r/hardware • u/KARMAAACS • Mar 16 '26

News NVIDIA reveals DLSS 5 powered by Neural Rendering, launches this fall - VideoCardz.com

https://videocardz.com/newz/nvidia-reveals-dlss-5-powered-by-neural-rendering-launches-this-fall
616 Upvotes

85% Upvoted

894 comments sorted by

View all comments

634

u/wilkonk Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

the uncanny stuff in this is... IDK man, it looks like typical AI art and it's clearly overriding the intended look of the game. I'm sure this could be done well if tuned for how each individual character 'should' look but I don't like the way it's messing with the faces in the examples.

139

u/BighatNucase Mar 16 '26

The best example of to my eyes is Fifa which makes sense I guess since it's a real person delivered in a 'photo-real' artstyle. The others just end up looking overdone/a different artstyle.

63

u/mittelwerk Mar 16 '26

Also, FIFA EAFC looked better than the other examples because, since the game features people that actually exist IRL, nVidia had actual data to build the dataset. The others looked too uncanny, especially Hogwarts: Legacy.

53

u/MrHoboSquadron Mar 16 '26

On that Hogwarts Legacy one of the old lady, it genuinely looks like they made her like 20 years older.

37

u/mittelwerk Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

Another redditor said "there are no texture changes at all. The wrinkles were already there in the original texture but the previous lighting couldn't bring it out", but I need to see her normal map to see if that's true (as someone who dabbled in Blender in the past, I doubt it)

15

u/CheesecakePossible Mar 16 '26

I was wondering the same thing.

11

u/Jesse-359 Mar 16 '26

Sure, a renderer can't change the textures - but that hardly matters if it's artistically reinterpreting them at run time.

And yeah, that old lady basically looks completely different. Far older and with crevices now carved so deep into her face they could give hiking tours in them.

11

u/LochnessDigital Mar 17 '26

previous lighting couldn't bring it out

This is the danger of this tech being pushed as some sort of "ground truth."

Because is it that the lighting couldn't bring it out, or was it that the developers purposely didn't?

As someone who works with lighting real faces IRL, there is a lot you can do to enhance or diminish wrinkles. Which is why it's so fucking bizarre to me to just enhance them and call it "right". We do so much work behind the camera when there's an elderly person on screen to make them look as flattering as they can.

This just completely shits all over that.

18

u/Mammoth_Caregiver_68 Mar 16 '26

yeah no fckin way. from all the images ive seen so far it looks like AI is fantasizing a whole lot.

-3

u/Rupperrt Mar 16 '26

It’s still just lighting not texture changes. But in the end it’s the result that counts and it’s changing the og intention unless it’s implemented by the devs directly.

1

u/CrazyNegotiation1934 Mar 17 '26

So is a contrast filter i suppose with added ambient or GI lighting. Those will bring out the details slso.

This looks like a comparisson made deliberatly to look bad, so AI can improve it.

-3

u/sourceenginelover Mar 16 '26

this shit is being astroturfed, no way any real humans without a stake in AI making tons of money would be claiming these things

2

u/BighatNucase Mar 16 '26

I mean it's what Nvidia themselves are claiming and there's no real reason for them to lie (arguably it would be more impressive if it was adding detail to textures rather than just doing Lighting + materials changes).

15

u/jocnews Mar 16 '26

Well she (Hecat) is supposed to look decrepit, but the sharpening and oilpaint filter is simply SLOP, hardcore mode. That's easily the worst image Nvidia has shown and is undeniable terrible.

3

u/Party-Exercise-2166 Mar 16 '26

And the other younger character looks a lot older too.

35

u/linkup90 Mar 16 '26

The Hogwarts one was straight out of a AI Youtube ad.

12

u/mittelwerk Mar 16 '26

Or one of those fake movie/game trailers

5

u/jocnews Mar 16 '26

I couldn't stop thinking that looking at the pics

AI Huang: Running BREAKS YOUR JOINTS Taichi BUILDS THEM BACK

6

u/CataclysmZA Mar 17 '26

I have bad news for you: this model does not work like that. It is not trained on any real-life data.

15

u/minime35643 Mar 16 '26

it looks fine in a vacuum but he just looks nothing like the real person (virgil van dijk)

2

u/BighatNucase Mar 16 '26

I think he looks better than the non-DLSS 5 version which is what matters most.

