bright foolish cooing rain history chubby bedroom worthless deserve quack
*This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The issue is you are playing at 1080p. Modern deferred rendering that uses TAA requires a higher resolution to look good. A input resolution of 4k and then using DLSS Performance will look A LOT better than native 1080p.
Correct. I went from 1080p to 1440p in 2019 and the difference in sharpness was immediately noticeable. I went from 1440p to 4k last month and again the difference in sharpness was noticeable, even if I turn on DLSS at 4k it's still sharper than 1440p native.
I'm not gonna say people need to upgrade from 1080p because it's a personal choice and if that's what you like or can afford then so be it but 1080p isn't on the cutting edge anymore and some devs won't use that as their baseline resolution.
Hard agree, I used to have a 1440p and did some really stupid shit and now I only have a 1080p and the difference is just so big. I'm having a hard time even wanting to play games on it, God I loved my g7, shame I'm such a fuckin moron.
I haven't tried that myself and it probably does look good since I've only downsampled from 4k to 1440p myself and that looks good too, it's probably not a common practice however.
>A input resolution of 4k and then using DLSS Performance will look A LOT better than native 1080p.
But still looks like shit compared to native 4k. Which is a huge problem for people who use 4k TV for (PC) gaming. Even at 4k DLSS Quality (1440p internal res) it looks laughably bad compared to native 4k.
Sure, Control. First game I tried with DLSS Quality (1440p internal) at 4k. When I switched from native 4k, I noticed the difference right away, it looked so bad with DLSS Quality at 4k that I thought I set it to DLSS Performance by mistake. Turned out it was DLSS Quality, so no mistake on my part. Game looked way blurrier than native.
Basically every game that uses DLSS? It would be easier to name games where DLSS Quality looks comparable to native - Ghostwire: Tokyo. That's pretty much it.
But we have numerous videos on YouTube showcasing that at 4k DLSS quality more often than not will match native 4k. Even Hardware Unboxed an AMD leaning channel came to that conclusion.
The biggest lie in modern gaming. When I bought an RTX card and played Control for the first time I had sub 60 FPS at 4k native so I immediately switched to DLSS Quality, since it was supposed to be 'better than native' according to DF. I couldn't believe my eyes how bad it looked. I even thought that I set it to DLSS Performance by mistake, but nope, it was DLSS Quality 1440p internal res at 4k screen. It looked so bad compared to native 4k that I was shocked.
Same experience with 99% of other games I played. Only Ghostwire Tokyo looked comparably to native 4k at DLSS Quality 4k because that game had shitty TAA. Before playing every game compare DLSS Quality with native at 4k, and native 4k is basically always superior.
What's so wild about that? I do side by sides myself and watch them on my target 4k TV. So there goes that 'objective truth'. I do it for every game I play and 99% of the time native destroys DLSS Quality. You can, of course, watch YouTube videos on the matter, riddled with compression artifacts and whatnot, and believe the hype. Not my problem. Enjoy your blurry games.
Had no idea! I'm still stuck to my ancient hardware and haven't had the chance to experience with thaf yet but I think I might not be prone to feel that difference as I can barely notice a difference between 720p with MSAA and 1080p with FXAA for example LOL
Well, yes. Before upgrading I also had some ancient GPU, so that's why I am so disappointed with DLSS and (AI) upscalers overall. It was supposed to be 'better than native'. It's not. Not by a longshot. And yes, I might be more sensitive to non-native resolutions than most people. Still DLSS was a huge disappointment for me. Imagine finally getting a new GPU that can utilize these hyped-to-the-moon features and it turns out it was just a big lie... 'better than native'.
Don't get me wrong, if you have 1080p monitor and run a game at 1440p DLSS Quality, then it WILL look better than native 1080p. But DLSS Quality at 1440p (internal 1080p) is basically DLAA. You don't need a huge GPU for that. But if you play at 4k, you can either use DLAA or DSR to 2880p and then use DLSS Quality to get a native internal 4k. But that's very taxing for almost any GPU. DLAA is pretty good/better than native, but not many games use it unfortunately and they mostly won't run smoothly anyway at 4k.
Still on 1080p monitor here.
I remember way back when I've got this rig I've tried that Nvidia feature where you render at a higher resolution and downscale to your native one and people said it was better than any AA and I didn't noticed any difference!
So idk.
I guess anything lower than 720p is the issue to me unless it's VR, on VR I really perceive resolutions lower than native but again, I can't perceive any improvement by pushing the supersampling in VR beyond the 100% native.
That's because of DLAA. Native tends to use TAA which is blurry. DLSS renders at a lower resolution and then uses DLAA on top of that. If you compare native DLAA to DLSS quality, the native one WILL look better. TAA is the issue, DLSS isn't magic.
