News AMD FSR 2.0 Goes Head-to-Head With DLSS and Works on 'All' GPUs

[Admin]

AMD has released FSR 2.0, and we tested Deathloop with the patch. Image quality has greatly improved and is now in line with Nvidia's DLSS upscaling technology — at least in this particular game. Now it just needs widespread developer support.

AMD FSR 2.0 Goes Head-to-Head With DLSS and Works on 'All' GPUs : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

From what Hardware Unboxed said in their "not-review" (as they called it, lol), FSR 2.0 appeared to not suffer from Ghosting like DLSS does. If you ask me, that is a massive thing in favour of AMD's implementation. Everything else seems to be rather equal, but textures do look better on FSR 2.0, sorry. There's little bits of geometry that also appeared to be slightly better on FSR than DLSS, but as per usual, in motion those will be imperceptible to 99.9% of people. Overall, I'll agree they're so close that it's a coin toss.

Disclaimer: while I recognize there's a need for these, I still don't like to depend on upscaling to have a decent playable experience. That being said, I think this would be a killer feature for XBox and PS5 and forward.

Regards.

 

[VforV]

Tim from HUB said it's a "preview"/"not review" and upcoming videos will explore more on FSR 2.0 with more GPUs tested, new and old ones too.

Also he's waiting for more games to offer both FSR 2.0 and DLSS to make a proper review based on multiple games performance and quality comparison between them, which makes sense.

So far FSR 2.0 looks great. Bravo AMD!

 

[escksu]

Nice!! FSR 2.0 looks like a big step up from 1.0!

Having said that, i am not exactly a fan of DLSS or FSR even though i like it alot.. My main concern is companies using this to overcome hardware limitations instead of improving on the hardware.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Nice!! FSR 2.0 looks like a big step up from 1.0!

Having said that, i am not exactly a fan of DLSS or FSR even though i like it alot.. My main concern is companies using this to overcome hardware limitations instead of improving on the hardware.

Thankfully I don't think AMD is doing that, and Nvidia mostly, with the exception of Tensor cores. RTX 40 series GPUs are believe to be monster upgrades over Ampere, similar to Turing was to Ampere, which is a good thing. Same with RDNA3.

The main reason DLSS and FSR exists is to push ultra high resolutions at the highest graphics settings possible. At least that was the original marketing goal of DLSS, which FSR kinda copied. But now, it works great everywhere which is what we want, we want more options.

 

[spongiemaster]

The main reason DLSS and FSR exists is to push ultra high resolutions at the highest graphics settings possible. At least that was the original marketing goal of DLSS, which FSR kinda copied. But now, it works great everywhere which is what we want, we want more options.

The main reason DLSS exists is to improve ray tracing performance. That's why Nvidia originally developed it. It was not intended to be a universal upscaler. The only reason FSR exists is because AMD needed something to compete with DLSS.

 

[escksu]

Theoretically, Nvidia can use both DLSS and FSR at the same time for double boost!! Hoping to see that happens.

So, in theory, someone could use DLSS at 1080/1440P resolution and use FSR to upscale to "4K" like image quality. This is because they work differently. FSR applies only to the image after it is generated, DLSS is before.

 

[mitch074]

Theoretically, Nvidia can use both DLSS and FSR at the same time for double boost!! Hoping to see that happens.

So, in theory, someone could use DLSS at 1080/1440P resolution and use FSR to upscale to "4K" like image quality. This is because they work differently. FSR applies only to the image after it is generated, DLSS is before.

It doesn't work that way - you can't apply both algorithms to a single source and expect to cumulate their advantages. It's upscaling ; it tries to reconstruct missing data from several inputs. Due to the way reconstruction takes place, artifacts are generated, and those are the problem - especially since they tend to get picked up as details on another upscaling pass and get even more noticeable.

 

[mo_osk]

FSR 2.0 appeared to not suffer from Ghosting like DLSS does. .

Regards.

Ghosting is not an issue on current version of DLSS. And with most game supporting DLSS 2.0 you can simply replace the old DLL with the latest available and observe the progress in image quality. The few games that still appears to have ghosting issues with DLSS do so because of flawed TAA implementation, if the ghosting is present without DLSS its not DLSS job to fix it even if you could probably train it to do it. Personally I find the sharpening effect caused by FSR distracting and destructive to the intended image quality. To each their own I guess.

 

[renz496]

Ghosting is not an issue on current version of DLSS. And with most game supporting DLSS 2.0 you can simply replace the old DLL with the latest available and observe the progress in image quality. The few games that still appears to have ghosting issues with DLSS do so because of flawed TAA implementation, if the ghosting is present without DLSS its not DLSS job to fix it even if you could probably train it to do it. Personally I find the sharpening effect caused by FSR distracting and destructive to the intended image quality. To each their own I guess.

cyberpunk with the latest version of DLSS the ghosting is no longer there. before this the ghosting is very visible when driving the car from third person perspective.

 

[-Fran-]

Ghosting is not an issue on current version of DLSS. And with most game supporting DLSS 2.0 you can simply replace the old DLL with the latest available and observe the progress in image quality. The few games that still appears to have ghosting issues with DLSS do so because of flawed TAA implementation, if the ghosting is present without DLSS its not DLSS job to fix it even if you could probably train it to do it. Personally I find the sharpening effect caused by FSR distracting and destructive to the intended image quality. To each their own I guess.

That requires modding/hacking of a game, which a lot of people would not bother with, I'd say. Specially consoles, assuming FSR 2.0 makes it to the PS5 and XB. If the game uses a version with Ghosting, you can't use the "but modding!" card for two reasons: some games forbid modding and most people wouldn't do it anyway. Otherwise I could also say I can make a 6800 outperform the 3080 siblings by loading 8K texture packs in games so memory usage goes over 13GB VRAM (Skyrim for example). It doesn't work like that, I'm afraid. While what you say is true, you can't account it into a review without having either a bias or agenda; you can explore it, but making it part of the conclusion would seem rather iffy to me; maybe an asterisk at best.

And compare the native vs FSR2.0 textures; I find FSR's closer to the original by a lot. Plus, you can toggle the sharpness in-game anyway; not that it guarantees all implementations will allow it.

Regards.

 

[TechyInAZ]

Yeah I think the funny part about DLSS and FSR 2.0 is that their reconstruction algorithms can sometimes improve texture quality beyond native.

 

[mo_osk]

Games have received patches that allows them to benefit from the newer version fo DLSS. Replacing the DLL yourself would just dispense you from the wait. I would say that pretending that it is still an ongoing issue is also a bias... Especially when Death Loop, the only game that can use FSR 2.0 at the time, never suffered from ghosting with DLSS.

I would not call replacing a DLL with a newer one from the same legitimate source modding or hacking. But it is still not something I would expect most users would feel at ease with. What is puzzling is why that change is not done more systematically by the game developer themselves. as there are still games that suffers from ghosting. AFAIK there is nothing preventing them from deploying the dll, on most platform they can even use beta channel to benefit from "free" quality control...

The "native" image on that article have an heavy sharpening effect applied to them.

 

[renz496]

That requires modding/hacking of a game, which a lot of people would not bother with, I'd say.

going forward this is no longer an issue. nvidia has made it that upgrading DLSS now will be done entirely from driver update instead needing to make game patch + driver update. as i suggest in the past that nvidia eventually will handle DLSS the same way they did with 3D vision. as long as the game supports DLSS since the very beginning (the reason why nvidia running around to make sure all major game engine have this plugin as a game engine default feature) nvidia will handle all the updates/issues themselves from driver without game developer need to do much.

 

[-Fran-]

going forward this is no longer an issue. nvidia has made it that upgrading DLSS now will be done entirely from driver update instead needing to make game patch + driver update. as i suggest in the past that nvidia eventually will handle DLSS the same way they did with 3D vision. as long as the game supports DLSS since the very beginning (the reason why nvidia running around to make sure all major game engine have this plugin as a game engine default feature) nvidia will handle all the updates/issues themselves from driver without game developer need to do much.

So does that also mean, they'll remove the support completely whenever they want? Since you mentioned 3D Vision xD! Not that anyone gave a rat's behind.

EDIT: You know. This begs the question... Should Vulkan or DirectX incorporate this into their APIs? Since this is just general purpose shader code (yes, brutal simplification), why not just make it DX/VK calls and get over the stupid "AMD or nVidia can just get angry and take the ball with them" point of view (yes, I made that point, LOL).

Regards.

 

[renz496]

So does that also mean, they'll remove the support completely whenever they want? Since you mentioned 3D Vision xD! Not that anyone gave a rat's behind.

EDIT: You know. This begs the question... Should Vulkan or DirectX incorporate this into their APIs? Since this is just general purpose shader code (yes, brutal simplification), why not just make it DX/VK calls and get over the stupid "AMD or nVidia can just get angry and take the ball with them" point of view (yes, I made that point, LOL).

Regards.

In case of 3D vision the user base is very small to begin with. And despite that nvidia still maintain support for 10 years or so. And nvidia tinkering with 3D vision also leads to other interesting tech for those that chase high refresh rate gaming such as Lightboost and Lightboost 2.

And not all tech can be pushed into standard API like DX or Vulkan. In game physics for example can end up complicating game development if being tied directly to 3D API. and we saw what happen with multi gpu when the feature end up being part of 3D API. instead of increasing adoption it pretty much end up being the last nail killing multi gpu tech in games.