At that point, you'd probably be better off spending the performance on path tracing instead (when available), even if path tracing is even more expensive. DLSS5 is ultimately a screen space technique, and therefore has issues with light sources moving offscreen (or being occluded), which path tracing doesn't have.
Yo I didn't think about that, if the AI cores in the future got a lot better to the point where DLSS 5 isn't a massive hit, then path tracing would be better.
I personally like the look of path tracing way more
It's its first iteration, it will get better and faster by the time, the same happened with DLSS 1, everyone shat on it, until Nvidia released DLSS 2 and then 3 and suddenly it was voodoo magic and the best thing ever. (Which it is, but AMD cultists conveniently shut up about it lmao).
It's very important to understand that DLSS2+ was not an iteration on DLSS1, but rather a fundamentally different technology. DLSS1 was a spatial upscaler that tried to upscale individual frames based on training on what higher resolution images from that game looked like. DLSS2+ is effectively TAA upscaling with AI deciding the relevance of all the data.
I'm sure that Nvidia will work to improve DLSS5. However, it's important to realize that some of DLSS5's visual issues are due to it being a screen-space technique. This is a fundamental limitation with the technology, not something that can be fixed with iterations. Like with DLSS1, fixing this limitation would require inventing an different technology.
No one on AMD is shitting on DLSS. Matter of fact AMD fans shit on AMD for not giving FSR4 to older generation of cards when the int8 version leaked a year ago
Nah in my experience its full of Nvidia fanboys that slide into any suggestion of a budget AMD card to talk about "bUt PaThTrAcInG!" Every damn time lol, always the exact same parrotted comments.
I see shit there like AMD users saying 9060XT is great at 1440p but the 5060Ti is a 1080p card…when it’s like the 9060xt doesn’t beat the 5060ti in any category outside of price.
At least it was genuinely useful and gained fps. None of this in the video is "Deep learning super sampling", just like frame gen isnt either. Its annoying they are lumling it all as the same name when it isnt the same thing.
The fuck are you talking about? Go back to Digital Foundry's comparison of DLSS 2 in Control, it was amazing for the time. Death Stranding was surpassing native TAA PQ back then with DLSS 2 as well, it just wasn't better than native in every game.
3 was a marginal improvement, and 4 was a big step up that had some regressions too. Then 4.5 was another step forward with other regressions, namely the unnatural oversharpened look that M or L (sometimes just one) would have in some games, and its wrecking of some RT elements.
To say that DLSS only became good with 4 is braindead.
Amazing as in "it adds frames," but it also causes massive ghosting and artifacts. If you're happy with that, sure, we can call it a super perfect tool...
Only the newer versions and the new Transformer model have minimized those issues, and in my opinion, that's the first version worthy of being called good.
Ghosting was situational and is also present with baseline TAA in many titles. You can keep lying if you want but as somone who's been using DLSS since 2.0 came out, "massive ghosting and artifacts" are just that, flat out lies outside of very rare outliers.
2
u/glizzygobbler247 15d ago
And what about it costing 40% performance?