• 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 ?

Interesting fact - ARM has adopted FSR2 (after some tweaks and changes), as their own upscaling solution for mobile devices. That might mean if one likes to play mobile games (I don't :p) sooner than later one might have to use FSR2, willingly or not. They did change the name to ASR, though.
 
Last edited:
Intel has better upscaling than amd.

www.youtube.com

Upscaling Face-Off: FSR 3.1 vs DLSS 3.7/ XeSS 1.3 - Has AMD Improved?

AMD recently released FSR 3.1, featuring improvement to both its spatial upscaler and frame generation. In this video, we're going to be focusing on the spat...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

giphy.webp
 
RavenXXX2 said:
Intel has better upscaling than amd.

www.youtube.com

Upscaling Face-Off: FSR 3.1 vs DLSS 3.7/ XeSS 1.3 - Has AMD Improved?

AMD recently released FSR 3.1, featuring improvement to both its spatial upscaler and frame generation. In this video, we're going to be focusing on the spat...
www.youtube.com www.youtube.com

giphy.webp
Click to expand...

It's a shame more companies don't go with xess as it is pretty good and exactly how this kind of thing should be done. Unlike amd, intel are actually taking it upon themselves to improve xess instead of relying on the community to do the work for them, of course intel are also in the position of they have to do this given their non existent marketshare in dgpu and wanting to win the masses.
 
Nexus18 said:
It's a shame more companies don't go with xess as it is pretty good and exactly how this kind of thing should be done. Unlike amd, intel are actually taking it upon themselves to improve xess instead of relying on the community to do the work for them, of course intel are also in the position of they have to do this given their non existent marketshare in dgpu and wanting to win the masses.
Click to expand...

I have an issue with XeSS and it makes it hard for me to say that it's actually better than FSR.

Hold on- hear me out first.

The only reason to ever use upscaling is for a performance uplift. Personally, I find XeSS often just reduces performance until you go down to either quality or balanced mode. This makes makes the ultra quality, the ultra quality plus and the native mode frankly pointless. Either the performance is just bad (native) or the fps "increase" is so minimal its not worth the trade off of having a softer, more blurred image than just playing natively.

This isn't the case with FSR. To get the equivalent fps from XeSS as you would from FSR, you often have to take it down a tier or two. For example, on my XTX, XeSS balanced performs roughly the same as FSR quality mode. This means that you're having to upscale from a smaller render resolution and this is almost always worse looking than using FSR when comparing them at a similar performance level.

Intel knows this though and it's why they've tried to hide this fact by changing the naming of the existing render ratios and adding more at the top of the stack like i mentioned above.

XeSS is way over hyped, i don't think anyone praising it actually uses it and if they are, they more than likely didn't need to upscale to reach an acceptable performance level anyway.
And no, an upscaler cannot and will never look better than a *competent* native AA solution- it's quite literally impossible.

Of course I'm not taking about people with actual intel GPUs though because there's only about 7 of them, none of which I've met yet.
 
Last edited:
Trypta said:
I have an issue with XeSS and it makes it hard for me to say that it's actually better than FSR.

Hold on- hear me out first.

The only reason to ever use upscaling is for a performance uplift. Personally, I find XeSS often just reduces performance until you go down to either quality or balanced mode. This makes makes the ultra quality, the ultra quality plus and the native mode frankly pointless. Either the performance is just bad (native) or the fps "increase" is so minimal its not worth the trade off of having a softer, more blurred image than just playing natively.

This isn't the case with FSR. To get the equivalent fps from XeSS as you would from FSR, you often have to take it down a tier or two. For example, on my XTX, XeSS balanced performs roughly the same as FSR quality mode. This means that you're having to upscale from a smaller render resolution and this is almost always worse looking than using FSR when comparing them at a similar performance level.

Intel knows this though and it's why they've tried to hide this fact by changing the naming of the existing render ratios and adding more at the top of the stack like i mentioned above.

XeSS is way over hyped, i don't think anyone praising it actually uses it and if they are, they more than likely didn't need to upscale to reach an acceptable performance level anyway.
And no, an upscaler cannot and will never look better than a *competent* native AA solution- it's quite literally impossible.

Of course I'm not taking about people with actual intel GPUs though because there's only about 7 of them, none of which I've met yet.
Click to expand...
Seems similar to my experience. The performance uplift is just not good enough on XeSS running on AMD hardware. I don't know how XESS performance is on an Intel dGPU but it's a no go 9/10 times on my 6950XT.
 
I have no problem Xess being better than FSR. The point is it's open to be used by anyone.
Competition is a good thing!

DLSS shown the industry that upscale has a market. Nvidia said it can only be done using AI core dedicated to upscale.

AMD proved it can be done with an open standard that most gamers can benefit from.

Intel wasn't going to sit back.
So the point is does it really matter who has the best quality? Surely the point is you can freely choose between intel and AMD.

Surely the end goal here is both FSR and Xess will continue to improve to the point there is very little to distinguish them apart or against DLSS.
 
Freddie1980 said:
It's worth remembering with XESS it has two command paths XMX and DP4A. XMX gives better image quality but only works with Intel graphics cards where as DP4A gives better performance and works across multiple vendors.
Click to expand...
DP4A is what is tested, still puts FSR to shame. Amd just has to copy Intel's two version approach to compete with dlss. Give people another reason to buy the latest radeon cards.
 
Phixsator said:
Seems similar to my experience. The performance uplift is just not good enough on XeSS running on AMD hardware. I don't know how XESS performance is on an Intel dGPU but it's a no go 9/10 times on my 6950XT.
Click to expand...
It's not good on Nvidia either, performance drop is just very visible. Though, on Nvidia I would go for DLSS instead, however there are games out there that have only xess and fsr 1 for example and no sign of diss.
 
8w67yhes9ldd1.jpeg



"we will deprecate support for Nvidia framegen once FSR3.1 releases, as FSR3.1 works on consoles and, thus is a better technical focus for our team "


If more devs start taking this approach then Nvidia's frame gen could be in trouble. AMD's decoupling of FSR3.1 frame gen is starting to work it's magic.
 
Last edited:
fs123 said:
8w67yhes9ldd1.jpeg



"we will deprecate support for Nvidia framegen once FSR3.1 releases, as FSR3.1 works on consoles and, thus is a better technical focus for our team "


If more devs start taking this approach then Nvidia's frame gen could be in trouble. AMD's decoupling of FSR3.1 frame gen is starting to work it's magic.
Click to expand...

It also helps that FSR 3.1 frame gen is incredibly good when implemented well, unlike the upscaling side of things, amds frame gen is very much on equal footing with nvidias frame gen now. If it were still in the state as it was on launch and for several months, this would have been a big no no but thankfully not the case. It will be interesting to see what happens though if nvidia improve their frame gen further with dlss 4 and 50xx (assuming this does happen)
 
Last edited:
Nexus18 said:
www.computerbase.de

FSR 3.1 gegen FSR 2/3 & DLSS im Vergleich: Ein erstes Fazit

FSR 3.1 gegen FSR 2/3 & DLSS im Test: Ein erstes Fazit / FSR 3.1 bringt mehrere kleine Verbesserungen – und ein großes Problem
www.computerbase.de www.computerbase.de

It's a shame they can't get even their FSR FG to be consistently good as in ghost of tshumia, it really is incredible on a 3080.
Click to expand...

Yeah it's very hit or miss with AMD, 1 game can be great and another can be total ass. They really need to specify to devs that it needs to meet a certain quality level like they mostly do with Nvidia or AMD will always be known as the b-grade brand when it comes to GPU features.
 
Last edited:
Dicehunter said:
Yeah it's very hit or miss with AMD, 1 game can be great and another can be total ass. They really need to specify to devs that it needs to meet a certain quality level like they mostly do with Nvidia or AMD will always be known as the b-grade brand when it comes to GPU features.
Click to expand...

FSR3.1 frame gen is great in most of the games I tested. Which ones are bad?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom