PC & Video Games

AMD fighting the good fight for everyone!

  • Last Updated:
  • Jul 12th, 2021 11:47 pm
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
3676 posts
5576 upvotes
iamsiege wrote: https://wccftech.com/no-amds-fsr-fideli ... d%20motion.

Not a DLSS equivalent at all, looks it was all fluff.
I'd probably wait until it's actually out and reviewed. It launches on the 22nd. It's likely not going to be on the same level as DLSS. But this guy is basing everything on the AMD YT video of FSR on the 1060. Then filling in the blanks with his own opinions.
Deal Addict
Nov 18, 2017
2229 posts
1575 upvotes
Grande Prairie AB
Caerus wrote: I'd probably wait until it's actually out and reviewed. It launches on the 22nd. It's likely not going to be on the same level as DLSS. But this guy is basing everything on the AMD YT video of FSR on the 1060. Then filling in the blanks with his own opinions.
Well one thing that's for sure is it's not an equivalent and without it they simply can't compete in ray tracing which is becoming more and more common and will be the new norm sooner rather than later.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
3676 posts
5576 upvotes
iamsiege wrote: Well one thing that's for sure is it's not an equivalent and without it they simply can't compete in ray tracing which is becoming more and more common and will be the new norm sooner rather than later.
Again, probably better to wait for reviews than just go off this guy's opinion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the FSR implementation. But it seems you've already made absolute conclusions when it hasn't even come out. Nothing is for sure yet.

I also won't comment on ray tracing, as that's completely separate from this.
Deal Addict
Nov 18, 2017
2229 posts
1575 upvotes
Grande Prairie AB
Caerus wrote: Again, probably better to wait for reviews than just go off this guy's opinion. I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you on the FSR implementation. But it seems you've already made absolute conclusions when it hasn't even come out. Nothing is for sure yet.

I also won't comment on ray tracing, as that's completely separate from this.
RT is not separate from this, DLSS makes it 100% more playable and FSR was supposed to be AMD's answer to DLSS which now it's clearly not. RT on AMD cards are unplayable at 4K, and FSR was also to be open source which also seems to not be the case, I have both a 6900XT and 3090 as well as a 3080 and I can tell you that the Nvidia cards crush the AMD in anything with RT/DLSS, I am holding out hope that this article is wrong but AMD has backtracked on many claims they made when they first released the 6000 series.
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
3676 posts
5576 upvotes
I'm not going to keep doing a back and forth with you on this. I'm sticking with my previous statements.
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
9100 posts
4394 upvotes
You can't really wait for a review on a software library. The point siege is making is that FSR is probably DOA because it's not actually a real DLSS competitor. There's already better upscalers that run on AMD parts, look at UE5 TSR, Insomniacs TAAU, RE Engines or Decimas checkerboarding, etc. They're generally not as good as DLSS but they're far better than what we've seen of FSR.

I was expecting FSR to be some kind of TAAU solution that may have been good enough to drop into engines that haven't rolled their own TAAU yet, but what AMD delivered seems to just be plain worse than TAAU. Being a per-frame scaler is an inherent limitation. The only thing it has going for it is being simpler to integrate than temporal solutions (particularly in the few engines that still don't use TAA, e.g. Dota2 and Anno on the list) but not being a temporal solution is a huge constraint on the image quality it can hope to achieve.

I actually think AMD has always sort of known this which explains the hastily thrown together, half-hearted campaign. FSR is a stop-gap to sideline DLSS adoption while they develop something else or just wait for UE5 TSR to improve and be adopted. Ultimately I don't really care, this isn't "a good fight" as the thread title implies, really what we should hope for is that the best solution for consumers wins and right now that's DLSS hands down. I think at some point UE5 TSR will mature and implement more of DLSS featureset though, I suspect that is what will be adopted industry wide (40-50% anyway).
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
9100 posts
4394 upvotes
Just following this up, AMD finally delivered their FSR driver and lifted the embargo (who embargos an open source API?!) so a bunch of videos are hitting on this:

Digital Foundry

Gamers Nexus

Obviously this is an initial release and the sample list of games is quite small, much like DLSS at its first iteration. Digital Foundry basically says there are some large FPS gains but that image quality takes a huge hit. That's because it's fundamentally not the same thing as DLSS as wfcctech basically leaked a week ago. I'm not opposed to FSR itself but I do feel like we have enough similar solutions already on the market.

Gamer's Nexus likes it for budget cards and integrated solutions and I agree that is the best market for it, assuming it can get any traction in the market.

I don't have an AMD card to test with right now but a friend of mine did with Anno 1800. He basically said at 1440p native, he gets about 36fps on his system fully zoomed on town. At 120% FSR he gets 48fps but with substantial edge blurring. Oddly at 150% FSR (Anno only has presets instead of increments apparently) he gets the same results, indicating that there must be some sort of threshold for diminishing returns. I'm going to pop over there on the weekend to fart around with benchmarking a few things out of curiosity.

