Corsair RM1200X SHIFT 1200W PSU Review
Intel NUC 13 Pro (Arena Canyon) review
Endorfy Arx 700 Air chassis review
Beelink SER5 Pro (Ryzen 7 5800H) mini PC review
Crucial T700 PCIe 5.0 NVMe SSD Review - 12GB/s
Sapphire Radeon RX 7600 PULSE review
Gainward GeForce RTX 4060 Ti GHOST review
Radeon RX 7600 review
ASUS GeForce RTX 4060 Ti TUF Gaming review
MSI GeForce RTX 4060 Ti Gaming X TRIO review
AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 - preview
Posted by: on: 05/12/2022 02:59 PM [
260 comment(s) ]
AMD has introduced FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 as a response to NVIDIA's DLSS technology. Will the refurbished FSR 2.0 offer sufficient image quality? Let's test the waters so you know what to anticipate.
Read article
Advertisement
Tagged as:
amd
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
schmidtbag
Senior Member
Posts: 7434
Senior Member
Posts: 7434
Posted on: 05/12/2022 04:17 PM
Perhaps not as good as DLSS but it's ease of implementation and wide compatibility makes up for the loss in quality. Much like with DLSS, if you've got your face right up to the screen, not moving, and constantly switching between full detail and upscaling, you will notice a difference. But if you actually play the game, such subtle details will totally go unnoticed. In a lot of games, FSR2 or DLSS2 are perfectly usable. In other games, they're unacceptable. It all depends on what you need. Same can be said of all settings that lower game detail. Whether it's shadows, reflections, texture details (only when VRAM is maxed out), anti-aliasing, resolution, etc. For some games, lowering such detail settings makes an insignificant visual difference but a major performance improvement. For some of those settings, the loss in detail is unacceptable while in others it goes unnoticed.
As far as I'm concerned, FSR and DLSS aren't supposed to be on by default. They're just another way of lowering visual fidelity for more performance, just like all other graphics settings. It's weird to me how much people make a fuss about this as if they're supposed to use it, or as if it's supposed to have a 1:1 level of detail.
Perhaps not as good as DLSS but it's ease of implementation and wide compatibility makes up for the loss in quality. Much like with DLSS, if you've got your face right up to the screen, not moving, and constantly switching between full detail and upscaling, you will notice a difference. But if you actually play the game, such subtle details will totally go unnoticed. In a lot of games, FSR2 or DLSS2 are perfectly usable. In other games, they're unacceptable. It all depends on what you need. Same can be said of all settings that lower game detail. Whether it's shadows, reflections, texture details (only when VRAM is maxed out), anti-aliasing, resolution, etc. For some games, lowering such detail settings makes an insignificant visual difference but a major performance improvement. For some of those settings, the loss in detail is unacceptable while in others it goes unnoticed.
As far as I'm concerned, FSR and DLSS aren't supposed to be on by default. They're just another way of lowering visual fidelity for more performance, just like all other graphics settings. It's weird to me how much people make a fuss about this as if they're supposed to use it, or as if it's supposed to have a 1:1 level of detail.
Horus-Anhur
Senior Member
Posts: 6907
Senior Member
Posts: 6907
Posted on: 05/12/2022 04:28 PM
HU review showed that DLSS 2.x has a bit more ghosting than FSR 2.0
But has a bit worse reconstruction in movement.
So it's a bit of a trade off.
HU review showed that DLSS 2.x has a bit more ghosting than FSR 2.0
But has a bit worse reconstruction in movement.
So it's a bit of a trade off.
cryohellinc
Senior Member
Posts: 3534
Senior Member
Posts: 3534
Posted on: 05/12/2022 04:33 PM
Keeping in mind that this is open source and fully software-based, can work with practically any GPU, and doesn't require dedicated die space for it to work is a pure win. Well done, AMD.
Keeping in mind that this is open source and fully software-based, can work with practically any GPU, and doesn't require dedicated die space for it to work is a pure win. Well done, AMD.
CPC_RedDawn
Senior Member
Posts: 9920
Senior Member
Posts: 9920
Posted on: 05/12/2022 04:51 PM
This is what I have been saying for years. Nvidia could of easily done this themselves with their insane R&D budgets and huge work force. But no, they create needless custom hardware and then charge the customer for the privilege of using it trying to create an even larger monopoly on the market. Much like they did with GSYNC and their custom hardware inside each monitor when they could of just supported Adaptive Sync, or buying PhysX off Ageia and locking it to their hardware only. Then community members were able to enable PhysX on AMD/ATi cards with modded drivers, proving again that Nvidia lied when they said it was only possible on their hardware. Now PhsyX is used inside tons of game engines.
Nvidia make exceptional GPU's, but their business practices are just ludicrous. AMD are not innocent either they have done a lot of shady crap too just seems to be a lesser extent and the immense support of open source software just benefits the industry as a whole.
EDIT:
***grabs popcorn***.....
Keeping in mind that this is open source and fully software-based, can work with practically any GPU, and doesn't require dedicated die space for it to work is a pure win. Well done, AMD.
This is what I have been saying for years. Nvidia could of easily done this themselves with their insane R&D budgets and huge work force. But no, they create needless custom hardware and then charge the customer for the privilege of using it trying to create an even larger monopoly on the market. Much like they did with GSYNC and their custom hardware inside each monitor when they could of just supported Adaptive Sync, or buying PhysX off Ageia and locking it to their hardware only. Then community members were able to enable PhysX on AMD/ATi cards with modded drivers, proving again that Nvidia lied when they said it was only possible on their hardware. Now PhsyX is used inside tons of game engines.
Nvidia make exceptional GPU's, but their business practices are just ludicrous. AMD are not innocent either they have done a lot of shady crap too just seems to be a lesser extent and the immense support of open source software just benefits the industry as a whole.
EDIT:
***grabs popcorn***.....
pages 1 2 3 4 > »
Click here to post a comment for this article on the message forum.
Senior Member
Posts: 14091
I've been watching comparison videos and reading articles (including this one), seems like this is a huge leap over FSR1 but still falls a little short of DLSS in motion. That being said I don't know how Nvidia can justify dedicating die space for tensors when the quality of DLSS is only 5-10% better than this and basically no other feature uses them. Either Nvidia needs to put more value-add into Tensors or they need to go a different route with DLSS. Perhaps we will get a DLSS 3 with larger upgrades or some other features that utilize tensor with next gen but at this point I'd say AMD has parity here.