1 00:00:00,140 --> 00:00:06,899 frames win games we proved it NVIDIA 2 00:00:04,319 --> 00:00:13,799 advertises it and now we get to double how many we get for free NVIDIA says yes 3 00:00:11,099 --> 00:00:20,939 thanks to a brand new feature exclusive to 40 series gpus called dlss 3.0 like 4 00:00:18,300 --> 00:00:25,019 previous generations of dlss it improves your frame rate by trading off some 5 00:00:22,439 --> 00:00:30,539 image quality unlike old school dlss however dlss 3.0 works not by lowering 6 00:00:28,320 --> 00:00:36,780 the resolution but instead by pretending it's running faster than it really is 7 00:00:32,940 --> 00:00:38,940 sounds like BS but I promise you it's 8 00:00:36,780 --> 00:00:43,200 not what does it actually do should you turn it on and can we even tell the 9 00:00:41,160 --> 00:00:47,399 difference I'll tell you right after I tell you about our sponsor Boost Mobile 10 00:00:45,239 --> 00:00:53,520 Boost Mobile provides you with unlimited data talk and text for just 25 a month 11 00:00:51,120 --> 00:00:58,399 all on one of America's largest 5G networks click the link below for a 12 00:00:55,199 --> 00:00:58,399 limited time offer 13 00:01:05,659 --> 00:01:10,560 dlss 3.0 or more accurately deep 14 00:01:08,760 --> 00:01:15,060 learning frame generation which I'll call it from now on is NVIDIA's answer 15 00:01:12,720 --> 00:01:20,220 to low frame rates only officially available for NVIDIA's RTX 40 series 16 00:01:17,640 --> 00:01:24,960 gpus for now it mandates the use of NVIDIA's reflex low latency Tech and 17 00:01:22,560 --> 00:01:29,520 using an optical flow model on the GPU's tensor cores inserts fake frames in 18 00:01:27,780 --> 00:01:33,420 between the real ones that your GPU is actually rendering literally doubling 19 00:01:31,380 --> 00:01:37,259 your frame rate even without upscaling that's right it can be enabled without 20 00:01:34,799 --> 00:01:42,420 dlss which is why I won't be calling it that this obviously makes gameplay look 21 00:01:40,140 --> 00:01:47,939 a lot smoother but you might be thinking back to the battle days of the 2010s 22 00:01:44,939 --> 00:01:51,000 when TVs would advertise 120 hertz and 23 00:01:47,939 --> 00:01:54,060 240 hertz when all they really did was 24 00:01:51,000 --> 00:01:56,220 hold back multiple frames to blend them 25 00:01:54,060 --> 00:02:00,540 more or less by brute force that resulted in an often broken looking 26 00:01:58,259 --> 00:02:04,140 effects that added substantial input lag and was only really good for keeping 27 00:02:02,579 --> 00:02:08,399 track of where the puck is so you don't miss a sports ball hole in one what 28 00:02:06,060 --> 00:02:13,680 makes dlfg different is that it's making an educated guess at what the next frame 29 00:02:11,160 --> 00:02:17,220 should look like in near real time based on the previous frame and some motion 30 00:02:15,599 --> 00:02:24,000 vectors provided by the game engine which should look a lot better and be 31 00:02:20,760 --> 00:02:26,160 more responsive unfortunately dlfg isn't 32 00:02:24,000 --> 00:02:30,060 available in very many games right now so I'm going to pick two to closely 33 00:02:28,440 --> 00:02:34,980 examine starting with Marvel's Spider-Man remastered this game looks 34 00:02:32,760 --> 00:02:38,819 shockingly good with dlfg and able to give us double the frame rate though 35 00:02:36,900 --> 00:02:43,140 there are some things to take note of first off there's a sort of forward 36 00:02:41,280 --> 00:02:47,819 ghosting that happens from time to time as dlfg does its thing sort of the same 37 00:02:45,360 --> 00:02:51,540 way dlss 2.0 is ghosting happened you don't see it often but you can see it 38 00:02:49,560 --> 00:02:55,019 clearly here when Spider-Man jumps out of his apartment Window as a kind of 39 00:02:53,160 --> 00:02:58,739 Halo thanks to the game engine's insistence that he's moving but the way 40 00:02:56,940 --> 00:03:02,640 the camera moves counteracts the motion Vector data from the game engine in 41 00:03:00,720 --> 00:03:06,180 gameplay this manifests is a kind of Shimmer on the walk and wall crawling 42 00:03:04,500 --> 00:03:10,260 animations looking almost like a lighting error and when scenes change 43 00:03:08,340 --> 00:03:14,700 dramatically from shot to shot you'll find yourself staring at a frame made 44 00:03:12,180 --> 00:03:18,480 entirely of visual artifacts something common to all games compatible with 45 00:03:16,560 --> 00:03:21,959 frame generation right now and NVIDIA says it's a bug somewhere in the chain 46 00:03:20,159 --> 00:03:26,040 and the flag should be getting set that disables frame generation during such 47 00:03:23,519 --> 00:03:30,480 transitions it'll be fixed soon the more severe but paradoxically even less 48 00:03:28,379 --> 00:03:34,739 noticeable artifact is the breakup of sharp shapes when in front of or behind 49 00:03:32,879 --> 00:03:39,000 character models as digital Foundry pointed out the rooftop running part of 50 00:03:36,780 --> 00:03:42,540 the intro shows this off pretty well and same deal with the Running Animation 51 00:03:40,500 --> 00:03:46,440 when running up certain buildings my feelings are more or less the same as 52 00:03:44,280 --> 00:03:50,099 theirs unless you really know what you're looking for you might not even 53 00:03:48,000 --> 00:03:54,120 notice these artifacts especially since they look a bit like the kind of 54 00:03:51,900 --> 00:03:57,420 artifacts you'd get from motion blur or streaming video that you've 55 00:03:55,620 --> 00:04:00,720 subconsciously learned to ignore by now but anyway we'll see if our own Gamers 56 00:03:59,280 --> 00:04:06,959 can notice them later on in the video and honestly I would be surprised if they could this 57 00:04:04,980 --> 00:04:10,920 game has far more distracting visual anomalies that are unrelated to dlfg 58 00:04:09,239 --> 00:04:15,239 like the way its ambient occlusion crawls along certain scenes and how it 59 00:04:13,260 --> 00:04:19,320 renders even nearby background objects at a lower blurred resolution regardless 60 00:04:17,459 --> 00:04:23,280 of your depth of field settings all of which is to say that despite the pixel 61 00:04:21,060 --> 00:04:27,180 peeping we're doing here dlfg doesn't seriously harm image quality and those 62 00:04:25,620 --> 00:04:32,940 artifacts are gone in the next frame anyway they're only on screen for 63 00:04:28,979 --> 00:04:34,740 anywhere from 16.7 milliseconds to 8.3 64 00:04:32,940 --> 00:04:38,940 and even smaller as the frame rate climbs of course in order for frame 65 00:04:36,780 --> 00:04:43,919 generation to do its thing it really needs a certain frame rate to be usable 66 00:04:40,919 --> 00:04:45,479 NVIDIA recommended 40 to 60 is the 67 00:04:43,919 --> 00:04:49,020 Baseline when I ask them about it in terms of graphical artifacts while 68 00:04:47,340 --> 00:04:53,400 they're still minor they definitely got a lot more pronounced when I locked the 69 00:04:50,639 --> 00:04:57,540 frame rate to 60 instead of 120 and when I dropped it down even further to 30 you 70 00:04:55,440 --> 00:05:01,080 can start to see how much guesswork dlfg has to do as there's more changes 71 00:04:59,580 --> 00:05:05,940 between the frames like check out Spider-Man's mask in the this scene I 72 00:05:03,780 --> 00:05:11,040 had to see how deep that rabbit hole goes so I dropped it down once again to 73 00:05:08,280 --> 00:05:15,600 15 frames per second and that exposed even more weirdness check out how it 74 00:05:13,320 --> 00:05:20,460 handles the intro video