Neither of them are as good, especially if you factor in raytracing. DLSS Ray Reconstruction is basically required to not have a noisy image with RTX.

[–] count_dongulus@lemmy.world 1 points 19 hours ago

When I went team red for the first time earlier this year, I really scrutinized zoomed in screenshots to compare the upscaling for FSR and DLSS. With FSR 3, I couldn't see any difference compared to DLSS. Older FSR versions yeah, but at least for me not a problem any more.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 1 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Ray tracing*

RTX is a brand.

Regardless, given the performance impact and how few games actually have ray tracing (implemented correctly), it makes more sense to just disregard ray tracing altoghether.

It's an undercooked technology used to push more expensive products, nothing more.

Regarding dlss vs fsr and xess, yes dlss has better quality but it's also proprietary so I honestly do not care about it. Just like gsync died, dlss will eventually die as well.

[–] fuckwit_mcbumcrumble@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

Just like gsync died

(true) gsync isn't dead, it's only in the highest end of monitors which is basically where it's always been. It only "died" because it requires an expensive module vs adaptive sync being built into basically every modern display controller so it's basically free.

[–] potustheplant@feddit.nl 2 points 5 days ago

The proprietary gsync approach with a dedicated hw module is indeed dead and most "g-sync" monitors just use the now pretty common vesa's vrr (aka freesync).

However I did research a bit and found some "gsync pulsar" monitors but none have been released yet, I believe. They do sound like unnecessary overpriced products though. That's Nvidia for ya.