Not sure about DLSS or XeSS but FSR can be enabled in driver to work with any game. It’s just the performance and image quality is better for games that directly support it. Driver based FSR requires AMD GPU.
I've seen a few cases where the in-game scaling is relatively good, but this especially applies to what you said that 4K output where you're working with more pixels is best. This kind of in-game scaling is very prevalent in console titles, and it's only now we are starting to see some console games use FSR (both 1.0 and 2.0) with mixed results.
I've noticed just about every newer game offers upscaling now in lieu of lowering the native resolution. This is actually a smart new standard. I decided to test upscaling compared to native when I was heavily playing Diablo 4. On my 1080ti and 4k monitor, it was pretty easy to overload with 4k native ultra settings. Heck it had trouble with 4k medium settings. The Diablo franchise came a long way in graphics, so that's nice. It can be played on super high end gear and look amazing or it can be played on grandma's hp all-in-one, still fun to play. Anyway, I found that FSR 2.0 'balanced' with all the graphics settings on ultra is the most optimal setting. The native 4k textures don't look any better than the ultra textures upscaled and the fps nearly doubles with much fewer hickups during heavy gameplay. Thanks for compiling this info to help explain all these gimmick upscaling technologies. If I had an rtx card I'd try dlss. But the AMD fsr 2 has been my go-to algorithm for many hours of Diablo 4 and it's darn good with low input latency even with the Nvidia latency reducer boost shut off
If you are playing at 1080P, have an RTX card and want your have to look when better, you can use DLDSR in conjunction with DLSS. It basically takes a lower resolution upscales it above 1080P and then downcales it back to 1080P. You end up getting a more detailed and sharper image. I've used it in Horizon Zero Dawn and it looks absolutely amazing IMO
No way, everything is so blurry even compared to original lower settings. Those two GPU companies are testing something new but customers paid the cash.
I dissagree, DLSS is absolutely in league of Its own and I noticed that it produces better image quality then native TAA, Im gaming in 1440p and Ive compared DLSS to FSR multiple times and FSR is just worse native resolution while DLSS fixes flickering and rough edges that native resolution comes with too. If you have enough performance headroom DLAA is the GOAT.
You do state that native is always better, but that is not true in some cases. DLSS Quality (2 or 3) can sometimes produce scharper images with less noise in the background.
Yes with DLSS supplanting the temporal anti-aliasing of the game engine with its own solution sometimes distant objects come out clearer, it's pretty cool
Thank you for this explanation. I have a few older cards of both AMD and Nividia that I am trying out (first time PC gaming) and wanted to know what those resolution modifying methods do. Seems like these upscaler methods can benefit older cards.
Getting harder and more expensive to shrink the die size. Once everyone's on 1-4 nanometer chips, going to be fewer and fewer gains. And Nvidia trying to leave the dGPU market for AI isn't a good sign either.
Super Resolution R+D+i has been there since the beginning of discrete gpus and also in optics... it's just interesting that doing integer operations you can manage to do much faster now and with much less power aproximated floating point algorithms... Silicon Graphics used it decades ago because there was no possibility of making better hardware...now is a mix of marketing, real technology, overpriced access, not much adoption, no free or dirver level to implement even for developers... the same as ray tracing, real time ray tracing is a good illumination technology pursued for decades in order to show realism i nsimulaton or scenery...important for gaming? alot to talk... launched products are stagnated on the perfr5omance, but not all arre build using the same updated noe technology or efficiency or custom optimized software so... I agree as a customer is awful to choose or to see how difficults is to try to mix and match meaningful technologies and reasonable price... but technology, innovation and possibilities are out thre...why they don't go to market in a sensible priced way and time?
Dear Mr. PCWorld, you made a mistake in this. A 90% scale of 1080p, which is 90% of the pixels, requires a resolution of 1821x1025. A resolution of 1728x972 only has 81% of the pixels. You can't just multiply the vertical resolution by the percentage, you have to multiply the number of pixels by the percentage (or just use an online calculator to do the math for you).
You're right in terms of pixel count. At the same time game menus tend to refer to the scaling options as X% (and it's assumed that's on each axis) -- so this gets confusing quickly.
And you need a solid understanding that users can't just pick which technique to use since XeSS and DLSS can only be used on their respective hardware. So If you have an AMD card, FSR is the only one you can use and you have 0 choice. With that out of the way....
