Why is deferred shading so much better than traditional forward rendering?

>Some user steals your thread and add some extra bait
Nice.

Attached: i97e2x6yuwz31.jpg (1024x321, 61.41K)

It's a joke, at least the first one you reply to. It was inevitable that someone tries to imply that uniroinically.

Yes, I can. I often attempt to verify one way or the other claims I'm not sure about the veracity of. Am I supposed to be ashamed of that?

Forward+ is not entirely the same as traditional forward.

Deferred shading was great back when hardware was bottlenecked by FLOPS. It however eats up memory bandwidth, and so it is not a good fit for low-end hardware.

deferred shading was a meme to sell technology and a way to be able to show a lot of dynamic lights at the same time, however that's the only advantage it has.

Oh look we have two google scientists here, maybe you should marry each other

I posted the original image in a thread. Someone took that image and made a thread with it.

Imagine wanting a blurry mess instead of the cleaness and sharpness of the forward rendering

>Oh no, they're saying something educational. They must be using Google for everything they say.

Doom 2016 used only forward though

>Deferred shading is blurry

Attached: 700.jpg (208x326, 14.74K)

So you're a liar too

>adriancourreges.com/blog/2016/09/09/doom-2016-graphics-study/
>...DOOM actually cleverly mixes forward and deferred with a hybrid approach

Lett it go. Doomcucks are literally brain damaged.

>soul
>soulless

10+ years of blurry games proves me right.

>Googled again

Sigh user, you're not impressive

>I've played tons of blurry games for the past ten years
>Deferred started popping up around ten years ago
>Therefore, blur in games is caused by deferred shading

This is a failure of basic logic.

If I just refuted the claim without evidence all I'd get in return is
>Source?

>Ha, you're actually using credible sources and not pulling facts out your ass? What a virgin lol

>STALKER
>blurry

Attached: 20200107175133_1.jpg (3840x2160, 1.13M)

Blurried games started with deferred rendering, though.

isnt it mainly dude to that terrible temporal AA?

But the Dreamcast had the sharpest graphics.

>Yeah, forward shaded games are so much shar-

Attached: gears-of-war-22.jpg (1280x720, 166.12K)

Doesn't UE3 use deferred rendering?

No, UE4 does.

It was added in later but most UE3/UDK games used forward rendering.

I don't know what youre talking about and it might be unrelated but I like that new games have good space depth, objects are easily discernible as closer and further away and it feels more like i'm inside the game. It looks a bit fake though, irl you don't feel like things are gonna poke your eyes out.

That is unrelated.

You mean depth of field?

Why are you people even talking about this, you guys all got it so wrong. Like whether you use deferred or forward rendering is all a matter of preference in what you want to accomplish.

It makes accomplishing certain things easier and less computationally intensive yes, but ultimately if you want to make something look the most realistic you need to trace rays, these are all just abstractions. If a game looks blurry its because of its AA solution.

>If a game looks blurry its because of its AA solution.
Not necessarily. There are many techniques in modern games that affect the clarity of the image, e.g. DOF, bloom, motion blur, etc. AA is just the only one where it's not intentional.

So you say, but you can clearly see the bottom of OP's image is skewed like the game is running a higher fov. Angles are different. And every other comparison I saw when I googled it with "vs" showed the same effect. Might be an intentionally dishonest choice by the person who uploaded the images idk.

The FOV is the same, the camera is in a different position.

It's nothing more than taking a screenshot of approximately the same angle, Jesus.

deferred doesn't cause blur you half-wit.

Meanwhile DLSS 2.0

imgsli.com/MTM3Nzg
imgsli.com/MTM3ODA

Better visual image rendered at 1080p/1440k and scaled to 4k vs native 4k

That "native" screenshot looks blurry as fuck.
How about a comparison with no distracting filters?

You guys are blind

At least do research before speaking up.

Attached: projection_lens_overhead-projector_-100762333-large.jpg (1200x800, 76.63K)

If a blind person can see it, why can't you?

Attached: 1575844102098.png (1920x1080, 1.56M)

I guess the closest you can get is jaggie since you can't MSAA defrerred renderers. Plus MSAA is a bandwidth killer and there is no compression cheats you can use for it which really hampers certain cards.

No goy- I mean guy, 1:1 comparisons are unfair.

Attached: old man huang.jpg (475x324, 23.28K)

If anything, that makes deferred rendering sharper.
Not in a good way, of course, but engineering-wise, anti-aliasing is the same as blurring.

Attached: 22_aa_lines_10.jpg (500x537, 37.39K)

TAA works when its supersampled but the only notable title to use it recently (off the top of my head) is doom eternal.

He is so soothing to listen to. I want him to whisper details about upcoming raytracing hardware into my ear.

No it's not, AA images contain subpixel information from supersampling.

Subpixel information that has been blurred.
More information != sharpness.

What he means is that post process AA blurs more than just jaggies, and even then, it's shimmering. TAA takes care of shimmering, but it also over softens the image, but with sharpening it can look nice.
While MSAA only takes care of jaggied areas of the image without shimmering.

(Supersampled) AA causes blur, but blurring can also be result of information loss. So making the equivalence is not reasonable

Any form of AA theoretically blurs, some blurs are just better than others.
In the case of standard MSAA/SSAA, grid-aligned geometry is perfectly preserved, but sub-pixel information is still technically blurred.

Attached: downsampling.jpg (500x268, 21.03K)

I'm not equating anything. I am just addressing anti-aliasing and its effect on sharpness, a la blurring.
I acknowledge that this is not comparable to aesthetic blurs.