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

[thechinchinsong]

11 hours ago, Bombastinator said:

I don’t see why it wouldn’t be.  They “3d” thing seems to be an implementation of something TSMC has been able to do for some time.  My memory is they can do 15 layers of it but AMD is only using 3 and it’s memory so there won’t be much increase in heat.  They’re adding barely half a millimeter of chip height and there’s room under the current AMD ihs for it and it doesn’t affect horizontal or vertical size at all and doesn’t require more power pins so I don’t see why it wouldn’t fit.

I'm sorry but I can't really understand what we're disagreeing on here lol. Are you saying that the Ryzen with v-cache is going to be compatible with AM4 and/or B550? If its about that, its because I didn't want to say anything that wasn't explicitly already confirmed by AMD.

[Bombastinator]

49 minutes ago, thechinchinsong said:

I'm sorry but I can't really understand what we're disagreeing on here lol. Are you saying that the Ryzen with v-cache is going to be compatible with AM4 and/or B550? If its about that, its because I didn't want to say anything that wasn't explicitly already confirmed by AMD.

That happens a lot here.  People agree but read a word or something differently than intended and come to the conclusion that someone thinks differently than they do.  It really shows up the failings of English.  I am given to understand that as a general rule English is less bad at this than many languages thanks to its massive vocablulary, but it still isn’t perfect.

[xAcid9]

Confirmed this will be supported on XBSX/S. No news about PS5.  
 

Quote

"At Xbox, we’re excited by the potential of AMD’s FidelityFX Super Resolution technology as another great method for developers to increase framerates and resolution. We will have more to share on this soon," a Microsoft spokesperson told IGN.

Sauce: https://www.ign.com/articles/xbox-series-x-s-amd-fidelity-fx-super-resolution-support-confirmed

 

"To increase framerates and resolution" probably marketing guy. kek

[gal-m]

On 6/1/2021 at 5:00 AM, dizmo said:

I predict disappointment

Your comment hasn't aged well @dizmo 

 

On a serious note, we've only seen day 1 reviews, but it's VERY VERY impressive at this moment. Hoping for a bright future  

[illegalwater]

1 hour ago, gal-m said:

Your comment hasn't aged well @dizmo 

 

On a serious note, we've only seen day 1 reviews, but it's VERY VERY impressive at this moment. Hoping for a bright future  

We must have different definitions of the word "impressive"

It only really "shines" at 4K on the highest quality setting, then proceeds to jump off a cliff. At 1440p it's noticeably worse, and its unusable at 1080p IMO.

[gal-m]

8 minutes ago, illegalwater said:

We must have different definitions of the word "impressive"

This

8 minutes ago, illegalwater said:

It only really "shines" at 4K on the highest quality setting

and this = impressive. Remember @illegalwater that FSR =/= DLSS. It's totally different, which is why Nvidia DLSS is technically and objectively superior in terms of performance and image quality. Keep in mind, this is DAY ONE and there is more to come according to some sources (FSR unofficially being called FSR 1.0 at the moment)...

The fact that AMD were able to achieve this via, what is essentially a software based implementation, is IMPRESSIVE. Being better than DLSS 1.0 makes it IMPRESSIVE. Are they way behind Nvidia in terms of availability time? 100% yes. Is the road ahead difficult? Yep. Sure is. Does FSR have potential to become the new "G-Sync compatible/AMD FreeSync" situation? Yep, I think it does.

 

Btw - I LOVE Nvidia cards, but AMD is making it really difficult not to like them right now

[Blademaster91]

15 minutes ago, illegalwater said:

We must have different definitions of the word "impressive"

It only really "shines" at 4K on the highest quality setting, then proceeds to jump off a cliff. At 1440p it's noticeably worse, and its unusable at 1080p IMO.

IMO it is really impressive how well AMD's first implementation of FSR works, because it works even on older cards like an RX 580, and even on Nvidia cards. I'd like to see how it works as more games get support. And Nvidia DLSS 1.0 wasn't great either. I use Nvidia cards, but seeing some competition from AMD is nice. if a 6800XT more available I wouldn't hesitate buying it.

