Low image quality on newer GPUs

[Cloud7_3]

That video was to demonstrate a game looking properly, not wrong.

 

Well, @tsrbino, I don't know if you'd want to prove it by buying a new nvidia card but I myself am done with this, I sold my pc weeks ago.

I know that video was demonstrating a game looking properly , it's the video 'AFTER' that we don't have.

[xAcid9]

OK so just to make sure, no one has found a solution. I have an i5 6500 and a R9 380x and this problem persists. Some people say to try forving aa and af in the crimson control panel but that doesnt work. So has anyone found a solution? And what is LOD bias? Im kinda new to pcs. thx 

In some games you need to disable in-game AA/AF for Crimson/CCC setting to apply and no injector(ReShade/SweetFX/ENB)

[Tic-Tac]

You're telling me that this is NORMAL? Also those jagged textures are dancing all time LOL! It looks to me that AF is probably broken!

 

[MEC-777]

Just something to note: I went back and checked some Pcars gameplay footage from back when I had the CF 290's before changing to the 980. Everything looks the same. The same texture flicker and aliasing effects in the distance was present. The difference is now I notice it more, simply because I'm now specifically looking for it. If I just play the game and concentrate only on what I'm doing and what's happening in the game (forget about "looking" for graphical anomalies), it all practically fades away and I stop paying attention to it (the game looks fine). 

 

Am I wrong in pointing out that ALL instances and examples of these "issues" are originating from people playing at 1080p or lower resolutions? If so, I rest my case. It is primarily a pixel density vs LOD (level of detail) problem that is normal and cannot be helped/fixed beyond applying heavier AA or using VSR/DSR.

[xAcid9]

You're telling me that this is NORMAL? Also those jagged textures are dancing all time LOL! It looks to me that AF is probably broken!

 

-snip-

Some games have more jaggies than the others, deal with it.

[NvidiaGPU]

I'd like to know if there is a measurable difference between using 4K DSR vs 4K true resolution.  Which is better graphics wise between the two in terms of eliminating these jaggies without using any type of AA filtering?

[BrightCandle]

I'd like to know if there is a measurable difference between using 4K DSR vs 4K true resolution.  Which is better graphics wise between the two in terms of eliminating these jaggies without using any type of AA filtering?

4K DSR will eliminate the jaggedness better, but the image wont be as sharp as native 4k. It should reduce the AA shimmer effect as well, it can't eliminate it because that is caused by a temporal issue not individual frames but its normally a lot less obvious.

 

I think part of this is just we have begun to enter the uncanny valley for graphics. That is games look at times like they could be nearly reality only there are all these artifacts in the images as they move that distracts us from it actually being real. More processing power needs to go towards fidelity of the image now as 1080p or even 4k are still too low a resolution and our eyes can see the individual pixels.

[MEC-777]

I'd like to know if there is a measurable difference between using 4K DSR vs 4K true resolution.  Which is better graphics wise between the two in terms of eliminating these jaggies without using any type of AA filtering?

 

4K DSR will eliminate the jaggedness better, but the image wont be as sharp as native 4k. It should reduce the AA shimmer effect as well, it can't eliminate it because that is caused by a temporal issue not individual frames but its normally a lot less obvious.

 

I think part of this is just we have begun to enter the uncanny valley for graphics. That is games look at times like they could be nearly reality only there are all these artifacts in the images as they move that distracts us from it actually being real. More processing power needs to go towards fidelity of the image now as 1080p or even 4k are still too low a resolution and our eyes can see the individual pixels.

 

 

Native 4k will be much better because the true pixel density is 4x that of a 1080p display of the same size. Using 4K DSR on a 1080p display, you're still stuck attempting to show the same image using 1/4  the number of pixels. It's just not going to work as well. 4K DSR will also make the image appear more "soft" or "fuzzy" compared to 4k native as a result. 

 

TL;DR 4k = way better. 

[leandrocm86]

You're telling me that this is NORMAL? Also those jagged textures are dancing all time LOL! It looks to me that AF is probably broken!

 

 

The curious thing in this image is that the rear of the cars don't look as aliased as the sides. If you Zoom in that red car for example, you see a normal aliasing in the front, in fact it looks pretty smooth, which is not the case in the side of the car. It looks like if some parts of the image were rendered in 1080p, and other parts were rendered in 480p or something.

 

Just something to note: I went back and checked some Pcars gameplay footage from back when I had the CF 290's before changing to the 980. Everything looks the same. The same texture flicker and aliasing effects in the distance was present. The difference is now I notice it more, simply because I'm now specifically looking for it. If I just play the game and concentrate only on what I'm doing and what's happening in the game (forget about "looking" for graphical anomalies), it all practically fades away and I stop paying attention to it (the game looks fine). 

 

Am I wrong in pointing out that ALL instances and examples of these "issues" are originating from people playing at 1080p or lower resolutions? If so, I rest my case. It is primarily a pixel density vs LOD (level of detail) problem that is normal and cannot be helped/fixed beyond applying heavier AA or using VSR/DSR.

In fact nobody found a problem with 4K yet, but could it be so that nobody is using 4K yet? Games like GTA V are only playable in 4K with gtx 970 or gtx 980, and even so you would run it in 30 fps and not maxed out. So I guess it's very reasonable to assume people don't play it in 4k yet. If some body here owns a GTX 980 and a 4K TV or monitor, and is experiencing this problem, please make a test using 4K resolution on a proper display just to see if it makes a difference.

 

I forgot to mention 1440p displays too. They are not that much better than 1080p to make a huge difference, but if you have one it's worth the test too (switching resolutions from 1080p to 1440p). But it has to be on a native display, because some of us tested DSR already and it did not solve the problem.

Edited January 12, 2016 by leandrocm86

[MEC-777]

The curious thing in this image is that the rear of the cars don't look as aliased as the sides. If you Zoom in that red car for example, you see a normal aliasing in the front, in fact it looks pretty smooth, which is not the case in the side of the car. It looks like if some parts of the image were rendered in 1080p, and other parts were rendered in 480p or something.

 

In fact nobody found a problem with 4K yet, but could it be so that nobody is using 4K yet? Games like GTA V are only playable in 4K with gtx 970 or gtx 980, and even so you would run it in 30 fps and not maxed out. So I guess it's very reasonable to assume people don't play it in 4k yet. If some body here owns a GTX 980 and a 4K TV or monitor, and is experiencing this problem, please make a test using 4K resolution on a proper display just to see if it makes a difference.

 

I forgot to mention 1440p displays too. They are not that much better than 1080p to make a huge difference, but if you have one it's worth the test too (switching resolutions from 1080p to 1440p). But it has to be on a native display, because some of us tested DSR already and it did not solve the problem.

 

Where you have bright lighting reflections or finely detailed objects, that tends to bring out aliasing effects the most. Like on the trim pieces running down the side of the car behind the red car, for example.

 

The reason DSR/VSR does not always solve this problem is because the image is still being displayed on a 1080p panel. The real problem, which is low pixel density, still remains.   

[leandrocm86]

Where you have bright lighting reflections or finely detailed objects, that tends to bring out aliasing effects the most. Like on the trim pieces running down the side of the car behind the red car, for example.

 

The reason DSR/VSR does not always solve this problem is because the image is still being displayed on a 1080p panel. The real problem, which is low pixel density, still remains.  

I agree that lighting plays a big role here, but I guess it's not enough to explain the problem, and we can see it in that same picture.

Look at those cars behind, particularly the one in the center and the blue one far away. Whereas the red car is bathed on sunlight, those two cars are mostly on shadows, but they display the same issue.

Look at the car in the center, in the region around the windows. All that region is in the same conditions of lighting, because the sun is hitting the car only from the front, and even then we have a very strange pattern in these borders, specially that vertical line in the center close to the driver. It looks like if the resolution was way below 1080p. I guess full hd shouldn't look that bad, only on poor upscaled sources maybe. There is enough pixels between those jaggies to make the ladder effect less noticeable.

I wish we could have some tool to quantify this, but my impression is that we really are not using all the 1080p resolution. 

[MEC-777]

I agree that lighting plays a big role here, but I guess it's not enough to explain the problem, and we can see it in that same picture.

Look at those cars behind, particularly the one in the center and the blue one far away. Whereas the red car is bathed on sunlight, those two cars are mostly on shadows, but they display the same issue.

