Question DF: Fortnite's Unreal Engine 5 Upgrade Reviewed - ( UE 5 reduce the need for HW RT?)

[Heartbreaker]

I just watched Digital Foundry analysis of the Unreal Engine 5 upgrade to Fortnite.

It's Lumen Global Illumination Software mode looks as good as HW version most of the time - Very impressive.

If more games use UE5 then I think most people don't really need to be that concerned about HW RT, while still getting excellent Global Illumination:

 

[coercitiv]

I am sure there are still a few that still hate DLSS 2, but the reality is most of the opposition magically disappeared when FSR 2 came out. I am sure the same will be true for DLSS 3.

Most of the opposition disappeared when DLSS improved drastically. This revisionist mantra I see repeated in the forums completely ignores the massive IQ problems DLSS 1.0 came with in 2018. The arguments against DLSS were mainly about the loss in image quality, and those got mostly addressed around the Control launch, a 2019 game. FSR 2 launched in 2022, a year later after DLSS 2.

 

[Heartbreaker]

The DLSS and DLSS 3 hate is near identical. DLSS was raged against for it's "fake" resolution because it was upscaling, and being fake should be discounted in every test and feature comparison even if the graphical results were near identical. DLSS 3 with "fake" frames sounds exactly the same to me.

I am sure there are still a few that still hate DLSS 2, but the reality is most of the opposition magically disappeared when FSR 2 came out. I am sure the same will be true for DLSS 3.

It's not the same at all.

DLSS 1 had poor visual quality but even then, it was generating real, and reactive frames, so it would improve game responsiveness and latency. When DLSS 2 came out, and Image quality improved to the point that it was hard to tell the difference, then it was pure win-win.

DLS3 Frame generation is actually holding two frames in a buffer, making an in between frame, then displaying the fake frame instead of the current frame, delaying the current frame for another half frame time. This increases latency, and even if the image quality improves, it will still increase latency and reduce reactivity.

At the core they are opposite. DLSS 1,2 Improves reactivity and latency , while DLS3 Frame Generation Degrades reactivity and latency.

NVidia is marketing hard on a VERY misleading/deceptive message, that DLSS 3 fake frames are the same as real frames. But they aren't. Far from it, they degrade the gaming experience.

I can't remember the last time NVidia marketing was this misleading. It's how they made the claim that 4070 Ti is up to 3X faster than the 3090 ti. Check this slide, showing the performance difference. The 4070 Ti is blowing away the 3090 Ti:

This is false advertising. When tested by third parties, the 4070 Ti is slightly slower than a 3090 Ti.

 

[Dribble]

This is false advertising. When tested by third parties, the 4070 Ti is slightly slower than a 3090 Ti.

Nvidia did all the same sort of advertising for DLSS and it was equally scorned because it was comparing DLSS (effectively running at a lower resolution) to native. Now most just accept it's fine to use DLSS like that as it gives you the same result as native (and AMD have a competitor so it doesn't exclude them!).

Given that history is it really fake advertising being as it's likely after a few revisions it'll work fine and everyone will turn it on? If we assume most future AAA games will end up supporting it in the same way DLSS/FSR is now supported in pretty well all new AAA games, then it is an indicator of future performance - the 4070Ti really will be a much better card for those games then a 3090Ti.

 

[Stuka87]

The DLSS and DLSS 3 hate is near identical. DLSS was raged against for it's "fake" resolution because it was upscaling, and being fake should be discounted in every test and feature comparison even if the graphical results were near identical. DLSS 3 with "fake" frames sounds exactly the same to me.

I am sure there are still a few that still hate DLSS 2, but the reality is most of the opposition magically disappeared when FSR 2 came out. I am sure the same will be true for DLSS 3.

As noted above, your comparison is wrong. DLSS 1 was used for false advertising, showing artificial performance boosts of 20x0 series cards. But while it looked terrible in its 1.0 iteration, it did provide real performance increases with latency decreasing.

DLSS 3 Is outright fake performance, it makes latency worse, and is being used as fake advertising all over the place by nVidia where they claim a 4070Ti is THREE TIMES faster than a 3090, which is entirely false.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Nvidia did all the same sort of advertising for DLSS and it was equally scorned because it was comparing DLSS (effectively running at a lower resolution) to native. Now most just accept it's fine to use DLSS like that as it gives you the same result as native (and AMD have a competitor so it doesn't exclude them!).

Given that history is it really fake advertising being as it's likely after a few revisions it'll work fine and everyone will turn it on? If we assume most future AAA games will end up supporting it in the same way DLSS/FSR is now supported in pretty well all new AAA games, then it is an indicator of future performance - the 4070Ti really will be a much better card for those games then a 3090Ti.

No, people really just complained about the image quality.

The performance boost was real.

This time the performance boost is FAKE, it's actually worse performance.

 

[Mopetar]

The DLSS and DLSS 3 hate is near identical.

I think DLSS3 is far worse. The original at least had a use case in helping extend the life of old cards by offering a way to keep frame rates up on aging technology. That was especially important during the mining boom, when a lot of people were stuck on older cards.

DLSS3 is little more than a marketing gimmick. Look at how it was used by NVidia to market the 4070 Ti as being several times faster than the 3090 Ti.

I am sure there are still a few that still hate DLSS 2, but the reality is most of the opposition magically disappeared when FSR 2 came out.

They're both largely crap and time that developers could be spending on literally anything else. The only nod I'll give FSR is that it supports even older hardware, including some NVidia cards that didn't get DLSS.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

I think the openness of FSR is what spares it the hate DLSS gets.

Given the sheer number of older pre-turing NV cards out in the wild, FSR likely helped more NV customers than AMD customers, ironically enough, in the one use case I think most everyone is OK with: extending the life of an older card, especially during the pandemic when cards were either not available or prices had gone through the roof.

