Question DLSS 2.0

[Dribble]

There is no thread on this, and it's worth one because it seems to finally be realising it's potential. There's many articles discussing it elsewhere - it's used by wolfenstein young blood, control and a few other games and it works really well. Allegedly it's easy to add - no per game training required. Gives a good performance increase and looks really sharp.

Nvidia article.
wccf article.
eurogamer article

The above articles have some good comparison screen shots that really demonstrate what it can do.

Discuss...

 

[Mopetar]

Except in cases where its blatant, you're only really going to get sane judgements on this if people do properly double blinded trials. Which no one will.

Otherwise there's all sorts of conformation bias etc that make a rational judgement incredibly hard.

It's not even just a matter of having it on/off and being able to tell the difference. There are times where the changes it make produce a better or worse aesthetic that can make the result preferable in terms of overall appearance.

Even still images are only half the picture since we don't sit around in games staring at a still image. You need to see it in motion as well since there are cases where you wouldn't notice the differences once it's being animated and other cases where DLSS can produce some weird artifacts that don't exist when it's off. There's also a question as to frame rate as even if the image quality is worse, being able to stay above 60 FPS may produce a better experience than something that dips well below that on occasion.

Add in any effects that are exacerbated due to certain types of displays and it's going to be impossible to test objectively without an extensive amount of work.

 

[Heartbreaker]

It's not even just a matter of having it on/off and being able to tell the difference. There are times where the changes it make produce a better or worse aesthetic that can make the result preferable in terms of overall appearance.

Even still images are only half the picture since we don't sit around in games staring at a still image. You need to see it in motion as well since there are cases where you wouldn't notice the differences once it's being animated and other cases where DLSS can produce some weird artifacts that don't exist when it's off.

You do need to see it in motion to see the real impact, where, on balance, DLSS Quality mode, is superior at fixing the worse Aliasing Motion artifacts. There was a similar result in Death Stranding. Watch this video clip at full screen/resolution (At 7:30 timestamp) will clearly demonstrate the difference. The native side is full of flashing/poping/crawling Aliasing artifacts, where the DLSS side is stable and clean:

That isn't to say that DLSS is perfect. It has trouble with particle effects, since they lack motion vectors, the leave motion trails, this can be seen most readily in death stranding.

I would rather have the particle effect anomalies, than aliasing motion artifacts.

Next is Detail, and again compared to native, there is a trading of blows. Since both TAA and DLSS can soften the image. This one is highly susceptible to tuning.

In "Control", DLSS 2.0 is a tad over sharpened for my taste, but for those less susceptible to sharpening artifices, it can look better than Native TAA softness.

In "Cyberpunk 2077" the situation is reversed. TAA is over-sharpened and has the sharpening artifacts, while DLSS is not. Leading some to claim DLSS 2.0 has less detail in this case, but in many scenes DLSS 2.0 is actually resolving more detail, but isn't sharpened like TAA.

IMO, on visuals alone, I consider DLSS 2.0 Quality mode the better overall presentation, before we even get to the bonus improvement in frame rates.

The one thing it could use right away though, is an exposed sharpness setting, to allow this to be set to personal taste. Sharpness is NOT one size fits all.

 

[Dribble]

The one thing it could use right away though, is an exposed sharpness setting, to allow this to be set to personal taste. Sharpness is NOT one size fits all.

Apparently you can set the texture lod bias to sharpen it if you wish: https://wccftech.com/heres-how-to-improve-cyberpunk-2077-texture-sharpness-when-using-nvidia-dlss/

 

[GoodRevrnd]

In "Cyberpunk 2077" the situation is reversed. TAA is over-sharpened and has the sharpening artifacts, while DLSS is not. Leading some to claim DLSS 2.0 has less detail in this case, but in many scenes DLSS 2.0 is actually resolving more detail, but isn't sharpened like TAA.

Can you turn TAA off in CP or is it forced on? Crossed my mind in a game like this they could be futzing w/ the TAA to make DLSS look better (comparatively).

 

[amenx]

Was never impressed with DLSS 2.0 until I tried it with sharpening @ 4k in cyberpunk. At 1080p its not compelling at all. At 4k its a god send for those trying to get higher fps with it.



