Did AMD Lie?? - FSR 3.1 vs DLSS vs XESS! In 4 Games, 7 GPUs
Вставка
- Опубліковано 28 лип 2024
- FSR 3.1 IS FINALLY HERE!!! And AMD claimed it to be bringing huge improvements to FSR 2 upscaling, which is very much needed. Upscaling is becoming more and more important in our games and Nvidia's DLSS has pretty much been the king. However, even Intel burst on to the scene with XESS and has been putting up extreme competition for AMD. AMD's FSR has been falling further behind, so did FSR 3.1 help?
I tested FSR 3.1 in 4 of the 5 games it is currently in against DLSS and XESS at different qualities. Also on 7 different graphics cards to see how the new performance stacks up just to be sure. Hope this helps! Let me know of any of your experiences in the comments, because this was a wild ride...
==JOIN THE DISCORD!==
/ discord
community.amd.com/t5/gaming/a...
community.amd.com/t5/gaming/a...
game.intel.com/us/stories/int...
0:00- Why Upscaling is important
1:20- State of FSR and what AMD claims
4:00- DLSS vs FSR 3.1 is interesting
11:09- Old FSR vs FSR 3.1 is confusing
17:33- XESS vs FSR 3.1 is wild
23:42- FSR 3.1 performance (FPS) vs others
25:40- Why does FSR 3.1 exist?
28:05- New FSR 3.1 Frame Generation stuff
29:25- ummmm... about FSR 3.1 - Наука та технологія
youtube compression is a b***h
tests on a AMD GPU would as be good here. Its hilarious you expected and improvement in you upsacle 720 to 1440p using FSR. It needs at least upscale 1080p to 1440p to see the improvement
Beach ✅
It is all very obvious anyway. Compression did NOT hide the artifacts 100%
that's why i upscale my video to 4K even though the video itself is lower than that. at least the higher bitrate of 4K can retain some details.
Even premium bitrate doesn't help. Need an extreme zoom for this kind of video
Framegen and upscaling is nice to have and all but i just want devs to actually optimize their fucking games.
💯
"Here are some extra frames the machina thinks you want to see"
True .. the graphic today is not that mindblowing. It just poorly optimized
@@syarifairlangga4608exactly bruh I’m so sick of it
Do you really think that the industry has that many good developers? This is not a problem of just Game Development its generally a problem of all Developing Industries, they even hire college students. People want Games released fast This is what you get.
@@kCenk LOL the prosumer's fault?👀👀👀👀👀👀
The industry does it because they can get away with it. The cash cow erupted in 2020 and they'll never look back as long as people keep coughing up bucks a transactions.
edit- "prepurchase today!" 🤪
AMDs biggest struggle are transparencies and particle ghosting.
1 minute and no "bro you fell off ahh" comment?
The comment section fell off.
The most accurate thing ever from nice vids bro to bro 99 views in 6 hours bro fell oh
8hrs and no "8 hrs and no"8hrs and x views comments fell off" comment? Comments fell off
yeah iirc fh5 is next so, soon i guess
Not a surprise that upscaling and framegen advances so slow, it probably hurts the sales of new and expensive GPUs in the market.
Specially if the new products its Garbo and the marketing have convinced people play on PC like on console its the way to go.
Nvidia will continued down this route : 90-80 series good gen jump , 70-60 garbo products with terrify prices and a software let people play like on console ( its upscaling from ages). The people keep cheer on .... sadge
@@matttiaz7576 glad I'm not the only one that noticed.
@@matttiaz7576i thought the 4070 was good
@@CJTheTokay its a "60 series" by Die size with a pathetic memory bandwith will last no more than a year. But thats its all Nvidia want it : make you change GPU every year.
@@CJTheTokay😂😂😂😂
One day in the future, and that day will come, trust me, Nvidia will make you pay mothly subscribtion for DLSS.
this mark it
Yeah I'm looking forward to the reception for that. Bet people will still cheer it on and gladly pay for it
Right now it’s embedded into the selling price as we’re seeing minimal generational uplift at the cost of featurset
They are already charging for it semi annually. DLSS is great, FG is awesome, except on the card I bought two years ago, it isn't worth a damn on that.
I really think comparing the two is sort of apples to oranges. FSR is great in that it can keep older cards relevant, DLSS mostly works on cards that shouldn't need it.
Bruh 💀
I hope they implement FSR 3.1 in the new Frostpunk game, they worked close with AMD and designed limited FP2 style GPU's
I hope AMD just stop to follow this stupid nosense trend Nvidia promote , and launch a good and reasonable priced new gen.