 

[Stuka87]

I think DLSS3 is far worse. The original at least had a use case in helping extend the life of old cards by offering a way to keep frame rates up on aging technology. That was especially important during the mining boom, when a lot of people were stuck on older cards.

DLSS never worked on old cards. When it came out, it only worked on 20x0 series cards. These cards are older now of course, and so DLSS will be good for them to live longer. But that was not the original intent.

 

[Aapje]

@Stuka87

Yeah, this is Nvidia's strategy in general. They try to make their new hardware more attractive compared to everything else, rather than focusing on making Nvidia products of every generation more attractive, let alone trying to make gaming in general better and then banking on getting rewarded out of respect for what they've done.

I think that it's a good strategy as long as they do maintain the lead in features, but if they don't, we might see the same as on the CPU side, where many people are willing to pay a little premium for AMD.

 

[Heartbreaker]

DLSS3 is little more than a marketing gimmick. Look at how it was used by NVidia to market the 4070 Ti as being several times faster than the 3090 Ti.

Yeah, unfortunately the gimmick seems to be working. I'm on a couple of forums and on many I see, many, possibly even the majority defending defending frame generation as some kind of breakthrough, when TVs have been doing this far ages. They cite high profile "Influencers" like Linus backing the tech, the Digital Foundry puff piece, where they were given early access, and were obviously limited on what they could say in exchange for that early access.

NVidia has done a lot of shady marketing over the years, but this is worse example I can remember, and the worse part is that it seems to be working.

 

[igor_kavinski]

NVidia has done a lot of shady marketing over the years, but this is worse example I can remember, and the worse part is that it seems to be working.

You are looking at it wrong. It's a "gift" from Nvidia for all the money they have amassed from miners and gamers during the pandemic. The same way the 4070 Ti is a gift because they are now generously giving you an extra 4GB VRAM, unlike the 3070 Ti. We should ALL be singing Nvidia's praises. What is wrong with us???

/s

 

[Aapje]

@guidryp

I don't mind the technology, but I'm disgusted by the marketing and have trouble seeing why it isn't illegal to present marketing slides that claim that the 4070 Ti is 3 times faster than a 3090, without even adding any fine print that the cards are not doing the same thing.

 

[Heartbreaker]

@guidryp

I don't mind the technology, but I'm disgusted by the marketing and have trouble seeing why it isn't illegal to present marketing slides that claim that the 4070 Ti is 3 times faster than a 3090, without even adding any fine print that the cards are not doing the same thing.

Same here. If they just called it motion smoothing, instead of pushing it like a real frame rate equal to actual game engine frames, then I wouldn't be complaining.

I really hope AMD gets their version out soon and it isn't noticeably worse. Not because I think it's a critical feature, but because NVidia doesn't deserve to benefit from this kind of shady marketing.

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Same here. If they just called it motion smoothing, instead of pushing it like a real frame rate equal to actual game engine frames, then I wouldn't be complaining.

I really hope AMD gets their version out soon and it isn't noticeably worse. Not because I think it's a critical feature, but because NVidia doesn't deserve to benefit from this kind of shady marketing.

-I dunno man after the way AMD's marketing has been performing lately we might end up in a scenario where we don't even know what a real frame is anymore.

"Introducing Actual, For Real, Frames by AMD (see endnote NV-RTX)"

NV-RTX: Since all frames are generated by the GPU, they're all real frames. ITS TRICKS AND CHEATS ALL THE WAY DOWN ******S!

 

[Aapje]

I really hope AMD gets their version out soon and it isn't noticeably worse. Not because I think it's a critical feature, but because NVidia doesn't deserve to benefit from this kind of shady marketing.

That's just going to continue the descent down the drain, as AMD will then also start marketing with FSR 3, just like they copied Nvidia's claim that they can do 8k.

 

[Mopetar]

I really hope AMD gets their version out soon and it isn't noticeably worse.

I'm saddened by the fact that they have to have developers wasting time on something so useless when they could be making other meaningful improvements to AMD's drivers.

If anything they should just release something that has a mode that attempts to generate infinitely many fake frames. They can call it Fakery Unlimited and it will produce massive bar chart values. No one should ever actually use it because it's an even bigger joke than DLSS3, but AMD's response to NVidia for this idiocy should be a big FU.

Maybe they can twist or rotate the letters around so that the branding logo even looks like a giant middle finger.

 

[blckgrffn]

I'm saddened by the fact that they have to have developers wasting time on something so useless when they could be making other meaningful improvements to AMD's drivers.

If anything they should just release something that has a mode that attempts to generate infinitely many fake frames. They can call it Fakery Unlimited and it will produce massive bar chart values. No one should ever actually use it because it's an even bigger joke than DLSS3, but AMD's response to NVidia for this idiocy should be a big FU.

Maybe they can twist or rotate the letters around so that the branding logo even looks like a giant middle finger.

It's like a bastardized vsync? Just outputs 300 fps all the time, but only puts in new data sometimes. I mean, FPS, amiright?

(300 in this case is just a variable you set in the driver control panel)

 

[GodisanAtheist]

It's like a bastardized vsync? Just outputs 300 fps all the time, but only puts in new data sometimes. I mean, FPS, amiright?

(300 in this case is just a variable you set in the driver control panel)

- Would be "fun" to have a driver feature that sets an FPS target and then the card just keeps generating i-frames until the FPS target is hit.

Que the "over 9000!" FPS memes.

 

[Aapje]

- Would be "fun" to have a driver feature that sets an FPS target and then the card just keeps generating i-frames until the FPS target is hit.

Que the "over 9000!" FPS memes.

To infinity and beyond!