AMD FSR3 demonstrated, along with AFMF

[Quackers101]

FSR 3 is out?

 

[Mark Kaine]

On 8/25/2023 at 9:10 PM, Senzelian said:

Not that I care, cause frame generation is ugly af

this is as far i am... cant understand why people are hyped for upscaling... give me native res or at least super sampled (the opposite of upscaling) 

 

 

3 hours ago, Quackers101 said:

FSR 3 is out?

However... the one use case i found is emulators... sure native is preferable but with emulation you'll always be upscaling anyway so fsr (+) comes in handy a lot of times!

 

 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

34 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

this is as far i am... cant understand why people are hyped for upscaling... give me native res or at least super sampled (the opposite of upscaling) 

 

because it allows lower end gpus to last for longer, while also enabeling a visual trade off. You can get a very similar looking image with options for things that will improve visuals more than the upscaling loses (ie raytracing). Idk about frame generation, ive not used it to see how it looks, but upscaling i get.

[Quackers101]

1 hour ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

 Idk about frame generation, ive not used it to see how it looks, but upscaling i get.

frame generation is very game to game specific and to the build you are using. At certain points it makes things worse, other points it helps the game.

Not sure it has the same issue that has with interpolated animation? As some motion could look like an higher fps feedback to the eyes, but can have artifacts and feel different? Also that more FPS wouldn't really give the same benefit, if the animation/LOD in the game might not update as much so it fills some gaps... if those gaps are meant to be filled, and the need to filtering what it should do, I guess? as seen with gun in one of the games it's used in.

[Mark Kaine]

5 hours ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

because it allows lower end gpus to last for longer, while also enabeling a visual trade off. You can get a very similar looking image with options for things that will improve visuals more than the upscaling loses (ie raytracing). Idk about frame generation, ive not used it to see how it looks, but upscaling i get.

well, yeah that's one reason this can be useful,  sure. but i just find this tech overall very unexciting... its so 2012... lol (dynamic resolution, "checkerboard rendering" etc, etc... eughh...)

 

 

ps: i also don't think it looks good, its useful in certain scenarios,  but i just hate the artifacting... as said i like super sampling... its the complete opposite  - and i rather play an old game super sampled in 4k than a new one with "dlss" or whatever... i just don't enjoy it as much (basically if i cant even run it native, why bother... not that this happened to me in a loooong time, lol...) 

[Stahlmann]

5 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

well, yeah that's one reason this can be useful,  sure. but i just find this tech overall very unexciting... its so 2012... lol (dynamic resolution, "checkerboard rendering" etc, etc... eughh...)

Except with today's upscaling you lose next to no image quality (if you use the higher quality upscaling presets) while gaining quite a lot of performance. Watch some comparisons between upscaled and native specifically with newer DLSS implementations like Cyberpunk. At 4K the DLSS quality setting is practically indistinguishable from native resolution, which means it's basically free fps. In the case of Cyberpunk for example you can get insane performance uplifts bringing the game from unplayable (>30 fps) to very playable (close to 60 fps). We're talking about a 75-80% "free" fps boost at 1440p or 4K. Why wouldn't you want free fps?

 

Without upscaling:

 

 

With upscaling:

 

 

5 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

ps: i also don't think it looks good, its useful in certain scenarios,  but i just hate the artifacting... as said i like super sampling... its the complete opposite  - and i rather play an old game super sampled in 4k than a new one with "dlss" or whatever... i just don't enjoy it as much (basically if i cant even run it native, why bother... not that this happened to me in a loooong time, lol...) 

You can use super samling in practically ANY game, as it's a driver-side implementation that merely needs to be enabled. So your argument basically comes down to "i don't need it". Nothing wrong with that, but don't go around preaching it's useless because your preference of older games means you specifically don't get much use out of it.

 

Enabling DLSS and setting it to quality is a much bigger performance improvement and has muss less visual impact compared to tinkering with different graphics settings to figure out how to get 30% more fps without making the game look like garbage from 10 years ago.

[porina]

6 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

ps: i also don't think it looks good, its useful in certain scenarios,  but i just hate the artifacting... as said i like super sampling... its the complete opposite  - and i rather play an old game super sampled in 4k than a new one with "dlss" or whatever... i just don't enjoy it as much (basically if i cant even run it native, why bother... not that this happened to me in a loooong time, lol...) 

Spend less time looking at pixels, and more time at the bigger picture.

 

Upscaling works best on photo-like images, and that is the trend AAA games are moving in. Most demanding console games have employed upscaling long before DLSS was released. Are console games unplayable to you?

[Holmes108]

2 hours ago, Stahlmann said:

Except with today's upscaling you lose next to no image quality (if you use the higher quality upscaling presets) while gaining quite a lot of performance. Watch some comparisons between upscaled and native specifically with newer DLSS implementations like Cyberpunk. At 4K the DLSS quality setting is practically indistinguishable from native resolution, which means it's basically free fps. In the case of Cyberpunk for example you can get insane performance uplifts bringing the game from unplayable (>30 fps) to very playable (close to 60 fps). We're talking about a 75-80% "free" fps boost at 1440p or 4K. Why wouldn't you want free fps?

 

 

This. And it's early days. Look how much it's improved in such a short amount of time. It's only a matter of time before it's not distinguishable at all to anybody, and is essential to continue pushing limits. Brute forcing power can only go so far. This is the future of PC rendering.

[Fasterthannothing]

On 8/25/2023 at 4:59 PM, Arokhantos said:

Cant even imagine considering a NVIDIA gpu anymore unless NVIDIA has an answer to FSR3 at driver level and comes with DLSS3 at driver level, ofcourse devs can always implement dlss3 to their game but how does that help for old games no longer updated, DLSS3.5 is nice but only matter of time AMD comes with their own vision of the same thing as they just acquired an AI company that specialized in AMD hardware.

Your joking right? Nvidia is so far ahead AMD and Intel aren't even playing in the same weight class when it comes to frame generation just look at how good ray tracing reconstruction is. Even hardware unboxed had a hard time coming up with reasons to actually buy AMD if you want to use a full featured product with good frame gen technology 

 

[Arokhantos]

1 hour ago, Fasterthannothing said:

Your joking right? Nvidia is so far ahead AMD and Intel aren't even playing in the same weight class when it comes to frame generation just look at how good ray tracing reconstruction is. Even hardware unboxed had a hard time coming up with reasons to actually buy AMD if you want to use a full featured product with good frame gen technology 

 

 

Do they have driver level frame generation ?

[RejZoR]

1 minute ago, Arokhantos said:

 

Do they have driver level frame generation ?

Of course not. They need to shill DLSS3 on all ends and demand that you buy RTX 4000 series to get it, even though RTX 3000 are capable of it and have the OpticalFlow units which they always dismiss with "hurr durr you need RTX 4000". Sigh. It's why I'm sticking with my RTX 3080 for many more years and then I'll see. Not gonna pay 1200€ for RTX 4080, no freaking way. This isn't COVID era anymore, yet NVIDIA still seems to live in the past. And I don't care about their BS Ai business nonsense hype.

[Arokhantos]

OP may wanna update main post if he has not yet cos AMD AFMF is now also avaible on RDNA2

[Blademaster91]

11 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

well, yeah that's one reason this can be useful,  sure. but i just find this tech overall very unexciting... its so 2012... lol (dynamic resolution, "checkerboard rendering" etc, etc... eughh...)

 

 

ps: i also don't think it looks good, its useful in certain scenarios,  but i just hate the artifacting... as said i like super sampling... its the complete opposite  - and i rather play an old game super sampled in 4k than a new one with "dlss" or whatever... i just don't enjoy it as much (basically if i cant even run it native, why bother... not that this happened to me in a loooong time, lol...) 

I agree upscaling makes games look worse once you notice the artifacts or weird glitches, it has its uses like on lower end cards or games with terrible optimization. But IMO it shouldn't be pushed on $1200+ GPU's just to run games in 4k yet Nvidia seems to be pushing the marketing really hard that every gamer needs DLSS in order to run games.

1 hour ago, Fasterthannothing said:

 a full featured product with good frame gen technology 

 

Full featured until Nvidia wants you to buy the next new card, because Nvidia made upscaling features exclusive to the RTX 4000 cards, I would expect Nvidia to do it again with the next series.

Nvidia is more of a software company nowadays, they're pushing software features on excessively expensive cards you'll have to replace if you want to use the latest features.

[Stahlmann]

26 minutes ago, Arokhantos said:

Do they have driver level frame generation ?

So far, no. But i guess it's only a matter of time because they don't want AMD to have features they don't have. And frame generation is extremely tricky on a driver level, because then they can't exclude the UI from the frame generation process. UI garbling is the biggest issue frame generation has atm.

 

How how much is AMD's current iteration of driver-level frame generation really worth? Probably close to nothing.

 

22 minutes ago, RejZoR said:

Of course not. They need to shill DLSS3 on all ends and demand that you buy RTX 4000 series to get it, even though RTX 3000 are capable of it and have the OpticalFlow units which they always dismiss with "hurr durr you need RTX 4000". Sigh. It's why I'm sticking with my RTX 3080 for many more years and then I'll see. Not gonna pay 1200€ for RTX 4080, no freaking way. This isn't COVID era anymore, yet NVIDIA still seems to live in the past. And I don't care about their BS Ai business nonsense hype.

I'm in the same boat. I'd love to make use of the RTX 4000 exclusive features, but there's no way in hell i'm gonna upgrade my 3080 in this GPU market. The current 4080 and 4090 prices make my scalped $900 3080 10G seem like a steal at the time...

[Arokhantos]

3 minutes ago, Stahlmann said:

So far, no. But i guess it's only a matter of time because they don't want AMD to have features they don't have. And frame generation is extremely tricky on a driver level, because then they can't exclude the UI from the frame generation process. UI garbling is the biggest issue frame generation has atm.

 

How how much is AMD's current iteration of driver-level frame generation really worth? Probably close to nothing.

 

I'm in the same boat. I'd love to make use of the RTX 4000 exclusive features, but there's no way in hell i'm gonna upgrade my 3080 in this GPU market. The current 4080 and 4090 prices make my scalped $900 3080 10G seem like a steal at the time...

 

dlss3 does apply it to ui as well tho even if natively implemented unless they fixed hat, anyway as for AFMF if its static it remains static so its not much of an issue unless ui elements move, actually AFMF has worked better for me then FSR3 in forspoken

[Stahlmann]

1 hour ago, Arokhantos said:

dlss3 does apply it to ui as well tho even if natively implemented unless they fixed hat, anyway as for AFMF if its static it remains static so its not much of an issue unless ui elements move, actually AFMF has worked better for me then FSR3 in forspoken

Afaik FSR3 already excludes UI from the frame generation, but Nvidia currently doesn't, or at least i'm not completely sure. First reviews of DLSS3 frame generation showed heavy artifacting around UI elements, even static ones. The current DLSS3 version used in Cyberpunk doesn't have UI artifacts anymore, so i guess now it also sperates UI from the rest of the image. I'm still not sure if this is a general improvement to the technology or just specific optimization for Cyberpunk. At least Hardware Unboxed tested and didn't find any issues. And Asmongold played multiple hours using DLSS3 and never noticed any artifacts.

[Helpful Tech Witch]

13 hours ago, Mark Kaine said:

well, yeah that's one reason this can be useful,  sure. but i just find this tech overall very unexciting... its so 2012... lol (dynamic resolution, "checkerboard rendering" etc, etc... eughh...)

 

quality dlss loses basically no image quality though, thats the point. if you crank it to performance setting, ofc its gonna artifact, but really, quality is un noticible

[Fasterthannothing]

2 hours ago, Arokhantos said:

 

Do they have driver level frame generation ?