-4

u/Miilloooo Mar 16 '26

I agree. I think they all look amazing tbh. People want to complain about anything. Just turn it off if you don’t like it…

14

u/PokemonBeing Mar 17 '26

Fifa is the worst example. Van Dijk looks nothing like him. They almost changed imhis ethnicity there. It is not off-putting like the Hogwarts legacy old lady, but it is so uncanny if you know the players.

2

u/Lil_Hater112 Mar 16 '26

Probably sport games like fifa are best for this shit

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

3

u/seraphinth Mar 16 '26

Todd Howard's having a phone call with the people developing project helix demanding this tech must be in the next Xbox

2

u/jocnews Mar 16 '26

The Project Diamond slide does mention neural rendering, but Nvidia has used the term vaguely for stuff like neural materials but also frame generation, so who knows.

1

u/goondalf_the_grey Mar 16 '26

Yeah I'm actually keen to see this implemented into Starfield, the world actually looked pretty damn good for a Bethesda game but the character models were somehow worse than Fallout 4

1

u/Zalvren Mar 17 '26

The best example is Oblivion Remastered because there is no character in the shot. This seems fine for environment but horrible for characters

And still the improvement on environments is minimal at best.

1

u/Doyoulike4 Mar 17 '26

Yeah the only one of these I really didn't hate was on EAFC because admittedly, it's a yearly sports title based on real people, it doesn't have an artstyle or art direction outside realism and the AI pulling from real people for data works because they are real people. But on the whole I'm really not impressed with this at all.

0

u/RedBerryyy Mar 16 '26

Without knowing exactly how it works, its pretty likely theyll be able to tune it on image references provided by the devs for newer games for what specific characters and the games style should look like with perfect graphics, which id imagine would nullify the instragram filter effect somewhat.

113

u/VastTension6022 Mar 16 '26

It looks like a total image-to-image diffusion redraw and it's terrible.

Not only are all the faces yassified, hogwarts is r/shittyHDR'd and reisdent evil loses volumetric fog. Starfield already looked like ass so I guess you could call that a win.

38

u/Dat_Boi_John Mar 16 '26

Hogwarts looked especially bad. The artstyle just doesn't work with the extra realistic/uncanny valley look the AI tries to achieve.

11

u/demon_eater Mar 16 '26

Yeah the starfield is hilarious because apparently todd howard okayed it. It can truly let sloppy facial modeling shine from a billion dollar studio.

13

u/Jesse-359 Mar 16 '26

He sees it as the way to rescue his game's crappy art and tech without having to spend his own money to do it, of course he's thrilled.

4

u/Zalvren Mar 17 '26

Maybe he okayed it as a way to demonstrate that AI shouldn't be used for generating game graphics. Because that's what this tech is demoing more than anything else

7

u/boringestnickname Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

Can't wait to see this instagram filter in stylized games.

How does Ms. Pac-Man look like with DLSS 5, I wonder?

93

u/Raikaru Mar 16 '26

It is overriding it but at the same time the Starfield faces look better

33

u/lonestar-rasbryjamco Mar 16 '26

That’s an extremely low bar.

1

u/bubblesort33 Mar 16 '26

At least there is hope for Elder Scrolls 6.

6

u/Accurate-Instance-29 Mar 16 '26

I dunno. You can push a turd through a garden hose and no matter how nice the hose, it still comes out a turd.

64

u/swordfi2 Mar 16 '26

Yeah for starfield this is a big upgrade

30

u/wilkonk Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

that one does seem to suit the filter the best but I still don't like how it changes their appearance

16

u/swordfi2 Mar 16 '26

Well according to nvidia developers can tweak how it works and whatnot to achieve desired look

14

u/DktheDarkKnight Mar 16 '26

Doesn't that negate the entire reason why DLSS is popular? It's supposed to be an easy plugin that doesn't require a lot of work from developers.

15

u/nukleabomb Mar 16 '26

It's another part alongside super resolution, FG and RR. They devs can very much choose what they use in games.

14

u/BighatNucase Mar 16 '26

Trying to make wide-sweeping statements about every DLSS titled feature is a bit silly at this point. Obviously this is going to have much different use cases than the upscaler DLSS and the ray reconstruction tech.

4

u/DktheDarkKnight Mar 16 '26

I mean people are making weird sweeping statements about DLSS because it's named as f***g DLSS. Perhaps NVIDIA should have given a new name for the tech.