here it looks like the GPU is failing like it's really 75 00:05:18,180 --> 00:05:24,300 weird the game clearly was never meant to run at this frame rate though there 76 00:05:22,560 --> 00:05:28,500 are some fascinating things that happen to the laptop display here and to Peter 77 00:05:26,639 --> 00:05:32,520 himself when he's flailing around and when he finally jumps out of the window 78 00:05:29,940 --> 00:05:37,139 it looks almost like 2 000 Sarah YouTube but higher resolution he even mostly 79 00:05:35,039 --> 00:05:40,440 disappears behind the railing and the railing doesn't fare much better the 80 00:05:38,880 --> 00:05:45,479 other game I tested for image quality is f122 and when it looks good it looks 81 00:05:43,320 --> 00:05:49,440 really good but when it looks bad it looks really bad right off the bat the 82 00:05:47,820 --> 00:05:54,300 thing you'll notice most is the thing that's front and center the driver name 83 00:05:51,240 --> 00:05:56,340 tags it's not such a huge deal at 120 84 00:05:54,300 --> 00:06:01,259 hertz but they Shimmer and shake at 60 FPS and things get worse from there I'm 85 00:05:59,280 --> 00:06:06,060 not sure why such small motions relatively speaking are causing eui to 86 00:06:03,660 --> 00:06:10,380 corrupt like this when it wasn't nearly as noticeable in Spider-Man even with 87 00:06:07,860 --> 00:06:15,060 fast motion but there it is another curious thing you'll notice is at the 88 00:06:12,419 --> 00:06:19,500 bottom of the screen even at 120 hertz you'll see Phantom pieces of the minimap 89 00:06:17,280 --> 00:06:23,460 flash on screen from time to time and if you look really closely you can make out 90 00:06:21,360 --> 00:06:27,720 what looks like an F1 car's tires with Optical camouflage applied to them when 91 00:06:25,319 --> 00:06:31,380 we crank the frame rate down you can see this way more readily it looks like 92 00:06:29,460 --> 00:06:35,220 NVIDIA trained the data set exclusively using the hood camera and possibly even 93 00:06:33,360 --> 00:06:39,360 on a single track while we're down in low FPS territory you can also see some 94 00:06:37,440 --> 00:06:43,139 more examples of ghosting and overshoot on the car's tires and sometimes even 95 00:06:41,160 --> 00:06:48,360 the front Wings start to overshoot ahead of the car it's really too bad because 96 00:06:45,840 --> 00:06:52,919 at high frame rates most of these issues are easily ignored and f122 itself would 97 00:06:51,120 --> 00:06:56,819 be an ideal candidate for gamers looking to crank the visuals on weaker Hardware 98 00:06:54,660 --> 00:07:00,539 because it relies more on anticipation than twitch aiming and it is often 99 00:06:58,860 --> 00:07:04,560 played with a controller after all it's far more tolerant of input lag than say 100 00:07:02,580 --> 00:07:08,880 a competitive shooter the same could be said of most simulators even PC Building 101 00:07:07,259 --> 00:07:13,080 simulator check out our Floatplane Exclusive by the way for the uncut Jake 102 00:07:10,440 --> 00:07:16,800 Vs Linus Shenanigans and what about input lag 103 00:07:14,759 --> 00:07:22,139 we were never going to get 120 hertz level input latency with 60 real frames 104 00:07:19,620 --> 00:07:25,500 and 60 fake frames at least in theory we should see roughly the same input 105 00:07:23,520 --> 00:07:29,340 latency as the original frame rate right due to the shortage of games available 106 00:07:26,940 --> 00:07:33,060 to test with and with Labs tied up with pre-testing for the upcoming rdna 3 107 00:07:31,319 --> 00:07:37,020 release we've only got input latency results for cyberpunk but we can already 108 00:07:35,160 --> 00:07:42,479 see an interesting pattern here the complete dlss 3.0 package provided input 109 00:07:39,900 --> 00:07:47,340 latency somewhere between dlss 2.0 and Native 4k on both our high-end and low 110 00:07:44,759 --> 00:07:51,000 end CPU benches which is expected due to the extra processing frame generation 111 00:07:48,960 --> 00:07:55,080 requires NVIDIA cited about an extra three milliseconds though in our case we 112 00:07:53,039 --> 00:07:59,819 measured more like four and a half or even as high as 13 on the core I3 that's 113 00:07:57,539 --> 00:08:04,740 almost a frame at 60 FPS for that one perhaps this is a driver optimization 114 00:08:01,919 --> 00:08:08,460 thing but it seems like even though it can boost frame rates and CPU bound 115 00:08:06,660 --> 00:08:13,199 scenarios it can only help responsiveness so much still it is lower 116 00:08:11,039 --> 00:08:17,400 than running at 4K native and if you're not quite a CPU bound you aren't likely 117 00:08:15,300 --> 00:08:21,360 to perceive the difference at all that brings up a good question we've looked 118 00:08:19,259 --> 00:08:25,500 at all of this under a microscope so far but how does it actually feel to play 119 00:08:23,759 --> 00:08:31,199 with does it make things significantly worse do people even notice when it's on 120 00:08:27,840 --> 00:08:33,060 and which do they prefer to find out we 121 00:08:31,199 --> 00:08:36,300 set up three identical test benches connected to three identical monitors 122 00:08:34,860 --> 00:08:41,279 each displaying a different configuration one rendering natively one 123 00:08:38,640 --> 00:08:47,100 using dlss set to Quality and one using dlss 3.0 with frame Generation all other 124 00:08:44,219 --> 00:08:50,820 settings were identical for guinea pigs we selected five subjects of varying 125 00:08:48,959 --> 00:08:54,720 familiarity with Graphics technology and asked them to play the games and rank 126 00:08:52,620 --> 00:08:59,279 each setup in order of visual Fidelity and responsiveness first up Marvel 127 00:08:56,820 --> 00:09:03,779 Spider-Man Captain 120 frames per second note that this means that dlss 3.0 was 128 00:09:01,860 --> 00:09:08,339 running at 60fps and doubling the frames using AI let's see what the normies 129 00:09:05,580 --> 00:09:12,480 think see I notice in this one here in the reflections there's like a bit more 130 00:09:10,680 --> 00:09:18,300 flickering okay this this one seems a little slower 131 00:09:15,180 --> 00:09:19,860 I think I do like this one this is like 132 00:09:18,300 --> 00:09:24,240 fast it's like someone hit the turbo button on the computer I'm gonna say 133 00:09:21,480 --> 00:09:27,180 that this middle one looks the best so the normies seemed to not be able to 134 00:09:25,740 --> 00:09:32,940 tell the difference but what about cultured and Discerning gamers 135 00:09:30,420 --> 00:09:36,200 I don't know they seem so similar now I'm not sure what I think 136 00:09:36,240 --> 00:09:42,959 it's funny how they have the same guy like in every single scene it's like the 137 00:09:41,220 --> 00:09:46,080 same face I'm looking at yeah I feel like that's the smoothest you can kind 138 00:09:44,459 --> 00:09:51,120 of see a little bit of Shimmer but I think that's just a setting things not necessarily 139 00:09:49,019 --> 00:09:54,480 um it's fun I would choose to play on this one and I don't know why and 140 00:09:53,100 --> 00:10:00,300 naturally we have to bring in someone who is relatively knowledgeable about displays and Graphics yeah I'm kind of 141 00:09:58,260 --> 00:10:04,399 the display guy I guess I do all the reviews for displays I own a display I 142 00:10:02,820 --> 00:10:07,500 got it crazy right 143 00:10:06,420 --> 00:10:13,320 no they're all really similar the UI 144 00:10:09,540 --> 00:10:15,720 elements they get garbled with DLS S3 I 145 00:10:13,320 --> 00:10:20,760 don't know man it kind of the same