fantaskarsef:

Well, I'm curious to see how 4 interpolated frames instead of 1 are dealing with ghosting (which at times is a major issue with all those techs).

schmidtbag:

Not necessarily - what matters is having a compelling offer. While in some cases that would be having a [noteworthy] technology that competitors don't have, it isn't limited to that. In this particular context, Nvidia already has frame interpolation, so AMD isn't really doing anything particularly exclusive, unless of course their implementation is better. The problem comes down convincing devs it is worth their time, even if it is better. No matter how good something like FSR 3 is, it won't be enough to convince people to switch. AMD needs to pull something revolutionary and do it well if they expect something proprietary to be a financial success. Exactly - and that's where FSR 3 becomes questionable, because it probably isn't going to be better, and AMD tends to not really work with game devs directly anywhere near as much as Nvidia does. As for DLSS, the AI-generated stuff isn't a tick box, but I think the rest of it is. I'm not really an expert on how the drivers or the rendering process works but I imagine it doesn't have to be too complicated. It's basically just checking whether something should be rendered until later. Of course, every calculation has an impact on performance, but in this case I imagine it'd be nearly negligible.

Horus-Anhur:

The issue is that the fake frames are generated only on the GPU. So there is no input from the player while the GPU is rendering those frames. That's why DLSS3 has higher input lag than with real frame rate. If AMD somehow makes it have a 1:2 ratio or 1:4 ratio of real vs fake frames, then it's going to be a slog to play. And it would feel stuttery to play. Not to mention that having fake frames so long in the screen will make artifacts much more obvious.

schmidtbag:

Not necessarily - what matters is having a compelling offer. While in some cases that would be having a [noteworthy] technology that competitors don't have, it isn't limited to that. In this particular context, Nvidia already has frame interpolation, so AMD isn't really doing anything particularly exclusive, unless of course their implementation is better. The problem comes down convincing devs it is worth their time, even if it is better. No matter how good something like FSR 3 is, it won't be enough to convince people to switch. AMD needs to pull something revolutionary and do it well if they expect something proprietary to be a financial success. Exactly - and that's where FSR 3 becomes questionable, because it probably isn't going to be better, and AMD tends to not really work with game devs directly anywhere near as much as Nvidia does. As for DLSS, the AI-generated stuff isn't a tick box, but I think the rest of it is. I'm not really an expert on how the drivers or the rendering process works but I imagine it doesn't have to be too complicated. It's basically just checking whether something should be rendered until later. Of course, every calculation has an impact on performance, but in this case I imagine it'd be nearly negligible.

heffeque:

Well, there would be input lag, but it wouldn't be stuttery: that would be the main reason to insert more frames between the "real" ones (the real ones would be unchanged, but the stutter would be removed).

heffeque:

As for making the artifacts more obvious... I'd beg to differ: if the "real" frames are maintained at the same rate, the artifacts would still appear in the same amount of on-screen time... but smoother.

Horus-Anhur:

If the game can only register new player inputs every other 4 frames, it's going to feel stutter to play.

Horus-Anhur:

Like I said, in ratios of 1:2 or 1:4, fake frames will be showed on screen during more time than real frames. So we can be doubling the time, or quadrupling, the time that frames with artifacts stay on screen.

heffeque:

That's not the correct use of the word "stutter". Input lag and stutter are 2 completely different things. The decoupling of "real" vs "AI" would be smoother, so it could in fact be more complicated to discern artifacts on 1:4 than on 1:2 even though technically the "real" frame is shown less time. We won't know until FSR3 is released and analyzed. Heck, even a potential FSR4 could have "recoupling" of frames at some point. Who knows!

Horus-Anhur:

My bet is that if so many fake frames are used, it will feel like stutter, because too much time passes between player inputs.

Horus-Anhur:

How do you figure that it would be "more complicated to discern artifacts on 1:4 than on 1:2"? Even with 1:1 ratio it's possible to see some artifacts. But with so much frame times for fake frames, artifacts will be much more visible.

heffeque:

That doesn't make sense IMHO.

heffeque:

Because in the 1st frame, if there is any kind of artifact, it will be much more subtle, so there will be a "transition" from "real" to "artifact" that is smoother, and thus maybe more eye-pleasing. Again... we'll see when it comes out.

cucaulay malkin:

when will this finally see even a 10s snippet ?

Horus-Anhur:

We have 1 frame with input. Then 3 frames with no input registered. This is going to feel like a bad frame pacing, with lots of micro stutter. The first frame, being the closest to the real frame, will be the one with less artifacts. The second will have more, as there is less information to work with. And the third will be even worse. And all of these frames combined, will be on screen for longer time than the real frames.

Undying:

Im glad FSR3 will be amd cards only.

alanm:

You're glad AMD has taken inspiration from Nvidias exclusivity practices. 😀

alanm:

You're glad AMD has taken inspiration from Nvidias exclusivity practices. 😀

Undying:

Its paying off for nvidia isnt it? Amd needs a selling point and honestly i dont want ampere users to have fsr3. 😀

TheDeeGee:

Honestly he loves Nvidia, he's all over the 4000 series reviews.