-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
DonkeyPunchJr
World’s Biggest Weeb
I wonder if this is more relevant for lower-end 4000 series cards that aren’t out yet.
Either that or 8K
Either that or 8K
omegasc
Member
Damage will be tied to FPS, so you will need to spend all your money in upgrades for your PC if you want to win.
The game isn't going to be demanding anyways. Why use DLSS for a game like this?
(jk)
Beta pre-installed on PC, waiting for all the mayhem
nightmare-slain
Member
who cares? it's basically free performance. i'll always enable DLSS if a game supports it.
The game isn't going to be demanding anyways. Why use DLSS for a game like this?
even if your GPU is powerful enough then it still makes sense to enable it because it means your GPU is running cooler/quieter and using less power while maintaining the same, if not better, visual quality and higher framerates.
wait....does this game have raytracing!?
edit: seems it's coming after launch. awww yis
Last edited:
Lucifers Beard
Member
Nice. DLSS is always going on if available. I want those free frames.
ozz ex machina
Member
The game isn't going to be demanding anyways. Why use DLSS for a game like this?
Every single game should support DLSS. What a stange comment to make.
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
And so am I.
Finally some new Diablo content. Its been a while.
(And no, Immortal doesn't count)
Last edited:
Spyxos
Member
Why should every game have it if it only supports Geforce cards? Every game should have FSR 1-2 because everyone can use it and I have an RTX 3070.
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Because it's a superior solution to FSR and GeForce is like 80% of the market. FSR2 sucks in RE4R.
Mephisto40
Member
Nothing like showing off DLSS with a pre rendered trailer
Last edited:
Tarnpanzer
Member
Or going from 4k/60 to 4K/120.
Spyxos
Member
It's better but nothing earth-shattering now. The 80% of the market also includes Internet cafes. The real numbers are likely to be lower.
And dlss 2 also looked terrible for years in Rdr2 they just fixed it recently.
Last edited:
DanEON
Member
DLSS in Quality mode is better than 4k native. So you dont need to use the garbage TAA or any other AA.
The game isn't going to be demanding anyways. Why use DLSS for a game like this?
Last edited:
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
No, the number is actually higher because AMD and Intel have notebooks with iGPUs. The discrete market is overwhelmingly in favor of NVIDIA. So much so that AMD is practically irrelevant there.
It's not earth-shattering but it's still better. As an NVIDIA owner yourself, why would you settle for the worse solution? I do wish that proprietary software would go the way of the dodo and everything worked on everything but this ain't gonna happen.
Ev1L AuRoN
Member
4k on a mid-range gpu maybe?
The game isn't going to be demanding anyways. Why use DLSS for a game like this?
AnotherOne
Member
You mean fake frames?
Spyxos
Member
Honestly, in the games where I tried both, I didn't see any differences. And the fps difference was just 2-3 fps.
If you zoom in somewhere with a magnifier as in the Digital Foundry videos, you can certainly see the differences, but they are so close that I just don't care.
Last edited:
Puscifer
Member
If this game honestly requires anything higher than the 9 series from the looks of the graphics for recommended this game will be a bigger joke than it already is.
ozz ex machina
Member
They should just have both? If it has DLSS 3.0 I assume it will also have DLSS 2. Calm down.
Luipadre
Member
d4 is a joke? since when?
Gaiff
SBI’s Resident Gaslighter
Try RE4R demo with FSR on and look at the foliage. FSR utterly falls apart with fine details in motion. Most of the time it's alright because of the enormous performance boost, but it has some glaring issues that DLSS manages to somewhat clean up. Not that DLSS is perfect mind you. It has issues here and there that FSR does not exhibit.
manfestival
Member
Some of the people in here don't realize that you only have access to dlss 3.0 if you have a 40 series card. Which, need the least help especially for those gamers that currently have access to dlss 3.0 compared to the others. However, yes this is free performance and it is always nice if they add more features to any game.
Spyxos
Member
Did you mean someone else?
I suppose its relevant for 4050 users? Yeah it's super weird.
The game isn't going to be demanding anyways. Why use DLSS for a game like this?
SmokedMeat
Gamer™
The game isn't going to be demanding anyways. Why use DLSS for a game like this?
Maybe for RTX which just cripples hardware, so you need fake frames to get it playable.
Black_Stride
do not tempt fate do not contrain Wonder Woman's thighs do not do not
FrameGeneration?.....lets hope HUD elements arent borked by it.
