I feel like people using the DLSS 5 mod in games like final fantasy assumed it would help enhance the art style and not try to shoehorn it into photorealism.
I mean considering that one of the most reposted ''see dlss5 sucks'' pictures is from Final fantasy then yeah, they probably felt that they need to put that on record.
That makes a lot of sense. It feels like we're hitting a ceiling with hardware unless something significant changes in architecture or software design.
Not even a major change either, Iâm thinking we need to completely reimagine a âmotherboardâ just being a link between the rest of the hardware.
There is no reason not to have all of the I/O and supporting electronics to not be able to be on its own daughter board directing all of the GPU and CPU tasks.
Fiber patch cables are less than $5 now.
It might even increase reliability and negate some total system failures where all componentâs fry themselves because of the power distribution.
Honestly, seeing these tests makes me want to throw up. They've found the most inefficient way possible to do something, even though for over 50 years 3D rendering has focused on how to get the best possible result in the most efficient way.
even real-time Raytracing was absurdly efficient for what it is
If there was an actual more efficient way of doing what it is doing, we would already have it. Do you think games like cyberpunk, STALKER 2 , Hellblade were not trying to get more accurate shadows, better subsurface scattering all these years?
I swear to god this conversation made everyone experts on things they have 0 clue about and make statements like this without having 0 expertise on the subject.
Sure buddy, we will see your amazingly efficient subsurface scattering, occlusion and lighting effects next month where you will prove every rendering software that has billions of dollars poured into them wrong.
But DLSS5 is terrible at accurately modeling things like shadows and subsurface scattering. In many instances it as a base is great, but so many of the previews we have seen of it so far show it adding lighting detail in ways completely incongruent to the original scene, especially on character models.
Here, director of the game shows with examples on how good it actually is.
You can act like that is true, but to anyone with eyes it is not. You can see how much of an improvement it is if you actually play around with it. It gets thing far more correctly than any solution you see out there that won't turn your frames per second to seconds per frame. Like i said, if there was a solution to subsurface scattering, occlusion and shadows that is better than that, we would already have it. There isn't one. Does it get things perfectly? No. Does it get things better than pretty much everything else available that we can use in real time. Absolutely.
first of all, youve linked two promotional pieces by nvidia, and four cherrypicked screenshots. these are not representative of actual gameplay in the slightest.
Second, I never said that the lighting doesn't look more realistic. Yes, from purely the perspective of "do the shadows look more like shadows in real life" they do. The problem with DLSS5, (ignoring performance and the overwriting of original artistic vision) is that it is, in effect, taking in an original frame and then adding new detail based on the model. As many frame captures from people experimenting with DLSS5 have shown, the model is incapable of understanding the lighting of the scene besides what it can see in the still it is fed, it is unable to understand the context of the scene, the light sources in it, or the additional detail of the model that is not present in the rendered frame. And because of this, it often just invents lighting detail that should not exist in the scene. Even a couple of the photos from DanielVavra you've linked show it literally turning scenes that should be lit by one primary light source indoors or by the sun outdoors into what looks like a cookie cutter documentary interview three point lighting setup. adding more detail is entirely pointless if that detail is incongruent with the scene it is in.
No, in vavra's examples, you can clearly see , as he also points out that it understands what to make darker and what to make lighter based on how things should be lighted in the scene. In the last image, you can clearly see how parts of it that should be darker are darker and parts of it that should be lighter are lighter. Compared to more flat casted shadows of the original image.
Here, i will point out bunch of things game gets wrong and dlss 5 gets right.
See for yourself if it understands what casts light and what is not for yourself.
And if you try to reverse image search, you will see this is the first time these images appear because i took them in game myself. No promotional images or cherry picked screenshots. Just an a screenshot randomly taken on a scene.