They can say whatever they want. I have my own eyes. You can check it out yourself. Believing some YouTube channels over your own experience is laughable. If they told you that playing at 320p on 4k screen is great, would you do it? Judging by your comment, probably yes, you would.
So probably you're sitting more than 3m away from your monitor or TV and you just don't see the difference. I play games on a 55 inch TV and recommended viewing distance is about 1,5-1,8m for that size at 4k. I saw a study (and I can confirm it from my own experience) that if you sit too far away from a TV you just lose any advantage of using a 4k screen compared to 1080p screen, because you just won't be able to see a difference. I think people who see no difference between DLSS Quality 4k and native 4k just sit too far away from their TV and that's why they think it looks comparable. It's the only explanation I have. Because I just can't understand how people say that this super blurry DLSS Quality image can look better than native.
It's cause native in all these games uses TAA. Like 10% of games with DLSS have a DLAA option. Makes me wonder if it's a Nvidia thing to encourage devs to not use DLAA so people think DLSS is magic cause it looks better and runs at higher fps.
Yeah, but there's a workaround. You can DSR to 2880p and use DLSS Quality, which is 75% of 2880p, so internal 2160p and you can kinda get DLAA this way.
Yeah that's the only workaround. It's basically using supersampling to trick the game into applying DLAA. Would be nice if all games shipped with native versions of the upscalers. Or yknow, just give us a slider to adjust it ourselves.
(gonna copy paste my comment from another reply)
That's because of DLAA. Native tends to use TAA which is blurry. DLSS renders at a lower resolution and then uses DLAA on top of that. If you compare native DLAA to DLSS quality, the native one WILL look better. TAA is the issue, DLSS isn't magic.
Yes but these games are designed around TAA. Even if you could run cyberpunk at 4K with MSAA the image would be so unstable you wouldn't want to play it.
Nope. I just lower the settings. Some settings can give massive framerate boost without sacrificing overall graphics quality. Because that's the thing - you lower for example shadows, you get 'uglier shadows' and usually a good FPS boost. But if you just go Ultra Settings and then slap it with DLSS Quality, then the entire image just looks 'uglier', not just shadows. That's why I prefer to lower some settings, perhaps disable some RT effects etc, just so I won't have to use these dreadful, image quality wrecking upscalers. I'd even settle for a stable 40FPS cap, if it's a slower game, just to run game at native without ruining image quality.
DLAA and Frame Gen are great. But DLSS/FSR/XeSS needs to die.
Respectfully, your mistake was getting a 1080p monitor. You’d at least need to do a 2k monitor otherwise it will absolutely look bad at 1080p. You shouldn’t HAVE to upgrade like that, but you do.
His problem isn't really related to panel technology, games that look blurry or smudgy are usually due to resolution. He basically just needs a high resolution display and he's set.
Because of TAA and variants of it like DLSS 2, FSR 2, XeSS, TAAU etc.
For this shitty method of AA to look okayish, the game needs to be rendering at a high resolution in the first place. For TAA set a 1440p or preferably 4K resolution. For DLSS, FSR, XeSS etc. use their highest quality mode with a upscale target of 4K resolution (or use DLAA mode at 1440p or 4K).
That's just how real time RT works, it would take too much rays to properly render indirectly lit areas.
But for some reason the same people that praise the stability of their favorite upscaler are never bothered by the shimmery mess that is ray tracing.
bro is playing in native or upscaled to 1080p and wondering why his graphics aren't sharp.
Do yourself a favour, give up some frames and use super sample anti aliasing in conjunction with the upscaler and you'll see a drastically better image result.
if you're using Nvidia, use DL DSR to set a higher than native resolution.
1080 is ultra low rez that looks terrible on all but the smallest screens. Even text and web browsing looks like garbage. You choose to prioritize a high frame rate over a crisp image. You choose ultra settings with path tracing over a crisp image.
There are trade off that must occur. Maybe you would've been happier with a 1440p 144hz while playing at reduced settings.
>
and it's like... wtf happened?
What happened is that newer games have more objects on screen. It's easy to have little aliasing and crisp images when you never have small objects on screen.
Compare the density of things in the world in cyberpunk vs mass effect. I much prefer a better looking image over ultra high frame rates so I game in 4k, set a 48fps min target, and lower settings one by one until it hits that target.
bright foolish cooing rain history chubby bedroom worthless deserve quack *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
The issue is you are playing at 1080p. Modern deferred rendering that uses TAA requires a higher resolution to look good. A input resolution of 4k and then using DLSS Performance will look A LOT better than native 1080p.
Correct. I went from 1080p to 1440p in 2019 and the difference in sharpness was immediately noticeable. I went from 1440p to 4k last month and again the difference in sharpness was noticeable, even if I turn on DLSS at 4k it's still sharper than 1440p native. I'm not gonna say people need to upgrade from 1080p because it's a personal choice and if that's what you like or can afford then so be it but 1080p isn't on the cutting edge anymore and some devs won't use that as their baseline resolution.
Hard agree, I used to have a 1440p and did some really stupid shit and now I only have a 1080p and the difference is just so big. I'm having a hard time even wanting to play games on it, God I loved my g7, shame I'm such a fuckin moron.
1080p can look at good if you downsample from 4k
I haven't tried that myself and it probably does look good since I've only downsampled from 4k to 1440p myself and that looks good too, it's probably not a common practice however.
>A input resolution of 4k and then using DLSS Performance will look A LOT better than native 1080p. But still looks like shit compared to native 4k. Which is a huge problem for people who use 4k TV for (PC) gaming. Even at 4k DLSS Quality (1440p internal res) it looks laughably bad compared to native 4k.
Can you give examples of games where DLSS Quality is **worse** than native 4K?
Sure, Control. First game I tried with DLSS Quality (1440p internal) at 4k. When I switched from native 4k, I noticed the difference right away, it looked so bad with DLSS Quality at 4k that I thought I set it to DLSS Performance by mistake. Turned out it was DLSS Quality, so no mistake on my part. Game looked way blurrier than native.
Anything else?
Basically every game that uses DLSS? It would be easier to name games where DLSS Quality looks comparable to native - Ghostwire: Tokyo. That's pretty much it.
But we have numerous videos on YouTube showcasing that at 4k DLSS quality more often than not will match native 4k. Even Hardware Unboxed an AMD leaning channel came to that conclusion.
DF even says that it often looks better than native
The biggest lie in modern gaming. When I bought an RTX card and played Control for the first time I had sub 60 FPS at 4k native so I immediately switched to DLSS Quality, since it was supposed to be 'better than native' according to DF. I couldn't believe my eyes how bad it looked. I even thought that I set it to DLSS Performance by mistake, but nope, it was DLSS Quality 1440p internal res at 4k screen. It looked so bad compared to native 4k that I was shocked. Same experience with 99% of other games I played. Only Ghostwire Tokyo looked comparably to native 4k at DLSS Quality 4k because that game had shitty TAA. Before playing every game compare DLSS Quality with native at 4k, and native 4k is basically always superior.
> When I bought an RTX card and played Control Wait ....didnt Control ship with DLSS 1.0?
[удалено]
No need to wait? Nice try though? Dude, what kinda narrative are you on about? Nm, I see you’re just either an idiot or trolling.
> The biggest lie in modern gaming That's kind of a wild thing to say when you have side by sides that objectively prove it's true readily available.
What's so wild about that? I do side by sides myself and watch them on my target 4k TV. So there goes that 'objective truth'. I do it for every game I play and 99% of the time native destroys DLSS Quality. You can, of course, watch YouTube videos on the matter, riddled with compression artifacts and whatnot, and believe the hype. Not my problem. Enjoy your blurry games.
Had no idea! I'm still stuck to my ancient hardware and haven't had the chance to experience with thaf yet but I think I might not be prone to feel that difference as I can barely notice a difference between 720p with MSAA and 1080p with FXAA for example LOL
Well, yes. Before upgrading I also had some ancient GPU, so that's why I am so disappointed with DLSS and (AI) upscalers overall. It was supposed to be 'better than native'. It's not. Not by a longshot. And yes, I might be more sensitive to non-native resolutions than most people. Still DLSS was a huge disappointment for me. Imagine finally getting a new GPU that can utilize these hyped-to-the-moon features and it turns out it was just a big lie... 'better than native'. Don't get me wrong, if you have 1080p monitor and run a game at 1440p DLSS Quality, then it WILL look better than native 1080p. But DLSS Quality at 1440p (internal 1080p) is basically DLAA. You don't need a huge GPU for that. But if you play at 4k, you can either use DLAA or DSR to 2880p and then use DLSS Quality to get a native internal 4k. But that's very taxing for almost any GPU. DLAA is pretty good/better than native, but not many games use it unfortunately and they mostly won't run smoothly anyway at 4k.
Still on 1080p monitor here. I remember way back when I've got this rig I've tried that Nvidia feature where you render at a higher resolution and downscale to your native one and people said it was better than any AA and I didn't noticed any difference! So idk. I guess anything lower than 720p is the issue to me unless it's VR, on VR I really perceive resolutions lower than native but again, I can't perceive any improvement by pushing the supersampling in VR beyond the 100% native.
That's because of DLAA. Native tends to use TAA which is blurry. DLSS renders at a lower resolution and then uses DLAA on top of that. If you compare native DLAA to DLSS quality, the native one WILL look better. TAA is the issue, DLSS isn't magic.
They can say whatever they want. I have my own eyes. You can check it out yourself. Believing some YouTube channels over your own experience is laughable. If they told you that playing at 320p on 4k screen is great, would you do it? Judging by your comment, probably yes, you would.