@@matttiaz7576rx 8000 series, plus prices are getting cheaper these days for the 7000 and 6000 series
Why not test quality mode? And also give us the impression you get when you’re not zoomed in three times and slowed down to 60%?
Because in youtube 60fps lock and low bitrate, normal gameplay would not be as telling of the details he wants to point out. Wich all the those details add up to be noticeable in real life gameplay.
Quality mode won't be noticeable
Because he’s trying to see the total difference, quality is less easy to tell. Sure most people use quality I’m sure, but this is the best way to do this.
@@Cosmicdonut6764 agreed
@@TheFansvideo '' give us the impression you get '' doesn't mean that he needs to show the gameplay 😂
The candles not moving is hilarious.
it made it temporaly stable :D
@@HybOj LITERALLY
cool comparison video, vex. appreciate the time and effort you put into collecting all this photage/data. personally i would only ever consider using "quality" mode with upscalers, mostly cause i think with "performance" mode they just haven't got there yet
Nobody uses Performance mode unless you're playing in 4K. For 1440p or 1080p try to use Quality or Balance mode atleast.
100%
Not true, I play at 1440p and I do use performance mode (720p->1440p) a lot, depends on a game tho. In some games I am using performance mode only, like cp2077 - can't tell difference, so why not have more fps. In some games even quality mode looks noticeably worse then native, so no upscale there. Best thing tho is to use DLSSTweaks mod and choose base resolution for upscale yourself, in my opinion.
I use DLSS Quality for 4k on a 4070ti Super mostly with ultra settings. I get 90 to 120 fps, and that's perfectly fine for me
I don't think any 4k gamer would settle for less then quality
@@agentnukaz1715 then you are mistaken not every 4k gamer has a top tier gpu and also 4k performance is still better than 1440p quality. 4k is a really good resolution for using upscalers.
With this new technologies, games are slowly becoming like video streaming quality.
you mean with fsr because dlss is damn good solution,amd is years behind
@@Jaba-hs6vd No, i mean all this new techs. I don't think this is the right way to improve the gaming future.
@@TheBlackAnomaly it doesn't matter what you mean,dlss is perfect solution to gain performance with minimal hit on image quality,fsr is a short term solution from AMD until they find the resources to add full ai hardware acceleration which it will happen in rdn 5
@@Jaba-hs6vd it really shows how little AMD understands what is happening. Nvidia already had AI acceleration back when AMD didn't even have DP4a and mesh shaders support. it was other way around back in GCN1-2 architecture days
Great video, I like how you literally zoom and point out stuff. No one else does this, make sit easier to understand and see stuff that I usually miss. Keep it up! Subscribed
I’am so fracking proud of you kid!! You are doing an amazing job keep up the great work! I really appreciate and enjoy the videos.
Sorry Vex, I disagree with you on this (Personal opinion), I think Ancient Gameplays did a better comparison, FSR 3.1 is definitely better than 2.2 and I CAN TOTALLY SEE the difference while playing Horizon Forbidden West, it's much more stable. 1440p FSR Balance used to look terrible and now is decent and in QUALITY MODE I hardly even notice the difference from native res. Also, without zooming in and slowing down you won't even notice anything whatsoever because people just don't do that. Don't get me wrong, FSR 3.1 is not a game changer (It's not even using dedicated hardware), it still has flaws, DLSS is still better but it is becoming insignificant at this point.
If it does end up using dedicated hardware then you can expect most cards that are supported now to suddenly become unsupported, then people will really hate AMD and almost fully abandon them.
@@ArtisChronicles That's not true, XESS has a fallback code and it looks good without dedicated hardware, FSR could do that and move on with machine learning, it's really impresive how far in quality FSR has come with broad compatibility.
The zooming in part and slowing down is clearly for purpose of making a video and relaying what he sees to the viewer so they can see it. It's an academic approach. It can also make up for UA-cam's compression quality losses.
Out of all criticisms I see the gripes with slowing down footage and zooming in is the strangest I have to admit. I mean the goal is to nitpick /review.
Sounds like cope to me knowing full well that Ancient has an extreme AMD bias
@@silvio351thing is what intel did with XeSS is much more complicated than nvidia DLSS. and AMD push FSR because they did not want to deal with ML stuff like nvidia did with DLSS. Now you're expecting AMD to take even more complicated method like intel XeSS?
Why not test quality mode? And also give the impression you get when you’re not zoomed in three times and slow down to 60%?
Performance mode stresses the technology the most
@@DrLogic_ Obviously... I agree that is what you use it for. But the more commonly used settings are 1080P Quality mode and 1440P Balanced or Quality. At least for those I know that use it regardless of which brand card they own.
