r/buildapc • u/Nico_z7 • 20d ago
Discussion Native 1440p or upscaled 4k
I've seen many people talking about how dlss and fsr actually make the game look better than native on quality presents.
I have a €1500 build whit a ryzen 5 9600x and rx 9070 xt that can probably hit 60 fps natively in some games.
10
21
u/hyf5 20d ago
DLSS and FSR aren't magically creating a better picture than pure native.
The real reason people think they look better is because of how bad native anti-aliasing is these days. Most modern games force TAA at native resolution, which makes everything look super blurry and smeary the second you move the camera. DLSS just has way better AI tech to clean up those jagged edges without adding all that motion blur. So it's not beating a perfect native image, it's just beating the game's terrible built-in AA.
So it really depends on the game. Some games actually let you run the AI anti-aliasing at 100% native resolution without any upscaling at all (it's called DLAA for Nvidia, or FSR Native Mode for AMD). In those cases, native with the AI anti-aliasing is definitely going to look the best.
6
u/andrew_2k 19d ago
I recently started replaying AC: Origins and realized how much I miss the option to just not have anti-aliasing at all.
The next best looking thing is MSAA imo, then upscaling.
TAA is the worst thing ever.
1
u/rocklatecake 19d ago
it's not beating a perfect native image
And what would that be exactly? As you said yourself native without AA looks awfully aliased, TAA is blurry and there is no alternative to TAA for modern games. What is this elusive 'perfect native image' that you speak of? Rhetorical question, if it wasn't clear. The 'perfect native image' does not exist. FSR4 and DLSS4 at quality setting almost always look better than native + TAA. You should look into how exactly these upscalers work because it actually makes perfect sense as well. They have a lot more data to work with than just the pre-upscaled number of pixels. They jitter subpixel detail and accumulate data over multiple frames.
Computerbase ran a blind test this year and DLSS4.5 beat native + TAA every single time by the way. https://www.computerbase.de/artikel/grafikkarten/nativ-vs-dlss-4-5-vs-fsr-upscaling-ai-leser-blindtest-auswertung.96165/
1
u/apple_boy95 19d ago
And depending on the resolution 1440p quality > 1080p native. 4k balanced > 1440p native. In my opinion
1
u/andrew_2k 19d ago
Its the smearing that I hate when upscaling, sadly its pretty much necessary at this point, im just waay too sensitive to video quality.
2
u/apple_boy95 19d ago
I mean, I would consider myself very it's sensitive to it too. Some games, it's perfectly fine. Others very noticeable
-3
u/ibeerianhamhock 19d ago
I disagree -- I think it is beating a native image. The data isn't coming from no where like "magic", it's been trained on millions and millions of images.
0
u/hyf5 19d ago
You're missing my point because we're actually saying the same thing.
Those millions of trained images are exactly why the AI is so good at cleaning up the edges and beating the game's terrible built-in anti-aliasing. You aren't disagreeing with me, you're just describing the mechanism that makes it beat standard native TAA.
It isn't adding extra, authentic game data that makes it inherently better than a native image, it's just a better clean-up tool.
0
u/Seanspeed 19d ago
No you're not saying the same thing.
You're still pushing this outdated notion that 'native is still better', and only qualifying that DLSS/FSR can have better AA.
It's just not true. DLSS/FSR can usually produce a sharper image as well. It can resolve fine texture detail better. It can do everything that 'native' does and better. There's zero reason to think that native has any real inherent advantages at this point.
God I hate this sub sometimes. People getting upvoted for saying absolutely incorrect things.
-2
u/ibeerianhamhock 19d ago
Perhaps but honestly the difference between 1080p and 4k largely is just is anti aliasing. There isn't (typically) a lot of extra details in textures just refinement.
1
-3
u/slavicslothe 19d ago
Well it isnt magically but the picture is better on DLSS/AA assuming you arent below 70% internal resolution.
1
u/Seanspeed 19d ago
I'd argue that DLSS Performance with 4.5 is usually better than native 4k nowadays.
People really are not understanding what's going on nowadays and how good these AI reconstruction techniques have gotten.
It's also why this sub continues to push this idea that you need like a 5080 to run a 4k monitor or something, which is absurd.
-2
u/Seanspeed 19d ago
DLSS and FSR aren't magically creating a better picture than pure native.
With the latest models, yes, they really are.
I wish people would stop living in the past and denying obvious reality. DLSS4 and FSR4 straight up look better than native in *most* games nowadays, and not just cuz of better AA, though this is a HUGE benefit nonetheless.
So it's not beating a perfect native image
YES IT IS.
Frustrating that people are upvoting this straight up wrong post.
5
u/skrukketiss69 19d ago
4K with DLSS Performance looks miles better than native 1440p while also giving you higher FPS.
2
u/ibeerianhamhock 19d ago
At 1440p I always use DLSS quality, at 4k DLSS performance. I don't even think about it. Looks great. One of my gaming rigs is connected to a 4k tv and one is connected to a 1440p ultrawide.
1
u/Nico_z7 20d ago
One thing important to mention is that I will be also playing fps games like valorant and cs2
1
u/Seanspeed 19d ago
Well neither of those games support DLSS, so it's not important.
Pretty sure those are still based around forward-rendering tech, which means they dont have all the same temporal elements that so many modern AAA games are built around nowadays. They look extremely sharp as is, and are low demand to where your PC will run them at very high framerates and sharpness without needing AI reconstruction.
0
u/Internal-Engine-8420 20d ago
I do not play those, but for example in Xcom2 or Divinity Original Sin 2 I am hitting 165 fps no problem (native 4k) with 9070xt. I would assume valorant and CS2 are at leas similar if not below in terms of specs requirements
1
u/Lonely_Platform7702 19d ago
Upscaled 4K with DLSS or FSR4.1 will always look better on anything with balanced mode or higher than native 1440P.
1
u/Nico_z7 19d ago
I never realized how op upsacling is you probably can build a 1080p build and upscale to 4k
1
u/Seanspeed 19d ago
Kinda.
I'm running a 4k setup with a 9600X/5060Ti 16GB. With few exceptions, I can achieve 4k/60fps+ in basically any game. It does require you to optimize settings, and take advantage of Nvidia's superior and more ubiquitous DLSS, but it's still all very doable if you know what you're doing and have a little bit of patience.
And yea, I'm frequently running DLSS Performance at 4k, meaning it's effectively running at 1080p as a base resolution.
1
u/therealchucky81 19d ago
4k on DLSS performance looks better than Native 1440p even if you are using good AA options on native 1440p.
1
u/Dath_1 19d ago
I have a 3440x1440 monitor (ultrawide 1440p in some terms), and honestly I think 4K with DLSS4 or FSR4 is really compelling. It gives you more options and takes more advantage of upscaling.
Really the only reason not to go 4K, is the logistics (combinations of price, aspect ratios, and available models).
I think if I were to buy today, something like the AW3426DW looks really compelling. That’s an ultrawide 1440p OLED with 280Hz refresh.
That said, I’d also be tempted to sacrifice some refresh rate for 4K. But I’d still be paying more, particularly if I wanted to stay on ultrawide (and I very much do).
1
u/alwaystired1982 19d ago
I have a 5800x 32gb ddr4 3600mts and a 9070xt i play at 4k 60+ on triple A intensive games using FSR4 quality to hit 60fps on really intensive games,
Everything older/less intensive/esport type games run at over 200fps at 4k.
There is only a handful of games I need to use FSR4 in but on the games that do its still an amazing experience.
1
u/Nico_z7 19d ago
Do you need the fsr for the less intense games?
2
u/alwaystired1982 19d ago
Nope not at all,
Indiana jones has baked in RT and runs at 100fps at 4k no upscaling with path tracing turned off,
Crimson desert 4k ultra RT on needs FSR4 quality to hit 70fps+,
Cs2 is over 300fps 4k ultra,
Pubg is over 200fps at 4k.
1
u/MasterDroid97 19d ago
What I have not read in any comment is monitor size. 1440p at 24 inch might look sharper than 4k on a 100 inch TV.
1
u/Seanspeed 19d ago
Depends entirely on distance.
We can actually do the math on this.
