Currently Online 
| Leynos said: Wow you need to zoom in 10000x and put a red square to even notice. That's worth the price hike...sike |
In a still image sure. But block compression artifacts become very noticeable in motion. I am also pretty sure you can tell the difference between a 1K equivalent texture and 4k one. If you ever seen one of those Cyberpunk 2077 or RDR2 "ultra realistic" videos on YouTube usually they're done by replacing the mostly 1024 x 1024 and 2048 x 2048 textures with 4096 x 4096 ones, using mods. It's noticeable, but not immensely so.
But ultimately the point of research/experiments like this is to allow GPU's with less VRAM to get perceptively higher-quality textures, and then of course secondarily to improve compression for storage. So the point isn't that it will look a lot better in any context, but rather that it will look the same or better while using near two orders of magnitude less storage space or memory, but also (for now anyway) with a performance penalty as a tradeoff. Nvidia could have shown us an example that looked comparable to the BC7 implementation but used less space, but they chose instead to show what quality they can get using a similar OoM of space as the BC7 compressed image.
An example of 1k -> 4k; not groundbreaking but noticeable on a large screen.
