AMD GPU Scaling

[jellybeard999]

Hi all. I'm considering a 4K monitor for productivity, but the monitor will also be used for some gaming.

I had debated an Ultrawide or 1440p monitor, but I'm unsure how my other sources will fare with those aspect ratios/resolutions and 4K seems a safer bet.

I have an AMD 6800, which does GPU scaling and integer scaling.

While I'm probably OK to run current games natively (at least those I play!), I don't intend to upgrade any time soon and in future, I may struggle to run games at 4K native resolution.

Do these features mean if I'm struggling to run a game in future, I can run it at 1080p and scale up to 4k with minimal performance hit? Obviously I'm not expecting them to look 4K... presumably they'd look as they would if my screen was 1080p? How does this feature compare to Nvidia's DLSS? I understand the Nvidia feature is better - is that because it both upscales and improves the graphics, whereas the AMD equivalent just scales up?

Any advice appreciated

 

[eeii]

Even today 4k is a punishing resolution. With modern AAA games your 6800 will struggle. Currently Nvidia’s upscaling tech is better than AMD’s. I have found intels to be quite good and that runs on AMD as well. You can run your games at 4k and let the AMD drivers set to super rx. Never tried it myself. Alternatively you could get a 4k tv and let the TV scaler do the heavy lifting by setting you res to 1080p. Friends have told me this works well with consoles. You can also reduce settings quite a bit by following guides as there are a lot of settings that can be changed that make a big difference to performance and not much to imagine quality. AMD’s upscaller has a few settings which are work a try and a combination of reducing settings and FSR could help you.

 

[SkeeterUK]

can just use fsr at 4k to 1080p and suppose to be decent that way?

 

[Kirby Wurm]

1080p without upscaling at 4K should look just the same as it would on a screen of that res would at that size as I believe it will just use 4 pixels on the screen for each one rendered, as far as I'm aware at least. My brother uses a 6800 on his 4K TV in this way and has no complaints (it has proper HDR where his 1440p monitor doesn't). Sure, it isn't anywhere near as sharp as native, but it'll do in a pinch.

 

[fs123]

AMD's competitor to DLSS is FSR3 but FSR 3.1 is coming soon which is supposed to improve the quality a fair bit. These upscalers will only work in games that have implemented them but luckily most modern games do include some form of upscaling.

AMD also has RSR in the driver app that upscales any game but that is usually not as good quality as FSR3/XeSS that are implemented in game. At 4K, RSR is pretty decent though.

 

[Tetras]

While I'm probably OK to run current games natively (at least those I play!), I don't intend to upgrade any time soon and in future, I may struggle to run games at 4K native resolution.

Do these features mean if I'm struggling to run a game in future, I can run it at 1080p and scale up to 4k with minimal performance hit? Obviously I'm not expecting them to look 4K... presumably they'd look as they would if my screen was 1080p? How does this feature compare to Nvidia's DLSS? I understand the Nvidia feature is better - is that because it both upscales and improves the graphics, whereas the AMD equivalent just scales up?

FSR has different quality modes, so the degree of difference between upscaled and native depends on the version of FSR and the quality mode used, there's also some variability between game patches and driver versions, especially for visual bugs like shimmering, missing items (like fences, grills) and such.

As mentioned above, you also have the option of Intel's upscaling, which can sometimes offer better visuals, depending on the game.

Will FSR help you to extend the life of your 6800 in newer games that can't play @ native? Probably a bit, yeah, but, some games are apparently being optimised with the assumption of upscaling and that will limit how much it can achieve.

Since you're mainly buying for productivity, I wouldn't worry about it, your 6800 has plenty of power for the time being and it'll only get shown up in AAA games. Anything a little older, or outside of the mainstream, it'll easily manage 4K.

I understand the Nvidia feature is better - is that because it both upscales and improves the graphics, whereas the AMD equivalent just scales up?

How much it impacts the performance and quality of DLSS versus FSR, I don't know, but there's one main difference between nvidia, Intel and AMD's RDNA2, which is that nvidia (since RTX 2060+) and Intel have dedicated hardware that their GPUs can use for AI upscaling, whereas RDNA2 does not. RDNA3 has this feature, which AMD have said they intend to make better use of, but current versions of FSR aren't designed for that.

 

[TrojanWhore]

I have a 4k TV (and 1440 main monitor), for games that I'll play on the TV I've always used either native 1080p or 4k - played RDR2 for a bit at 1080p which allowed me to max out settings on my old 3060ti, and with my 7900XT it does ok at 4k with mostly maxed settings (everything except anti-aliasing).

My TV is on the cheaper end of things so I'd rather either 1080 or 4k over using 1440 and relying on the TV to upscale it properly.... 99% of video content I watch on the TV is 1080 and from around 8 foot away I'm pretty sure I can't tell the difference! (I realise this doesn't particularly apply as you're talking about a 4k monitor upgrade!)

My understanding is that 1080 > 4k via actual integer scaling should be technically more accurate than general 'upscaling'. As Tetras said above, for anything but the most recent/shiny games, you should be able to get good performance at 4k (even if, at most, having to use slightly lower settings or FSR)

Both FSR and DLSS 'just' upscale the image, it's just that it's widely agreed that DLSS does a better job of it (especially at performace settings - i.e. 1080 > 4k, or 720p > 1440.... FSR on quality i.e. 1080 >1440 or equivalent is pretty good AFAIK)