• Competitor rules

    Please remember that any mention of competitors, hinting at competitors or offering to provide details of competitors will result in an account suspension. The full rules can be found under the 'Terms and Rules' link in the bottom right corner of your screen. Just don't mention competitors in any way, shape or form and you'll be OK.

AMD's FSR3 possibly next month ?

I don't think that will happen for a few reasons, main ones of which are:

1: FSR implementation requires more effort to implement, some devs have already said this, even though modders seem to do it quicker than some devs. Look how long it takes to get up to date FSR tech added to a game for instance.

2: Updating to the latest version of FSR is not a simple case of a dll file swap, the devs have to update game code to support newer FSR versions.

3: Nvidia make DLSS implementation easy, a dev just has to use the tools Nvidia provides for free.

4: Gamers can update the DLSS version via copy and paste for any of the 3 DLSS techs as long as #3 is true, that the game supports one or all of the 3 techs.

Example, we have old games that shipped with DLSS version 2.x still, these games do not support FSR, or if they do then it's FSR 2.x, ancient and will never see FSR 3, yet you can replace the DLSS dll file and instantly benefit from Preset E using DLSS version 3.7.10 and enabling the new preset.
 
Last edited:
mrk said:
It's only a feature that makes most sense on a high end card capable of pre-FG framerates that are well above 60fps, like 70-80fps . if the card cannot get that fps range before FG is enabled, then you will notice input latency on mouse camera movement especially.

This is why it's always laughable when NV markets FG to lower tier cards on high end game releases using stuff like path tracing or high levels of full RT such as that on AVATAR. There's really only one or two cards that can manage the >60fps baseline requirement to get good FG performance, and that's a 4080 or above.

In non-ray traced games it's a different matter and that GPU req can then include many other cards lower down the model line.But the need for a baseline of 70-80fps still stands.

The only way to get around this is to play with a controller. We already know consoles don't have the latency issue even at 30fps locked, it's because with a controller you don't have the noticeable delay that you do with a mouse on PC. Play with a controller and you'll never know you had high latency Frame Gen if your GPU isn't up to the task when using a mouse in that situation.



Horizon FW has now had a patch to add FSR 3 Frame Gen, not tried that yet but did try out FSR3 Native AA and it seems to work very well. Performance is also high:


Was so close on that boss before breakfast too, cba to try it again after the infuriating way I was killed :/
Click to expand...
Thing is that I don't think it makes sense at all.. I can play a game with 100fps or 200 using FG and all the negatives that comes with FG. 100FPS, heck even 75fps non-FG feels a lot more responsive and pleasant vs double that using FG. And to make it worse, AMDs version of FG also really doesn't do a whole lot when your panning your view around. So you only really get roughly twice the FPS when your mouse movement is close to zero. I don't know if its the same with Nvidias solution as I haven't had the chance to really dig into DLSS-FG.

You want higher FPS the faster your mouse movement is cause it is directly linked to the "connected feel" to use the term that PCM2 has coined. You can get away with less fps when movement is slow or using a controller. AMD's FG does the exact opposite which makes it useless to me personally. Radeon boost actually makes more sense even though I'm not a complete fan of that solution either.
 
Phixsator said:
Thing is that I don't think it makes sense at all.. I can play a game with 100fps or 200 using FG and all the negatives that comes with FG. 100FPS, heck even 75fps non-FG feels a lot more responsive and pleasant vs double that using FG. And to make it worse, AMDs version of FG also really doesn't do a whole lot when your panning your view around. So you only really get roughly twice the FPS when your mouse movement is close to zero. I don't know if its the same with Nvidias solution as I haven't had the chance to really dig into DLSS-FG.

You want higher FPS the faster your mouse movement is cause it is directly linked to the "connected feel" to use the term that PCM2 has coined. You can get away with less fps when movement is slow or using a controller. AMD's FG does the exact opposite which makes it useless to me personally. Radeon boost actually makes more sense even though I'm not a complete fan of that solution either.
Click to expand...
I have never used it but i do know you have to turn on anti lag and if the game supports it anti lag plus. Same with Nvidia you have to use reflex to try and mitigate the extra lag.
 
Yes Frame Gen automatically enables Reflex, thate two features go hand in hand on Nvidia, don't know about AMD side of things but if you toggle FG, then reflex always enables whether there is a dedicated Reflex option in game or not.
 
shankly1985 said:
Flicking through this morning it looks to be more positive reports then negative.
Click to expand...

Positive but also negative and hasn't quite solved the main issues fsr upscaling had compared to dlss.

Will be interesting to see how fsr 3.1 holds up when other games outside of amd partnerships get it implemented, as this is where fsr biggest problem has been, consistency.
 
Last edited:
Nexus18 said:
Positive but also negative and hasn't quite solved the main issues fsr upscaling had compared to dlss.

Will be interesting to see how fsr 3.1 holds up when other games outside of amd partnerships get it implemented, as this is where fsr biggest problem has been, consistency.
Click to expand...
I am not convinced it can get much better or it would have improved way faster like DLSS. DLSS has went from a joke to being what i would consider useable if i was on the dark side of the force. AMD are most likely going down the ai route soon where they should be able to catch up. Still good to see improvements though as it means they still care a bit about the gpu division.
 
