- Joined
- Jun 21, 2021
- Messages
- 2,744 (2.63/day)
System Name | daily driver Mac mini M2 Pro |
---|---|
Processor | Apple Silicon M2 Pro (6 p-cores, 4 e-cores) |
Motherboard | Apple proprietary |
Cooling | Apple proprietary |
Memory | Apple proprietary 16GB LPDDR5 unified memory |
Video Card(s) | Apple Silicon M2 Pro (16-core GPU) |
Storage | Apple proprietary 512GB SSD + various external HDDs |
Display(s) | LG 27UL850W (4K@60Hz IPS) |
Case | Apple proprietary |
Audio Device(s) | Apple proprietary |
Power Supply | Apple proprietary |
Mouse | Apple Magic Trackpad 2 |
Keyboard | Keychron K1 tenkeyless (Gateron Reds) |
Software | macOS Ventura 13.6 (including latest patches) |
Benchmark Scores | (My Windows daily driver is a Beelink Mini S12. I'm not interested in benchmarking.) |
Both Tom's Hardware and Digital Foundry have reviewed SoTTR comparing XeSS and DLSS 2.0. The former also includes XeSS performance on non-Intel hardware.
The Tom's Hardware review focuses more on framerate performance. The Digital Foundry review focuses more on visual quality.
It's important to emphasize that staring at minute zoomed-in details on still frames isn't an accurate approximation of playing a game in real time. There are temporal and motion related quality assessments that aren't apparent in still images. A LOT of people on PC and gaming sites ignore this fact.
The Digital Foundry review opines that these image reconstruction techniques are generally better than native rendering at 4K. You can agree or disagree but it is clear that this technology has improved since the early days of DLSS 1.0. There may be some scenes where image reconstruction looks better and some where it isn't but DF's overall assessment is that image reconstruction is beneficial and desirable: the pros outweigh the cons.
One important takeaway from the Tom's Hardware review is that non-Intel hardware doesn't always benefit from XeSS. In some cases, framerate performance is actually worse include the RX 5700 XT. XeSS on non-Intel hardware shows general improvements with later generation graphics cards (RDNA2, Turing, Ampere). There's also something that ties performance to VRAM memory size.
I suggest reading both reviews since neither one covers all aspects.
The Tom's Hardware review focuses more on framerate performance. The Digital Foundry review focuses more on visual quality.
It's important to emphasize that staring at minute zoomed-in details on still frames isn't an accurate approximation of playing a game in real time. There are temporal and motion related quality assessments that aren't apparent in still images. A LOT of people on PC and gaming sites ignore this fact.
The Digital Foundry review opines that these image reconstruction techniques are generally better than native rendering at 4K. You can agree or disagree but it is clear that this technology has improved since the early days of DLSS 1.0. There may be some scenes where image reconstruction looks better and some where it isn't but DF's overall assessment is that image reconstruction is beneficial and desirable: the pros outweigh the cons.
One important takeaway from the Tom's Hardware review is that non-Intel hardware doesn't always benefit from XeSS. In some cases, framerate performance is actually worse include the RX 5700 XT. XeSS on non-Intel hardware shows general improvements with later generation graphics cards (RDNA2, Turing, Ampere). There's also something that ties performance to VRAM memory size.
I suggest reading both reviews since neither one covers all aspects.
Last edited: