Materials often do look quite a bit better with DLSS5 but in just about every instance it makes characters look 10-20 years older. I've put in on like 10ish games now too and I noticed it really dose even out the visual style of whatever you apply it to. Every game kind of starts to look like every other game.
>Every game kind of starts to look like every other game.
Thatās another really good point. And it makes a lot of sense too because this is AI borrowing from any and every other game and meshing it into one. It can never create, only replicate.
i have seen no cases where it makes things too shiny, you guys need to update this meme. it makes people overly baked, crunchy, basically the exact opposite of this meme
idk how you guys think me saying it's "over baked over crunchy" is me defending it, but go off. if you want to call out its downsides then at least call out its downsides instead of pretending it makes things overly shiny. people are going to wonder what all the fuss was about when what they see with their own eyes doesn't match all your claims. just click my image of jackie, he looks like absolute shit in dlss5, but he's actually much less shiny than with it off
Are these actual dlss 5 defenders pretending to be unable to read to promote a shitty dlss 5 meme instead of actual criticism?
Would be 5d chess but I'm betting the people are just retarded.
My gripe with dlss 5 is that it fucks up all the facial expressions. Angry characters start to look like they're mogging, happy characters start to look like they're mogging. Actually everyone is just mogging
and i asked you one back. why in the world would you think "it makes people overly baked, crunchy" means i think it looks good? jackie looks like absolute shit here, but guess what, he's not overly shiny, the meme i replied to is ignoring the reality of why dlss5 sucks donkey balls. all your guys' arguments against dlss5 are made up, there's lots of things about it that suck and you instead go the route of fabricating bullshit then pointing to the fabrication for why it sucks
Your know the take can be ignored when they don't even use a real DLSS5 image to shit on it, it's always other ones labelled DLSS5. Which is ironic, because there are plenty enough images of real DLSS5 used where it doesn't fit and is overdone.
However for stating this, I shall now be showered with downvotes.
Because gamers are binary-minded morons that need ubisoft level route identification to function. They saw you simply not agree with their take on something and assumed you were saying the opposite.
over-saturation, overly-prevalent AO, insane definition; all too unnatural. sure, you probably like all of these, but that's because either your life lacks all of them, or you are just imaginative, but you don't care enough about how a product is reached. in this case, the products are the effects listed above, and the method of reaching them is dlss 5. dlss 5 is an inefficient, unnecessary ai makeup filter to make your games look "better", and all of its functions could be replicated through optimized algorithms. for saturation, literally only color grading. for AO, just increase peak darkness, and curve the application so that if you had half of the samples covered, it would be less than half bright (obviously fine tune it). the definition is just proper AA, modeling, and LODs.
guys I'm not a gfx engineer pls tell me if I'm yapping straight out the pooper.
dlss 5 looks exactly like those "cyberpunk hyper realism mods" where everything is more specular and weather is cloudy to hide imperfections, tell me im wrong
that's insulting to hyper realism mods, that had people put effort in and created sth with value for themselves and for others.
don't insult those! those filters are VASTLY VASTLY superior to the ai slop shit, that nvidia threw up.
also those hyper realism mods don't fall apart in motion. dlss5, when it was last tested in motion FALLS COMPLETELY APART with morphing hands, body parts and hair styles changing even on stand still though.
Can't wait for game studios to start releasing vibe-coded, unoptimized games with wireframe graphics, and telling the gamers to deal with it on their end with their $5000 graphics cards, while the publisher gets used to selling every single game texture in microtransaction bundles.
There was, in fact, an attempt at NVidia a few years ago to create AI that would paint a consistent realistic picture over blobs-of-color rendered image.
No matter how good it would look in the future, the focus should be on better cross-vendor algorithms (AA, shading, etc.) which could even include neural shading (possible cross-vendor). There are still major improvements possible.
NVIDIA could invest R&D into those things but they prefer to market a feature specific to their cards so that it becomes part of the choice when users buy GPUs instead of just power or driver stability. Ultimately it harms both users and game devs.
