• 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.

Fidelity Super Resolution in 2021

Grim5 said:
but AMD said FSR is good for gamers with old hardware and 1080p screens, why did they lie
Click to expand...

Why are you saying this despite the evidence I showed you in this very thread? I showed you DOD2 and Terminator Resistance screens that showed FSR working fine at 1080p. You even thought the DOD2 FSR 1080p screenshot was native because you assumed the blurry one "must be FSR". So it really all depends on the game and how the dev implements it.

I posted these comparisons
Native.jpg


FSR-75.jpg

To which you replied without realising that you had it wrong.

Grim5 said:
obviously the first image is FSR, look at the ground - bunch of fine details are missing compared to the second image and it has more aliasing on edges
Click to expand...

Do you have a memory reset issue? I suggest you go see your GP or a specialist about that. :)
 
Last edited:
ICDP said:
Why are you pushing this agenda? I showed you 1080p DOD2 and Terminator Resistance screens that showed FSr working fine. You even thought the DOD2 FSR 1080p screenshot was native because you assumed the blurry one "must be FSR". So it really all depends on the game and how the dev implements it.
Click to expand...

Terminator Resistance has low constrast and low detail textues. This has been covered online. Godfall is blurred on every quality mode. This is because of how FSR works. DLSS is not blurred on quality. DLSS gets different issues. Overall DLSS by design is going to be objectively better than FSR.

11:25

Without the AI network in DLSS, DLSS's use of temporal upscaling has a far better image quality. Then FSR's Edge-Adaptive Spatial Upsampling. Its one of the main points why DLSS 2 is better than older versions of DLSS 1. Thus anyone that states FSR has better image quality over DLSS is talking non sense. You can see it in the video. Temporal upscaling has a FAR better image quality. You get more finer detail in the output and less blurring.

Note in the video how FSR looks closer to a simple upscaled image than the more detailed looking temporal image (this i not DLSS, just temporal upscaling). The difference is caused by how the two different upscaling methods work. Temporal upscaling is objectively far better image quality wise and is a part of DLSS 2 process. DLSS 2 also uses more information from the graphics engine. This means that DLSS can use this information, like motion vectors to improve image quality. FSR only has the information inside the single image. FSR is simple to impliment but this has a cost in image quality because you reduce the information the upscaler can use to a single image.

FSR is AMD providing an upscaling feature for AMD customers. Its not as good as DLSS, it was never ment to be because AMD doesn't have tensor cores to speed up the process. They are also behind in performance, so the simplest and fastest method is needed. FSR provides this needed performance uplift but will by design reduce image quality. Its a different trade off from DLSS. DLSS is more complex, image quality is overall better and there is hardware acceleration. DLSS has more proccessing power behind it because of tensor cores. Thus DLSS can in real-time do more proccessing on the image. As new GPU's are released by NVidia, with more tensor cores. The more processing power DLSS will get.
 
mingey said:
First it was fsr better than dlss now it's fxaa is better, you really don't have an agenda do you
Click to expand...

I have never once said FSR is better than DLSS as we stand currently. DLSS 1.0 was crap and FSR is better than DLSS 1.0, but DLSS 2.0 and later versions are better than FSR. What I have said is that FSR is easier to implement and avaialble to a wider audience, which is 100% factual. I have also stated I think FSR is a great first effort from AMD but not perfect.

What I also stand by is that native with normal MSAA will look better than DLSS and FSR but of course will have a large performance hit. So DLSS and FSR obvioulsy have their place and options for us as consumers are always good to have.

My only agenda is to counter the pages of opinion masquerading as fact (See zx128) above for a perfect example. Posts reams of text going into techincal details that mean nothing because he/she presumes FSR will NEVER be updated or improved upon. Then also posts a link to a known Nvidia Shill web site as if their bought for and biased opinion matters.
 
Last edited:
FFX Upscaling is pretty horrific on my poor old R9 290. The fps uplift is all well and good, but it looks like ass in motion with texture shimmering.


F1 2021 - 1440 - High Profile - TAA + FidelityFX Upscale

F1 2021 - 1440 - High Profile - TAA Dynamic upscale
 
Last edited:
mingey said:
First it was fsr better than dlss now it's fxaa is better, you really don't have an agenda do you
Click to expand...
at this point im sure this person will defend disabling TAA in RDR 2. its known that TAA makes the game blurry. it is also widely known that game NEEDS taa to function. and this is not a pony game developer either, its rockstar we're talking about. for some reason he keeps saying taa defeats the purpose of dlss comparisons when taa literlaly became almost every most used engine's backbone from doom eternal to rdr 2, and many more big budget AAA titles. taa is not a thing you can't simply shut off anymore. or you get weird shimmers, half renderd trees and foliage everywhere, specular aliasing everywhere.
 
ICDP said:
I have never once said FSR is better than DLSS as we stand currently. DLSS 1.0 was crap and FSR is better than DLSS 1.0, but DLSS 2.0 and later versions are better than FSR. What I have said is that FSR is easier to implement and avaialble to a wider audience, which is 100% factual. I have also stated I think FSR is a great first effort from AMD but not perfect.

What I also stand by is that native with normal MSAA will look better than DLSS and FSR but of course will have a large performance hit. So DLSS and FSR obvioulsy have their place and options for us as consumers are always good to have.

My only agenda is to counter the pages of opinion masquerading as fact (See zx128) above for a perfect example. Posts reams of text going into techincal details that mean nothing because he/she presumes FSR will NEVER be updated or improved upon. Then also posts a link to a known Nvidia Shill web site as if their bought for and biased opinion matters.
Click to expand...

37:12

Real-Time Super-Res Challenges

See issues of a single frame approach like FSR for example.
  • Blurry image quality
  • Inconsistent with native rendering
  • Temporally unstable.
Multi-frame approach, TAAU
  • Heuristics to detect and rectifies changes across frames
  • Limitation in heuristics causing blurriness, temporal instability and ghosting.
DLSS 2.0: DL Based Multi-frame reconstruction

Note in the graph how DLSS's reconstruction is closer to the Ground Truth. Note how the Non-DL reconstruction graph has massive problems.

Neural networks are much more powerful than handcrafted heuristics.
Much higher quality reconstructions using samples from multiple frames which FSR cannot do. Simpler is not better, its worse for image quality.

40:44 the DLSS 540p image is better than TAA 1080p and TAAU 540p. Note the shaper and more detailed back ground with DLSS. Same result here https://youtu.be/YWIKzRhYZm4

40:52 - Engine Integration. DLSS takes a lot more information from the engine which is a big part of why the image quality is the best.

DLSS 2.2 4k vs 4k Native.


FSR each mode in Godfall becomes more blurred. As expected from a single frame approach.


You can see from quality and below. When compared to native is obviously blurred. This is a youtube compressed image @ 1440p. At 0:27 you can see the pink trees get more and more blurred as you drop to performance. Result completely as expected.

0:13 Ultra Quality vs native. Armour looks blurred and it gets worse as you drop to performance. Background as well. You can really see it from quality to performance.
 
Last edited:
oguzsoso said:
at this point im sure this person will defend disabling TAA in RDR 2. its known that TAA makes the game blurry. it is also widely known that game NEEDS taa to function. and this is not a pony game developer either, its rockstar we're talking about. for some reason he keeps saying taa defeats the purpose of dlss comparisons when taa literlaly became almost every most used engine's backbone from doom eternal to rdr 2, and many more big budget AAA titles. taa is not a thing you can't simply shut off anymore. or you get weird shimmers, half renderd trees and foliage everywhere, specular aliasing everywhere.
Click to expand...

Sounds like Z buffering is not a thing anymore...
 
Are we done talking about dlss in a fsr thread yet, getting a bit sick of all the compare bitching in here, oh this is better than that and heres why, oh no it aint oh yes it is oh no it aint...
 
I would love for this to be a thread with news and updates on FRS please. It seems that the usual suspects just want to come in with trolling posts to derail the thread to "why they think FSR sucks".
 
varkanoid said:
I always think DLSS is a bit of a con. If the card could run the game at "decent levels" whatever you determine that as there would be no need for DLSS. Its a cheap cheat for Nvidia to make the game performance look better than it is.
Click to expand...

It always has been. It's because of the way that display resolutions have outpaced the capacity for graphics cards to service those resolutions, and the fact that Nvidia has gone hard down the raytracing route as a unique selling point for their products. This is despite the current generation of cards being crippled by RTX usage, and again meaning they cannot service the required screen resolutions. Upscaling technology is a way around that by effectively lowering the resolution in such a way as to minimise the image quality loss.

I'm not against it if the consumer is willing to pay that price to get playable framerates, or if the consumer can't tell the difference in real world use. It is absolutely a cheat, but a far more nuanced one than just lowering screen resolution or lowering rendering details to get to playable framerates, and it has a place as another option to the customer.
 
varkanoid said:
I always think DLSS is a bit of a con. If the card could run the game at "decent levels" whatever you determine that as there would be no need for DLSS. Its a cheap cheat for Nvidia to make the game performance look better than it is.
Click to expand...

There is a limit to what hardware can do, DLSS is the start of using AI to render the graphics. In future AI could be the only thing rendering the graphics.
 
varkanoid said:
I always think DLSS is a bit of a con. If the card could run the game at "decent levels" whatever you determine that as there would be no need for DLSS. Its a cheap cheat for Nvidia to make the game performance look better than it is.
Click to expand...

Its a cheap cheat for developers to get even lazier and not bother to optimize
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom