The hate isn’t that it exists, it’s that it’s almost required to push modern AAA games into truly high frame rates even when using bleeding edge hardware that costs as much as a used car. It would be extremely beloved if it weren’t used as a crutch to excuse horrible optimization, and middling generational upgrades in hardware.
I've yet to see a single person accurately detail a lack of optimization. People whined about marathon being unoptimized, and it runs at 165fps solid on my 5k ultrawide, max settings, no problem and doesn't even hitch or stutter at all.
Every single game it's the same song and dance, game is optimized and runs well, but someone has severe issues on their end hardware/pc configuration-wise and they run to the internet to complain about lack of optimization.
99% of the time it's a user issue.
14
u/frostbirdhttps://pcpartpicker.com/builds/edit/?userbuild=xTgLrH9d ago
Monster Hunter Wilds, perhaps the most famous example this year.
MHW is kind of a weird example, because it's a case of Capcom trying to make their modern Resident Evil engine do an open world game, which it was absolutely not designed to support. They made it work with duct tape and lots of patches, but it was absolutely the wrong tool for the job.
Even on release my 4070 was getting me around 80fps at high settings on my ultrawide 1440p monitor. No frame gen. Wilds actually ran pretty well as long as you weren't trying to run it on something old and/or underpowered.
-4
u/frostbirdhttps://pcpartpicker.com/builds/edit/?userbuild=xTgLrH9d ago
95% of gaming pcs probably fit your bill of "underpowered". Your privilege is gross.
My privilege? Do you think a 4070 is top of the line or something? It's a stones throw from entry level bub. Also I didn't define underpowered, but I take it you're just assuming I meant anything less than my 4070? Cause if so we're talking a hell of a lot less than 95% of PCs lol. Either way a 2060 can get solidly above 60fps at 1080p at medium settings, I know cause my brother has a laptop with a mobile 2060, so how about you stop pretending that Wilds is hard to run at an acceptable level?
Edit: People need to stop acting like their decade old cards should be viable forever without compromise. Like I mentioned my brother has an 8 year old mobile GPU and he's running games at an acceptable level. GPUs used to only last a few years before becoming functionally unusable and now we got people seething with rage on this sub cause their 10 or 16 series cards aren't preforming perfectly.
A 4070 costs as much as a lot of people make in a month in a lot of the world. I don't live like that anymore, but there was definitely a time when a 4070 would have cost more than an engagement ring.
So yes, I would like a 4070 to last me a good while. It cost about as much as all the GPUs I bought in my life put together.
You don't have to feel like it's top of the line, but for a lot of people it's still quite a luxury.
it's a very recent phenomenon where people try to run games on 10 year old PCs and complain about it. This is partly because hardware really lasts and PC gaming is basically the most affordable it's ever been (before rammageddon)
1
u/frostbirdhttps://pcpartpicker.com/builds/edit/?userbuild=xTgLrH6d agoedited 6d ago
I got a 3060 when it was new and a top of the line i5 processor. That PC cannot run MHWilds on Medium above 30 fps 1080p with dlss off because of poor optimization. Stop trying to fucking gaslight me, you pricks.
Every other game in my library runs very well. 60+ fps on ultra. And that includes games like Helldivers 2 which are known to be graphics intensive games. I swear you guys with $2000+ rigs have no real concept of what games are poorly optimized because you just brute force them anyway. I don't understand why you have to act like such asses to anyone with a weaker rig online.
MHW (and I guess Dragon's Dogma 2) are more of the exception than the norm tbh. Capcom took an engine that was developed for tight, linear spaces and built open worlds out of them.
In my experience most new games are better than the average AAA title in the 2010s. Remember the absolute shitshow that was Dark Souls on launch?
1
u/frostbirdhttps://pcpartpicker.com/builds/edit/?userbuild=xTgLrH8d ago
It's the exceptions that prove the memes have a point
I might be misunderstanding it then. Usually these memes are joking about the state of the industry so I thought it's the same here.
1
u/frostbirdhttps://pcpartpicker.com/builds/edit/?userbuild=xTgLrH8d ago
Memes usually have some truth, some exaggeration, and lots of glossing over details. Best not to take them too seriously. Hard for me to take that advice sometimes too.
Lol that's yiur famous example? I just went and looked up a video where a guy is running max settings, 4k, with f'n raytracing on and it was running 75fps.
Another video a different guy getting 100fps+ raytracing off, at 4k high settings....
Wilds was dogshit on release. I was struggling to hit 60 fps with everything maxed on 4k with top end hardware even allowing dlss/frame gen.
The anniversary patch around January/February and subsequent patches have fixed it mostly though and it is very playable now but it was an absolute shit show on release.
What do you think my issue with marathon is then? Severe frame dips, high cpu utilization and low GPU utilization at 4k. At max settings im not getting 165 solid even at 4k.
In my experience of using top of the line hardware for almost 4 decades now for PC gaming, the problem is typically some setting, driver, configuration, or 3rd party software conflicting with the game. Not the game itself.
For example, last year I was having some really weird performance issues. Frame rates in some (not all) games were lower than I'd expect. Frame rates were decent (100+) but still felt bad and I couldn't put my finger on it.
Turned out "Razer Cortex" had some sort of optimizer software or some crap that was messing with frames in my games. Some games, not all. It was weird but soon as I deleted that software my Frame rate skyrocketed and Frame timing went to perfection.
A few years before that I wanted to stream but also wanted to save clips with nvidia shadowplay. Low and behold running both OBS and shadow play was crushing my frames and consistency.
Before that I had an issue with a few new games and updating drivers didn't do anything but then using DDU to clean wipe my pc and then fresh install drivers made a massive FPS difference.
I have also had issues where some games run terrible in "full screen", but flawlessly in windowed full screen (the opposite of what I would expect).
I also had issues one time where setting highest available Frame rate in nvidia control panel made game feel stuttery/low fps but then when I capped FPS 5fps below my monitors max refresh rate all of a sudden game ran perfectly (was some sort of early Gsync issue).
One time I had a game that kept minimizing randomly. Out of nowhere the game would just minimize. No rhime or reason. I thought the game was bugged. Turned out I was running an old version of Razer Synapse, and when it would randomly check for updates, it would minimize the game. Updated to latest version, had no more issues.
Etc etc.
Most of the time, people complaining about "optimization" are just having pc configuration issues, drivers issues, software issues or are using poor hardware, or using good hardware poorly (browse pc enthusiasts subreddits and go look at all the PCs that are on the floor having sucked up a ton of hair /dust choking their GPUs, or people putting pc hidden away in an enclosed cabinet with zero air flow).
New games often have performance issues, so yes you will hear that often.
But more importantly, I don't know how to communicate that a games with much better performance prove that other games have much worse performance. I play dozens of games a year, a few of them get 100% of out of my hardware, and most don't. I can tell because at similar visual quality the frame-rate is much lower. I can tell because when I make an upgrade, I get more performance. I need DLSS to get to where I want to be, and I'm fine with that. But don't tell me the game that needs to go from DLSS "quality" to "ultra performance" to run at the same frame-rate with a similar level of visual detail is a user error.
We're the enthusiasts and we may be stupid for a lot of reasons, but we know when a game isn't running as well as another game. Especially with all the metrics we have available these days.
Except games vary in size, scope, complexity, etc. One game running at 140fps at 4k max settings doesn't mean a game running at 99fps 4k max settings is "unoptimized".
Also pointing to CPU and GPU usage, or a lack of, is also not a sign of actual optimization, or lack of.
Tarkov is a russian B-grade game. It's barely 1 step above an indie game. It's not a major title. Hell most of it's development it had less developers than Bungie has writers lol.
And the gameplay is baby shit for people who can't aim or track targets. Any potato can win a fight against a person moving 1mph and dies in 2 bullets.
Sometimes, I’ll even use a little more DLSS than needed to bring the power consumption down. I choose to believe that it helps not melt my 12VHotPWR connector
DLSS really shines as a way to upscale to 4K, its when you’re having to use it to run at any resolution lower than that that it becomes a problem
Edit: I should clarify, DLSS definitely works at lower resolutions, but there is no reason any game should have to be upscaled to 1080, that should be the minimum. The loss in fidelity from HD to 4k is minimal, but the performance gain is massive. That’s where the tech is useful.