Did you watch the video that's the entire point no one actually cares about driver level stuff. Average people who buy cards (not you and me on these type of tech forums) look at what Nvidia is putting into their hardware and go why would I buy AMD when it doesn't have half the features Nvidia does on their hardware.  And if someone does by Nvidia they can still use whatever AMD software is released if it's worth using. Go look at the steam hardware survey AMD didn't even get a single GPU in the top 10 usage.

[Mark Kaine]

9 minutes ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

quality dlss loses basically no image quality though, thats the point. if you crank it to performance setting, ofc its gonna artifact, but really, quality is un noticible

well, back when i tried it, it depended "on the game, or version" and even quality was barely "acceptable" to me... too many artifacts or lets call them "pixel blobs"? 

 

(f r om my recollection,  could be wrong, tried Nioh and Warzone, amongst others... it just wasn't any good)

[Mark Kaine]

2 hours ago, Blademaster91 said:

I agree upscaling makes games look worse once you notice the artifacts or weird glitches, it has its uses like on lower end cards or games with terrible optimization. But IMO it shouldn't be pushed on $1200+ GPU's just to run games in 4k yet Nvidia seems to be pushing the marketing really hard that every gamer needs DLSS in order to run games.

Full featured until Nvidia wants you to buy the next new card, because Nvidia made upscaling features exclusive to the RTX 4000 cards, I would expect Nvidia to do it again with the next series.

Nvidia is more of a software company nowadays, they're pushing software features on excessively expensive cards you'll have to replace if you want to use the latest features.

Exactly that, its fine for low end cards, but nvidia is pushing it way too much, just like sony did with checkerboard rendering on ps4 - you do that when you have weak hardware to compensate... not as a quality feature... remember "bulldozer" cpu? lol...

 

(ps: and of course amd does whatever nvidia does, they never innovate anything ) 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

9 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

(ps: and of course amd does whatever nvidia does, they never innovate anything ) 

i mean, you could say that for a lot of companies. When a market is a duopoly, anything new has to be copied by the other option. AMD has had to play catchup for years, so ofc innovation will be lacking too.

[RejZoR]

10 minutes ago, Mark Kaine said:

Exactly that, its fine for low end cards, but nvidia is pushing it way too much, just like sony did with checkerboard rendering on ps4 - you do that when you have weak hardware to compensate... not as a quality feature... remember "bulldozer" cpu? lol...

 

(ps: and of course amd does whatever nvidia does, they never innovate anything ) 

No, it's the low end cards that aren't good. It's artificial inflation of performance that isn't even there. Frame generation has weird glitches and visua artifacts at low base framerate. If game runs at 30fps and you slap framegen on that, it'll be terrible, but you can say "hey it's 60fps". Framegen is meant for games that already run at 100+ fps and you get 200+ fps out of it to really use those high refresh rate displays like 240Hz or something. So it's buttery smooth. NVIDIA launched framegen with RTX 4090 and it worked flawlessly there because of the grunt. RTX 4060, it works, sort of, but is more prone at visual glitches because hardware just isn't capable enough to drive high framerate by itself.

[Mark Kaine]

1 minute ago, Helpful Tech Witch said:

i mean, you could say that for a lot of companies. When a market is a duopoly, anything new has to be copied by the other option. AMD has had to play catchup for years, so ofc innovation will be lacking too.

i think last time they did was "vega" (and then they didn't produce enough... i thought it could really dethrone nvidia then...) 

[Helpful Tech Witch]

Just now, Mark Kaine said:

i think last time they did was "vega" (and then they didn't produce enough... i thought it could really dethrone nvidia then...) 

I mean, vega has innovated in other ways since. Its been the fastest igpus for ages.

[Quackers101]

Saying that intel is not near Nvidia is not totally true, intel can catch up with nvidia a lot more than AMD could with the current path.

Also that intel has been through their "first consumer gpu and tech", as you saw in the start with nvidia's tech. Just not sure what AMD's is focusing on. while Nvidia neural rendering, Intel that can go inbetween, AMD focus on raster and some RT?

 

For upscaling reconstruction can do quite a bit. To some of these features that could be easier to update/fix with future versions.