So still about 40% more VRAM expensive than DLSS3
this post was submitted on 29 Jun 2025
83 points (92.8% liked)
Technology
72126 readers
3293 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
Would be useful for competitive, if they didn't care for high FPS already. But else? I personaly prefer better image quality over bigger numbers.
Less VRAM usage means you can use higher-quality models and textures.
Are you saying usage of DLSS reduces memory usage as opposed to not running frame generation? Are you saying that running lower native resolution with framegen but higher textures is going to make the game sharper?
No?! Have you read the title of this post?
dlss isn't frame gen, it's supersampling
TIL. Never used either.
So more voxels, which needs a beefier GPU. I see, a double win for NVidia.
What? No. If DLSS requires less memory, you can use more memory for other things. This means you can use a less beefy GPU, which is worse for Nvidia.
Wow it saves 300MB on 8k. very impressive. This will make 8GB cards usable again /s
Internet Explorer meme bout to be replaced by just rendered on my 8gb card