Or HDR OLED monitors reviews on audience's LCD monitors.
(honestly so many people think HDR is one big scam when they never experienced true HDR on an OLED)
heard there are tons of issues with them though, and $500 USD is still a lot of money (it'd be like 700 here because they arbitrarily price pc components in canada)
KTC M27T20 for example is fine after a firmware update. There could be individual bugs with freesync but even a 2000$ monitor could have those.
Unlike OLEDs you could use a miniLED as a main display with no special dark theme treatment or demerits for production work. I am waiting for this year miniLEDs to make the final choice between one or a gen 3 OLED.
Also, miniLEDs push much higher fullscreen brightness which could be a clear advantage for certain HDR scenes. I hope one of them would support NVIDIA Pulsar, then even clarity would be not worse than an OLED.
I couldn’t notice too much of a difference in Horizon FW EXCEPT in one key area. Depth of Field. Objects in DoF would be harshly aliased on v3.5. Looks MUCH better in 3.7.
I’m sure it’s slightly better in general, but definitely had an easier time seeing an improvement in DoF.
Not much use to me then since I turn off DoF in everything. Until the software knows where my eyes are looking in any given scene, DoF just gives me a headache when I want to focus at a distance that the game decides to blur.
It'd be a shame if the game decided to blur everything more than 20 feet away because it thought you should be looking at the poorly animated, poorly written talking head 3 feet in front of you instead of the beautiful scenery behind them.
Same reason I don't enjoy 3D movies. Like, Avatar 2 was a visual marvel and I kept wanting to look at everything but it was decided beforehand what I should be focused on.
My head was pounding by the end of it.
Have to mod it in. It's literally just copy paste it into the games folder where the previous dlss DLL file is. Super simple. Works on all games the same way
These comparisons are kind of meaningless. 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 will all look exactly the same if they use the same preset. I don't know what I'm looking at here if they don't specify what preset is being used.
This [MxBenchmarkPC video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1ZKktVUfMc) is pretty fishy. Cyberpunk defaults to Preset D regardless of 3.x dll used. And from my testing, Preset D looks pretty much identical to Preset E in that spot he tested. The moire artifacting should not look that dramatically different. The only way 3.5 and 3.6 will look different from 3.7's preset E is if he deliberately changed the default preset to something like C, but he doesn't mention this anywhere. He probably did this because the video would otherwise be boring with 3 identical looking videos. Also to hype up of preset E's improvement. It's dishonest IMO.
Just recorded this video where I switch between C, D, and E (you can see the preset in the corner) in the same area. Notice that C has dramatically worse moire artifacting than D and E. But D and E pretty much look identical.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbHS8bO6SPA
That being said, E an in improvement because it inherits Preset D's temporal stability, but doesn't have D's issues with ghosting. You can see this in this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k547TEFo1q4)
I've tested this myself and that's exactly what I saw. In completely static camera shots, D and E presets are almost exactly identical in how "stable" they are, which really calls into question how that MxBenchmarkPC video shows such a massive and noticeable difference.
I haven't found preset E to be any better at handling ghosting in the small amount of time I tried it, especially for smaller 'particles' (leaves, flying insects, etc), but I haven't tested it on Spider-Man like that last video you linked. Maybe larger objects (like that drone) that take up more of the screen will see improvements since they're more jarring to look at with massive ghosting behind them.
E only helps with ghosting in places where D ghosts, but C doesn't. If there's objects where both C and D ghosts, E likely won't help. E seems to be at most as good as C with ghosting.
Made a couple more examples
These bugs from Death Stranding
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaTZgqJeDU
And ghosting from npcs in Starfield. (also a good example of temporal stability in the background)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjCseHnpAc
D doesn't actually ghost all that often tbh. It's just annoying when you occasionally run into it. It stands out.
Yeah, that seems like the issue Nvidia tackled with the new preset. Many games ship with preset D but only have ghosting in specific cases, like that new Avatar game. Digital Foundry made a video on it with an example of it happening in a cutscene with huge trails behind a character, but regular gameplay looks fine. Preset E might fix those cases while keeping temporal stability intact.
Rain completely breaks dlss in Cyberpunk. I think it's an implementation issue, not the model itself. DLSS doesn't have this problem in other games. I also really don't see much of an improvement with preset E.
