DLSS Quality 1440p vs DLSS Performance 4K... Which Is Better?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 фев 2025
- ► Watch the FULL video here: • DF Direct Weekly #153:...
► Support us on Patreon! bit.ly/3jEGjvx
► Digital Foundry RUclips: / digitalfoundry
► Digital Foundry Merch: store.digitalf...
► Digital Foundry at Eurogamer: eurogamer.net/...
► Follow on Twitter: / digitalfoundry
Remember when we all upgraded to a 15" monitor back in the day and thought it was huge?
Now John's sitting five inches away from a 42" monitor saying "yeah, this is the right size."
If one needs to move eyes to see something on the screen, it's the wrong distance. And no way someone isn't doing that in desktop distances with a 42". Human peripheral vision isn't that good.
he is crazy i have a 27 inch monitor and I WISH it was smaller. i dont like the big sizes these days at all. and honestly i think it also worsens the image quality problems on pc.i would be happy with 22 inches but good luck finding a good monitor at that size!
The cheapest OLEDs are 42" (LG TVs) and you can't go back once you saw one.
@@asmod4n OLED =/= size. Apples to oranges.
@sapphyrus Just play it in a 640x480 window then 🗿
I tried both and 2160p with dlss performance looks better in my opinion
It's literally higher input and output, why wouldn't it look better.
This, same in my experience, even on a 48" TV. However, 4K monitors aren't worth buying at all, and I only use 1440p for browsing and work, not gaming
John is right about 42 or 48" TVs and they have BFI to increase the motion resolution in a way that not even DLSS3 can match.
@@AVerySillySausageThe temporal aspect might have had a bigger impact. The time to refresh a given pixels "real" value is 2 at 1440p Quality and 4 at 2160 Performance.
Why would i play at 4k u lose to much fps native or dlls quality is best choice go if u want to look your game super clean u can't use dlss preformance it makes blurry the game it's not native native is original resolution i prefer 1440p high fps and u can play without dlls
this is probably the answer the initial asker was looking for, Alex went in too deep hahah
I'm using DLDSR 2.25x (4k) on my 180hz 1440p monitor and the difference in visual detail and clarity is huge!
I use DLDSR for single player games etc, then I'll switch back to native 1440p for FPS games. Its a win win.
I did the same with RDR2 and the end result was phenomenal! Also performance was like sort of playing native 1440p but man, the image quality become far superior.
what smoothing % do you use?
@@tinytittim1407 I use 10% that's too sharp for a lot of people but i like it.
Im using my native 1440p 27 inch acer predator and i use DLDSR for 4k downsampling in the same exact way for Single Player experience.
The exploits of dldsr (4k) on a native 1440p screen is incredible and noticeable. 4k dlss performance mode in games like Alan Wake 2 definitely look better with additional invisible detail, unseen on native 1440p quality or just 1440p native before.
Im fearful to spend a boatload of cash on a 32 inch above, native 4k.
Yes, im probably in the minority using a 4090 with this setup as i bet many others would cry and say, pair it with an omega superior overpriced out the butt OLED TV which im not convinced ill be happy with.
@@tinytittim1407 i also use the default (33 percent i think?)
I cant really notice much with this setting.
42 C2 OLED was the best investment for gaming I had ever made, I can never go back
wait for the pixel peepers who will insist 4k @ 42 inch is way too big but will advocate 32inch 4k IPS by not taking into account black levels.
You can go back, when it breaks.
I had 3 OLEDs over the course of 5 years, even with gentle care, dead pixels popped up..🥺
My 34 inch ultrawide monitor has a single dead pixel that i know of, thanks for reminding me about it -_- @@Lollikips
Laughs in 85inch Neo Qled 32x hdr 1ms
@@UsmanAli-mz8zf oled is better
I still don't think they were being clear here. The thing that i want answered is a qualitative comparison of how DLSS does with 50% pixels at 1440p vs 25% pixels at 2160p. I know the amount of pixels being sampled is still more at 2160p performance, but the temporal aspect must be in play too, no?
If the average number of frames to refresh a pixels history is 2 frames at 1440p quality and 4 frames at 2160 Performance, that surely must have some kind of impact as well?
This answer was kind of a mess, because it became more focused on the purchase decision scenario than on the actual core subject.
I feel like you guys sometimes get too deep into your own shorthand or a shorthand with a longterm audience on what is and isn't part of some shared accumulated knowledge pool. It would be welcome to tackle this subject even if the answer is obvious to you guys.
Why not do your own testing and share it in the comments section. To me thier answer was very clear as day, it is not something that you can answer with 2-3 words. But let me know which you think is better.
@@Pandemonium088 They didn't have to answer it in 2-3 words. but they got distracted by the set-up use-case rather than the actual core of the question.
How am I to test it? I don't have the expertise, equipment or methodologies these guys do. I know my place.
@@BomimoDK if you watch it again, they have clearly given a good answer. A lot of factors are in play when it comes to dlss, including the native render resolution and screen size. But if we are just considering a still image. Then 4k dlss performance is far better than 1440p dlls quality.
@@Pandemonium088 True. From my experience - 4K in Performance looks almost as good as 4K in Quality, except for more ghosting and other such motion artifacts in some games. If these don't bother you - always go for 4K Performance. If they do - test it on a game-by-game basis. For example, I'm very happy using Performance in Cyberpunk, but Call of Duty Warzone is full of artifacts then which makes the Quality mode a necessity. It's crazy how good the static image can look upscaled from such a low resolution, but what happens in motion is a different story.
I am SO sad they didn't really answer the question. When I saw the caption I clicked right away as it is also a doubt that I have. What do experts think about the resolution vs. upscaling tradeoff. They focused too much on the monitor size debate which was just a side mention of the question if I got the gist correctly.
There's something hilarious about watching this on a 21.5" monitor and hearing John say 27" monitors are tiny. But I'm sure it's all just a matter of what you're used to.
27" and 32 are" not small, 42" monitors for a desktop is just silly. being so close to the screen on a 42" worsens the experience in gaming. if you can't see outside the borders of a screen you might get motion sickness and our peripheral vision is bad at looking at details.
It's all about the distance you have to the monitor.
well Digital foundry does a lot of pixel peeping so for them larger the monitor is better, makes sense.@@metalface_villain
@@metalface_villain Yeah, I won't go bigger than 32" for my gaming monitor. It's a good size for an immersive experience, but not big enough to cause issues. It might already be too big for esports though. I think esports pros are usually at 27" or even 24".
People who play competitive games still prefer 24" on average so you can sit very close and still see the edges of your screen. Just depends what you're playing.
As a person who actually did try both of these and tested extensively across several games, 4K perf is better. Bigger input, bigger output. 1440p quality has noticeable shimmering in comparison. Don't fall for theorycrafters without first-hand experience in the comments.
the whole upscalling thing already make me anxious. It creates variables when you simply don't have to experience a decade ago.
Although I'm curious, does 1440p native with TAA is better than 4k DLSS perf? Right now I'm still on 1440p side because 4k just cost too much for what its worth.
@@nickochioneantony9288 It is not, tried both. Only games with lazy devs are an issue.
@@nickochioneantony9288 I have 4K 27inch monitor. I can say that 4K DLSS is a great choice. 4K DLSS Performance looks still great. I absolutely sure that 4K DLSS Quality is much better than 2K native. But I suppose that 4K DLSS Performance and 2K native are almost the same. It depends of the game. Soma games are so blurry in native 2K with TAA (Dirt 5, Forbidden West, Mafia 3), and 4K Perf in much better. When I had 2K monitor I was wonder that many games looked better with 2K DLSS Quality than 2K native cos of blurry TTA.
Anyway my tests in 7 new games show:
1. 4K DLSS Quality gives -10% fps than 2K native
2. 4K DLSS Performance gives -10% fps than 2K DLSS Quality
10% is not a big deal. All these 2 ways gives much better picture in 4K. It's a big deal.
@@nickochioneantony9288 it's new tech. We didn't have Ai at this level a decade ago. We were still doing things the way we have for the past 30 years. It is moving the industry forward by saving lots of computational data for things like lighting and textures. The anti-aliasing is also becoming better than anything TAA could hope to accomplish, while again, SAVING FRAMES.
It really is awesome to go from 30 fps to 60fps and barely see a image difference. It's not worse, it's usually just a litte different, often cleaner with less jaggies too
@@DessIvanovI saw this aswell after getting my first pc. I’m a huge fan of where dlss is going. And with the recent transformer model and dlss4 u can get an incredible image, great fps at 4K. Sometimes even better than native due to it resolving some shimmering. I was actually amazed. Dlss quality in most games on my 4090 looks better than native
I remember the first time I was able to set a games resolution to 800x600 on a CRT monitor after years of 640x480 and how it blew my little mind.
Duke Nukem 3D super VGA hail to the king baby!
Yeah we were talking about playing Quake in 1280x1024 and the PC it needed was something out of sci fi
The answer better be 4k. It's much better. But obviously it depends on the dpi and distance of the screen
960p upscaled to 1440p vs 1080p upscaled to 4k. Logic says 1440p here is better, but I may be wrong.
@@nameless.0190Dlss p @ 4k may have a similar output but there will likely be more upscaling artifacts. Maybe less low res feelings though.
@@nameless.0190 thats not logic dawg, logic is comapring ppi, just saying low number go to bigger number doesnt make it logic
4K performance is better!!!
Who else loves when Rich says "exclamation point!"?
For budget users, the comparison should be between 1080p dlss quality 24' vs 1440p dlss performance 27'
Meanwhile some of us are here with FSR2 and wishing we could get upscaling quality.
Playing Resident Evil: Village with only FSR was rough. I wanted DLSS so badly. I felt like I could almost make the graphics look acceptable on my RTX 2060 at the time...
It's obvious they'll say 4K, because all 3 guys here seem to be mostly into immersive single player gaming. If you're into esports, then 1440p 27 makes a lot more sense.
By esports players do you mean people who play twitch shooters professionally for a living or basement dwelling sweats who play try hard on casual multiplayer games with dad's money ?
As long as the same FPS can be maintained, higher resolution will always be better in esports as well. Or people would have stayed at 1024x768. So what you're stating should instead be "higher responsiveness and fludidity is more important to maintain at a high level for esports".
@@Sand_1995 you can't really be this disconnected from gaming, can you? 120hz+ is very noticeable and important for motion clarity which helps you literally see/decipher the image faster/better. Everyone benefits from it, not just "sweaty gamer kids". Acting like it's only pro gamers that need it is pathetically naïve, as well as insinuating that it's just kids.
@@Sand_1995 Looks like someone lost a ranked against a kid and now is mad
@@andrewskaterrr wtf are you even yapping about? I never said anything against 120fps gaming
Alex was quite confusing hahah what a round about answer
4K performance would run worse. It's not just the slightly higher internal resolution, the overhead of DLSS itself is also higher when upscaling to higher res. As for image quality, I feel it's a trade off. 4K performance would look crispier on still shot, but also more temporally unstable when the camera is moving. If you hate upscaling artifact, 1440p quality might be better. If your game don't have that much camera motion, 4k performance might be better.
4K perf is actually temporally more stable. 1440p quality easily shimmers with small surfaces on an angle like floor tiles due to both lower input res and the resulting artifacts being output on a lower res. Since you keep using "would", did you actually try these?
@@sapphyrus Sure. I've been using a 4K monitor and not exactly a high-end GPU (3060ti) for years, so it's a choice I have to make regularly.
I say "would" because it varies a lot on a game to game basis. Some games are just more or less visually stable than others.
One vivid example I remember very well is Horizon: Zero Dawn. The game's smoke effect scale to internal res instead of upscaled res, and it isn't denoised very well. So smoke effect would produce this blocky artifact when you play on any DLSS setting other than Quality, even on 4K. The problem is not that it's low res, it's the descrepency of seeing high res assets right next to extremely low res one. Playing on Quality or even native "averages out" the descrepency, so the artifact doesn't jump out.
@@唐唯剛 The main thin is that native resolution is not a future for PC games. I have 4080 Super, and almost ALL games on Unreal Engine 5 don't run 60fps in native 4K. If you use 3060Ti, you know that you need to use 2K DLSS Balance for stable 60fps in Remnant 2 (Unreal 5). I mean that even 4070 can't run all game sin native 2K without DLSS. DLSS has problems with some artefacts, but we need to use upscalers anyway. And if we compare 2K DLSS Quality (960p) and 4K DLSS Performance (1080p), there won't be more artifacts in 4K DLSS Performance mode. My experience tells me that 2K DLSS Quality has more artifacts
All I can picture now is them sitting in front of 42 inch monitors on their desktop... Haha that's so ridiculously huge if you are sitting closer than 2 meters.
It's not that big really, lots of people run it with 80-90cm desks. Look up LG c2 or c3
@@ermirhalitaj5346 90cm depth?
I've got the 42 as a monitor. A little to tall unless I'm sitting back playing with a controller. When I play in UW mode it's much more manageable
@@ermirhalitaj5346 I have a desk with 90cm depth and a 42" monitor would be way too big.
@@faultier1158 I also have 90cm, and honestly is almost too far away, at least for work. But, I can use it for work without needing more than one monitor, and gaming is much more immersive than anything ive experienced on my previous 28" 4k monitor.
I've noticed that many RUclips benchmarking channels accept as fact that DLSS performance mode isn't worth considering, only showing benchmarks for quality mode at 4K. However, performance mode was always intended to be used at 4K.
Unless you're specifically looking for differences, it's honestly very hard to tell the difference between DLSS quality and DLSS performance, but the performance boost is massive.
Use two same size (OLED) monitors side by side and test DLSS on both of them (latest version). There's a massive downgrade when upscaling to 1440p on multiple games I tested. The image is just not good enough. I feel like to get similar visual quality, it's needed to use DLDSR + DLSS on 1440p monitor.
The biggest difference I found was with Alan Wake 2. The DLSS scaling was massively better on all rendering resolutions when using 4k screen. Even ultra performance was scaling insanely well, but 1440p did struggle a lot, even with higher rendering resolution.
or just use DLAA if you can spare the performance
@@Nintenboy01 This was about DLSS. If I had spare performance, I would pick DLDSR + DLSS (as high level a possible). The detail level is just nuts. DLDSR + DLAA would be the best, but not really doable with current hardware on AAA titles on solid fps.
@Monsux You are spot on with what you say about Alan wake 2. Dlss quality @ 1440p made the game look grainy and ugly for me, I had to play at native with sub 60 fps on a 3080!
What is the performance difference between 1440p dlss quality vs 4k dlss performance?
@@kevinmlfc I can't remember the details, just that it took more GPU power to run the game on a 1440p screen, when trying to have same sort of visual quality. This is because the great scaling on a 4k resolution.
Also, the difference depends on so many factors. I did run with path tracing most of the time and it was 100% playable on 4k performance/ultra performance, but not when using 1440p monitor (such a bad DLSS scaling). First time at launch wit 3080 Ti and later with 4080 Super. Btw, this game looks really good with DLDSR 2.25 + DLSS performance on a 1440p screen.
27" works well for 1440p, you can read small text just fine. Now 4K on the same display size I can definitely understand that some people find everything too small and hard to read. Now regarding DLSS, if you already own a 4K monitor there is no debate: choose the output that matches your monitor's native resolution so here 4K DLSS performance is the way to go vs 1440p DLSS Quality that will force your monitor to work in 1440p and you don't want that on an OLED or LCD monitor (just like 1080p looks terrible on a 1440p monitor, like 720p on 1080p etc.).
yes and the internal resolution is a bit higher too at 4K DLSS Perf (1080p versus 1706x960)
The question was about choosing a new monitor, not how to run a 4K monitor they already have. The concern about text being too small at the same screen size with 4K is unfounded because everything can scale, there's 2 separate ways to do it on windows (affecting size of the windows or only the content within them), and that's just systemwide, there's also in-app scaling.
@@MaxoverpowerOn the Windows or Linux desktop yes, but not all games have a scalable UI.
Interesting question. I think that if you consider only a still image, no motion, then 4k DLSS performance mode looks better, but in motion you start seeing a LOT more artifacts in performance mode vs quality at 1440p and those end up bothering me more.
Once you go 4K, you cannot go back to 1440p I suppose. Talking about casual gaming ofcourse. (4080 user here)
just got aw3225qf qd oled 4k 32" coming from 27gn850-b 1440p ips. WOW!!!!!!. I am done....
Not for me, I was gaming on a 4K IPS for a long time but switched to a 1440p OLED, I have to say I prefer the OLED even with the lower resolution, and I have a desk setup so I typically sit closer to the monitor so sharpness of the image ain’t too much of a deal to me, you may be asking why not just a 4K OLED, well simply put it’s just too expensive.