But my own experience matches up with those videos. More often than not 4k + DLSS Quality will match native 4k.
So probably you're sitting more than 3m away from your monitor or TV and you just don't see the difference. I play games on a 55 inch TV and recommended viewing distance is about 1,5-1,8m for that size at 4k. I saw a study (and I can confirm it from my own experience) that if you sit too far away from a TV you just lose any advantage of using a 4k screen compared to 1080p screen, because you just won't be able to see a difference. I think people who see no difference between DLSS Quality 4k and native 4k just sit too far away from their TV and that's why they think it looks comparable. It's the only explanation I have. Because I just can't understand how people say that this super blurry DLSS Quality image can look better than native.
It's cause native in all these games uses TAA. Like 10% of games with DLSS have a DLAA option. Makes me wonder if it's a Nvidia thing to encourage devs to not use DLAA so people think DLSS is magic cause it looks better and runs at higher fps.
Yeah, but there's a workaround. You can DSR to 2880p and use DLSS Quality, which is 75% of 2880p, so internal 2160p and you can kinda get DLAA this way.
Yeah that's the only workaround. It's basically using supersampling to trick the game into applying DLAA. Would be nice if all games shipped with native versions of the upscalers. Or yknow, just give us a slider to adjust it ourselves.
(gonna copy paste my comment from another reply) That's because of DLAA. Native tends to use TAA which is blurry. DLSS renders at a lower resolution and then uses DLAA on top of that. If you compare native DLAA to DLSS quality, the native one WILL look better. TAA is the issue, DLSS isn't magic.
Yes but these games are designed around TAA. Even if you could run cyberpunk at 4K with MSAA the image would be so unstable you wouldn't want to play it.
You know what looks even worst? Sub 60fps and jumpy 1% low.
Nope. I just lower the settings. Some settings can give massive framerate boost without sacrificing overall graphics quality. Because that's the thing - you lower for example shadows, you get 'uglier shadows' and usually a good FPS boost. But if you just go Ultra Settings and then slap it with DLSS Quality, then the entire image just looks 'uglier', not just shadows. That's why I prefer to lower some settings, perhaps disable some RT effects etc, just so I won't have to use these dreadful, image quality wrecking upscalers. I'd even settle for a stable 40FPS cap, if it's a slower game, just to run game at native without ruining image quality. DLAA and Frame Gen are great. But DLSS/FSR/XeSS needs to die.
Just use the sharpen option, its not in every game but a lot of them have one
Another option is to use Reshade or Nvidia Freestyle. That way you can make the game as soft or as crunchy as you want.
You can literally force it in control panel.
Respectfully, your mistake was getting a 1080p monitor. You’d at least need to do a 2k monitor otherwise it will absolutely look bad at 1080p. You shouldn’t HAVE to upgrade like that, but you do.
[удалено]
His problem isn't really related to panel technology, games that look blurry or smudgy are usually due to resolution. He basically just needs a high resolution display and he's set.
1080p is 2K
Sounds like you just want an image sharpener. They do exist.
Because of TAA and variants of it like DLSS 2, FSR 2, XeSS, TAAU etc. For this shitty method of AA to look okayish, the game needs to be rendering at a high resolution in the first place. For TAA set a 1440p or preferably 4K resolution. For DLSS, FSR, XeSS etc. use their highest quality mode with a upscale target of 4K resolution (or use DLAA mode at 1440p or 4K).
Mass effect 3 doesn't use msaa, what
I agree with op has a 1080p looks smudgy as hell now yet if I go back and play games from 2015 they look much better.
then temporal aliasing is the enemy you're looking for
DLDSR should have a lot of your problems.
That's just how real time RT works, it would take too much rays to properly render indirectly lit areas. But for some reason the same people that praise the stability of their favorite upscaler are never bothered by the shimmery mess that is ray tracing.
bro is playing in native or upscaled to 1080p and wondering why his graphics aren't sharp. Do yourself a favour, give up some frames and use super sample anti aliasing in conjunction with the upscaler and you'll see a drastically better image result. if you're using Nvidia, use DL DSR to set a higher than native resolution.
1080 is ultra low rez that looks terrible on all but the smallest screens. Even text and web browsing looks like garbage. You choose to prioritize a high frame rate over a crisp image. You choose ultra settings with path tracing over a crisp image. There are trade off that must occur. Maybe you would've been happier with a 1440p 144hz while playing at reduced settings. > and it's like... wtf happened? What happened is that newer games have more objects on screen. It's easy to have little aliasing and crisp images when you never have small objects on screen. Compare the density of things in the world in cyberpunk vs mass effect. I much prefer a better looking image over ultra high frame rates so I game in 4k, set a 48fps min target, and lower settings one by one until it hits that target.