> Rasterizing results in better graphics quality than DLSS if compute is not a limiting factor.

Sure, but compute is a limiting factor.

I was demonstrating the Apples to Oranges comparison. If they were both free no one would pick DLSS. It shows Rasterizing is preferable. So comparing Rasterizing performance to DLSS performance is dishonest.

Except that if rendering was magically free... why not just pathtrace everything?

DLSS might not be as good as pure unlimited pathtracing, but for a given budget it might be better than rasterization alone.

I agree it’s worth the trade off. I use upscalers a lot.

I’m saying that it’s different enough that you shouldn’t compare the two.

> if compute is not a limiting factor.

If we're moving towards real time tracing compute is going to always be a limitting factor, as it was in the days of pre rendering. Granted currently raster techniques can simulate ray trace pretty well in many scenarios and looks much better in motion, IMO that's more limitation of real time ray trace. There's a bunch of image quality improvements beyond raster to be gained if enough compute is throw at ray tracing, i think a lot of dlss / frame generation goal is basically to offload more cpu to generate higher IQ hero frames while filling in blanks.

DLSS 4 uses a completely new model with twice as many parameters and seems to be a big improvement.

I hope so, because it looks like 8k traditional rendering won’t be an option for this decade.

Will NEXT decade be possible?

8k traditional rendering at 144Hz is a lot of pixels. We are seeing a 25%/3 years improvement cycle on traditional rendering at this point, and we need about 8x improvement in current performance to get there.

2040 is definitely possible, but certainly not guaranteed.

So at 2040 we might be able to render at top 2025 display specs.

Makes you wonder how far ahead displays will be in 2040. I can imagine display prices falling in price and increasing in quality to the point where many homes just have displays paneled around the walls instead of paint.

You won't be using display panels / monitors at all. It will be the Apple Vision Pro 14 Pro Max. A tiny thing you touch on your head and you view the rasterized world at 12k 120fps all around you.

Even 4k monitors are relatively rare and most monitors today are still 1080p, 60 Hz. Yes, you don't need a 5090 to play games on that, but 5090 is a very niche product, while x060 cards are the overwhelming majority. 8k rendering is needed just for the 5 or 6 people that wants it.

there aren't many 8k monitors. I would rather have 300fps 4k

What is the draw to 300fps?

VR, probably.

People with 240Hz or higher monitors. 4K is enough for spatial resolution then it is better to increase temporal resolution. 4K at 240Hz or higher looks like a window.

240Hz or higher monitors. 4K is enough for spatial resolution then it is better to increase temporal resolution. 4K at 240Hz stops looking like looking at a screen and starts looking out a window.

4K alone is not enough to define spatial resolution. You also need take into account physical dimensions. DPI is a better way to describe spatial resolution. Anything better than 200 DPI is good, better than 300 is awesome.

Unfortunately, there are no 4K displays with 200+ DPI on the market. If you want high DPI you either need pick glossy 5k@27" or go to 6k/8k.

of course "normal viewing distances" is always implied when talking about monitors. And if you REALLY want to get pedantic you need to talk about pixels per degree. The human eye can see about 60. according to the very handy site https://qasimk.io/screen-ppd/

a 27" 1080p screen has 37ppd at 2 feet.

a 42" 4k screen has 51ppd at 2 feet.

a 27" 8k screen has 147ppd at 2 feet which is just absurd.

You have to get to 6 inches for the PPD to be 61

But a 42" 8K screen should have around ~100 ppd, which is really nice but not unnecessarily detailed.

I know I'll be gunning for the 42" 8K's whenever they actually reach a decent market price. Sigh, still too many years away.

> The human eye can see about 60

I cannot brag with sharp eyesight, but I can definitely tell difference between 4k@27" at 60cm = 73PPD and 5k@27" at 60cm = 97PPD. Text is much crisper on the latter.

I've also compared Dell 8k to 6k. There is a still a difference, but it is not that big.

"Much crisper"

You must have exceptional eyesight.

> Unfortunately, there are no 4K displays with 200+ DPI on the market.

There are 4k 24" monitors (almost 200 DPI) and 4k 18.5" portable monitors (more than 200 DPI) you can buy nowadays

4k 24" monitors used to exist, but they've disappeared from the market and now the choices are either 27+" or laptop panels.

Why did they stop making those? When I went to 4K, I wanted to get a 24” monitor, but there were none.

Well if they can reach 300fps at 4k then they can prove to everybody once and for all that their dick is bigger than everybody elses.

Cause it ain't about the gameplay or the usefulness. It's all about that big dick energy.

Why is that an issue? Do you have an 8k monitor?

DLSS is becoming the standard rendering.

It's not. It's becoming the standard lazy choice for devs though.