And then there is Alan Wake 2 which does not even let you play at native resolution 🥲😄 Upscaling from 540p while having RTX4080 is something abhorent in my opinion. Can you maybe make a video about what technology Remedy used since the game is beyond insanely demanding ? Upscaling from such low resolutions is huge loss for AW2 in my opinion, maybe Remedy should focus on creating better storyline than breathtaking graphics (saying that as a fan of Control)...but I digress. Thanks for the video.
I did this for the last 7 years.. I still have a cheap 4K Acer Monitor, I bought at Best Buy on sale about 7 years ago. My Old PC Rig only had an RX480 in it, so Most of the time I would set my games up at 1080P on a 4K monitor and not notice in games. But Content live movie's and thing's like that would show just how bad the monitor is.. Now I have a 6800XT and it pushes 4K all day NP.. But I am still stuck with the Acer monitor.. I want HDR badly but don't want a 27" monitor or a 42" C2 LG... it's so sad that there soooo very few Great HDR 32" monitors at or under 500 bucks.. But you can get a 42" Tv with a good 600HDR for $400/$500 Bucks it makes zero sense!! As soon as you try and find a 120Hz Tv at 32" with OLED, YOU Can't!!! they are always 60Hz at 32"s for some reason.. As soon as you hit the next size up they jump from 60hz to 120hz.. SMFH.. Why??
So i have 2050 RTX playing forza horizon 5 in high setting fullHD getting around 80FPS should i turn dlss performance or quality i prefer more quality image or maybe i do upscaling
Don't kid yourself, upscaling isn't a feature. Graphics should be drawn at a higher resolution then downscaled to the display, just like in video production where you shoot/scan at 8K and output at 2K or 4K
Tried the same game "Starfield" in 2 settings via old Nvidia GPU, high graphic with "scale down" texture, and simple low graphic. DLSS, FSR or whatever it is, "scaled" setting looks way, way, way worse than native low setting. Meanwhile in Cyberpunk 4K benchmark with RT, FPS dropped from native 80+ to 20+, I ain't seeing any better "steam dust effect" or better lightning, but I do realize the tree models are pretty bad. Ray Tracing is a scam, along with "scaled" graphic.
It is spatial upscale like FSR 1 but it looks better because it is updated and regularly tuned by AI so has better detail reconstruction but still doesn't quite match FSR 2.0 Recommended to mod temporal upscalers before trying out LS
To be honest, I didn't expect PC world to have such a poor content. With such a title the video should be more than what we should use or what we shouldn't. There should have been tests conducted on actual games comparing each one of these technologies, but there is none which means all information given in this video is based on estimates and logic which is far from perfect. If you test these upscaling technologies and compare them you would fine that at some instances using DLSS can even output better image quality than native resolution, but you assumed that native is always better which is not the case. One more thing: using XeSS instead of FSR 2 isn't always the best thing to do even while using arc GPUs. Real actual tests would have given real useful information to viewers about that rather than just telling them what they already know...
This technology would be actually really good if you could just use them on any game.
or with any card or even train your own games to be faster the more you play the more you shave...
Not sure about DLSS or XeSS but FSR can be enabled in driver to work with any game. It’s just the performance and image quality is better for games that directly support it. Driver based FSR requires AMD GPU.
It was possible day one. Lossless Scaling, ShaderGlass, IntegerScaler, magpie. You're welcome. I'm sure there's many more apps out there.
@@JasonB808 XeSS also works on everything
magpie be like prrrrr
I've seen a few cases where the in-game scaling is relatively good, but this especially applies to what you said that 4K output where you're working with more pixels is best. This kind of in-game scaling is very prevalent in console titles, and it's only now we are starting to see some console games use FSR (both 1.0 and 2.0) with mixed results.
this explained a bit to me what all these terms meant. I always found it vague but i have a better understanding now. Thank you!
I've noticed just about every newer game offers upscaling now in lieu of lowering the native resolution. This is actually a smart new standard. I decided to test upscaling compared to native when I was heavily playing Diablo 4. On my 1080ti and 4k monitor, it was pretty easy to overload with 4k native ultra settings. Heck it had trouble with 4k medium settings. The Diablo franchise came a long way in graphics, so that's nice. It can be played on super high end gear and look amazing or it can be played on grandma's hp all-in-one, still fun to play. Anyway, I found that FSR 2.0 'balanced' with all the graphics settings on ultra is the most optimal setting. The native 4k textures don't look any better than the ultra textures upscaled and the fps nearly doubles with much fewer hickups during heavy gameplay. Thanks for compiling this info to help explain all these gimmick upscaling technologies. If I had an rtx card I'd try dlss. But the AMD fsr 2 has been my go-to algorithm for many hours of Diablo 4 and it's darn good with low input latency even with the Nvidia latency reducer boost shut off
If you are playing at 1080P, have an RTX card and want your have to look when better, you can use DLDSR in conjunction with DLSS. It basically takes a lower resolution upscales it above 1080P and then downcales it back to 1080P. You end up getting a more detailed and sharper image.