Sorry dont have the before shots as it wasnt an intended comparison test, but took these because I was surprised at the result. Can do before/after shots at a later time if asked.
Also this was on a RTX 2080. Again, this at 4k. No ultra presets, just carefully selected settings where it mattered. FPS was in the 30s, but with DLSS it shot up to the 50s.

p.s. look at the detail on trunk of the palm tree on far left when expanded in 1st pic.

 

[Heartbreaker]

Can you turn TAA off in CP or is it forced on? Crossed my mind in a game like this they could be futzing w/ the TAA to make DLSS look better (comparatively).

More like they are doing the opposite.

Since they are sharpening TAA, and leaving DLSS unsharpened, this will look like "better" detail for TAA than DLSS, to most people.

 

[Gideon]

More like they are doing the opposite.

Since they are sharpening TAA, and leaving DLSS unsharpened, this will look like "better" detail for TAA than DLSS, to most people.

They only added it in v1.04 I'm not sure if this is still there on 1.05v hopefully they make it togglable

 

[Dribble]

Looks like someone is finally doing a quality version of DLSS with no scaling (called DLAA):

NVIDIA DLAA (Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing) to Debut in Elder Scrolls Online, Delivering Incredible AA Quality

NVIDIA DLAA (Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing), a quality-focused version of DLSS, will debut soon in Zenimax's MMORPG Elder Scrolls Online.

wccftech.com

 

[GodisanAtheist]

Looks like someone is finally doing a quality version of DLSS with no scaling (called DLAA):

NVIDIA DLAA (Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing) to Debut in Elder Scrolls Online, Delivering Incredible AA Quality

NVIDIA DLAA (Deep Learning Anti-Aliasing), a quality-focused version of DLSS, will debut soon in Zenimax's MMORPG Elder Scrolls Online.

wccftech.com

- Nice.

I am always pro-image quality, its incredible what even basic downscaling can do for graphical fidelity (like SSAA). I think it was @coercitiv that did a little thing with FSR where the game was over-rendered, then downscaled to native resolution by the FSR algo and the image quality was incredible.

Look forward to seeing DLSS pointed at image quality, not just reconstruction.

 

[coercitiv]

I am always pro-image quality, its incredible what even basic downscaling can do for graphical fidelity (like SSAA). I think it was @coercitiv that did a little thing with FSR where the game was over-rendered, then downscaled to native resolution by the FSR algo and the image quality was incredible.

I was quite critical of DLSS when it came out (so DLSS 1.0, not the actual tech), but even back then I made it very clear that I would have loved to see that Deep Learning technique being used as AA on native resolutions. That is why when FSR came out there were many people on Twitter exchanging results on what was essentially a different use case for FSR: post processing on native renders, with excellent results in terms of edge alias removal and detail enhancement.

I'm very curious to see how DLAA performs, the marketing finally allows it to break free of it's original packaging as the Ray Tracing Sidekick.

 

[DXDiag]

PhysX

PhysX is the most commonly used physics API out there .. it pioneered GPU accelerated particles, which is used everywhere in current games. It's also still used in some games today, among them is Metro Exodus.

TXAA

TXAA pioneered temporal AA, in a time where it was scarce to be made in any game, with time TXAA turned into TAA.

3DVision

This was the only game in town when it came to 3D gaming (before the resurgence of VR), AMD's alternative was non existent and defunct a few months after it's arrival.

So really none of those things are truly dead at all. G-Sync Ultimate is the only standard right now that provides Local Dimming + HDR 1000/HDR 1400, and complete VRR experience (from 1Hz to 144Hz) + variable overdrive. FreeSync 2 can't provide this level of quality just yet.

 

[Guru]

To me DLSS is just not valuable enough, if I bought a lower end vcard, I'd just lower certain settings and improve performance that way, with small loss to image quality. There are a ton of youtubers who do tests with image quality settings and provide you the optimal settings in which the game looks almost as good as all settings maxed, but performs much better, in some cases 25% to 35% better performance for virtually no loss of visual quality.

So to me, if I bought a lower end GPU, I'd just look to play at the optimal settings, otherwise as GodisanAtheist said, I just didn't bought the right GPU for the resolution I want to play at. Why would I buy a say GTX 1660super if I want to play on 4k resolution? It doesn't make sense, and why would I want to play at lower than 1080p resolution, but upscaled, when I can play at 1080p and just use the optimal settings.

To me I just don't see the point of DLSS at all. Just give me better cards Nvidia, not the overpriced TURDS that the Turing series was. Thank god AMD came out with the RX 5700 series, to force Nvidia to come out with the super cards, which is what the Turing cards were supposed to be from the start, not the overpriced turds that they were.

Nvidia released as garbage cards as possible at the start with insane pricing and gave us DLSS instead. Hey here is overpriced $350 2060, that should have been $250 from the start or should have released as the 2060 super from the start, but you can now play at 640x480 resolution upscaled to gain more performance, because our garbage card can't even handle 1080p in 2019!

So to me the whole technology is pointless, if you want to upscale games for whatever reason, then just resolution upscaling them and using an image sharpener is the simplest and easiest way to do it, and it gives the most consistent visual quality across ALL games. If you want to get more frames from a game, then find then find the optimal settings that keep most of the visual fidelity, but gain a ton of performance(there are sites and youtube channels that test these), or just buy a card SUITED to what you need and want!

 

[Guru]

DLSS 2 typically provides you with about 40% to 70% more performance at the same IQ, you will have to use very low or Medium settings to gain that amount of fps, with huge cuts to image quality as a result.

Source? Isn't DLSS 2 basically only available for Control? And I don't even know if there are actual performance tests done yet on it, I've only seen quality comparison ones.

 

[Guru]

Read everything here, as I said at least 4 games are available with DLSS 2 right now:

NVIDIA DLSS 2.0: A Big Leap In AI Rendering

Through the power of AI and GeForce RTX Tensor Cores, NVIDIA DLSS 2.0 enables a new level of performance and visuals for your games - available now in MechWarrior 5: Mercenaries and coming this week to Control.

www.nvidia.com

As for performance, watch DF analysis:

Also see here: 50% to 90% more performance going from native 4K to DLSS Quality/1440p, at bascically the same image quality level, or better.

View attachment 19419



View attachment 19420

I don't see anything that would make it valuable, over what I've already said. No, native 4k high quality textures are better than DLSS upscaled ones, you can see this is games that do have 4k native textures, most games actually don't.

If you compare 1440p upscaled to 4k and apply a sharpen filter, its competing with DLSS 2 in quality and performance.

Again I don't see how this is good for anything, other than marketing bullshit, when they don't provide good graphic cards. If you want to play 4k, buy a gpu that can handle that, otherwise dlss or resolution upscaling or whatever is just a gimmick, it can't beat native quality.

If you want higher performance then just use optimal settings, much simpler and easier. And if for some reason you want to upscale then again resolution scaling+sharpen filter is the easiest and most consistent way to do it for ALL games, at ALL times, hassle free!

 

[DXDiag]

It's gotta be the way forward, the video shows that you can run at 4K using 1080P + DLSS 2 and get image quality that's near identical - slightly worse in some areas due to a little halo'ing but it does a better job of resolving detail in motion then native 4K so overall similar. That's huge, it literally over doubles your fps for no image quality loss.
I know a lot of people have to hate it because it's Nvidia but it really is amazing what it can achieve. I would not even consider buying a card now that did not do DLSS.

If you upscale from 1440p (aka DLSS 2 Quality mode), you get even more quality, surpassing native resolution by a decent margin.

 

[Guru]

No it's not, HardwareUnboxed did that comparison and found out DLSS to be vastly better. Once more DLSS = native resoluion, so your method of lower resolution then sharpen filter is vastly inferior.

Nvidia DLSS in 2020: Stunning Results

We've been waiting to reexamine Nvidia's Deep Learning Super Sampling (DLSS) for a long time and after a thorough new investigation we're glad to report that DLSS...

www.techspot.com

There are no cards that can handle 4K max settings. And there won't be if you use RT.


Or just use DLSS, since it delivers the same quality, and greater performance.

