AMD Announces Fidelity FX Super Resolution, their competitor to nvidia DLSS

[Blademaster91]

This is interesting, hopefully AMD can improve Super Resolution so we can have something that competes with DLSS. I think people are being too quick to dismiss AMD's first attempt with FSR, the first implementation of DLSS wasn't great either.

Also nice to see that it works without AI training and works on both AMD and Nvidia GPU's.

[porina]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Maybe this will also make Nvidia realease some form of "open" DLSS for non-RTX GPUs. Remember, G-Sync was also NVidia only and now is useable for AMD aswell because AMD pushed through with their open FreeSync.

I think you're trying to say we kinda have a universal VRR tech now because of FreeSync. G-Sync remains nvidia only tech.

 

1 hour ago, igormp said:

They didn't, they mentioned that it doesn't rely on deep learning hardware:

We still don't know for sure what tech is behind it, we will need to wait until the source is available.

Still haven't had a chance to watch the original presentation, and assuming that is the case I'm not sure it'll make that much difference. If we assume AMD don't use DL then the lack of hardware doesn't matter at all. If they were to use DL, how much could they usefully do without impacting the traditional computation?

 

The way I see it, they have a given compute budget. Traditionally that would be 100% allocated to rendering say. Now we might divide that up between rendering at lower resolution, and the remaining power spent on upscaling. It will be interesting to see those tradeoffs.

 

 

Anyway, we will still have to await results. IMO DLSS 1.0 was fine. If FSR is comparable to that, I'll take it, although I think the only system I use regularly that doesn't have RTX has a 1080Ti. Gaming goal is to have a good experience, and that is what it should be judged on. I'll pixel peel like anyone else, but looking at still frames isn't the whole story. 

[igormp]

32 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

This is interesting, hopefully AMD can improve Super Resolution so we can have something that competes with DLSS. I think people are being too quick to dismiss AMD's first attempt with FSR, the first implementation of DLSS wasn't great either.

Nvidia had the benefit of being the first and having no competitors. AMD took way longer to come with something, and people will be naturally comparing it to DLSS 2.0.

 

32 minutes ago, Blademaster91 said:

Also nice to see that it works without AI training

There's no confirmation on that yet.

[Quackers101]

So many threads about this, but I guess this is worth for the updates.

I would assume they also have a fast solution, or rather a solution that not exactly worth it or just to say they can get a lot of FPS.

So it would nice to see what it falls into, if all of them are usable or if it's like 144p upscaled to 4k

I guess they did compare their best setting vs native, would be fun to compare each offering of best to worst quality setting.

 

 

Nivida, lets have things secret until AMD opens up a open source one.

AMD a few years later, here you go!

Nvidia when more games are using AMD's version, well here you go with a free version of our tech.

Edited June 1, 2021 by Quackers101

[GDRRiley]

if its based on the upscaling they've used in the PS4/Xbox One, it will be good enough
I'm happy to see them focusing on the lower res. I don't plan on playing 4k anytime soon so something that gives me 25-40% more FPS at 4k doesn't matter, I'd much rather have 1440p run a lot better

[Helpful Tech Witch]

31 minutes ago, Quackers101 said:

So many threads about this, but I guess this is worth for the updates.

I would assume they also have a fast solution, or rather a solution that not exactly worth it or just to say they can get a lot of FPS.

So it would nice to see what it falls into, if all of them are usable or if it's like 144p upscaled to 4k

I guess they did compare their best setting vs native, would be fun to compare each offering of best to worst quality setting.

 

 

Nivida, lets have things secret until AMD opens up a open source one.

AMD a few years later, here you go!

Nvidia when more games are using AMD's version, well here you go with a free version of our tech.

If you watch the keynote, there are 4 levels of the tech:

Max quality, quality, balanced, and preformance

Preformance is quated at up to 2x the fps, all.ething that would probably be turned on for all competitive games, like rocket league, csgp, fortnite, warzone, r6seige, if they got it

Quality id guess would be used more in eye candy games, to be able to turn up the settings without all of the food loss.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

1 minute ago, GDRRiley said:

if its based on the upscaling they've used in the PS4/Xbox One, it will be good enough
I'm happy to see them focusing on the lower res. I don't plan on playing 4k anytime soon so something that gives me 25-40% more FPS at 4k doesn't matter, I'd much rather have 1440p run a lot better

Agreed. 
In most cases, 4k is absurd for gaming, because fitting a big enough 4k monitor (comparing to 1440p) to see the difference, when being far enough away to have a comfortable fov is hard.

[RejZoR]

Any such feature will be greatly appreciated by users of whatever existing cards they have. Seeing FSR goes all the way back to Radeon RX 500 series. Those are quite in need for extra performance by now. And if you can squeeze even 50% extra performance out of it, that's huge. And if it means you sacrifice less quality than by dropping resolution scaling to 50% or just resolution itself down to 720p instead of 1080p, that's pretty cool.

 

I really can't wait for games with FSR to appear and give them a try to see how quality is affected. DLSS can still have CAS applied with ReShade which means one can slap CAS on FSR to enhance sharpness. Assuming it's not being done already internally.

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, porina said:

I think you're trying to say we kinda have a universal VRR tech now because of FreeSync. G-Sync remains nvidia only tech.

But you can now use G-Sync monitors on AMD GPUs.

[Quackers101]

7 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

But you can now use G-Sync monitors on AMD GPUs.

yeah, only that it took Nvidia some time before doing so. If AMD and their push was never a thing, then Nvidia could have kept it for themselves. While I'm not sure if there was other reasons, but this is were competition is a benefit.

[Middcore]

8 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

But you can now use G-Sync monitors on AMD GPUs.

 

Yes, because Nvidia eventually conceded defeat. Still tried to claim credit for an open standard they could have supported all along with the "G-sync compatible" marketing though, and allegedly also trying to bully display manufacturers into not mentioning FreeSync. 

 

I think FSR following in the footsteps of FreeSync in being slightly technically inferior in edge cases but eventually becoming much more widely adopted is the best outcome we can hope for here. 

[RejZoR]

3 minutes ago, Middcore said:

 

Yes, because Nvidia eventually conceded defeat. Still tried to claim credit for an open standard they could have supported all along with the "G-sync compatible" marketing though, and allegedly also trying to bully display manufacturers into not mentioning FreeSync. 

 

I think FSR following in the footsteps of FreeSync in being slightly technically inferior in edge cases but eventually becoming much more widely adopted is the best outcome we can hope for here. 

And imagine if all game needs to support is just support FSR and then it can be updated via drivers on how it's actually done/applied. I sure hope that's the case because then you don't need to wait for game devs to update it, you just need AMD to update it. So you don't have cases like with DLSS where some games are stuck with crappy DLSS 1.0 and will never get any higher version because devs are not interested in updating the game or they no longer exist. I hope it works this way.

[porina]

32 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

But you can now use G-Sync monitors on AMD GPUs.

Did I miss something? Either we still have a misunderstanding or I totally missed that news.

 

When I refer to G-Sync, I'm specifically talking about the original nvidia implementations and close variations thereof. This requires the hardware module in monitor, and one feature not required by other standards is the operating frequency range is essentially 0 to monitor refresh rate.

 

G-Sync Compatible certified displays are a lesser standard and is the more generic version with nvidia branding. I guess AMD GPUs could work with those but I never looked into it since I don't have modern AMD GPUs to test with, last I had was Vega. If nvidia haven't changed requirements since I last looked, this had a lower requirement of a 2.4x ratio between highest and lowest supported VRR range.

 

My current gaming laptop display is listed as supporting both FreeSync and G-Sync Compatible. One of the fun things about having an AMD APU with nvidia GPU in the laptop.

[Middcore]

"G-Sync Compatible" is, for practical purposes, Nvidia's branding for FreeSync now. They "certify' some displays as G-Sync Compatible and VRR will work with any relatively modern Nvidia or AMD card, although many more displays that Nvidia has not bothered to "certify' also work just fine.

 

The branding for displays with the traditional hardware module inside is now "G-Sync Ultimate" I believe, but I don't know how many of those are being produced these days. 

[porina]

9 minutes ago, Middcore said:

"G-Sync Compatible" is, for practical purposes, Nvidia's branding for FreeSync now. They "certify' some displays as G-Sync Compatible and VRR will work with any relatively modern Nvidia or AMD card, although many more displays that Nvidia has not bothered to "certify' also work just fine.

nvidia certification is not just "it works" but they have an image quality level also. To the best of my knowledge, basic FreeSync does not, or is so low there might as well not be any.

[Middcore]

1 minute ago, porina said:

nvidia certification is not just "it works" but they have an image quality level also. 

 

Sure. 

[igormp]

1 minute ago, Papercut Captain said:

 

https://gpuopen.com/fsr-announce/

You know that doesn't imply anything, right?

DLSS 1.0 didn't use motion vectors either, it's just a matter of what you feed your model. DLSS 2.0 also doesn't need per-game training.

There are many researches using ML models for "spatial upscaling".

[WereCat]

1 hour ago, Stahlmann said:

But you can now use G-Sync monitors on AMD GPUs.

With a huge "BUT".

You need a new G-Sync monitor that actually works with AMD GPU. You can't take any old G-Sync monitor and expect it to work.

So if you're like me, you still would have to change your monitor if you bought an AMD card.

[igormp]

16 minutes ago, Papercut Captain said:

Yes. Just pointing it out. At least for me, their wording suggest it does rely on AI ("not requiring any per-game training"). If they said it didn't require any training, it would be safe to bet it was not AI-based.

Fair enough, I misunderstood your post as trying to make a point about not being ML-based or something, my bad.

I don't think it's a purely based ML solution, otherwise the end model would be too heavy to run in tandem with the game rendering itself on the stream processors.

I wonder how their entire solution will look like in the end, which API they are using for they models since AMD lacks any proper work in AI (in case they're indeed using ML), and how it'll fare when it comes to artifacts since they're seem to be doing a per-frame upsampling.

[Mihle]

12 hours ago, HelpfulTechWizard said:

Agreed. 
In most cases, 4k is absurd for gaming, because fitting a big enough 4k monitor (comparing to 1440p) to see the difference, when being far enough away to have a comfortable fov is hard.

I disagree, I have a 4k 32" at normal monitor distance.

Native 1440p 32" would be ugly....

[Stahlmann]

12 hours ago, WereCat said:

With a huge "BUT".

You need a new G-Sync monitor that actually works with AMD GPU. You can't take any old G-Sync monitor and expect it to work.

So if you're like me, you still would have to change your monitor if you bought an AMD card.

Yes, it's only the newer G-Sync monitors, but it's better than no change  

[Stahlmann]

13 hours ago, porina said:

Did I miss something? Either we still have a misunderstanding or I totally missed that news.

 

When I refer to G-Sync, I'm specifically talking about the original nvidia implementations and close variations thereof. This requires the hardware module in monitor, and one feature not required by other standards is the operating frequency range is essentially 0 to monitor refresh rate.

 

G-Sync Compatible certified displays are a lesser standard and is the more generic version with nvidia branding. I guess AMD GPUs could work with those but I never looked into it since I don't have modern AMD GPUs to test with, last I had was Vega. If nvidia haven't changed requirements since I last looked, this had a lower requirement of a 2.4x ratio between highest and lowest supported VRR range.

 

My current gaming laptop display is listed as supporting both FreeSync and G-Sync Compatible. One of the fun things about having an AMD APU with nvidia GPU in the laptop.

"Native" G-Sync monitors still use a G-Sync module as opposed to a reguar scaler. But newer monitors with G-Sync hardware can also use their VRR capabilities on AMD GPUs.

[Stahlmann]

14 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

yeah, only that it took Nvidia some time before doing so. If AMD and their push was never a thing, then Nvidia could have kept it for themselves. While I'm not sure if there was other reasons, but this is were competition is a benefit.

That's exactly what i said wasn't it?

[Bombastinator]

-deleted-  too stupid.  No one cares about ancient joke bands.

Edited June 2, 2021 by Bombastinator

[porina]

58 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

"Native" G-Sync monitors still use a G-Sync module as opposed to a reguar scaler. But newer monitors with G-Sync hardware can also use their VRR capabilities on AMD GPUs.

Thanks, I was not aware of that. I suppose thinking about it, connection standards (DP, HDMI) have not kept static over the years, and it is pretty much an expectation for some minimal level of support these days.