Not sure I trust DF though, weren't they the ones that did a Nvidia paid review on the RTX 3080 to get a video out before everyone else did?

[WereCat]

21 minutes ago, illegalwater said:

We must have different definitions of the word "impressive"

It only really "shines" at 4K on the highest quality setting, then proceeds to jump off a cliff. At 1440p it's noticeably worse, and its unusable at 1080p IMO.

It's still better than playing at lower res with sharpening or better than DLSS 1.0. So yes, it's impressive even at 1440p and 1080p.

Yes, the 1080p is a bit of a let down but still, it's very usable unlike DLSS 1.0.

 

DLSS 2.0 is quite a bit better for sure but it's also restricted only to 2 gens of cards from one vendor. So this is a nice alternative you can use if you desire higher performance.

[illegalwater]

58 minutes ago, gal-m said:

Does FSR have potential to become the new "G-Sync compatible/AMD FreeSync" situation? Yep, I think it does.

I sure hope it doesn't, because it's very disappointing, and fails even compared to other hardware agnostic solutions like Unreal's TAAU.

 

I just can't fathom how anyone can look at this and think it's actually impressive. The best case scenario is it running at 4K with a higher internal resolution than DLSS quality and still putting out a worse image. Meanwhile the people that actually need FSR (those running old GPUs at 1080p) aren't benefiting from this at all unless they're really desperate.

[decolon]

2 hours ago, illegalwater said:

I sure hope it doesn't, because it's very disappointing, and fails even compared to other hardware agnostic solutions like Unreal's TAAU.

 

I just can't fathom how anyone can look at this and think it's actually impressive. The best case scenario is it running at 4K with a higher internal resolution than DLSS quality and still putting out a worse image. Meanwhile the people that actually need FSR (those running old GPUs at 1080p) aren't benefiting from this at all unless they're really desperate.

Apparently you can do what FSR does by using built in upscaling + smaa+ sharpening

[xAcid9]

9 hours ago, decolon said:

Apparently you can do what FSR does by using built in upscaling + smaa+ sharpening

I tried FSR using Riftbreaker Demo on Steam with my GTX 980 Ti

 

https://imgur.com/a/Ed9A2Yg

Native 1440p | 111 Fps

Spoiler

FSR = Quality | 149 Fps

Spoiler

75% Render Res + CAS | 132 Fps

Spoiler

FSR = Quality + CAS via ReShade | 144 Fps

Spoiler

175% Render Res | 52 Fps

Spoiler

 

I think I'll go with FSR Quailty + CAS. It loses some fine line details like the coconut tree leaves but I don't really mind that at all because it didn't shimmer. 

[KaitouX]

9 hours ago, illegalwater said:

I sure hope it doesn't, because it's very disappointing, and fails even compared to other hardware agnostic solutions like Unreal's TAAU.

 

I just can't fathom how anyone can look at this and think it's actually impressive. The best case scenario is it running at 4K with a higher internal resolution than DLSS quality and still putting out a worse image. Meanwhile the people that actually need FSR (those running old GPUs at 1080p) aren't benefiting from this at all unless they're really desperate.

This is also hardware agnostic, just not officially supported by AMD, GN said GTX 900 and older than RX 400 worked. And it is basically the same as the Unreal's Primary Screen Percentage but universal and apparently done at a different stage of the pipeline.

It is running at higher resolution, but the performance gains seem to be similar due to lower overhead.

Upscaling always benefit from having more information in the source, temporal upscaling naturally have more information, making easier to go from lower resolutions but usually also have more artifacts caused by the temporal nature.

Unfortunately the reality is that lower resolutions sources don't upscale that well using traditional algorithms like Lanczos, Bicubic and Spline. This can be helped either by implementing a temporal option, or possibly ML scalers like NNEDI3, FSRCNN, Ravu that often can get better results than traditional algorithms but also require more resources, so for games they would (probably) need something faster than those.

[Bombastinator]

22 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

This is also hardware agnostic, just not officially supported by AMD, GN said GTX 900 and older than RX 400 worked. And it is basically the same as the Unreal's Primary Screen Percentage but universal and apparently done at a different stage of the pipeline.