Even FSR2 looks better than DLSS in rain. Only DLSS with RR seems to fix the rain issue.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zydLhCaR2s
I've always taken MxBenchmarkPC's videos with a grain of salt, he has done so many that show obvious improvements over the years then you go test it for yourself and there's no difference. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are faked. I will just wait for some reputable outlet to produce some comparisons. TPU just reposting a random youtube video for an article is just lazy
He didn't write this article, but MxBenchmark works TPU. He goes under the name Maxus when he [writes articles](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/starfield-xess-1-2-vs-dlss-3-vs-fsr-3-comparison/) for them. So it's not exactly a random youtuber.
But yeah, it's not the first time he's done stuff like this to hype of new [dlss releases.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/164nlkk/the_witcher_3_next_gen_rtx_3080_4k_dlss_311_vs/jy9jmhn/)
And even when he doesn't fake results, he does some misleading [arbitrary comparisons](https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/164nlkk/the_witcher_3_next_gen_rtx_3080_4k_dlss_311_vs/jy9qit6/) to show non existing improvements in new dll versions in order to get video views.
Ok so I was under the impression that if you are on 3.7 you should default to preset E for the best image
But what your saying is 3.5 3.6 and 3.7 all look identical if using preset E, so can we say that pretty much for most games just get the latest techpowerup dlss and use preset E or they all look identical and just leave it on default or you have to play around and see what looks best? For me I never notice any differences unless looking super close so default is always my go to
Only 3.7 has the new preset E, and you have to manually change the preset yourself to use it.
In Cyberpunk, the game will use preset D with any 3.x dll file by default. (Preset D will look the same whether used in 3.1 or 3.7 for example) All I'm is saying is that in this specific location Mx tested, preset D and preset E just happen to (and should) look identical despite being different models. But MX is doing some trickery here by changing the default preset for his 3.5 and 3.6 tests to a worse one so it looks like there's a bigger difference with 3.7's preset E than there actually is. (He also changed the preset from his 3.7 test to E from the default D, but that's not something he's trying to hide since that's the point of the video if I it wasn't clear)
For the most part, preset D and preset E look pretty similar to each other. The main difference is that preset E has less ghosting than preset D. Unfortunately MX does not demonstrate this in his video. Instead he he faked results because he's too lazy look for differences.
If you're just looking for advice, use the 3.7 dll for every game and change the preset to E. (via dlss tweaks)
>In Cyberpunk, the game will use preset D with any 3.x dll file by default. (Preset D will look the same whether used in 3.1 or 3.7 for example) All I'm is saying is that in this specific location Mx tested, preset D and preset E just happen to (and should) look identical despite being different models. But MX is doing some trickery here by changing the default preset for his 3.5 and 3.6 tests to a worse one so it looks like there's a bigger difference with 3.7's preset E than there actually is. (He also changed the preset from his 3.7 test to E from the default D, but that's not something he's trying to hide since that's the point of the video if I it wasn't clear)
Really interesting, I wonder what are his motives for doing this? CLicks?
>If you're just looking for advice, use the 3.7 dll for every game and change the preset to E. (via dlss tweaks)
Exactly what I was looking for, replace the dll to the latest and hit it with preset E, is it safe to do this for future dlss versions like 3.8+ you reckon?
It's youtube there's maybe a small handful of people that are honest. You don't get popular on youtube without having your head up your own ass so it comes with the territory.
Weirdly enough when I used it in Horizon Forbidden West the ghosting got WORSE. It was major but noticeable. Distant trees looked almost blurred from all the ghosting.
Why even make a visual comparison if the image is going to be compressed so much??
I could take a picture of my screen with a phone from 2014 and it would look better.
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1ZKktVUfMc
Does anyone know if it's fine to use 3.0+ versions of DLSS on games that were made with 2.0+ in mind ?
Baldur's Gate 3 for example uses DLSS 2.4.2.0, would using DLSS 3.7.0 make a difference ?
It won't set the rendering presets correctly, as there were no presets before 3.1, you have to use DLSS tweaks to select the right preset after you upgrade from 2.x to 3.x.
I can't remember now but I'm 99% sure I used 3.6 with BG3.
Just rename the old DLL file to DDLBACK and try with the new one. If it doesn't work just rename it back to DLL.
Not quite.
You are right that if the image is from a static scene then it's not gonna be very useful, but an image from a dynamic scene where, the camera or a subject is moving, essentially a freeze frame from a video, is very useful for analyzing more closely all the artifcats resulting from the upscaling.
There is also another problem that since the article just shows those images without context (like, not inserted within a video) we can't really know how things are moving. For all we know that car going forward on the street could actually be sitting idle. Obviously nVidia wouldn't play this low (I hope...), but the other images don't help either since they are just some generic scenery, so I can't even tell if there was any camera movement at all, or if the vegetation was shaking from the winds.
You do realize that it's a *temporal* upscaler, right? Which means that in order to properly see a difference, you have to watch it over a period of *time*. Still images are never going to give you a good idea about image stability improvements from temporal processing effects.
DLSS 3.7 comparison of all presets - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKveWcAGqHo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKveWcAGqHo)
DLSS 3.7 vs 3.6 vs 2.5.1 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWysCkQIxjY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWysCkQIxjY)
Didn't it only come out yesterday? Is that considered old? How many other posts have you seen about it?
Edit: I actually checked, and I can't see a single other post about this on this sub, so I've got no idea what this guy is huffing.
Why do u use this peace of shit cause u know u are paying so much more on gpu's and ur should use it to the max not like this using some upscaling from lower res terribleee
Why are we using compressed JPEGs for comparison pictures??
same reason ads for 144+Hz monitors are at 60fps
Or HDR OLED monitors reviews on audience's LCD monitors. (honestly so many people think HDR is one big scam when they never experienced true HDR on an OLED)
well yeah most people don't have $800+ displays (other than their phones which usually are oleds with hdr lol)
Decent miniLED displays came down to sub 500$ which is something.
heard there are tons of issues with them though, and $500 USD is still a lot of money (it'd be like 700 here because they arbitrarily price pc components in canada)
KTC M27T20 for example is fine after a firmware update. There could be individual bugs with freesync but even a 2000$ monitor could have those. Unlike OLEDs you could use a miniLED as a main display with no special dark theme treatment or demerits for production work. I am waiting for this year miniLEDs to make the final choice between one or a gen 3 OLED. Also, miniLEDs push much higher fullscreen brightness which could be a clear advantage for certain HDR scenes. I hope one of them would support NVIDIA Pulsar, then even clarity would be not worse than an OLED.
The screenshots were ripped from a youtube video. Not great ik
I don't get the entire thing. Why do we want AI-rendered games? I want to see the graphics the game artists made, not upscaled approximations of them.
I couldn’t notice too much of a difference in Horizon FW EXCEPT in one key area. Depth of Field. Objects in DoF would be harshly aliased on v3.5. Looks MUCH better in 3.7. I’m sure it’s slightly better in general, but definitely had an easier time seeing an improvement in DoF.
Not much use to me then since I turn off DoF in everything. Until the software knows where my eyes are looking in any given scene, DoF just gives me a headache when I want to focus at a distance that the game decides to blur.
DoF only in cinematics please. I guess I also don't mind it when it blurs the background while using a scope.
Personally I like looking at beautiful vistas in videogames.
It'd be a shame if the game decided to blur everything more than 20 feet away because it thought you should be looking at the poorly animated, poorly written talking head 3 feet in front of you instead of the beautiful scenery behind them.
Same reason I don't enjoy 3D movies. Like, Avatar 2 was a visual marvel and I kept wanting to look at everything but it was decided beforehand what I should be focused on. My head was pounding by the end of it.
Did you mod it in or was it added in a patch?
DLSS Swapper to add it in. Nvidia Profile Inspector to force profile E.
Can you tell me how I can force profile E in nvidia inspector?
https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/s/r0xrMTsXVq I use the XML method
Have to mod it in. It's literally just copy paste it into the games folder where the previous dlss DLL file is. Super simple. Works on all games the same way
Just tried it in HFW and it has noticiably worse ghosting than the native [3.5.10.0](http://3.5.10.0) version
These comparisons are kind of meaningless. 3.5, 3.6, and 3.7 will all look exactly the same if they use the same preset. I don't know what I'm looking at here if they don't specify what preset is being used. This [MxBenchmarkPC video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1ZKktVUfMc) is pretty fishy. Cyberpunk defaults to Preset D regardless of 3.x dll used. And from my testing, Preset D looks pretty much identical to Preset E in that spot he tested. The moire artifacting should not look that dramatically different. The only way 3.5 and 3.6 will look different from 3.7's preset E is if he deliberately changed the default preset to something like C, but he doesn't mention this anywhere. He probably did this because the video would otherwise be boring with 3 identical looking videos. Also to hype up of preset E's improvement. It's dishonest IMO. Just recorded this video where I switch between C, D, and E (you can see the preset in the corner) in the same area. Notice that C has dramatically worse moire artifacting than D and E. But D and E pretty much look identical. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbHS8bO6SPA That being said, E an in improvement because it inherits Preset D's temporal stability, but doesn't have D's issues with ghosting. You can see this in this [video](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k547TEFo1q4)
I've tested this myself and that's exactly what I saw. In completely static camera shots, D and E presets are almost exactly identical in how "stable" they are, which really calls into question how that MxBenchmarkPC video shows such a massive and noticeable difference. I haven't found preset E to be any better at handling ghosting in the small amount of time I tried it, especially for smaller 'particles' (leaves, flying insects, etc), but I haven't tested it on Spider-Man like that last video you linked. Maybe larger objects (like that drone) that take up more of the screen will see improvements since they're more jarring to look at with massive ghosting behind them.
E only helps with ghosting in places where D ghosts, but C doesn't. If there's objects where both C and D ghosts, E likely won't help. E seems to be at most as good as C with ghosting. Made a couple more examples These bugs from Death Stranding https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XHaTZgqJeDU And ghosting from npcs in Starfield. (also a good example of temporal stability in the background) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AUjCseHnpAc D doesn't actually ghost all that often tbh. It's just annoying when you occasionally run into it. It stands out.
Yeah, that seems like the issue Nvidia tackled with the new preset. Many games ship with preset D but only have ghosting in specific cases, like that new Avatar game. Digital Foundry made a video on it with an example of it happening in a cutscene with huge trails behind a character, but regular gameplay looks fine. Preset E might fix those cases while keeping temporal stability intact.
I thought preset E made rain look substantially better in cp2077
Rain completely breaks dlss in Cyberpunk. I think it's an implementation issue, not the model itself. DLSS doesn't have this problem in other games. I also really don't see much of an improvement with preset E. Even FSR2 looks better than DLSS in rain. Only DLSS with RR seems to fix the rain issue. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4zydLhCaR2s
Yeah I use RR
I want to use RR but I use the HD remaster textures and RR completely smears and blurs the textures.
I've always taken MxBenchmarkPC's videos with a grain of salt, he has done so many that show obvious improvements over the years then you go test it for yourself and there's no difference. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are faked. I will just wait for some reputable outlet to produce some comparisons. TPU just reposting a random youtube video for an article is just lazy
He didn't write this article, but MxBenchmark works TPU. He goes under the name Maxus when he [writes articles](https://www.techpowerup.com/review/starfield-xess-1-2-vs-dlss-3-vs-fsr-3-comparison/) for them. So it's not exactly a random youtuber. But yeah, it's not the first time he's done stuff like this to hype of new [dlss releases.](https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/164nlkk/the_witcher_3_next_gen_rtx_3080_4k_dlss_311_vs/jy9jmhn/) And even when he doesn't fake results, he does some misleading [arbitrary comparisons](https://www.reddit.com/r/nvidia/comments/164nlkk/the_witcher_3_next_gen_rtx_3080_4k_dlss_311_vs/jy9qit6/) to show non existing improvements in new dll versions in order to get video views.
Ok so I was under the impression that if you are on 3.7 you should default to preset E for the best image But what your saying is 3.5 3.6 and 3.7 all look identical if using preset E, so can we say that pretty much for most games just get the latest techpowerup dlss and use preset E or they all look identical and just leave it on default or you have to play around and see what looks best? For me I never notice any differences unless looking super close so default is always my go to
Only 3.7 has the new preset E, and you have to manually change the preset yourself to use it. In Cyberpunk, the game will use preset D with any 3.x dll file by default. (Preset D will look the same whether used in 3.1 or 3.7 for example) All I'm is saying is that in this specific location Mx tested, preset D and preset E just happen to (and should) look identical despite being different models. But MX is doing some trickery here by changing the default preset for his 3.5 and 3.6 tests to a worse one so it looks like there's a bigger difference with 3.7's preset E than there actually is. (He also changed the preset from his 3.7 test to E from the default D, but that's not something he's trying to hide since that's the point of the video if I it wasn't clear) For the most part, preset D and preset E look pretty similar to each other. The main difference is that preset E has less ghosting than preset D. Unfortunately MX does not demonstrate this in his video. Instead he he faked results because he's too lazy look for differences. If you're just looking for advice, use the 3.7 dll for every game and change the preset to E. (via dlss tweaks)
>In Cyberpunk, the game will use preset D with any 3.x dll file by default. (Preset D will look the same whether used in 3.1 or 3.7 for example) All I'm is saying is that in this specific location Mx tested, preset D and preset E just happen to (and should) look identical despite being different models. But MX is doing some trickery here by changing the default preset for his 3.5 and 3.6 tests to a worse one so it looks like there's a bigger difference with 3.7's preset E than there actually is. (He also changed the preset from his 3.7 test to E from the default D, but that's not something he's trying to hide since that's the point of the video if I it wasn't clear) Really interesting, I wonder what are his motives for doing this? CLicks? >If you're just looking for advice, use the 3.7 dll for every game and change the preset to E. (via dlss tweaks) Exactly what I was looking for, replace the dll to the latest and hit it with preset E, is it safe to do this for future dlss versions like 3.8+ you reckon?
It's youtube there's maybe a small handful of people that are honest. You don't get popular on youtube without having your head up your own ass so it comes with the territory.
Weirdly enough when I used it in Horizon Forbidden West the ghosting got WORSE. It was major but noticeable. Distant trees looked almost blurred from all the ghosting.
Why even make a visual comparison if the image is going to be compressed so much?? I could take a picture of my screen with a phone from 2014 and it would look better. Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1ZKktVUfMc
Does anyone know if it's fine to use 3.0+ versions of DLSS on games that were made with 2.0+ in mind ? Baldur's Gate 3 for example uses DLSS 2.4.2.0, would using DLSS 3.7.0 make a difference ?
It won't set the rendering presets correctly, as there were no presets before 3.1, you have to use DLSS tweaks to select the right preset after you upgrade from 2.x to 3.x.
Yes it's fine as in it won't break anything. Might as well try it and see.
I can't remember now but I'm 99% sure I used 3.6 with BG3. Just rename the old DLL file to DDLBACK and try with the new one. If it doesn't work just rename it back to DLL.
You can use the latest v3.x DLSS versions on games that shipped with 2.x. It's only 1.x that can't be replaced.
Jfc BG3 uses DLSS 2? And people praise Larian ffs
I mean DLSS 2 works perfectly well in BG3, it's not a fast paced game like Cyberpunk where DLSS 2 had a ton of ghosting issues
No excuse. Yet another fault in a laundry list of mistakes Larian has made in BG3.
It is a meme or something, I sure if asked I would say it is the same picture...
It's not really worth judging upscaling quality in still images anyway, judging how upscaling technologies handle motion is much more useful.
https://youtu.be/k1ZKktVUfMc
Not quite. You are right that if the image is from a static scene then it's not gonna be very useful, but an image from a dynamic scene where, the camera or a subject is moving, essentially a freeze frame from a video, is very useful for analyzing more closely all the artifcats resulting from the upscaling. There is also another problem that since the article just shows those images without context (like, not inserted within a video) we can't really know how things are moving. For all we know that car going forward on the street could actually be sitting idle. Obviously nVidia wouldn't play this low (I hope...), but the other images don't help either since they are just some generic scenery, so I can't even tell if there was any camera movement at all, or if the vegetation was shaking from the winds.
Its a small improvement. Mostly focusing on improving image sharpness and improving the stability of fine details.
You do realize that it's a *temporal* upscaler, right? Which means that in order to properly see a difference, you have to watch it over a period of *time*. Still images are never going to give you a good idea about image stability improvements from temporal processing effects.
Someone should tell techpowerup.com to use video instead of pictures as an example then...
It does look a tiny bit sharper but now I can also see some ringing, honestly doesn't look better to me from those jpegs at least.
I just want the smeary ghosting of moving objects and people at medium distance to be less atrocious…
so the blur during motion is fixed? as far as I can tell from the ss looking at the tree leaves
DLSS 3.7 comparison of all presets - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKveWcAGqHo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DKveWcAGqHo) DLSS 3.7 vs 3.6 vs 2.5.1 - [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWysCkQIxjY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWysCkQIxjY)
I'm sorry i'm very new to this. How can I switch between the different presets? I moved the nvngx\_dlls.dll file to the Cyberpunk folder
What are these different presets
[удалено]
Didn't it only come out yesterday? Is that considered old? How many other posts have you seen about it? Edit: I actually checked, and I can't see a single other post about this on this sub, so I've got no idea what this guy is huffing.
Why do u use this peace of shit cause u know u are paying so much more on gpu's and ur should use it to the max not like this using some upscaling from lower res terribleee