That particular person appears to believe that upscalers, such as like DLSS and FSR, are “basic features”
Do people really like DLSS/FSR that much that they consider it a basic feature? I can’t stand the look of it and I’d rather just run actually at a lower resolution since it ends up looking better.
“Like” it? No, but it runs way better, and if you are using a high-resolution display, the quality upsampling methods are pretty decent on most games unless you are pixel peeping. I’d rather get 90+ fps with FSR3/DLSS3 with a 5 percent decrease in visual quality over ~45 fps at native resolution.
My qualm is all of the visual artificing I see. Maybe it’s just the games I play, but there are some pretty bad graphical glitches that bother me, and the frame timing is off or something because it makes the game feel less smooth. Part of the smoothness is probably the relatively weak CPU in my laptop. But even on my desktop the frame pacing doesn’t feel the same as native.
I think preferring a lower-than-native resolution over DLSS as a blanket statement is a bit of a wild take, but there can definitely be problems like artifacts, especially in certain games. I’m playing RDR2 at the moment and the TAA (which is forced to High with DLSS) is poorly implemented and causes flickers which is definitely annoying, as an example. I played Alan Wake 2 on an older laptop that barely ran it and I definitely noticed artifacting from DLSS there, though in fairness I was demanding a lot from that machine by forcing it to play AW2.
Frame time will of course be impacted so if you’re playing something really fast and twitchy you should stay away from DLSS probably. It’s also less bad if you don’t enable Frame Generation. Finally, both DLSS and Frame Generation input lag seems to scale with your baseline FPS. Using it to try to reach 60+ FPS will usually mean some input lag, using it when you’re already at ~60 FPS to get 80-100 or whatever means less noticeable input lag.
Do people really like DLSS/FSR that much that they consider it a basic feature? I can’t stand the look of it and I’d rather just run actually at a lower resolution since it ends up looking better.
“Like” it? No, but it runs way better, and if you are using a high-resolution display, the quality upsampling methods are pretty decent on most games unless you are pixel peeping. I’d rather get 90+ fps with FSR3/DLSS3 with a 5 percent decrease in visual quality over ~45 fps at native resolution.
My qualm is all of the visual artificing I see. Maybe it’s just the games I play, but there are some pretty bad graphical glitches that bother me, and the frame timing is off or something because it makes the game feel less smooth. Part of the smoothness is probably the relatively weak CPU in my laptop. But even on my desktop the frame pacing doesn’t feel the same as native.
I think preferring a lower-than-native resolution over DLSS as a blanket statement is a bit of a wild take, but there can definitely be problems like artifacts, especially in certain games. I’m playing RDR2 at the moment and the TAA (which is forced to High with DLSS) is poorly implemented and causes flickers which is definitely annoying, as an example. I played Alan Wake 2 on an older laptop that barely ran it and I definitely noticed artifacting from DLSS there, though in fairness I was demanding a lot from that machine by forcing it to play AW2.
Frame time will of course be impacted so if you’re playing something really fast and twitchy you should stay away from DLSS probably. It’s also less bad if you don’t enable Frame Generation. Finally, both DLSS and Frame Generation input lag seems to scale with your baseline FPS. Using it to try to reach 60+ FPS will usually mean some input lag, using it when you’re already at ~60 FPS to get 80-100 or whatever means less noticeable input lag.
I’ve had a horrible experience with fsr, but dlss I haven’t noticed a single issue and always turn it on
I tested it in BG3 and it didn’t work very well with trees and other small objects.