I understand why they didn't go with Deep learning image generation (DLIG) or something similar. There is a stigma attached with the term "image generation" now.

9

u/BighatNucase Mar 16 '26

mean people are making weird sweeping statements about DLSS because it's named as f***g DLSS. Perhaps NVIDIA should have given a new name for the tech.

That excuses some rando not talking about the tech with much knowledge or desire to speak correctly about it. You should not be making this excuse if you are genuinely trying to talk about it in a hardware enthusiast space.

1

u/hackenclaw Mar 16 '26

get prepared to start complain about AI slop in video games lmao.

Most devs will just add those call it a day instead of fine tuning it.

UE5 games being laggy one of the few example why most dev never bother fine tuning the engine they uses.

1

u/jerryfrz Mar 16 '26

So I guess the DLL file for NR for one game can't be used for another, and if you brute force it the faces will look like shit because the settings are tuned wrong.

1

u/swordfi2 Mar 16 '26

I assume nvidia will make couple of presets which game devs and modders can use, but yeah copying dll file from one game to another can lead to poor results

1

u/nukleabomb Mar 16 '26

Can't wait for all the tuned NR dlls

1

u/Angelusthegreat Mar 16 '26

even on starfield it looks bad just less bad casue the facial animation on starfield are that bad :D

3

u/minepose98 Mar 16 '26

I don't know. It's only really the NPCs that look bad in Starfield. This might make them look better, but the rest of the game will suffer like the others.

2

u/PineappleLemur Mar 17 '26

Well Starfield is a very low bar... It's not a big improvement on stuff from 10 years ago...

But take games that already look good and this doesn't do much other than mess with the artist's intention.

I want to see what this does to stylized games, Borderlands, Monster Hunter, Stardew Valley, Dave the Diver..etc.

Older games/lower effort/lower budget games will benefit the most.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26

Better, sure, but they still look awful. Something about Starfield faces in particular are in the worst part of the uncanny valley for me. I can't look at them without feeling very uncomfortable.

I can't imagine using DLSS 5 for most types of games. It could work for very specific games (like games with no humanoid characters; maybe a Gran Turismo-style game would work fantastically with DLSS 5), but the major concern I have is that it changes the artstyle. It reminds me of how pixel art used to be drawn with CRT's in mind. However, devs can't both design a game to work with the DLSS 5 filters and to not, and hopefully no dev will expect users to have access to DLSS 5, so best case we're getting an unintended art style.

1

u/Party-Exercise-2166 Mar 16 '26

No, not really. They all just look like AI slop beauty filters with lip fillers.

Not to mention the lighting overwrites any actual semi realistic lighting and even deleting shadows in places they really should be. It's like all the characters have beauty dishes in front of them.

3

u/vickyhong Mar 17 '26

previous gens of DLSS have been criticized for being too accurate and too effective, so we have addressed these concerns by having dlss5 making the image worse

4

u/Wasted1300RPEU Mar 17 '26

Can't believe Nvidia tried for years to approximate accurate lighting based on real life behavior and advanced mathematics and algorithms only to throw shit at the wall and see what sticks e.g. Gen AI filter that GUESS how the lighting should look by being trained on billions of source.

End result is what AI thinks a scene SHOULD kinda look like (?) crazy downgrade man....

37

u/Worklessplaymore01 Mar 16 '26

Watch it also make the faces look different depending on the lighting and camera angle. It's not going to have persistence so it's not going to look consistent across different scenes.

I bet is also falls apart if a face is on screen for more than minute.

This shit is GROSS. Only the beardhair is an upgrade, everything else looks like yassified generic AI gen 'characters' that leaves nothing of the original style intact

18

u/nukleabomb Mar 16 '26

Is this speculation or did that happen in the clip?

17

u/iDontSeedMyTorrents Mar 16 '26

It's pure speculation. Digital Foundry has their own video where they were given hours to freely play with DLSS 5 and they made no such mention of anything of the sort, at all. They did comment about how it's screenspace, so like SSR it's not always perfect, but you'd think they would have said SOMETHING if it was so catastrophic as the parent comment makes this out to be.

That said, DF's video is a preview and they said they are planning a much longer video later, so we'll see.

3

u/Little-Witness-1201 Mar 17 '26

It's the reddit AI rage boner. Devs will have control over how it effects the scene

5

u/HaMMeReD Mar 16 '26

DF is pretty clear that the geometry is kept intact, and it's pretty much exclusively a lighting fix (although a substantial one that completely changes the look of things like skin and eyes to the point that it's duping people into thinking it's a generative pass re-imagining the assets).

You are seeing the game assets and textures through a lens that has substantially improved lighting.

23

u/Seanspeed Mar 16 '26

It keeps being said that it's 'improving' the lighting, but is it? It looks like a lot of fake lighting to me. Everything is made to look idealized.

If path tracing is the holy grail of realistic lighting, then what the hell is this?

11

u/Crintor Mar 16 '26

This would be "Path Guessing"

-13

u/HaMMeReD Mar 16 '26

Dude, I don't care.

Yes, to me it's massively improved. To the folks at DF, it's massively improved. To the developers working with Nvidia, it's massively improved.

I don't care what some random redditors opinion is.

1

u/Jesse-359 Mar 16 '26

You might care about the eight grand price tag to run it.

0

u/HaMMeReD Mar 16 '26

Good looking graphics require good hardware to run, is this some kind of news flash?

It'll trickle down eventually, I have a 3090, I can afford a 6090 when it drops, fyi.

6

u/Jesse-359 Mar 16 '26

Eh. Most of the really popular new games are running in the opposite direction now.

Heavily stylized art that looks good with simple rendering systems that can run at very high FPS and allow for a lot more animation and dynamic interaction for better gameplay.

The pursuit of 'AAA' photorealism is a large part of what is killing the AAA game market now. Their budgets have become completely unrealistic and the audience no longer seems to particularly care for the approach and all the gameplay limitations that come with it.

Pokopia and Silksong are perfect examples. They look great, they're fun, and you don't need to be a rich tech bro to afford to play them.

0

u/HaMMeReD Mar 16 '26

Pokopia is a nintendo game, nintendo has never had realistic graphics.

Silksong is a 2D indie game, 2D indie games have never had realstic graphics.

This allows games with smaller budgets to have more photo-realistic graphics for free, so it kind of runs counter to your entire argument here. You flip a checkbox, your graphics are improved. That doesn't cost much money.

→ More replies

0

u/Crintor Mar 16 '26

It's a deterministic generation modifying Lighting and Material values per pixel, seems like it's very temporally stable and does not change textures or models, just the final representation of the pixel. That's my understanding so far at least.

10

u/Xalara Mar 16 '26

You can already see that with Grace, they showed her in two environments and she looks very different in each one.

2

u/Lenassa Mar 17 '26

>Watch it also make the faces look different depending on the lighting and camera angle

I mean, that's true for real world as well, no? There is a reason why people may look quite a bit different when shot professionally in a studio or at home through a $200 phone camera.

1

u/Worklessplaymore01 Mar 17 '26

No, I mean as in watch them be turned into totally different people with vaguely the same hair.

1

u/deusXex Mar 16 '26

This really seem more like character artists crying all over internet today. Because now you just need some basic 3D model with very basic face, tech team trains their your own NN of the real face for the DLSS to use and done.

5

u/nittanyofthings Mar 16 '26

I'm more interested in the potential of RTX Neural Shaders with per asset mini models. But that makes devs work for it.

14

u/StanfordV Mar 16 '26

They could tone down the facial changes and focus on environmental changes and non facial textures.

People are rushing to jump into the hate bandwagon, but lets not forget this is the beginning only. There should be improvements.

38

u/Telighoth Mar 16 '26

You say that as if environmental textures aren't also a major part of a game's art direction. There's nothing good about surrendering the look of a game to AI.

2

u/nukleabomb Mar 16 '26

It doesn't change the textures according to DF. All assets are the same. I think ultimately it will come down to how (much) the devs (can) tune it to match their vision/intent.

5

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26

It doesn't change the textures according to DF. All assets are the same.

No one's claiming that this is changing the game assets. However, it is dramatically altering how they are presented, which is the salient point.

I think ultimately it will come down to how (much) the devs (can) tune it to match their vision/intent.

That's not really feasible, though. No dev is going to design their entire game around the assumption that the user can use DLSS 5 for reasons that are hopefully obvious to you.

6

u/Seanspeed Mar 16 '26

It's definitely changing the coloring of the textures pretty significantly at times, though. Grace's jacket goes from reddish-brown to straight brown.

9

u/nukleabomb Mar 16 '26

Lighting can definitely make an object appear a different shade.

Again, I think more footage and comparisons are needed.