TheRealDeal said:
I have never used it but i do know you have to turn on anti lag and if the game supports it anti lag plus. Same with Nvidia you have to use reflex to try and mitigate the extra lag.
Click to expand...
I've tried and done it all. I've given FG every bit of advantage it could get, trying all the different tips and tricks to make it better, and it's pure s*"te imho. Anti Lag doesn't help it much and the response is still worse than running without FG and without AntiLag. Now imagen the result once you enable AntiLag but no FG. I just don't see the point of it. The only reason for adding FG support is to be able to have it in case Jane or John stranger wants to compare with the competition. I would go so fare and say that no enthusiast worth their salt should want FG. Now bring the torches, I can handle it :)
 
Phixsator said:
I've tried and done it all. I've given FG every bit of advantage it could get, trying all the different tips and tricks to make it better, and it's pure s*"te imho. Anti Lag doesn't help it much and the response is still worse than running without FG and without AntiLag. Now imagen the result once you enable AntiLag but no FG. I just don't see the point of it. The only reason for adding FG support is to be able to have it in case Jane or John stranger wants to compare with the competition. I would go so fare and say that no enthusiast worth their salt should want FG. Now bring the torches, I can handle it :)
Click to expand...
Pretty much sums up why i didn't and don't use these techs. I would rather have higher frames and Freesync the normal way with lower input lag. It's another tool in the box though so until i have tried it i won't judge to much but my fears about it are all in your post.
 
I was always OK at 4K quality for FSR, though DLSS was better when you pixel peep. So when both were available I would use DLSS. Right now FSR 3.1 seems like a decent jump in IQ in my tests to the point is is almost impossible to tell the difference between it and DLSS.

It’s funny all the negative posts seem to focus on very minor IQ differences that are portrayed as deal breakers. OMG that tiny robot has some shimmer in FSR. Yet barely a peep about the major benefit that FSR 3.1 is much improved at lower res and works on pretty much all tech including GPUs DLSS can’t run on.
 
Last edited:
Phixsator said:
Thing is that I don't think it makes sense at all.. I can play a game with 100fps or 200 using FG and all the negatives that comes with FG. 100FPS, heck even 75fps non-FG feels a lot more responsive and pleasant vs double that using FG. And to make it worse, AMDs version of FG also really doesn't do a whole lot when your panning your view around. So you only really get roughly twice the FPS when your mouse movement is close to zero. I don't know if its the same with Nvidias solution as I haven't had the chance to really dig into DLSS-FG. You want higher FPS the faster your mouse movement is cause it is directly linked to the "connected feel" to use the term that PCM2 has coined. You can get away with less fps when movement is slow or using a controller. AMD's FG does the exact opposite which makes it useless to me personally. Radeon boost actually makes more sense even though I'm not a complete fan of that solution either.
Click to expand...
You are describing something else than this new FSR 3.1 FG, because issue with FPS you described isn't how it behaves at all (and neither does DLSS). I think you are confusing it with the in-drivers thing (I forgot its name now), which is a different tech with different implementation, and much bigger downsides than in game FG (from either vendor).
 
Last edited:
I can not notice any ghosting without zooming in and 20% playback so it's irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. Fsr 2.2 is mostly unusable for me after dlss, now with fsr 3.1, I will happily use it.
 
Last edited:

It seems AMD made some significant improvements when it comes to upscaling from a very low base resolution (720P Ultra Performance is upscaling from 240P). The video shows that there is much less shimmer compared to DLSS and XeSS. Pay attention to the bushes on the cliff and the nets near the crane and the shadow on her neck/jawline.
If they could get rid of the ghosting then it will be near perfect for people who have 1080P displays or those with Steam deck and consoles.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: mrk
mrk said:
I predict soon we will see an influx of users across the net who suddenly think upscaling is the best thing ever after previously hating on it with a passion :p
Click to expand...
A lot lol that would mean a much higher user base. If like me and an AMD user, i chose because i was never gonna use RT and upscaling while getting a faster gpu at a cheaper price. Any sane AMD user ain't coming here to brag about upscaling. Good that they improved it but again upscaling tech was never a reason to buy AMD.
 
Tinek said:
You are describing something else than this new FSR 3.1 FG, because issue with FPS you described isn't how it behaves at all (and neither does DLSS). I think you are confusing it with the in-drivers thing (I forgot its name now), which is a different tech with different implementation, and much bigger downsides than in game FG (from either vendor).
Click to expand...
Thats a fair and valid point. I have only been using AFMF cause the games I have didn't offer AMD's FSR 3 frame gen solution at the time of testing. I would argue it is still Frame generation but I see your point and I'm certainly going to look further into it. The reason I didn't distinguish between them was because I, incorrectly, thought it was basically the same method being used. Now I'm sure my main gripe with frame generation, which is the added latency, wont change but time will tell. So cheers for that :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom