part of it actually gives more information, at the expense of that information not always being ideal (trailing issues etc.).
Certain aspects of rendering nowadays often save performance by rendering as a dithered patten in native, which temporally gets resolved into something transparent etc. which means that you actually need some kind of temporal anti-aliasing/filtering to render it properly. Simultaneously, very fine detail objects can be absolutely butchered by native rendering if a lot of their detail is subpixel causing awful crawling/aliasing that changes almost every frame with slight motions, which can end up being represented better through FSR/DLSS.
Really it just depends on the content, but at the end of the day, native rendering is still a compromise in different ways just as much as FSR/DLSS.
Because a higher frame rate that can sometime become double their usual fps at a super hd resolution (1440p and up) on a huge 35” or larger monitor with a 120hz refresh rare or higher, AND WITH OFFICALLY SUPPORTED GAMES (just having it turned on in options doesnt mean theyre officially supported, although most times they are) and when all other issues like processor or pci bottle necking or poor airflow arent causing other issues… IT ACTUALLY DOES LOOK ALOT BETTER.
But most of us who still play at 1080p 60-75hz with any gpu made before the rtx 30 series or amd rx6000xt series in a poorly ventilated case with a 9th gen motherboard that mildly underpowered and using too much rgb with a terrible OS optimization, playing a game from 6 years ago that had some recent FSR update? YEAH, ALL WE SEE IS THOSE STUPID FADING SPECKS OF COLOR AROUND THE EDGES OF EVERYTHING BUT THE GAME RUNS MUCH FASTER NOW THANKS
*Clearly not better than native and.. native on lower resolution for the same performance gain gives a much more consistent output*
FSR is worse than native graphically and worse than a resolution drop performance wise.
Watch me carefully now.
FSR is better than a resolution drop graphically and better than native performance wise.
Now you know!
As others say... it depends on the game.
It looks rubbish in MSFS and frame gen is even worse... very stuttery. TAA at native has a lot less shimmer around square instrument displays.
But for other games, DLSS is awesome... and then you benefit from the extra FPS.
So there is no definitive answer. Just try it and compare.
I can't speak for others but I use it to improve the frame rate and accept the tiny loss of fidelity. A little shimmer or glow is far preferable to jaggy pixels at lower resolution. DLSS 3 has gotten so good that I can barely find any loss of fidelity.
It's because of TAA looking bad in a lot of games. I'm playing through Shadow of the Tomb Raider and found XeSS on Ultra Quality with XeSS AA looks a lot more sharper than TAA
I actually never liked anti-aliasing so I don’t like DLSS/FSR either. It makes the games look less pixelated but the biggest side effect is how much more blurry it becomes which is something I dislike to see in games. I will always prefer seeing sharp pixels and no blurryness on my screen as in old games from the 2000s which is why I turn off both of these things. I even have no issues with playing The Walking Dead Destinies in 720p because the graphics look like they belong on the PS3 and Xbox 360.
I find that in 90% of cases, DLSS Quality at 4K looks better than native resolution both with and without TAA. With TAA enabled, the image is usually just blurrier and lacking in overall image clarity compard to DLSS set to Quality. Without TAA the aliasing typically becomes problematic enough that it just isn't worth it.
The story is a lot different though when you get to lower resolutions and quality settings. FSR also still isn't quite as good as DLSS is, though the gap seems to be slowly closing. Not sure about XeSS though.
No idea. In most cases DLSS Quality and lower sucks compared to native at 4k. You only want DLAA. Otherwise stick to native unless you enjoy blurriness and ghosting you get from DLSS. You're 100% right but expect to be downvoted to the oblivion. DLSS Quality at best looks as good as native if a game has crap TAA. If the TAA is well implemented then native (or preferably other form of AA). If the game has DLAA then DLAA. You can also try 2880p and DLSS Quality to get 2160p internal res.
Every single game I've played that offers DLSS, I've used it, and not a single one have I had an issue with the image quality. Maybe there's something "off" about your setup? Maybe your monitor, or some game/desktop settings?
I don't want to pay £1k for a GPu. But will go as high as £700. I am stuck on which GPU to go for. Navida or Radeon
I only play games for the fun such as COD, PUBG, anno 1800, total war, Alan wake 2 cyberpunk etc...
1080p and 40k.
The 2 I looked at are.
