• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

[TechPowerUp] AMD FSR 2.0 Quality & Performance Review - The DLSS Killer

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
This is beneficial in the same way that Unreal Engine is beneficial, especially for smaller developers. Less time to make their own engine (in the case of UE) or upscaling algorithm (in the case of FSR 2.0) now and more time to focus on other aspects of product development.

Additionally, I'd be pretty hard pressed to believe that MS (and Sony as well) didn't at some point take FSR 2.0 into consideration when choosing their hardware designs considering they were quite adamant about being fully DX12U and RDNA 2.0 compliment. FSR 2.0 would be another example of "the tools are getting better" trope I see here so much.

Well, on MS's part FSR 2.0 will be added to the GDK so developers making Xbox SKUs will have access to it as part of the development kit, so integration will be a tad bit easier there.

But let's see how it effects things in real world scenarios. It'll be interesting.
 

IntentionalPun

Ask me about my wife's perfect butthole
My original comment has nothing to do with FSR 2.0 which makes your reply absolutely useless. Make sure to bring your reading comprehension skills along for the next thread you hop into.
Chill out; you responded to a post by SlimySnake about them adding FSR 2.0. It's not like my comment came out of nowhere.

Also, Insomniac's temporal injection is also a TAAU implementation lol

Honestly I'd have replied to his post but the poor soul has me on ignore.
 

01011001

Member
Wonder how the Yuzu Switch emulator and the PS3 one, RPCS3 should benefit from this since it uses FSR 1.0. Lossless scaling on Steam lets you apply FSR to almost any game too.

Im most happy for consoles, DLSS is great and this is finally a worthy competitor, at least on Deathloop.

FSR 2.0 doesn't work like that, you can't just use it without developers directly implementing it into every game. FSR1.0 worked like that because it was basically just a sharpening filter
 

adamsapple

Or is it just one of Phil's balls in my throat?
What games will be using this for PC tomorrow?


Deathloop looks like it'll be the first major game to get it.



Flight Sim will also get it soon as per the above link, that's an incredibly resource heavy game so it'll be interesting to see its effect there, and if it will be translated to the console version.
 

Otre

Member
FSR 2.0 doesn't work like that, you can't just use it without developers directly implementing it into every game. FSR1.0 worked like that because it was basically just a sharpening filter
Thats a shame. I hoped some legacy stuff would benefit from it.


Also, i read that TechpowerUp said FSR 1.0 was comparable to Native? We should wait for other outlets.

"From a quality standpoint, I have to say I'm very positively surprised by the FSR "Ultra Quality" results. The graphics look almost as good as native. In some cases they even look better than native rendering.""
 
AMD really went here and did it!
Yes, if you search you can find minor differences, but it's just that, differences, not problems because DLSS also has those too. It's just as good and it can perform even better than FSR 1.0. This paired with AMD's brillian Contrast Sharpening... just wow! I was not expecting this to be so good! Hope this this one case withing this one game is not an exception.

Nvidia is always first though.

Not really.
In many cases ATI/AMD and others arrived first with a new and useful technology but unfortunately it doesn't become popular as it should. DLSS only succeeded because Jensen is persistent and is also using the tensors to charge a bit of an extra. But even so, most games don't have DLSS still.


I say that Nvidia is a little fucked now.
Now people with older cards, even older Nvidia cards don't need to buy new GTX cards, they'll be able to kept from buying a new one for longer. FSR 2.0 should be easier to implement than DLSS, no black box middleman. Intel is also coming with tier GPU and own implementation meaning that this is now finally becoming the standard. The Tensor cores lost their purpose for games, it's cheaper to develop GPUs without that extra hardware.
 

Irobot82

Member
The circled object looks better in DLSS and the arrow looks better in FSR.

The stains below the statue look more blurry in FSR 1.0 and DLSS, 2.0 looks better to me. It's kinda hard to see tho with such a small picture.
 
With FSR 2.0 being pretty much on par with DLSS, and there will be more improvements to follow, does this mean that AMD won't be adding tensor like cores to their new RDNA 3 and 4 cards? To me it looks like AMD are just going to do what MS did with XSX and that's to keep Int8 and Int4 abilities on the Compute Units and hope that their higher raster will allow good ML abilities without the need to add more silicone.
 
Lol, I knew you'd be here. Was playing HFW the other day and was wondering why a skilled dev team such as Guerrilla couldn't/ wouldn't take Insomniac and Bluepoint approach with temporal injection. Such a strange miss by an uber competent team.



Which part of comment do you disagree with and why?
Imperceptible to native 4K is not realistic, and we have no games on console using this tech to make such a comment.
 
Yes.



The article shows that AMD weren't talking out their ass when they promised these big gains.

The key to 60fps is the performance modes. 'Performance mode' alone could be enough for most circumstances. The gains make sense, since you are basically feeding a 1080p image into FSR for it to work its magic.

There are many games on console which offer a native 4K30fps mode, while also offering a 60fps mode at lower resolution. Games like GTAV, FF7 Remake, Star Wars Jedi, Uncharted Collection or Lost Judgement spring to mind. Essentially, these games could offer an additional 4K FSR performance mode on top of the existing modes, which would shoot for the reconstructed 4K with an unlocked framerate. As I said, even if the gain does not quite take you to a locked 60fps (maybe it fluctuates between 55-75fps for example), VRR would clean that experience up considerably. It already has in recently VRR patched PS5 games like Ratchet and Spider-Man. It's all about getting a 'close enough' experience - both to native 4K and to a very smooth FPS that feels perceptually in the 60fps ballpark. You would need to be some sort of human FRAPS and be sat inches from your TV to really tell the difference.

I can also see developers potentially swapping out their often ugly dynamic res setups if FSR works well enough (looking at Metro Exodus). Of course developers could run into bottlenecks like being CPU limited. The article shows Deathloop peaks at 102fps no matter what res you run it in. But unless they are doing a lot of complex simulations, most games right now are going to be GPU limited.
I'd suggest a wait and see, but hopefully it does produce amazing results.
 

assurdum

Banned
HFW uses a TAAU implementation.. which is what FSR 2.0 is...

Maybe.. you.. strange missed it.

I'm gonna have to do my broken record routine about FSR 2.0 but I have a feeling a year from now we'll still see endless posts of people saying "add it to this game that already has TAAU" even if FSR 2.0 isn't outdoing other TAAU implementations.
Uh the reviewer said FSR 2 is close to DLSS. TAUU is not absolutely close to DLSS in console games. So I guess he overhyped FSR2? Just asking.
 

mrMUR_96

Member
HFW uses a TAAU implementation.. which is what FSR 2.0 is...

Maybe.. you.. strange missed it.

I'm gonna have to do my broken record routine about FSR 2.0 but I have a feeling a year from now we'll still see endless posts of people saying "add it to this game that already has TAAU" even if FSR 2.0 isn't outdoing other TAAU implementations.
The performance mode uses checkerboarding
 

winjer

Member
Credibility lost.

It's very easy to misrepresent a review when using just one sentence, from a several page review.
Maybe we should read more of what Techpowerup said. His statement was just referring to 4K Ultra Quality, and the reason why it can be better than native, was because of the good sharpening filter included with FSR, that can bring back some detail lost because of TAA.
He then proceeds to point out the limitations of lower quality modes and lower resolutions. And concludes that at least it's better than a traditional GPU or monitor upscaler.
Also consider that this was not just a written review, it also had images and video, giving the reader the opportunity to come to his own conclusions. So they were not trying to falsify information.

And now, the big question—does it work? From a performance standpoint, it most certainly does! Even the "Ultra Quality" preset, which offers the highest image quality, gives you a neat 25-40% increase in frame rates, which will come in very handy when playing on a 4K display with 1440p-capable hardware. While the games we tested today aren't the most demanding, the numbers speak for themselves. A Radeon RX Vega 64 that was a stuttery mess at 4K is now quite playable, especially if you're willing to sacrifice some quality. This also breathes new life into cards like the Radeon RX 580 that can now achieve good framerates at 1440p. This is a big deal for someone still on such older-generation hardware, who probably wanted to upgrade in 2020-21, but was put off by high GPU prices. As you switch between the Balanced, Performance and Quality modes, you more than double your frame rates, which only adds to your freedom.

From a quality standpoint, I have to say I'm very positively surprised by the FSR "Ultra Quality" results. The graphics look almost as good as native. In some cases they even look better than native rendering. What makes the difference is that FSR adds a sharpening pass that helps with texture detail in some games. Unlike Fidelity FX CAS, which is quite aggressive and oversharpens fairly often, the sharpening of FSR is very subtle and almost perfect—and I'm not a fan of post-processing effects. I couldn't spot any ringing artifacts or similar problems.

The more performance-oriented modes of FSR are definitely not for those who want the best quality—the loss in rendering resolution becomes very apparent, very quickly, especially in areas with strong colors and high contrast. Still, I'm not sure if we should completely dismiss these modes as "unusable." For example, if you own an older graphics card and a 4K display, the output of "FSR Performance" will look MUCH better than simply rendering at 1080p and letting the monitor or GPU upscale the output to your monitor's native 4K—I tested it. FSR Performance, which renders at 1920x1080, even looks better than 1440p upscaled to 4K.
 
Last edited:
I know, this is off topic, but I have to ask a thing, my stupid brain won't get and my google-fu won't find an answer for:

If I want to use FSR/DLSS for a 4k picture, do i put the games resolution to 4k or to a lower res (e.g. 1440p) to gain the benefits of the function?
 
Last edited:

MaKTaiL

Member
How is it a killer when in all of their comparisons DLSS has better performance gain. The word killer is just a clickbait shit. It's good, but doesnt kill anything. If anything DLSS is still ahead of it and fuck knows what nvidia are cooking up next.
It is a killer because it does not need a specific Nvidia chip to work.
 
Will this work on Switch?

IMO this will be most beneficial for the next Switch.
With this alternative Nintendo will not have to pay Nvidia an extra for specialized hardware, they can ask for a smaller and cheaper GPU or for one with a bit more horsepower.

Don't get me wrong, Tensor cores have their use, but to upscale games it may be an unnecessary coast.
 

Tripolygon

Member
well, but it looks worse and has less of a performance gain.

so not really a killer, more a worse alternative for people without RTX cards
This is an overstatement.

It looks significantly better than where DLSS started from and is comparable to current DLSS with significantly less ghosting in motion than DLSS 2.0 at a 5% difference in performance vs DLSS without using any special cores.
 
Congrats to AMD. Now hopefully we'll get this for Steam Deck soon.
It's shader based and implemented by the game engine so there was no reason for it not to work on Steam Deck in day one.





Credibility lost.
FSR 1 on Ultra looks very close to native indeed, but only when the output resolution is 4K or similar.

The problem here is that FSR 1.0 renders at 77% resolution so the performance uplift is small, especially compared to TSR / DLSS 2 / FSR 2.0 that show similar to native image quality at 50% resolution at all resolutions (not only 4K).
 

01011001

Member
I made a test.
I have to say, FSR 2.0 is the real deal! it really looks good... really close to DLSS, even at 1440p (most tests are always dont at 4K with these upsampling techniques which is useless information for most people)

So I made comparison shots as closely matched as possible, with both stationary, walking forward and walking to the side.
I will not tell you which is which just now, just look at them and see which one you like the best out of each paring.

one of these will be DLSS Quality at 1440p and the other FSR 2.0 Quality at 1440p
Open them in a new tab and watch them in full resolution if possible.

maybe in a few hours I will then reveal which is which. I mixed them up btw. so FSR is not necessarily always the top or the bottom one! I flipped a coin for every pairing so not even some Sherlock Holmes Taxi Murderer mindgames will work here :D completely random...

STANDING STILL:




MOVING FORWARDS:




MOVING TO THE SIDE:




IMO they are trading blows in my test here. in some instances I found DLSS to look better, in others FSR 2.0
do we know the internal nativ resolutions these run at BTW? DLSS Quality is 67% right?
 
Last edited:

elliot5

Member
I made a test.
I have to say, FSR 2.0 is the real deal! it really looks good... really close to DLSS, even at 1440p (most tests are always dont at 4K with these upsampling techniques which is useless information for most people)

So I made comparison shots as closely matched as possible, with both stationary, walking forward and walking to the side.
I will not tell you which is which just now, just look at them and see which one you like the best out of each paring.

one of these will be DLSS Quality at 1440p and the other FSR 2.0 Quality at 1440p
Open them in a new tab and watch them in full resolution if possible.

maybe in a few hours I will then reveal which is which. I mixed them up btw. so FSR is not necessarily always the top or the bottom one! I flipped a coin for every pairing so not even some Sherlock Holmes Taxi Murderer mindgames will work here :D completely random...

STANDING STILL:




MOVING FORWARDS:




MOVING TO THE SIDE:




IMO they are trading blows in my test here. in some instances I found DLSS to look better, in others FSR 2.0
do we know the internal nativ resolutions these run at BTW? DLSS Quality is 66% right?
4K quality is 1440p and perf is 1080p.
 

01011001

Member
I made a test.
I have to say, FSR 2.0 is the real deal! it really looks good... really close to DLSS, even at 1440p (most tests are always dont at 4K with these upsampling techniques which is useless information for most people)

So I made comparison shots as closely matched as possible, with both stationary, walking forward and walking to the side.
I will not tell you which is which just now, just look at them and see which one you like the best out of each paring.

one of these will be DLSS Quality at 1440p and the other FSR 2.0 Quality at 1440p
Open them in a new tab and watch them in full resolution if possible.

maybe in a few hours I will then reveal which is which. I mixed them up btw. so FSR is not necessarily always the top or the bottom one! I flipped a coin for every pairing so not even some Sherlock Holmes Taxi Murderer mindgames will work here :D completely random...

STANDING STILL:




MOVING FORWARDS:




MOVING TO THE SIDE:




IMO they are trading blows in my test here. in some instances I found DLSS to look better, in others FSR 2.0
do we know the internal nativ resolutions these run at BTW? DLSS Quality is 67% right?

here, a zoom in for those on mobile and to highlight differences I found.
these are in the same sequence as the big images!

STANDING STILL:



MOVING FORWARDS:



MOVING TO THE SIDE:

 
here, a zoom in for those on mobile and to highlight differences I found.
these are in the same sequence as the big images!

STANDING STILL:



MOVING FORWARDS:



MOVING TO THE SIDE:

STANDING STILL: DLSS - FSR2
MOVING FORWARDS: FSR2 - DLSS
MOVING TO THE SIDE: FSR2 - DLSS

I may be wrong, but sharpness may be a giveaway.
 

Tripolygon

Member
maybe in a few hours I will then reveal which is which. I mixed them up btw. so FSR is not necessarily always the top or the bottom one! I flipped a coin for every pairing so not even some Sherlock Holmes Taxi Murderer mindgames will work here :D completely random...

STANDING STILL:
STANDING STILL: DLSS then FSR 2

MOVING FORWARDS: FSR 2 then DLSS

MOVING TO THE SIDE: FRS 2 then DLSS

Just pure guesses from the limited comparisons I've seen and the kind of artifact they each have.
 

Alexios

Cores, shaders and BIOS oh my!
Nice, I have a 1080 and use a 1440p monitor so it's gonna be good for me then. In their comparison video one thing that could use some cleaning up is the detail on that machine's thread, it was flickery with FSR and while still artifacting with DLSS it wasn't popping as much.
There are still some minimum recommendations, so don't pull out your GeForce Fermi yet just. For 4K (i.e., upscaling to 4K,), you'll need at least a Radeon RX 5700 or GeForce RTX 2070; for 1440p, you're recommended to use at least an RX 5600 or GTX 1080, and for 1080p, it's recommended that you at least have an RX 590 or GTX 1070. The technology itself supports graphics cards all the way back to the RX 500 series "Polaris."
I thought it was already a great option in Ghostwire: Tokyo and Death Stranding DC, it certainly didn't look anywhere near as bad as playing 1080p (or whatever the Ultra setting reduces the internal resolution to) stretched to 1440p without utilizing such upscaling techniques.
 