I've used it in Horizon Zero Dawn and it looks absolutely amazing IMO
No way, everything is so blurry even compared to original lower settings. Those two GPU companies are testing something new but customers paid the cash.
Blocky video due to compression algorithm to adress image quality of rendering... could someone turn the quality of videos on youtube ON, please...
That'll never happen unless they start charging people $30+/month. The bandwidth they'd need would go up astronomically.
Thank you for these videos.
Great content it helped me a lot great work man i really appreciate ur channel and content love from India ❤
I dissagree, DLSS is absolutely in league of Its own and I noticed that it produces better image quality then native TAA, Im gaming in 1440p and Ive compared DLSS to FSR multiple times and FSR is just worse native resolution while DLSS fixes flickering and rough edges that native resolution comes with too. If you have enough performance headroom DLAA is the GOAT.
You do state that native is always better, but that is not true in some cases. DLSS Quality (2 or 3) can sometimes produce scharper images with less noise in the background.
Yes with DLSS supplanting the temporal anti-aliasing of the game engine with its own solution sometimes distant objects come out clearer, it's pretty cool
Thank you for this explanation. I have a few older cards of both AMD and Nividia that I am trying out (first time PC gaming) and wanted to know what those resolution modifying methods do.
Seems like these upscaler methods can benefit older cards.
What strikes me is how GPUs are stagnant and therefore need crutches. But they call it technology
What are you even talking about rn?
its rtx bro.. it's very taxing . now path tracing has benn introduced its even more resource hog than ray tracing.. even 4090 is nt enough.
Getting harder and more expensive to shrink the die size. Once everyone's on 1-4 nanometer chips, going to be fewer and fewer gains. And Nvidia trying to leave the dGPU market for AI isn't a good sign either.
Super Resolution R+D+i has been there since the beginning of discrete gpus and also in optics... it's just interesting that doing integer operations you can manage to do much faster now and with much less power aproximated floating point algorithms... Silicon Graphics used it decades ago because there was no possibility of making better hardware...now is a mix of marketing, real technology, overpriced access, not much adoption, no free or dirver level to implement even for developers... the same as ray tracing, real time ray tracing is a good illumination technology pursued for decades in order to show realism i nsimulaton or scenery...important for gaming? alot to talk... launched products are stagnated on the perfr5omance, but not all arre build using the same updated noe technology or efficiency or custom optimized software so... I agree as a customer is awful to choose or to see how difficults is to try to mix and match meaningful technologies and reasonable price... but technology, innovation and possibilities are out thre...why they don't go to market in a sensible priced way and time?
Youre ignorant
You should probably add some clarification on what technology can be used on what brand of cards, if this is geared for the "newbies".
Dear Mr. PCWorld, you made a mistake in this. A 90% scale of 1080p, which is 90% of the pixels, requires a resolution of 1821x1025. A resolution of 1728x972 only has 81% of the pixels. You can't just multiply the vertical resolution by the percentage, you have to multiply the number of pixels by the percentage (or just use an online calculator to do the math for you).
You're right in terms of pixel count. At the same time game menus tend to refer to the scaling options as X% (and it's assumed that's on each axis) -- so this gets confusing quickly.
@@retrosean199 Well if that's true then I withdraw my objection.
Yeah, Keith was referring to what is visualized in the game UI.
-Adam
I dislike tech videos that pretends not to be biased, whereas we all are biased.
I'd rather hear someone who assume what he likes.
And you need a solid understanding that users can't just pick which technique to use since XeSS and DLSS can only be used on their respective hardware. So If you have an AMD card, FSR is the only one you can use and you have 0 choice. With that out of the way....
XeSS is open source like FSR
It's just not true. XeSS also works with nvidia and amd cards, it's just using dp4a.
And then there is Alan Wake 2 which does not even let you play at native resolution 🥲😄 Upscaling from 540p while having RTX4080 is something abhorent in my opinion. Can you maybe make a video about what technology Remedy used since the game is beyond insanely demanding ? Upscaling from such low resolutions is huge loss for AW2 in my opinion, maybe Remedy should focus on creating better storyline than breathtaking graphics (saying that as a fan of Control)...but I digress. Thanks for the video.
What game is that at 8:23? Looks fun.
He explained native res. I guess this video isnt for me....
I did this for the last 7 years.. I still have a cheap 4K Acer Monitor, I bought at Best Buy on sale about 7 years ago. My Old PC Rig only had an RX480 in it, so Most of the time I would set my games up at 1080P on a 4K monitor and not notice in games. But Content live movie's and thing's like that would show just how bad the monitor is.. Now I have a 6800XT and it pushes 4K all day NP.. But I am still stuck with the Acer monitor.. I want HDR badly but don't want a 27" monitor or a 42" C2 LG... it's so sad that there soooo very few Great HDR 32" monitors at or under 500 bucks.. But you can get a 42" Tv with a good 600HDR for $400/$500 Bucks it makes zero sense!! As soon as you try and find a 120Hz Tv at 32" with OLED, YOU Can't!!! they are always 60Hz at 32"s for some reason.. As soon as you hit the next size up they jump from 60hz to 120hz.. SMFH.. Why??
MAY DAY is back!
So i have 2050 RTX playing forza horizon 5 in high setting fullHD getting around 80FPS should i turn dlss performance or quality i prefer more quality image or maybe i do upscaling
if you prefer quality why did you even ask
Does DLSS work better on 2070 Super compared to other techs? Does it work at all?
Native wont necessarily better with TAA applied, or that other AA that softens the image.
Upscaling is good for APUs!!!!
Don't kid yourself, upscaling isn't a feature. Graphics should be drawn at a higher resolution then downscaled to the display, just like in video production where you shoot/scan at 8K and output at 2K or 4K
What a dumb take lmaok
Tried the same game "Starfield" in 2 settings via old Nvidia GPU, high graphic with "scale down" texture, and simple low graphic. DLSS, FSR or whatever it is, "scaled" setting looks way, way, way worse than native low setting.
Meanwhile in Cyberpunk 4K benchmark with RT, FPS dropped from native 80+ to 20+, I ain't seeing any better "steam dust effect" or better lightning, but I do realize the tree models are pretty bad. Ray Tracing is a scam, along with "scaled" graphic.
Just do it the old school way, let your monitor upscale. LOL
Representeded? That’s not even a word man. You mean ‘represented’.
Dlss always makes my game feel jank
what about lossless scaling?
It is spatial upscale like FSR 1 but it looks better because it is updated and regularly tuned by AI so has better detail reconstruction but still doesn't quite match FSR 2.0
Recommended to mod temporal upscalers before trying out LS
4:21 Represented - not representeded.
Where’s Gordon
sir aapko send kha karu
this video looks upscaled
just YT things™️
dlss actually looks better than native with anti aliasing in most of the games
logo
Mr beast
To be honest, I didn't expect PC world to have such a poor content. With such a title the video should be more than what we should use or what we shouldn't. There should have been tests conducted on actual games comparing each one of these technologies, but there is none which means all information given in this video is based on estimates and logic which is far from perfect. If you test these upscaling technologies and compare them you would fine that at some instances using DLSS can even output better image quality than native resolution, but you assumed that native is always better which is not the case. One more thing: using XeSS instead of FSR 2 isn't always the best thing to do even while using arc GPUs. Real actual tests would have given real useful information to viewers about that rather than just telling them what they already know...
Those weren't all the scaling options. You neglected AMD VSR and Nvidia DLDSR
The title was about "upscaling" technologies, not scaling technologies.
@@IslamGhunym Yet native is somehow the "best" upscaling
Didn’t know Mr. Beast is also a tech guy 😂
Native is not always best.
99.9999% it's the best :P
-Adam
@@pcworld Not if the game uses crappy AA.
About this topic, wanna talk about AMD "partnerships" ?
as long as you also want to talk about NVidia "partnerships"
@@RedLine0069 i'm not a big AMD fanboy, so no thanks
Partnerships ? more like bribery.
@@RedLine0069 Ooooooo sure why not. You know about the geforce partner programme ?
@@riccardocattozzo2579 of course you are not, you are a Nvidia Fanboy