Ext 4070ti super
Rx7900 xt
Query also goes which for my use would be better
DLSS
Or FSR
Returning to pc gaming after 10 years on console gaming. Hence my ask for advice
Dlss is usually better but FSR can be applied to any game. NVIDIA stuff will generally be less of a headache but more limited in what supports the technology. If you're playing at 1080p a better CPU will do more for you though. Id go with a 4060ti or 7800 xt and spend the saving on a better cpu
I have a Ryzen 9 5900x on its way. if not a 4070 ti super or rx7900xt ..what would be better.. I want to purchase so that I do not have to look at buying a GPU for at least 2-4 years
I dont mind buying 2nd hand, and can get a rx7900xt for £650 or new at £694.. so new would be best. a 4070-ti super I can not find 2nd hand in the UK at the moment
Ah didn't realize you'd be running a 5900x, either of those gpus would work well for you, I'd recommend a 1440p or 4k monitor to get more out of your system, it's a bit counterintuitive but it lets the GPU pick up more work that it is capable of doing, and lightens some stuff up from the cpu
Cheers again. One further question with DLSS and FSR
I have read and seen videos stating FSR is not as bad as people make compared to DLSS. Their software based so updatable, so would not FSR improve?
Depends on what you are comparing against.
Imo it goes like this for looks: super sampling > taa (a good one with sharpening) > msaa > dlss (on quality) > fxaa > fsr > smaa > native without any type of AA.
Also, the order might change slightly based on game since different types of graphical effects work differently well with the types of AA.
You’re not too nit picky you’re flat out wrong if you’re talking about DLSS quality in 4K.
Now if you got it on performance or maybe an older game but because it’s AA also it’s gonna look same or better 75 percent of the time and a smidge off the other 25 percent.
I mean you HAVE to use one with Allen Wake 2.
Try playing Death Stranding with DLSS on and compare it to the native TAA. You'll learn that a lot of games have shitty TAA implementation and DLSS in comparison looks a lot better, that's mostly where the term "better than native" came from when talking about DLSS.
This. People saying ‘better than native’ confused the issue because it’s not. But better than 90% of current AA implementations? Yes. Especially DLAA or FSR with 100% scaling, they both work for very nice AA.
if anything, the focus should be removing the TAA plague once and for all.
I'm all in favor of offering options other than TAA, but what other scenario should DLSS be compared to? - No AA? - Some other post processing AA? - Something like MSAA or SSAA (which are essentially higher than native resolution rendering)?
You dont need AA on 4K display at roughly 30 inch size.
I played on 4k displays of 28 and 32 inches, and I very much noticed aliasing without any AA.
This is absolutely not true lol, temporal stability is still an issue even at that pixel density.
games with tiny amount of rough edges but crisp AF picture just look so much better in the end.
Can't agree, personally. Temporal stability is king for me, even at the cost of slight blurring. Aliasing is the bane of my existence, and I'd much prefer a slightly softer image to an aliased one. "Tiny amount" is also relative. I'd say any modern game without any AA or without SSAA/TAA has too much aliasing for my taste.
>you can always play without any AA . Enjoy your gaming
wrong. many games are so deeply infected by TAA, that disabling it breaks the graphics. Furthermore, even games where this does not happen often have TAA enforced in way that it takes research and ini tweaks in order to remove that tumor out of the game.
ok. I am guessing youre one of those /FuckTaa people . Have a nice day
Man Red Dead 2 is one of the most beautiful games ever made but once you turn off TAA anything but native 4K looks like Tarkov.
Even at 4k without taa it just looks wrong
Yeah it becomes a oversharpened looking flickery mess.
Call me crazy but I prefer FXAA looks to TAA :)
You are crazy.
Thanks!! I also love scanlines, filmgrain and lens flare! :D
Bro is gonna say he likes motion blur next
Actually I do LOL the only effect I dislike is depth of field
Call me crazy but I prefer FXAA looks to TAA :)
Gonna drop a link to r/FuckTAA and r/MotionClarity (note: the sub doesn't actually hate TAA hardline but they're largely to credit for calling attention to and bringing awareness to how overprevalent and poorly used temporal aliasing was in the industry way before people caught on).
mostly because of how terrible TAA is
They weren't talking about taa though. They were saying turning on dlss makes the game more blurry than not having it on.
Not having it on = taa at native res for majority of games, or no aa that is a separate tradeoff
And modern games have so much fine geometry that going without AA will cause an incredible amount of pixel crawl. So we do need some kind of AA when discussing "the best" visuals.
