Fidelity Super Resolution in 2021

[ICDP]

I think the main things to remember are:

• The underlying tech is utterly irrelevant if we have to pixel peep to tell any difference. No amount of self-proclaimed experts deluding themselves that DLSS is "far superior" will change that.
  
• FSR does deliver good results at all resolutions depending on how the dev implements it.
• FSR is easier to implement
• FSR is available for a much wider user base
• FSR is open standard

So both DLSS and FSR are now here to stay but given the wider user base I would predict that most devs who are going from scratch will opt for FSR as a quicker, easier and less costly method to implement.

 

[Wrinkly]

Forgetting the underlying tech

• DLSS reduces shimmer, while also looking good at lower resolutions.
  
• FSR amplifies shimmer, while being borderline unusable at lower resolutions.

Ergo, DLSS is far more desirable, better than FSR. PC users should be demanding DLSS support. Why settle for less?

 

[ICDP]

Normally I have you on ignore but I hadn't logged in yet, so saw this usual for you ill conceived biased post.

It's because not everyone can use a locked down closed tech that only RTX owners can enjoy. Also you forgot that DLSS adds ghosting and FSR doesn't which by omitting is showing your obvious bais. But hey, don't let that confirmation bias get in the way of facts right?

 

[henson0115]

While the actual implementation is a bit more rudimentary currently DLSS uses a model trained against the "style" of a game - it then analyses the low resolution output for patterns which it can use the closest reference matches for to fill in the blanks using something that mimics the style of the missing data. With enough training the model produces something close enough most people won't notice.

For audio that is even harder to do because most people would tell much easier that there is nonsense noise filling in the blanks, with images it is a bit easier to fool the eyes.

because it accumulates information across multiple frames

so its adding back an interpretation of what it thinks should be there, nothing real that would be there originally.

it cant accumulate what doesn't exist now can it? so basically its guessing what it thinks should be there, like when people try to restore lossy audio formats. its fake information.

 

[zx128k]

It's worth highlighting this point because they are fundamentally different systems although they appear similar at first. It's interesting to me because the use case for DLSS almost all of the time right now is fundamentally to enable the use of ray tracing, since that just cannot run at high resolution. And so a real life use case for me was RT enabled in Cyberpunk with DLSS to get up to 4k, and if we could compare the quality of FSR to DLSS in that kind of use case then yes absolutely, the quality loss for FSR from 1080p to 4k is going to be absolutely awful.

Of course quality modes look much nicer because you're starting with a much higher internal resolution, which is fine if you want to make the quality/speed tradeoff just for more fps...but I don't think that's really a use case for DLSS. I'd be interested to know if anyone is using DLSS in games for better frame rates without the use of RT? My guess is that people generally still have a preference for native, but I guess we'd need data on that. I'm more of stickler for image quality however, I don't even really like FXAA or even really TAA, I like those crisp clean textures and to lower that for a few fps is a hard sell. If I'm getting something truly new and unique like RT effects then it's different story. Especially now DLSS is looking so good.

In games like Cyberpunk 2077 you can use DLSS and turn RT off. This allows cards like the RTX 2060 to get close to 4k@60. There is an issue with DLSS without RT on. You can get artifacts. Even with RT you can get some bugs with how DLSS handles some effects. The benefit with DLSS is the image quality far better than normal upscaling like FSR. The image looks sharper and more detailed but DLSS is not perfect. Sometimes the AI gets something wrong which is rare. The overall picture fools the mind. FSR the image is a little blurred at ultra quality and gets worse as the quality mode drops to performance. Performance with FSR is very blurred in videos compared to ultra quality or native. DLSS gives a massively better image than FSR performance, with its performance mode.

Also DLSS can upscale better than FSR can at different resolutions. You can have an internal resolution in DLSS of 540p and upscale to 1080p. The upscaled image is better in many ways than the 1080p native image. There is more finer detail which can be seen in hair. This is impossible with FSR. Also you can upscale from 720p to 4k and get a massively better image than FSR.