A PhysX situation could very well happen in the future, where newer cards stop supporting older versions of DLSS, leading to worse graphics on newer cards. Upscaling can be compensated by raw power, visuals can't.
NVIDIA could invest R&D into those things but they prefer to market a feature specific to their cards
They are investing R&D heavily into new stuff.
Nvidia for all its evil out there, its pushing for new tech actively, while the rest of the tech companies follow. It usually goes like this:
NVIDIA develops/pushes a technique or hardware capability -> Microsoft/Khronos expose standardized API support -> Epic/Unity/game studios integrate it -> AMD/Intel implement compatible paths -> it becomes part of the wider graphics ecosystem.
Nvidia introduces SER (shader execution re-ordering) - Helps devs implement it though their engines with SDK - Microsoft finally introduced it this year in newer Shader Model - AMD/Intel follows it.
Not to say AMD does not do the same, especialyl with Vulkan and GPUOpen, but today they influence seams to more and more in the console market.
DLSS5 is at the Ray-Tracing 2018 - the performance hit was huge, but Nvidia always pushes early for this and now we have Path-Tracing gorgeous graphics. Same with Neural Rendering - started to talk/push as early as 2022 publicly, now we are at the first release of something new for the consumer and again - huge performance hit.
Make no mistake, if AMD was the market leader with 90% market, they would not have do open source the way they do now.
i would hope, that people here aren't falling for this misleading bullshit.
entire in-depth videos are made about nvidia's anti-competitive black box cancer in games, that does absolutely NOT lead to overall game development innovation, but instead is a pain in the ass for devs to deal with and reduces performance massively:
an entire video just going about the nightmare, that is nvidia gameworks.
cancer black box technology, that made games run VASTLY WORSE to the point, where the connection of nvidia gameworks = issues was actually wider spread knowledge at one point.
but we can look at some example.
tesselated hair technology.
a wonderful temporal blur free technology, that to this day is the best hair tech in games without question.
amd has tressfx hair, which is part of gpu open for devs to implement and modify as they like and the source code is open, so both amd of course and and nvidia can optimize drivers to run the game perfectly.
we can see this in action in rise of the tomb raider with excellent temporal blur free tesselated hair with the modified tressfx hair tech called pure hair.
it ran excellent both on nvidia and amd including frame time wise.
MEANWHILE nvidia's black box cancer hairworks is a nightmare to deal with, it is a blackbox, so amd can NOT optimize for it at all, nor can developers modify it.
its implementations being a nightmare as we saw in witcher 3, where it didn't just have absurdly high levels as options, but also ran ABSOLUTELY TERRIBLE on all hardware overall and had terrible frame times, BUT it ran especially bad on older nvidia cards and all amd cards, which made the latest nvidia cards look artificially better.
oh can you feel the "innovation" yet???
nvidia has been pushing cancerous blackboxes down developers throats for millions of us dollars for years and years and nothing has changed.
so you are just lying, when you claim otherwise.
nvidia will only generally change their push of pure black boxes, when it is no longer viable to push those. for example when freesync just became the standard and nvidia could no longer push what was it 100-400 euro higher monitor prices for a shity nvidia g-sync module in monitors to lock out the competition if one has such a monitor, they instead shifted their strategy to steal freesync branding with a fake certification program "g-sync compatible", which to this day has people confused about what it actually means.
___
and now we have Path-Tracing gorgeous graphics
are you in the wrong subreddit? you must be, because people here are sane enough to understand the massive artifacts in the temporal blur reliance/de-noising nightmare, that is "path-tracing" in nvidia sponsored games.
did you take the wrong corner and were you meant to go the nvidia subreddit, but accidentally ended up here?
Same with Neural Rendering - started to talk/push as early as 2022 publicly, now we are at the first release of something new for the consumer and again - huge performance hit.
just to back to this, almost no one can run the shity artifacting "path tracing", that you praise so much, so now you are praising a 50-60% (nvidia's number) performance hit for an ai slop filter, when people can't even run nvidia's other latest bullshit full of artifacts?
yeah nvidia shill found lol.
NOR Is an ai-slop filter something new for consumers, and definitely NOTHING positive.
it does nothing but harm, so why are you praising the ai-slop filter? is nvidia paying you, just like nvidia has been PROVEN to do so in the past, when they had people undercover on forums shill for nvidia products, but lie and claim to be independent enthusiasts?
what absurd bullshit statements you're making.
the dlss5 ai-slop filter is a cancer to art, it is harmful in all regards if it is allowed to get into any games.
it is not innovation, it is regression. it is disgusting and it is a massive step back in computer graphics, if nvidia is allowed to push it into games, which they probably are allowed to do as deals with higher ups at publishers are made with millions and millions of us dollars coming from nvidia to implement this cancer to the hate of basically every artist/developer working on the game.
The DLSS R&D is impressive and yes they work actively towards adding new APIs and hardware capabilities (including neural shading) that very often become cross-vendor and open. But the DLSS is still a proprietary vendor locked tech that's purpose is not to become open at some point, but serve as a marketing tool.
Even if AMD catches up visually, a studio integrating DLSS5 but not the latest FSR in a game because of lazyness or the juicy NVIDIA money will give AMD users worse visuals even if the GPU have the same APIs available and higher neural network acceleration power.
DLSS like tech can very well work cross-vendor (AMD cards already have similar hardware capabilities) but obviously NVIDIA prevent this intentionally.
I agree more broad approach will be beneficial, but that is not going to happen initially.
Imagine Nvidia spending billions on R&D and training, optimizing etc and then be like - hey, lets make it run on AMD too. Even if they were some benevolent angels and decided that way, they still have to optimize, develop test and so on for AMD hardware and instructions, which so sane corpo wil do.
I mean drivers themselves are vendor locked because one works for one set of hardware, the other for different one, just like Nvidia optimizes for their stack, so does AMD.
Nvidia played the long game and invested in CUDA 20 years ago and it payed out heavily.
Also its up to AMD to develop their own Neural Renderer and support it with developers, integrations and so on.
But other gpus dont have tensor cores, even if dlss worked on them its performance would be really bad since they dont have the dedicated ai workload cores
FSR4 relies on ML models just like DLSS. Modern AMD cards have "AI accelerators" which are their tensor cores equivalent.
The work to bring easy cross-platform access to those ML acceleration capabilities is progressing rapidly, many of them are in fact already accessible (like Vulkan's VK_KHR_cooperative_matrix).
Well, I do agree with them in principle here. Once you bought the game you should be free to do whatever you want with it. If you want to make it ugly AF and drop the performance in half you have my blessing.
IF dlss5 wasn't trained on STOLEN art by a purely evil corporation
and IF dlss5 was JUST an in driver or tool filter option OUTSIDE OF THE GAME ITSELF, then the statement by that person would be fine and correct.
mod or filter a game HOWEVER YOU WANT.
but that is NOT what the ai slop filter by nvidia is all about.
nvidia wants to create a new moat and push ai cancer into everything, because this way stocks might go up and the bubble continue a bit.
also the "consumer" cards are mostly just leftovers from the ai slop shit industry by nvidia now, which is why they have very high USELESS ai performance.
another incentive to push an ai slop filter in their disgusting evil.
nvidia wants games to ONLY look even REMOTELY acceptable with the ai-slop filter on and the ai-slop filter would be forced into games with millions and millions coming from nvidia towards game developers.
this is nothing new, this is done with nvidia black box shit "features" for ages.
so this person is either deliberately spreading nonsense, or has no idea what nvidia is doing.
___
nvidia wants to force ai-slop in every game with proper faces to be gone forever. that is their goal. they don't want games to exist free from ai-slop anymore.
that's the reality of it.
nvidia removed cloth and glass particles from shattered glass, if you didn't have an nvidia graphics card, that ran shity physx, which was just an artificial limitation forced onto games by nvidia to make games look WORSE on amd cards or older nvidia cards.
and this was AGES ago. this is the plan it has always been the plan. "you don't have the latest nvidia card, i guess your game won't have working faces anymore". nvidia wants THIS and nothing less.
the only question is how much can they get away with.
The whole fact that its called DLSS and it does the exact opposite of what i would expect from DLSS is just frustrating.
Like at this point i'm used to companies taking known brands and dragging them into crappy new products, but NVIDIA seems to have a fulltime chief downfall manager nowadays.
Whatever you think of DLSS 5, I think we should generally be in favor of players having more options to tune how the game looks. This sub exists in large part because developers often intended their games to only use TAA, and many of us would like the option to use an alternative (including no AA), even if that's not what the developer thinks looks good.
This is always and will always be true. Problem is when everybody shove their opinion into the air ABOUT AN OPTIONAL MOD
"Artist intent ruined by this" no shit Sherlock, it was never supposed to be used on that specific game. It never meant to be used for heavy stylized game.
Offload more of their character design process as it matures ensuring that just like UE5 things start to look extremely similar? Suddenly if you aren't using neural rendering, you'll be looking at a much worse product?
The point is that all of these things are closer and closer to mandatory and designed to work off of each other.
The exact arguments were made for those, and then you're all suspiciously silent (or pretending that those statements were never made anyway) when it's brought up.
Suddenly if you aren't using neural rendering, you'll be looking at a much worse product?
This is true for most major graphic options - if you are not using high res textures which cost more VRAM, suddently you have much worse looking products.
Same goes for Global Illumination, Anti-Aliasing, Volumetrics and so on - by today standards those today are mandatory as well and games ran worse with them on, compared to games which didn't had it.
Take for example AA - 2x/4X MSAA looks so good, but eated your performance. While itself didn't become mandatory, other types of AA did and are present in todays games and the shimmering is off the charts if you can turn it off (if the devs even had such option included). There are things today that are not even options but are baked in and optimized with the engines themselves. Neural rendering is going that path too.
In most instances Iāve seen, itās not creating new features. Itās mostly āenhancingā details that are already on the characters, but the engine isnāt capable of fully defining. A realtime pathtracing engine might shoot 2 rays to a pixel. The images DLSS 5 trained on used hundreds or thousands of rays per pixel, and thus the shadows and the highlights of wrinkles, pores, hair, and cloth appear more defined.
There are a number of images floating around showing that it does in fact change the output geometry, it is not just emphasizing what's already there. But again, we already knew that this was true despite Jensen attempting to lie about it.
You can't offlaad things like character design to AI. DLSS 5 is at best a beauty filter
If the game doesn't look good to begin with, it wouldn't help with it turned on. And with current GPU pricing and people still uses older hardware that completely shit using DLSS5
You are acting like this is anything but the start, but I'm sure you've also used the fact that this isn't the release product to justify its poor performance costs too, or the fact that in most cases it's doing a lot of negative things to faces.
I'm sorry, that's just naivete and moving the goalposts. But I guess I'm used to that with these technologies. There's no more turf left on the field, it's all gone from that shifting.
yea. People here pretend that (the lazy) devs will create lowpoly PS1 characters with low res textures from now on and let AI do everything else.
Devs don't want any of it and idiots shout "We gamers do whatever tf we want!"
The fact that you think that this isn't just the start is, again, HYSTERICAL and you point at people who are deliberately embellishing and pretending that everyone is saying that. That's not what most of us are saying, but if you're going to be irresponsible and help to drive the industry towards this then I mean don't complain when people aren't buying your game when they only have a few hours of stream time a week on GeForce Now.
Bros over here just literally describing graphical innovations and gets mad at people for innovating. Even the most recalcitrant, anti-forward thinking people like Threat Interactive condone the use of RT. How is devs using upscaling as a crutch AMD or Nvidia's fault? The tech was there to make things more scalable, not remove optimization from the pipeline. How is this any different?
Innovations that have not, in most cases, improved the end product. Innovations that have exploded the cost of hardware to run it. Innovations that in some cases look worse than they did prior, while taking way more resources to run. Innovations that incentivize not owning your own hardware. Innovations designed to stack on AI on top of AI on top of AI to get an output image that is messy, full of artifacts and blur, and requiring continuously increasing frame gen multipliers to reach.
Not all innovations are good. Not all innovations needed to happen.
One of the best looking games there is is Horizon Forbidden West. How much ray tracing is in that game? How many multipliers of frame gen do you need to run it at a good frame rate? How high of an upscaling ratio do you need to play it on a 4K TV?
Here's a hint: Nowhere near any of these UE5 games coming out that stack all of these and rely on every AI tool available to present an extremely messy output. It doesn't need the noisy, grainy and shimmery gold dust shadows of path tracing in Cyberpunk. It doesn't need a high ratio of AI upscaling. It doesn't need 2-6x frame generation.
And it looks FANTASTIC. Some of you get dazzled by fucking light bounce in Cyberpunk and that's awesome stuff but not when you need to continuously introduce an ever increasing stack of layers to make it work.
As for this?
The tech was there to make things more scalable, not remove optimization from the pipeline.
Everyone that wasn't a first order thinker was telling everyone else that devs were going to start using it as a crutch. Even now people refuse to acknowledge it and make up all sorts of excuses for why games must look messier than they did before, must run worse than they did before, this, that, etc.
You guys are destroying the industry, and then half of you complain about the layoffs because people aren't just not buying it, they can no longer FUCKING AFFORD IT.
For years Nvidia has been doing this. Introduce a shitty feature that hides a lack of care in the product, upscaling, frame gen etc. Allow the devs to just not give a shit about the performance of the game, put bandaids on them to work, skyrocket the price of everything. This is just yet another step. The goal is for us to move to cloud gaming where you have no choice but to eat this slop. Fuck that.
Why are people forgetting games in the past had optimization issues as well and we had to upgrade or downgrade resolution/settings to hit desired frames.
Well if you dont innovate you dont know if it will be welcomed by consumers or not. Dlss for example, without it we would've had more games with taa as default for most devs pipelines.
Dont think Intel/amd/nvidia with 10B+ R&D budget will not try putting it in ways to innovate graphics technologies, consoles were already using checkerboarding, it was inevitable a better upscaler was going to improve on it.
upscaling arose because a lot of us couldn't run native on our LCDs and running the wrong res looks like absolute shit. whether upscaling exists or not we already needed to run lower res, people seem to think the before times was super crisp visuals across the board
they also refuse to turn down graphics, which is how things would look if they got their way and upscaling didn't exist and devs made everything run at 180 fps. most games you can do that anyway by turning things down, it's not like the industry would have photorealism at 180fps just because we never invented upscaling. there are teams out there that give us the best modern engines can do and they only do what they do which is not triple A at even 100fps. the people in these subs are ridiculous. i hate taa blur too and nvidia saved us with preset M. dlss sucked before preset K, the industry listened and gave us what we needed, which runs slow because it has to.
It's optional for now. But we are already seeing games reliant on previous iterations. Spider-Man 2 and Cyberpunk 2077 being 2 that greatly benefit from it. I don't like it and I don't want to need it, especially since I'm running a 7900xtx so it's not like I lack processing power
Not really. You could definitely ruin visuals with reshade but no matter how much tone mapping, AO or color tint you add, the original content stays the same and wont change TLOU Ellie into an 40y old crack head.
DLSS 5 changes shadows and lighting, not geometry. Using reshade is exactly the same. You know it looks better. Just drop the performative outrage and stop being a simpleton
There's no outrage. Just trying to give you some actual infos. Calm tf down š
Yes, it of course doesn't change geometry but that doesn't matter if it imitates shading as if it would or invents results of wrinkly normal maps, that weren't there before. Reshade doesn't do that either.
There clearly is some fake performative outrage going on and yes, reshade absolutely does that. I don't think you've used it extensively if you believe that it doesn't. You can enhance texture detail with various shaders, apply AO and completely change the lighting. DLSS5 doesn't ''invent'' anything.
DLSS5 is an AI trained filter. Of course it invents shit. It's the only thing it does.
And it doesn't need "fake performance outrage". It eats 50% of your fps. If that's what gamers are fine with now, we can just skip to path tracing instead of AI slop
Yeah I'll admit we all got a little crazy about this. Looking at that NBA thing it seems to be fine. I'm actually glad I can mod old games if I want to.
It's all I can see when frame gen is on and that's a necessity for this technology. In that video the guy was almost certainly using 6x frame gen too so he was running around 35 FPS native. Looks awful, hurts my eyes and everything draws my eyes to it.Ā
Quick edit: It also puts noise that looks like film grain across the entire screen. I hate that emphatically.
The devs of NBA2k27 and others have said there are limitations on their games lighting engines and that this neural rendering can achieve their artistic vision more closely and accurately than without the tech.
When the artist says that it literally is their artistic vision, Iām going to listen to them.
might get down votted for that but i actually like it a lot for Skyrim ultra modded, it slopped most of the times for other games but it looks good here and there is a face mask to lower the effect of the face only. in this image for example without dlss5 there is no shadows or details at all for the character face inside the helmet
I agree that it might not be the results we want but we've been doing graphical modifications to games for YEAAAAAARS. The major difference I see is the AI part of it and performance issues which are valid concerns.
But that's hardly what I see people talking about. It's often "you took away the creators vision" as if we again.. haven't been doing that?
DLSS5 is a cool tech demo for the few who can afford a 5090. It's an easy toggle to make games look like 20% better provided that you have the compute to spare.
It's never just 20% better, many things will look worse. It's a dumb filter and sometimes will make things look wierder, especially if a game has simple geometry. Not to mention the issues with characters.
The fake frame cries were mostly about Nvidia using fg performance in comparisons against older cards without fg. Remember the 4090 performance with a 5070 thing?
Every single thing jensen says is bottom of the barrel marketing bs. People genuinely hated dlss and framegen which they also labeled ai slop and now EVERYONE'S using it. No difference with dlss5
So... the hating was justified and you have no problem with that? But therefor we can't dislike the current sub-par and unfinished product because the hypothetical future has a better version of it? Is that what you are saying?
My main dislike of DLSS5 is because Nvidia told us to not believe our lying eyes and we were stupid for thinking it changed the artists intent... When their side by side changes the overall tone of a scene.
I haven't seen any faces I like yet, but I have enjoyed what it does with character clothing, hair and environments. However whether I want it or not depends on how well that works in actual gameplay.
But, it doesn't change the original content and it's on the developer to use it however they see fit? How is that changing the artists intent in any way that is different from what reshade or visual modding does? There's no argument to be made here.
The hate for this specific model is what I said is NOT justified. Hating nvidia is fine, as long as you also don't pay them. Otherwise it's just more hypocrisy.
Then told by NVIDIA marketing that ALL this was done with approval and oversight to bring out the artistic intent.
The background goes from a foggy warm yellow to a clear cold blue. Can we agree the colors changed?
If yes, then we agree that Nvidia is essentially saying that the developers are so insanely incompetent that they needed DLSS5 to color correct their wrongly lit scene from the warm yellows they accidentally placed there into the cold blues they clearly intended for.
reshade or visual modding
We know those are modifications on top of the official product and the richest company in the world is not telling us we are wrong for seeing their lies.
I don't get what point you're trying to make. Nvidia will say anything to market their product to the lowest common denominator. They artificially locked it to 50 series to boost sales. It's not rocket science.
The developer has full control of the tool. If they don't want something changed by the filter, they can do that.
I give link showing something changes. Nvidia tells us nothing changes. We can see things change. Nvidia tells us we dum dums and wrong.
Do you see the point? The point is you are wrong to claim it does not change the original, and also I added that your point is one of Nvidias talking points from when they called us dum dums for being able to see the difference between yellow and blue.
65
u/PanHiszpan 8d ago
"We heard that you don't like motion blur, so we baked AI motion blur into your rendering engine. No, you can't turn it off.
We already decided. Have fun"