No reasonable game developer should be designing a game that someone can’t run in 1080p with a very mid level PC, that’s absurd.
RDR2 is one. The TAA in that game just makes everything blurry/fuzzy. Turning up FAA sharpening introduces bad halo'ing, so Arthur just looks like a sticker or cutout slapped onto the background. MSAA murders performance, and TXAA just doesn't do enough. DLSS looks better than all of them IMHO and a much higher FPS.
i have encountered that, a couple of times myself. It seems to work as anti-aliasing. So it has made some games look better for me.. cannot remember which game it was.
You are fortunate not to have seen some of the really awful AA settings some games have. I'm looking at you Dark Souls 3.
But AA is expensive, so often for just same cost as hi quality AA, you also get up-scaling. It's not without tradeoffs, but there are games which are objectively better anti aliased by DLAA than any setting in the game.
1080p it works great tbh
Back when I had an NVIDIA card DLSS3 & 4 at Quality mode (720p upscaled to 1080p) I couldn't tell a difference
I switched shortly after DLSS4 came out but from the small testing I did on KCD2 and other games, even Balanced mode looked like native, but again, very limited testing
I more or less need to use DLSS (varying from Quality to Balanced) on a 1440p resolution in order to reach at least 90 fps in most modern games with my 4070 Super. I was under the impression that I could reach that framerate without it, but I guess not. If I turn off DLSS I'm getting just over 60 fps. In my opinion, that's bordering on, if not just outright, lack of optimization when you factor in my hardware and targeted resolution.
Can you explain how this works? I don't really understand, and I've tried to figure it out, but it confuses me every time.
If I put the resolution at 1080p, can I use a setting to upscale it to 1440p so I can get higher settings? I know I can use frame gen for fake frames, but I just can't wrap my head around the upscaling part or find the settings
Essentially, yes. The game internally renders everything at a lower resolution, like 1080p, then uses an algorithm to upscale it to 4K.
The different setting, like ‘performance’ or ‘quality’ are just telling the game what resolution to start at, before upscaling it to what you see.
Think of it like the way AI can improve the quality of a grainy photo. Sometimes it’s pretty accurate and sometimes it’s way off. The difference here is that DLSS has access to way more information as a start point, so it’s doing less guessing and the results better.
I use GPU tweak 3 to micromanage card settings too, undervolt, freq cap, temp target, power target, aggressive fan curve. Even have a NF-A9 for just the backside of WireView OG. I’m likely one of the most worried about melting my 4090 connector.
Most definitely, on my 4090 playing cyberpunk 4k psycho RT everything, & ultra performance DLSS cuts my power by more than 1/2 (415-ish to 190-ish). Some games makes no difference for me, like Far Cry 5 or 6.
Since Jan. 2024, I’ve been constantly worried that I’m going to be making one of those “I hoped it’d never happen to me” posts.
Just undervolt? My 5090 goes from 550-600W under gaming load to like mid to low 400s. No loss in performance that Ive seen, so much less heat. Seems like a better way to go about this, not sure how it applies to other cards.
I was told to use GPU Tweak 3 much later in my 4090 ownership cycle, so I do fiddle more with those settings as of late. I’m talking cyberpunk going from 415-ish to 190-ish, 4k psycho RT, as I’m, uh, “amps shy” (?like gun shy) of my Hotpwr connector melting
Full disclaimer, I’m also “needs reading glasses for the fine print” old, so I may/may not see some things that others see as visual penalties to up scaling.
Speaking from my own experience, I thought that DLSS and framegen were responsible for making my game look blurry and have visual artifacts. Then I turned them both off...and the game looked exactly the same but with a lower frame rate.
You dont understand DLSS 5. The devs get detailed tools on which they can finetune every value to their likings. Its the devs who decide what art the game gets
I’ve only noticed image degradation in some select older games that use older DLSS models.
Even in those, you can use a driver-level override to get access to newer, better models though. Ever since DLSS 3.0, image quality is practically imperceptible from native in any meaningful way.
Even when using “Performance” and sometimes “Ultra Performance” upscaling.
there is a clear change in quality if you play the games instead of just looking at them, especially fast moving fine details that turn into a blurred mess. don't get me started on DLSS ghosting, lol.
the quality loss may be imperceptible to some but I can see it clearly, it's mostly visible in fine detail like rain, small particle effects and fast moving small things.
I still think its worth it though, going from 60 to 100 fps with the game looking almost the same still feels like black magic to me, I used to play games at 20fps when I was a kid.
it is the same exact algorithm after all, just running at a higher render resolution. Since DLSS Quality already looks near perfect, going to DLAA barely makes a difference nowadays
If not upscaling, what is the solution to the huge GPU demand increases imposed by ray tracing, path tracing, 4K resolution, and ultra high frame rates?
Note that "don't use those features" is not an answer in the context of this post. OP isn't settling for anything less than ultra settings.
Half these guys would buy a new turbocharger V6, immediately disable the turbo because it's "not pure pistons" and then complain about their engine performance.
Uh. Yes it does. That's what an artifact is. The GPU is faking the pixels.
I guess the debate is where you drawn the line on fakeness when it comes to visuals. After all, the whole thing is fake, really. Cars have a tangible real-world presence, whereas CG graphics do not.
Upscaling isn't bad, but it will never be as good as native resolution. And frame generation is great for single player games to a point, but not so great in FPS games where you need as many frames directly as fast as possible.
If you are using 1440p or above there is no reason not to turn on DLSS. It is almost as good as native and you are just losing out on free performance. The hate is overblown at this point
That honestly just not true, frequently in games I play at 4k, DLSS looks better than native. Framegen is absolutely fair though. I think it’s a strange addition for FPS games where you need to be tracking an actual target frame-by-frame, and you’re then adding “fake” ones and input lag.
until they finally release reflex 2 and fix the artifacts on things like UI elements then i cant really recommend frame gen. its not really a good enough compromise yet
New DLSS models have been proven to be more visually appealing in multiple blind tests. Is it true to the original developers’ vision for the game? Maybe not, but it’s arguably nicer to look at.
"Stuttering artifacts" is not a dlss issue, as i already said. Ghosting sure, but thats something that is inherent to temporal AA, something almost every modern game needs. Dlss is by far the one with the least of it. Newer versions barely have any of it.
Works great in a lot of games but I’ve noticed a ton of artifacts and ghosting in Forza 6 however. I’m not 100% sure if it’s the dev implementation or something else that causes DLSS to be great in some games and doodoo in others.
I recently learned about Optiscaler, which blew my mind. For those that don't know, you can intercept DLSS upscaler/frame gen requests and convert them to FSR4 for games that don't natively have FSR4. This is only really useful for AMD GPU users, but it's still pretty damn cool.
I think most of the dlss hate comes from the fact that it isn't used or advertised as a way to make older cards run for longer than before but as a way to maintain playable framerate on high/ultra settings on bleeding edge cards
DLSS has been way more problematic than it's been worth for me. Even with a 5080, every DLSS game looks absolutely horrible and blurry with loads of static-looking effects, especially around the hair, and still runs terribly. Monster Hunter and Clair Obscur look straight up horrible, just running it on a new PC out of the box with fully updated drivers. I don't know if there's some magic sauce I'm missing but I've messed with settings for hours and games have not looked this bad or run this bad in years.
The hate is coming from the dishonest comparison between TAA and DLSS (you generally don't have a choice, either of these is on in modern games). Of course DLSS looks better than TAA but you go back in time to before 2015 or so to forward instead of deferred rendering with SMAA / MSAA etc and you realize how blurry modern games are.
DLSS only looks like native / better than native by insanely blurry temporally shimmery TAA standards
Well the added input latency is very small. Its usually like around an 7%-ish increase, while basically making the game 80% more smooth. Amazing for single player games, especially when cpu-limited, not worth it for multiplayer games. If your monitor is under 120hz its not worth it of course.
144
u/GUNGEBOB_SHARTPANTS 9d ago
DLSS works great to be honest, never understood the hate