Look at the car in the center, in the region around the windows. All that region is in the same conditions of lighting, because the sun is hitting the car only from the front, and even then we have a very strange pattern in these borders, specially that vertical line in the center close to the driver. It looks like if the resolution was way below 1080p. I guess full hd shouldn't look that bad, only on poor upscaled sources maybe. There is enough pixels between those jaggies to make the ladder effect less noticeable.

I wish we could have some tool to quantify this, but my impression is that we really are not using all the 1080p resolution. 

 

Each "step" of the jaggies you see in that image is a line of pixels. That is the pixel density. I believe that exact image is a cropped portion of a full sized 1080p screenshot that was taken. So we're looking at that portion of the image blown up, to an extent. That's why it's more noticeable in this example. 

[Tic-Tac]

Not true, it's not blown up at all, that part was just cut out and not zoomed in.

[MEC-777]

Not true, it's not blown up at all, that part was just cut out and not zoomed in.

 

I see, so it's just a cropped portion of the original screenshot, not re-sized (make sure you click on it to view it at actual size). Still, what we are seeing in this image are the lines of pixels which is why you can see the aliasing "stairs" effect. 

[leandrocm86]

Still, what we are seeing in this image are the lines of pixels which is why you can see the aliasing "stairs" effect. 

I compare this sections with other parts of the picture and it just seems different. Maybe it's the light or the AA efficiency in different sections of the image, but it does seems different somehow. Take for example the shoulders of the main character. It looks like the pixel density is greater there, doesn't it? You have to zoom it a bit more to see the stairs clearly, and the character is very close to the camera. Maybe the AA worked better there than in the car, or maybe the color/lighting/reflection just give us a different perception.

 

Anyway, if it is indeed just a matter of 1080p not being enough for our todays standards, than I can't wait to be able to run things on 4K 

It would be really great if someone could make a comparison though. These things are really annoying. And as was said before, these jaggies don't even keep on the same place, they move all the time which becomes very distractive.

[MEC-777]

I compare this sections with other parts of the picture and it just seems different. Maybe it's the light or the AA efficiency in different sections of the image, but it does seems different somehow. Take for example the shoulders of the main character. It looks like the pixel density is greater there, doesn't it? You have to zoom it a bit more to see the stairs clearly, and the character is very close to the camera. Maybe the AA worked better there than in the car, or maybe the color/lighting/reflection just give us a different perception.

 

Anyway, if it is indeed just a matter of 1080p not being enough for our todays standards, than I can't wait to be able to run things on 4K 

It would be really great if someone could make a comparison though. These things are really annoying. And as was said before, these jaggies don't even keep on the same place, they move all the time which becomes very distractive.

 

I think it's because of the colour of the object/reflection. White/light object on dark background, the aliasing is more noticeable. Dark object on white/light background or dark on dark, it's not as noticeable. 

[jgimmelli]

Just asking........... Has anyone contacted or called support!?!?!? Im in the middle of a service request with AMD and they want me to reinstall my drivers. Ill tell them that it didn't work and ill get back to you guys.

[vanished]

Just asking........... Has anyone contacted or called support!?!?!? Im in the middle of a service request with AMD and they want me to reinstall my drivers. Ill tell them that it didn't work and ill get back to you guys.

 

I don't think that would help.  This is such an esoteric problem, and even with the ability to post images and video some fail to see it, or believe it's normal.  I would be shocked if any company like nvidia or AMD take it on, especially based on nothing but a phone call.  If they do, it wouldn't be from one random support call; it would have to be recognized and addressed at a much higher level than that since it would likely require actual changes to the product design itself by the engineering team.  Plus, we've identified that it happens with intel graphics, AMD, and nvidia cards so odds are, there is nothing for them to even do since it's not any of their problems specifically.

[Nena Trinity]

Could these issues be related to the Nvidia compression technology?

[MEC-777]

So last night I played AC Syndicate for a good 2 hours +. I wasn't "looking" for graphical glitches or anomalies, or flickering, or bad aliasing, or pop-in, or anything. I just simply "played the game". I carried out missions, explored the city, upgraded and leveled up my character, assassinated enemies, etc. I immersed myself into the game.

 

You know what? All this "stuff", these "issues" we've been talking about, none of it was a problem to me. Not in the slightest. Not when I just "played the game" to enjoy it. It is an absolutely beautiful game with an incredible amount of detail. The environmental lighting is the best I've seen in any game thus far. There were times when It actually felt like my character was scaling the side of a building in a photo-realistic world. To be able to render that kind of detail in real time at 60fps is just awesome. Yeah, when you focus on the detail in the distance and stare at it, of course you're going to see aliasing etc. It's the nature of the limitations of the resolution! I work with AutoCAD everyday on a 1920x1200 display. When I draw a line that is angled slightly off vertical or horizontal, guess what? It's aliased and you can easily see the "steps". The line cannot be represented any better, relative to the size and density of the pixels. 

 

Games will never be totally perfect. We all need to understand this. They will always have minor graphical anomalies. With the sheer amount of detail and complexity in moderns games it's always going to happen. The game cannot maintain it's highest LOD as far as you can see into the distance, no GPU on the market has enough capability to do this and won't for a long time yet. It's just simply too demanding and frankly, not necessary. You don't need to and can't see the 2k texture on the side of a building in all it's glory at 100 meters away. The display can't even render that much detail at that distance anyways (an exaggerated example, but you get the idea), so why force the GPU to render it? Same thing goes for shadow detail/quality at distances. Ubisoft did a great job with AC Syndicate in having texture/shadow quality "fade" the LOD as you move through the environment as opposed to having it "pop" in/out as seen in some other games. We also need to understand the limitations of pixel size and density as it relates to image quality. 

 

Again, for those that claim the image quality of their games somehow degraded from one day to the next, I don't have an answer for you. All I can say is that once I was focused on looking for these anomalies and issues, I noticed them a lot more. My games didn't seem to look as good as I remembered - because I was consciously aware and specifically looking for every little graphical flaw. Once I pushed that out of my mind and began playing my games to simply enjoy them and immerse myself in them again, they looked totally fine (and quite pretty) just as I remembered them. 

 

Your options are as follows: 

-Get a stronger GPU, turn up the settings, apply more AA.

-Get a stronger GPU and/or a higher resolution display (1440p or higher).

 

Otherwise, get used to it because this is just the way it is at 1080p. It is becoming a sub-standard resolution, IMO. 720p used to blow people's minds many years ago. Now, in 2016, 1080p just isn't cutting it anymore for many people.  

 

Could these issues be related to the Nvidia compression technology?

 

I doubt it. The same "things" are there with AMD, Intel and Nvidia GPUs. It's all normal. 

 

IMO, we're wasting our time nit picking about things that cannot be helped and things that are "normal". Instead, just forget about all this image quality conspiracy BS and go play games to enjoy them, not to look for graphical flaws (which you will always find). Instead, just immerse yourself in the gameplay. I know that a few of you have said it has "ruined the game" and is so bad that you "can't play". Well, here's my challenge to you: Stop messing with settings, stop messing with NVCP, stop messing with drivers. Don't even use the NVCP settings aside from Antistropic filtering to x16 and leave everything else on "application defined". Optimize your game settings for balance between graphics and frame rates (like you normally would). Now just go play some games and immerse yourself for a few hours in the gameplay, not the graphics. When you're more consumed by what is going on in the game, you should become far less receptive to these normal graphical anomalies. Give it a try.

 

I firmly believe this has all been blown way out of proportion and made out to be something far worse than it actually is. 

[Nena Trinity]

So last night I played AC Syndicate for a good 2 hours +. I wasn't "looking" for graphical glitches or anomalies, or flickering, or bad aliasing, or pop-in, or anything. I just simply "played the game". I carried out missions, explored the city, upgraded and leveled up my character, assassinated enemies, etc. I immersed myself into the game.

 

You know what? All this "stuff", these "issues" we've been talking about, none of it was a problem to me. Not in the slightest. Not when I just "played the game" to enjoy it. It is an absolutely beautiful game with an incredible amount of detail. The environmental lighting is the best I've seen in any game thus far. There were times when It actually felt like my character was scaling the side of a building in a photo-realistic world. To be able to render that kind of detail in real time at 60fps is just awesome. Yeah, when you focus on the detail in the distance and stare at it, of course you're going to see aliasing etc. It's the nature of the limitations of the resolution! I work with AutoCAD everyday on a 1920x1200 display. When I draw a line that is angled slightly off vertical or horizontal, guess what? It's aliased and you can easily see the "steps". The line cannot be represented any better, relative to the size and density of the pixels. 