Lol i go back from 4k to 1080p all the time, those high refresh rates are 💕
@snake2106 I hear ya. I play alot of single player survival horror and got tired of ips.glow and jaggies... so 4k oled cured my illness
@dienekesn9312 it is extremely expensive...I treated myself....I waited along time for it...
I really don't buy the argument that a 27'' is too small. As you move up in screen size, there's a point where you have to consistently move those screens back farther than your previous, yet your FOV remains largely unchanged. A 27'' monitor at two feet is the same FOV as a 77'' TV at six and a half feet.
If you were arguing resolution, that's another matter entirely. 4K doesn't become worth it on a monitor until 32''.
Nuh uh. 4k would look better at 27 inches vs higher due to higher pixel density, which would dramatically reduce AA artifacts.
@@TimberWulfIsHere No, actually it doesn't for the cost. You don't really notice much of a difference between 1440p and 4K until you're around 32'' and even then that's at the point where it _barely_ becomes noticeable.
@@Neonmirrorblack Get your eyes checked because you certainly do not have 20/20 vision.
@@TimberWulfIsHereLive in your own reality. Meanwhile, everyone else who actually has a clue recommends not bothering with 4K until you're at least on a 32''.
@@Neonmirrorblack who TF cares what someone recommends. I can see the fkin difference dude, I can literally go look at the 4k 27 inch monitor in the house and the 1444p and can distinctly tell the difference. If you clue on this logic I'm guessing you recommend running a 360p phone because 6 inches is way too small for even 720p hey?
Fkin hell dude, I'm serious, get, them, checked.
When I got my 4080S I tried playing Avatar at high settings at 4K with DLSS quality. I think I got 60-80 fps. Then thought why not try ultra settings with dlss performance? It looked great to me and gave me a locked 115fps so finished the game like that. 1440p on my 4K 55"OLED at 2.5 meters away looks good, but at 4K it looks awesome and I can't see a reason to put it to quality and lose double digit fps or have to turn down the settings.
was Avatar good?
@@irsshill4502 excellent! When I went to play cyberpunk dlc after it I have up fairly quickly cos movement felt so clunky. Avatar is a great mix of graphical flair, kinetic movement and pretty fun story and action. It probably helps if you like the avatar movie though, which I do (at least the first one).
@irsshill4502 It sucks. Let Ubisoft go bankrupt already...
@@irsshill4502it's very good. Especially if you liked the movie.
I know it can't be helped, but as individuals who prefer 42 inch monitors as ideal and consider 27 inches tiny (which is ridiculous to the masses), how can you remain confident about your perception, optimizations and suggestions being relevant and meaningful to the general populace?
I switched from 32" 1440p 144Hz to 42" 4K 144Hz this year and I play Apex Legends and CS2 and still get 23000 RP 😅
Why would the 'general populace' be buying 4080s? If you have the oh so unfortunate problem of having to make good use of a 4080, I don't think you're looking for average. You CAN do a lot more with a larger monitor that maintains a high pixel density. It's simply a fact. 27 inches used to be considered huge, but that was a generation that generally accepted having a single window open at a time for workflows, or playing games where the texture resolution was 256x256 at the top end. Even if you had a bigger screen, it would be pointless. It isn't anymore.
Why don't you go back to using flip phones with a 2 inch screen that the masses and general populace used instead of your edge-to-edge smart phone which even today some still call a premium experience? In your world, it seems standards and needs don't change.
42" is a TV, not monitor like you don't have 11" phones but they become tablets at that stage.
@@sapphyrus yeah whatever fits You. People used to say that about 32" couple years ago. It's called progress and user preferences - I work and play on my screen so I want the maximum workspace and immersion.
I have a Samsung Z Fold 4 btw 😅
@@doniscoming 32" already at the borderline, I didn't move over as it'd need to be further from 50cm. Product categories don't progress. You don't make a truck-sized car and call it car progress, it becomes a truck.
If you have more immersion on a TV, that's cool. But it's not a monitor at 42".
I have to agree with this. I play on a lg c2 42inch and cyberpunk at dlss max everything on performance mode compared to quality at native 4k. The upscale looks 99% the same, but with performance I get around 90 to 120 fps but on quality I get between 65 to 90 fps depending on my mods and where I’m at in the game and what’s going on. So the higher frame rate seems like the no brainer overall when image upscale quality would come down to the smallest differences in detail that you would have to pin point while stopped and looking for it. While gaming, you won’t notice any difference. At least not to my eyes.
Whoever calls 27 inch screens too small are crazy. 32 inches are too big. If I'm having to move my entire head to see what's on the sides of the screen, that isn't working.
Crazy person +1 here. Can't stand 27 inch anymore...
That just means you are too close to the monitor. If you cannot sit further away then that is a good reason to not have a 32". Use the monitor size that suits your needs.
@@Ozzianman It does depend on the sitting distance, yes. My 50" bedroom TV would be a behemoth on my desk, but it's a good size from the bed. The average desk sitting distance isn't going to have you more than about 3 feet from the screen. For the folks that use a 32in screen at that distance, I just don't understand how they do it.
@@唐唯剛 About how far do you sit from the screen? Just a regular desk sitting distance?
i use a 48" c2 oled as a monitor and it's absolutely fine, i'd go so far as to say its the best monitor experience i've ever had.
*27" 1440p (High Refresh Rate)*
+Great value
+Good pixeldensity and image quality
+Midend GPU enough
-DLSS is not as effective.
-Limited screen area.