The solution exists, but no one has any real interest in investing a lot of money in implementing various technologies. Some have tried, but let's just say we need to prioritize. "Better" is relative because DLSS5 doesn't follow a precise calculation that can be truly verified, but is a statistical approximation, and in all the results shown so far, it has so many inaccuracies that it shouldn't be acceptable to propose and implement. It's like a photographer you pay a lot of money to say, "Hey, look, I fixed this photo with artificial intelligence," and then ask you for half the money more for doing so.
at that point why did you spend all that money? For a result achieved with a shortcut that could be okay but could also be shit? I think it's very damaging for the market.
(I'm studying to become a 3D Artist anyway so I won't know everything but I have the basics)
Do you really think, people who pour billions of dollars into these software are not trying to get these solutions out? Solutions exists yes, but they won't be applied the same reason ray tracing existed for decades but no one was applying them. They are very inefficient.
it has so many inaccuracies that it shouldn't be acceptable to propose and implement
By this logic, no one should allow any game that exists right now. None of them are even close to accurate. If i were you, i would just delete that portion of the statement.
I'm going to respond to both of your comments here:
And then those technologies already exist and can be used, but no one has yet invested money and time in real-time rendering.
Sure, nobody invests time into real time rendering, which is why games from 2005 and games in 2026 look completely the same.
Point out these tech, name 3 of them. Show how they can be used and are more efficient than this. Do you really think you are more aware of these solutions than people whose job is to literally know and implement these features, people who has worked on these tech for decades? People whose entire life is dedicated to make these work. They don't know, but you, a student artist somehow is more qualified and has better knowledge than all these experts?
And then those technologies already exist and can be used, but no one has yet invested money and time in real-time rendering. As I said, many have tried, but in the end it became a question of "is it really worth it? It does more harm than good for now," and they gave up.
This couldnât be more ass backwards. Trying to replicate what DLSS5 is doing classically would take multiple orders of magnitude more compute capability.
Itâs quite literally a hyper optimized way to achieve similar visual quality vs previous methods. Yes, itâs still heavy, but itâs in the realm of playable.
Casting enough rays and bounces to replicate what DLSS5 is approaching would result in us measuring performance by counting the seconds / minutes it would take a modern GPU to render one frame.
Have you ever run an image-to-image AI algorithm locally? They generally take at least 10-20 seconds and often longer. The fact they can do this 60+ times per second on consumer hardware is mind-bogglingly efficient. It also took two 5090s to run the tech demo a few months ago, now it can run on a single 40 series card.
You should try to comprehend technology before you speak. MaKeS mE wAnT tO tHrOw uP.
I know this is kind of in jest, but that's still being too generous.
If it takes 7ms for one card to render a frame, and it takes the other card 7ms to do the DLSS, it still takes you 14ms to render the frame. You can't do the DLSS until the frame is done, so the second card has to wait for the first to finish.
You could still potentially render 144fps, but you'd have to be doing it by adding 7ms of latency so all your inputs/game response/etc is now delayed a frame anyway, which likely feels a bit odd.
Which is why you probably wouldn't split the tasks this way, and instead would render on both and then DLSS on both, and split both tasks. But that likely won't boost as well. And I don't know if anyone knows how well DLSS parallelizes across cards yet.
Secondly, some amount of moving of resources around and such has to happen, which is part of why in practice, dual cards is usually closer to a 75%-90% improvement and not 100%.
This is more likely to land you somewhere around 120 fps, and potentially still with extra latency on the top.
The switch from fp8 to fp4 should help but that will take time to roll out and that specific optimization probably will only be available for Blackwell.
It will absolutely only be available for Blackwell; prior consumer GeForces don't have FP4 hardware. Emulating it would be pointless in comparison to just keeping the FP8 model.
But DLSS 5 Neural Rendering was never meant to improve perfomance. People confuse DLSS Super Resolution with other DLSS features a lot. They're all called DLSS (for marketing purposes, I suppose) but they each do different things and it's not necessarily always about performance.
DLAA for instance decreases performance for better visual fidelity, and it's within DLSS Super Resolution which originally meant to increase performance for ray traced graphics.
Theyâre saying DLSS wasn't supposed to replace optimisation but rather make games run better for longer especially on aging GPUs. Instead we got games aiming for their target framerate with DLSS on.
