When you see that still the most used screen resolution is 1080 and even the very few people who are upgrading, do so only up to 1440. It is easy to see that graphics stopped being impressive a while ago. It seems that a long time ago people were still arguing FPS vs Resolution. FPS wins every single time. 24fps is fine for movies, it might add to the cinematic look. But in an interactive medium, FPS is king. Give me low latency and fast response times over anything else. People don’t notice when games look like shit, but they do notice when the gameplay is laggy or buggy. Most friendslop (compliment) games are very simple and basic in their looks, but still capture the gaming and streaming culture for months at a time. While AAAA games are now struggling to stay relevant beyond the launch week. It is the same trend as with movies. Blockbusters break records and then nobody ever remembers they even watched it. I guess that the algorithmic fragmentation of culture is finally catching up with us all.

None of what you said is wrong but I think it’s a bit simplistic to compare it to a resolution jump or to bring up Indy graphics vs AAAA as a sign that nobody cares anymore.

FPS is indeed the real killer though, you can’t really run this without high end cards and the difference is simply not worth the price for most people.

I'm not playing friendslop for the graphics.

just like I'm not playing Cyberpunk for the gameplay.

Graphics very much have a place. FPS doesn't trump resolution always.

dont know… i love the cyberpunk gameplay. but i accept <60 fps only on the steam deck or similar devices

You take that extra “A” back! Those guys dont even deserve the 3 they already have!

Also, a growing number of research papers show that people rarely notice differences in screen resolution beyond 1080p, or even less, depending on screen size and viewing distance, so most people who go for higher resolution are enthusiasts who do so either as a placebo or to brag about it, instead of actual enjoyment. The general public doesn’t care

Genuinely asking:

Is this the first time DLSS hurts fps instead of improving it?

Like, I thought that was the entire point of it. It allowed you to turn up settings but still have useable frame rates.

I don’t know who would pay for a card to support this, just to turn around and cut the fps in half.

It seems like their target demo is people that pay for 5090s but for some reason still put on all the frame gen and scaling stuff to make their game look worse. This chops the frame in half, when they could just turn off frame gen and scaling and likely have better and steadier frames.

Dlss was originally an anti aliasing technique (its in the name) so it has originally been a performance hit. It was casual change and marketing that decided that upscaling from a lower resolution was the norm.

DLDSR is essentially what DLSS 1.0 was

If youre upscaling from a lower resolution, thats no longer the SS in DLSS (super sampling)

Thanks!

I’ve got a 4070 super now, but other than that I always had AMD. So just never really paid attention to it.

Definitely seems like the my first Nvidia GPU is gonna be my last tho

DLAA is the anti aliasing only. DLSS was always ai upscaling with anti aliasing as a first pass, literally Deep Learning Super Sampling.

DLSS 1

The first iteration of DLSS is a predominantly spatial image upscaler with two stages, both relying on convolutional auto-encoder neural networks.[31] The first step is an image enhancement network which uses the current frame and motion vectors to perform edge enhancement, and spatial anti-aliasing. The second stage is an image upscaling step which uses the single raw, low-resolution frame to upscale the image to the desired output resolution. Using just a single frame for upscaling means the neural network itself must generate a large amount of new information to produce the high-resolution output, which can result in slight hallucinations such as leaves that differ in style to the source content.[13]

en.wikipedia.org/…/Deep_Learning_Super_Sampling

There needs to be an incentive to buy new hardware

I don’t think so… I honestly think the direction anyone supporting the AI bubble wants, is going to be streaming games. You won’t run them on the PC… they will run out of a data center and your inputs will go back ot the data center, You’ll own nothing, you’ll adapt to paying a subscription price for single player games, hell instead of monthly you could pay by the hour or minute.

I want to upvote this or downvote it but I’m not sure how you mean it.

I would encourage everyone to watch 2kliksphilips video regarding dlss5 rather than just jumping on the dum dum AI bad bandwagon. Seems like it has potential to me.

Considering that computer graphics have always been full of tricks any new tech should be judged based on what it achieves and at what cost first and foremost instead of being dismissed solely on how it works. So far I’ve only tried the leaked version in stalker 2 and I also think that it has potential but currently there are graphical artifacts, also there are instances of characters looking noticeably different and the fps hit is not particularly small either. For the record I am using 5070 ti and running the game at 1440p native/ DLAA.

Oh no. What would I ever do without this ridiculous technology I never asked for?

Do you guys remember PhysX? You needed a whole ass dedicated card for it. NVIDIA has been looking for these outs for a looooooong time.