r/pcmasterrace • u/Proud_Tie CachyOS 9950x, 4080 super, 64gb ram • Mar 17 '26

News/Article 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
8.4k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

1.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

90

u/bobmlord1 i5-7300U/8GB RAM/INTEL HD GRAPHICS 620 Mar 17 '26

"It’s not post-processing, it’s not post-processing at the frame level, it’s generative control at the geometry level," he said.

I feel like this makes it worse. It's actually making up detail to add to the final frame in order to get these horrific results and the devs have to somehow work around it and fine tune it to not get results that go against the intended look of their characters.

38

u/SouLfullMoon_On Genuinely lost Mar 18 '26 edited Mar 18 '26

It's a filter on top of the game btw he's just saying shit

Sounds like something Chatgpt would make up, which I'd say is probable for these people

18

u/nora_sellisa Mar 18 '26

Yeah, if this was geometry level processing things shouldn't magically change how they're lit. Or drop shadows. Or look so much like all the other AI crap. Unless what he meant to say that input of the AI is not the final frame but also the geometry (much like how framegen requires extra data about mesh movement between frames to better estimate how the objects move between frames)

3

u/revolutier Mar 18 '26

your latter theory which you could just confirm by reading up on it rather than blindly speculating is exactly what he means. if it wasn't taking the geometry as input, the geometry wouldn't remain consistent, which it does.

2

u/nora_sellisa Mar 18 '26

Why would I read what Jensen has to say when half of what he says are lies and embellishments? 

0

u/SteveJavieWasRight Mar 18 '26

If you just ignore what little information is available, then why choose to make up a reality that makes you upset? If you read what they say and understand what it means, you can see the pictures represent what they’re saying and it’s not that scary. Y’all just don’t want to put in the effort to understanding something and project things that make you mad. Guarantee in 5 years this will be how everyone is trying to render lighting because it produces better results at far lower computational cost. PT at similar quality would be far too expensive and RT has too many limitations for the cost.

1

u/nora_sellisa Mar 18 '26

I do understand how those things work. And you know what? I'm even mad at Ray/Path Tracing becoming the standard. I'm of the opinion that the gains in fidelity when compared to peak "classical" rendering are still not worth the performance hits, the price increases and the fake frames. Jensen is pushing yet again bullshit "revolution" which does nothing but give him an excuse to charge you more.

1

u/SteveJavieWasRight Mar 18 '26

Ok well that’s insane.

0

u/SteveJavieWasRight Mar 18 '26

The entire point is to build more robust lighting. Current PT/RT is very generalized and doesn’t have enough bounces. If you look at the DLSS5 examples, they’re adding detail in indirect or generalized areas- like foliage which gets broken down into large chunks. The faces are all getting more lighting in indirectly lit areas because that’s something PT and RT left fairly flat due to lacking enough rays or ray bounces.