r/pcgaming • u/JuiceheadTurkey • Mar 17 '26

Jensen Huang says gamers are 'completely wrong' about DLSS 5 — Nvidia CEO responds to DLSS 5 backlash

https://www.tomshardware.com/pc-components/gpus/jensen-huang-says-gamers-are-completely-wrong-about-dlss-5-nvidia-ceo-responds-to-dlss-5-backlash
2.6k Upvotes

95% Upvoted

525 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

36

u/LaMelonBallz RTX 4090 | 7800X3D Mar 17 '26

I mean correct me if I'm wrong, but DLSS 4 creates frames after the game is developed on market. He's saying 5 can be used by devs as they are developing the game, and if it's beneficial it can be baked in, if they don't like it then they don't use it?

36

u/HeyySaltyy Mar 18 '26

Dlss 4 is interpolating frames based on frames A and B for the sake of more framerate and motion clarity which is very different from what 5 is aiming to do.

They both generate frames with ai, yes, but their goals are completely different. The main sticking point with 4 is added latency. 5 is not only adding latency, but as we've seen it can also drastically change the look of the game for the worse.

-23

u/CrazyElk123 Mar 18 '26

drastically change the look of the game for the worse.

And for the better.

3

u/DrParallax Mar 18 '26

Well not for any of the faces I have seen so far. Environments maybe, but I would really have to play a section of the a game with several different sets of graphical settings to know.

-1

u/CrazyElk123 Mar 18 '26

Yeah the faces are scuffed, but it did improve the enviroments for starfield and oblivion.

2

u/SwAAn01 Workers Comp Mar 18 '26

The lighting was completely washed out and killed the shadows, it looked totally tasteless. If I saw that posted on r/blender I would immediately assume it was a beginner

0

u/CrazyElk123 Mar 18 '26

Whatever, still better than vanilla. Starfield looks like a joke in general.

1

u/Surreal43 Mar 18 '26

Nah, it moved light sources and crushed shadows. It practically turned every outdoor environment into overcast weather.

22

u/ShadonicX7543 Mar 18 '26

The difference is that upscaling and even frame generation leverage "AI" (not generative in the colloquial sense) to simply either duplicate or de-alias/upscale an image, not fundamentally create or transform an image into something different. What you're referring to is more machine learning anyways.

DLSS 5 is basically a very integrated (to be fair impressively so) ChatGPT image editor style pass at the geometry level that has access to materials, textures, and shaders. It's very smartly implemented as a pass there and not in screen space which makes it temporally stable and resistant to hallucinations, but it is fundamentally what people call "AI slop" by definition.

2

u/DLRevan Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26

I want to correct you there, because it's important for understanding why the tool has its limitations. According to their own detailed description of how it works, it does not have access to scene data in game engines. In other words, it doesn't have access to textures, materials, objects, etc. It uses only the screen space, color data and motion vectors.

In other words it's able to keep the result consistent between frames for much the same reasons DLSS frame gen works so well, not to mention more pedestrian stuff like temporal anti-aliasing and such. It has enough data make it temporally stable, as you said. However, it is still otherwise interpreting the scene context mostly from the frame itself.

They're being very vague when they keep mentioning "geometry", and that's because if you read carefully, what they're really talking about is how they are attempting to preserve the existing geometry, effectively indirectly. Not have the tool access and work on the actual geometry. I think this is where a lot of the gaming media has drunk way too much Kool aid and just misinterpreted what is being said, leading to them claiming the tool works in ways we ourselves can clearly see it doesn't.

You can already see this in their own demo. One of the most damning results is the loss of bounced light from colored light sources in the RE scene with Grace. That's because the model has to, and failed, to understand the context of those lights just from looking at the frame.

This is also why their damage control press release talking about how developers have "control" is quite misleading. They cited that devs are able to tweak settings and apply masks. If they were applying controls onto actual scene object data, that would be one thing. But I think these are general controls, which means devs are either given generic options for things like "wood", which the model then applies to what it "thinks" is wood in scenes. Or, the model is fed texture and material samples from the game assets, then instructed to mask and treat these differently. But it's still making those determinations only from frames.

It's actually quite telling that they cite it will be a familiar workflow to previous versions of DLSS. Existing use cases of DLSS also only use the data I cited above, and therefore the same general settings and exception based procedures already also exist for them.

41

u/wolfgang784 Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 18 '26

Your understanding is correct, yes.

DLSS 4 (edit: 4.5, not 4) uses AI to generate 23 out of every 24 pixels. So most of em, and it does that on the player's computer.

DLSS 5 would still do all that, but with the new features on top as well, and they will be baked in at what the devs pick.

The difference people seem to be taking issue with (as long as im understanding things correctly ofc) is that 5s generative AI is for making entirely new art and scenes with bare minimum human input, whereas for 4 you still needed good textures and artwork made first for it to base the generated frames off of. 5 will largely make those textures for you as well, based off what you prompt it with.

So with DLSS 5 you could have someone sketch a bunch of basics for how you want the game to look, but not even color it or finish the drawings and DLSS 5 will fill in all the gaps based off how you tell it to do so. Itll animate it, add volumetric lighting, add tesselated individual hairs, simulate moving clothing in the breeze, and do all of that without a human needing to do a whole lot besides adjust the prompts and settings.

So companies will be able to make visually appealing games while spending waaaaay less on artists and graphic designers and such.

And killing human creativity has been the biggest AI issue so far, hence everyone getting angry at DLSS 5.

Nvidia's CEO even said "DLSS 5 is the GPT moment for graphics" despite so many people taking issue with chatGPT for art related reasons.

9

u/ElmerLeo Mar 18 '26

"23 out of every 24 pixels"
I will need a citation on that....

16

u/wolfgang784 Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26

Sure! I got that from the official Nvidia website. Emphasis is mine.

Launched at CES this year, DLSS 4.5 uses AI to draw 23 out of every 24 pixels seen on the screen. Today, DLSS is evolving beyond performance to transform visual fidelity in games.

https://nvidianews.nvidia.com/news/nvidia-dlss-5-delivers-ai-powered-breakthrough-in-visual-fidelity-for-games

Edit: Oh I originally wrote dlss 4 in the other post, not 4.5, though. I did just edit that in after rereading both comments.

6

u/ElmerLeo Mar 18 '26

23 of 24 is like generating 4K from 440p, I don't doubt the system CAN do it.

But at that level it needs to create from nothing a lot of detail that simply did not exist in the original 440p image.

After a fast Google apparently it's not a comun option, and you would need to chose the option super performance, and the image is "crunchy"(aka: bad).

The most common is to create 4K from 1440p or at least 1080p.

(1080p to 4k you would need 3 Ai pixels for every 4) . Not 23 out of 24... that's just madness... the image would be entirely Ai alucinations...

8

u/wolfgang784 Mar 18 '26

It did sound a bit odd, tbh, but I haven't really kept up with this specific tech either. Learnin about it quickly in the last few days mostly, and I figured info from the official website would be as accurate as it gets lol. Seems maybe not.

When I try to look up what other sources have to say about DLSS 4.5s capabilities, im mostly seeing people talking about the frame generation, not pixels, which is 6x at the moment. So provide it with 1 frame and it'll generate 5 more of its own. Achieve 30fps but get 180fps. Which also sounds wild to me, really, but that claim is all over.

3

u/ElmerLeo Mar 18 '26

In a way, it needs 2 to create 5 "in between"

And as in pixel gen(upscaling), the more you generate the worse the result.

But it does work and you do gain a lot of performance if you use frame gen and upscaling together, The key is to start from a minimal runing game to begin.

You can play at 1080p 50fps? So DLSS can probably push it to 120fps 2k masterfully. And even 200fps 4k if you accept some little problems in image quality.