It is running at higher resolution, but the performance gains seem to be similar due to lower overhead.

Upscaling always benefit from having more information in the source, temporal upscaling naturally have more information, making easier to go from lower resolutions but usually also have more artifacts caused by the temporal nature.

Unfortunately the reality is that lower resolutions sources don't upscale that well using traditional algorithms like Lanczos, Bicubic and Spline. This can be helped either by implementing a temporal option, or possibly ML scalers like NNEDI3, FSRCNN, Ravu that often can get better results than traditional algorithms but also require more resources, so for games they would (probably) need something faster than those.

Different stage of the pipeline…Does make me wonder what would happen if one applied both.  Maybe mod the AMD one a bit.  It is open source after all.  If they can push 720p to 4k and have it look even decent that way a 3050 or 3030 could get really interesting.  That would be how Nvidia could crush the intel invasion of better-than-1030s it would be a 1030 that could game.  Bam.  

Edited June 23, 2021 by Bombastinator

[KaitouX]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

Different stage of the pipeline…Does make me wonder what would happen if one applied both.

I confused the TAAU with the Spatial, the Unreal spatial upscaling is done apparently at the same stage as the FSR, between the Tonemapper and HUD/UI. But the FSR seems to try to make sure that noise introducing effects are done after it(like it should) while Unreal doesn't really mention it, possibly because it automatically runs those effects after.

But it probably wouldn't work, as the second one would expect a lower resolution image but receive a image that already hits the target resolution.

[Bombastinator]

6 minutes ago, KaitouX said:

I confused the TAAU with the Spatial, the Unreal spatial upscaling is done apparently at the same stage as the FSR, between the Tonemapper and HUD/UI. But the FSR seems to try to make sure that noise introducing effects are done after it(like it should) while Unreal doesn't really mention it, possibly because it automatically runs those effects after.

But it probably wouldn't work, as the second one would expect a lower resolution image but receive a image that already hits the target resolution.

I was thinking Nvidia rather than unreal and I would expect some tweaking.  

[KaitouX]

3 minutes ago, Bombastinator said:

I was thinking Nvidia rather than unreal and I would expect some tweaking.  

You can certainly do both, but usually that will cause an amplification of the artifacts created by the first one, Unreal have something called "Secondary Spatial Upscale" to be applied after TAAU, but I'm not sure how well it works. Normally scaling twice is done when using doublers(Ravu for example) to complete any up-/downscaling necessary to achieve the target resolution.

[gal-m]

2 hours ago, xAcid9 said:

I tried FSR using Riftbreaker Demo on Steam with my GTX 980 Ti

Looking really good @xAcid9! 

[Man]

1650 Super's performance improved by roughly 28% (42 to 54fps) in Godfall at 1080p just by enable FSR ultra-quality mode. Not bad at all but there's a caveat: You are barely going to notice any improvement in performance if your card is already internally bottlenecked. Thing is, FSR needs some processing headroom to work to its fullest, unlike DLSS which runs on a separate core cluster and barely impacts your rasterization performance as a result.

 

At 1080p ultra-quality, FSR's internal resolution is right around 830p but since there's a performance penalty (~8%), you're basically looking at ~900p level performance at 1080p. It could be a few frames, such as the case with the 1050Ti and to a lesser extent the RX570, or as many as dozens.

 

So it depends on the card, the number of cores humming inside the 'hood' and more importantly the architecture itself. Personally, I think Turing+ and RDNA+ GPU owners are in good hands! I, on the other hand, can kiss my RX470 and the 2 gig R7-260X goodbye.

 

 

[owwnoooo]

honestly , FSR is only useful if many games implement it. Let's  see if AMD's claims will be true

[Stahlmann]

After the reviews the basic takeaway is this:

 

At 4K it is very effective in retaining image quality and granting a performance uplift between 30-40% when using "Ultra Quality" or "Quality".

Anything lower will look too bad to use.

 

At 1440p you can use "Ultra Quality" for a roughly 20-30% performance uplift and a minimal hit to picture quality.

Anything lower will look too bad to use.

 

At 1080p, don't use it. Everything below native will look noticeably worse and isn't recommended.

