AMD FSR Review! Not bad..

[Lunner]

FSR is just an option , one can turn off or on.
Not everyone can afford high end cards which of course is preferred to get the personal desired visual performance.

If FSR remain open source and not complicated to implement; game developers can outreach to more gamers with diferent gaming setup.

This in turn givves more option to gamers as more games could have the feature foward and also allow more friends with low-mid setup to play similar games.

The technology can only get better with learnings ; gap to DLSS 2.0 is expected else it misses windows of learning and we miss it's potential early use.

Best of all we are getting the option free.

 

[watzup_ken]

This is very true. And I think the same applies to DLSS, unless the visual degrade is significant, ie, DLSS 1.0.

https://hothardware.com/news/amd-fidelityfx-super-resolution-and-the-problem-with-pixel-peeping

 

[Gaminator]

This is very true. And I think the same applies to DLSS, unless the visual degrade is significant, ie, DLSS 1.0.

https://hothardware.com/news/amd-fidelityfx-super-resolution-and-the-problem-with-pixel-peeping

This is why I'd described DF as DLSS and pixel peeping hoe, because they're so entrenched with DLSS (moneybags at nVidia has seen to that I suspect) and all they do is pixel peep. Their TAAU vs FSR comparison was messed up as TAAU was rendered at native I've been told (perhaps an honest mistake on part of reviewer, but was told that THAT reviewer is DLSS biased).

They were very quick to highlight DLSS superiority (which I'm NOT arguing at all), but in all their pixel peeping madness, they're not talked about how good FSR at UQ and Q presets looked (perhaps they think these modes looks bad simply because they'd pixel peeped) when in gameplay, and that differences in image quality starts to bare itself at Balanced and Performance presets. Sure, DF can pixel peep, that's their stitch, but to not at least talk about how FSR is hardware agnostic and is good for those with older GPUs (from both AMD and nVidia's own Pascal and Maxwell cards) and NOT limited to just RTX cards (which also benefit from FSR).

 

[kenzi87]

Too bad Nvidia already flag DLSS for BF2042, wonder if AMD gonna chip in for FSR

 

[watzup_ken]

This is why I'd described DF as DLSS and pixel peeping hoe, because they're so entrenched with DLSS (moneybags at nVidia has seen to that I suspect) and all they do is pixel peep. Their TAAU vs FSR comparison was messed up as TAAU was rendered at native I've been told (perhaps an honest mistake on part of reviewer, but was told that THAT reviewer is DLSS biased).

They were very quick to highlight DLSS superiority (which I'm NOT arguing at all), but in all their pixel peeping madness, they're not talked about how good FSR at UQ and Q presets looked (perhaps they think these modes looks bad simply because they'd pixel peeped) when in gameplay, and that differences in image quality starts to bare itself at Balanced and Performance presets. Sure, DF can pixel peep, that's their stitch, but to not at least talk about how FSR is hardware agnostic and is good for those with older GPUs (from both AMD and nVidia's own Pascal and Maxwell cards) and NOT limited to just RTX cards (which also benefit from FSR).

I think pixel peeping is a way to really take a good look at the image quality post upscaling. So that makes sense if you are looking at the quality which is a 1 dimensional angle. BUT, the overall recommendation/ verdict should be based on how people will normally view it, and also perhaps the ease to implement. To always draw comparison with DLSS is pointless because it is not like people are expecting FSR to be better than DLSS from an image quality standpoint. And image quality should not be some static image, but also when in motion, i.e. does it introduce some ghosting/ flashing in DLSS. In my opinion, both have their merits and downsides.

I did not watch DF's review on FSR, because I think I got the point after watching/ reading some reviews. DF in their DLSS review is also very hung up on praising how good DLSS is, and I don't recall hearing anything negative, as compared to reviews from Hardware Unboxed and Gamers' Nexus which both mentioned that DLSS is great, but not without its flaws.

 

[watzup_ken]

Too bad Nvidia already flag DLSS for BF2042, wonder if AMD gonna chip in for FSR

If it is going into a console, there is a chance that we may see FSR implemented. It makes it a lot easier for the game developers to achieve higher FPS with less effort than traditional tweaking/ optimization.

 

[Gaminator]

Too bad Nvidia already flag DLSS for BF2042, wonder if AMD gonna chip in for FSR

Since BF 2042 would not have SP Campaign mode, it's a hard pass for me.

 

[Gaminator]

I think pixel peeping is a way to really take a good look at the image quality post upscaling. So that makes sense if you are looking at the quality which is a 1 dimensional angle. BUT, the overall recommendation/ verdict should be based on how people will normally view it, and also perhaps the ease to implement. To always draw comparison with DLSS is pointless because it is not like people are expecting FSR to be better than DLSS from an image quality standpoint. And image quality should not be some static image, but also when in motion, i.e. does it introduce some ghosting/ flashing in DLSS. In my opinion, both have their merits and downsides.

