Techpowerup article Seems to be mixed emotions about this. I for one am looking forward to trying it, especially as at some point I want to play through Starfield. It also seems to be a relatively useful aspect of AI, rather than having it screw up important stuff at work, but that's another topic. Any thoughts?
You might well be! Personally, I wouldn't touch it with a bargepole - even if it was supported on my 2080. Horrid.
I'm all for it, Its gen1, the potential when they add a few configurability options for developers to tune the visual impact and drive the way it looks and of course get the resource requirement down I think it could be an amazing step for game visuals. Downsides well Nvidia...... the hardware likely needed to drive this at a good frame rate will probably not be affordable for many generations unless they can do some nuts model quantization etc. Then of course there is the question of what other GPU vendors do, things like this aren't great when it is single vendor.
Saw a clip and thought some of it looked better but some looked worse to me. I think one of the issues people have is the idea that it'll generate images that whilst might look 'better' aren't actually a true representation of what is meaning to be displayed? General upscaling I'm liking in that it can give more performance for people but this seems to be taking it a step further and making assumptions/deciding what it should look like I think?
I'm looking forward to testing it as a pure interesting shinny toy. But for actual gaming, I'm not sure I'll use it with its current output (nevermind GPU requirements). It feels like the outputs are very much generic AI output, removing artists' intended stylised look.
Nope. I'd rather turn my settings down or whatever than resort to using nVidia's AI trickery. An important distinction. The model training still has to happen to afford the end user the ability to not have bleeding-edge-sell-all-the-body-parts tech.
I think the fact that it was so “transformative” in Starfield says an awful lot more about Starfield’s underlying shittiness than it does about the relative merits of Twin-5090-Powered Real-Time Instagram Yassify Filter. Spoiler: spoiler-free rambling about Bethesda game engine I hit a game-breaking bug while playing Starfield that I couldn’t recover from (actually I hit several, but only the first one is really relevant). Items, scenery, characters, etc wouldn’t load in the “big” ship port, and there were several places where you’d fall through the scenery. But what I could see were the chests that were used to manage vendor NPC inventory. For those not aware, that was made famous back in Skyrim - players could easily “glitch” their way into accessing those chests and make themselves rich. It’s been a feature of Bethesda’s Creation engine since it has existed. And it’s still being used in Starfield. It turned the Resident Evil character into a different person. It made a distorted mess in FIFA. In Hogwarts Legacy it turned a teenage boy into a middle-aged man. Starfield was the only demo I saw where it looked vaguely interesting. Even then the characters looked like they’d been photoshopped into the scene rather than being rendered in the 3D environment. Maybe it was too early in the development cycle to be shown off, or maybe I’m too much of a cynical *******. But the last time I was impressed by an Nvidia tech demo was eight years ago:
The only clips, rather than stills, that I saw was a quick look at GN review where the FIFA game had squidgy balls and limbs missing. The stills looked impressive, the gameplay not so much.
Well, when it hits in "Fall 2026" (not to be confused with Fallout 76), I'll give it a whirl and report back.
Gaming graphics cards have become more and more out of reach over the last 5-10 years, and… “recent market conditions” have just pushed PC gaming further out of reach. Even a modest upgrade for memory is now basically out of reach for all but the wealthiest and storage - even spinning rust - is going the same way. We’re the ones feeling the crunch now, nerds & PC gamers like us. But it won’t be long before it really hits “mainstream consumers”. And into the midst of all this strides the man at the helm of the only company really making a profit, wearing a leather jacket that costs $5,000-$10,000, to make An Announcement. The big news: a “feature” for his company’s graphics cards that blasts contrast & colour saturation through the roof and makes game characters look like 2019-era Instagram models. Personally, I couldn’t care less: I don’t turn on framegen and I almost centrally won’t turn on the yassify postprocessing filter when it eventually launches. But I’m not surprised that people are seriously pissed after the announcement. I had more to say on the subject, but it just turned into another screed about “AI”, and this post is already lengthy enough.
DLSS up to 4.5 is magic. Games still look great and as intended, higher frame-rate, without adding in garbage, all nice. Frame gen and DLSS 5, hot trash. Blurry mess, changing the original look and feel of the game, no thanks.
I was offended by the idea of you're not getting any new hardware in the near future so here's a swanky software slop filter to look at. Oh, and it currently needs a pair of £3k GPUs to run, which you can't afford.
And only looks even vaguely impressive when compared to potato settings [RE] or potato quality graphics [starfield]. Even if they do get it to run on a single gpu like they claim, nvidia's stinginess with VRAM means chances are it'll still only run on a 5090...
I propose new units of measurement when it comes to costs & finances, the “Jensen’s Jacket”. Value can sometimes vary, but nominal amount of £6,800 GBP or $9,000 USD “Mate, my new car was an absolute bargain, it’s got less than 50k miles on the clock.” “Bloody hell, you spent a whole Jensen’s Jacket on that rustbucket?! They saw you coming a mile away, didn’t they!” “Damn, that DLSS5 demo used hardware worth almost as much as a Jensen’s Jacket…” “Increased scarcity of components means that your next gaming PC is likely to cost you at least a Jensen’s Jacket.”
There are some games with DLSS designed in as an intended part of the render pipeline. I don't love it personally (in general, period). So far, DLSS and fake frames just look super off to me. Weird artifacts jump out to me. I play with v-sync on, for instance, because any screen tearing distracts my visual perception more than the lower frame rate impact does. (VRR is a huge life saver there, btw, so I don't have my functional frame rate dropping to 30 or 15). I'm trying to be open minded for the effects/techniques utilized in modern games that expect DLSS. It's kinda like how low res pixel games leveraged the unique qualities of CRT to look uniquely beautiful on those screens. When it's not a CRT, then things look weird. (The waterfalls in Sonic the Hedgehog are a classic example). But DLSS 5 doesn't seem to be anything that any art director or technical director was aware was coming before Nvidia announced it. And more generally speaking, we've seen less and less raw raster power per generation, but huge jumps in price and a huge expectation that the value we're supposedly paying for will be gained via DLSS and fake frames. That's going to be a no from me for the next while. I got a used 3080 about a year ago for a good price and I'll be sticking with it for the foreseeable future. This whole MLM, AI bubble needs to burst and prices for everything need to come back down before I'll be excited about any of this again. The price needs to reflect the actual value proposition.