Anyways the driver is out now if anyone wants to play around with it themselves.
Deal Addict
Nov 18, 2017
2229 posts
1575 upvotes
Grande Prairie AB
Redmask wrote: Just following this up, AMD finally delivered their FSR driver and lifted the embargo (who embargos an open source API?!) so a bunch of videos are hitting on this:

Digital Foundry

Gamers Nexus

Obviously this is an initial release and the sample list of games is quite small, much like DLSS at its first iteration. Digital Foundry basically says there are some large FPS gains but that image quality takes a huge hit. That's because it's fundamentally not the same thing as DLSS as wfcctech basically leaked a week ago. I'm not opposed to FSR itself but I do feel like we have enough similar solutions already on the market.

Gamer's Nexus likes it for budget cards and integrated solutions and I agree that is the best market for it, assuming it can get any traction in the market.

I don't have an AMD card to test with right now but a friend of mine did with Anno 1800. He basically said at 1440p native, he gets about 36fps on his system fully zoomed on town. At 120% FSR he gets 48fps but with substantial edge blurring. Oddly at 150% FSR (Anno only has presets instead of increments apparently) he gets the same results, indicating that there must be some sort of threshold for diminishing returns. I'm going to pop over there on the weekend to fart around with benchmarking a few things out of curiosity.

Anyways the driver is out now if anyone wants to play around with it themselves.
Caerus wrote: I'm not going to keep doing a back and forth with you on this. I'm sticking with my previous statements.
https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/a ... iew,5.html

Not very flattering on the IQ front.
Moderator
User avatar
Aug 20, 2009
9100 posts
4394 upvotes
iamsiege wrote: https://www.guru3d.com/articles-pages/a ... iew,5.html

Not very flattering on the IQ front.
The author makes an interesting note about how the fight for image quality is now bumping up against the desire for higher framerates in general. It is pretty amusing that we have many solutions sort of at war with themselves.

I do agree with him that its early days yet and we have to see how it progresses. DLSS 1.0 was pretty mediocre and poorly received, we'll have to see if AMD can manage to iterate and gain adoption like DLSS 2.0 has done.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 29, 2011
5086 posts
3270 upvotes
Westmount (Montreal)
Digital Foundry destroyed AMD FSR.

Especially the last 3 minutes

Temporal upscaling is much more superior for same GPU utilisation

I don't understand why AMD did not go temporal

I guess it's an ok technology for small studio that don't want to create temporal upscaling and don't use Unreal Engine

Deal Addict
Nov 18, 2017
2229 posts
1575 upvotes
Grande Prairie AB
Redmask wrote: I totally forgot this works on Nvidia cards too, I think all the way down to the 9xx series so I'll check it out tonight on a few games and see how it performs.
At this stage I don't think it even matters if IQ takes a big hit, which it most certainly does, pretty disappointing really, time to dump the 6900XT... just kidding but still really disappointed in AMD's pitching of this originally as DLSS equivalent.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
6140 posts
6449 upvotes
GTA
iamsiege wrote: At this stage I don't think it even matters if IQ takes a big hit, which it most certainly does, pretty disappointing really, time to dump the 6900XT... just kidding but still really disappointed in AMD's pitching of this originally as DLSS equivalent.
It's typical AMD stuff, as was the sentiment earlier in the thread. Lots of overpromising and underdelivering that savvy PC people recognize. There is always a naysayer as in this thread, but that goes for anything. Love AMD for CPU's, but less so their GPU's which lag behind Nvidia in many ways. We really still need them to be the competition tho...
I mentioned previously that I wanted to get my daughter an AMD/Nvidia combo laptop. I settled for Intel/Nvidia instead. The price difference was minimal, and no way would I go all AMD. The small CPU advantage doesn't make up for the potential GPU jank.
c'mon get happy!
[OP]
Deal Addict
User avatar
Nov 2, 2012
3676 posts
5576 upvotes
I was expecting it to be utter garbage based on the doom and gloom talk around here. Now that reviews are out, I disagree that it's DOA or all fluff. It's not on the same level as DLSS 2.0, which would have been unlikely, given it’s gen 2 and the head start they had. It's substantially better than DLSS 1.0, which is good. AMD have a pretty good starting point to improve from. For a 1.0 release it's decent for not using any special hardware and having broad compatibility. Given time, it could be a good alternative to DLSS. But for now it needs to go cook longer, it's already showing promise out of the gate though.

I'll also push back when I stated they're fighting the good fight. You may disagree, but I was referring to the fact that it's open source, non proprietary, available on generations old hardware from both AMD and nVidia (apparently even older than what AMD has stated), can be used on APUs and integrated solutions, is easy to integrate into games, and has broad availability to anyone who would like to implement it (even potentially modders who want to do it themselves as one review stated). That's in stark contrast to nVidia's proprietary everything. But, that's just my opinion.

Anyway, I spent some time and watched all of the reviews fully. I don’t even PC game, so I don’t even know why. Looking at the sum consensus of all of the reviews across all of the resolutions, and looking at it from an overall perspective, there were more positives presented than negatives. I’m not just trying to pick out the bad in it like some people here seem to be doing. Smiling Face With Open Mouth And Smiling Eyes Almost all of the reviews state to keep it on Ultra Quality or Quality, which are quite good. Using lower than that and the image quality takes a more noticeable hit. They're probably more useful as settings to make a game go from unplayable to playable (weaker integrated solutions, entry level cards, old hardware). Hey, if you just want to game but have crap hardware, this could get you over the playability threshold.

Ultra Quality and Quality work particularly well with resolutions of 4K and 1440p both in terms of retaining most of the image quality, and giving a good performance jump. With starting resolutions below that, the picture isn't that great even using Ultra and Quality. It appears that the more pixels you have to start with, the better it works. There are some situations where it’s competitive with DLSS, others where it’s not. DLSS for example is much better at boosting lower resolutions, whereas FSR isn't. DLSS also showed issues with image quality in WD:Legion, shown in the Hardware Unboxed video.

Is it a game changer? nope. Is it trash and DOA? nope. It's somewhere in between. Definitely room for improvement, but it's starting off much better than nVidia's first outing, and not as far behind DLSS 2.0 as I thought it would be from reading the posts here. It has quite a lot of potential.

Even if it's not as good as DLSS 2.0 in its current iteration, this is something that people should want to be implemented as an option as much as possible. It's open source, works, gives good performance boosts, works on a ton of different hardware, and it's not limited to 1 manufacturer. Anyone can use it, and that’s a good thing.


Hardware Canucks - A REAL Game Changer - AMD FSR Performance vs Image Quality


Gamers Nexus - AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution Quality Comparison & Benchmarks (FSR)


WCCFTechTV - AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution Is Finally Here, Was It Worth The Wait?


Level1Techs - AMD Fidelity Fx Super Resolution: For All Gamers, Thoughts & Impressions


LTT - AMD’s gift to ALL gamers - FidelityFX Super Resolution


Digital Foundry – AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution FSR Review: Big FPS Boosts, But Image Quality Takes A Hit
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
6140 posts
6449 upvotes
GTA
It's better than a kick in the pants, no doubt. With the right hardware, having FSR versus not having it sounds like a no-brainer. I have a 2070 mobile and figure gen 1 DLSS would be a joke on it. If my games had FSR support, I'd probably give it a whirl, doesn't sound like it will cost me much performance.

I think the biggest issue is who's running the show. With AMD in charge of gen 2, I can see that taking a while to come out. It took a gen and a half of DLSS for this to come to fruition. By the time gen 2 comes out, DLSS will have implemented much better features and performance that will make comparisons even weaker.
For AMD to champion this and pour resources into it, they'll need good reasons to continue. If it at least gets great marketing support from hardware manufacturers and game devs, it has a chance to grow. It can as likely fall by the wayside in 5-6 years once AMD gets tired of championing it.

EDIT: now that I think of it, this would have been great 20 years ago, when there were more video card manufacturers like ATI, Nvidia, 3Dfx, S3, Matrox... FSR would probably have thrived versus DLSS because it could have been implemented across multiple manufacturers to compete with Nvidia's proprietary technology. Nvidia sort of killed that landscape though, as sadly it's now a 2-pony race.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 29, 2011
5086 posts
3270 upvotes
Westmount (Montreal)
BernardRyder wrote: Forespoken devs are excited to use AMD tech

https://www.ign.com/articles/forspoken- ... resolution

It launches on PC in 2022 and I didn't realize would be a PS5 exclusive for two years. I guess FSR will be enabled on the PS5?
I really hope PS5 Dev don't get lazy and start using FSR.

Temporal upscaling is so vastly superior and PS5 Dev are really good with it, especially Insomniac.
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Jun 16, 2009
6140 posts
6449 upvotes
GTA
vonblock wrote: I really hope PS5 Dev don't get lazy and start using FSR.

Temporal upscaling is so vastly superior and PS5 Dev are really good with it, especially Insomniac.
I think it would be good to have a showcase FSR game to compare the tech, even if they are from different studios. The comparison wouldn't be completely fair, but unless you get a studio enabling both types to one game you'll never get apples to apples. It might be a good tool for other studios to decide which way they will go for an upcoming game.

As much as I don't think that FSR is all that yet, if ever, I can see an advantage to the existence of FSR: more games. If FSR is easy to work with, or at least more budget friendly being open source and all, we should get more small studios making games that might have been out of reach due to budget or time/skill constraints. Even if it doesn't look as nice, a good game is still a good game. That's an advantage to all gamers. Kind of like the 8-bit revival that happened years ago, the games sure aren't pretty but if the game is good, then I don't realize how 'basic' a game like Enter The Gungeon looks.
c'mon get happy!
Deal Fanatic
User avatar
Aug 29, 2011
5086 posts
3270 upvotes
Westmount (Montreal)
BernardRyder wrote: . The comparison wouldn't be completely fair, but unless you get a studio enabling both types to one game you'll never get apples to apples.
Digital Foundry did this.

FSR vs UE 4 Temporal upscaling for the same game.

It was a massacre and that was with old school unreal engine 4 Temporal upscaling. Unreal engine 5 is suppose to be much better.

I guess for developer that use an engine without Temporal Upscaling, it's better than nothing....

Top