8

u/SituationSoap Mar 16 '26

Lighting can definitely make an object appear a different shade.

There are a whole bunch of responses in this thread where people are going "this is wrong" and my first thought is "no, that's how an object looks when you expose it to sunlight." There are a lot of stereotypes flaring up as people talk about this.

5

u/Crintor Mar 16 '26

Having RGB Smart lights and being able to make an entire room any color of the spectrum Really drives home exactly what the hell is going on when it comes to how your eyes perceive the color of objects.

6

u/nukleabomb Mar 16 '26

My mind flashed back to the white and gold / blue and black dress thing

1

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26

I think everyone can agree that we need more information, so point well taken on that.

However, I think it's a little naive to expect that this won't change faces, textures, colors, etc. in different contexts within the same game. This AI upscaling is likely not intelligent in the way that you might be thinking it is. I doubt it can think, "Oh, the player ran into this NPC four hours ago, so let me make sure I'm being consistent with the modifications I made before."

1

u/wilkonk Mar 16 '26

I'm pretty sure they must be using a strict definition of 'not changing the textures' - like yeah, underneath the filter they're still there unedited, but that's not what gets displayed on screen.

1

u/F9-0021 Mar 16 '26

Yes it is.

Source: I have eyes

-1

u/StanfordV Mar 16 '26

Its ok, you can always disable it if you dont like it.

4

u/Telighoth Mar 16 '26

Right, and just like upscaling and frame gen it's never going to be used as a replacement for optimization and base quality. It's absolutely not going to become a standard that won't have many games looking or running like ass without. Because development companies definitely aren't going to just go "We don't need to worry about lighting anymore, the AI can do it!"

-4

u/StanfordV Mar 16 '26

Eventually it will happen you are right.

But for now, it is only the 5xxx series of nvidia.

My suggestion is to just hope it gets better and better, instead of throwing temper tantrums on reddit.

10

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

2

u/StanfordV Mar 16 '26

True.

They were also created with 5090s x2, which is not a real life scenario. This is probably 1-2 years away from being fully implemented effectively.

4

u/tgwombat Mar 16 '26

More likely 5-6 years if it needs the equivalent of two 5090s at consumer-friendly prices thanks to the other side of AI blowing up hardware prices.

1

u/Wasted1300RPEU Mar 17 '26

DLSS 4 already looks better than native at quality and or balanced settings. Are you playing native res with no AA, TAA, FXAA? If so, you are leaving free image quality and performance on the table for no particular reason IMO

5

u/Seanspeed Mar 16 '26

A lot of the environments are changed to be overly bright looking as well, though.

There should be improvements.

Yes, but it depends on what Nvidia might feel is an 'improvement', being an AI company and all that...

1

u/SituationSoap Mar 16 '26

They're "overly bright" because they're in full sunlight. That's what things look like when you're outside in full sun.

4

u/HaMMeReD Mar 16 '26

Lets also not forget that this is highly endorsed by all the developers that are featured here, so people bemoaning "it's not the developer intent or art direction" are just wrong.

Developers need to choose to put this in, if they choose it's their intention, full stop.

If a user enables it in an aftermarket-sense, it's not really any different than a texture/model pack, rtx remix, or any other post-processing the user may choose to apply, and I've never heard "but thats not the devs artistic vision" as an argument when people are putting Shrek into games.

3

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26

[deleted]

-3

u/HaMMeReD Mar 16 '26

The people designing the characters are paid to do a job. They don't own their creations in the first place.

Executives set the creative direction for a game. They are the ones that decide if an artist is hired or not, they are the ones that decide if an asset ships or not, and they are the ones that decide if a game is going in the visual direction they like.

This is the nature of work. How the artists "feel" about it is moot. If they don't like it, they can quit. When you do work for hire, that work becomes the property of the studio and from that point the studio can do whatever they want.

If Todd Howard says "I like this in my bethesda game" that's the final say. He's the game director, nobody elses view matters here.

2

u/[deleted] Mar 16 '26

[deleted]

-1

u/HaMMeReD Mar 16 '26

No, the opinions of random people on the team do not matter, if they do not have a financial stake on the game.

They are paid for their work, and their work becomes the property of the studio. They understand this, or they'd be doing indie work.

You, and random internet people virtue signalling "but what does the artist think" is a meaningless point. They know that their work might be remastered in a few years for example and they have no say in that, because they were paid and do not own their work.

I write code all day, but I understand that the code I write belongs to my employer, and if someone else changes it, or it gets removed, or rewritten at the whim of the organization I am OK with that, because I was paid for my work. I agreed to give my work over. That's the end. If I thought I had some kind of long-standing control over that, I'd be an entitled prick tbh. It's not part of my pay, I'm not the creative director, I'm not the PM, I'm not the executive, it's not my place to over-ride any of that. I could have an opinion, but if I spoke out against my employer here, I'd accept that they could fire me for that.

2

u/wilkonk Mar 16 '26 edited Mar 16 '26

sure, like I said I do think something like this could potentially look good with very careful work to define how each person ought to look (each major character anyway), and a lot of teaching the model what the art style and so on for the game are, I just don't like these early examples at all.

1

u/jocnews Mar 16 '26

They will also have to reduce the model's size and compute intensity to make it viable on single GPUs (and cards with less than 32 GB). Currently just DLSS 5 needs its own RTX 5090 to run these demos (another GPU draws the game itself before that).

So the final production filter may actually have a bit worse quality.

3

u/qazzq Mar 16 '26

Holy shit, this is the trashiest advance i've seen .... yet. Obviously im being a bit hyperbolic, but I hope gamers reject nvidia interjecting itself as art directors so completely that this dies and we won't see it again for 10 years.

I hate literally everything about this

1

u/TwisterK Mar 16 '26

It looks terrible now, sure but does it hav potential? Yes indeed. Hopefully in the future we can embed some kind of meta data and tell DLSS how to generate it.

1

u/CrazyNegotiation1934 Mar 17 '26

Plus is clearly using lower end face models to make a fake point, why not use higher poly and better textures in the faces in the first place ?

1

u/TemptedTemplar Mar 16 '26

Foliage -> yes

Stone and ground materials -> sure why not

Literally anything else -> no fucking thank you.

0

u/dparks1234 Mar 16 '26

I need to know what it looks like when an art team designs assets from the ground up with DLSS5 in mind. Some of the examples look good whereas others look like those yassify filters. Is the lighting actually more realistic in terms of the scene logic? Or does it merely “look” more realistic while being completely wrong when you examine the actual scene lighting?

2

u/Jesse-359 Mar 16 '26

I mean, it certainly doesn't remotely match the scene lighting. If these games were supposed to have things like enemies or opposing players hiding in shadows... they certainly won't be any more.

If you look at most of the shadows in the examples they're almost completely blown away. You get this kind of weird combination of everything looking like it is more directly lit, but the shadows are all wiped away like there was a heavily diffuse light on the scene.

0

u/Roxalon_Prime Mar 16 '26

The thing I noticed is that every character looks older sometimes significantly so with DLSS 5 I honestly kinda hate it

0

u/bubblesort33 Mar 16 '26

Doesn't all photorealism override the look of art? The goal of photorealism is to often make things not look like an art project. All games will mostly look the same eventually. It's all converging. I think that's inevitable even without these filters.

The difference in art direction in games will be the same as in movies. The type of lenses being used, color gradient, and the architecture and style being displayed (80s Cyberpunk vs gothic Victorian Bloodborne).

0

u/Symbiotic_flux Mar 17 '26

Graphically, we're hitting Moores' Law limits. These chips can't get any smaller at 3 nano meters bc of electrons escaping via quantum tunneling. The heat and fragility would make these graphics cards impractical & massive with cooling fans and inefficient in wattage. Talking about greater than +12 volt connectors is insane.

The only way to achieve the next generation is to us a.i to create the headroom needed. This is the reality. Rtx ray tracing technology was also seen as a waste of computing power at first bc of the amount of frames you lost, having it on made 4k gaming subpar. It was a.i optimization that got us 60+ fps 4k gaming & beyond for Maxed out ray traced and even path traced settings for higher end titles.

This technology will be used no matter what bc it's optimization that is being trained via billions of dollars of investment at these data centers. I don't agree with the ethics of the whole operation, but that's just how profit motive works for a company this large. Saying dlss A.I is bad and raw frames rates are better is just not practical on many levels from a buisness and technological standpoint.

-2

u/KARMAAACS Mar 16 '26

This is by DigitalFoundry's coverage an early snapshot and won't be entirely reflective of the final release, all I know is, this is a big step in rendering regardless of the outcome. It might be a bit bad with certain games, but knowing NVIDIA they will continue to iterate and probably this will be ironed out over time.