It can, and it consistently does it actually, according to the myriads of quality comparisons.

That's not hassle free at all, that's the definition of hassle itself, DLSS 2 is hassle free, since it's just a single switch.

What the hell are you talking about? It's literally ONE game being tested, if you aren't blind and actually look at the pics that techspot showed, you can clearly see the loss of detail and darkening of textures that are a bit further away. So its using darkening of textures to hide the loss of quality, plus TAA is NOT the end all be all, ultimately no AA filtering is perfect, they have downfalls, but you really even need AA I found in 4k, even lower resolution, because you don't really notice those jagged edges as much in motion and it looks crispier without AA.

There also seems to be a sharpening filter applied in DLSS 2, you can clearly see it in the text comparisons, its jagging the text extremely, in fact in DLSS 2, text looks worse than DLSS 1.9, there is a huge sharpening filter applied and yeah, it does make the picture look crispier, but you can still see the loss of detail if you actually look.

And again where does this "better quality" nonsense coming from? It's literally ONE game tested across all sources I've seen. Techspot, digital foundry, one game and if you are not blind you can CLEARLY see the loss of detail. Plus as I've already said not all games have 4k textures, so 4k is not going to look better than 1440p, it looks maybe very subtly better, because it's just more pixels due to the resolution and oftentimes 4k monitors are actually just better than lower res ones, because they are more expensive, certainly there are many exceptions obviously, but since 4k are more expensive in general, the higher end screens are reserved more often for 4k.

I mean Jesus, admit when you are wrong! Going through each techspot pic and you can CLEARLY, CLEARLY See the loss of quality. Take the zoomed in picture of the first pictures, you can clearly see it's more blurry and rather BIG loss of detail. The images on the board look blurrier and have loss of detail, the metallic presentation objects look blurrier and have a very noticeable loss of detail, the shadow below has a freaking loss of detail and looks more one color, more uniform, in native it looks more natural and not so dark and blurry, etc...

Second set of zoomed pictures even if you were blind you can see that it darkens the colors, the yellow wall is much darker, hiding the loss of detail by darkening it, but its still easily perceivable, the color is more uniform, has no branching of colors, has so much less detail, its like a beginner artist vs experienced top level artist, the DLSS color is so much simpler and just uniform and dark.
The cardboard is a lot blurrier, again the monotone of the color, the darkening, just massive loss of detail!

STOP treating us like idiots, DLSS even if you were BLIND is NOT better quality at 4k, is NOT same quality as 4k, is much lower quality at 4k, at 1440p, at 1080, EASILY PERCEIVABLE!

ALL of the pictures CLEARLY show very noticeable loss of quality! Even Nvidia's OWN MARKETING DEPARTMENT doesn't claim its same quality! Even Nvidia admits its lower quality, but for higher framerate. Even they are not so brazen to claim such nonsense!




Dial it back. Insults aren't allowed in tech, and you posted multiple insults.


esquared
Anandtech Forum Director

 

[mikegg]

I really doubt that. The non-super cards launched with big price hikes and with only one game (Battlefield 5) using raytracing at launch.They had to sell it on DLSS and a good-but-not-amazing boost over the last generation, with the $1200 2080 Ti being ~30% better in non-RT titles compared to the 1080 Ti. DLSS was a blurry mess and the teased DLSS 2 (or whatever it was named) that would have a performance hit but improve image quality at native resolution never materialized. The Super cards were better, but more 'this is what it should've been in the first place' than anything worth singing praises for.

If DLSS finally works now, great. It just took 17 months to get into a working state.

Nvidia is a business, not a charity. It optimizes prices based on competition, value, etc. It's not Nvidia's fault that AMD has nothing to compete with the performance of RTX, Ray Tracing, DLSS, driver stability. Nor is it Nvidia's fault that consumers are willing to pay those prices.

RTX brought two game-changing technology to the mainstream: ray tracing and DLSS 2.0. Most generations don't bring any. That's why I think RTX will be remembered fondly.

Ray tracing had to start somewhere, even if it was just one game. Don't knock on Nvidia for being innovative.

PS. I own both AMD and Nvidia stocks.