i played it at launch and for ages it had this issue and u needed to edit the ini or it would silently be half ur res. i imagine it is now fixed but i cant say because i haven't revisited it (unfortunately due to the unavoidable shader compilation stutter)
Thank you SO MUCH for this! Most tech channels stopped caring about budget-related stuff so videos like this are very much needed. Please - if possible, dedicate one video each to FSR and intel XeSS at 1080p. For budget gamers it's more useful than ever as the $100-$200 GPU segment continues to be ignored by both AMD and Nvidia (and intel needs REBAR which is an unreasonable request at this price range).
1080p doesn't mean budget. I have a 4070 Ti and play at 1080p. Firstly because my old monitor is still fine and secondly, i like to play games at high fps while having high details.
Stop simping. Sub 200 is ignored only by Nvidia not AMD. Nvidia offers 3050 6gb under 200 while AMD has 6600 under 200 which slaughters even the normal 3050.
A strategy people use with DLSS at 1080p is to use DLDSR feature in Nvidia drivers which would use tensor cores to filter a non-integer downscale and it seems that when supersampling from 1620p and downscaling to 1080p with DLDSR, it produces comparable results to supersampling from 4K with traditional gaussian filtering used in DSR. So you could render e.g. at 1440p with DLDSR and then use DLSS at performance (which is 720p internally) and after the upscale it will downscale to the monitor resolution of 1080p. It has a little bit worse performance than DLSS quality at 1080p, although it still is faster than native TAA rendering and looks better than 1080p quality DLSS. Unfortunately, because there is no official way to manualy change the resolution scale the DLSS would use (instead of predefined presets like quality, balanced and so on) this is the best way to utilize the tensor cores for a better image quality and game fluidity. It would be really awesome if you could also test this configuration or maybe something like DLSS tweaker which would allow you to use custom resolution scales. Edit: I tweaked .ini config file when playing Talos Principle 2 and changed the internal resolution scale when using DLSS (could be used with other upscalers like XESS or TSR) and set it to 83% instead of the 66.67% used in quality mode. It looked a lot better and still performed better than DLAA.
Great comment, but kinda proving why I'd rather just game on my consoles if I can get 1440p @ 60fps. The endless tweaking just isn't fun for me anymore (7900xt owner).
@@rocstarang5747 Yep, definitely understandable, since everything on pc is soo customizable that it always draws you into a huge loop on how you can squeeze better performance or visuals whereas with consoles you can have a peace of mind not having to bear the burden of optimising the game & knowing it isn't on you & you also can't do much if you wanted too.
These comparisons will become ever more complicated in the future when some engines have their won TAA-based accumulators and upscales, like UE5 with its own TSR which is by default completely replacing pure TAA. And new versions of UE5 sometimes have some changes to how it works too.
@@PaulC-xv4zr DLAA is very performance heavy while DLSS is purely performance focused. BUT, in some cases with bad TAA implementation DLSS in quality mode can be just fine and even add more details on top of native res image.
@@TheMrRadishI’m still willing to bet the majority (50% + 1) of RTX card users are still using 1080p panels. A lot of people would rather max out fps instead of resolution, not to mention the upgrade cost.
I do tend to use DLSS at 1080p simply to get extra frames, and I guess I'm just not as bothered by the small shortcomings as you are. That said I do wish more games would add a DLSS sharpening slider because as you stated some games are just much blurrier than they should be, and a little sharpening helps a lot even though it does tend to add a few more artifacts. CP2077 at 1080p Quality DLSS with around 35% sharpening is the best balance for visuals and performance for my taste.
If I dont see the native and dlss comparison side by side I cant even tell the difference and if you run a 24 inch monitor like i do you cant notice it.
Oh you ABSOLUTELY can tell in person@@BladeCrew YT compression favors DLSS here because it looks like dogshit anyway, but in person you can absolutely tell
Why not just use CAS sharpening with Reshade? DLSS sharpening isn't anything better, actually probably worse. And as far as I know newer versions of DLSS just ditched sharpening completely, which is great in my opinion. Older versions had it forced even when at 0 and looked way worse.
I agree. I think this video kind of glosses over the fact that it's used to hit those frames and to enjoy a smooth/er experience (particularly on newer titles) which is far more important than the odd image hiccup or slight blurriness, which, if I'm frank, isn't noticeable when playing - to me, anyway. It's a huge difference playing at an average of 40-50fps vs 80-90fps, for example.
@@HyperScorpio8688 nice try amd dickrider. i play every single game with dlss quality on my 1080p 360hz monitor simply to get more frames and dlss quality looks really good. (cant tell the difference)
Thanks, Tim! Love that you’re showing some love to 1080p gaming. I think the biggest takeaway is that it’s friggin’ 2024 and a nearly 300 dollar card is struggling to stay between 50 and 80 fps at 1080p native and that we’re having to rely heavily on upscaling to get consistent +60fps performance in AAA games! I remember getting my 1070 ti way back when and loving the fact that I could finally get a solid 60fps at 1440p with most games at the time, al beit with few minor compromises here and there. If you’d have told me 6 years ago that 1080p performance in games would be this poor in 2024 I would have laughed in your face. Yet here we are. Sure we technically have more detail in modern games, but when we have to rely on upscaling wizardry to get any of the benefits of that detail, what’s the point? Can’t help but feeling that the vast majority of average gamers have been done dirty somewhere along the line, unless you have a 1000 dollars (or two) to burn that is.
I mean i had an RX 6600 which is much cheaper and i never had any issues with framerates at all - infact i tried pushing some games to 1440p and it ran really well. Most people i know who game don't only play AAA or even mostly play AAA releases, most of them have their go to mp game for chilling or an mmo and rarely do i hear people constantly talking about AAA games. (maybe you and the people you know only play AAA games, with the cost of the games $60+ each if you do this please spend more than $300 on a Gpu xD) But imo AAA games today bar some outliers like Cyperpunk , don't actually look that much better than games a couple years ago but boy do they run a lot worse... Is it the AAA studios adding in features that no one would even know was on that gimps performance?
When I got my 660 Ti back in 2012 or so, I could play basically every game at 1080p with maxed settings and never dipped under 60 fps. And the 2-3 afterwards might not've allowed for max settings, but it allowed still for decent settings. I only replaced it in 2017. There was no upscaling back then, you got the resolution you set, and midrange cards could still do it. I mean, I could play Borderlands 2, a 2012 game, on a 2008 HD 4870 nearly maxed out. I played DMC4 on mid settings on a lowly 7300 GT and it ran fine. A friggin 4060 should be able to stay above 60 fps in 1080p max settings in all but the most demanding games!
@@HappyBeezerStudiosI'm not sure what you're on about? in the HWU review of the 4060 it averaged 91fps at 1080p? Honestly unless you're talking Starfied or some really heavy RT / PT games it does run over 60fps at max settings @ 1080p.
6 years is a long time though. Doesn't excuse the poor state of ported games today but technology has come a long way since then. The GTX1000 series is now on it's last legs, even the mighty 1080Ti is challenged in newer games at 1080p.
Amazing to see a video about 1080p! I just upgraded from a 1050ti to a 3050 and mainly play at 1080p. While I imagine most of the subscribers /watchers of your channel are using higher end cards, there are a lot of us little guys around (just look at steam survey). Again, thanks for the content!
you're happy of doing two things wrong. Good for you! For the price of 3050 you could have 1440p display plus better gpu, litlle less, little more money depending on the market... Steam Survey results interpretation is a joke... 11% below FHD, 59% FHD, 30% multi display or bigger than FHD (1 of 6 steam gamers plays on 2560x1440p, 16% of the total)... at least tell me you're on 24" display? or a 32 TV?
@@Mr_Bloodjack make the effort of connecting your 4070ti to a 4K TV with at least hdmi 2.0 cable and v-sync to 60Hz, but if you are lucky your tv has freesync support upto 120Hz, you will flip out on the missing pixels you were not able to see with your current setup... and power/energy wise you are wasting electricity because most effiencient way of playing 1080p 60Hz is 4060/4060Ti (or even cheaper RX 6600)... search also for DLAA and rendering down sampling, at least if you have GTA V you can put everything at ultra at 1080p but go to internal resolution scaling and put it to maximum, you won't lose FPS, but image quality improvements will be overthe moon (the bigger the display the better)...
Cyberpunk recently added DRS DLSS , or dynamic dlss where the internal resolution sales to match the desired FPS target. On my 1440p monitor with target FPS set to 60 I was consistantly running at internal resolution between 75-100% while DLSS Quality sets internal resolution to 66%.
Thanks for your comment, any chance you could explain what you mean exactly? As in you have had DLSS sets the internal resolution to 66% when Quality Mode but you also use it in tandem with Dynamic Resolution? I'm already aware of what the 2 technologies are but I am a bit confused about your comment. I struggle with articulating my thoughts but I am basically asking, are you running both Graphics Options at the same time or you choose one or the other when you want to?
@@yourlocalhuman3526 Think of how consoles use FSR with a target FPS of 60 . the DRS works within the Upscaler rather than having static resolution preset's like "Quality" or "Performance" . I just uploaded a video testing this if you want to check it out
The vast majority of gamers use 1080p monitors, 1440p and 4k are basically people using their TV as a PC monitor or 'home office' spreadsheet monitor, it's very niche.
@@DavideDavini Steam survey for Jan 2024. It says that for 59.7% of participants their primary display resolution is 1920x1080. 2560x1440 is at 16.02%.
@@proesterchenWhy does TAA get to be "proper" when both are literally rendered natively? Incidentally, I don't think I've ever preferred TAA to DLAA in a game where the latter is an option. DLAA does sometimes leave a few more jaggies, but this is usually because TAA is agressively wiping detail out of existence. Just compare distant buildings in Spider-Man Remastered, at 1440p the difference is quite shocking.
I'd actually love an IQ comparison between 1080P native and DLDSR 1.78x and 2.25x (with DLAA/TAA and Quality... etc modes) Thanks for the video, looks like DLSS still struggles at 1080p (limits of the rendering resolution too big to overcome)
One of the often-missed factors when measuring DLSS quality is framerate. As the variation between individual frames becomes smaller on higher frame rates, DLSS will be able to resolve motion much better and as a result provide better upscaled images. I would like to see a comparison that tries to artificially lock FPS to 30-60-120-240 and observe quality of DLSS under these circumstances.
It's simple - more performance (especially when you're under 60fps range) is worth minor loss in image quality, especially that you won't even notice most if it when focusing on gameplay rather then focusing on fishing artifacts and issues related to upscaling. Also - Ideally upscaling should have percentage slider rather then fixed presets, or at least ultra quality preset especially relevant at lower resolutions.
Yeah, you can set your own internal resolution on each preset per game using DLSSTweaks, but it should have been supported natively by every game that supports DLSS.
Or even better: Having the option DRS. So depending on the FPS target your get a higher resolution where you would see details better and lower resolution where your wont see a difference because if gameplay.
You can't "Scale to higher resolutions", if your hardware is 1080p, that's your Native display limitation. You can Render Higher, and Downscale to Native (essentially it's SSAA). DSR is Nvidia's version of Downscaling, with added Gaussian Blur post processing pass on top of raw downscaling, while DLSS Upscales a lower Render to your Native Display. DSR DL uses DLSS to upscale to a higher Render which is less taxing on your GPU but make no mistake, it's still Downscaling to Display & much bigger performance hit than Native. As a rough guide if you can Render & Display your Native Res @ 144 FPS+, you get 60 FPS with DSR 2.25x DL. A better option these days DLAA + Native Rendering.
@@uhurunuru66091440p with DLSS quality versus 1080p with DLAA will have similar performance, but 1440p with DLSS quality offers better image quality, so there's no point in using 1080p with DLAA.
I hate TAA. I also hate that TAA is forced into the rendering pipeline of most titles these days and cannot be disabled, especially on console. TAA motion blur and picture softness makes 1440p content look almost 720p in so many games. I would rather disable anti aliasing altogether and take shimmering grass/hair and jaggies just to have a sharper picture because modern anti aliasing techniques are absolutely terrible. I'll die on this hill, thanks.
I guess hardware reviewers get spoiled by high end hardware that they get all nitpicky with lower end stuff. I honestly look at these "obvious DLSS artifacts" and I'm like dude, I see nothing wrong with it. And if that gives me 20 more FPS, hell yeah I'm gonna use it.
Yeah I mean if its the only way you have to make the game playable ok sure but if you have top of the game desktop you would probably want to have the max quality you can get with the most performance so its also ok all I know is that when I got to play on 120 fps I cant go back to 60 it looks and feels choppy and delayed also I like native res more dont really like upscalers because I am very aware to the delay in input ive been playing rithmic games since young so is very noticeable for me some people doesnt even feel the difference I do started playing skyrim at 15 fps and have been gaming in low fps my whole life this year I got a nice pc just to feel how is a normal game
I'd really prefer it if DLSS and FSR used internal resolution sliders instead of presets, then you could just set the render resolution to like 900p at 1080p so you get ok image quality.
Or, at least, it'd be great to have "Ultra Quality" preset, which rendered image at ~850p. It would probably be the best compromise in terms of image quality and performance ratio. Though the is still a way to use DLSS on a 1080p screen with great results. Just enable DLDSR (1,78x), switch in-game resolution to 1440p and then enable DLSS (Balanced). This way you will get better image quality and better performance then at native 1080p. I was using this settings pretty often, when I had 3060.
It seems like this comparison mostly boils down to the quality of TAA implementation between games. Might be worth it to compare it without TAA, which seems to be the main variable here, not the DLSS itself.
I mean that wouldn't make much sense? Games look horrendous without *some* AA. And TAA being the standard it makes a ton of sense to use that as a baseline since that's what the vast majority of people are used to see and use.
remember that if the image resolution and quality is poor, UA-cam spoils the graphics even more. In fact, on a full HD matrix it doesn't look that bad at all, being 22 inches
Thank you for testing 1080p. 60% of gamers still use it. I have just upgraded my old 27" 1080p monitor to 180Hz 27" 1080p monitor and don't care for higher resolution at all.
Been using DLSS/FSR for 1080p for a long while now, if it's very well implemented it will seems as if there's no loss of image quality if set to "Quality" mode in 1080p and in some cases where games use aggressive or badly implemented TAA, you can get actual better image clarity since DLSS/FSR is less blurry. I know Hardware Unboxed has always been very against using it in 1080p but the vast majority of folk are still gaming in that resolution and with how horribly demanding/unoptimized AAA titles have become and how garbage the prices for GPU has become the new standard, 1080p is still the way to go for even mid range builds like a Nvidia 3060-esk levels, ESPECIALLY for anyone not living in the USA , cause outside in places like Europe prices can be up to double almost or very least 50% more expensive for hardware versus USA. We are currently in an age of gaming where it's rare to see new triple A titles hit from a major studio that does not need upscaling AI tech due how bad most things run natively now. I mean, it can very easily be argued that folk gaming in 4k or 2k aren't even technically gaming in that resolution, they are going down to like 1080p and upscaling to 2k or 4k and us in 1080p are technically gaming in 720p upscaled to 1080p. We pretty much too a step backwards in resoltion numbers these several years.
Where are you getting badly implemented TAA? By the way TAA works it will always cause artifacting. Its makes an issue that DLSS or any other upscalers usually gets to solve. The best solution is to no use any AA & AF any more on any games.
My experience is that I can usually get better a result with mixing and matching settings, rather than blanket sweep the whole thing with a preset and upscaling.
In a blind test, most people cant tell the difference. Just like with texture quality between high and ultra (even less so in fast paced games medium and ultra) (vram craze). You guys should invite some casuals and hardcore gamers and have the same setup x2 with the same games not side by side, have them look and test and see if they can tell any difference which one is which. Maybe have an additional mode, a third one. And also compare texture qualities, but dont inform the BLIND users what has changed because if they know its a texture comparison they'll start pixelpeeping. Which isnt what normal people do. Many of the examples in this video cant really be seen in the video in realtime only when you slow it down, making most of it, nitpicking. Especially when the two modes TAA vs DLSS trade their tradeoffs.
Good points. I believe that when you have to zoom at 2X and do a slowmo to see the differences, the difference in detail quality won't matter. If DLSS gives superior performance with such hard to find differences, then it is better to go with DLSS.
@@Naxxagamer Why bother looking for flaws if 99% of the gamers most likely wont spot them, even more so when you can get a 30-60% performance gain from using DLSS?
Great video. The only criticism I would like to add is that there is a huge difference in render quality between TAA on/off. I would even say that when using TAA, it's not enterily correct to call it "native", since TAA at 1080p drastically reduces image sharpness (even more so in motion).
I'm actually pretty impressed with dlss quality at 1080p. I mean we're talking upsampleing from a 720p render. The fact that its even comparable is great.
It's not comparable. Nobody plays games without any movement. Like the video said once in motion there is clear ghosting and artifacting. All upscalers at 1080p looks good without any movement.
@@brettlivingston595 take off those fanboy glasses. What are you impressed by, the artifacting or ghosting?...dlss quality at 1440p looks ok, beyond that it looks trash. Knock it off.
@@brettlivingston595 you do game at 1080p, stop lying 🤥. Nothing wrong with that. Just stop lying. The comparison in this video is the same comparison that people use against dlss Vs fsr at 1440p. So I don't understand how dlss is acceptable in this video, but fsr is labelled terrible. That has to be bias.
Good, you don't want to see the difference.. For me, it's screen tearing and small frame drops. None of my friends can notice or tell a difference. but I can, and it's like nails on a chalkboard to me because I took too much interest in it. It started to ruined gaming for me
For 1080p users there´s only one type of upscaling worth using, upscale to 1440p because that looks great. In most cases 1440p mid setting still looks way better than 1080p maxed out on the same 1080p monitor.
You should check 1440p dldsr from 1080p monitor with dlss as its miles better than 1080p native. Especially textures and sharpness look massively better. Edit: The star wars with 1440p dldsr even with performance dlss looks miles better than 1080p.
I think this is more about people needing DLSS for increased fps, while DLDSR will actually harm your framerate very much. But you are right in the way, that 1440p+ display might be utterly redundant, and only a better graphics card (whcih then could use DLDSR) is needed for most people.
@@elmariachi5133 when you use 1440p dldsr with performance dlss, it is equivalent to 1080p quality dlss as both upscale from 720p.. the performance difference is very minimal.
Excellent video! I personally game at either 4k on an oled tv or on a 1440p monitor depending on the game and regularly use dlss to do so. Recently I helped a friend do some upgrades to his pc which included the move to an rtx 4060 and he games on a 1080p 144hz display. We play a lot of remnant 2 and I was interested to see how dlss looked on his 1080p display. I couldn't notice really any difference in image quality during gameplay but I did notice the much higher frame rate.
I've got no other chance but playing Cyberpunk with FSR activated since I've only got a GTX 1070. Is it an optimal picture? No. Is it well enough to enjoy the game? Hell yeah! And that's what matters!
You could also try the driver-level upscaler for NVidia, it's in the control panel. "Image Sharpening" is the setting, you enable the upscaler from there. IIRC you then need to set your in-game resolution to one that's just less than 1080p (only specific resolutions allow the upscaler to work). It might be better than FSR in some games.
Please do a video on TAA on vs TAA off. I really feel like this tech alone destroyed a lot of clarity in texture quality and in-motion. That off is next to perfect old school gaming but we need alternative Anti-Aliasing methods.
I mean what do you really expect to happen? It's going to look super jagged with no artifacting because nothing is affecting it. But most games with TAA NEED it on because they way they are rendered is specifically with TAA in mind
Alternative AA method is basically higher resolution. But we are still talking about 1080p in 2024 so talking about higher resolutions is just imagination land for another 20 years. Heck even then it still may be in the imagination land. The old techniques like FXAA (which was dog shit, it just basically blurs the whole image in hopes to make you stop seeing jaggies), MSAA which worked fine for the old type of rendering techniques but for modern graphics rendering it just doesn't doo much as there are a lot of meshes and shaders that MSAA just can't multisample. TAA is the only solution for now beside increasing resolution (and really resolution increase is the key to having proper image with no temporal artefacting and no upscale garbling). But since we are so deep in upscaling with TAA I don't think TAA will be replaced any time soon.
I love that 1080p is now considered, "not too demanding for entry-level hardware", when a decade ago it was just starting to be the mainstream resolution and a 960 could barely manage 60 FPS in most titles with the settings turned to high.
Don't fall for the 1440p/4k gaslighting, 1080p is by far the most popular resolution for good reasons (performance, low heat/noise gpu solution, cost vs, simply buying a Playstation).
@@kesamek8537 LOL I think you meant to post to someone else? Nothing in my post mentioned anything other than 1080p. More to the point, there is no gaslighting involved in the 1440/2160 resolutions. They offer more fidelity via more pixels. That's just science.
@@kesamek8537Gaslighting? Does being more popular make it better? 4K is simply a superior image. There’s nothing by more than that. To me, 4K ruins the presentation of a game, with the bluriness and aliasing being extremely distracting/immersion breaking.
Isn't it interesting where we're heading in graphics? This perfectly illustrates how the way we talk about resolution is changing, and how the old way of looking at it doesn't quite apply in the age of upscaling. Even more so when we bring frame gen into the mix, where 80 fps with frame gen is a completely different thing from native 80 fps, even when you don't take latency into account. Great video, definite subscibe from me!
I've been playing games on 43" 4k TV for 2 years. Never tried 4k, 1440p monitors. But now I'm back to PC currently using 24" 1080p. And to be honest I don't feel like I'm missing that much with 1080p. It mostly the size of the screen seems too small now and maybe the quality of the panel but 1080p resolution is not that big of a deal to me. At least it denitely not the case like when your game runs poorly and you decide to leave it for the future when you can appreciate it. It's perfectly fine
I also went back from 1440p 'productivity' video/audio editing monitor to a separate 1080p for gaming. I miss nothing, I gain performance and I can run my gpu without cranking it which only blasts out heat and eats up electricity for no benefit to me at all. 1080p rules for gaming and the majority agrees.
I believe you but when I used my 4k tv as a monitor it felt really uncomfortable because of the size. No way i would use it like that. I'm curious to try 32" 4k. @@kingplunger1
1080P performance mode scaling is definitely something that handheld PC users would be doing (Steam Deck, ROG Ally, MSI Claw, Lenovo Legion Go), so there would be an audience that's interested in the performance improvements, but not necessarily the image quality because the display is much smaller.
Ever since I have moved to a 3050 laptop, I have to use DLSS at 1080p to get good experience. It was not as bad as thought it would be but then I used DLSS swapper to put DLSS 3.1 or DLSS 3.5 in every game and damn, it was so much better, so close to native the difference was huge. Never going back to native res now unless I have more than enough performance. In games like death stranding, Horizon zero dawn and Rise of the Tomb Raider the only way to get decent Anti- Aliasing is DLSS or FSR 2.
There's one thing though, On 1080p perfromance gain from upscaling is rather small compared to 1440p or 4K. So yeah, upscaling is still better suited to higher resolutions.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat Errr no, this is incorrect. Output resolution has nothing to do with perf uplift. It's all about the rendering methods. RT gets much bigger inprovements than raster. 4090 gets the same boost running raytracing dlss quality at 4K as a 2070 doing the same at 1080p.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat yeah, the upscaling itself also costs performance and that performance cost scales with the performance of the built-in tensor cores your gpu can provide. Which isn't necessarily that much in case of a rtx 3050 laptop variant. It does not have a lot of them (and "only" 2nd gen as well). The performance cost also scales with the resolution (scaling to higher resolutions costs more performance), but at those resolutions the performance *gain* of having to render far less pixels can heavily outweigh the performance *cost* of having to upscale. But those costs and gains might be more similar at 1080p, so it balances out a bit more. Like HWUB showed here: Around 36% gain on average. That would be much higher for 4K Performance DLSS (which would still render at 1080p internally). 4k/1440p dlss is still be slower than 1080p dlss, though. The gain from using dlss is just better relatively speaking.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombatI don't think mobile 3050 is a good reference point for upscaling performance comparisons. It's basically too cut down on everything and we know that DLSS requires some baseline hardware horsepower to be more efficient like Tensor cores. When I had RTX2080Ti it worked quite well with upscaling to 1080p giving me basically 720p native performance with better visual quality.
if you want to play a blurry fudge and have "more" fps (ghost fps) with 2-3x latency have fun. dlss is just a gimmick for fps chunkies. I dont even use TAA (or high level taa) because it makes the image little bit blurry. dlss is just a way too expensive and overengineered AA
Why did TAA have to be the AA Solution to stick around nowadays... I miss the days where you could choose between SMAA, MSAA and SSAA instead of just having to rely on TAA or FXAA now, we have the horsepower to run these solutions now, why did they have to be abandoned now??
SSAA crushes performance. Lots of games still have the option for SMAA but it also has problems (Intel CMAA 2 is better but rarely used). MSAA crushes performance and isn't really that great without crushing more performance for 4x + CMAA or something for transparency.
modern gpu's can easily handle msaa. few years back msaa 2x or even 4x was not that demanding i'm sure its even less so now with large gpu caches available @@Navi_xoo
Thank you for this video. Many have lower end systems and this can help. Actually, my friend has an RTX2070 and an 8700k, so for him, dlss ballanced or performance is a must for 60FPS+ gaming.
i will stay with 1080p for quite a while. still looks great on both my 24" desktop monitor and my 46" TV sitting at the end of my bed. my RX 6700XT gives me plenty of headroom to play the games i want at highest settings with 60 or more frames. no need for FSR or fake frames
@@danavidal8774 you definetly wont run lot of games at 60 fps plus with that card...even 4090 struggle to mantain 60 fps in lot of games at 1080p maxed out... people have mind washed...damn guys, wake up to reality!!!
@@danavidal8774 i would need a new monitor and a new tv. show me a good tv with 1440p resolution. no need to spend that money right now. maybe in 5 years when i buy a new pc. next thing i need is a better laptop for work related stuff. i am not a millionair
1. TAA (in 1080p), with any movement of the cameras, the image turns into soap, if you do not move the camera, the image is very clear (meaningless anti-aliasing in one word). 2. DLSS Quality (1080p) is a necessary feature if TAA is built into the game. 3. !!! Advice if the game uses TAA: The best solution is DSR 4k + DLSS Balance/Performnce when using these settings on a 1080p monitor, your in-game image will be better than native 1080p and 2k monitors, and the fps will remain the same. Damn the day when TAA appeared... honestly, it can only work adequately at 4k (and even then with issues). In general, the ancient SSAA is the best AA, as it was and is.
No native all the way for 1080p which is what i go for, if i cant get 60fps+ for 1080p ill gladly tweak the settings to get it But at the moment my 5600/RX6600/32GB ram rig does well betond 60fps for any game so far for high to very older games i can use ultra
One thing i would like to see talk about are the different implementations of temporal upscalers. Those can vary drastically, depending on the engine it seems. There are even games where FSR works better than DLSS. Based on the table it might be worthwhile to investigate even further into this topic. The most astonishing example for me was the FSR2 implementation for No man's sky for the Switch. It just looks so clean and that's for a 720p display with this low-end hardware. I would wish for more if this kind especially for Gaming handhelds!
Thanks for the video! I’m someone who often uses the Balanced & Performance DLSS settings on 1080p. My card is a 2070S and I’m a player who prefers higher fps for better response than visual fidelity. Using these settings can definitely add a bit of graphical jank… but the fps increase is worth it and it looks better than turning textures down to the minimum for example.
Unfortunately, fps increase does nit always mean better response. If the game is dogshit, shit comes out even if you try to clean it up and smear it all over the walls. Like with starfield
I really appreciate this as 1080p is still what the majority of PC users out there are using I believe. it really depends on the title, my 3060 could always do fine with 1080p native but lately titles have come out such as starfield and Alan Wake 2 where I am forced to choose between dumping all the graphics to get a 60+ fps experience or just leaving them on and turning DLSS Quality on. Ultimately, I choose DLSS and its a fine experience. Also, a game like control I can run no problem in native, but I choose to max it out with raytracing and DLSS Quality because it's a much more immersive presentation in my opinion, even if it is a softer image.
12:07 "it may be a personal preference thing as to which issuses you would rather have" This line exactly illustrates the my biggest problem with modern 3D games, indies and AAAs. There's a reggresion when it comes to render quality in new games and I despice it. Games are getting more blurry with less stable picture because of forced TAA and almost mandatory upscaling techniques. My guess is that it happends because devs are using dittering on textures to achive transparecy. Without antialiasing things like grass, hair, fur or leaves look very shimmery. I don't know what happened that made devs use this inferior technique. Sometimes after disabling TAA in confing files, I can remedy this with uping the render resolution and adding some other antyaliasing method like SMAA but It's not possible to do it in every game. I wish that devs would notice this issue and try fixing it, because I fear that future of gaming will be blurry and full of ghosting.
Optimization is difficult and it is much much easier (read cheaper) to slap on a bandaid hack like undersampled rendering with TAA than to spend days upon days optimizing every detail of one effect. In the past when computer performance was lower and such bandaid solutions were not as available companies had no choice than to let the devs optimize, which is how some modern video games have such terrible performance while at the same time not looking much better than older games.
I don't know why no one tests upscaling using 'DL scaling setting' resolution in Nvidia drivers to 1440p or 4k on a 1080p screen. This works really well for me and you can use dlss at upscaled 1440p or 4k and it looks really good and sharp on a 1080p display. Doing this i turn off the awful TAA as this just makes the image blurry and since rendering the game at a higher resolution it looks better than native without upgrading the monitor. Works really well on gamea such as red dead redemption 2.
Depends, the ghosting from cars is good at 4k quality DLSS but there is still some light trails. At 1440p quality DLSS the car ghosting is there but not super noticeable. Ray reconstruction with RT shadows / lighting also adds some weird ghosting effect I've noticed. I play @1440p with DLSS resolution scaling at 75 with Ray reconstruction reflections only. Another problem with CP2077 it seems like enabling Ray reconstruction on Reflections only decreases performance by a lot, not exactly sure why, maybe it enables path traced reflections or something.
The TAA implementation in CP is really bad. The best image quality is achieved using DLAA, since turning off AA (TAA is the only AA option) completely destroys the game's visuals due to how the game was made. The game is destined to be a blur-fest no matter what.
@@Zyxlian Yeah i actually tried the mod that removes TAA it's weird how badly it breaks the game. DLAA / DLSS quality look good though i definitely wouldn't call them "blur-fest". Now that you can scale DLSS it's even better.
Make sure you turn off motion blur in it as well, it’s really bad in CP2077, and if I remember right, it gets enabled every time you change your settings preset. Pretty annoying but looks much better off.
For me : 1080P is all about getting more FSP from lower tier graphics card. DLSS on. 1440P is FSP & Quality (50-50) mid range cards with FSP at 60-100. DLSS on if low on FPS. 4K is more Quality while keeping steady frame rate around 100 FSP. FPS off.
DLSS Tweaks allows you to set any scaling factor for DLSS up to 1.0 and that makes it pretty usable on 1080p even without combining it with downsampling. I mostly use it to enable DLAA in games that don't have it as in game option. DLAA on 1080p makes for about as stable image as I would ever need and it preserves texture quality way better than TAA.
I have yet to encounter a single game where it doesn't work, personally. If I did then I would be using 2.25x DLDSR@100% Smoothness + DLSS Quality to get DLAA. But that does cost more than just regular DLAA.@@stangamer1151
I kept trying to reply to you but my comment keeps getting deleted for reasons beyond my comprehension. I cannot stand youtube anymore, might have to stop posting here completely.@@stangamer1151
This quality analysis comes from someone used to 4K and 1440p image but most people on 1080p monitors have never experienced higher resolution and thus have no frame of reference of how the image should look. An overwhelming majority of the issues pointed out here will not be applicable to them since the DLSS image isn't that different from the native presentation and saying it looks better at 4K means nothing. For a 1080p gamer, this is a fantastic feature as the quality level is often similar to what they are used to while getting a massive boost in performance.
this is one of the most practical explorations of 1080p gaming I've seen in FOREVER. really just loading the games up and showing them off alone is so important to those of us who represent the majority of PC users.
I would love for you to consider a comparison between 4k upscaled/TAA and 4k(no TAA, no upscale, just 4K). There is not many titles these days that can be used for that thought (most don't allow you to disable TAA)... forza horizon 5 is one of them. I think it is important to show what TAA/upscaling made us compromise on (if there is any).
I'm incredibly embarrassed that I never though to check this, but you just solved my problem with deathloop and the wird ghosting artifact on my ironsights. that bugged the hell out of me. Good video.
Better image quality yeah. Better performance? You are lying or imagining things. 1620p with DLSS Quality is DLAA at 1080p rendering + the cost of upscaling. There's ZERO chance you are getting better performance with it than 1080p native.
@@Broformist nah you are right, it is similar to 1080p native, I forgot I use 1620p with balanced instead of quality which is about 940p (still looks better than 1080p native though). Of course it depends on game, e.g. in Cyberpunk I use this in balanced, in other games I use quality, as long as I get stable 60fps I am fine. Main point is that DLDSR with DLSS is better than native 1080p.
If you set scaling to 0.75 with DLSS Tweaks you can get 1080p when upscaling to 1.78 DLDSR, that would save a bit of performance. Or even better, set it to 1.0 and you can probably go DLAA on native, which would probably run about as well as what you do. DLDSR has additional cost, plus DLSS is more costly the higher res it is being upscaled to.@@8Paul7
If you set scaling to 0.75 with DLSS Tweaks you can get 1080p when upscaling to 1.78 DLDSR, that would save a bit of performance. Or even better, set it to 1.0 and you can probably go DLAA on native, which would probably run about as well as what you do. DLDSR has additional cost, plus DLSS is more costly the higher res it is being upscaled to.@@8Paul7
If you set scaling to 0.75 with DLSS Tweaks you can get 1080p when upscaling to 1.78 DLDSR, that would save a bit of performance. Or even better, set it to 1 and you can probably go DLAA on native, which would probably run about as well as what you do. DLDSR has additional cost, plus DLSS is more costly the higher res it is being upscaled to.@@8Paul7
As someone who games at work on gefofce now on a 1080p monitor, its absolutely worth using. The anti aliasing algorithm it uses is better than fxaa and taa. It is usually the best looking option DLAA is ideal, Baldurs Gate looks sooo sick even at 1080p with max settings. MSAA works amazing if you have the power to burn like I do. 1080p destiny basically has no jaggies, stupid clean, if you go 4x msaa.
Probably not unless you have to, to get a playable framerate. Edit: A lot of games here have TAA. I guess almost all modern AAA games use deffered rendering and TAA nowadays another reason to not play those. I don't consider TAA native rendering it's ugly compared to forward rendering with msaa or supersampling in my opinion but you can't test without TAA when there are almost (probably) no dlss games without it forced on (and integrated into the game so much it looks broken without it) huh. I just wish more developers stuck to forward rendering with carefully crafted graphics and clever tricks like Valve did in their source 2 games I just miss the crispness of old games, now they are brute forcing with high resolution to get the level of the detail we used to get in 1080p and lower, not to mention new games requiring 10x the compute power to look worse than 5-10 year old games anyways rant over.
While I also disliked TAA based solutions in the past, I've grown so accustomed to the look and the far better results with transparency and odd cases like thin objects that at this point I prefer it over the old stuff. Add on top DLSS and I have no intention on going back. Do also note that current games push orders of magnitude more geometry with their environments and much higher res textures and more complex PBR materials. You wouldn't dream of running Pixar level graphics with real-time ray-tracing back when source 2 games were being released.
This ↑. I'd love to see a comparison with MSAA, that's a lot closer to what I would call "native" with antialiasing. TAA is already using some sort of temporal upscaling to reduce per frame required details. But I don't know of any game supporting both MSAA and DLSS :/
You are not smart. Do you understand that SSAA destroys performance? Do you really think a bit of MSAA would solve this problem and it also destroys performance? LOL game devs can still implement this it's just pointless because DLSS or even TAA look as good or better when it comes to 4k and doesn't destroy performance.
@@Navi_xoo Nobody said anything about SSAA, did they? MSAA does solve aliasing, like it or not, it's obviously more demanding than some other AA solution but it also offer the lowest amount of artifacting. Also I don't think you've actually compared TAA to MSAA to say that it looks better, in motion the difference is quite easy to see. Talking about performance is great and all but it wasn't really the point, we are talking about visual quality in motion.
@@Navi_xoo There is already a performance difference in the video, since DLSS is going to be more performant than TAA. Also, no matter the resolution, DLSS and TAA will look blurrier than native or MSAA. As someone who plays at 4k, DLSS and TAA are not an option for me because of the blurring it adds. I would much rather turn down shadow quality or something a little bit to enable MSAA or another better AA method, but games don't even offer that option anymore. Anyone who says things like "TAA or DLSS is not noticeable at 4k" has never actually tried it, or they are just too used to motion blur.
I would really like to see comparisons of power consumption. With 40ct/kWh, and the environmental impact in mind it's the real reason for me to use upscaling.
DLSS is incredible, it is the main reason I got a 4080. That and driver support. In the future when AMD matures their software I will definitely give them a try too.
Same here. Although I'm not holding my breath for FSR. Sure, it looks all right on comparison screenshots of stable images, but it's terrible in motion. I find DLSS much better. DLSS I'd run at quality mode even if just for the visual upgrade. FSR I wouldn't enable unless I really really have to.
@@pituguli5816 I don't need to. Think about it like this. A graphics card will always have a limit on how many FPS it can make it a given game. Even a 4090. If DLSS looks just as good, if not better than native Resolution, and gives 20% more fps, why not enable it?
@@cherryfruit5492Because not look better, downscale resolution DLSS quality 1440p is 1080p so how game look better if downscale resolution? I try DLSS 1440p with quality setting, make game look wash out and distance object blurry. This better for 4k because lower resolution to 1440p still retain sharpness decent fidelity but 1440p downscale to 1080p not good imo. You maybe not need to because you own 4080 but majority PC gamer not have powerful GPU still need use downscale to run new game. Imo this should not be case for people worry about downscale make this most important issue, important issue console ports buggy not run properly dev use excuse DLSS FSR not release game running well. I not agree downscale better than native resolution, this Nvidia marketing tell gamer better graphic if downscale resolution but when think logical how downscale resolution better than native? Sorry for my English I speak other languages, I learn English now for few months.
I feel in many games 1080p native looks far too blurry and shimmery due to bad TAA which is fixed by DLSS. Cyberpunk 2077 is a prime example - especially in the nomad area. I was about to make a video on this, have several screen captures, but HU bbeat me to it XD
Am i the only one that thinks the differences are minute? I had my screen two inches away from my face and still struggled to see much difference in detail.
I'm sure you're not the only one, many people watch UA-cam videos on their phones. How much detail do you really expect to see on a small screen like that though? Especially factoring in UA-cam compression, resolution and potential quality loss if you don't have the best connection speed. Watching this video on a proper 4K monitor the differences are clear as day. Also, how the hell can your eyes focus at 2 inches?
Neah trust me on a monitor going from 108pp to 720 you will see it,you cant see it on a phone because its small but on a 22 inch monitor you can see it
@@stangamer1151 there is a difference on a 21 inch that you can see,it is there,not a big one but enough to the point where you can say yep thats 720p,but on a tv oh boy thats gonna look 🤢
@@chrys9256 I was watching on a galaxy tab s8 plus which is 12.4 inches tablet and 1440p, i feel like i can sus out more detail on that thing usually because i can press it really close to my face, unlike a monitor. It's also not that i couldn't distinguish what the guys were talking about, it's just that i feel like we're splitting really small hairs on details that can pass through the blink of an eye if your playing these games at a somewhat normal pace. Maybe these are big deals to alot of people, but to me i'd rather enjoy a smoother gameplay than worry about it.
If you want more image quality from 1080p, and have a Nvidia card, use DLDSR + DLSS. Way better than native 1080p. Sure you get a performance hit from DLDSR but DLSS helps with it. The image gets so much sharper and clean, compared to native 1080p that looks like a smudge.
Dlss looks ugly to me in a lot of games, much more ugly than fsr and blurrier too in a lot of cases. Perhaps fsr has improvement artifacts, but overall far appears more 'natively sharp' to me? If you hay makes sense
@@cairndouglas4040 nah fsr looks worse like in almost every case. Dlss depends on how good it was put into a game. Some games have almost zero differences from dlss to native, others have a pretty obvious sharpness loss. Rdr2 doesn't look the best with dlss, but to be fair, rdr2 looks even on native blurry
@@Heisen_burger-dudeI'm with him, I've found myself using FSR more than I'd like to admit, DLSS just smears the image sometimes and it feels foggy at times, FSR despite the minor artifacts is just easier on the eyes for me
Because most games don't support it and people want to see how does DLSS compare to traditional native res. Also if you think TAA is a blur filter, you are spoiled. Wait till you see the FXAA or the super shimmery MSAA or the super demanding SSAA.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat I think you might want to read up on anti-aliasing methods. TAA is a blur filter, using out-of-date data from (a) previous frame(s) blended with the last computed frame. FXAA is a blur filter without the previous frame component. MSAA is geometry-only, so any "shimmery" you'll find there is merely the inside of triangles not being altered at all. To me, native is native, as in a fully-rendered frame not using stale data or blur filters. This whole nonsense of trying to include blur filters in the "native" image has been done since the release of DLSS, for some reason, and DLSS has traditionally benefitted from image quality comparisons being done against these "native," not native frames.
Thanks for demonstrating the results! One of my friends tried to push to Nvidia and one of the arguments was the DLSS technology. Thankfully I did not listen to him, since I was playing at 1080p :P
I once got a 52" 4k monitor and it gave me headaches with oversharpness so close to you, I could see every pixel and that was a bad thing. Since then I've learnt to appreciate a softer image for my eyes and brain sake and it's not that bad in most cases.
Great idea to test this at 1080p, especially curious for DLSS as I don't have access to it! I support testing FSR and XeSS too. I've seen potential for using XeSS that is not a big image quality sacrifice but the performance wasn't much.
Jedi: Survivor continues to amaze me with how badly they've managed to execute it
Best moment was launch day when the game was struggling to run higher than 50fps even at lowest setting running on 13900K + 4090
@@damara2268that’s just BS, I played it on a 3080 and 7800x3d at launch and got 100fps or so.
@@sijedevos2376 it’s possible it simply wasn’t optimised for 40 series
@@sijedevos2376 because it was forcing 50% render scale in an ini LMFAOOO
i played it at launch and for ages it had this issue and u needed to edit the ini or it would silently be half ur res. i imagine it is now fixed but i cant say because i haven't revisited it (unfortunately due to the unavoidable shader compilation stutter)
Thank you SO MUCH for this! Most tech channels stopped caring about budget-related stuff so videos like this are very much needed. Please - if possible, dedicate one video each to FSR and intel XeSS at 1080p. For budget gamers it's more useful than ever as the $100-$200 GPU segment continues to be ignored by both AMD and Nvidia (and intel needs REBAR which is an unreasonable request at this price range).
There's a reBAR mod that works really well. I'm using a 5820K and an ARC A750.
1080p doesn't mean budget. I have a 4070 Ti and play at 1080p. Firstly because my old monitor is still fine and secondly, i like to play games at high fps while having high details.
The Phoenix APUs are a good option for budget gamers, a Zen4 octa-core + an RX 7400 for 330$ total is quite nice
Stop simping. Sub 200 is ignored only by Nvidia not AMD. Nvidia offers 3050 6gb under 200 while AMD has 6600 under 200 which slaughters even the normal 3050.
@@yellowflash511 Yeah the 6600 would be great for the price if Intel didn't exist. I'd probably have one.
A strategy people use with DLSS at 1080p is to use DLDSR feature in Nvidia drivers which would use tensor cores to filter a non-integer downscale and it seems that when supersampling from 1620p and downscaling to 1080p with DLDSR, it produces comparable results to supersampling from 4K with traditional gaussian filtering used in DSR. So you could render e.g. at 1440p with DLDSR and then use DLSS at performance (which is 720p internally) and after the upscale it will downscale to the monitor resolution of 1080p. It has a little bit worse performance than DLSS quality at 1080p, although it still is faster than native TAA rendering and looks better than 1080p quality DLSS. Unfortunately, because there is no official way to manualy change the resolution scale the DLSS would use (instead of predefined presets like quality, balanced and so on) this is the best way to utilize the tensor cores for a better image quality and game fluidity.
It would be really awesome if you could also test this configuration or maybe something like DLSS tweaker which would allow you to use custom resolution scales.
Edit: I tweaked .ini config file when playing Talos Principle 2 and changed the internal resolution scale when using DLSS (could be used with other upscalers like XESS or TSR) and set it to 83% instead of the 66.67% used in quality mode. It looked a lot better and still performed better than DLAA.
The basic problem is 720p internal which should be something the user can set to 900p or some other value to derive benefit with fewer downsides.
Great comment! I'd also love to see a video doing this test. The difference between this method against the 1080p DLSS Quality.
Great comment, but kinda proving why I'd rather just game on my consoles if I can get 1440p @ 60fps. The endless tweaking just isn't fun for me anymore (7900xt owner).
DLDSR is one of the best GeForce feature. I play at 1620p DLDSR with DLSS up to performance... and still better quality than 1080p Quality DLSS.
@@rocstarang5747 Yep, definitely understandable, since everything on pc is soo customizable that it always draws you into a huge loop on how you can squeeze better performance or visuals whereas with consoles you can have a peace of mind not having to bear the burden of optimising the game & knowing it isn't on you & you also can't do much if you wanted too.
Depends on the Game's TAA quality, sometimes it's worth using, others it's not that great
DLSS overrides TAA
@@J0rdan912 yes, that's the point that I am making
rdr2 looks absolutly ass at 1080 with any type of AA
These comparisons will become ever more complicated in the future when some engines have their won TAA-based accumulators and upscales, like UE5 with its own TSR which is by default completely replacing pure TAA. And new versions of UE5 sometimes have some changes to how it works too.
@@PaulC-xv4zr DLAA is very performance heavy while DLSS is purely performance focused. BUT, in some cases with bad TAA implementation DLSS in quality mode can be just fine and even add more details on top of native res image.
love this idea of testing 1080p
considering it's still the most common resolution, yeah
for sure my high end Sony 1080p TV still going strong 💪
@@mihairomulus2488 yeah, but it is about RTX users, not whole PC market.
@@TheMrRadishI’m still willing to bet the majority (50% + 1) of RTX card users are still using 1080p panels. A lot of people would rather max out fps instead of resolution, not to mention the upgrade cost.
i love your mom
I do tend to use DLSS at 1080p simply to get extra frames, and I guess I'm just not as bothered by the small shortcomings as you are. That said I do wish more games would add a DLSS sharpening slider because as you stated some games are just much blurrier than they should be, and a little sharpening helps a lot even though it does tend to add a few more artifacts. CP2077 at 1080p Quality DLSS with around 35% sharpening is the best balance for visuals and performance for my taste.
If I dont see the native and dlss comparison side by side I cant even tell the difference and if you run a 24 inch monitor like i do you cant notice it.
Oh you ABSOLUTELY can tell in person@@BladeCrew
YT compression favors DLSS here because it looks like dogshit anyway, but in person you can absolutely tell
Why not just use CAS sharpening with Reshade? DLSS sharpening isn't anything better, actually probably worse. And as far as I know newer versions of DLSS just ditched sharpening completely, which is great in my opinion. Older versions had it forced even when at 0 and looked way worse.
I agree. I think this video kind of glosses over the fact that it's used to hit those frames and to enjoy a smooth/er experience (particularly on newer titles) which is far more important than the odd image hiccup or slight blurriness, which, if I'm frank, isn't noticeable when playing - to me, anyway. It's a huge difference playing at an average of 40-50fps vs 80-90fps, for example.
@@HyperScorpio8688 nice try amd dickrider. i play every single game with dlss quality on my 1080p 360hz monitor simply to get more frames and dlss quality looks really good. (cant tell the difference)
Thanks, Tim! Love that you’re showing some love to 1080p gaming. I think the biggest takeaway is that it’s friggin’ 2024 and a nearly 300 dollar card is struggling to stay between 50 and 80 fps at 1080p native and that we’re having to rely heavily on upscaling to get consistent +60fps performance in AAA games!
I remember getting my 1070 ti way back when and loving the fact that I could finally get a solid 60fps at 1440p with most games at the time, al beit with few minor compromises here and there. If you’d have told me 6 years ago that 1080p performance in games would be this poor in 2024 I would have laughed in your face. Yet here we are. Sure we technically have more detail in modern games, but when we have to rely on upscaling wizardry to get any of the benefits of that detail, what’s the point?
Can’t help but feeling that the vast majority of average gamers have been done dirty somewhere along the line, unless you have a 1000 dollars (or two) to burn that is.
I mean i had an RX 6600 which is much cheaper and i never had any issues with framerates at all - infact i tried pushing some games to 1440p and it ran really well.
Most people i know who game don't only play AAA or even mostly play AAA releases, most of them have their go to mp game for chilling or an mmo and rarely do i hear people constantly talking about AAA games. (maybe you and the people you know only play AAA games, with the cost of the games $60+ each if you do this please spend more than $300 on a Gpu xD)
But imo AAA games today bar some outliers like Cyperpunk , don't actually look that much better than games a couple years ago but boy do they run a lot worse... Is it the AAA studios adding in features that no one would even know was on that gimps performance?
When I got my 660 Ti back in 2012 or so, I could play basically every game at 1080p with maxed settings and never dipped under 60 fps. And the 2-3 afterwards might not've allowed for max settings, but it allowed still for decent settings. I only replaced it in 2017.
There was no upscaling back then, you got the resolution you set, and midrange cards could still do it.
I mean, I could play Borderlands 2, a 2012 game, on a 2008 HD 4870 nearly maxed out.
I played DMC4 on mid settings on a lowly 7300 GT and it ran fine.
A friggin 4060 should be able to stay above 60 fps in 1080p max settings in all but the most demanding games!
@@HappyBeezerStudiosI'm not sure what you're on about? in the HWU review of the 4060 it averaged 91fps at 1080p?
Honestly unless you're talking Starfied or some really heavy RT / PT games it does run over 60fps at max settings @ 1080p.
6 years is a long time though. Doesn't excuse the poor state of ported games today but technology has come a long way since then. The GTX1000 series is now on it's last legs, even the mighty 1080Ti is challenged in newer games at 1080p.
Amazing to see a video about 1080p! I just upgraded from a 1050ti to a 3050 and mainly play at 1080p.
While I imagine most of the subscribers /watchers of your channel are using higher end cards, there are a lot of us little guys around (just look at steam survey).
Again, thanks for the content!
Mate, I have a 4070ti , still play at 1080p locked at 60fps! ;) Pretty sure that's because I'm an "old" gamer (40yo) and Gameplay comes always first !
@@Mr_Bloodjack what games do you play? wouldn't 4070 ti be super overkill?
you're happy of doing two things wrong. Good for you!
For the price of 3050 you could have 1440p display plus better gpu, litlle less, little more money depending on the market... Steam Survey results interpretation is a joke... 11% below FHD, 59% FHD, 30% multi display or bigger than FHD (1 of 6 steam gamers plays on 2560x1440p, 16% of the total)... at least tell me you're on 24" display? or a 32 TV?
@@DemonDog17probably run Plex media server with 30client
@@Mr_Bloodjack make the effort of connecting your 4070ti to a 4K TV with at least hdmi 2.0 cable and v-sync to 60Hz, but if you are lucky your tv has freesync support upto 120Hz, you will flip out on the missing pixels you were not able to see with your current setup... and power/energy wise you are wasting electricity because most effiencient way of playing 1080p 60Hz is 4060/4060Ti (or even cheaper RX 6600)... search also for DLAA and rendering down sampling, at least if you have GTA V you can put everything at ultra at 1080p but go to internal resolution scaling and put it to maximum, you won't lose FPS, but image quality improvements will be overthe moon (the bigger the display the better)...
Cyberpunk recently added DRS DLSS , or dynamic dlss where the internal resolution sales to match the desired FPS target. On my 1440p monitor with target FPS set to 60 I was consistantly running at internal resolution between 75-100% while DLSS Quality sets internal resolution to 66%.
This should be an option in every dlss game. That's so good, especially without an ultra quality preset to give us something like 75% scaling.
@@Frozoken This option previously existed in both the spiderman we have on PC and it worked pretty well there.
Thanks for your comment, any chance you could explain what you mean exactly? As in you have had DLSS sets the internal resolution to 66% when Quality Mode but you also use it in tandem with Dynamic Resolution? I'm already aware of what the 2 technologies are but I am a bit confused about your comment.
I struggle with articulating my thoughts but I am basically asking, are you running both Graphics Options at the same time or you choose one or the other when you want to?
@@yourlocalhuman3526 Think of how consoles use FSR with a target FPS of 60 . the DRS works within the Upscaler rather than having static resolution preset's like "Quality" or "Performance" . I just uploaded a video testing this if you want to check it out
DRS DLSS isn't compatible with pathtracing.
Finally a video about this as someone who still uses a 1080p monitor. Thanks !!
The vast majority of gamers use 1080p monitors, 1440p and 4k are basically people using their TV as a PC monitor or 'home office' spreadsheet monitor, it's very niche.
@@kesamek8537 Interesting, where can I find the data you are referring to?
Cheers
Only small portion of people using 1440p and 4K monitors lamo. @@DavideDavini
@@DavideDavini Steam survey for Jan 2024. It says that for 59.7% of participants their primary display resolution is 1920x1080. 2560x1440 is at 16.02%.
@@ProtossOP thanks mate. Cheers.
I played cyberpunk in 1080p with a 3060 ti camera, included tracing and dlss quality. I absolutely did not notice any artifacts or problems.
Would love to see comparison DLAA vs native vs DSR 4x dlss performance!
Yeah I hate TAA with a dying passion but DLAA is something I almost always turn on (unless the game just hates the algorithm)
DLSS quality + DLDSR 2.25x typically edges out DLAA while being slightly slower
Indeed. Proper native vs. DLAA (a.k.a. DLSS at full resolution) is the way to isolate how well / badly DLSS is doing.
dldsr 4x Or 2x
@@proesterchenWhy does TAA get to be "proper" when both are literally rendered natively? Incidentally, I don't think I've ever preferred TAA to DLAA in a game where the latter is an option. DLAA does sometimes leave a few more jaggies, but this is usually because TAA is agressively wiping detail out of existence. Just compare distant buildings in Spider-Man Remastered, at 1440p the difference is quite shocking.
I'd actually love an IQ comparison between 1080P native and DLDSR 1.78x and 2.25x (with DLAA/TAA and Quality... etc modes)
Thanks for the video, looks like DLSS still struggles at 1080p (limits of the rendering resolution too big to overcome)
One of the often-missed factors when measuring DLSS quality is framerate. As the variation between individual frames becomes smaller on higher frame rates, DLSS will be able to resolve motion much better and as a result provide better upscaled images. I would like to see a comparison that tries to artificially lock FPS to 30-60-120-240 and observe quality of DLSS under these circumstances.
It's simple - more performance (especially when you're under 60fps range) is worth minor loss in image quality, especially that you won't even notice most if it when focusing on gameplay rather then focusing on fishing artifacts and issues related to upscaling.
Also - Ideally upscaling should have percentage slider rather then fixed presets, or at least ultra quality preset especially relevant at lower resolutions.
Yeah, you can set your own internal resolution on each preset per game using DLSSTweaks, but it should have been supported natively by every game that supports DLSS.
Or even better: Having the option DRS. So depending on the FPS target your get a higher resolution where you would see details better and lower resolution where your wont see a difference because if gameplay.
I'd like to see a video on using dldsr to scale to higher resolutions at 1080p and compare it to native 1440p or more.
You can't "Scale to higher resolutions", if your hardware is 1080p, that's your Native display limitation. You can Render Higher, and Downscale to Native (essentially it's SSAA).
DSR is Nvidia's version of Downscaling, with added Gaussian Blur post processing pass on top of raw downscaling, while DLSS Upscales a lower Render to your Native Display.
DSR DL uses DLSS to upscale to a higher Render which is less taxing on your GPU but make no mistake, it's still Downscaling to Display & much bigger performance hit than Native.
As a rough guide if you can Render & Display your Native Res @ 144 FPS+, you get 60 FPS with DSR 2.25x DL. A better option these days DLAA + Native Rendering.
@@uhurunuru66091440p with DLSS quality versus 1080p with DLAA will have similar performance, but 1440p with DLSS quality offers better image quality, so there's no point in using 1080p with DLAA.
I hate TAA. I also hate that TAA is forced into the rendering pipeline of most titles these days and cannot be disabled, especially on console. TAA motion blur and picture softness makes 1440p content look almost 720p in so many games.
I would rather disable anti aliasing altogether and take shimmering grass/hair and jaggies just to have a sharper picture because modern anti aliasing techniques are absolutely terrible.
I'll die on this hill, thanks.
I guess hardware reviewers get spoiled by high end hardware that they get all nitpicky with lower end stuff. I honestly look at these "obvious DLSS artifacts" and I'm like dude, I see nothing wrong with it. And if that gives me 20 more FPS, hell yeah I'm gonna use it.
Exactly. It allowed my to play through CP 2077 and Phantom Liberty while still looking stunning at 1080p. The haters can gth for all I care.
Yeah I mean if its the only way you have to make the game playable ok sure but if you have top of the game desktop you would probably want to have the max quality you can get with the most performance so its also ok all I know is that when I got to play on 120 fps I cant go back to 60 it looks and feels choppy and delayed also I like native res more dont really like upscalers because I am very aware to the delay in input ive been playing rithmic games since young so is very noticeable for me some people doesnt even feel the difference I do started playing skyrim at 15 fps and have been gaming in low fps my whole life this year I got a nice pc just to feel how is a normal game
Thanks for the info... As a RTX 2060 user, I kick-in DLSS whenever a game runs below 60 FPS and for playing with RT, DLSS is a must...
You not play RT with 2060 and if you do you have the cinematic 24FPS experience. This very bad experience.
I playing with rt on in rtx3050 laptop 😅@@pituguli5816
Bro i have a 4060 and even i dont use RT.. its simply not worth it.
@@quan-uo5ws This correct, I have 3090 and 3070 RT performance very bad. I am move to 7900XTX.
@pituguli5816 how could the 3090 have bad raytracing?? Amd has worse rtx but ok
I'd really prefer it if DLSS and FSR used internal resolution sliders instead of presets, then you could just set the render resolution to like 900p at 1080p so you get ok image quality.
literally
Or, at least, it'd be great to have "Ultra Quality" preset, which rendered image at ~850p. It would probably be the best compromise in terms of image quality and performance ratio.
Though the is still a way to use DLSS on a 1080p screen with great results. Just enable DLDSR (1,78x), switch in-game resolution to 1440p and then enable DLSS (Balanced). This way you will get better image quality and better performance then at native 1080p. I was using this settings pretty often, when I had 3060.
It’s ironic that literally only Starfield has it this way, lol. (It’s a slider that you change from 50%-100% render res.)
@@stangamer1151 Isn't DLAA is basically Ultra Quality preset? A little image boost. No fps boost though
@ymiround No its anti aliasing method on top of native res just like taa. But dlaa has a performance cost, like 5% usually, but way better than taa
I look forward to the FSR 2 version of this video as well, thank you!
cant wait for the FSR version of this.
I’m one of those people using FSR at 1080P. needed it to play cyberpunk with my RX580
It seems like this comparison mostly boils down to the quality of TAA implementation between games. Might be worth it to compare it without TAA, which seems to be the main variable here, not the DLSS itself.
I like that they used TAA as a baseline. It removes AA from the comparison, and showcases the +/- of the DLSS upscaling.
In most games TAA cannot even be disabled because they have their assets created with TAA in mind and look broken without it
Disabling TAA in modern games completely destroys IQ. It wouldn't be much of a comparison.
@@Nein99xespecially at 1080p
I mean that wouldn't make much sense? Games look horrendous without *some* AA. And TAA being the standard it makes a ton of sense to use that as a baseline since that's what the vast majority of people are used to see and use.
So the bad implemtation of TAA is sometimes significant enough, such that DLSS is equally as good.
Devs pls fix
@@PaulC-xv4zr well said, it's basically a red flag for poor dev quality (usually a janky console port)
@@PaulC-xv4zr Thats where shitty 3050 laptops come in kiddo. aka the most selling silicon
@@PaulC-xv4zr that also for the huge price of entry level gpu's
@PaulC-xv4zr 3050 is still very capable and good cheap option for 1080p gaming. Can run most new games on medium settings with dlss, fsr.
@@frankreynolds9930 but 200 bucks is not cheap for 1080p medium with dlss/fsr. That should be 50 to 100 bucks
remember that if the image resolution and quality is poor, UA-cam spoils the graphics even more. In fact, on a full HD matrix it doesn't look that bad at all, being 22 inches
Thank you for testing 1080p. 60% of gamers still use it. I have just upgraded my old 27" 1080p monitor to 180Hz 27" 1080p monitor and don't care for higher resolution at all.
This reminded me of how much I hated TAA
Yup. I woulda liked to see him show an actual native image without TAA on
Thank you Tim!
I would like to see the equivalent at 1080p with FSR.
Been using DLSS/FSR for 1080p for a long while now, if it's very well implemented it will seems as if there's no loss of image quality if set to "Quality" mode in 1080p and in some cases where games use aggressive or badly implemented TAA, you can get actual better image clarity since DLSS/FSR is less blurry.
I know Hardware Unboxed has always been very against using it in 1080p but the vast majority of folk are still gaming in that resolution and with how horribly demanding/unoptimized AAA titles have become and how garbage the prices for GPU has become the new standard, 1080p is still the way to go for even mid range builds like a Nvidia 3060-esk levels, ESPECIALLY for anyone not living in the USA , cause outside in places like Europe prices can be up to double almost or very least 50% more expensive for hardware versus USA.
We are currently in an age of gaming where it's rare to see new triple A titles hit from a major studio that does not need upscaling AI tech due how bad most things run natively now.
I mean, it can very easily be argued that folk gaming in 4k or 2k aren't even technically gaming in that resolution, they are going down to like 1080p and upscaling to 2k or 4k and us in 1080p are technically gaming in 720p upscaled to 1080p.
We pretty much too a step backwards in resoltion numbers these several years.
Agree with everything you said, well said too, except I don't even use DLSS/FSR at 1080p.
Where are you getting badly implemented TAA? By the way TAA works it will always cause artifacting. Its makes an issue that DLSS or any other upscalers usually gets to solve. The best solution is to no use any AA & AF any more on any games.
My experience is that I can usually get better a result with mixing and matching settings, rather than blanket sweep the whole thing with a preset and upscaling.
I honestly use DLSS at 1080p, and it's worth it! (For most games)
In a blind test, most people cant tell the difference. Just like with texture quality between high and ultra (even less so in fast paced games medium and ultra) (vram craze). You guys should invite some casuals and hardcore gamers and have the same setup x2 with the same games not side by side, have them look and test and see if they can tell any difference which one is which. Maybe have an additional mode, a third one. And also compare texture qualities, but dont inform the BLIND users what has changed because if they know its a texture comparison they'll start pixelpeeping. Which isnt what normal people do.
Many of the examples in this video cant really be seen in the video in realtime only when you slow it down, making most of it, nitpicking. Especially when the two modes TAA vs DLSS trade their tradeoffs.
Good points. I believe that when you have to zoom at 2X and do a slowmo to see the differences, the difference in detail quality won't matter. If DLSS gives superior performance with such hard to find differences, then it is better to go with DLSS.
You have to zoom/slow down, because a comparison on UA-cam would be pointless otherwise.
@@Naxxagamer Why bother looking for flaws if 99% of the gamers most likely wont spot them, even more so when you can get a 30-60% performance gain from using DLSS?
It's the same for dlss vs fsr but Nvidia simps still cry about dlss in the comments so why not this as well
@@yellowflash511 What are you even talking about?
Great video. The only criticism I would like to add is that there is a huge difference in render quality between TAA on/off. I would even say that when using TAA, it's not enterily correct to call it "native", since TAA at 1080p drastically reduces image sharpness (even more so in motion).
I googled literally that yesterday, and here it is a video on this topic
Perfect video for people like me who despite have a rtx 4070 card that could use to play in 1440 resolution, still have a 1080 monitor.
I'm actually pretty impressed with dlss quality at 1080p. I mean we're talking upsampleing from a 720p render. The fact that its even comparable is great.
It's not comparable. Nobody plays games without any movement. Like the video said once in motion there is clear ghosting and artifacting. All upscalers at 1080p looks good without any movement.
@@RX7800XTBenchmarks Why don't you cry about it bro. Go touch grass.
@@brettlivingston595 take off those fanboy glasses. What are you impressed by, the artifacting or ghosting?...dlss quality at 1440p looks ok, beyond that it looks trash. Knock it off.
@@RX7800XTBenchmarks lol, I don't even game at 1080p anyways. It's not that serious. Stop crying, you'll feel better.
@@brettlivingston595 you do game at 1080p, stop lying 🤥. Nothing wrong with that. Just stop lying. The comparison in this video is the same comparison that people use against dlss Vs fsr at 1440p. So I don't understand how dlss is acceptable in this video, but fsr is labelled terrible. That has to be bias.
DLAA vs TAA would also be interesting, if you’re considering using TAA on an RTX card. It’s essentially same tech, but with settings closer to TAA
I can't see the difference
Good, you don't want to see the difference.. For me, it's screen tearing and small frame drops. None of my friends can notice or tell a difference. but I can, and it's like nails on a chalkboard to me because I took too much interest in it. It started to ruined gaming for me
@@valentinnoonspecialyup .. I'm thinking about ignoring these too technical videos and just focusing on enjoying the game
For 1080p users there´s only one type of upscaling worth using, upscale to 1440p because that looks great. In most cases 1440p mid setting still looks way better than 1080p maxed out on the same 1080p monitor.
You should check 1440p dldsr from 1080p monitor with dlss as its miles better than 1080p native. Especially textures and sharpness look massively better.
Edit: The star wars with 1440p dldsr even with performance dlss looks miles better than 1080p.
I think this is more about people needing DLSS for increased fps, while DLDSR will actually harm your framerate very much. But you are right in the way, that 1440p+ display might be utterly redundant, and only a better graphics card (whcih then could use DLDSR) is needed for most people.
@@elmariachi5133 when you use 1440p dldsr with performance dlss, it is equivalent to 1080p quality dlss as both upscale from 720p.. the performance difference is very minimal.
Excellent video! I personally game at either 4k on an oled tv or on a 1440p monitor depending on the game and regularly use dlss to do so. Recently I helped a friend do some upgrades to his pc which included the move to an rtx 4060 and he games on a 1080p 144hz display. We play a lot of remnant 2 and I was interested to see how dlss looked on his 1080p display. I couldn't notice really any difference in image quality during gameplay but I did notice the much higher frame rate.
I've got no other chance but playing Cyberpunk with FSR activated since I've only got a GTX 1070. Is it an optimal picture? No. Is it well enough to enjoy the game? Hell yeah! And that's what matters!
You could also try the driver-level upscaler for NVidia, it's in the control panel. "Image Sharpening" is the setting, you enable the upscaler from there. IIRC you then need to set your in-game resolution to one that's just less than 1080p (only specific resolutions allow the upscaler to work). It might be better than FSR in some games.
I've always felt that Nvidia should offer an "ultra quality" option which would be a smaller step than the quality one at 1080p.
Please do a video on TAA on vs TAA off. I really feel like this tech alone destroyed a lot of clarity in texture quality and in-motion. That off is next to perfect old school gaming but we need alternative Anti-Aliasing methods.
DLAA and FSRAA seem superior to TAA everytime I've used them
No AA would leave your game looking like trash. Shimmering everywhere
TAA at higher resolutions is not that bad, shimmering and jaggies are much worse.
I mean what do you really expect to happen? It's going to look super jagged with no artifacting because nothing is affecting it. But most games with TAA NEED it on because they way they are rendered is specifically with TAA in mind
Alternative AA method is basically higher resolution. But we are still talking about 1080p in 2024 so talking about higher resolutions is just imagination land for another 20 years. Heck even then it still may be in the imagination land.
The old techniques like FXAA (which was dog shit, it just basically blurs the whole image in hopes to make you stop seeing jaggies), MSAA which worked fine for the old type of rendering techniques but for modern graphics rendering it just doesn't doo much as there are a lot of meshes and shaders that MSAA just can't multisample.
TAA is the only solution for now beside increasing resolution (and really resolution increase is the key to having proper image with no temporal artefacting and no upscale garbling). But since we are so deep in upscaling with TAA I don't think TAA will be replaced any time soon.
Still plating mostly 1080p with my RTX 4080 laptop, sometimes with the native 1600p if I need to use internal display
I love that 1080p is now considered, "not too demanding for entry-level hardware", when a decade ago it was just starting to be the mainstream resolution and a 960 could barely manage 60 FPS in most titles with the settings turned to high.
Don't fall for the 1440p/4k gaslighting, 1080p is by far the most popular resolution for good reasons (performance, low heat/noise gpu solution, cost vs, simply buying a Playstation).
@@kesamek8537 LOL I think you meant to post to someone else? Nothing in my post mentioned anything other than 1080p. More to the point, there is no gaslighting involved in the 1440/2160 resolutions. They offer more fidelity via more pixels. That's just science.
@@kesamek8537Gaslighting? Does being more popular make it better? 4K is simply a superior image. There’s nothing by more than that. To me, 4K ruins the presentation of a game, with the bluriness and aliasing being extremely distracting/immersion breaking.
Isn't it interesting where we're heading in graphics? This perfectly illustrates how the way we talk about resolution is changing, and how the old way of looking at it doesn't quite apply in the age of upscaling. Even more so when we bring frame gen into the mix, where 80 fps with frame gen is a completely different thing from native 80 fps, even when you don't take latency into account.
Great video, definite subscibe from me!
I've been playing games on 43" 4k TV for 2 years. Never tried 4k, 1440p monitors. But now I'm back to PC currently using 24" 1080p. And to be honest I don't feel like I'm missing that much with 1080p. It mostly the size of the screen seems too small now and maybe the quality of the panel but 1080p resolution is not that big of a deal to me. At least it denitely not the case like when your game runs poorly and you decide to leave it for the future when you can appreciate it. It's perfectly fine
I also went back from 1440p 'productivity' video/audio editing monitor to a separate 1080p for gaming. I miss nothing, I gain performance and I can run my gpu without cranking it which only blasts out heat and eats up electricity for no benefit to me at all. 1080p rules for gaming and the majority agrees.
well, with such a small screen your pixel density is really high. when using a 32 inch monitor 4k looks MUCH better
I believe you but when I used my 4k tv as a monitor it felt really uncomfortable because of the size. No way i would use it like that. I'm curious to try 32" 4k. @@kingplunger1
I have a 17" portable 1080p display, looks sharper than 27" 1440p.
1080P performance mode scaling is definitely something that handheld PC users would be doing (Steam Deck, ROG Ally, MSI Claw, Lenovo Legion Go), so there would be an audience that's interested in the performance improvements, but not necessarily the image quality because the display is much smaller.
Ever since I have moved to a 3050 laptop, I have to use DLSS at 1080p to get good experience. It was not as bad as thought it would be but then I used DLSS swapper to put DLSS 3.1 or DLSS 3.5 in every game and damn, it was so much better, so close to native the difference was huge. Never going back to native res now unless I have more than enough performance. In games like death stranding, Horizon zero dawn and Rise of the Tomb Raider the only way to get decent Anti- Aliasing is DLSS or FSR 2.
There's one thing though, On 1080p perfromance gain from upscaling is rather small compared to 1440p or 4K. So yeah, upscaling is still better suited to higher resolutions.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat Errr no, this is incorrect. Output resolution has nothing to do with perf uplift. It's all about the rendering methods. RT gets much bigger inprovements than raster.
4090 gets the same boost running raytracing dlss quality at 4K as a 2070 doing the same at 1080p.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat yeah, the upscaling itself also costs performance and that performance cost scales with the performance of the built-in tensor cores your gpu can provide.
Which isn't necessarily that much in case of a rtx 3050 laptop variant. It does not have a lot of them (and "only" 2nd gen as well).
The performance cost also scales with the resolution (scaling to higher resolutions costs more performance), but at those resolutions the performance *gain* of having to render far less pixels can heavily outweigh the performance *cost* of having to upscale.
But those costs and gains might be more similar at 1080p, so it balances out a bit more. Like HWUB showed here: Around 36% gain on average. That would be much higher for 4K Performance DLSS (which would still render at 1080p internally).
4k/1440p dlss is still be slower than 1080p dlss, though. The gain from using dlss is just better relatively speaking.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombatI don't think mobile 3050 is a good reference point for upscaling performance comparisons. It's basically too cut down on everything and we know that DLSS requires some baseline hardware horsepower to be more efficient like Tensor cores. When I had RTX2080Ti it worked quite well with upscaling to 1080p giving me basically 720p native performance with better visual quality.
if you want to play a blurry fudge and have "more" fps (ghost fps) with 2-3x latency have fun. dlss is just a gimmick for fps chunkies. I dont even use TAA (or high level taa) because it makes the image little bit blurry. dlss is just a way too expensive and overengineered AA
Why did TAA have to be the AA Solution to stick around nowadays...
I miss the days where you could choose between SMAA, MSAA and SSAA instead of just having to rely on TAA or FXAA now, we have the horsepower to run these solutions now, why did they have to be abandoned now??
TAA eats very little performance and provides stability in motion, unlike other solutions. It just needs to be well implemented.
SSAA crushes performance. Lots of games still have the option for SMAA but it also has problems (Intel CMAA 2 is better but rarely used). MSAA crushes performance and isn't really that great without crushing more performance for 4x + CMAA or something for transparency.
TAA is a glorified blur filter @@8Paul7
modern gpu's can easily handle msaa. few years back msaa 2x or even 4x was not that demanding i'm sure its even less so now with large gpu caches available @@Navi_xoo
Thank you for this video. Many have lower end systems and this can help. Actually, my friend has an RTX2070 and an 8700k, so for him, dlss ballanced or performance is a must for 60FPS+ gaming.
i will stay with 1080p for quite a while. still looks great on both my 24" desktop monitor and my 46" TV sitting at the end of my bed.
my RX 6700XT gives me plenty of headroom to play the games i want at highest settings with 60 or more frames. no need for FSR or fake frames
Yeah, 4K is still overrated.
and why dont jump to 1440p? that GPU is enough for that resolution and 60 fps (ultra settings for most games)
@@danavidal8774 you definetly wont run lot of games at 60 fps plus with that card...even 4090 struggle to mantain 60 fps in lot of games at 1080p maxed out... people have mind washed...damn guys, wake up to reality!!!
@@danavidal8774 i would need a new monitor and a new tv. show me a good tv with 1440p resolution. no need to spend that money right now. maybe in 5 years when i buy a new pc. next thing i need is a better laptop for work related stuff. i am not a millionair
@@GameBacardi 4k is massively better than 1080p you just can't afford it. Because you can't afford it you say it's overrated.
1. TAA (in 1080p), with any movement of the cameras, the image turns into soap, if you do not move the camera, the image is very clear (meaningless anti-aliasing in one word).
2. DLSS Quality (1080p) is a necessary feature if TAA is built into the game.
3. !!! Advice if the game uses TAA: The best solution is DSR 4k + DLSS Balance/Performnce when using these settings on a 1080p monitor, your in-game image will be better than native 1080p and 2k monitors, and the fps will remain the same.
Damn the day when TAA appeared... honestly, it can only work adequately at 4k (and even then with issues). In general, the ancient SSAA is the best AA, as it was and is.
No native all the way for 1080p which is what i go for, if i cant get 60fps+ for 1080p ill gladly tweak the settings to get it
But at the moment my 5600/RX6600/32GB ram rig does well betond 60fps for any game so far for high to very older games i can use ultra
I have the exact setup as you. I don't mind slightly tweaking to get 60+ FPS. I normally play in Low / Medium to get closer to 100.
One thing i would like to see talk about are the different implementations of temporal upscalers. Those can vary drastically, depending on the engine it seems. There are even games where FSR works better than DLSS.
Based on the table it might be worthwhile to investigate even further into this topic.
The most astonishing example for me was the FSR2 implementation for No man's sky for the Switch. It just looks so clean and that's for a 720p display with this low-end hardware. I would wish for more if this kind especially for Gaming handhelds!
Thanks for the video! I’m someone who often uses the Balanced & Performance DLSS settings on 1080p. My card is a 2070S and I’m a player who prefers higher fps for better response than visual fidelity.
Using these settings can definitely add a bit of graphical jank… but the fps increase is worth it and it looks better than turning textures down to the minimum for example.
Unfortunately, fps increase does nit always mean better response.
If the game is dogshit, shit comes out even if you try to clean it up and smear it all over the walls.
Like with starfield
I really appreciate this as 1080p is still what the majority of PC users out there are using I believe. it really depends on the title, my 3060 could always do fine with 1080p native but lately titles have come out such as starfield and Alan Wake 2 where I am forced to choose between dumping all the graphics to get a 60+ fps experience or just leaving them on and turning DLSS Quality on. Ultimately, I choose DLSS and its a fine experience. Also, a game like control I can run no problem in native, but I choose to max it out with raytracing and DLSS Quality because it's a much more immersive presentation in my opinion, even if it is a softer image.
Guess i need to wait for the FSR Version...
My GTX1060 is rly working hard.
FSR looks garbage at 1080p, you should only use it if you set everything else to the lowest and you still don't get a good enough image.
@@lharsayIMO Fsr is only usable at 4K only. There's some Cases when i use Fsr at 1440p & it looks meh compare to DLSS & XESS image quality.
I use xess at ultra quality, it is better than any AA at native in any game I have tried so far
@@MadridistaFrieren that is why is a last option
@@lharsayidk I prefer using FSR in some games at 1080p
I love these videos of yours guys! Any chance we'd see a DLDSR+DLSS vs DLAA vs Native (TAA) comparisons from you in the future?
12:07 "it may be a personal preference thing as to which issuses you would rather have"
This line exactly illustrates the my biggest problem with modern 3D games, indies and AAAs.
There's a reggresion when it comes to render quality in new games and I despice it. Games are getting more blurry with less stable picture because of forced TAA and almost mandatory upscaling techniques.
My guess is that it happends because devs are using dittering on textures to achive transparecy. Without antialiasing things like grass, hair, fur or leaves look very shimmery.
I don't know what happened that made devs use this inferior technique. Sometimes after disabling TAA in confing files, I can remedy this with uping the render resolution and adding some other antyaliasing method like SMAA but It's not possible to do it in every game.
I wish that devs would notice this issue and try fixing it, because I fear that future of gaming will be blurry and full of ghosting.
Optimization is difficult and it is much much easier (read cheaper) to slap on a bandaid hack like undersampled rendering with TAA than to spend days upon days optimizing every detail of one effect. In the past when computer performance was lower and such bandaid solutions were not as available companies had no choice than to let the devs optimize, which is how some modern video games have such terrible performance while at the same time not looking much better than older games.
I don't know why no one tests upscaling using 'DL scaling setting' resolution in Nvidia drivers to 1440p or 4k on a 1080p screen. This works really well for me and you can use dlss at upscaled 1440p or 4k and it looks really good and sharp on a 1080p display. Doing this i turn off the awful TAA as this just makes the image blurry and since rendering the game at a higher resolution it looks better than native without upgrading the monitor. Works really well on gamea such as red dead redemption 2.
Is it just me, or does the ghosting at 4k in CP2077 still look really bad?
Always has been.
Depends, the ghosting from cars is good at 4k quality DLSS but there is still some light trails. At 1440p quality DLSS the car ghosting is there but not super noticeable. Ray reconstruction with RT shadows / lighting also adds some weird ghosting effect I've noticed. I play @1440p with DLSS resolution scaling at 75 with Ray reconstruction reflections only.
Another problem with CP2077 it seems like enabling Ray reconstruction on Reflections only decreases performance by a lot, not exactly sure why, maybe it enables path traced reflections or something.
The TAA implementation in CP is really bad. The best image quality is achieved using DLAA, since turning off AA (TAA is the only AA option) completely destroys the game's visuals due to how the game was made. The game is destined to be a blur-fest no matter what.
@@Zyxlian Yeah i actually tried the mod that removes TAA it's weird how badly it breaks the game. DLAA / DLSS quality look good though i definitely wouldn't call them "blur-fest". Now that you can scale DLSS it's even better.
Make sure you turn off motion blur in it as well, it’s really bad in CP2077, and if I remember right, it gets enabled every time you change your settings preset. Pretty annoying but looks much better off.
For me :
1080P is all about getting more FSP from lower tier graphics card. DLSS on.
1440P is FSP & Quality (50-50) mid range cards with FSP at 60-100. DLSS on if low on FPS.
4K is more Quality while keeping steady frame rate around 100 FSP. FPS off.
DLSS Tweaks allows you to set any scaling factor for DLSS up to 1.0 and that makes it pretty usable on 1080p even without combining it with downsampling. I mostly use it to enable DLAA in games that don't have it as in game option. DLAA on 1080p makes for about as stable image as I would ever need and it preserves texture quality way better than TAA.
It is possible to change DLSS scaling via DLSS Tweaks, but, unfortunately, not in every game. In fact, only a few of them let you do that.
I have yet to encounter a single game where it doesn't work, personally. If I did then I would be using 2.25x DLDSR@100% Smoothness + DLSS Quality to get DLAA. But that does cost more than just regular DLAA.@@stangamer1151
Haven't encountered a game where it didn't work yet. @@stangamer1151
I kept trying to reply to you but my comment keeps getting deleted for reasons beyond my comprehension. I cannot stand youtube anymore, might have to stop posting here completely.@@stangamer1151
Very informative. Great work HUB!
This quality analysis comes from someone used to 4K and 1440p image but most people on 1080p monitors have never experienced higher resolution and thus have no frame of reference of how the image should look. An overwhelming majority of the issues pointed out here will not be applicable to them since the DLSS image isn't that different from the native presentation and saying it looks better at 4K means nothing. For a 1080p gamer, this is a fantastic feature as the quality level is often similar to what they are used to while getting a massive boost in performance.
this is one of the most practical explorations of 1080p gaming I've seen in FOREVER. really just loading the games up and showing them off alone is so important to those of us who represent the majority of PC users.
I used RTX3060 to play CP 2077 - setting RT Overdrive mode at 1440p + ANY DLSS mode turns Night City into ghost(-ing) town.
Not to mention the 15fps.
I would love for you to consider a comparison between 4k upscaled/TAA and 4k(no TAA, no upscale, just 4K). There is not many titles these days that can be used for that thought (most don't allow you to disable TAA)... forza horizon 5 is one of them. I think it is important to show what TAA/upscaling made us compromise on (if there is any).
Maybe a video swapping the dlss dll file to the latest one?
That's the weird thing. I looked in the folder of Dead Space, to see if I should change it and it is using a 3.5v not a 2.5v.
I'm incredibly embarrassed that I never though to check this, but you just solved my problem with deathloop and the wird ghosting artifact on my ironsights.
that bugged the hell out of me.
Good video.
I'd prefer playing at 60+ FPS with DLSS enabled rather than sticking to the native FPS.
hardships of laptop gamer
Thanks for taking a look at upscaling on the most common resolution still in use. GPU prices have been making 1080p great again.
It is worth using with DLDSR for sure. In 1620p with DLSS quality I get much better image quality than in native 1080p. And better performance.
Better image quality yeah. Better performance? You are lying or imagining things. 1620p with DLSS Quality is DLAA at 1080p rendering + the cost of upscaling. There's ZERO chance you are getting better performance with it than 1080p native.
@@Broformist nah you are right, it is similar to 1080p native, I forgot I use 1620p with balanced instead of quality which is about 940p (still looks better than 1080p native though). Of course it depends on game, e.g. in Cyberpunk I use this in balanced, in other games I use quality, as long as I get stable 60fps I am fine. Main point is that DLDSR with DLSS is better than native 1080p.
If you set scaling to 0.75 with DLSS Tweaks you can get 1080p when upscaling to 1.78 DLDSR, that would save a bit of performance. Or even better, set it to 1.0 and you can probably go DLAA on native, which would probably run about as well as what you do. DLDSR has additional cost, plus DLSS is more costly the higher res it is being upscaled to.@@8Paul7
If you set scaling to 0.75 with DLSS Tweaks you can get 1080p when upscaling to 1.78 DLDSR, that would save a bit of performance. Or even better, set it to 1.0 and you can probably go DLAA on native, which would probably run about as well as what you do. DLDSR has additional cost, plus DLSS is more costly the higher res it is being upscaled to.@@8Paul7
If you set scaling to 0.75 with DLSS Tweaks you can get 1080p when upscaling to 1.78 DLDSR, that would save a bit of performance. Or even better, set it to 1 and you can probably go DLAA on native, which would probably run about as well as what you do. DLDSR has additional cost, plus DLSS is more costly the higher res it is being upscaled to.@@8Paul7
As someone who games at work on gefofce now on a 1080p monitor, its absolutely worth using.
The anti aliasing algorithm it uses is better than fxaa and taa. It is usually the best looking option
DLAA is ideal, Baldurs Gate looks sooo sick even at 1080p with max settings.
MSAA works amazing if you have the power to burn like I do. 1080p destiny basically has no jaggies, stupid clean, if you go 4x msaa.
nice job you have there, tell them you wanna put a 4090 as a business purchase, it is for work after all :)
Probably not unless you have to, to get a playable framerate.
Edit: A lot of games here have TAA. I guess almost all modern AAA games use deffered rendering and TAA nowadays another reason to not play those. I don't consider TAA native rendering it's ugly compared to forward rendering with msaa or supersampling in my opinion but you can't test without TAA when there are almost (probably) no dlss games without it forced on (and integrated into the game so much it looks broken without it) huh. I just wish more developers stuck to forward rendering with carefully crafted graphics and clever tricks like Valve did in their source 2 games I just miss the crispness of old games, now they are brute forcing with high resolution to get the level of the detail we used to get in 1080p and lower, not to mention new games requiring 10x the compute power to look worse than 5-10 year old games anyways rant over.
While I also disliked TAA based solutions in the past, I've grown so accustomed to the look and the far better results with transparency and odd cases like thin objects that at this point I prefer it over the old stuff. Add on top DLSS and I have no intention on going back. Do also note that current games push orders of magnitude more geometry with their environments and much higher res textures and more complex PBR materials. You wouldn't dream of running Pixar level graphics with real-time ray-tracing back when source 2 games were being released.
This ↑. I'd love to see a comparison with MSAA, that's a lot closer to what I would call "native" with antialiasing. TAA is already using some sort of temporal upscaling to reduce per frame required details. But I don't know of any game supporting both MSAA and DLSS :/
You are not smart. Do you understand that SSAA destroys performance? Do you really think a bit of MSAA would solve this problem and it also destroys performance? LOL game devs can still implement this it's just pointless because DLSS or even TAA look as good or better when it comes to 4k and doesn't destroy performance.
@@Navi_xoo Nobody said anything about SSAA, did they? MSAA does solve aliasing, like it or not, it's obviously more demanding than some other AA solution but it also offer the lowest amount of artifacting.
Also I don't think you've actually compared TAA to MSAA to say that it looks better, in motion the difference is quite easy to see.
Talking about performance is great and all but it wasn't really the point, we are talking about visual quality in motion.
@@Navi_xoo There is already a performance difference in the video, since DLSS is going to be more performant than TAA. Also, no matter the resolution, DLSS and TAA will look blurrier than native or MSAA. As someone who plays at 4k, DLSS and TAA are not an option for me because of the blurring it adds. I would much rather turn down shadow quality or something a little bit to enable MSAA or another better AA method, but games don't even offer that option anymore.
Anyone who says things like "TAA or DLSS is not noticeable at 4k" has never actually tried it, or they are just too used to motion blur.
I would really like to see comparisons of power consumption. With 40ct/kWh, and the environmental impact in mind it's the real reason for me to use upscaling.
What
DLSS is incredible, it is the main reason I got a 4080. That and driver support. In the future when AMD matures their software I will definitely give them a try too.
Same here. Although I'm not holding my breath for FSR. Sure, it looks all right on comparison screenshots of stable images, but it's terrible in motion. I find DLSS much better.
DLSS I'd run at quality mode even if just for the visual upgrade. FSR I wouldn't enable unless I really really have to.
Should not have to enable downscale on such expensive card in first place. Conversation not about hardware power but instead downscale..
@@pituguli5816 I don't need to. Think about it like this. A graphics card will always have a limit on how many FPS it can make it a given game. Even a 4090. If DLSS looks just as good, if not better than native Resolution, and gives 20% more fps, why not enable it?
@@cherryfruit5492Because not look better, downscale resolution DLSS quality 1440p is 1080p so how game look better if downscale resolution? I try DLSS 1440p with quality setting, make game look wash out and distance object blurry. This better for 4k because lower resolution to 1440p still retain sharpness decent fidelity but 1440p downscale to 1080p not good imo.
You maybe not need to because you own 4080 but majority PC gamer not have powerful GPU still need use downscale to run new game. Imo this should not be case for people worry about downscale make this most important issue, important issue console ports buggy not run properly dev use excuse DLSS FSR not release game running well.
I not agree downscale better than native resolution, this Nvidia marketing tell gamer better graphic if downscale resolution but when think logical how downscale resolution better than native?
Sorry for my English I speak other languages, I learn English now for few months.
Thank you for testing this. I am using dlss in palworld with 3060 at 1080p. This video felt like it was targetted for me.
on a native 24 inch 1080p monitor dlss quality looks good.
1080P looks blurry, once you tested 1440P with DSR on that same monitor, you can't go back.
Ikr? My monitor is even smaller and I didn't notice any of what he was talking about
@@PDog69 because he uses 4k monitor to test dlss at 1080p lol.
@@PDog69 I had a 24" 1080 monitor and, when my old gpu couldn't run 1440P (with dsr) had to play in 1080, blurry af.
This was a fascinating watch! I'd be really interested in seeing performance of the base resolution before upscaling (720p in this case)
I feel in many games 1080p native looks far too blurry and shimmery due to bad TAA which is fixed by DLSS. Cyberpunk 2077 is a prime example - especially in the nomad area. I was about to make a video on this, have several screen captures, but HU bbeat me to it XD
native taa being so bad makes dlss look better then it actually is, compare dlss to a real native image and dlss doesn't look so good.
1080p is where you really get to see which devs worked hard on their FSR or DLSS implementation.
Am i the only one that thinks the differences are minute? I had my screen two inches away from my face and still struggled to see much difference in detail.
I'm sure you're not the only one, many people watch UA-cam videos on their phones. How much detail do you really expect to see on a small screen like that though? Especially factoring in UA-cam compression, resolution and potential quality loss if you don't have the best connection speed. Watching this video on a proper 4K monitor the differences are clear as day. Also, how the hell can your eyes focus at 2 inches?
Neah trust me on a monitor going from 108pp to 720 you will see it,you cant see it on a phone because its small but on a 22 inch monitor you can see it
Depends on how big your screen is. On a 21" 1080p monitor there is not much difference. But on a 42" 1080p TV the difference is very noticeable.
@@stangamer1151 there is a difference on a 21 inch that you can see,it is there,not a big one but enough to the point where you can say yep thats 720p,but on a tv oh boy thats gonna look 🤢
@@chrys9256 I was watching on a galaxy tab s8 plus which is 12.4 inches tablet and 1440p, i feel like i can sus out more detail on that thing usually because i can press it really close to my face, unlike a monitor.
It's also not that i couldn't distinguish what the guys were talking about, it's just that i feel like we're splitting really small hairs on details that can pass through the blink of an eye if your playing these games at a somewhat normal pace. Maybe these are big deals to alot of people, but to me i'd rather enjoy a smoother gameplay than worry about it.
If you want more image quality from 1080p, and have a Nvidia card, use DLDSR + DLSS. Way better than native 1080p. Sure you get a performance hit from DLDSR but DLSS helps with it. The image gets so much sharper and clean, compared to native 1080p that looks like a smudge.
100% this.
I'm honestly having trouble seeing the differences mentioned for cyberpunk.
Great video ! It's very informative :) We would love to see Performance mode tested at different resolutions.
upscalers like dlss only look good because you are comparing it to native with taa, try native with no forced taa.
Then DLSS will look even better thanks to the unbearable shimmering everywhere with no TAA.
Never ever use TAA when comparing native rendering to upscaling. TAA is horrible and destroys the quality of the picture
I want to see you come up with a better antialiasing method
1080p gang rise up
depends on what you like, I like the sharpness of dlss tbh.
Dlss looks ugly to me in a lot of games, much more ugly than fsr and blurrier too in a lot of cases. Perhaps fsr has improvement artifacts, but overall far appears more 'natively sharp' to me? If you hay makes sense
@@cairndouglas4040 nah fsr looks worse like in almost every case. Dlss depends on how good it was put into a game. Some games have almost zero differences from dlss to native, others have a pretty obvious sharpness loss. Rdr2 doesn't look the best with dlss, but to be fair, rdr2 looks even on native blurry
DLSS reduces sharpness in most cases, outside of still images.
@@Heisen_burger-dudeagree, even worse than xess
@@Heisen_burger-dudeI'm with him, I've found myself using FSR more than I'd like to admit, DLSS just smears the image sometimes and it feels foggy at times, FSR despite the minor artifacts is just easier on the eyes for me
Borderlands 3 TAA at 1080p is another game that looks as if it were 480p
Native or "native", a.k.a,. native + temporal blur filter?
Also, why are you not using full-resolution DLSS (DLAA) as the target for comparison?
Because most games don't support it and people want to see how does DLSS compare to traditional native res. Also if you think TAA is a blur filter, you are spoiled. Wait till you see the FXAA or the super shimmery MSAA or the super demanding SSAA.
Yup "native" in most new games is a smearfest ofcourse dlss is going to look good when compared to it.
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat terrible aa is garbage stop coping
@@DragonOfTheMortalKombat I think you might want to read up on anti-aliasing methods. TAA is a blur filter, using out-of-date data from (a) previous frame(s) blended with the last computed frame. FXAA is a blur filter without the previous frame component. MSAA is geometry-only, so any "shimmery" you'll find there is merely the inside of triangles not being altered at all.
To me, native is native, as in a fully-rendered frame not using stale data or blur filters. This whole nonsense of trying to include blur filters in the "native" image has been done since the release of DLSS, for some reason, and DLSS has traditionally benefitted from image quality comparisons being done against these "native," not native frames.
Thanks for demonstrating the results!
One of my friends tried to push to Nvidia and one of the arguments was the DLSS technology. Thankfully I did not listen to him, since I was playing at 1080p :P
DLDSR with dlss is god sent try it please
Or just enable DLAA with DLSSTweaks. Less flexible maybe, but doesn't issues with UI elements and the like.
DLDSR with dlss gives a literal step up resolution like experience
I do appreciate your testing!
not visible to naked eye, worth the performance lift in my opinion
I once got a 52" 4k monitor and it gave me headaches with oversharpness so close to you, I could see every pixel and that was a bad thing. Since then I've learnt to appreciate a softer image for my eyes and brain sake and it's not that bad in most cases.
Great idea to test this at 1080p, especially curious for DLSS as I don't have access to it! I support testing FSR and XeSS too. I've seen potential for using XeSS that is not a big image quality sacrifice but the performance wasn't much.