Hacker News Reader

Comment by chmod775 | Hacker News Reader

> will be two times faster [...] thanks to DLSS 4

Translation: No significant actual upgrade.

Sounds like we're continuing the trend of newer generations being beaten on fps/$ by the previous generations while hardly pushing the envelope at the top end.

A 3090 is $1000 right now.

View on HN

It looks like the new cards are NO FASTER than the old cards. So they are hyping the fake frames, fake pixels, fake AI rendering. Anything fake = good, anything real = bad.

Jensen thinks that "Moore's Law is Dead" and it's just time to rest and vest with regards to GPUs. This is the same attitude that Intel adopted 2013-2024.

Why are you upset how a frame is generated? We're not talking about free range versus factory farming. Here, a frame is a frame and if your eye can't tell the difference then it's as good as any other.

Latency and visual artifacts.

the main point of more fps is lower latency. if you're getting 1000 fps but they are all ai generated from a single real frame per second, your latency will be 500ms and the experience will suck

"a frame is a frame" - of course it isn't that makes no sense. The point of high frame rate is to have more frames that render the game state accurately for more subdivisions

Otherwise you could just duplicate every frame 100 times and run at 10k fps

Or hell just generate a million black frames every second, a frames a frame right

let me just apply my super proprietary machine learning architecture... ah yes it's done, behold, I can generate 3.69 trillion frames per second, because I compressed each frame to a single bit and that's how fast the CPU's memory bus is

He said "if your eyes can't tell the difference", which is obviously false in your case.

And obviously false with DLSS.

Why is that a problem though? Newer and more GPU intensive games get to benefit from DLSS 4 and older games already run fine. What games without DLSS support could have done with a boost?

I've heard this twice today so curious why it's being mentioned so often.

We all know DLSS4 could be compatible with previous gens.

Nvidia has done that in the past already (see PhysX).

> What games without DLSS support could have done with a boost?

DCS World?

Has DLSS now

I for one don't like the DLSS/TAA look at all. Between the lack of sharpness, motion blur and ghosting, I don't understand how people can look at that and consider it an upgrade. Let's not even get into the horror that is frame generation. They're a graphics downgrade that gives me a headache and I turn the likes of TAA and DLSS off in every game I can. I'm far from alone in this.

So why should we consider to buy a GPU at twice the price when it has barely improved rasterization performance? An artificially generation-locked feature anyone with good vision/perception despises isn't going to win us over.

Do you find DLSS unacceptable even on "quality" mode without frame generation?

I've found it an amazing balance between quality and performance (ultra everything with quality DLSS looks and run way better than, say, medium without DLSS). But I also don't have great vision, lol.

I also like DLSS, but the OP is correct that it is a problem. Specifically it's a problem with understanding what are these cards capable of. Theoretically we would like to see separately performance with no upscaling at all, then separately with different levels of upscaling. Then we would be able to see easier what is the real performance boost of the hardware, and of the upscaler separately.

It's like BMW comparing new M5 model to the previous gen M5 model, while previous gen is on the regular 95 octane, and new gen is on some nitromethane boosted custom fuel. With no information how fast the new car is on a regular fuel.

How situation actually looks like will be revealed soon via independent tests. I'm betting its bit of both, no way they can't progress in 2 years raw performance at all, other segments still manage to achieve this. Even 10%, combined with say 25% boost with DLSS, nets nice FPS increase. I wish it could be more but we don't have a choice right now.

Does normal gamers actually notice any difference on some normal 4k low latency monitors/tvs? I mean any form of extra lag, screen tearing etc.

>no way they can't progress in 2 years raw performance at all

Seems like we're now in the Intel CPU stage where they just keep increasing the TDP to squeeze out a few more percentage points, and soon we'll see the same degradation from overheating that they did.

5090 has 2x the core, higher frequencies, 3x flops. You got to do some dd before talking

Which flops? For AI flops it’s only 25% faster than 4090 (3352 tflops vs 2642 tflops)

>A 3090 is $1000 right now.

Not really worth it if you can get a 5090 for $1,999

If you can get a 5090 for that price, I'll eat my hat. scalpers with their armies of bots will buy them all before you get a chance.

Do you have a recipe in mind for preparing your hat for human consumption or is your plan to eat it raw?

it is absurdly easy to get a 5090 on launch. ive gotten their flagship from their website FE every single launch without fail. from 2080 to 3090 to 4090

i absolutely do not believe you

Saving $1000 for only a ~25-30% hit in rasterization perf is going to be worth it for a lot of people.

That would be true for the 4090, but the 3090 is even more cut down so the 5090 is about 100% faster in rasterization (based on the 4090 being nearly 70% faster than the 3090 and the 5090 being approx 25% faster than the 4090)

The increase from a 3090 to a 5090 would be way more than that.

Certainly worth paying +$1k if you are doing anything that requires GPU power (hash cracking with hashcat for example)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com