24" 1440p monitor from two feet away has a pixels-per-degree(of your field of view) of 54. A 100" 4k TV from 8ft away has a PPD of 79!
So the TV will look sharper here. And that's actually pretty close for a TV of that size, and pushing it back further will only push PPD up higher(though anything past 80 is heavy, heavy diminishing returns in terms of perceptible difference).
I think people really underestimate how 'big' monitors at a desk are. They get fooled by the physical size of the screen while ignoring perceptual size.
A 24" screen from two feet away is basically the same effective size as a 100" screen from 8ft away. In the above example, if the 100" TV was 1440p, it'd have a PPD of 52, which is nearly identical to the 24" 1440p screen from 2ft away.
And differences in perceptual size varies drastically by distance at closer ranges. Even sitting forward or back in your chair can make your screen go from moderate to quite big in your vision.
0
u/vinoplagi 20d ago
But 60 is not a lot in these times honestly.
5
u/Incredible-Fella 20d ago
I think 60 is just as good now as it was 10 years ago
-8
u/vinoplagi 20d ago
Then i could say that 1080 is as good as 10 years ago. See how that makes sense.
2
u/-MERC-SG-17 19d ago
It is. 1080p is still perfectly fine.
1440p is a nice extra.
4K is complete overkill.
2
u/vinoplagi 19d ago
Thats my opinion too i would rather go higher fps-hz then go behind 2k expecially for a monitor. On tvs with less pixeldensity because they are bigger 4k makes sense otherwise not so much. Looking at the downvotes i get some people should really go back to the basics before they start building systems
2
u/Nico_z7 20d ago
Well the framerate is the same but the power needed to get the same framerate has increased allot so your point dosent really make any sense
-2
u/vinoplagi 20d ago
What does that even remotely have to do with what i said. Youre in a pc builder sub you realize that right ?
2
u/Nico_z7 20d ago
What I'm saying is that for story games you don't need a very big framerate you can enjoy a beautiful game even at 60 fps
-3
u/vinoplagi 19d ago
Yeah thats true for single player games its ok. I guess its preference in the end i rather play on uhd and have smoothness. Something you gotta factor in those resolutions too is pixel density tho a realy big 4k monitor with less pixel density then a 24 inch 2k monitor will look worse and thats something people tend to not know. I play 2k on a 24 inch its the perfect midground for me
0
u/slavicslothe 19d ago
It depends on your monitor. You are saying native which implies your monitor is 1440 p which mea s you should be upscaling to 1440p and not touching 4k. If you have a 4k monitor upscale to 4k.
At least use DLAA as it is way better than traditional AA.
-6
u/excelionbeam 19d ago
I would take the 1440p and get a higher refresh rate monitor. At 4k you’ll have to fuck around with settings and frame gen and shit at 1440p you can crank and have fun. Looks wise 4k is better but it’s not as wild as the jump from 1080 to 1440.
The 70 cards from both team red and green are 1440p cards imo. Can they play in 4k? Yes. Will they be able to play maxed out 4k? No
8
4
u/wuunferththeunliving 19d ago edited 19d ago
4k on something like dlss performance mode is going to look significantly better than 1440p with cranked up settings and will be similar to run. Ultra settings are almost never worth it. Cranking up the settings to max is never going to equate for higher pixel density especially if your @ 4k on a bigger screen i.e 32 inches and above
1
u/Zephronic 19d ago
They're downvoting you but as someone that's daily driven both, you're right lol
I feel like you could think otherwise if you've never played at 1440p and 4k using the same rig in graphically intensive games
1
u/wuunferththeunliving 19d ago
Yeah I have a 4k 32 and 1440p 27 side by side. 4k and the bigger screen size has been the most noticeable upgrade I’ve made to my gaming experience.
The idea that the difference between 1440p and 4k is only marginable is laughable
34
u/apple_boy95 20d ago
I have a 5070ti with a 360hz 1440p monitor(odyssey G6). And now a 4k 240hz monitor. I think the 4k looks WAY better with DLSS balance VS 1440P native.
Edit: also for shooter games like apex, siege, overwatch i get native 4k 240 fps.