DLSS is objectively netter than FSR in image quality even with its issues. FSR is basically just an realtime upscaling feature, image quality is reduced and performance is gain. Its a trade off, were you get more blurring of the image for performance. Many games have upscaling methods far better than FSR. Unreal Engine 5 for example, temporal supersampling. DLSS is different, DLSS reconstructs the image. The goal is maintain image quality and improve performance. Its not going to be as fast as FSR or as easy to implement but the quality is far better. In Doom Eternal its hard to see the difference between native and DLSS. Godfall you can see right away the image is blurred with FSR. Balanced and performance modes, the image quality is unacceptable.

FSR is not better because of how the developer implements it. You give the image to FSR and it just upscales and sharpens. The developer can do nothing about the reduced image quality. As FSR upscales the internal resolution is maintained. So if the details of the higher resolution are not available in the lower internal resolution image they are lost. This is what cause the FSR image to become less detailed and blurred compared to the target native resolution. DLSS fixes this by intergrating itself into the graphics engine. It uses motion vector information and an AI network. To restore detail that is lost in the upscaled image. Deatils in texture are improved and fine details in hair are restored. This has the overall effect of creating an image that looks to have a far higher resolution than it does. In this way FSR cannot complete with DLSS for image quality. Basically DLSS image quality starts above FSR ultra quality mode.

 

[Wrinkly]

Normally I have you on ignore but I hadn't logged in yet, so saw this usual for you ill conceived biased post.

It's because not everyone can use a locked down closed tech that only RTX owners can enjoy. Also you forgot that DLSS adds ghosting and FSR doesn't which by omitting is showing your obvious bais. But hey, don't let that confirmation bias get in the way of facts right?

People use ignore as they don't have a reply.

No, I didn't forget DLSS can add ghosting. I don't feel ghosting is an issue as it's not something that bothers me. Perhaps I am used to a small amount of ghosting as it's been with us for many years via other tech.

I really don't care about people playing on console/AMD, mobile phone or 2 generations old GPUs. What I care about is PC gaming today. As I already asked, why settle for less?

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Forgetting the underlying tech

• DLSS reduces shimmer, while also looking good at lower resolutions.
  
• FSR amplifies shimmer, while being borderline unusable at lower resolutions.

Ergo, DLSS is far more desirable, better than FSR. PC users should be demanding DLSS support. Why settle for less?

Settle for less?

Like settling for upscaling like some sort of console peasant?

 

[Wrinkly]

Settle for less?

Like settling for upscaling like some sort of console peasant?

Well that's one way to put it as FSR does appear to have been developed with console as the primary use. DLSS on the other hand does a little more than just upscaling.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

Well that's one way to put it as FSR does appear to have been developed with console as the primary use. DLSS on the other hand does a little more than just upscaling.

They are both upscaling no matter how much spin the Nvidia fanboys try to weave.

The sooner FSR becomes the defacto standard (because it is the open standard) and DLSS is relegated to the sin bin, the sooner everyone moves on from this upscaling nonsense and the sooner everyone starts talking about features that enhance graphics.

 

[nvidiamd]

The difference between FSR and DLSS is that one is free while the other one was created to boost the selling of Turing cards. So you had to pay a ton of money for a Turing card and you were gifted with an upscaling tech as bad and most of the time even worse than FSR.
Anyone who compares the two techs should compare them like this : Is FSR worse than paying at least 400 euro for a new card to have DLSS? And if you buy the 400 euro card (if you are lucky to find a card at that price ) you will use DLSS perf or ultra perf.
A lot of people who don't own new cards are happy with FSR. Those who are not happy don't use it, they don't lose anything. Of course for the current gen of cards, DLSS offers better value than FSR so it is better to buy a Nvidia card than an AMD card. But for those who are not buying new cards, there is no competition between DLSS and FSR. Nvidia scammed the Pascal owners by locking DLSS on the Turing+ cards and AMD is scamming the 6000 series owners by giving them a cheap surrogate.

 

[Nexus18]

Too many living in the past it seems and good to see the same arguments still being had

- Silly to be comparing cost for dlss given it's not an issue anymore (especially when current nvidia gen cards can often be had cheaper than amds current gen) and even with turing, it wasn't really a case of paying more for dlss, nvidia cards always have and always will cost more than comparable amd counterparts regardless of what features they offer
- dlss/fsr allows us to get better graphics/visuals right now because graphical effects can be dialled up or we can use ray tracing, without it, we wouldn't have any games looking better than games released 2/3 years ago, it also improves games IQ which have horrible TAA implementations
- FSR is very good on the whole and will get better especially with rdna 3 when AMD have a similar approach to upscaling as nvidia do for dlss and microsoft have for directml
- As it is right now, dlss is in games where it is needed, FSR is a bit pointless right now as the games it's in are meh and don't even need FSR (well except for ray tracing games where amd need more of a boost in perf.), this will get better with time though

And most importantly:

- sooner people realise they have a choice to use fsr/dlss, the better, no one is forcing anyone to use it, perfectly free to lower graphical settings to meet your res and FPS needs.... Whether people like it or not, FSR and DLSS is here to stay for the foreseeable future.

 

[Wrinkly]

They are both upscaling no matter how much spin the Nvidia fanboys try to weave.

The sooner FSR becomes the defacto standard (because it is the open standard) and DLSS is relegated to the sin bin, the sooner everyone moves on from this upscaling nonsense and the sooner everyone starts talking about features that enhance graphics.

People throwing tantrums, hitting ignore and claims of fanboyisim while exhibiting signs of paranoia when certain YT channels are mentrioned. Well done AMD

As I've already said, DLSS is a bit more than just simple upscaling. It's also worth noting that this is the direction that AMD are heading in, AMD just being behind the curve as usual.

AMD chose not to compete this round and instead focused on consoles.

As Ive already asked several times now, why would you settle for less?

 

[nvidiamd]

Too many living in the past it seems and good to see the same arguments still being had

- Silly to be comparing cost for dlss given it's not an issue anymore (especially when current nvidia gen cards can often be had cheaper than amds current gen) and even with turing, it wasn't really a case of paying more for dlss, nvidia cards always have and always will cost more than comparable amd counterparts regardless of what features they offer
-

It may not be an issue for you since you already bought a new card and now you need to convince yourself and others that it was a good deal. But good luck telling someone who has a Pascal that the cost is not an issue anymore.
Don't use FSR, it sucks. Come on you should try DLSS. Pay >700 quids like we did and you'll see how great it is.

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

- dlss/fsr allows us to get better graphics/visuals right now because graphical effects can be dialled up or we can use ray tracing, without it, we wouldn't have any games looking better than games released 2/3 years ago, it also improves games IQ which have horrible TAA implementations.

What games have allowed you to dial up settings with FSR/DLSS that otherwise wouldn't be possible? Or is this you passing off your hopes and dreams as facts in an attempt to justify your beloved upscaling?
RT doesn't count.

People throwing tantrums, hitting ignore and claims of fanboyisim while exhibiting signs of paranoia when certain YT channels are mentrioned. Well done AMD

What question or statement in my post is this addressing?

As I've already said, DLSS is a bit more than just simple upscaling.

Good for you, I've already told you that i disagree.

It's also worth noting that this is the direction that AMD are heading in, AMD just being behind the curve as usual.

Could you also look in your crystal ball and tell me what the lottery numbers for next week will be.

AMD chose not to compete this round and instead focused on consoles.

Standard fanboy drivel, made even funnier when you remember that Nvidia and their extra special PC focused GPU had to go all out just to keep their lead (at 4k).

As Ive already asked several times now, why would you settle for less?

I don't know, ask all the people who like DLSS.

 

[Rroff]

What games have allowed you to dial up settings with FSR/DLSS that otherwise wouldn't be possible? Or is this you passing off your hopes and dreams as facts in an attempt to justify your beloved upscaling?
RT doesn't count.

How is this even a question and why have you decided that RT doesn't count? if you play something like CP2077 it makes a huge difference to what features you can enable at a given resolution.

 

[Wrinkly]

What question or statement in my post is this addressing?

The very first line of the post I rsponded to -

They are both upscaling no matter how much spin the Nvidia fanboys try to weave.

Good for you, I've already told you that i disagree.

What exactly do you disagree with, that DLSS is superior to FSR?

Could you also look in your crystal ball and tell me what the lottery numbers for next week will be.

Maybe if you learned a little more about the subject you wouldn't be at this stage.

Standard fanboy drivel, made even funnier when you remember that Nvidia and their extra special PC focused GPU had to go all out just to keep their lead (at 4k).

Seems my previous comment stands again.

People throwing tantrums, hitting ignore and claims of fanboyisim while exhibiting signs of paranoia when certain YT channels are mentrioned. Well done AMD

And finally we get something worthwhile from you.

I don't know, ask all the people who like DLSS.

The people who use DLSS are telling you why DLSS is superior. I'm asking you why you would settle for the inferior option, FSR?

 

[Nexus18]

It may not be an issue for you since you already bought a new card and now you need to convince yourself and others that it was a good deal. But good luck telling someone who has a Pascal that the cost is not an issue anymore.
Don't use FSR, it sucks. Come on you should try DLSS. Pay >700 quids like we did and you'll see how great it is.

No convincing needs done here:

£650 for a 3080

Sold the vega 56 for £220/230 iirc
Sold a 290 for £90
Sold COD for £15

Do the math

If people paid over the odds for a gpu, that is their fault, not the manufacturer, yes it was a scummy practice of nvidia by not adding dlss support for older gen. but what do you expect from these companies especially nvidia and intel? Their goal is to make money..... if amd were in a better position, guaranteed they would be even more scummy too. If people are so offended by these companies then they need to start voting with their wallet..... You'll find that most of the people who felt screwed over and were vocal with pascal not getting dlss will have bought a nvidia card again and mostly likely will keep getting nvidia cards regardless.

What games have allowed you to dial up settings with FSR/DLSS that otherwise wouldn't be possible? Or is this you passing off your hopes and dreams as facts in an attempt to justify your beloved upscaling?
RT doesn't count.

Must be trolling, surely..... Why isn't ray tracing allowed? It improves graphical quality of games..... Either way, utterly stupid to ignore RT so whether you like it or not! Games I have played and put a fair bit of time into:

- metro enhanced
- control
- deliver us the moon
- cyberpunk
- doom eternal (not really needed but without dlss there are fps drops when using RT)

And some future ones where no doubt FSR/DLSS will be needed if I want max settings at my acceptable standard of constant 4k/60 or 3440x1440 @ 100+ fps

- crysis 2 and 3 ray tracing remasters
- bf 2042
- avatar (not confirmed if it will have FSR/DLSS yet but I would be surprised if it doesn't have at least one offering....)
- dying light 2
- atomic heart
- the ascent
- RDR 2 (dlss patch tomorrow)

 

[Chuk_Chuk]

How is this even a question and why have you decided that RT doesn't count? if you play something like CP2077 it makes a huge difference to what features you can enable at a given resolution.

Easy. He said that DLSS/FSR allows us to dial up graphical affects that wouldn't be possible otherwise. I want to know what games they are?

Previous conversation that you may have missed is why i excluded RT, but i'm certain @Nexus18 remembers. Edit:seems like he doesn't remember

CP2077 is an interesting one because in some scenes it looks really good and in others very average.

 

[Nexus18]

Even without ray tracing, some of those are very demanding and will have fps drops or not hit as high of a fps i.e. cyberpunk, control, metro.

Also, have a look at no mans sky too.... and see how much better it looks with dlss and that has no RT.....

EDIT:

What about rdr 2? DLSS patch tomorrow and without ray tracing, I still have to drop settings to achieve a frame rate that is acceptable to me.

 

[Nexus18]

Easy. He said that DLSS/FSR allows us to dial up graphical affects that wouldn't be possible otherwise. I want to know what games they are?

Previous conversation that you may have missed is why i excluded RT, but i'm certain @Nexus18 remembers. Edit:seems like he doesn't remember

CP2077 is an interesting one because in some scenes it looks really good and in others very average.

Good to see you can't read.

And once again, all completely pointless peoples hate towards FSR/DLSS

- sooner people realise they have a choice to use fsr/dlss, the better, no one is forcing anyone to use it, perfectly free to lower graphical settings to meet your res and FPS needs.... Whether people like it or not, FSR and DLSS is here to stay for the foreseeable future

Appropriate gif time, "deal with it"