I think I made DLSS very, very upset...

[fastfishy2]

RTX 4070. Was playing some Control on fullscreen mode, maxed out settings including ray tracing, DLSS set to quality.

I have DSR factors enabled so that I can run games at a higher internal resolution than my 1080p monitor, it makes images smoother at the cost of performance.

Now, Control does something when I alt-tab / windows key to interact with my second monitor. The DLSS render resolution stays the same, but the overall render resolution reverts back to native (1080p).

I never had this problem before because I'd run at 1440p default res and the DLSS resolution would be at around 1700 x 920 or so. So when I alt-tabbed, the output resolution (1080p) was still larger than the DLSS resolution (920p ish).

Today I tried running it with 4k internal render resolution, which moved the DLSS render resolution up to 1440p. That ran fine, if a bit slowly, but I alt-tabbed to look at something on my other monitor and then jumped back into the game to witness some truly horrific artifacting. After retrying the problem a few times, I noticed something. DLSS is still trying to render the game at 1440p and upscale it, but the output resolution in the game has defaulted back to 1080p instead of 2160p/4k (or anything above 1080p for that matter), and of course now DLSS gets very confused and upset and the whole thing turns into a grid-shaped clown car. 

 

TL;DR: don't put yourself in a situation where your render output resolution is somehow smaller than the base resolution DLSS is trying to upscale from. It doesn't like it at all.

EDIT: No, it doesn't do this in heavy benchmarking (port royal etc) or any other games, and simply reminding the game what resolution it's meant to be running at solves the issue. It also doesn't have a problem with other resolutions as long as the DLSS render resolution is smaller than whatever native res the game reverts back to.

 

[PDifolco]

What's the point of using 2 conflicting techs DSR and DLSS ??

So your GPU renders in say 1440p to then downgrade it back to 720p and display it at 1080p ??

 

[fastfishy2]

5 hours ago, PDifolco said:

What's the point of using 2 conflicting techs DSR and DLSS ??

So your GPU renders in say 1440p to then downgrade it back to 720p and display it at 1080p ??

 

Nah, so the idea is DLSS starts with  900p, upscales it to 1440p, and displays that to my 1080p monitor. It effectively acts as anti aliasing.

[PDifolco]

44 minutes ago, fastfishy2 said:

Nah, so the idea is DLSS starts with  900p, upscales it to 1440p, and displays that to my 1080p monitor. It effectively acts as anti aliasing.

Wouldn't the performance be better and quality equivalent at native 1080p with AA??

[fastfishy2]

37 minutes ago, PDifolco said:

Wouldn't the performance be better and quality equivalent at native 1080p with AA??

Not in my experience. DLSS seems to do a far better job of anti aliasing than most AA techniques while maintaining image quality and a lower performance hit

[Mark Kaine]

7 hours ago, PDifolco said:

What's the point of using 2 conflicting techs DSR and DLSS ??

So your GPU renders in say 1440p to then downgrade it back to 720p and display it at 1080p ??

 

More mush obviously = better!!!??

[Mark Kaine]

6 minutes ago, fastfishy2 said:

Not in my experience. DLSS seems to do a far better job of anti aliasing than most AA techniques while maintaining image quality and a lower performance hit

no, AA is basically free, dlss is not and looks mushy. 

[WallacEngineering]

@fastfishy2

 

I would invest in a good 1440p monitor, then sell the 1080p one. Ur wasting a fair bit of that card's potential at 1080p, unless you are trying to go for absolutely rediculous frame rates.

 

You said yourself that you are taking a higher resolution image and scaling it down to your 1080p monitor to make it sharper to use some of the cards power. Well, get a Monitor that actually has the extra physical pixels and ull see an even sharper image.

 

The RTX 4070 Non-Ti is pretty much the ideal amount of graphics horsepower to tackle 1440p with High/Ultra fidelity game settings and High Frame Rates simultaneously, and it has just enough VRAM for the task as well.

 

Of course, the Ray-Tracing certainly doesn't help your frame rate. However, with DLSS-3 frame generation you should be able to run Ray-Traced games at 1440p native resolution just by having the extra generated frames and still end up with a high FPS - smooth and responsive experience. But thats just my 2 cents on the matter.

 

Remember, Linus showed the world that even professional E-Sports gamers who literally get paid and sponsored to be on teams - show ZERO improvement between 144Hz/FPS and 240Hz/FPS. The average casual gamer doesn't need anything more than 90 FPS, and even those more serious and "enthusiast-level" about gaming don't need anything over 100-120 FPS.

 

As a Bonus, this would resolve most of your issues as you could just render in Native resolution and just add frame generation or scaling when necessary to combat the performance loss caused by enabling Ray-Tracing.

[fastfishy2]

2 hours ago, WallacEngineering said:

@fastfishy2

 

I would invest in a good 1440p monitor, then sell the 1080p one. Ur wasting a fair bit of that card's potential at 1080p, unless you are trying to go for absolutely rediculous frame rates.

 

You said yourself that you are taking a higher resolution image and scaling it down to your 1080p monitor to make it sharper to use some of the cards power. Well, get a Monitor that actually has the extra physical pixels and ull see an even sharper image.

 

The RTX 4070 Non-Ti is pretty much the ideal amount of graphics horsepower to tackle 1440p with High/Ultra fidelity game settings and High Frame Rates simultaneously, and it has just enough VRAM for the task as well.

 

Of course, the Ray-Tracing certainly doesn't help your frame rate. However, with DLSS-3 frame generation you should be able to run Ray-Traced games at 1440p native resolution just by having the extra generated frames and still end up with a high FPS - smooth and responsive experience. But thats just my 2 cents on the matter.

 

Remember, Linus showed the world that even professional E-Sports gamers who literally get paid and sponsored to be on teams - show ZERO improvement between 144Hz/FPS and 240Hz/FPS. The average casual gamer doesn't need anything more than 90 FPS, and even those more serious and "enthusiast-level" about gaming don't need anything over 100-120 FPS.

 

As a Bonus, this would resolve most of your issues as you could just render in Native resolution and just add frame generation or scaling when necessary to combat the performance loss caused by enabling Ray-Tracing.

Yeah, it's definitely next on the list, but I don't have the money right now due to repetitive illness. We also pay a lot for computer stuff in New Zealand. 

[r00tb33r]

10 hours ago, fastfishy2 said:

 

 

So filter, much retro.

[starsmine]

This man is actually trying to use dlss to do local ssaa. And I’m here for it. 

[WallacEngineering]

31 minutes ago, fastfishy2 said:

Yeah, it's definitely next on the list, but I don't have the money right now due to repetitive illness. We also pay a lot for computer stuff in New Zealand. 

 

Ah, I see, ya I used PCPartPicker to look up good 1440p monitors in New Zealand and ya, you guys pay a lot for Monitors for sure.

 

I made sure to look at the cheapest model with good features (IPS Panel, G-Sync Compatible, 144Hz+, over 30") and the cheapest I found was this MSI Optix one around $640:

 

https://nz.pcpartpicker.com/product/RsNxFT/msi-optix-mag321qr-315-2560-x-1440-165-hz-monitor-optix-mag321qr

 

A similar monitor in the US starts around $300. Ouch, thats nasty...

 

Maybe you could save a bit with a FresSync monitor instead. As far as I know, FreeSync is open source and Nvidia GPUs are compatible.

[fastfishy2]

1 hour ago, starsmine said:

This man is actually trying to use dlss to do local ssaa. And I’m here for it. 

(((My goals are beyond your understanding)))