*32" 2160p (High Refresh Rate)*
+Great pixeldensity and image quality
+DLSS is a lot more effective
+Good screen area
-Expensive
-Requires a highend GPU
-Diminishing returns
Sometimes we’re reminded that digital foundry are humans with flaws when they say stuff like “27 inch is too small for a monitor”.
It was his personal preference not imposing his opinion on any1
John at the end talking about the 42 inch oled monitor : Hmmm look at that badboy
I use an 98" 144hz 4k TV. Clearly i can say, that 4k Performance looks way better than 1440p quality on my TV. DLSS 3.8.10.0 looks now even more crispy with lesser blurring
those new true 4k ultrawide (5,120 x 2,160) 45" lg gx9's are looking mighty sweet, 165hz refresh rate or downscale to 1440p ultrawide and hit 330hz for your motion clarity needs... just wish it was 240/480hz for an even-better motion clarity experience at the lower resolution if-desired
All of us have the same questions sometime…… wonderful shorts!!!!
Obviously when he say 27 inch too small, he doesn't play competitive games, not even close.
Severe neck pain after 10 macroseconds because you have to keep turning your head to look at the different parts of your screen:
Game on a 4k tv like a normal person
on paper, yeah 4k DLSS perf is better but GPUs aren't really powerful enough to generate 60+ FPS with max graphics and RT settings on 4K yet. you'll have to keep upgrading once every gen or two to keep up. native 1440p OLED 144Hz with RT at 27 inch is the best imo.
27" is to small ngl
The issue with DLSS Performance at 4k is when you are also running RT, the sample resolution is so low that the RT looks terrible.
wont that be the same issue for 1440p dlss quality? since its all 1080p internally?
@@luciano12saEven less. 1440p quality is 960p
@@333hronos I cant tell a difference in Cyberpunk at 1440P. The only setting that looks terrible is Ultra Performance.
I've been using a 1600p 16:10 120hz monitors thats 18 inches with 168 ppi and dci p3 color gamut. I'm never changing from that monitor. It has been the best picture quality I've ever played with!
168ppi is the same ppi 27inch 4k monitor
32 4K is near end-game for most on high-end. Super clear.
But you guys haven't talked about actual details... Like which one is more temporally stable in motion? Sure being still it will look good but which one is temporally more stable?
1440p DLSS Q or 2160p DLSS P?
Which one will resolve better in motion? Which one will be less smudgy? Have less flickering or some weird artefacts and banding?
This is assuming that at both modes you get lets say 60 fps 100% locked.
I'm asking because I'm gaming on my 55 inch display and i'm often inclined to prefer 1440p DLSS Q over 2160p DLSS P as, now I don't know if it's me, it seems more stable in motion, less blurring, smudging, glitching etc... And with path tracing enabled seems like Ray Reconstruction resolves better at 1440p DLSS quality (or balance) then 2160p DLSS performance. Less smudging.
We need the details of DLSS resolving at both modes not how images look on 27 inch 1440p resolution and 32 inch 2160p resolution... That one everyone understands...
It's mathematically impossible for higher res input and output to look worse, in motion or not. In my experience (tried on 27" and 28" monitors) 4K perf looks better and more stable, easy to prove with one's eyes. Moreover if you aren't using native res as output, must look horrible either way.
@@sapphyrus how do you know? Logically speaking there are many more pixels to fill in going 1080p upscale 4k then there is going from 960p to 1440p.
Also DLSS P works differently to DLSS Q for example. It's not just a raw render resolution decrease.
And 4K DLSS P does look rather worse in motion then 1440p DLSS Q. I tested both on my 55 inch 4k display.
@@sermerlin1More pixels to fill would only mean more computing power is required, thus a reduction in FPS. The only logical way to explain your experience is you mistaking that reduced FPS as temporal instability or if you're using frame generation, less FPS means more and worse interpolation artifacts. Otherwise image quality and stability would be better.
Unless the game switches DLSS profiles, what you are claiming is impossible. I also tested both extensively and literally pixel hunted.
We really need a “ultra quality dlss” to use in our 1440p monitors.
Funny thing is for 1440p DLSS balance is the optional option
I hoped for deeper in-game analysis, this discussion didn't really help community to answer this question.
Daniel Owen has his own piecemeal analysis on this, but it can be vague since we don't experience it ourselves. It's just too much to think about the incremental difference on how result vs performance of upscalling:
1440p native vs 4k dlss quality
1440p dlss q vs 4k dlss perf
1440p native vs 4k dlss + framegen
(thank god that other upscalling method are inferior to dlss)
all these upscalling feature turns out to be very confusing, not mentioning the effect on how stressed / efficient it has on hardware and such.
I'll just stick to 1080p native for now. Not all mid-range gpu can run 1440p in a consistent 60fps anyway.
@@nickochioneantony9288 That's why I left negative feedback because they used clickbait name for the video but content was pure junk. Upscaling featues are confusing...every non IT gamer should have at least one IT gamer friend who can explain benefits and drawbacks of every single feature. 🙂 Personally I have experience with both resolutions (4k and 1440p) and found (according to games which I play) 1440p DLSS Q is superior to 4K DLSS P in terms of overal image quality even if it's upscaled from lower resolution. The best one was, obviously DLSS Balance or Quality, but performance hit is just tremendous so stick to the 1440p DLSS Q is at the moment a golden option for me. 🙂 Yeah, stick to the native resolution is fine, especially if you have in driver tools to sharpen image as games are made really blurry nowadays.
I feel like the question was just asking for a simple which generally looks better comparison but they’ve overthought it a bit too much
I have 43" LED TV in the room hooked up to my PC. Sometimes I play on it and the games look great. I'm sitting like a meter away in my pc chair (this is a small room).
But as soon as i get back on the desktop I feel like - hell no! this is too much! It's too bright, everything is so big, it's weird to read pages like that. I can't imagine sitting even closer on a daily basis with monitor this size on the table.
Maybe an OLED screen would improve the experience more than you can imagine, since many apps and webpages are used with dark backgrounds nowadays, so without the whole screen constantly emitting more light than it needs to it'd be easier to focus on the parts of it that matter. I run 48" with more like 1.5m viewing distance at 175% window scale + 120% text scaling, and things don't look overwhelmingly big. You might have to move your head around a bit more with you setup.
@@Maxoverpoweragreed i run the same settings on my FO48U, once you get used to the bigger size theres legit no going back
Dlss performance at 4k. Dlss is incredible.
How about the same size screen, but 1440p Quality mode VS 4K Performance mode? which one would be better in this case?
4K will be better, due to higher both, internal and output resolution. But you need to be prepared to pay for both of this things with your performance.
Internal: 960p vs 1080p
Output upscaling: 1440p vs 2160p (upscaling also has less performance when you scale to higher output resolution, even when it goes from the same internal res)
Using a 32" 1440p monitor (ViewSonic ELITE XG320Q 32" QHD IPS 175Hz Gaming Monitor) and it's glorious; maybe it's my old eyes but it looks fantastic combined with a 4080 for Cyberpunk path-traced maxed out, or Avatar Pandora with Unobtanium settings give 90-165 fps the Gsync really makes framegen work so well
For me, I love nothing more than cyberpunk, maxed out, performance DLSS, FG on, RT ultra or psycho, 4080 via GFN, on a 42" 4K display using a controller, ultimate console-like experience, 90-120fps, or just bang on PT for 75-85fps, a little less in Dogtown, but certainly always above 60fps, can actually get a pretty stable 60fps with PT on quality (when not in dogtown) balanced 70fps, performance 80fps 😊
42 inches is way too big for a monitor a few inches away from your face on a desk. There is a reason why eSports players typically don't go above 25 inches, and NEVER go above 27 inches. You never want any part of the screen not well within your vision's focus.
Just get 42" 4k. Noted. Could you please make a separate video about your big 42" OLED monitors with some real life footage of your workspace if you can and talk about why you love them so much? Please.
Targeting native is always better, if your monitor is 4K, use 4K and upscale from a lower res. On my 4K TV from a sofa there's noticeable degradation when going 1440p DLSS Q, 4K DLSS P or UP looks better
I have been waiting for this question to be answered for so long
OKAY BUT TBH I FEEL LIKE DLSS 4K PERFORMANCE LOOKS BETTER THAN NATIVE 1440 FOR MY PERSONAL TASTES... (4070 gamer here, perfectly serviceable at 4k.)
I only recently got myself a 27 inch gaming monitor and here they're sh#tting all over them 🤣
It's not tiny. Heck, my iPhone screen is too big for my taste ;)
I have 7800x3d|4070ti and played almost anything with my LG C1 Oled 55 4K just using DLSS quality, just 2 games need some settings to hit comfortably 60fps with path tracing (Alan wake 2 and CP2077) even helldivers 2 play very well native 4k maxed graphics. I’m loving this setup and performance.
60 FPS at Cyberpunk path traced, at 4K, DLSS Quality, with 4070 Ti? You're brave, man, didn't even know that my card could achieve that at 4K, is that post frame generation and ray reconstruction? At 1440, Cyberpunk with path tracing, DLSS Quality is just boot and play, no sacrifices needed, constantly hitting 85-92 FPS with frame gen and ray reconstruction.
Mine's 5800X3D + 4070 Ti playing at 27" 1440, love the setup too. Been on the same mobo since R5 3600, AM4 is legendary.
@@66666aganI sold my 1440 monitor 240hrz it was 32 inch games look grainy compared what I was used on my lgc1 55 inch so went back to the TV lol
i think 4k performance dlss looks a lot sharper but maybe a bit more artifacts in motion. (or they are just more noticeable because the image is clearer) anyway overall its better tho
Richard would burst out laughing if he saw my main 23" ips led monitor.😅
1440p Quality (960p) vs 2160p performance (1080p)
I'm not convinced and I'm not sure they answered the question. Also, as a PC MASTER RACE, you gotta go with the optimal balance of FPS and quality, but favoring the FPS. So 1440p is still the mark. Leave the 4k for the casuals who don't care for motion fluidity and responsiveness of high frames on high hertz monitors.
They barely answered it. Everyone in the comments is debating 1440p vs. 4K and PPI when that's not the question AT ALL. The question was which is better between 1440p with DLSS Quality vs. 4K with DLSS Performance. Theoretically those two different setups would be running at nearly the same internal resolution, so what's being asked is can DLSS stretch a ~1080p image to 4K as well as it can stretch it to 1440p. I feel the inclusion of screen size in the question distracted Alex and the gang and then everything fell apart from there.
@@Two49 agreed!
@@Two49 It might be an interesting thing to see a video with various examples, but to me it seems straightforward. I'd rather look at DLSS 1080p->4K than I would straight up 1080p, easy. Any points in between will just be... intermediate. 1080->1260? Better. 1080->1440? Better again. 1080->1800? Better again.
Im just so happy that we finslly realixe that the lag is actually better not worse when you actually account for more fps which lowers it in general. Then we have quality and balanced and i do prefer the extra 10 to 12fps extra I get from balanced in 1440p but i really enjoy quality and balanced. I have compared on the same monitor 1080p ultra compared to 1340p ultra with dlss and the 1440p with dlss looks better then native 1080p so why not choose that? We have someone from 2 months ago who colpsrsd every single omage and it wss very noticeable. Lets etol denying the tech and even ray tracing etc. Nvidia is just better with the more new tech.
Also why are people even upset at frame gen? So what how they do it what mattwes is whay you sew and feel nothing else. If it works it works use it or dont. You still have the normal benefits from nvidia without it. Use normal dlss be happy I guess lol. Also no i still wouldnt gsme at 4k on any modern gpu besides the 4080 super or the 4090. 1440p is amazing tbh. Ultra settings and enjoy!
Also dark1x is correct about ppi ita why it looks sharper you can enjoy 1440p on an oled with a good ppi and enjoy the look of it as much as lower ppi monitors in 4k.
Its totally upto the gamer
I d say, if the gamer plays competitive games predominantly like Valorant, CS2,Fortnite, etc etc, definititely go with 27 inch 2k as most of these types of gamers will eventually sit very close to monitor with mininum head pan and just eye panning through display corners for enemies vantage ooints etc.
If the gamer predominantly plays story based games like Alan wake 2, Cyberpunk77,, RDR2 etc go with 4k DLSS Performance.
But the budget option always is getting a RX 7800 XT and play almost all games at 100+ fps average at ultra settings at 1440p.
Saves money and energy, U just ve to sacrifice 1 visual quality ie Ray Tracing
I just swapped my 4k 43'' TV (60hz) for a LG 27GP850-B (IPS, 1440p, 165hz). I have a 3090, so I have no regrets even if I was able to run every game RT Off with DLSS-Q at 60fps. Do I miss the screen size? kinda, but the TV is still there, to play slower, cinematic games like Life is Strange. Its great to have both.
I have a 3080 and a 12600k and using a LG C1 120hz 4k OLED and most games look amazing on 4k perfomance and run very well considering my rig. Thinking about buying a 27 inch 240hz OLED monitor or maybe a 14700k? I dunno yet haven't really decided yet what to get.
I'm currently running a 34" UWQHD HRR and a 27" QHD HRR, and I'm already planning to replace them both with 32" 4K HRRs this year. 😁
I think this is an opportunity for a good video. How much does final output resolution affect the quality of DLSS? 4k performance has only a marginally higher input res than 1440p quality, but looks significantly better.
How about 1440p native/dlaa vs 4K performance? What about the performance difference? If you have a 1440p monitor and hardly use DLSS, would you potentially gain both image quality AND performance by using 4k dlss performance? Lots of room to explore.
Yeah. I always tell people to get a 4k monitor if they're currently running their games at 1440p native. Upscaled 4k is just better. But I don't actually know where the compromise starts. So yeah, interesting topic. Basically a "does it make sense to upgrade my screen resolution" video.
I would like that NVIDIA give us the options to tweak DLSS manually : let us try maxing out the quality until the performance is too worse ...
As far as I know, DLSS is trained to scale from specified multipliers of resolution: 0,33333334 ; 0,5 ; 0,58 ; 0,66666667
And, based on my tests in CP2077, it will work worse in terms of upscaling quality on another resolution scaling multipliers (you can try it by yourself with DLSS tweak utility)
@@333hronos Whoa will try thanks mate for the tool will try out
@@SALTINBANK I recommend you to try DLSS presets for games that have noticeable ghosting with DLSS (for example Hi-Fi rush, Avatar, Starfield), preset "F" will almost eliminate ghosting effect in games with such DLSS implementation.
About DLSS multipliers, as I said before, default works best, gives better quality by design.
@@333hronos Thank you so much your are the one have a nice day mate !
Ok any intel on EFT escape from tarkov ?
Because ghosting when scoping with a rifle is bad
@@SALTINBANK better don't use DLSS tweaker in online games, for safety
These discussions are useless. For 27 dlss quality mode, for 32 inches 4k dlss performance. Simple as that. Dont forget the blueriness when you decrease from dlss quality
I use a 13" screen almost all day for work with no issues. When I do connect to a monitor, I'm very happy with the size of my 24" (I actually returned my 27" because it was too big). What am I missing here?
I made a custom resolution in windows 3200*1800 and play on dlss balanced. Its better then these 2 options
27 inch is small? What are you guys smoking?
Really depends on your envirinmebt, I have in a cockpit set up and 27 inch is more than fine, if you game on the couch Definitely not.
My monitor is 27inches and I wish it was smaller lol. If you play a competitive games like league or cod you might want the higher res but you definitely don’t need the bigger screen.
Native. Boty are mess with artifacts.
For the size screen it depends how far you have monitor from your eyes and PPI. I changed 24 to 27 inch 1440p monitor and from 2-3 feet away screen size was to big for me, so I had to adjust distance. I think if monitor screen size is below 30 inches 1440p is way to go.
Its like this ive seen a 65" 4k tv and a 32" 4k monitor at the correct distances. The 32" looked much sharper due to higher ppi and the 65" looked stretched due to the pixels being bigger. PPI does matter. Some people say "its all about the distance" But its more then that. You have more pixels in a area giving you a sharper picture and more pixels mean a tad bit more colors in the same space as well.
Next time i go 65" it would have to be 8k which then 65" would look amazing
These guys are saying 27 inch monitors are too small, meanwhile I recently upgraded to 1440p and was shocked at the size and weight compared to my old 1080p monitor 😅😅
People always surprise a bigger size monitor and feel that old one too small. I guess that they get used to the monster size.
What about Ultrawide with a PPI of 110? I never know where it falls when talking about 1440p. Maybe just DSR/VSR from 4k?
Ok, so I am running a nice new samsung s90c 55" 4k oled tv with an ancient 1080 ti sending it 1080p 120hz and letting it upscale itself. It's a temporary work around being limited to hdmi 2 on the 1080ti, however I am actually fairly impressed with the TV's upscaling.
Is this a general no no? Is offloading the upscaling to my tv really that bad? Curious to see if anyone else has tried this with a modern tv with decent upscaling. Likely under close examination there are artefacts I haven't noticed but it's good enough for now.
me who uses 24' 1080p DLSS Quality 💀
also fine😂, if u have not try 1440p
or 4k
I have a 34" ips monitor and a 55" oled tv. I can easily spot the visual downgrade when using dlss balance or lower on the 32" screen, while its extremeley hard for me to tell on the 55" oled screen probably due to it being at 4k vs 1440p.
Sorry but this gen gaming still isn't 4K even with a 4090 without all the tricks in the book and a resulting softer image. I can't run many titles at high frames with my 4080 at Ultra with any ray tracing without DLSS and Frame Gen. There are many videos on here that clearly demonstrate this. For this reason I settled on 1440p 27" 360 Hz OLED. This way next gen GPU's will be able to run native 1440p with full PT/RT without DLSS/FG. Also I disagree and think 27" monitor is the sweet spot on a normal size desk.
Save up, and get a 4k OLED.
Off topic observation: I choose to believe that's not a monitor behind John, but rather a window looking out upon his domain in one of the circles of Hades. 😈😁
I'll take 4K@Perf any day of the week.
DLSS3 Performance 4K looks good enough to me.
Given similar input resolution and anything but a very weak GPU, let the fancy upscaling go as far as you can go. 1000p native? OK. 1000p to 1500 with quality? Sure. 1000p to 2000 with performance? Yes. 1000p to 3000p with ultra performance? Even better! 1000p to 4000p with super ultra performance if it was enabled in the settings? I'd do it if I had an 8K screen and a 4080.
I think DLSS Performance is rough at 4k...at least on my 48" screen. Fine texture detail is smoothed out, polygon edges have a blurred look to them, shading looks flat and noisy. Everything just looks..fake. And that's not even taking the motion smearing into account. It's like you're watching an encoded stream of the game rather than seeing the game itself. Even on my tiny 27" 1080p screen, anything less than DLSS Quality lacks clarity. I would rather sacrifice one single aspect of the graphics instead of making the whole game look blurry and fake. DLSS Quality is bloody fantastic, though. It's better than native resolution at both 1080p and 4k. I'll use it any day. Or is it not as good at 1440p because of the scaling factors? That's weird.
With AMD, I like to use a middle ground approach to upscaling that really helps me push a lot of games up to 60fps on my 6950xt. In Adrenalin you can use fsr 1 in drivers to get an 1800p output image closer to 4k and imo it’s so close that the difference doesn’t matter. If you then use fsr 2 quality in games you don’t get as many blocky fsr 2 artifacts and fsr 1 artifacts are nearly impossible to see while being much less taxing than running straight fsr2 performance at a 4k output
I'm sorry but FSR1 has horrible motion artifacting at 1800p to 4K. It's the reason I had to shelf AC Valhalla till I upgraded my GPU. Riding through a forest was nearly like watching a MPEG-2 video CD from 1998. FSR2 is better but also has noticeable ghosting (especially driving) and disocclusion artifacts. I hope they can finally fix these with their future machine learning versions.
@@sapphyrus Same. I just feel that this approach works for me in most games where fsr 2 performance doesn't quite reach 60fps but is close and games where XeSS isn't an option. Endgame solution really would just be for amd to improve fsr 2/3 quality more though
Sorry, no - 27" too small? You are gaming on TVs in front of your faces with 32"+ lol. 27 is perfect size for PC monitor if you play with mouse and keyboard, period.
27 inch is perfect for me but i sit them pretty close. One 4k60 and one 1440p 144hz for games.
1360x768 on 1080p or 1440p - can't do better
imho 4k balance is the best of both worlds
this question is perfect for dragon dogma 2
I'd really prefer a good 32" 1440p oled but can't find one
I've tried both i have asus 27" 4k144 and i had diffenent 27" 1440p monitors like g7 few years and newest oled lg. And i'd say not only 4k dlss performance shows more details, more wuality and sharpness it is also even better than native 1440p and fps almost identical, in some games even higher by 10-20%. So i'm starting to thibk why we even beed 1440p monitors. Le there be 24, 27 and 32 all 4k monitors. And 34" like 3840x1620 for example
how about DLDSR 2.25x with DLSS 4K ultra performance. just get nutty with it
Why not just display the 4k image instead of downsampling it again? DLDSR seems like something you use only when you have too much GPU power but didn't upgrade to a higher screen resolution yet.
I stand by 1440p DLSSp being an excellent sweet spot (DLSSp was even officially recommended by Nvidia for 1440p in original marketing materials). I sit a foot away from a 32inch. In Witcher 3 and Cyberpunk are can hardly tell a difference in IQ, and you will never convince me that the gain in fps isn't worth the tradeoff.
Plus ray reconstruction totally solved reflection\diffusion\effect blurriness that the lower base resolution carries.
This doesn't really answer his question
I'm using an a lesser known brand 75Hz 27" monitor and running Cyperpunk on 1440P with Performance DLSS and it barely looks worse to me than native. Ultra Performance looks terrible though.
ultra performance i guess prepare for 8k. since 4k performance is acceptable, 1440p
balance is acceptable, 1080P only can use quality.
@@rightmrs.984 8K is pure marketing unless you have a TV twice the size of a movie theater screen.
I have a 1440p ultrawide with a 4070ti and 7800x3d what would you recommend?
Playing in native resolution.
Native will always be better in any and all circumstance above 1080p resolution
That's really not true. The best example of this is the game Death Stranding. Native it looks actually WAY worse than in DLSS mode.