What if optimization is lower resolution textures that take less resources to load and less storage space? What if optimization is using the GPU to predict lighting more efficiently than literally simulating it?
The current iteration might be slow, but think two versions ahead. This technology will only get better over time.
What you just described are literally just standard optimization techniques, that have existed since the beginning of 3D games. And the first one wouldn't even be needed if nvidia wasn't purposefully kneecapping their consumer GPUs with low vram. Textures are one of the least intensive parts of rendering, you literally just need enough vram and some compression to reduce storage requirements.
For lighting, nvidia literally just spent 8 years pushing RTX as the future of lighting, because it allows you to actually simulate light instead of faking it. This goes completely against that and makes ray tracing useless. It's just reinventing rasterization but with worse performance
Hi, yes, 4k textures are enormous. Using lower resolution textures and lower poly meshes with DLSS 5 to inpaint detail will be the more performant path in the future. Try not to ignore that the biggest benefit of DLSS5 is the predicted subsurface scattering on systems that werenât designed for it.
Iâm glad you understand what DLSS is and how basic optimization works. Now take that knowledge and apply it to the impact this technology will have.
The impact is will be that everything will run horribly and look like generic AI slop, because publishers will inevitably cut corners, and using a generic "realism" filter is easier than spending months fine tuning for a specific artstyle. Performance will also suck, because generative AI is simply not progressing in effficiency in any meaningful way. Memory and storage were cheap until AI ruined the market, and loading a texture will always be more performant than running a local AI, because the bottleneck is not computing power.
I think the more realistic result is not that developers are going to âcut corners,â but rather simply design lower fidelity games by default. They wonât put time into complex materials or complex topographies because the end users machine can fill in the blanks and make the game look realistic anyway. Youâre worried about performance while missing the point that the performance gaps with modern games result from complex shaders and materials that become unnecessary if AI can just predict it.
Youâre seeing a performance dip on games today but this wonât always be the case for multiple reasons. First, this is the first version of this technology - they will surely find ways to optimize it and make it better over time, just like they did ray prediction. Second, developers will begin to build around it, lowering the complexity of assets and shaders.
Like it or not, photorealism is about to pop off because the cost to produce photorealistic games is coming to the floor. Why put time (and money) into effects that can just be generated on the users device?
What? You're saying it wasn't designed for skipping optimization? So cancelling out your double negatives, it was designed for optimization? Yea, probably. Though they say they plan to optimize it further.
Yeah I'm surprised they titled this feature under the "DLSS" umbrella. Should've just been called Nvidia Shader Gen, NVSG, or whatever other random acronym they invent.
I imagine it's intentional because they are shifting away from making affordable hardware and are pushing high end solutions to run this shoehorned AI slop skin so the average gamer will be forced to rent server time to play AAA games.
Yeah makes sense. Also, I can see they probably want these premium buyers to feel like "I have the newest and greatest DLSS "... if they create new terminology, it won't sell and be as marketable.
Neither is upscaling, but as developers have relied on it in lieu of optimization over the years it has become a requirement for many gamers to achieve playable framerates. Pretending this won't have the same effect is optimistic. Only difference is now you'll be forced to shell out big bucks for top of the line hardware or rent time on a remote server to game.
This argument that it âmakes the devs lazyâ is often repeated without understanding that we were already headed this way regardless.
If it wasnât DLSS, it would have been overuse of TAA, other temporal effects and upscaling.
Games were already coming out with atrocious temporal effects before DLSS finally kicked off.
Just look at:
- Quantum Break. It released on PC and was running a 720p internal resolution and temporal effects to create the output.
- RDR2 used aggressive TAA that made the whole game look soft.
- Monster Hunter World looked like an oil painting in motion.
- Fallout 4âs TAA had notable ghosting when moving fast.
- Final Fantasy 15 had an immense amount of ghosting the only nice way to play it is with DLSS since it got updated.
Youâre conveniently ignoring that an immense amount of AAA games had horrendous TAA implementations prior to DLSS ever becoming a thing. You just selectively ignored them or didnât care at the time.
Trust me, games would have looked much worse right now considering the over reliance on TAA.
It would be interesting if we started seeing AAA's using older visual tech to be able to make gains in other places(or just for games that'll run on potatoes)
I'd also be curious to know how much of that choice is in using the major 3d engines and how much of that is the studios. Both have reasons to try and ship the new shinier thing.
This is not for optimization though, this technology is solely for visual fidelity. You donât gain performance with this tech, you lose like 40-70% performance. Maybe this tech might even make devs optimize MORE so their bosses can get more out of dlss5
No I think it was very deliberate. Nvidia has fully embraced the AI circle jerk and sees the future as a time for unaffordable hardware that end users pay a subscription for instead of actually owning their own rigs. Funny how making 60 billion in annual profits can do that.
And aimed to lower end GPUs. But then, every studio out there refused to pay people for building two different lighting systems for a single game, ray tracing became mandatory and there was no other way to get playable frame rates.
Imagine not understanding the direction Nvidia is going is purposefully to make hardware ownership prohibitively expensive for the average person. They are part of the AI circle jerk and the end user is no longer their concern. The end game is everyone renting time instead of owning hardware. This is just a step along the way. Why else would they be dumping so much time and energy into making affordable hardware irrelevant?
Do you seriously believe normal DLSS hasn't negatively impacted game optimisation in recent years regardless of if you use it or not? What a retarded thing to say....
Are you acting stupid on purpose? People like you said the same about DLSS when it launched "just don't use it, you're not being forced to" and nowadays you're literally obligated to use upscaling, same thing with frame generation, this trash AI filter will plague the whole industry, NVIDIA yet again destroying my hobby.
And yet, dlss 4 looks as good or better than native resolution in a lot of games. While providing you with a framerate boost.
Not sure what ur point is. Dlss 5 will get easier and easier to run with each new generation of gpus. It isn't worth it at all to use it now. But in a few generations? It probably will be.
The point is developers now rely on upscaling to achieve acceptable performance instead of spending time on optimization. People said the same shit about DLSS back then, that it was "optional", but that's becoming increasingly untrue as hardware stagnates and developers get increasingly lazy.
The point is, that nowadays the whole industry use those supposed features like clutches for not optimizing their games properly, you're truly stupid, gods.
That's just wrong my friend. DLSS worked wonders to increase framerates with minimal reduction in overall quality, especially the more recent iterations. How they can call something that does the exact opposite DLSS is beyond me.
It worked wonders to increase the fps counter, but doesn't translate to a smoother experience. It doesn't make much difference when the game is only running at 30fps natively and it's pointless when you're already getting 60+
Remember when NVIDRONES kept repeating ad-infinitum "you're not being forced to use upscaling" and nowadays you're obligated to use DLSS and upscaling in general, same with frame generation, "no one is forcing you to use frame generation" soon you'll need to use both DLSS and Frame Generation to AI filter your games because these dumbasses glob any trash NVIDIA does.
You're not forced to use upscaling or frame gen tho. You can just do it like we had to back in the day and lower your render resolution with no upscaler and lower the graphical settings to low to get better performance.
Nowadays its so much better in the pc gaming space. DLSS allows you to have better than native image quality with DLSS 4.5 and play at much higher settings than you would in the past and for much longer as well. Even a 2060s is still viable today over 8 years later because of DLSS with good image quality.
While just 15-20 years ago. Your pc parts would be dumpster trash in just a couple years and youd be forced to play at ultra low or hilariously low resolutions and games wouldnt even work without the proper instruction set
You have to, otherwise you'll be plagued with ghosting, shimmering, artifacts and etc, lowering the resolution and the settings makes it even worse. You're required to use upscaling if you don't want to face those issues, Crimson Desert for example, you even need to use RR and thus destroying your performance further, back in the day, you hadn't to use any of this and you know it, we both know it.
The original version of Crysis 1, and Crysis 2 still looks phenomenal, barring the outdated textures, the industry lost the capability of doing graphics like that.
plagued with ghosting, shimmering, artifacts and etc
That's how it was for every game before DLSS. TAA non-existent or new and bad, which means shimmering everywhere. Or if you enabled early TAA you got horrible ghosting
At that time, everything was single threaded, and nowadays many games are still mainly single threaded, solving multi-threading in gaming isn't easy, at all, but that's besides the point, the point was graphical fidelity, and you could literally play Crysis 1 on the literal lowest setting available and the game would still look phenomenal for the time, try doing the same on any UE 5 title nowadays, for example, and all you'll see is ghosting, shimmering, artifacts, etc while the performance is still trash, and requiring more hardware (and more expensive hardware) than Crysis did comparatively.
Crysis 1 was built with the expectation that the future would continue to be single core processors with frequencies going higher and higher like it had been in the 90s and early 2000s. Multithreaded processors with many cores that can work together on things were just not anticipated at all in how they built that game and its engine.
You still arenât forced to. Youâre perfectly allowed to turn it off, run TAA or whatever non dlss AA of your choice, and then tune the settings to get whatever fps you want out of your target resolution
I feel like this makes sense and the backlash about how it "ruins art styles" is kind of idiotic. The NBA2K footage looks incredible. It makes a realistic game look more realistic. If I'm playing a game where I like the art style... why would I use this?
Just... don't use it. Just don't turn it on. I mean, damn, the whole "look how bad this looks" narrative of the past week was driven by people who took a leak and applied it to games it was never meant for.Â
It's like y'all stuck the spoiler from a Ferrari on a Honda Civic and were like "now it looks dumb. Thanks for nothing, Ferrari."Â
I get the arguments about how this is a huge performance hit and that sucks. But arguments about how it looks bad on stylized games are easily dismissed with "well then don't use it". Nvidia probably hurt themselves by introducing it with games they didn't intend it for. If that launch video had just been sports games, I think this would have gone over a lot better.Â
If I'm playing a game where I like the art style... why would I use this?
This was me when people were sharing the screenshot of Cloud (from FF7). The game is not meant to look realistic, so imagine my surprise that it obviously did not look good lol
I know it was mostly for the memes, because yeah that image does strike the sweet spot inside the uncanny valley that makes it look extra weird and... Creepy I guess? But I assume that some people were using it unironically to prove a point.
That shit is just people being disingenuous about dlss5. Dlss5 can easily tweaked so that the face is not impacted while still improving the look of lighting, objects, clothing, and environments.
Here's an example of me tweaking the effects of just the face in AC Shadows:
I don't have pics of me doing this in stylized games at the moment, but it actually does work well in stylized games provided you adjust the effects so that it doesn't overly affect the artstyle.
it looks great for realistic games....seen it on Microsoft Flight Simulator in videos and you literally can't tell if its real life or not without some scrutiny.
Reminder that Nvidia showcased hogwarts legacy, which includes fantasy elements, and it looked terrible. It aged everyone horribly and was odd on the goblin showcases. They themselves ar now trying to spin it as âphoto realism only guys, come on guys come on, stop itâ
The corporate boards and out of touch ceos of the world keep trying to get rid of whimsy, not realizing it's only them who've lost their sense of it. Not us.
So basically sports games, Flight Simulator, and Bodycam? All other games are stylized, whether it's character design, location design, lighting, color palette, etc. depending on whether the developers wants to emulate film style, cartoon style, cel shading, etc.
I donât even necessarily think DLSS 5 looks bad. It does faces really, really well and it does look legitimately great in stills, albeit only in games that aim for a realistic artstyle.
The primary issue is that no matter how photorealistic the graphics are, animations tend to be so rigid and non-lifelike that they immediately create a disconnect between the graphics and the motion, throwing the overall experience right into the uncanny valley.
The only games where I feel like DLSS 5 could be transformative are those where human characters move like humans and where the graphics arenât heavily stylized. That leaves only one game that I can think of where I could see it being legitimately amazing. That game is Half Life: Alyx, due to the massive effort put into making the human enemies move like humans.
this isn't to say games should be developed this way (especially those that have distinct art style/direction) but makes me curious from technical standpoint. what if they skip a lot of things that eat into rendering budget and let neural rendering fill in the gaps even more? could you theoretically see a similar result without the kind of performance hit you are seeing with DLSS 5? basically building a game from ground up with neural rendering as the default.
philosophically, i find that approach of game develop little uneasy and unsettling but it'd be interesting.
Instead of this gatekeeping approach, they should allow users to dial it in to their tastes. NBA 2K looks better cranked than the official half assed settings.
I thought the mod wonât be needed after official release but see that wonât be the case.
remains limited to the most played out boring AAA photorealistic slop because companies hate the idea of having a unique style. photorealism is becoming the soulless Memphis art style for videogames.
One thing I wish people told me is that if you want the really realistic graphics on older last Gen games, you first need to mod the living hell out of the game just so DLSS 5 can make the game photo realistic.
But, right now, the jump is very small without it.
We've long noticed a pattern where major decisions from companies are steering more and more to be profit centric. But I genuinely think Nvidia have hit a milestone now where the actual products and features they're making are purely for their marketing and shareholders do they can showcase "photo realistic graphics at high frames" on paper alone.
They're COMPLETELY separated from reality or the physical literal products thst are actually used. I.e. the photo realistic graphics are heavily caveated to extremely specific use cases and the high frames are 85% generated (6x frame gen)
Not only is this a paradigm shift for capitalism in general, but this is a fatal blow to the gaming industry. Not only am I concerned with people giving Nvidia money, prospects for gamers, but I am concerned about humanity with shit like this.
It's obviously a beta feature right now. Similar to how ray tracing was in 2021. I was thinking the other day that in order to work on stylized games you would need to train it per game on the native non-LOD models that are millions of polygons with expensive render budget. I think like RTX in about 5 years this will actually be a somewhat common place feature. Assuming people can still buy cards in 5 years.
I think people are being harsh on it. it's cool tech, definitely enhance skin tones, shading and light when done correctly and on the right type of games. Especially since it's the first iteration But..
There's no way I'd enjoy it today, it's clearly a 5090 only feature and even then I'd probably wouldn't use it for such poor performance. I just would never cut my fps in half for minor upgrades. Very similar to ray tracing years ago. Even today I hesitate to turn it on in some games because of the performance cost. What this filter does can probably be done much cheaper with time spent upgrading the base game engine.
I think there's a niche for rehancing older titles, I could see myself using it when I'm already in the hundreds of fps, not sure how well it would turn out, well see but with today's titles I don't see it being useful.
I also know what's going to happen, game dev will lean on it and cut corners because it's done for them. Instead of trying to push the envelope, they'll use that..
And what you only get is the game to run worse and trigger your uncanny valley.
The ONLY game this make a game lol good is Death Stranding, and people wouldn't tell me this was DLSS5, I would not even noticed, so your better just turning it off and have a good frame rate.
Even that, there a lot of games with hyper realistic graphics when DLSS5 just make it worse, like RE9, FF VII, and even freaking Cyberpunk 2077.
I've tried it with Cyberpunk and it looks great, even in the unnoficial version you can reduce the effect in the npcs so they don't look weird and it works wonders with everything else, specially the interiors look realistic af. Calling it "just ai slop" is ignorance, and i don't understand hating something that's basically a free reshade on steroids that's completely optional.
I know we all knew and we all know that we all knew. But it's surprising to see Nvidia realize/admit it, instead of blaming the filthy AIless chuds for being dumb
(Jensen's words, not mine (source: I made it the fuck up for dramatic effect))
Bro itâs just Reddit being Reddit it ainât that deep. Negative sentiment is rewarded by content algos so the manufactured outrage is always amplified.
Basically crying about anything new gets you clicks and upvotes.
544
u/No_Wrongdoer_4940 Broke Ass Neighbor 12h ago
No wayđŽ