1
00:00:00,000 --> 00:00:04,840
Whether you want to use AI upscaling or not, many modern games basically forced you.

2
00:00:04,840 --> 00:00:08,880
That is, if you want to turn up all the details and still get playable framerates.

3
00:00:08,880 --> 00:00:13,400
But I don't want to shell out for a new graphics card just to unlock a feature that I never really wanted

4
00:00:13,400 --> 00:00:17,800
in the first place. There's got to be a way to squeeze more

5
00:00:17,800 --> 00:00:22,680
out of the GPU I already have. And there is. It's one of the best kept open secrets

6
00:00:22,680 --> 00:00:29,240
to get more performance for your dollar and cost just $6.99, nice, or 420 cents on sale.

7
00:00:29,320 --> 00:00:33,160
Extra nice. It's made by one developer and the best part

8
00:00:33,160 --> 00:00:38,160
is it works on pretty much any graphics card, new or old, in every game.

9
00:00:38,160 --> 00:00:41,920
Meet Lostless Scaling, an app that can both upscale

10
00:00:41,920 --> 00:00:47,000
your games from lower resolutions and even use frame generation to multiply your FPS

11
00:00:47,000 --> 00:00:50,320
by as much as you want, albeit with mixed results

12
00:00:50,320 --> 00:00:53,680
once you get past a certain point. And that's not all.

13
00:00:53,680 --> 00:01:06,360
Man, I need to see this for myself. To start things off, both David and I

14
00:01:06,360 --> 00:01:12,800
are going to be experiencing doom-the-jar cages on a 4070 Ti at 4K high without any form of scaling

15
00:01:12,800 --> 00:01:16,800
or frame generation. This is really a great example of a modern game

16
00:01:16,800 --> 00:01:22,040
that really doesn't run perfect if you're not using any kind of cheat.

17
00:01:22,040 --> 00:01:26,240
So why don't we cheat? Control Alt S will toggle Lostless Scaling,

18
00:01:26,240 --> 00:01:32,440
which we've configured with two times frame gen, which is a lot smoother.

19
00:01:32,440 --> 00:01:39,880
But like any frame generation technology, I'm still feeling 40 FPS worth of input latency.

20
00:01:39,880 --> 00:01:45,360
With that said, I was expecting the image quality of those interpolated frames to be worse.

21
00:01:45,360 --> 00:01:50,080
Oh, it's really not bad. It's really not bad. I think if I didn't know frame gen was on,

22
00:01:50,080 --> 00:01:54,960
I would have a hard time immediately recognizing that it was. Which is both a good thing and a bad one.

23
00:01:54,960 --> 00:01:58,560
Yes. OK, now you've tried the two-time multiplier. Do you want to go higher?

24
00:01:58,560 --> 00:02:02,800
I do want to go higher. This is your first look at this interface, too.

25
00:02:02,800 --> 00:02:06,560
Super straightforward. So clean. Multiplier. Oh, god.

26
00:02:06,560 --> 00:02:10,320
OK. Just try three to start. OK.

27
00:02:10,320 --> 00:02:16,000
It's definitely smoother. But now I'm really getting that uncanny.

28
00:02:16,000 --> 00:02:20,600
It almost feels like motion smoothing on my TV.

29
00:02:20,600 --> 00:02:25,040
You know, like it's not right. Yeah. But I mean, when you look back over at this native 4K,

30
00:02:25,040 --> 00:02:29,160
which experience do you think you'd rather have?

31
00:02:29,160 --> 00:02:33,680
I'm looking for motion anomalies, and they're not. They're there, but they're not bad.

32
00:02:33,680 --> 00:02:37,680
Well, I had reason to believe that this would be substantially worse frame gen than the stuff

33
00:02:37,680 --> 00:02:42,360
that NVIDIA and AMB has. But it's pretty darn good.

34
00:02:42,360 --> 00:02:47,000
But can I multiply it even more? Oh, yeah. I'm going to 5X.

35
00:02:47,000 --> 00:02:50,880
That's more than NVIDIA can do. So I have about 45 FPS native.

36
00:02:50,920 --> 00:02:54,680
Oh, wow. Oh, that's interesting.

37
00:02:54,680 --> 00:02:58,840
It's not even pretending that I'm able to do much more than about, oh, no, that

38
00:02:58,840 --> 00:03:01,840
is about 5X right now. It's just your base frame rate dropped so much

39
00:03:01,840 --> 00:03:06,120
because so much computation is happening on your graphics card. Right.

40
00:03:06,120 --> 00:03:09,480
So there's a reason that NVIDIA capped out their solution

41
00:03:09,480 --> 00:03:14,040
at 4X. It's just so costly on the compute side

42
00:03:14,040 --> 00:03:17,720
that you're not getting enough base FPS to even get a net benefit from it.

43
00:03:17,720 --> 00:03:22,240
Interesting. The higher your multiplier goes, the more

44
00:03:22,240 --> 00:03:25,560
I think native is the better choice.

45
00:03:25,560 --> 00:03:28,920
Yeah, this is not only not a better experience

46
00:03:28,920 --> 00:03:32,680
than what I was trying before, but this is not a good experience.

47
00:03:32,680 --> 00:03:36,240
What we want to explore next is fixed versus adaptive frame

48
00:03:36,240 --> 00:03:39,960
gen. So fixed is just the multiplier like NVIDIA has.

49
00:03:39,960 --> 00:03:46,920
But adaptive will add in between frames to hit a set frame rate, sort of like a computational variable

50
00:03:46,920 --> 00:03:51,600
refresh rate to oversimplify it a lot. So instead of having my multiplier,

51
00:03:51,600 --> 00:03:54,680
I'm going to go adaptive and I'm going to say I want a game

52
00:03:54,680 --> 00:03:58,640
at, I think 120 is asking a lot at these settings.

53
00:03:58,640 --> 00:04:04,520
But maybe I want a game at about 85 FPS. I think that's a really nice sweet spot.

54
00:04:04,520 --> 00:04:11,040
It's much, much better feeling than 60, but not so intense as like 120 or more.

55
00:04:11,040 --> 00:04:14,600
My base frame rate really is still a little bit too low.

56
00:04:14,600 --> 00:04:19,960
Like 40 feels input laggy. I would probably want to turn this game down a little bit,

57
00:04:19,960 --> 00:04:25,200
but in terms of the smoothness, it looks pretty darn good.

58
00:04:25,200 --> 00:04:31,240
Well, I'm not playing so I can't ascertain the input latency, but in terms of visuals, that looks high refresh rate.

59
00:04:31,240 --> 00:04:35,760
It looks great. It looks really good. You can do 120 though.

60
00:04:35,760 --> 00:04:40,120
I wouldn't. It feels too uncanny, like the disconnect

61
00:04:40,120 --> 00:04:43,440
between how the latency feels and how the smoothness looks

62
00:04:43,440 --> 00:04:48,160
is just too great. There's actually one more slider we can mess around with to change the performance.

63
00:04:48,160 --> 00:04:52,800
So why don't you switch to loss of scale and I'll show you. This is the flow scale.

64
00:04:52,800 --> 00:04:55,880
Basically, it's the size of the images that

65
00:04:55,880 --> 00:04:59,400
are going into loss of scale. So it takes the full screen and then it lowers the resolution

66
00:04:59,400 --> 00:05:05,800
to process that the lower your flow scale is. And so right now, the sweet spots between 50 and 60%,

67
00:05:05,800 --> 00:05:10,600
which is where we are, but you could theoretically get a better image out of the higher flow scale

68
00:05:10,600 --> 00:05:14,280
because there's more information for it to process and more performance at the low end

69
00:05:14,280 --> 00:05:18,160
because those images are being shrunk and processed fast. Interesting. So let's try 40.

70
00:05:18,160 --> 00:05:22,000
Sure. OK, so turning it down is supposed to give me

71
00:05:22,000 --> 00:05:27,000
like maybe less computational overhead. A little bit. It seems like you're like a few frames higher,

72
00:05:27,000 --> 00:05:30,400
but then you might notice more anomalies in your generation.

73
00:05:30,400 --> 00:05:34,960
What a great utility. Can you imagine a world where like GPU vendors just built

74
00:05:34,960 --> 00:05:39,680
stuff like this that's completely platform agnostic and just no nonsense.

75
00:05:39,680 --> 00:05:44,720
Here's the sliders. Here's what everything does. There's no obfuscating what the actual performance is.

76
00:05:44,720 --> 00:05:47,960
Like their FPS counter tells me how many real frames I have

77
00:05:47,960 --> 00:05:51,400
and then how many of them are generated. So good. Like just don't mark it to me.

78
00:05:51,400 --> 00:05:55,960
Just tell me what it is. So good. Obviously, there are limitations and we're seeing them.

79
00:05:55,960 --> 00:06:00,800
But overall, if I didn't see how well this worked with my own eyes, I wouldn't believe

80
00:06:00,800 --> 00:06:04,000
that this could be made by just one person. How?

81
00:06:04,000 --> 00:06:10,840
OK, well, like many programs that benefit from open source projects, it's not actually one person,

82
00:06:10,840 --> 00:06:16,360
but one of the most impressive pieces, lossless scaling frame gen is.

83
00:06:16,360 --> 00:06:22,920
So we reached out to the creator of lossless scaling who goes by the pseudonym THS to explain how it wakes.

84
00:06:22,920 --> 00:06:26,160
Lossless scaling frame generation is a convolutional neural network

85
00:06:26,160 --> 00:06:30,400
developed from scratch. It takes only the final frame as input,

86
00:06:30,400 --> 00:06:36,120
and specifically in the LSFG3 version, is capable of generating any number of intermediate frames

87
00:06:36,120 --> 00:06:40,800
for arbitrary time stamps. This enables both adaptive and any multiplier fixed modes.

88
00:06:40,800 --> 00:06:44,640
Compared to DLSS or FSR, which receive extensive information

89
00:06:44,640 --> 00:06:47,960
from the game engine, LSFG operates with significantly

90
00:06:47,960 --> 00:06:52,040
less input data. While this limits its potential output quality.

91
00:06:52,040 --> 00:06:56,200
Yeah, about that. Lacking motion vectors to help process the image

92
00:06:56,200 --> 00:07:02,880
and not being able to differentiate HUD elements from game objects means that visual anomalies can be pretty

93
00:07:02,880 --> 00:07:09,760
distracting in some situations. But it also gives LSFG a major advantage in terms

94
00:07:09,800 --> 00:07:14,320
of the wide range of use cases. To ensure broad compatibility across GPUs,

95
00:07:14,320 --> 00:07:17,440
the trained model was manually ported to DirectX 11

96
00:07:17,440 --> 00:07:21,200
compute shaders. LS captures via game frames and processes them

97
00:07:21,200 --> 00:07:24,440
via LSFG shaders, functioning effectively

98
00:07:24,440 --> 00:07:27,840
as a DirectX 11 application that generates and displays

99
00:07:27,840 --> 00:07:30,960
frames at the appropriate times based on the selected mode.

100
00:07:30,960 --> 00:07:37,080
That is probably the coolest part. There is no requirement for specialized AI hardware,

101
00:07:37,080 --> 00:07:40,640
and DX11 GPUs have been mainstreamed for well over

102
00:07:40,640 --> 00:07:45,320
a decade now. So yeah, the image quality can only go so far,

103
00:07:45,320 --> 00:07:48,800
but just about anyone can take advantage of it.

104
00:07:48,800 --> 00:07:53,600
There are some other caveats. A big one is that you're going to want to keep your GPU usage

105
00:07:53,600 --> 00:07:57,840
to around 85% to avoid spikes that really hurt lossless

106
00:07:57,840 --> 00:08:03,160
scaling's quality, which, wait, 85%, I bought the whole GPU.

107
00:08:03,160 --> 00:08:06,120
I want to use the whole GPU.

108
00:08:06,160 --> 00:08:11,160
Well, don't worry, THS thought of that. Another super cool thing about lossless scaling

109
00:08:11,160 --> 00:08:15,080
is that it can be run on a secondary GPU

110
00:08:15,080 --> 00:08:19,800
or even your integrated graphics, which reduces the load on your primary gaming card

111
00:08:19,800 --> 00:08:27,040
and frees up a little bit of extra performance. Now, our results with an IGPU were pretty underwhelming,

112
00:08:27,880 --> 00:08:31,640
but the idea of an upscaling co-processor

113
00:08:31,640 --> 00:08:36,080
is one that really intrigues me. A lot of people have old GPUs kicking around

114
00:08:36,080 --> 00:08:39,200
and hey, maybe this $7 piece of software

115
00:08:39,200 --> 00:08:42,800
can give it a fresh raison d'etre. Let's give it a shot.

116
00:08:42,800 --> 00:08:46,720
Now let's get this started. There are a couple things that we changed from the B-roll though.

117
00:08:46,720 --> 00:08:53,140
I actually ended up using the slot that was right next to my primary card because it runs at 8x rather than 4x

118
00:08:53,140 --> 00:08:56,800
and the data rate to our secondary GPU actually does matter.

119
00:08:56,800 --> 00:09:01,240
The other thing that we need to do is we have to unplug from our primary GPU

120
00:09:01,240 --> 00:09:05,040
and actually run our display off of the secondary GPU.

121
00:09:05,040 --> 00:09:09,000
So this one drives the display, but this one is providing the main gaming grunt.

122
00:09:09,000 --> 00:09:13,440
It's just routed through the secondary card. What is this to the Velcro?

123
00:09:13,440 --> 00:09:16,900
Oh, the Velcro is to push these cards apart a little bit

124
00:09:16,900 --> 00:09:20,880
so this one doesn't overheat. LTTstore.com.

125
00:09:20,880 --> 00:09:25,960
Now we just need to configure lossless scaling. So we'll change our preferred GPU to RTX 2060.

126
00:09:25,960 --> 00:09:29,160
That's our preferred GPU for scaling to use.

127
00:09:29,160 --> 00:09:32,240
Then we're gonna go into our graphics settings in Windows

128
00:09:32,240 --> 00:09:37,080
and we're gonna change our default high-performance GPU to our faster one that we don't actually

129
00:09:37,080 --> 00:09:40,760
have our display plugged into. So for us, that's a 4070 Ti.

130
00:09:40,760 --> 00:09:46,000
You may also find that you need to add an exception for the specific game, but not always.

131
00:09:46,000 --> 00:09:51,480
Let's lose the adaptive scaling for now then and let's go back to trying like a 3x multiplier.

132
00:09:53,640 --> 00:09:56,480
Am I getting better performance than before? I feel like I'm over.

133
00:09:56,880 --> 00:10:00,160
It's as bad, if not worse than it was before. Okay.

134
00:10:01,000 --> 00:10:04,800
And this sucks. This is really bad.

135
00:10:04,800 --> 00:10:09,560
Almost at 30 FPS. Yeah, which is not high enough

136
00:10:09,560 --> 00:10:12,880
for a good gaming experience. You know what though?

137
00:10:14,240 --> 00:10:17,360
The 2060 is probably not powerful enough

138
00:10:17,360 --> 00:10:20,960
to do 4K frame gen. So you are at the mercy somewhat

139
00:10:20,960 --> 00:10:26,080
of the performance of that secondary card. It can't just be like any ancient card

140
00:10:26,080 --> 00:10:29,520
if you're hoping to run at the highest resolution in detail settings.

141
00:10:29,520 --> 00:10:32,680
Do we have like a 3060? Yeah, we do. Oh, perfect.

142
00:10:32,680 --> 00:10:37,120
Okay, let's do that. I feel good. It's gonna work good this time. Oh, it's gonna be so good this time.

143
00:10:37,120 --> 00:10:41,880
If we'd done like 2x frame gen or if we were running at a lower resolution with that 2060,

144
00:10:41,880 --> 00:10:45,040
probably would have been fine. But we want 4K gaming.

145
00:10:45,040 --> 00:10:48,560
At least for now. 4K. Well, yeah. Here we go, here we go.

146
00:10:48,560 --> 00:10:52,960
So my native performance is exactly what I'd expect. Control Alt S and

147
00:10:52,960 --> 00:10:58,200
Woo! And my native performance stays exactly the same.

148
00:10:58,200 --> 00:11:03,840
And I get frame gen. This is the best experience I've had with it so far.

149
00:11:03,840 --> 00:11:08,760
Okay, this is pretty good. Doesn't do anything about the latency.

150
00:11:08,760 --> 00:11:12,040
But wow, what a cool idea.

151
00:11:12,040 --> 00:11:15,960
You wanna see how high the number we can go? I mean, sure.

152
00:11:17,040 --> 00:11:20,480
Yeah, I guess with the dedicated card we could multiply higher.

153
00:11:20,480 --> 00:11:23,160
Or we can do it because of the base resolution. Should I go to five this time?

154
00:11:23,800 --> 00:11:27,800
Okay, I'm going to five. I'm going to five, boys. Dude!

155
00:11:27,800 --> 00:11:31,520
Look how smooth that is. That's crazy smooth. It looks high refresh rate.

156
00:11:31,520 --> 00:11:37,000
It is, but it looks it. Dude! I am getting a 5x frame gen multiplier.

157
00:11:37,000 --> 00:11:41,400
Wow. It still feels in terms of input lag like 40 FPS, but.

158
00:11:44,760 --> 00:11:49,960
Artifacting is not immediately perceptible either. I mean, this is a pretty like, you know,

159
00:11:49,960 --> 00:11:53,040
early 2000s brown filter over everything game.

160
00:11:53,040 --> 00:11:56,240
You lost your scaling. Oh, I did? Yeah.

161
00:11:56,240 --> 00:12:00,280
What just happened? Oh my God, I think I lost the scale. Oh, no, wait, no, it's back.

162
00:12:00,280 --> 00:12:05,840
200 frames. No! Now, it's worth noting that the resolution

163
00:12:05,840 --> 00:12:09,600
that I perceive in motion is not as good

164
00:12:09,600 --> 00:12:14,640
as when I'm holding still. And that's a significant drawback of these kinds of scaling technologies

165
00:12:14,640 --> 00:12:20,200
is that if they don't know which direction an object is going because they don't have motion vector data

166
00:12:20,200 --> 00:12:23,640
from the game engine, you're going to lose some of the clarity

167
00:12:23,640 --> 00:12:28,200
when you are in motion. I wouldn't use this for a competitive game by any stretch of the imagination.

168
00:12:28,200 --> 00:12:32,080
Look at your HUD. Look at that crosshair. Sometimes we move really fast.

169
00:12:32,080 --> 00:12:36,000
Whoa! Whoa! You know what's funny is when I was playing,

170
00:12:36,000 --> 00:12:41,440
I didn't even notice it though. No, but it's, whoa! As soon as you're looking for it, it's crazy.

171
00:12:41,440 --> 00:12:46,440
Yeah, that's pretty bad. We are doing 5x frame gen though.

172
00:12:46,440 --> 00:12:52,240
And that's another thing that is a disadvantage when you don't have any kind of input from the game.

173
00:12:52,240 --> 00:12:56,560
Like, hey, maybe you don't alter these HUD elements.

174
00:12:56,560 --> 00:13:00,800
It's something he could add in too. In reshade, you can separate HUD elements manually.

175
00:13:00,800 --> 00:13:06,280
And so I could see on a game per game basis allowing people to have the HUD be processed separately

176
00:13:06,280 --> 00:13:09,320
from the rest of the scaling, maybe. Maybe it'd be pretty tough

177
00:13:09,320 --> 00:13:14,480
because then you're losing some of the advantages of this software is that it just kind of works on everything.

178
00:13:14,480 --> 00:13:17,680
100%. And then you're building profiles again. And then you're basically just doing

179
00:13:17,680 --> 00:13:21,360
what AMD and NVIDIA are doing. Fair enough. Overall, I don't think there's a question

180
00:13:21,360 --> 00:13:24,760
that I would rather play with this on, hmm.

181
00:13:24,760 --> 00:13:28,600
Maybe turn off the 5x so it doesn't look as stupid. Yeah, here, let's...

182
00:13:28,600 --> 00:13:32,360
Go back to two. Let's go to a more reasonable scaling multiplier.

183
00:13:32,360 --> 00:13:37,040
Maybe two. Yeah. At this point, I don't think there's much of a question.

184
00:13:37,040 --> 00:13:42,000
I would, ah. Now that you're seeing the thing,

185
00:13:42,000 --> 00:13:45,680
it's like it's, it wasn't as bad before. I think it's even worse.

186
00:13:45,680 --> 00:13:48,760
That's interesting. Okay, look, let me try yours again.

187
00:13:48,760 --> 00:13:51,280
Oh, okay.

188
00:13:52,920 --> 00:13:57,240
No, no, no, it's fine. It's fine, it doesn't matter. It's just like, I was questioning

189
00:13:57,240 --> 00:14:03,280
whether I would turn this on and I'm like, oh, maybe neither of these are what I would configure

190
00:14:03,280 --> 00:14:07,800
because I would want a higher base frame rate regardless, even if it means turning down some details.

191
00:14:07,800 --> 00:14:11,360
But there's no question that the software is pretty impressive

192
00:14:11,360 --> 00:14:14,600
and we haven't even touched on the actual scaling

193
00:14:14,600 --> 00:14:18,920
that it was originally named for. THS said that the reason they originally made

194
00:14:18,920 --> 00:14:24,960
lossless scaling was that they bought a 4K monitor for coding and their computer couldn't handle it for gaming.

195
00:14:24,960 --> 00:14:28,480
Now, obviously you can just run your monitor

196
00:14:28,480 --> 00:14:33,200
at a non-native resolution, but at the time, graphics drivers could only do

197
00:14:33,200 --> 00:14:38,200
nasty hobbits' soft, bilinear scaling, yuck.

198
00:14:38,480 --> 00:14:41,520
So, THS developed the first version

199
00:14:41,520 --> 00:14:44,940
to make sharp, sexy, integer scaling a breeze

200
00:14:44,940 --> 00:14:49,780
and then just kept adding features until we got the flexible array of options

201
00:14:49,780 --> 00:14:54,020
that we're left with today. It's even great for non-gaming applications.

202
00:14:54,020 --> 00:14:58,140
Do you love anime? Well, you can boost the sharpness with anime 4K.

203
00:14:58,140 --> 00:15:02,700
More into emulating retro games, THS included XBR scaling to make pixel art games

204
00:15:02,700 --> 00:15:06,340
really look their best. And if you wanna scale your demanding 3D games,

205
00:15:06,340 --> 00:15:09,740
well, hey, you can try AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution,

206
00:15:09,740 --> 00:15:15,140
FSR, or NVIDIA image scaling, even in games that don't support them.

207
00:15:15,140 --> 00:15:20,100
That versatility and the convenient package it's wrapped in is genuinely fantastic.

208
00:15:20,100 --> 00:15:23,180
Let's try using FSR. Let's start with Doom the Dark Ages,

209
00:15:23,180 --> 00:15:28,180
which actually does support FSR. So David is gonna turn it on in-game

210
00:15:28,180 --> 00:15:32,700
and then I am gonna turn it on using lossless scaling. I'm also gonna disable my secondary GPU

211
00:15:32,700 --> 00:15:38,260
because that's not really apples to apples otherwise. So I guess I want the optimized version,

212
00:15:38,260 --> 00:15:42,740
a non-original optimized version of AMD FSR, which is better to do for the less powerful.

213
00:15:42,740 --> 00:15:47,900
RGPs are also powerful. Yeah, let's leave that off. Sharpness, let's leave that in the middle.

214
00:15:47,900 --> 00:15:52,180
To do that, I need to set my game to borderless windowed and then I'm gonna set my resolution

215
00:15:52,180 --> 00:15:56,220
to whatever I would want my input resolution to be for my scaling technology.

216
00:15:56,220 --> 00:16:00,860
So let's go with 1080p. I wanna really play at a high frame rate.

217
00:16:02,060 --> 00:16:07,380
Now we go into lossless scaling and we set our type to FSR.

218
00:16:07,380 --> 00:16:10,380
We're just gonna leave it on auto, I guess.

219
00:16:10,460 --> 00:16:13,700
Will that do a 2x factor? Well, it's gonna bring it

220
00:16:13,700 --> 00:16:17,860
to whatever your monitor's resolution is. Oh, brilliant.

221
00:16:17,860 --> 00:16:22,860
Okay, oh yeah, right. I'm definitely scaling because I was running

222
00:16:22,860 --> 00:16:27,180
at that lower resolution before and if it's not on, it's running like this

223
00:16:27,180 --> 00:16:31,660
and if it's on, it's running like that. That's a lot of daring.

224
00:16:31,660 --> 00:16:35,980
We are running into some v-sync issues. I've noticed there's limitations

225
00:16:35,980 --> 00:16:39,060
based on the monitor's refresh rate when you're using lossless scaling

226
00:16:39,060 --> 00:16:43,700
and because we're going to a capture that is limited to 60, we are gonna be kinda locked around 60

227
00:16:43,700 --> 00:16:47,140
even if you turn v-sync off and everything. Let's lose the capture then

228
00:16:47,140 --> 00:16:50,420
and we'll just use the over the shoulder. Wait, how are you at 93 FPS?

229
00:16:50,420 --> 00:16:56,100
I have FSRs on. Oh, that's right, I forgot. Okay, so now we're pixel peeping a little bit.

230
00:16:56,100 --> 00:16:59,140
Why don't we just play for a little bit first? Hey, I'm getting more FPS than you.

231
00:16:59,140 --> 00:17:03,140
No, I just wanna make sure that my settings are correct. FSR performance would be 1080p.

232
00:17:03,140 --> 00:17:06,420
Ooh, now I'm not feeling the latency, boys. Well, those are real frames.

233
00:17:06,420 --> 00:17:11,980
They're just lower resolution. You know what, man, they look pretty okay to me.

234
00:17:11,980 --> 00:17:15,260
Yeah, I can't immediately tell the difference in sharpness between ours.

235
00:17:15,260 --> 00:17:18,700
Oh, I'm up at 100 now. Performance is quite similar.

236
00:17:18,700 --> 00:17:23,180
And mine was easier to set up than yours was. That's fair.

237
00:17:23,180 --> 00:17:27,460
Got a little finicky problems. It's definitely not as sharp.

238
00:17:27,460 --> 00:17:31,620
Like I'm looking at these chains that there's baddies kinda hanging down from or whatever.

239
00:17:31,620 --> 00:17:37,020
Like... But same with mine, the native FSR is not perfect.

240
00:17:37,020 --> 00:17:40,940
Now, is this supposed to be as good as proper integrated FSR?

241
00:17:40,940 --> 00:17:44,860
I don't think so, because I think

242
00:17:44,860 --> 00:17:47,860
the integrated FSR gets access to a little more information

243
00:17:47,860 --> 00:17:50,980
than just the output frame. It really doesn't look that different to me, though.

244
00:17:50,980 --> 00:17:55,900
I mean, can you do me a favor and go find that chain again and then just like do the same back and forth?

245
00:17:55,900 --> 00:18:00,300
Cause I've got crazy ghosting on mine. Whoa, buddy.

246
00:18:00,300 --> 00:18:05,020
Mine's not doing it. Huh. I would have assumed that the one built into Doom

247
00:18:05,020 --> 00:18:10,020
would be better, but I don't know if that's necessarily true. Another big one is distant foliage.

248
00:18:10,020 --> 00:18:14,500
So let's just find a tree or something to look at. Here we go, against these mountains,

249
00:18:14,500 --> 00:18:18,500
there are like these birds and stuff behind you. Behind? Up there, yeah.

250
00:18:18,500 --> 00:18:21,900
I am not perceiving a major difference here.

251
00:18:21,900 --> 00:18:26,780
No. Oh, you know what? No, this tree is better on yours.

252
00:18:27,780 --> 00:18:31,780
Yeah, you're right. Definitely. So it looks like it's gonna be a bit of a mixed bag,

253
00:18:31,780 --> 00:18:35,740
but what's cool about loss of scaling is I have all other kinds of different options.

254
00:18:35,740 --> 00:18:39,540
Which one do you want? LF1, let's do it. That's the scaling that they built.

255
00:18:41,860 --> 00:18:45,260
Uh, yeah. I don't think it's as good as that.

256
00:18:45,260 --> 00:18:47,460
Yeah. Well, let's look at the chain.

257
00:18:49,020 --> 00:18:53,180
Yeah, the tree's not as good. I can tell you that much for sure. Hey, my chain's still better than your chain though.

258
00:18:53,180 --> 00:18:57,140
Got them. This is so crazy. I mean, that's the thing with all of these technologies

259
00:18:57,140 --> 00:19:02,420
is they do tend to be a bit of a mixed bag and you're gonna have to play around and find out what works best for you.

260
00:19:02,420 --> 00:19:07,300
And again, what's cool about loss of scaling is that I don't even need the game to support it at all.

261
00:19:07,300 --> 00:19:12,260
So why don't we fire up a game that doesn't support loss of scaling? Like, Halo Infinite?

262
00:19:12,260 --> 00:19:16,340
No. Why? Because... Why do you guys never let me play Halo Infinite

263
00:19:16,340 --> 00:19:21,020
on set anymore? Well, first off, you play too long. Secondly, because of the way Halo Infinite

264
00:19:21,020 --> 00:19:25,620
does its resolution, we can't change it to a smaller size to scale up.

265
00:19:25,620 --> 00:19:29,300
So it won't work with loss of scaling in that way.

266
00:19:29,300 --> 00:19:32,380
Yay, Halo Infinite! Woohoo!

267
00:19:32,380 --> 00:19:35,660
And I'm getting more FPS, boys!

268
00:19:36,660 --> 00:19:40,420
Not by that much. As for image quality,

269
00:19:41,500 --> 00:19:44,540
let's have a look here. Hey, meet me at the Bazaar. The Bazaar.

270
00:19:44,540 --> 00:19:48,020
The Bazaar! Stop it, I'm doing a video!

271
00:19:48,020 --> 00:19:51,620
Leave me alone. You shouldn't put so many bots in the game then.

272
00:19:51,620 --> 00:19:54,380
Don't leave the option to change much. Okay, let's see.

273
00:19:55,860 --> 00:19:59,300
I mean... Yeah, I'm upscaling from 1440,

274
00:19:59,300 --> 00:20:01,780
but like, this is pretty good.

275
00:20:02,740 --> 00:20:05,780
The text is a little fuzzy. Like, that's noticeable to me,

276
00:20:05,780 --> 00:20:09,580
but like, I have to go looking for it. Not bad.

277
00:20:09,580 --> 00:20:13,060
Of course, I'm not getting a huge performance benefit right now either.

278
00:20:13,060 --> 00:20:16,420
I'm getting about the same frame rate that you are.

279
00:20:16,420 --> 00:20:20,900
Wait, do I not have it on? I do have it on, because I have my performance counter.

