For one thing he doesn't show performance numbers vs TAAU or other methods so people can't possibly judge whether they feel it's worth the image quality cost (the title of their video mentioned a performance boost at the cost of image quality and then they only talk about image quality). The particularly bad example of FSR's image quality was in a game called Kingshunt that I've never heard of and may just be an outlier (it was most obvious in the character's dress). There are some not so good DLSS 2.0 implementations too, the quality varies depending on the game but focussing on just one or two examples may give a false picture.
KitGuru tested FSR vs TAAU in Godfall and found it produced better image quality and performance than TAAU.
Alex goes out of his way to present things in a negative way by saying that the only reason that Terminator looks good with FSR is because the dark scenes hide artefacts from running the game at a lower resolution while he provides no performance numbers or context.
This is just wrong. He shows performance metrics regarding TAAU at the end around the 12:25 mark, showing the GPU utilization to hit 60fps when comparing traditional upscaling, to FSR and TAAU. And he clearly states that TAAU requires only a bit more utilization of the GPU. Is this point somehow wrong or in dispute?
Wrong again, he didn't focus on one or two examples, he's shown FSR in what, 4 of the 7 games it's supported in? Godfall, Riftbreaker, Terminator and Kings Hunt. That seems like a good sample size relative to what was released, it's over half. In fact you cite KitGuru as a source here who uses 1 less game in their analysis, so you have a bias application of your standards here.
Even if he were to focus on only 1-2 examples, which he did not, that only
may give a false picture, it doesn't mean it necessarily has. And it's funny that you have this standard for sample size but then you're totally OK with a claim that there's 1 game in which you claim goes against that. In fact just watching the Kitguru video now and the TAAU comparison and what he says, quote: "I would say that the UE4 upsample looks fractionally sharper, however it does come with a caveat of some noticeable shimmering" and then switching to a more aggressive upsample scale says "unreals implementation is just about sharper overall". So I'm not sure that really agrees with what you're claiming here.
What's more the scene used for comparison does not have any noticeable use of transparent details like was used in Alex's comparison shots, and that's kind of important because one thing that seems to be true about FSR is that edge detection seems pretty good but it does very little or nothing for quality of textures. Most notably KitGuru is only using a 67% TAAU scale comparison to Quality FSR which is looking at internal resolutions of 2560x1440, and I think the point that Alex was making is that when you get down to 1080p internal resolution the quality of FSR is kinda trash vs TAAU. The performance numbers broadly agree with what Alex was saying which is that TAAU has a very minor increase on GPU load over FSR at an equivalent internal resolution. So is any of that actually not true, what SPECIFICALLY is in dispute here?
*edit* From what I'm reading godfall doesn't have integrated TAAU support and requires trickery to unlock using 3rd party tools. May explain why Alex didn't use that game.
Nothing about what he said about Terminator is wrong. He explained the technical reasons why differences are harder to see in this particular game, noting things like lack of contrast due to darkness, lower quality textures on internal surfaces, and heavy use of post processing. Again you're taking a bunch of technically true things and then just making an accusation that it's done in a negative light without disputing anything. And the blatantly strawmanning that he said "the only reason Terminator looks good..." and that's NOT how he phrased it, that's just how your heard it.
It's a completely legitimate point that games are going to differ in how obvious they mask artefacts, again are you actually disputing this? His literal summary for Terminator is that "FSR fares well here" and you literally hear "the only reason terminator looks good". Absolutely astonishing.
They also didn't use the Ultra Quality pre-set for comparisopn as it would have ruined the narrative.
What narrative precisely? He spoke at length that Ultra Quality preset for FSR looks good and his summary of the entire video. "My conclusion based upon what i have seen with FSR is that it is most useful at 4k in it's Ultra quality mode. But its utility drops off rather quickly at resolution and modes lower than that."
Again do you actually dispute anything he's saying here? Can you explain what the narrative is and where he's wrong?