thing one two three and here are our results 146 00:10:18,480 --> 00:10:25,860 for visual Fidelity native rendering appears nearly indistinguishable from 147 00:10:22,680 --> 00:10:27,480 dlss's Ai upscaling and only when frame 148 00:10:25,860 --> 00:10:31,500 generation gets involved does quality seem to suffer though most subjects 149 00:10:29,640 --> 00:10:35,700 found it difficult to detect any difference as for responsiveness while 150 00:10:33,540 --> 00:10:39,300 we know that frame generation measurably hurts latency many of our subjects 151 00:10:37,620 --> 00:10:44,700 actually felt it was more responsive than dlss 2.0 which it literally is not 152 00:10:42,360 --> 00:10:49,380 so what you might be asking I'm playing a game at 120 FPS natively why would I 153 00:10:47,160 --> 00:10:54,240 bother using dlss that's a fair question how does the technology fare at 60 FPS 154 00:10:52,380 --> 00:10:58,079 we took our same subjects and ran the test again swapping the configurations 155 00:10:56,220 --> 00:11:01,700 for each monitor to try to account for any unknown bias preferring a specific 156 00:11:00,420 --> 00:11:06,720 monitor I don't know 157 00:11:05,040 --> 00:11:13,680 I don't know dude I feel like the middle one is the worst 158 00:11:11,760 --> 00:11:18,060 whatever I said yesterday I don't know if I was just kind of making it up in my 159 00:11:16,140 --> 00:11:22,320 head okay at this point I cannot tell the difference I noticed a weird 160 00:11:20,279 --> 00:11:24,540 artifact and like it kind of like it's hesitating it looks like it's hesitating 161 00:11:23,519 --> 00:11:31,079 right now um when I move the graphic scope potato 162 00:11:29,100 --> 00:11:35,820 the text isn't so bad but the marker itself gets garbled when I flick it 163 00:11:33,660 --> 00:11:42,000 around a little bit I'm I'm still liking this left one a lot at 60 hertz we see 164 00:11:39,300 --> 00:11:46,500 dlss 3.0 really start to suffer in both visual quality and latency most subjects 165 00:11:44,700 --> 00:11:51,420 quickly selected the frame generated rig is the worst at everything we did the 166 00:11:48,959 --> 00:11:55,680 same 60 FPS test in a plugtail Requiem and found similar results with nobody 167 00:11:53,579 --> 00:11:58,740 preferring the generated frames but what if we just uncap the frame rate and 168 00:11:57,300 --> 00:12:02,519 really let those systems fly into the triple digits well we did just that and 169 00:12:00,480 --> 00:12:06,839 interestingly we see frame generation take the lead in latency our guess is 170 00:12:05,220 --> 00:12:10,440 that many subjects interpreted the added smoothness of the generated frames as 171 00:12:08,459 --> 00:12:14,339 feeling more responsive at high frame rates dlss 3.0 does a great job of 172 00:12:12,839 --> 00:12:18,480 adding frames without introducing unplayable latency or immersion breaking 173 00:12:16,440 --> 00:12:22,260 artifacts at the lower frame rates well things are more of a compromise but 174 00:12:20,700 --> 00:12:27,420 here's something to note the only card available with dlss 3.0 is a 4090 and if 175 00:12:25,860 --> 00:12:31,800 there's any card that really doesn't need frame gen is that thing the real 176 00:12:30,180 --> 00:12:35,100 benefit of frame generation will be providing budget Gamers the ability to 177 00:12:33,540 --> 00:12:38,700 crank the settings and get frame rates that they typically would not be able to 178 00:12:36,600 --> 00:12:41,880 achieve so it was one last test we played a game of would you rather would 179 00:12:40,019 --> 00:12:46,260 you rather play your game without frame generation at 30 frames per second or at 180 00:12:44,459 --> 00:12:51,959 60 frames per second with frame generation probably want whatever you 181 00:12:49,019 --> 00:12:56,700 dlss thing you just put on okay this one automatically oh definitely the first 182 00:12:54,240 --> 00:13:03,420 option easily previous setting I think this is better yeah I really can't tell 183 00:12:59,240 --> 00:13:06,660 a huge difference I think I prefer this 184 00:13:03,420 --> 00:13:08,880 one I want smoother I prefer the first 185 00:13:06,660 --> 00:13:13,260 one oh this one hands down I'll take smoothness and artifacts every day if 186 00:13:11,040 --> 00:13:17,040 you went into this thinking dlfg was a dud or if you still do think that I 187 00:13:15,600 --> 00:13:21,600 wouldn't write it off so quickly think about what dlfg is doing say you're 188 00:13:19,200 --> 00:13:24,899 limited to 38 PS for whatever reason you can either have an experience that's 189 00:13:23,040 --> 00:13:28,380 full of what looks like stuttering or you can reduce visual Fidelity in a far 190 00:13:26,820 --> 00:13:33,779 more noticeable Way by reducing settings of resolution or you can turn on dlfg 191 00:13:31,500 --> 00:13:37,500 and look at a smooth 60fps with some very minor visual artifacts that might 192 00:13:35,579 --> 00:13:41,220 be masked by motion blur anyway your input latency is going to be similar to 193 00:13:39,000 --> 00:13:45,180 30fps but because you have smoother looking gameplay you'll be able to 194 00:13:43,260 --> 00:13:48,899 adjust your aim and track objects far more easily it won't save you in a 195 00:13:47,160 --> 00:13:52,560 competitive shooter of course but it'll turn single player games into a more 196 00:13:50,459 --> 00:13:56,880 enjoyable experience as two clicks Philip put it in a recent video we 197 00:13:54,420 --> 00:14:01,800 didn't really Embrace resolution scaling with dlss early on either but it's now 198 00:13:59,399 --> 00:14:05,639 ubiquitous and well accepted among Gamers I mean it's either that or you 199 00:14:04,019 --> 00:14:09,839 run at a lower resolution and let your monitor scale it the stupid way right 200 00:14:07,100 --> 00:14:13,440 dlfg is still in its infancy with bugs that are actively being hunted down and 201 00:14:11,579 --> 00:14:16,860 squashed and before you conclude that you'd never use it because you don't 202 00:14:14,820 --> 00:14:21,180 want any input lag at all two clicks Phillips video had another interesting 203 00:14:18,600 --> 00:14:25,260 angle that has me very excited for the future use 204 00:14:22,680 --> 00:14:30,060 Ella for VR to Dean put from the real frame rate making 205 00:14:27,420 --> 00:14:34,560 games playable even sub-60 it's a separate concept from dlfg but the demo 206 00:14:32,579 --> 00:14:39,060 built by comrade Stinger showcases the intended effect very well here we have 207 00:14:36,660 --> 00:14:45,000 30fps rendering but by enabling reprojection or async Time Warp power 208 00:14:42,240 --> 00:14:48,959 movements especially Mouse movements are smooth and responsive you can see in 209 00:14:47,160 --> 00:14:53,100 this mode that it works by basically projecting the scene in a kind of a 210 00:14:50,820 --> 00:14:56,399 virtual display that moves back to the center of the screen as each frame is 211 00:14:54,600 --> 00:15:00,240 updated we'll have this link below so you can try it for yourself since the 212 00:14:57,779 --> 00:15:04,320 video really won't do it justice on its own two clicks Phillips idea of 213 00:15:01,980 --> 00:15:08,639 combining this with full gated rendering to render a low resolution extension of 214 00:15:06,420 --> 00:15:12,660 the screen means that you'd practically never notice it and combined with frame 215 00:15:10,980 --> 00:15:17,040 generation to smooth everything out you've got a recipe for comparatively 216 00:15:14,639 --> 00:15:22,740 very low Hardware requirements along with very high responsiveness and frame 217 00:15:19,620 --> 00:15:24,660 rates this would be a holy grail of 218 00:15:22,740 --> 00:15:28,019 sorts there are many games that could benefit from this setup but none that I 219 00:15:26,399 --> 00:15:33,180 can think of would be a better fit than digital combat simulator DCS requires a 220 00:15:30,959 --> 00:15:36,600 beefy system to run and while you can get away with a not so beefy control 221 00:15:34,740 --> 00:15:40,440 setup one thing that you really need while flying is to keep an eye on your 222 00:15:38,699 --> 00:15:45,420 target whatever that may be so you've got to be able to whip your view around 223 00:15:41,940 --> 00:15:48,300 a lot and low frame rates make that job 224 00:15:45,420 --> 00:15:53,279 so much more difficult to do while just tracking small fast moving objects and 225 00:15:51,420 --> 00:15:57,300 if you lose track of your Target in DCS you can go from Hunter to hunted in an 226 00:15:55,860 --> 00:16:03,180 instant no matter what you're flying in a hypothetical future where Eagle Dynamics and developers like them 227 00:16:00,600 --> 00:16:07,079 Embrace Technologies like dlfg and async Time Warp the price of admission becomes 228 00:16:05,100 --> 00:16:11,279 substantially lower and they'll require less power to run too it may be a 229 00:16:09,300 --> 00:16:15,480 situational feature for today but if it means that more Gamers can have better 230 00:16:13,380 --> 00:16:19,560 experiences and even experiences that they wouldn't be able to have at all 231 00:16:17,399 --> 00:16:23,399 otherwise I'm keeping my hopes up for a tomorrow where our AI overlords 232 00:16:21,300 --> 00:16:28,920 regularly serve us those delicious imitation frames and we're I talk about 233 00:16:25,800 --> 00:16:30,300 our delicious sponsor mine mine is the 234 00:16:28,920 --> 00:16:34,560 Smart data assistant that helps you discover where your data is and then 235 00:16:32,519 --> 00:16:38,820 helps you keep it where you want it to be with mine you can exercise your data 236 00:16:37,019 --> 00:16:42,839 rights and reclaim your right to be forgotten by asking services that you no 237 00:16:40,980 --> 00:16:47,220 longer use to delete your information with how many data breaches there are 238 00:16:44,940 --> 00:16:52,019 these days I don't know about you but I wouldn't want any companies that I don't 239 00:16:48,899 --> 00:16:53,820 use holding my data so sign up and mine 240 00:16:52,019 --> 00:16:59,519 will let you know how many companies are holding your information we ran our 241 00:16:55,980 --> 00:17:01,380 email address and over 360 companies are 242 00:16:59,519 --> 00:17:06,419 holding our data including many services holding financial data that our team 243 00:17:03,240 --> 00:17:08,220 hasn't used in years mine will even 244 00:17:06,419 --> 00:17:12,059 automate the process of sending an official data deletion request through 245 00:17:10,079 --> 00:17:15,839 your inbox so the company can then delete the personal data they have 246 00:17:13,500 --> 00:17:19,319 stored mine also helps companies with the ultimate goal of simplifying and 247 00:17:17,579 --> 00:17:25,079 improving consumers online privacy experience so sign up at saymine.com 248 00:17:21,959 --> 00:17:26,819 using the link below and own your data 249 00:17:25,079 --> 00:17:30,419 thanks for watching guys maybe go check out the video where we tested to see if 250 00:17:28,319 --> 00:17:34,200 we could tell when dlss 2.0 is on or not these kinds of analysis videos they tend 251 00:17:32,760 --> 00:17:38,039 to miss out on the experience of actually using the feature and a lot of 252 00:17:36,179 --> 00:17:42,320 new ones can be lost just looking at the flaws instead of looking at the hole you 253 00:17:40,200 --> 00:17:42,320 know