![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
It does to run how quickly it runs.
The difference in result between the 1.x and 2.x DLSS implementation of Control do seem large too:
cpu too weak?
Just think about that you're using essentially the fastest GPU made that also doesn't scale well at lower resolutions and you're running a pitifully low 960p so of course the GPU usage is not going to be pegged and fluctuate in areas that aren't needing that much graphics power at such a low resolution. There's not a CPU in the world that can keep a 3090 fully pegged at all times at that resolution.
ah oki
Wow, 10 games added DLSS. That's a big drop!
I almost want to install Rise again to see what it looks like with DLSS at 4K. I still have Shadow installed; so will be neat to see what DLSS does for that game. I remember playing it on my 2080Ti and it looked like crap with DLSS 1.0... so much so, it was better just playing with RT off.
Yeah, I'm doing old game trilogy revisits. Playing Bioshock now, gonna do Tomb Raider next, and then I guess Crysis.
Rise of the tomb raider is still a really demanding game on max settings. And to me there are some areas where it actually looks better than shadow of the tomb raider.
I'd agree... I thought I read somewhere that Rise used 4K textures for Lara where Shadow did not... but I don't know for sure. I do agree Rise does look better on many occasions.
Yeah, Tomb Raider 2013 was the best one of the 3 IMO...
Agreed. I love how heavily it borrows from The Descent which is one of my favorite horror movies.
Personally I'm hoping scaling will get incorporated into APIs and GPU vendors will handle the implementation in their drivers and hardware. So a game just turns scaling on in DirectX, Vulcan, etc. and the vid card driver does the rest. If NV wants to do DLSS you get DLSS. AMD can do FSR or something else if they feel like it. If the driver doesn't support scaling but the shader model is new enough you get something like FSR implemented by the API, like how FSR works now. Part of why I want this is I'd like to see display res just go ahead and take off. I'm currently running a 43" 4k screen because I want the real estate. I'd like an 8k or 16k screen which I would run with desktop scaling enabled, but without scaling I'd need 4x the power of a 3080, etc. just for 8k and DLSS, FSR, etc. look better than just running a monitor at 1/2 or 1/4 resolution.
Okay - it's not just me then. I actually thought Rise looked better most of the time, especially in the cinematic character-focused vignettes, and yes, especially Lara. But it wasn't just textures IMO, it was shading - shadow often just looked flat and unrealistic, while Rise usually looked pretty amazing.
I would bet its because Rise was a timed exclusive on Xbox 360 and Xbox One. Xbone is a fair bit less powerful than PS4. They probably payed special attention to optimizing the art and assets, to make sure the game looked good while it was exclusive to the least powerful platform.
I wouldn't count on that. Given what EPIC has managed to pull off with UE5's Temporal Super Resolution, you might not see many UE5 engine based games bother to turn on DLSS 2.X.
It's a plug in now, no reason not to.
I'd like to see a number of shipping examples before going to that conclusion.
That was pretty bad on the edges, motion blur did not hide them either. I play without motion blur and DLSS also has edge artifacts but not as bad as that. I've also found DLSS looks better the faster the framerate.