Jump to content

PC Community Thread


stepee

Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

Maybe they were the wrong games for it, but I’ve tried DLSS and didn’t find the fps boost to be worth the weird graphical quirkiness of just running it natively. 

 

I have yet to play games beyond 60fps. Would much higher frame rates, say 120fps and above help hide or mitigate those graphical quirks more? Similar to 3D/VR benefitting with high frame rates? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

 

I have yet to play games beyond 60fps. Would much higher frame rates, say 120fps and above help hide or mitigate those graphical quirks more? Similar to 3D/VR benefitting with high frame rates? 

 

It would because a frame with artifacts is less noticeable the less on-screen time it has. That isn’t a typical experience with dlss though. Dlss quality looks better than native most of the time, balanced about on par, and performance not quite as good but the gains at that point are huge and I’d probably equate it to about 1800p for iq.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

It would because a frame with artifacts is less noticeable the less on-screen time it has. That isn’t a typical experience with dlss though. Dlss quality looks better than native most of the time, balanced about on par, and performance not quite as good but the gains at that point are huge and I’d probably equate it to about 1800p for iq.

 

I was able to play Portal RTX on my 3060 with DLSS, and overall thought it looked pretty good. But playing at 1080p is a standard resolution these days, so not as though I'm expecting the set my rockers on fire. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, imthesoldier said:

 

I was able to play Portal RTX on my 3060 with DLSS, and overall thought it looked pretty good. But playing at 1080p is a standard resolution these days, so not as though I'm expecting the set my rockers on fire. 

 

I should say that the higher the res it works better too. All my impressions are based off 4k really. I know it scales down much better than fsr2 but typically I hear you really want to do quality for 1080p, at least balanced for 1440p. Performance works best on 4k, and ultra performance works best on 8k.

 

The quality modes are basically how many times down it will scale the internal res so dor 4k it’s 720p, 1080p, 1260p, 1440p (ultra performance, performance, balanced, quality) so when you start at 1440p or 1080p or what have you then those quality modes scale the same which means you get into some really low native resolutions. And with a lower native resolution you will have less detail for the process to pick up and upscale from and that’s when you’ll see more issues pop up (blur during movement, artifacts, flickering)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

 

I have yet to play games beyond 60fps. Would much higher frame rates, say 120fps and above help hide or mitigate those graphical quirks more? Similar to 3D/VR benefitting with high frame rates? 


not that I’ve seen. I’ve been playing Horizon Zero Dawn on PC set to 1440p with Ultra settings getting about 90-120fps. I tried turning DLSS on and got about a 10-20% bump in fps, but was seeing some graphical weirdness in places. 
 

like Aloy’s hair would have a bit of blur to it when moving. There were these lines on bridges that when running they would appear static. As though the bridge was suddenly a scrolling 2D image on a CRT Tv. 
 

I didn’t play it that way for long. I turned it back off. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

I should say that the higher the res it works better too. All my impressions are based off 4k really. I know it scales down much better than fsr2 but typically I hear you really want to do quality for 1080p, at least balanced for 1440p. Performance works best on 4k, and ultra performance works best on 8k.

 

The quality modes are basically how many times down it will scale the internal res so dor 4k it’s 720p, 1080p, 1260p, 1440p (ultra performance, performance, balanced, quality) so when you start at 1440p or 1080p or what have you then those quality modes scale the same which means you get into some really low native resolutions. And with a lower native resolution you will have less detail for the process to pick up and upscale from and that’s when you’ll see more issues pop up (blur during movement, artifacts, flickering)

 

I think I had it on Quality DLSS at first, but then bumped it down to Balanced for more consistent frames. It can run at 60fps with some tweaks, contrary to what nVidia said. Geez. 

 

1 minute ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:


not that I’ve seen. I’ve been playing Horizon Zero Dawn on PC set to 1440p with Ultra settings getting about 90-120fps. I tried turning DLSS on and got about a 10-20% bump in fps, but was seeing some graphical weirdness in places. 
 

like Aloy’s hair would have a bit of blur to it when moving. There were these lines on bridges that when running they would appear static. As though the bridge was suddenly a scrolling 2D image on a CRT Tv. 
 

I didn’t play it that way for long. I turned it back off. 

 

Sounds like some artifacting, and/or shimmering effects as a result of those fine details. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:


not that I’ve seen. I’ve been playing Horizon Zero Dawn on PC set to 1440p with Ultra settings getting about 90-120fps. I tried turning DLSS on and got about a 10-20% bump in fps, but was seeing some graphical weirdness in places. 
 

like Aloy’s hair would have a bit of blur to it when moving. There were these lines on bridges that when running they would appear static. As though the bridge was suddenly a scrolling 2D image on a CRT Tv. 
 

I didn’t play it that way for long. I turned it back off. 

 

You are likely cpu bound in this scenario so that’s why there isn’t much of a gain in that case. I think you’d also want to replace its dlss version with 2.5.1 to help with those fine detail issues. But you don’t need the boost there, so it would only be worth it for the better AA.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

 

I think I had it on Quality DLSS at first, but then bumped it down to Balanced for more consistent frames. It can run at 60fps with some tweaks, contrary to what nVidia said. Geez. 

 

 

Sounds like some artifacting, and/or shimmering effects as a result of those fine details. 


yeah. I probably won’t mess with turning it on in games until I reach a point where it struggles to stay above 60fps. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stepee said:

 

You are likely cpu bound in this scenario so that’s why there isn’t much of a gain in that case. I think you’d also want to replace its dlss version with 2.5.1 to help with those fine detail issues. But you don’t need the boost there, so it would only be worth it for the better AA.

 

Probably would recommend turning on MSI Afterburner, and seeing what kind of usage he's getting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, stepee said:

 

You are likely cpu bound in this scenario so that’s why there isn’t much of a gain in that case. I think you’d also want to replace its dlss version with 2.5.1 to help with those fine detail issues. But you don’t need the boost there, so it would only be worth it for the better AA.


What would I need to not be CPU bound? I have a 13700kf. Would I have needed the 13900? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:


What would I need to not be CPU bound? I have a 13700kf. Would I have needed the 13900? 

 

A better programmed game :P

 

I don’t think you have an issue because your frame rate is high - and I’m just guessing based off of the percentage you gained that you are essentially gaining performance up until the point your cpu hits ITS limit.

 

Looking briefly at: 

WWW.TECHPOWERUP.COM

 

And it looks like a 2080ti doesn’t lose much performance from 1080p up to 1440p and it averages 90fps there at 1080p so I’m assuming that’s due to the cpu bottleneck on the 9900k used in testing there whereas you can go higher as your cpu is better.

 

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

35 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:


not that I’ve seen. I’ve been playing Horizon Zero Dawn on PC set to 1440p with Ultra settings getting about 90-120fps. I tried turning DLSS on and got about a 10-20% bump in fps, but was seeing some graphical weirdness in places. 
 

like Aloy’s hair would have a bit of blur to it when moving. There were these lines on bridges that when running they would appear static. As though the bridge was suddenly a scrolling 2D image on a CRT Tv. 
 

I didn’t play it that way for long. I turned it back off. 

 

I'm assuming that Horizon uses a DLSS2 version that doesn't play nice with it. https://www.techpowerup.com/download/nvidia-dlss-dll/- Try a newer version (you just copy over the .dll in the game directory). DLSS typically looks better than native resolution in 99% of games, and does not have any artifacts. The claim of it only bumping performance by 20% vs native is a bit of a misnomer, as DLSS also provides the equivalent of 4x AA (or better) at quality, so the real test is native + 4x AA vs DLSS.

The lower you go in base resolution, the higher the setting of DLSS you need. However, at quality, you can go down to 1080p and it should not look worse than native (should look significantly better considering the aliasing being removed). 1440p, the lowest you'd want is balanced. 4k you can go to performance without it looking noticeably worse than native. 8k can go all the way down to ultra performance.

 

 

23 hours ago, stepee said:

 

Switch is theoretically 1tflops to the Xbox One OG’s 1.3, but there’s a lot more to their power gulf and I believe that the 1tflops is measured differently (16bit calculations?) in a way that makes it seem closer than it is in practical terms. I see Wikipedia has it at 500gflops docked, I have a feeling that isn’t totally accurate but it’s probably around there. I think counting the cpu difference it’s probably like 1/3rd there. It’s comfortably between a 360 and a X1. 

 

I think this could be a lot closer, reasonably it should be close to a Series S at least but it’s just that it’s NINTENDO

 

Weird, I remember seeing a graph that put the X1 just a hair below the launch Xbone overall in terms of capabilities.

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Spork3245 said:

I'm assuming that Horizon uses a DLSS2 version that doesn't play nice with it. https://www.techpowerup.com/download/nvidia-dlss-dll/- Try a newer version (you just copy over the .dll in the game directory). DLSS typically looks better than native resolution in 99% of games, and does not have any artifacts.


I will try that. 
 

I also noticed the artifacts in Spider-Man. Same thing I assume? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Spawn_of_Apathy said:


I will try that. 
 

I also noticed the artifacts in Spider-Man. Same thing I assume? 

 

Hmm, I didn't get any artifacts in Spider-Man from DLSS, but I'm at 4k. In Hitman I was getting the "ghosting" effect it causes in some games, swapped in the newest .dll and it's gone. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

Look at you guys with your fancy-schmancy 1440p, and 4k monitors...

 Fail Spider Man GIF

 

 

Though truthfully, I'd like to upgrade to Alienware's 34" QD-OLED, but a grand is difficult to justify. Would rather buy more power tools at this rate. Damn you, Adulting! 


I’ve actually got it connected to my Tv. The LG 65QNED90. It has Gsync for the PC and free sync for the XsX. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

Look at you guys with your fancy-schmancy 1440p, and 4k monitors...

 Fail Spider Man GIF

 

 

Though truthfully, I'd like to upgrade to Alienware's 34" QD-OLED, but a grand is difficult to justify. Would rather buy more power tools at this rate. Damn you, Adulting! 

I got one a couple of weeks ago during their sale -- It's a big improvement over my old IPS panel.  Quality of monitor is at least as important as power of GPU.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

I got one a couple of weeks ago during their sale -- It's a big improvement over my old IPS panel.  Quality of monitor is at least as important as power of GPU.

 

yeah I play on tv but same applies and I neglected that too long while updating gpus to the latest - you don’t need to do it nearly as often but at a certain point you are spending money in the wrong area if you let it get too far behind 

  • Halal 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, stepee said:

 

yeah I play on tv but same applies and I neglected that too long while updating gpus to the latest - you don’t need to do it nearly as often but at a certain point you are spending money in the wrong area if you let it get too far behind 

 

I rarely upgrade monitors and try to get the best possible when I do. Currently have the PG27UQ, before that it was a Sony GDM FW900. I keep looking at the PG32UQX but apparently the pixel response time is notably slower than the PG27UQ so you'll get that LCD "smearing" effect (though, many don't notice it on this particular monitor; it's at that "borderline" point where it's potentially visible). That being said, the new batches of Micro LED monitors start coming second half of this year and they'll have 2000+ zones rather than the current 1100-1300. I'll get OLED for TVs, but definitely not for monitors considering how rarely I like to upgrade, I work from home a lot, and burn-in is still a thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Spork3245 said:

 

 

 

At 4x the size of my 37", the does translate to about 75 or so inches for 4k, which for me makes the perfect upgrade size. Though, I'm going to wait until the basement is finished in a few short years before I take the plunge. Currently doing a long-term Radon test to see if we'll need a mitigation system or not. Also properly patching any cracks in the foundation walls beforehand (though luckily a wet basement we haven't had since we moved almost 3 years ago)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

 

Jokes on me. I'm still rockin' a 37" Samsung 1080p TV from around 2007-2008. :lol:

 

Even my PARENTS have a 4K TV now. :|


I wasn’t going to upgrade as soon (based on original plans), but within 2 years my OLED had developed burn in from all my hours in Destiny 2. I could see the outline of the HUD elements in other content depending the colors on screen and how solid they were. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

 

At 4x the size of my 37", the does translate to about 75 or so inches for 4k, which for me makes the perfect upgrade size. Though, I'm going to wait until the basement is finished in a few short years before I take the plunge. Currently doing a long-term Radon test to see if we'll need a mitigation system or not. Also properly patching any cracks in the foundation walls beforehand (though luckily a wet basement we haven't had since we moved almost 3 years ago)

I was looking at similar size TVs at Costco -- and am waiting for the same thing.

We're redoing the Master Bath shortly, and the Kitchen comes next....  So it may be a couple more years...

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, AbsolutSurgen said:

I was looking at similar size TVs at Costco -- and am waiting for the same thing.

We're redoing the Master Bath shortly, and the Kitchen comes next....  So it may be a couple more years...

 

Good stuff! We're unfortunately putting that off to address upgrading the electrical in the whole house later this spring, plus a new driveway afterwards possibly next year if not sooner. Then the Kitchen, and Bathroom remodel will commence. And only then will I tackle the basement. So much money... :cry:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, imthesoldier said:

 

Good stuff! We're unfortunately putting that off to address upgrading the electrical in the whole house later this spring, plus a new driveway afterwards possibly next year if not sooner. Then the Kitchen, and Bathroom remodel will commence. And only then will I tackle the basement. So much money... :cry:

 

sounds like it’s time to start embezzling from the different project budgets a bit. Siphon off some money from each one and then you got your tv money. 

  • Haha 2
  • True 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, imthesoldier said:

 

Good stuff! We're unfortunately putting that off to address upgrading the electrical in the whole house later this spring, plus a new driveway afterwards possibly next year if not sooner. Then the Kitchen, and Bathroom remodel will commence. And only then will I tackle the basement. So much money... :cry:

When we moved back to Canada in '19 -- we were forced to buy a "fixer" due to the ridiculous housing inflation in Canada.

We've redone the windows, siding, eaves/gutters, lighting on the upstairs level and 2 of the three bathrooms.  (Doing almost all of the interior work ourselves.) 

Fortunately, the city just re-did the electrical/sewer/roads/sidewalk and dug up half our driveway -- so we ended up getting the rest paved for C$1,600.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Spawn_of_Apathy said:

 

sounds like it’s time to start embezzling from the different project budgets a bit. Siphon off some money from each one and then you got your tv money. 

 

I did just spend a few hundreds dollars buying some more Milwaukee tools + Batteries. My EGO, and Milwaukee lineup of tools is growing day by day. That, and I'm spending funds to keep my vehicle on the road for the next 3-4 years (that money though is earmarked for automotive). 

 

At this point though, I'm done buying electronic hardware for gaming purposes (Upgraded PC + Steam Deck last year), so housing projects (both big, and small) have taken much of the time and effort. Got a new Metal Roof last year (because it's our forever home), plus water heater, and softener, and previously upgraded the furnace when we first got the house. 

 

17 minutes ago, AbsolutSurgen said:

When we moved back to Canada in '19 -- we were forced to buy a "fixer" due to the ridiculous housing inflation in Canada.

We've redone the windows, siding, eaves/gutters, lighting on the upstairs level and 2 of the three bathrooms.  (Doing almost all of the interior work ourselves.) 

Fortunately, the city just re-did the electrical/sewer/roads/sidewalk and dug up half our driveway -- so we ended up getting the rest paved for C$1,600.

 

 

I imagine the housing market in Canada got particularly bad during the Pandemic though, correct? And was probably better you got the house then rather than in the middle of it all, or slightly afterwards? At least with all the stuff you've replaced, and done, it makes the whole place feel your own, and not so much someone else's place you just happen to buy it from, which I find a big joy in owning a house. You slowly make it yours. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...