280
00:20:20,900 --> 00:20:26,060
Okay, I'm gonna turn and frame you as well, just for loss. My image quality looks darn near the same as yours,

281
00:20:26,060 --> 00:20:29,980
but my FPS is also darn near the same as yours.

282
00:20:30,900 --> 00:20:34,980
You're doing a little bit better than me. I'd be interested to try the adaptive frame rate.

283
00:20:34,980 --> 00:20:39,020
I think that's one of the cool use cases for it. If you have an old eSports monitor

284
00:20:39,020 --> 00:20:43,100
that doesn't support variable refresh rate, you can kind of just force it computationally

285
00:20:43,100 --> 00:20:47,900
and hit a consistent frame rate, even if some of those frames are generated.

286
00:20:47,900 --> 00:20:52,140
Okay, let's turn on frame gen and have a look at how things go. Yeah.

287
00:20:52,140 --> 00:20:56,180
Okay, so... I love that this, the first thing I think

288
00:20:56,180 --> 00:20:58,580
when I see LSFG is let's f***ing go.

289
00:20:59,340 --> 00:21:03,220
Let's f***ing go. Okay, I'm gonna try 2x multiplier to start.

290
00:21:03,220 --> 00:21:06,260
With the higher input frame rate, dude,

291
00:21:06,260 --> 00:21:10,580
obviously it doesn't feel quite right. It looks really smooth.

292
00:21:10,580 --> 00:21:13,860
I can force it to artifact, like look at this crane in the back.

293
00:21:13,860 --> 00:21:18,340
Oh yeah. Like I can make it kind of do weird stuff, but it's not the sort of thing that I would notice

294
00:21:18,340 --> 00:21:23,140
if I was just playing the game. No. Okay, like hold on, let me try yours for a sec.

295
00:21:23,140 --> 00:21:27,580
Let me try yours for a sec. Dude, I would play on that one for sure.

296
00:21:27,580 --> 00:21:32,780
No question, actually. Like I thought I was gonna be like, hmm, I guess the pros and cons, you see,

297
00:21:32,780 --> 00:21:36,260
they kind of somewhat outweigh or they don't outweigh.

298
00:21:36,260 --> 00:21:40,020
Like... And it's surprising, this is kind of like an eSports situation,

299
00:21:40,020 --> 00:21:44,220
and I thought this would be totally something that is not in the wheelhouse of loss of scaling.

300
00:21:44,220 --> 00:21:49,780
Okay, switch again. I wanna see, I wanna confirm. It just goes to show that frame generation is best

301
00:21:49,780 --> 00:21:53,540
in situations where you least need it. My base experience is pretty good.

302
00:21:53,540 --> 00:21:56,740
It's just a little boosted by that frame gen.

303
00:21:56,740 --> 00:22:00,500
I gotta say I like it, which you might see as a reversal

304
00:22:00,500 --> 00:22:04,380
from my previous position, where generally I avoid upscaling

305
00:22:04,380 --> 00:22:08,900
or frame generation technologies whenever possible. But there's a big difference to me

306
00:22:08,900 --> 00:22:12,380
between what AMD and especially NVIDIA have been selling,

307
00:22:12,380 --> 00:22:16,580
which is fake frames for real dollars and what THS is selling,

308
00:22:16,580 --> 00:22:19,860
which is a shot of adrenaline for your older card

309
00:22:19,860 --> 00:22:22,900
for the very reasonable price of $7.

310
00:22:22,900 --> 00:22:27,900
And I know that some folks are still gonna be adamantly against using scaling technologies

311
00:22:27,900 --> 00:22:33,860
or frame generation technologies of any sort, but the controls in here are granular enough

312
00:22:33,860 --> 00:22:39,660
that I think even if all you want is an extra five or 10% headroom on an older card

313
00:22:39,660 --> 00:22:44,500
or to hit a target frame rate, you might appreciate having this tool in your toolkit

314
00:22:44,500 --> 00:22:48,500
and deciding for yourself if it's worth the compromises.

315
00:22:48,500 --> 00:22:53,060
I guarantee that you have $7 games in your Steam library right now that you've played less

316
00:22:53,060 --> 00:22:56,360
than you'll tinker around with this. Just like you should check out the last time

317
00:22:56,360 --> 00:23:00,360
we did something fun with a GPU. Okay, that was fun and very dumb,

318
00:23:00,360 --> 00:23:04,560
but boy, did it ever go brrrrrrr, and like this kind, brrrrrrr.

319
00:23:04,560 --> 00:23:05,400
It was cold.