Umbasaborne
Banned
Dlss is free real estate, few reasons not to use it. Even on my 4090 somes time its the difference between 100 fps and 120
Fps
Fps
vaibhavpisal
Member
There is no going back now.
Lucifers Beard
Member
Sorry, I was referring to DLSS 2 rather than 3. Also, providing it doesn’t ruin the experience then yes, I’ll take fake frames.
01011001
Banned
simple, why play at 144 fps when your can play at 300 fps?
or why pay at 240 fps when you could try to get to 500 fps on one of the new 500hz monitors coming out?
Last edited:
Pop
Member
Bonsaibäumchen
Member
Why waste energy for unneccesary frame generation in such a game?
01011001
Banned
because imagine how smooth 500fps looks!
sendit
Member
....Naturally. DLSS at all versions reduce stress on cards that support this feature. This reduces energy consumption. DLSS is energy efficient. But that doesn't matter right, it doesn't fit the agenda.
To simplify - A 4090 targetting/capped at 120 FPS natively with out DLSS is going to use use more energy versus a 4090 targeting/capped at 120 FPS with DLSS enabled.
Last edited:
Kuranghi
Member
I'm unsure if you're taking the piss or not. If you aren't I'm not saying what you're saying is stupid or whatever I just genuinely want to know. I will remove my laughing emojis if you aren't being sarcastic.
Last edited:
Thebonehead
Banned
He is genuine............ly winding you up
01011001
Banned
I mean, 500hz screens and higher are coming to the market.
if you have a 40 series card you most likely have the money to buy such a monitor and you are also likely an enthusiast who would be interested in such a monitor.
so why play Diablo 4 at 200+ fps, when you can literally flip a switch and turn that to more than 400fps on your 500hz monitor?
DLSS3 is great for exactly 2 things:
1: Pushing lower end cards to smooth framerates (those cards aren't out yet so currently that's hardly what it's used for but it will be in the future)
2: Pushing high end cards to the max refresh of high end monitors.
so DLSS3 being in this game makes total sense, it should be in any game really.
because like I said, why would you sit in front of your brand new 500hz screen and not want your game to actually use the 500hz? why settle for maybe 200 without DLSS3?
eventually 1000hz monitors might enter the market, and then DLSS3 can be used to get close to that 1000fps maybe, one day... and at 1000fps you will have CRT level clarity in motion.
Last edited:
Kuranghi
Member
Just checking, its hard to tell in text sometimes. Its an amazing tool for those that want it, I just care more about image quality (on a super large screen, not a monitor) over ultra high framerates, I think 120hz is the sweet spot for me where I wouldn't care anymore after that, I would much prefer 8K120hz than 4K240hz, let alone 1440@240hz+.
Hell I'd prefer 8K60hz over any of those (depending on the game and other factors, sometimes going above 4K yields little increase in fidelity ofc), I just love that increase in detail, maybe once AI upscaling reaches a point I'm happy with I'll forget about native res but thats not the case right now. I guess it also helps that I don't play any games where it would really matter to me to have that lower frametime lag, like competitive or the like.
TV panels are now 144hz as of the not that long ago so I guess the TV will be close(r) to monitors soon, they still often have VA panels which means much smearing and refresh rates over 144hz are less pointful, but QD-OLED/OLED panels are even faster than any IPS panel afaik so its pointful there even at 480hz+.
01011001
Banned
well that is the good thing about DLSS3, you can push resolution and quality super high, and then flip a switch and gain almost double the fluidity without much of a sacrifice in any way (if well implemented)
Kuranghi
Member
Yeah its definitely already at a point that most people can't notice or don't care about the difference, I sell displays for a living and I can tell you even massive differences in image quality aren't meaningful for the average non-gaming joe so minor differences like we're talking about with DLSS upscaling aren't cared for by the vast majority of gamers.
I'm a complete IQ wanker though, I can notice minor differences and it bothers me and I would sacrifice framerate to resolve it. Soon though it will be good enough for even a cunt like me, sooooon.
Not saying this is you btw, but heres an example of a game that stutters, but most people said its "not something that bothered me and I noticed it but it didnt ruin the experience":
Thats "not that bad" to most people.
Off-topic but I just gave up on Sable, Exo One and other Unity games that had these issues after I spoke to the actual devs directly and they said "I'm not sure what you mean, can you send a video" and when they viewed the video they didn't know what the problem was
I'm saying that because its like, if that isn't cared about by most then I'm fighting a (massively) losing battle caring about the differences between native and DLSS res...
Last edited: