|
Pemalite said:
zeldaring said:
Thank you Pemalite. honestly i blame DF they basically explained DLSS like a advertisement, and didn't talk about any of the negatives. Everyone seems to think DLSS gives you double the GPU power magically lol.
|
There seems to be a subset of users on this forum who cling to buzzwords and run with it without actually understanding what it is or even what it means.
We saw it with the Cell.
We saw it with GDDR5.
We saw it with the ACE units.
We saw it with the PS5's SSD.
We saw it with the WiiU's eDRAM.
We saw it with the Xbox One's eSRAM and the Power of the Cloud.
We literally see it with every single console that gets released. - What does it amount to in the end? Stuff all.
When will people stop falling for it?
sc94597 said:
Sure there is a compute time cost. A cost that was made quite trivial with Ampere, which the Switch 2's GPU is most likely to be an implementation of.
If you are wondering what one should probably expect with the Switch 2, you can look up any video showcasing an RTX 3050 Laptop with DLSS on vs. off.
Consider, for example, that an RTX 3050 mobile chip and a GTX 1650 mobile chip are very similar in performance (within 25% of each-other) without DLSS (and about comparable to what we should expect with the Orin ostensibly in the Switch 2.) But almost every tech youtuber recommends the 3050 mobile, solely because DLSS improves performance, by a lot.
Consider that with DLSS the 3050 mobile was able to get over the 60fps threshold, whereas it was averaging 55 fps without DLSS in Red Dead Redemption 2. Similar was done in Watch Dogs Legion, Control, and Call of Duty Warzone. There was also a significant boost in Shadow of the Tomb Raider.
|
We have no idea how the Switch 2's Tegra will stack up against the 3050. It could be multiples cut down and thus worst.
Soundwave said:
I've seen DLSS from 360p it's not like some super secret that only you know about.
It's not that bad at all. Yes there are some artifacts, but what are we talking about here? Playing high end games on a portable machine? Lots of Switch games today look like a borderline blurry/hazy mess in undocked mode, this looks as good or better image quality wise than several titles on the Switch I could name
On a 7-inch screen for an undocked mode, this wouldn't be that bad at all, it looks better than like DOOM Eternal and Witcher 3 and Xenoblade 3 undocked on Switch even at only 360p to draw from, 540p looks completely playable even on a 4K TV.
|
Thanks for the video. If you watch it full screen on a decent display it looks absolutely shocking. Extremely blurry and undefined.
There simply isn't enough data to infer a clean and sharp image from 480P to 1440P/4k.
And I would expect it to look better than other native 360P-540P games on Switch, considering how far less powerful that is, but that doesn't mean 480P DLSS looks "good" by any stretch of the imagination... Native 1080P PS4 looks far cleaner.
May be "playable" for you, but I have better standards it seems.
zeldaring said:
I mean almost every impression i read and even NVDA recommends using it at 1440p. it has to be that while your playing it doesn't look good at all at low resolution using the upscaling.
|
When moving there is less temporal data to draw from, so the image quality actually degrades, hence the need for higher base resolutions.
But when you stand still, they are able to accumulate data from similar frames and infer a higher quality output.
Oneeee-Chan!!! said:
I wanted to ask why pemalite determined that the original upscaled image was 360p or 480p without mentioning the next generation switch specifications.
What would happen to the Series S in that case?
I am sorry but his text was too long and I could not quote only the necessary parts.
|
I was debating those who were thinking they can just run Switch 2 games at 360P and reconstruct it into a 4k image without any issues.
It doesn't look great in the real world.
Obviously Switch 2 specifications haven't been released.
But a mobile device has lower TDP headroom than a fixed console, so the Series S will always retain an advantage... Especially as time goes on and FSR continues to improve.
|
Where was anyone talking about 360p or 480p before you?
Perhaps they were earlier in the thread, but yeah, I didn't think it was that old news.
Yes, I see that Soundwave wrote 360p or 540p alone at the beginning of the thread, but it was not discussed.
In other words, there was no one else.
Just after my comment to you, Soundwave wrote 360p or 540p again.
If you had your own knowledge and opinion, you would not have had to concur with Soundwave's estimates.
It was your idea that the next gen Switch would run at 480p and you never answered my question as to how the Series S would run in that case.
And later you admitted that you did not know the specifications of the next generation Switch.
And you don't know the specs, but somehow you seem to have decided that the next gen switches will be powered by 15 W. Seems odd, don't you think?
And I don't understand why you think that next gen SWITCH upscaling doesn't work, but Series S does.
Perhaps it's because the original upscaled resolution of the Series S is 900P or 1080P, while the next-gen switches are supposed to be 360P or 480P.
In this case, the expected power gap is 4x to 9x.
Series S is rdna2 1280 cores
The next generation switch is assumed to have 1536 amp cores.
Even if the tdp of the switch is 15 W, such a gap will not happen.
And you know there are very few FSR titles on Xbox. Let's also consider that the next gen Switch will sell much better than the Series S.
DLSS support should be much greater than Xbox.
In other words, many multiplat games will support DLSS on the Switch, but not FSR on the Series S.
It's easy to imagine which would perform better in this case.
Last edited by Oneeee-Chan!!! - on 09 September 2023