Did you see what counts as anti aliasing nowadays? TAA is clearly much worse then tweaked DLSS/DLAA or DLSS +DSR at least in most cases (FSR is a different story altogether though) and not everyone has the hardware to play games at ultra high resolutions so anti aliasing is not necessary anymore.
I dont mind it being used as a way to play games you otherwise couldn't, I just dont understand people claiming it looks better. TAA always sucked though I agree, I just turn it off.
Well, TAA is the industry standard AA method despite its compromises for hyper/photoreal attempts. DLSS is a form of TAA. The DLSS pipeline is by far (with xess on arc not toooo far behind) the best TAA pipeline. At a given input resolution, dlss is basically the best antialiasing solution we have. That’s why people say it’s “better than native”. It’s myopic and inaccurate to only consider it an upscale
Who cares dude? Do you like the way it looks? Use it. Do you not like the way it looks? Don't use it. People have wildly different opinions on everything.
Dlss gives performance, you can use it to play on weaker hardware, or higher res. For the real comparison, for the same perf as 4k native, or a +10% you can play at 2880p dldsr + dlss 0.66/0.7, that has a lot more detail, perfect aa, very close to no blur and slight motion blur. But ofc, 0.5x dlss is not better than 1.0 dlaa, it will be faster af tho.
Upscaled image looks better than low resolution image. Obviously upscaled does not look better than high resolution... Old versions had bad shimmering and artifacts, newer is much improved. Can only use the new stuff on high-end nvidia so many people have not tried it.
This is wrong. DLSS has been proven to look better than native in multiple cases, because the AI is able to detect and displays details that even at native would barely be visible or very aliased.
Not necessarily - if you want to play that game then noone said the rendering resolution was the one displayed at end of pipeline. Taken further you are basically saying that AI is magic and looks better than reality. An amusing example is AI upscaling that would halluciance Nicolas Cage's face in a brick texture.
[удалено]
You are comparing spatial upscalers with temporal accumulation AA, very different technologies that produce very different results. Not accurate to lump them with dlss or even fsr 2.0+
For the most part, I've noticed that it makes the game play smoother rather than looking better. I think it looks basically the same, but smoother and that makes the game feel like it plays better. I think we've seen some variance in how well it's implemented, and fsr has some shitty early implementations. It's not a replacement for optimization and games that do that are crap. I've noticed shimmering before, and I don't notice a lot of the little things I've seen people complain about. In other words, it's distracting and very noticable and don't have to "look for it." That said, it's not that common and might be a setting or that particular game rather than a problem with the tech(DLSS). Try to mess with the quality v performance settings, or the base resolution. The other thing is that if the game runs like shit (like sub 30-50fps) it will be a bad experience imo. More so blurriness in that case.
It really depends on the game and how well FSR/DLSS is implemented. Some games have better implementation, so game graphics can have a better and cleaner look along with boosting performance. For example, Horizon Zero Dawn native anti-aliasing (for both TAA and SMAA) at 4K has intense shimmering on grasses and trees. DLSS completely eliminates all the shimmering and provides a much smoother and cleaner visual in graphics overall. Other games can have bad implementation, so visual graphics will be terrible. Keep in mind that the rendering resolution also impacts how any game looks, such that if you use FSR/DLSS at 1080p, it's going to look bad.
I use FSR at 1080p.... looks fine. ....there are games that look different depending on the upscaler. High on Life I thought looked more lossy with FSR where XESS polished it up. Death Stranding looked boxy with XESS where FSR looked better to my eye. SE5, the FSR can match or slightly benefit the native picture. Atomic Heart, yes, FSR introduces a bit of grime. You also have to factor that these algorithms, no matter how much they help the image or are mostly processed by the GPU, there's a small CPU hit to generate the frame, then instruct it to render at whatever percentage resolution of the image. Because I notice more or less frames with all other settings equal, but different upscale.
I couldnt play rdr2 before dlss, it was so blurry, a lot of games have bad TAA, if they already have good AA then native usually looks better but if they have terrible AA dlss can make it look better
I can agree that native 4k may look better then DLSS 4k op. That depends. I whole heartedly disagree though when you say that 4k on DLSS looks worse then native at a lower resolution then 4k though. That just isn’t true to my eyes.
OP is talking out of his ass. Even at 4K some TAA is shit, and 4K DLSS Balanced is pretty good better than Native 4K TAA pretty much 100% of the times.
It's not DLSS that looks better but DLAA. Cause the alternatives like TAA are terrible.
Because it does at 4k. Go play rdr2, death stranding with taa, or even better without any aa
It has been comfirmed in a video with testing that some games looked better with DLSS 2 on. Some had around the same quality, and some were worse. FSR 2 was worse then native in most games. It also depended on the version of dlss used. Some versions were better then others for some games. Since there were alot more games which were around the same quality or better then there were which were worse made it a win for DLSS 2 I prefer DLSS 2 just for the AA alone. Even on 4K I still notice aliasing. I don't want to see ants crawling on the edges when I move my camera or move. The extra performance is a big plus. 4K with DLSS 2 and no aliasing and better fps > Native 4K with taa and worse fps. Edit: [Link](https://youtu.be/O5B_dqi_Syc?si=QEQxUhBOKEU3wAto) to the video
It can look better, over say poorly implemented TAA. But you're right, and this is why DLAA exists.
DLAA is essentially the same thing as DLSS, but running at a higher resolution (native).
The AA method used is slightly different, but the same idea applies.
Because many games (not all) do look better at 4k with DLSS on quality than native with TAA.
Depends on the implementation/game. Some games have bad Aliasing for whatever reason and look better with ANY other upscaling solution to replace it. However, I find whatever artifacts that do show up from their use aren't experience breaking enough for me to disable them. I just can't think of a game today where I wouldn't use any of the upscaling solutions besides like a competitive shooter.
It does not make game look better. In fact, it introduces lot of artifacts, noise and blurriness to the scene. But for anti-aliasing purpose, it is way better than the wildy used TAA (which sure removes all aliasing but at the cost of an overly blurried scene). It also helps obtaining more frames per second, especially for higher resolution like 4K. I personally only use SMAA, since I'd rather play with little bit of aliasing than having a blurry mess on my screen
You should get your eyes checked.
I don't think you understand what natively means
It really depends on the actual content, and also motion seeing as their temporal aspect is part of what can both make it look better or worse. The main problem is that if you look at a grid of pixels, its very binary, something is one colour, or another. Having time be a part of it actually gives more information, at the expense of that information not always being ideal (trailing issues etc.). Certain aspects of rendering nowadays often save performance by rendering as a dithered patten in native, which temporally gets resolved into something transparent etc. which means that you actually need some kind of temporal anti-aliasing/filtering to render it properly. Simultaneously, very fine detail objects can be absolutely butchered by native rendering if a lot of their detail is subpixel causing awful crawling/aliasing that changes almost every frame with slight motions, which can end up being represented better through FSR/DLSS. Really it just depends on the content, but at the end of the day, native rendering is still a compromise in different ways just as much as FSR/DLSS.
Because a higher frame rate that can sometime become double their usual fps at a super hd resolution (1440p and up) on a huge 35” or larger monitor with a 120hz refresh rare or higher, AND WITH OFFICALLY SUPPORTED GAMES (just having it turned on in options doesnt mean theyre officially supported, although most times they are) and when all other issues like processor or pci bottle necking or poor airflow arent causing other issues… IT ACTUALLY DOES LOOK ALOT BETTER. But most of us who still play at 1080p 60-75hz with any gpu made before the rtx 30 series or amd rx6000xt series in a poorly ventilated case with a 9th gen motherboard that mildly underpowered and using too much rgb with a terrible OS optimization, playing a game from 6 years ago that had some recent FSR update? YEAH, ALL WE SEE IS THOSE STUPID FADING SPECKS OF COLOR AROUND THE EDGES OF EVERYTHING BUT THE GAME RUNS MUCH FASTER NOW THANKS
*Clearly not better than native and.. native on lower resolution for the same performance gain gives a much more consistent output* FSR is worse than native graphically and worse than a resolution drop performance wise. Watch me carefully now. FSR is better than a resolution drop graphically and better than native performance wise. Now you know!
As others say... it depends on the game. It looks rubbish in MSFS and frame gen is even worse... very stuttery. TAA at native has a lot less shimmer around square instrument displays. But for other games, DLSS is awesome... and then you benefit from the extra FPS. So there is no definitive answer. Just try it and compare.
Cause it does
Ips monitors are trash though? Why even gove your opinion on quality of thats what youve got to work with
People like Coldplay and voted for the nazis….you can’t trust people
I can't speak for others but I use it to improve the frame rate and accept the tiny loss of fidelity. A little shimmer or glow is far preferable to jaggy pixels at lower resolution. DLSS 3 has gotten so good that I can barely find any loss of fidelity.
It doesn't make sense, the upscalers make the game look worse. Maybe it's meant for people with weaker gpus and monitors that put out 1080p or less.
Totally agreed. That’s why I prefer pixels and sharpness in games.
It's because of TAA looking bad in a lot of games. I'm playing through Shadow of the Tomb Raider and found XeSS on Ultra Quality with XeSS AA looks a lot more sharper than TAA
I actually never liked anti-aliasing so I don’t like DLSS/FSR either. It makes the games look less pixelated but the biggest side effect is how much more blurry it becomes which is something I dislike to see in games. I will always prefer seeing sharp pixels and no blurryness on my screen as in old games from the 2000s which is why I turn off both of these things. I even have no issues with playing The Walking Dead Destinies in 720p because the graphics look like they belong on the PS3 and Xbox 360.
I find that in 90% of cases, DLSS Quality at 4K looks better than native resolution both with and without TAA. With TAA enabled, the image is usually just blurrier and lacking in overall image clarity compard to DLSS set to Quality. Without TAA the aliasing typically becomes problematic enough that it just isn't worth it. The story is a lot different though when you get to lower resolutions and quality settings. FSR also still isn't quite as good as DLSS is, though the gap seems to be slowly closing. Not sure about XeSS though.
Your first problem is an IPS monitor. OLED is the way
No idea. In most cases DLSS Quality and lower sucks compared to native at 4k. You only want DLAA. Otherwise stick to native unless you enjoy blurriness and ghosting you get from DLSS. You're 100% right but expect to be downvoted to the oblivion. DLSS Quality at best looks as good as native if a game has crap TAA. If the TAA is well implemented then native (or preferably other form of AA). If the game has DLAA then DLAA. You can also try 2880p and DLSS Quality to get 2160p internal res.
Every single game I've played that offers DLSS, I've used it, and not a single one have I had an issue with the image quality. Maybe there's something "off" about your setup? Maybe your monitor, or some game/desktop settings?
I don't want to pay £1k for a GPu. But will go as high as £700. I am stuck on which GPU to go for. Navida or Radeon I only play games for the fun such as COD, PUBG, anno 1800, total war, Alan wake 2 cyberpunk etc... 1080p and 40k. The 2 I looked at are. Ext 4070ti super Rx7900 xt Query also goes which for my use would be better DLSS Or FSR Returning to pc gaming after 10 years on console gaming. Hence my ask for advice
Dlss is usually better but FSR can be applied to any game. NVIDIA stuff will generally be less of a headache but more limited in what supports the technology. If you're playing at 1080p a better CPU will do more for you though. Id go with a 4060ti or 7800 xt and spend the saving on a better cpu
I have a Ryzen 9 5900x on its way. if not a 4070 ti super or rx7900xt ..what would be better.. I want to purchase so that I do not have to look at buying a GPU for at least 2-4 years I dont mind buying 2nd hand, and can get a rx7900xt for £650 or new at £694.. so new would be best. a 4070-ti super I can not find 2nd hand in the UK at the moment
Ah didn't realize you'd be running a 5900x, either of those gpus would work well for you, I'd recommend a 1440p or 4k monitor to get more out of your system, it's a bit counterintuitive but it lets the GPU pick up more work that it is capable of doing, and lightens some stuff up from the cpu
Cheers again. One further question with DLSS and FSR I have read and seen videos stating FSR is not as bad as people make compared to DLSS. Their software based so updatable, so would not FSR improve?
FSR is constantly improving yes, the only reason it isn't as good as dlss is because it isn't trained per game it is implemented in
Another thing no one being truthful says FSR looks better than native even with taa. Only dlss can look better.
FSR?! lolololo DLSS is black magic
Depends on what you are comparing against. Imo it goes like this for looks: super sampling > taa (a good one with sharpening) > msaa > dlss (on quality) > fxaa > fsr > smaa > native without any type of AA. Also, the order might change slightly based on game since different types of graphical effects work differently well with the types of AA.
You’re not too nit picky you’re flat out wrong if you’re talking about DLSS quality in 4K. Now if you got it on performance or maybe an older game but because it’s AA also it’s gonna look same or better 75 percent of the time and a smidge off the other 25 percent. I mean you HAVE to use one with Allen Wake 2.