News Testing AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution Performance and Image Quality

[Admin]

We take a look at AMD's new FidelityFX Super Resolution feature and analyze image quality and performance in our in-depth testing.

Testing AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution Performance and Image Quality : Read more

 

[-Fran-]

Thanks for the deeper dive!

This doesn't change much of the previous article to me: it's really good for a first try, but still needs a bit more to be a 1:1 DLSS2.0 competitor.

Regards.

 

[JarredWaltonGPU]

Thanks for the deeper dive!

This doesn't change much of the previous article to me: it's really good for a first try, but still needs a bit more to be a 1:1 DLSS2.0 competitor.

Regards.

Yeah. The interesting part to me is that the software is basically 'open' — maybe I'm wrong, but I assume that means developers can get the source code. If so, I think taking the best parts of temporal scaling and FSR could result in something better than either one, possibly closer to DLSS in quality. I don't know how much computational power that would need, but FSR and Temporal scaling are both pretty lightweight, so it should be doable. And I know Epic is talking about doing "better upscaling" already, so we'll have to see.

 

[Pytheus]

Thanks for the deeper dive!

This doesn't change much of the previous article to me: it's really good for a first try, but still needs a bit more to be a 1:1 DLSS2.0 competitor.

Regards.

I think we need to consider what will make them competitive. If FSR works on every GPU and is close enough to DLSS in quality, that makes it far more competitive than DLSS. If a developer is strapped for time and has only the option to pick one, they'll go with the one that supports the most users, not the niche market.

 

[renz496]

I think we need to consider what will make them competitive. If FSR works on every GPU and is close enough to DLSS in quality, that makes it far more competitive than DLSS. If a developer is strapped for time and has only the option to pick one, they'll go with the one that supports the most users, not the niche market.

going forward developer does not need to choose between DLSS or FSR.

 

[Pytheus]

going forward developer does not need to choose between DLSS or FSR.

O? It was my understanding the developers needed to support the technologies within their game code? That requires development time. Time is money and delays release of the product. If I were coding the game I'd pick the options that would benefit the most users, hence why FSR is likely going to win out. Not only does it reach a broader audience but developers have access to the base code to make improvements that'll benefit their games.

 

[cryoburner]

O? It was my understanding the developers needed to support the technologies within their game code? That requires development time. Time is money and delays release of the product. If I were coding the game I'd pick the options that would benefit the most users, hence why FSR is likely going to win out. Not only does it reach a broader audience but developers have access to the base code to make improvements that'll benefit their games.

As far as development effort goes, I doubt it would take much to support both. Both FSR and DLSS are ultimately doing the same thing, upscaling content from a lower resolution to a higher one, and both would likely be inserted at the same place in the rendering process. So implementation likely involves selecting which routine to send the completed image to (along with motion and depth buffers in the case of DLSS), and then getting back an upscaled image that the UI and certain effects can be applied over. There may be some additional testing and tweaking involved to make sure things appear optimal, and of course adding the relevant options to the settings menu, but it sounds like the process of implementing either solution should be relatively easy, and something that likely wouldn't take long for a single developer to implement. Games that include DLSS alongside another TAA upscaling solution are effectively already doing this.

It's not like raytraced lighting effects, where a team of developers are going to need to spend weeks going through and completely redoing the lighting and testing it thoroughly for both raytraced and traditional lighting solutions. Supporting two upscaling routines should take very little effort by comparison.

This doesn't change much of the previous article to me: it's really good for a first try, but still needs a bit more to be a 1:1 DLSS2.0 competitor.

Supposedly AMD still has more planned for FSR. If I had to guess, an "FSR 2.0" would probably utilize motion and depth data to achieve even better results, much like what Epic is doing for Unreal Engine 5. The launch of FSR did come earlier than AMD seemed to be indicating not long ago, so it's probable that they just released this version to have something for developers to integrate, as more advanced features may not be ready for a number of months.

 

[renz496]

O? It was my understanding the developers needed to support the technologies within their game code? That requires development time. Time is money and delays release of the product. If I were coding the game I'd pick the options that would benefit the most users, hence why FSR is likely going to win out. Not only does it reach a broader audience but developers have access to the base code to make improvements that'll benefit their games.

right now nvidia is working on to make DLSS to be one of the standard feature in many game engine. game developer does not need to think how to implement them. it will come as a default feature in major game engine like Unreal (including upcoming UE5), Unity, Cryengine, Frostbite, Id Tech engine and several others. just enable the plugin and the rest will be handled by nvidia drivers. nvidia in the future most likely handle DLSS optimization similar to what they did with 3D vision. little to almost no effort needed by game developer to support the feature.