Last edited:

Tripolygon

Member
STANDING STILL: DLSS - FSR2
MOVING FORWARDS: FSR2 - DLSS
MOVING TO THE SIDE: FSR2 - DLSS

I may be wrong, but sharpness may be a giveaway.
I see we saw similar things and also ghosting. DLSS has more ghosting artifacts compared to FSR 2 especially moving to the side.
 

manfestival

Member
So many poor takes from people here that don't understand the technology at all. So some people have already pointed out that this is not locked as an incentive to encourage buyers to go after specific hardware(Nvidia with the 20/30 series). This is good for PC gaming as a whole and generally a great move for gamers as a group since console gamers are going to benefit from this. As another mentioned before, this is kind of like what happened with gsync/freesync where nvidia touted the hardware support of gsync and now freesync is indistinguishable without being locked to one company(it will be supporting intel). Honestly, with the progress that AMD has made in such a short time. All I see is copium from the die hard fanboys since they likely used DLSS as some sort of justification for their purchase. Okokok that shot may have been unnecessary but it is just always so eyerolling to see people defend nvidia tooth and nail(even AMD fanboys can be as bad at times... just less of them LUL).

Still not putting all of my eggs in one basket. We need more implementation of FSR 2.0 before we can really call this. The technology as a whole is getting better but I would still take native over DLSS/FSR. The list of games coming out with FSR 2.0 is bleh. Though like all things, we need some more time.
 

assurdum

Banned
And how do you know?
Listen I seen many games with TAUU on console, when with DRS the resolution goes around 1440p and below, it's quite visible we are not playing in 4k eh. If and I said IF this review his reliable, and FRS2 is so close to DLSS, should work better than "simple" TAUU.
 
Last edited:

OverHeat

Membre Exceptionnel
So many poor takes from people here that don't understand the technology at all. So some people have already pointed out that this is not locked as an incentive to encourage buyers to go after specific hardware(Nvidia with the 20/30 series). This is good for PC gaming as a whole and generally a great move for gamers as a group since console gamers are going to benefit from this. As another mentioned before, this is kind of like what happened with gsync/freesync where nvidia touted the hardware support of gsync and now freesync is indistinguishable without being locked to one company(it will be supporting intel). Honestly, with the progress that AMD has made in such a short time. All I see is copium from the die hard fanboys since they likely used DLSS as some sort of justification for their purchase. Okokok that shot may have been unnecessary but it is just always so eyerolling to see people defend nvidia tooth and nail(even AMD fanboys can be as bad at times... just less of them LUL).

Still not putting all of my eggs in one basket. We need more implementation of FSR 2.0 before we can really call this. The technology as a whole is getting better but I would still take native over DLSS/FSR. The list of games coming out with FSR 2.0 is bleh. Though like all things, we need some more time.
…don’t forget RT performance.
 

01011001

Member
STANDING STILL: DLSS - FSR2
MOVING FORWARDS: FSR2 - DLSS
MOVING TO THE SIDE: FSR2 - DLSS

I may be wrong, but sharpness may be a giveaway.

STANDING STILL: DLSS then FSR 2

MOVING FORWARDS: FSR 2 then DLSS

MOVING TO THE SIDE: FRS 2 then DLSS

Just pure guesses from the limited comparisons I've seen and the kind of artifact they each have.

correct.
If you know where to look you'll know I guess lol
 

manfestival

Member
…don’t forget RT performance.
True, ray tracing is like the last bastion of copium for those die hard nvidia fanboys lol. Which is funny cause we still aren't even at a place where it is worth it. The only way to get meaningful ray tracing performance is by basically running a 3090 or 3090ti at 1080p. Then who is the madlad that actually bought one of those halo cards just to run it at 1080p? Otherwise you got a handful of titles where it is worth running at 1440p and really maybe 1-2 titles at 4k. We are really waiting on next gen to even see if it is worth it then. Otherwise, you are forced to use a res scaler(FSR/xsx/DLSS) to try to make the game even playable until then.
 
Top Bottom