 

Games will never be totally perfect. We all need to understand this. They will always have minor graphical anomalies. With the sheer amount of detail and complexity in moderns games it's always going to happen. The game cannot maintain it's highest LOD as far as you can see into the distance, no GPU on the market has enough capability to do this and won't for a long time yet. It's just simply too demanding and frankly, not necessary. You don't need to and can't see the 2k texture on the side of a building in all it's glory at 100 meters away. The display can't even render that much detail at that distance anyways (an exaggerated example, but you get the idea), so why force the GPU to render it? Same thing goes for shadow detail/quality at distances. Ubisoft did a great job with AC Syndicate in having texture/shadow quality "fade" the LOD as you move through the environment as opposed to having it "pop" in/out as seen in some other games. We also need to understand the limitations of pixel size and density as it relates to image quality. 

 

Again, for those that claim the image quality of their games somehow degraded from one day to the next, I don't have an answer for you. All I can say is that once I was focused on looking for these anomalies and issues, I noticed them a lot more. My games didn't seem to look as good as I remembered - because I was consciously aware and specifically looking for every little graphical flaw. Once I pushed that out of my mind and began playing my games to simply enjoy them and immerse myself in them again, they looked totally fine (and quite pretty) just as I remembered them. 

 

Your options are as follows: 

-Get a stronger GPU, turn up the settings, apply more AA.

-Get a stronger GPU and higher resolution display (1440p or higher).

 

Otherwise, get used to it because this is just the way it is at 1080p. It is becoming a sub-standard resolution, IMO. 720p used to blow people's minds many years ago. Now, in 2016, 1080p just isn't cutting it anymore for many people.  

 

 

I doubt it. The same "things" are there with AMD, Intel and Nvidia GPUs. It's all normal. 

 

IMO, we're wasting our time nit picking about things that cannot be helped and things that are "normal". Instead, just forget about all this image quality conspiracy BS and go play games to enjoy them, not to look for graphical flaws (which you will always find. Instead, just immerse yourself in the gameplay. I know that a few of you have said it has "ruined the game" and is so bad that you "can't play". Well, here's my challenge to you: Stop messing with settings, stop messing with NVCP, stop messing with drivers. Don't even use the NVCP settings aside from Antistropic filtering to x16 and leave everything else on "application defined". Optimize your game settings for balance between graphics and frame rates (like you normally would). Now just go play some games and immerse yourself for a few hours in the gameplay, not the graphics. When you're more consumed by what is going on in the game, you should become far less receptive to these normal graphical anomalies. Give it a try.

 

I firmly believe this has all been blown way out of proportion and made out to be something far worse than it actually is. 

But when you slide quality to max on everything it should look perfect right?

[MEC-777]

But when you slide quality to max on everything it should look perfect right?

 

No. It won't. This is a misconception. At 1080p your display only has so many pixels of a certain size (big enough that most people can clearly see them if you look close) to represent the rendered image containing levels of detail that exceed the capabilities of this resolution. Putting the quality to max simply means that is the best it can look - at the given resolution.

[Nena Trinity]

No. It won't. This is a misconception. At 1080p your display only has so many pixels of a certain size (big enough that most people can clearly see them if you look close) to represent the rendered image containing levels of detail that exceed the capabilities of this resolution. Putting the quality to max simply means that is the best it can look - at the given resolution.

What about max and 4K then?

[Demiqas]

Whenever I mention LOD bias and the fact that everything looks perfect on nvidia cards for the first two weeks it's like everyone goes ignore mode so they can go back to saying "oh it's all normal don't worry!".

[MEC-777]

What about max and 4K then?

 

Obviously, that will look closer to "perfect" (as limited by how well the game is made) since the pixel size and density is more capable of showing/displaying much higher levels of detail. 

 

Whenever I mention LOD bias and the fact that everything looks perfect on nvidia cards for the first two weeks it's like everyone goes ignore mode so they can go back to saying "oh it's all normal don't worry!".

 

Everything looks the same on my 980 as the day I bought it, which is also the same as it looked (with the same settings) on my 290(s). 

 

If and how the LOD bias actually changed as you claim in your case? I have no idea and I have no answer for you. I can only comment on that which I have observed myself.