Sorry saying it was brainless was rude. I just meant you can’t rephrase the performance hit metric as a proportion of frames because of the reasons I specified and because it’s an evolving technology
Sorry saying it was brainless was rude. I just meant you can’t rephrase the performance hit metric as a proportion of frames because of the reasons I specified and because it’s an evolving technology
ilinamorato@lemmy.world 1 day ago
No worries, I get it. I was pretty brusque too.
I think it’s fair to phrase the performance hit that way, since you can turn it on and off with the same hardware. With it off, you get (X) frames per second. With it on, you get (X * 0.6) frames per second, or even less. That’s a pretty clear performance hit, and one that tells a fairly meaningful story about what’s actually going on. Now, that’d be one thing if the results were good, but nothing I’ve seen from DLSS5 has looked good enough to make that kind of a hit feel reasonable; in most cases, I think it looks actively worse.
The argument that it’s an evolving technology seems somewhat reasonable. But DLSS is at least seven years old, and has had four releases that actually do work in that time. And really, all technology is evolving, it’s just that most other companies still release what feels like finished products.
Or at least products that don’t accomplish the opposite of what they were intended to do; DLSS was intended to improve framerates by allowing the GPU to render a lower-resolution frame and have it cheaply upscaled to a higher resolution. With DLSS5 making framerates worse, it seems like they’d have been better off calling it something different.