I did not watch DF's review on FSR, because I think I got the point after watching/ reading some reviews. DF in their DLSS review is also very hung up on praising how good DLSS is, and I don't recall hearing anything negative, as compared to reviews from Hardware Unboxed and Gamers' Nexus which both mentioned that DLSS is great, but not without its flaws.

I understand that DF's focus is on image quality, but DLSS is only for the RTX which does not constitute a big percentage of gamers' usage, more often than not, most are on older AMD and GTX cards. So, while DF's focus on image quality is on point, they fail to talk about the average non-RTX users and how FSR can be leveraged on their cards. They could at least talk about image quality while gaming at Ultra Quality and Quality presets and leave Balanced and Performance out. They are unsurprisingly and overly negative about FSR, and can't seem to get enough of DLSS.....some had even hinted they were in nVidia's deep pockets.

While playing a game, I'm not gonna pixel peep, and as long as image quality is good enough, and framerate uplift is appreciable, that's all I need. As expected, many defending DLSS in many of the forums I go to are RTX card owners.....oddly enough, I do find a few with GTX cards toeing the nVidia line. I'd remind them that nVidia has totally forgotten their GTX cards, and AMD is giving them a free framerate uplift with minimal image quality loss.

 

[Gaminator]

A guy at Reddit (fholger) has gotten FSR to work with VR games at Steam, he has a few caveat, but from pics I've seen, it does look good enough...

 

[watzup_ken]

I understand that DF's focus is on image quality, but DLSS is only for the RTX which does not constitute a big percentage of gamers' usage, more often than not, most are on older AMD and GTX cards. So, while DF's focus on image quality is on point, they fail to talk about the average non-RTX users and how FSR can be leveraged on their cards. They could at least talk about image quality while gaming at Ultra Quality and Quality presets and leave Balanced and Performance out. They are unsurprisingly and overly negative about FSR, and can't seem to get enough of DLSS.....some had even hinted they were in nVidia's deep pockets.

While playing a game, I'm not gonna pixel peep, and as long as image quality is good enough, and framerate uplift is appreciable, that's all I need. As expected, many defending DLSS in many of the forums I go to are RTX card owners.....oddly enough, I do find a few with GTX cards toeing the nVidia line. I'd remind them that nVidia has totally forgotten their GTX cards, and AMD is giving them a free framerate uplift with minimal image quality loss.

I look at it this way, if your GPU is fast enough in games, then there is little point to switch on FSR. But when the GPU is struggling to maintain a smooth gameplay, then FSR is probably a better alternative to dropping native resolution or graphic settings. So while there are people claiming that FSR is not good, they may end up using it at some point if they don't change their GPU often and depending on the game title.

 

[LiLAsN]

I think there could be a reason why some are a bit more observant and can easily spot the difference without having to pixel peep.

Your own viewing of the game/video on your monitor/TV can play a part.

In this video, Linus stated that you probably can't see the difference between the DLSS one and a native 4K image in the beginning of the video (somewhere around 0:15).
But it was quite obvious that the left image is a lot more blurrier with blurrier textures as well compared to the right image which looks super sharp on a 65" 4K OLED TV.

So it is quite obvious that if you blow a non-voxel image up, it will look blurrier if it does not fit a native screen that is bigger. But if you make the image small, even a 720p image can look extremely sharp i.e. the Nintendo Switch.

Thus the reason why FSR can look noticeably worst. As some of you have pointed out, and me digging into the DF video, it was not a fair comparison video. Anyone can just turn off depth of field and make an image look sharper overall. If you knew that a game which doesn't natively support TAA U will not be able to tap into DOF, then at least turn it off for the FSR too. Luckily others managed to show the true native image with DOF to be compared with the FSR and TAA-U version. It's a completely unreasonable comparison to begin with. And the fact that he dodges admitting to the wrongdoing and say, 'Hey, I made a mistake in that video. I'm only human. Let me correct this mistake to make the comparison a fair one.' so all's a fair game, you just double down on proving a point that has become mute.

I'm glad that DLSS, TAA-U and FSR will be in separate games. This ensures that 1 way or another, our games will have some sort of upscaling technology that we can depend on to get more extra FPS and an overall smoother gameplay if one wants to play the game in the Ultra settings glory without sacrificing much on image fidelity in the process.

Again, to each his own. When there are games that support either of these technology, just find the settings that ultimately look as close to native while having all the beautiful visual effects of games turned on and enjoy the game. There's no other way but up from here. Just like the stark difference between DLSS 1.0 vs 2.0 or even 2.2 also!
It just means that you do not need like 2 different GPUs in order to run a game that supports some proprietary upscaling technology. It's like the equivalent of having to buy 2 consoles as that is the only place to play the game in Dolby Vision and whatnot. Good job on AMD for not being greedy like Nvidia. But it will also mean that if you wish to get a GPU that gets all the benefits and have little to no downsides of missing out in certain technologies, it would mean that you should get an RTX card to ensure you won't miss out on any technology. A bummer. But again, that is left for the rest of us to make that decision ourselves. But as Linus said in this video, it is the equivalent of getting a free GPU upgrade for free when using such upscaling technology. So yup.


Below is the video where Linus mentioned there's almost no difference between the 2 but it looks super obvious on a large 4K TV.

 

[watzup_ken]

I think there could be a reason why some are a bit more observant and can easily spot the difference without having to pixel peep.

Your own viewing of the game/video on your monitor/TV can play a part.

In this video, Linus stated that you probably can't see the difference between the DLSS one and a native 4K image in the beginning of the video (somewhere around 0:15).
But it was quite obvious that the left image is a lot more blurrier with blurrier textures as well compared to the right image which looks super sharp on a 65" 4K OLED TV.

So it is quite obvious that if you blow a non-voxel image up, it will look blurrier if it does not fit a native screen that is bigger. But if you make the image small, even a 720p image can look extremely sharp i.e. the Nintendo Switch.

Thus the reason why FSR can look noticeably worst. As some of you have pointed out, and me digging into the DF video, it was not a fair comparison video. Anyone can just turn off depth of field and make an image look sharper overall. If you knew that a game which doesn't natively support TAA U will not be able to tap into DOF, then at least turn it off for the FSR too. Luckily others managed to show the true native image with DOF to be compared with the FSR and TAA-U version. It's a completely unreasonable comparison to begin with. And the fact that he dodges admitting to the wrongdoing and say, 'Hey, I made a mistake in that video. I'm only human. Let me correct this mistake to make the comparison a fair one.' so all's a fair game, you just double down on proving a point that has become mute.

I'm glad that DLSS, TAA-U and FSR will be in separate games. This ensures that 1 way or another, our games will have some sort of upscaling technology that we can depend on to get more extra FPS and an overall smoother gameplay if one wants to play the game in the Ultra settings glory without sacrificing much on image fidelity in the process.

Again, to each his own. When there are games that support either of these technology, just find the settings that ultimately look as close to native while having all the beautiful visual effects of games turned on and enjoy the game. There's no other way but up from here. Just like the stark difference between DLSS 1.0 vs 2.0 or even 2.2 also!
It just means that you do not need like 2 different GPUs in order to run a game that supports some proprietary upscaling technology. It's like the equivalent of having to buy 2 consoles as that is the only place to play the game in Dolby Vision and whatnot. Good job on AMD for not being greedy like Nvidia. But it will also mean that if you wish to get a GPU that gets all the benefits and have little to no downsides of missing out in certain technologies, it would mean that you should get an RTX card to ensure you won't miss out on any technology. A bummer. But again, that is left for the rest of us to make that decision ourselves. But as Linus said in this video, it is the equivalent of getting a free GPU upgrade for free when using such upscaling technology. So yup.


Below is the video where Linus mentioned there's almost no difference between the 2 but it looks super obvious on a large 4K TV.

When you game on a large 4K monitor, I think the issue with image quality will become obvious, that is for sure. It is almost similar to zooming in. But I reckon most PC gamers may not use such a big screen for gaming. I may be wrong here as I have no numbers to substantiate my claims. But assuming most people game on a 24 to 32 inch monitor, I think the issue is less obvious.

 

[watzup_ken]

FSR source code opened to public.

https://www.techpowerup.com/284585/...ed-updates-posted-uses-lanczos-under-the-hood

 

[Yongkit]

https://wccftech.com/avengers-pc-ga...dlss-upscaling-necromunda-hired-gun-does-not/

performance comparison in 1 game, who have this game to verify the above?

 

[Gaminator]

https://wccftech.com/avengers-pc-ga...dlss-upscaling-necromunda-hired-gun-does-not/

performance comparison in 1 game, who have this game to verify the above?

Hired Gun looks about the same without pixel peeping, FSR works well at 4K upscaling, lower res like 1080P....not so.

 

[watzup_ken]

Hired Gun looks about the same without pixel peeping, FSR works well at 4K upscaling, lower res like 1080P....not so.

Low resolution will be a challenge for both DLSS and FSR in my opinion. There is simply so much you can do with so little details on the screen. At lower resolution, I feel DLSS will have an advantage over FSR, but both won't look good. But considering that if one's GPU cannot handle a game at 1080p with good quality settings, they will anyway have to reduce the resolution further, which I feel the likes of DLSS and FSR will still be better than just reducing the resolution directly.

 

[Gaminator]

The funny thing about reviewers online is that some seem to want to favor DLSS (for IQ, yes, trumps FSR) and uplift in gaming performance (to demonstrate DLSS uplift in performance trumps FSR). They go out of their way to set up tests to just to show this.

I've seen a reviewer proclaim DLSS as the better option since DLSS outperforms FSR in 'both' IQ and performance. How did he come to this conclusion? Well, he ran a DLSS/FSR game with just an RTX 3080, proclaiming the former to be better, without even mentioning that FSR isn't locked to just one company and is supported by older cards.

Here's where I have a problem with such 'reviewer', he'd run the test on an nVidia RTX 3080 which has been driver optimized to run DLSS, with no driver tweaks at all for FSR (which I'm pretty sure nVidia is doing its best to ignore). I recall him saying image wise, both were close with a slight edge to DLSS, but he'd concluded that since DLSS showed 4-5fps improvement over FSR, DLSS wins. So, how is this a fair comparison? He'd not even accounted for driver optimization for FSR on the RTX 3080, for which there is none, but had he'd mentioned this, I'd be fine with his 'review'.

I'd seen another reviewer, who had pitted an RTX 3080 (using DLSS) against an RX 6800 XT (FSR, duh, obviously!) in Necromunda Hired Gun, and concluding that the edge goes to AMD. So, who's to be believed?

Really, at lower res, AMD has some more work cut out for it, but at higher res, it's pretty decent and helps uplift gaming performance of not only the latest and greatest AMD and nVidia cards, but all previous gen cards that are powerful enough to leverage FSR. Now, the possibility gaming at 4K 60Hz with my GTX 1080 is a real possibility as Godfall has shown.

 

[watzup_ken]

The funny thing about reviewers online is that some seem to want to favor DLSS (for IQ, yes, trumps FSR) and uplift in gaming performance (to demonstrate DLSS uplift in performance trumps FSR). They go out of their way to set up tests to just to show this.

I've seen a reviewer proclaim DLSS as the better option since DLSS outperforms FSR in 'both' IQ and performance. How did he come to this conclusion? Well, he ran a DLSS/FSR game with just an RTX 3080, proclaiming the former to be better, without even mentioning that FSR isn't locked to just one company and is supported by older cards.

Here's where I have a problem with such 'reviewer', he'd run the test on an nVidia RTX 3080 which has been driver optimized to run DLSS, with no driver tweaks at all for FSR (which I'm pretty sure nVidia is doing its best to ignore). I recall him saying image wise, both were close with a slight edge to DLSS, but he'd concluded that since DLSS showed 4-5fps improvement over FSR, DLSS wins. So, how is this a fair comparison? He'd not even accounted for driver optimization for FSR on the RTX 3080, for which there is none, but had he'd mentioned this, I'd be fine with his 'review'.

I'd seen another reviewer, who had pitted an RTX 3080 (using DLSS) against an RX 6800 XT (FSR, duh, obviously!) in Necromunda Hired Gun, and concluding that the edge goes to AMD. So, who's to be believed?

Really, at lower res, AMD has some more work cut out for it, but at higher res, it's pretty decent and helps uplift gaming performance of not only the latest and greatest AMD and nVidia cards, but all previous gen cards that are powerful enough to leverage FSR. Now, the possibility gaming at 4K 60Hz with my GTX 1080 is a real possibility as Godfall has shown.

Every reviewer have their preference, so the results generally will skew towards their preference. Image quality is very subjective from individual to individual, so the results are not unexpected. Visually, DLSS tend to have the advantage, but each method of upscaling have their pros and cons. To end users like us, either method benefits us since they pretty much improve image quality as compared to a straight downgrade to resolution. And you get a decent bump in performance.

 

[moolala]

any downside to enabling this fsr?

like run hotter?

on budget integrated laptop amd graphics card

honestly I don't really care about graphics and thing is I didn't notice much difference when I on or off it

maybe because I don't know what to look out for but it's not obvious

 

[watzup_ken]

This is a great review, and I think the conclusion is to be expected. In the first place, FSR is never meant to compete with DLSS in terms of picture quality. But considering that the picture quality at higher settings is very close to native/ DLSS, I think AMD have a winner here. My expectation has always been that if FSR is 80% of DLSS, I think AMD have succeeded, and I think they did as most reviewers have concluded.