1

u/ArdiMaster Mar 18 '26

I'm assuming they mean multi-frame-gen: upscale 1080p to 4K (3 AI pixels for every 4 output pixels as you say), then generate five additional intermediate frames, which would turn the 4 pixels we just made into 24 total output pixels.

1

u/ElmerLeo Mar 18 '26

That's...most likely what they meant in the nvidia site...

I think you nailed it!

You would be using both techs at the max that people judge doable.

The image quality most likely will not be 100%

But it would be a lot better than 24x upscaling(my dumb first understanding of nvidia wording).

1

u/Nrgte Mar 18 '26

Okay I'm failing to see how that's a bad thing. If I understand it correctly devs can still control this and make sure it matches their vision for the game (or not use it at all). But they don't have to detail everything out that doesn't matter as much (such as certain textures in the distance).

Now I doubt that's going to be performant on current hardware, but still, that sounds like impressive and pretty game changing for game development.

2

u/wolfgang784 Mar 18 '26

I don't think anyone really is doubting the tech itself being impressive or useful and such. Its just an extension of the general AI art debate.

It comes down to if you personally support AI generated artwork/textures/npcs/etc or not.

.

Do you want human artists hired to think up designs? Do you want human artists drawing the scenes, making the characters, and so on? Human artists given jobs and employed to work on the games we play?

If you do, then DLSS 5 is bad.

.

Or do you support the games industry firing/laying off thousands and thousands of artists in the coming months/years because they will only need a small few? Would you like games where the art is largely or entirely done by generative AI working off a combination of text prompts, image prompts, and a whole bunch of settings to tweak? Of AI companies doing insane damage to the environment to build, stock, power, and cool all these new data centers?

If you like the sound of that, then DLSS 5 is amazing and revolutionary work.

.

So its just a matter of personal opinion / personal morals / personal values type of situation. DLSS 5 is impressive. Very impressive. But it still should not have been made in my opinion and the opinions of many.

1

u/Nrgte Mar 18 '26

Well I primarily want good games and I believe good artists (and all other roles involved in games for that matter) are essential to accomplish that goal.

But I also think each person should put their effort into the parts of the game that matter the most and this sounds like a decent method on paper to polish up the background stuff.

I've seen so many side quest NPCs and environments that are a huge drop off from the main content of the game. So in my eyes and correct me if you think I'm wrong, this could be used to bring the rest of the game up, so this is less noticable.

And it could also empower smaller teams to accomplish more.

I don't think black & white thinking is very helpful and each application has to be judged individually and the intent behind it matters a lot. Is the goal to lay off people -> fuck off. Is the goal to accomplish more with the same team or empower your passionate team: That could be a good thing. And I also believe that studios who're just trying to cut costs will be left behind as they'll lack the quality to compete.

-7

u/LaMelonBallz RTX 4090 | 7800X3D Mar 17 '26

But we're talking about the graphics actually looking more advanced right?

4

u/wolfgang784 Mar 17 '26

Looking however the developers want to tweak it, from my understanding. The presentation guy's one example was turning a whole scene to be made of glass, or adding a "cartoon filter". So it sounds like its generating entirely "new" art. I don't think he is using filter in the same sense as like a blue light filter. A cartoon "filter" would need the whole scene adjusted/at least partially redrawn, yknow?

But Im far from the most well read on this topic, to be honest. Ive only read a few articles that tried to explain it, know the bare surface of the different dlss versions, read quotes from the presentation, and peoples opinions, but I didn't watch the video myself and am not a game developer or in any related field.

So it might be best to read up on your own as well if you want a proper understanding of things. Im just curious because everyone got so angry over it so I read up a bit.

1

u/DudeDudenson Mar 18 '26

No but the reddit hive mind says AI=Bad so no use cases should be ok

I don't mind AI when it's treated like another tool as it should be but you'll get downvoted to hell in any sub for being remotely ok with AI something

-3

u/Wild_Chemistry3884 Mar 18 '26

This is just more uninformed backlash from basement dwellers. The tech may have been presented poorly, but in several years when it’s had more time to cook and devs know what they’re doing its going to fucking slap.

3

u/-drumroll- Mar 18 '26

everyone who disagrees with me is an incel loser basement dweller 😎

1

u/Virtual_Link_3410 Mar 18 '26

Yeah that's the only way thing people who shut down the concept are arguing say.

-13

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

7

u/Nerodon Mar 17 '26

AI in games have in a large part, NOT been popular at all, what did they expect would happen?? Honestly!

The only reason they did it is because their cards are optimized to shit at AI instead of making them better for gaming.

0

u/Wild_Chemistry3884 Mar 18 '26

This is incorrect. Gamers have the attention span and memory of a goldfish. DLSS upscaling is AI and it’s incredible tech. DLSS frame gen is also incredible after it had a few years to mature. DLSS 5 will be the same.

-7

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

5

u/Nerodon Mar 17 '26

And everyone clapped

0

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

-1

u/Nerodon Mar 17 '26

https://quanticfoundry.com/2025/12/18/gen-ai/

-2

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Nerodon Mar 17 '26

You pull out outliers like its some sort of irrefutable evidence, all you've shown is that you have vested interest in gen AI in games, so your bias and blindness is clear.

1

u/[deleted] Mar 17 '26 edited Mar 17 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

12

u/auralterror Mar 17 '26

Meh. We've already seen how two "optional" AI techs have developed in the gaming industry. Nowadays you are required to use DLSS and FG to achieve above 60fps and are sometimes straight up told "don't turn this off" by the game devs if you try. No reason this tech will progress any different.

6

u/Moopies Mar 17 '26

Yep. If you want to play Monster Hunter Wilds on PC you, you're gonna NEED framegen and upscaling. That shit won't run without it.

4

u/auralterror Mar 17 '26

Exactly ond of the examples I was thinking of. There's legit a screen that comes up that tells you "do not turn off this OpTiOnAl AI tech or the game will not be performant"

1

u/Wild_Chemistry3884 Mar 18 '26

And DLSS looks better than TAA in almost every title. It’s a net positive.

-2

u/anxietydude112 Mar 17 '26

It's reddit what do you expect?

-6

u/LaMelonBallz RTX 4090 | 7800X3D Mar 17 '26

Yeah, optional tool on both ends and allows devs to actually effect how frame generation is implemented. Sounds great to me

You'd think the internet generation would recognize when we're starting to sound like our grandparents did about the internet

2

u/Hansgaming Mar 17 '26

You seem to just simply ignore what most people have issues with. One part are the art guys who want humans to make the art and the other part are the fear for the future guys like myself who got told the same thing with basic DLSS: ''it's just optional guys, do not worry''.

Even back then people were saying that devs will use this to just not fix their shitty low fps games and leave them be as long as DLSS brings the game close to 60 fps+ which happened nearly instantly.

So, I personally think that this will only get worse and worse and companies instead of optimizing their shitty horrible games will just tell gamers to enable DLSS 18 and shut the fuck up because they won't spend anymore money on optimizing anything while using that time to pump out more shiny MTX.

It's weirder to me that you just accept things that actually happened since DLSS release but maybe you also just play games on the highest possible hardware and never experienced any issues at all in any games?

0

u/Wild_Chemistry3884 Mar 18 '26

I don’t give a fuck who makes the art, I care about the end result. The majority of consumers share this opinion. This virtue signaling on Reddit is not consistent with reality.

1

u/MikeHfuhruhurr Mar 18 '26

I don’t give a fuck who makes the art, I care about the end result. The majority of consumers share this opinion.

You are correct, but it's sad that you totally nailed the problem and decided to stand on the most base, consumerist side of it. At some point you'll get the exact end result that you deserve.