 

It's very effective at 4K compared to DLSS, but at 1440p and 1080p DLSS can do a much better job at retaining image quality.

 

(This is basically the information i gathered from the Videos on Hardware Unboxed and Gamers Nexus so far.)

[gal-m]

2 hours ago, owwnoooo said:

FSR is only useful if many games implement it. Let's  see if AMD's claims will be true

This is true @owwnoooo, however I don't think it's entirely up to AMD..

Hopefully we are going to be seeing games with both DLSS AND FSR implementations officially or via some sort of injection, but AMD might not want direct DLSS comparisons for the time being..

[GamerDude]

I tried Godfall on my HTPC rig - 4770K/16GB RAM/GTX 1080 + 466.63 - on my 4K TV, set display res at 4K, and FSR in Quality mode (other settings at EPIC). It actually ran! Framerate, while not exactly good, allowed for pretty decent gameplay.....kinda tickled that my aging GTX 1080 can actually run the game at '4K'. I'll playthru the game for sometime more, then swap to the latest driver, let's see if there's any improvement, but I won't be surprised if framerate drops because....well, nVidia.

[Man]

3 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

At 1080p, don't use it. Everything below native will look noticeably worse and isn't recommended.

While that's the general consensus, I personally think that FSR doesn't look half bad at even the 'quality preset' with an internal resolution of just 720p upscaled to 1080p.

 

Is it as good as native? Absolutely not, that'd be a total pipedream in the early stages of FSR but... if upscaled 720p ends up looking about as good as 720p would on a native 720p monitor then that's a winner in my book. 

 

Look at the video below. Sure, there's a massive YouTube compression but you can still see that upscaled 720p doesn't look half bad; considering what it is and at 1:46-47 minute mark the performance uplift from native to quality is exactly 100% i.e 20 to 40FPS which is kinda nuts:

 

GTX 1050 Ti | AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution | Godfall FPS Comparison | 1080p (AMD FSR) - YouTube

 

Plus, FSR doesn't use temporal data so there's no image ghosting, flickering when the camera is in motion which is more than I can for DLSS and UE5's TSR, FSR's "real" competitor. Early renditions of DLSS were actually plagued with flickering issues which is simply not the case here. 

 

Kind of a win/win situation. 

[Stahlmann]

16 minutes ago, Man said:

While that's the general consensus, I personally think that FSR doesn't look half bad at even the 'quality preset' with an internal resolution of just 720p upscaled to 1080p.

 

Is it as good as native? Absolutely not, that'd be a total pipedream in the early stages of FSR but... if upscaled 720p ends up looking about as good as 720p would on a 720p monitor then that's a winner in my book. 

 

Look at the video below. Sure, there's a massive YouTube compression but you can still see that upscaled 720p doesn't look half bad; considering what it is and at 1:46-47 minute mark the performance uplift from native to quality is exactly 100% i.e 20 to 40FPS which is kinda nuts:

 

GTX 1050 Ti | AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution | Godfall FPS Comparison | 1080p (AMD FSR) - YouTube

 

Plus, FSR doesn't use temporal data so there's no image ghosting, flickering when the camera is in motion which is more than I can for DLSS and UE5's TSR, FSR's "real" competitor. Early renditions of DLSS were actually plagued with flickering issues which is simply not the case here. 

 

Kind of a win/win situation. 

Sure, while FSR support is better than no FSR support, i'm still of the opinion that it shouldn't be used @1080p. And from with much better bitrate in the 4K60 videos from the sources i mentioned above you can see much better why.

 

Of couse in the end everyone can just try it out and use it whatever he/she wants. So yes, it's a win/win.

 

I was just telling people the conclusion of most reviews.

 

But 1080p (and 1440p to some extent) is not the usecase where FSR/DLSS is important imo. These technologies help to get high resolutions like 1440p Ultrawide and 4K working better.

[Craftyawesome]

Was there any quality comparisons to other hardware agnostic solutions like TAAU or TSR in motion? DF had some that looked like they weren't in motion at all, which won't have any temporal artifacts. Also, do those temporal solutions have more artifacts than just standard TAA?