@@F1neW1ne this video is about showing the differences, it would be harder to show them in quality mode
I tested bots and now I cant see any big difference between DLSS and FSR, both have strenghts and weaknesses
Nah on 1080p you can tell a lot of difference especially when moving fsr has shimmering more when moving around. I play on 4k and I can tell even at that resolution when moving left and right with the camera, which feels smoother, and it was dlss most of the time. FSR either oversharpens or is not sharp enough, I'd rather have anti-aliasing that I don't have to worry about and it's already been tested by hardware unboxed which one is smoother and stable, Spoiler it's dlss. I'm no fanboy but it's a fact. Majority of games with dlss tested runs better on dlss. In terms of image stability mostly and at times performance.
Upscaler is only good from 1440p onwards, anything below it is trash as there's not enough native details for the upscaling to be accurate.
I honestly can't stand DLSS or FSR at 1440p on quality setting, let alone any of the performance options...
I tried DLSS+ FSR3 FG in Spiderman and the game didn't feel smoother and the image was very blurry when rotating.
I agree. Frame generation is overrated, and does not work well in most cases.
Also, Frame generation increase Vram usage (unlike normal upscalling)... So, it is not good for GPU that has limited Vram.
@@killermoon635 So I rather look at it as the fact that it should never have entered the gaming scene.
It will add FPS to you, but problems with the image will start and it will often increase input lag... All Upscaling should never have come, because even the 4090 is not able to maintain 60FPS many times in native 4K.
It was only caused by increased sales of graphics cards, the laziness of developers, who leave optimization to DLSS and FSR.
Wasn't the title ''did amd just destroy dlss3'' or somthing like that lol ?
BTW does lossless scaling and XeSS look the same or are they different? thats what i would like to see now
They look very different, with XeSS destroying it in terms of reconstruction quality
Would it be worth comparing to LS1 scaling also?
It's sad that the upscaling quality doesn't improve, but the decoupling of upscaling and frame generation alone is worth the update.
Damn man appreciate the work , you are soo dedicated on these topic and i only find your information very useful on these types of comparison! Great work brother
thanks, those are my main contents so def will put more effort on
I wish you had compared the higher settings too. The performance mode looks like crap on all upscalers. It's when you get to about 75% (i.e. 1080p->1440p) that it starts looking acceptable. For 720p->1440p I would probably prefer integer scaling over any of these upscalers and just pretend that I have a 720p display. It's only the most insane setup that would not be CPU bottlenecked at 720p, which would defeat the purpose of upscaling, since lowering resolution doesn't help your CPU.
3:50 DLSS doesn't even state which version they use or am i missing something?
I think you should have done 1080p to 1440p comparison because for the new improvements to show, there needs to be enough pixels to work on
agreed.
How does frs 3.1 look on fsr quality? Is it also that bad?
hey now plz tell me on thing this dlss 3 is it hardware dependent? Like even if nvidia wanted it wont work on gtx cards?
edit: Will fsr 3.2 come? like 2.2?
Dlss 3 is locked to rtx 4000 series for... some reason. Gtx cards do not have tensor cores (AI cores), so no dlss for them. I still am unsure why rtx 2000 and 3000 cards don't get Frame gen besides Nvidia being greedy. I hope AMD can come up with an fsr 3.2 that actually does alot for visual quality. Knowing amd tho, it will take another year and a half for that to happen and Nvidia will probably have dlss 4.5 out by then.
@@alexanderstults8484 Nvidia will become more greedy in the future regarding their DLSS stuff. That'll be fun to see.
XeSS shows how Intel handle the upscaling so well in a short time.
They threw money at it. Intel still has higher revenue than AMD and Nvidia combined. They can afford just to throw money at it.
@@halycon404 lol it is not true. The fact that now nvdia has more money than intel and amd combined
@@nitrogenius You are thinking the stock price, market cap. I specifically said revenue. You know, the thing that actually matters. Can the company actually make money by selling products. Not the fantasy land of Wall St valuation and investor hype. Can the company actually make money. And Intel makes more than Nvidia and AMD combined.
@@halycon404 I think you have no idea that how many gpu is sold by Nvdia to Datacenters including azure,aws and cloud by AI hype. In 2023 Nvdia has more revenue than intel 60b vs 54b. Intel may have more stacked cash but it does not long much. AI is real thing that evolves everything and intel has nothing to do with their cpu's.
@@nitrogenius No. In financial year 2023 by Nvidia's own investor call they grossed 26.9 billion with a net income of 8.3 billion. Those are Nvidia's own numbers which you can pull from Nvidia's earnings report for shareholders. It's a downloadable PDF. Intel had 54.2 billion revenue, a net revenue of only 1.1 billion but 2023 was also a reinvestment year. They spent over 10 billion in capital investment outlays for retooling their fabrication plants. That's also Intel's own numbers which are a downloadable PDF off Intel's website. That 60 billion is not an Nvidia number. It's what investors hope fiscal year 2024 looks like.
Yeah, I don't think I'd ever want to upscale all the way from 720p. IMO the best use cases for any upscaling tech is 1080p to 4K or 960p to 1440p. Although with FSR2.2 I found myself having to use at LEAST Balanced mode even at 4k to get something good. Hopefully 1080p internal resolution will be enough now.
Someone go and bug Remedy about getting this updated (and XeSS in there at all) with Alan Wake 2.
Anyone got suggestions for optimal settings for the Witcher 3 ng update on a radeon 5700xt. It runs ok on dx12...
I'm still excited for it. Mainly for the vulkan support, and decoupled frame gen. This means that one mod that would let you convert dlss framegen to fsr framegen should now be possible for many more games such as Portal RTX, allowing my 3090ti to get framegen in it.
its pretty great but indeed night raytracing abit hard to comperhend, compared to day which is easy/pleasing to see straight away
The moment you have to slow down to show the oh so 'noticeable' differences you can ask yourself if dlss is really worth the additional tax we pay to Nvidia and you smartly avoid that part of the equasion. .
Both seemed fine to me and as you said may come up to personal preference here and there.
This kind of nitpicking is certainly not worth it here where the difference in price between nvidia and amd is a LOT bigger than in the US. (up to 200 Euro for similar performance) .
Maybe also mention that the RTX 3 series get left behind
You don't need to slow it down. You can see the differences in person easily. Bitrate on UA-cam makes it harder to notice and slowing it down will make it even easier to see the difference
And it's worst case scenario, in balanced or quality mode is so much better
DLSS its just the chiky trick Nvidia use to cut the cost of productions make more profit , and keep a reasonable ( in some case fake) framerate.
Basically PC gamer do what the Console player ( and PC player always has hated ..ahaha) from ages.
@@lilpain1997 so... you "smartly" avoid the tax part of the equasion too?
@anrypettit3112 what? The entire point is that you don't need to slow it down or zoom if you play it yourself. I didn't bother with the rest as it makes no difference to the argument.
Every time when I hear FSR out done DLSS, I laugh.
Gonna be honest, it's probably another instance of the marketing team screwing the development team over again. They said by the end of Q2 and the engineers were like "y'all, it's still not ready yet!" and AMD was like "sorry, can't hear you over the sound of us jettisoning the crap out the door!".
Honestly, what the engineers have managed to achieve without AI IS genuinely impressive, let no one take that away from them. But... I just don't think it's ever going to compare. They shot themselves in both feet when they, for literally no reason, decided to not use AI for upscaling purposes, and now I'm just assuming they're flopping around until the 8000 series comes out, which is just supposed to be 7000 series, but like... actually good. Most likely they'll have AI cores that actually do shit, FSR will finally actually be worth more than my spare toenail clippings, and then the races can FINALLY begin for real.
1:34, if I'm wrong so be it, not watched further yet but I think DLSS is on the right, I saw something flicker on the left. FSR usually flickers more.
Hey, I just want to let you know you post some HIGH QUALITY VIDEOS! I like your style. Yes, UA-cam is very lossy, but man, your videos look KRISP with a capital "K", nevertheless. Keep up your good work! On the computer side, just got a Sapphire 7900XTX for my birthday and am still playing around with my return to AMD. Last card I had from Sapphire was an HD3850 AGP with the Realto PCI-E to AGP bridge when they were all ATI! XD
think it was a mistake upscaling from 720 p
Seems like an nvidia commercial
The great thing about far 3.1 is that you can use Frame Gen with whatever upscaling that you want.
FSR 3.1 Frame Generation with NO upscaling is freakin awesome. I’m running it this way in Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart without all the FSR upscaling artifacts on my 6800M laptop GPU 😊. I also tested FSR 3.1 in Spider-Man Remastered, with upscaling and raytracing, and it’s excellent.
Honestly, yes, DLSS is still better, but the difference in quality, playing at least at 1440p Quality or even 1440p Balanced, is negligible. DLSS was the last thing that still kept me take Nvidia into consideration. Now that FSR is in practice at the same level of DLSS, Nvidia to me is irrelevant.
Yep. Indeed dlss is better but let's be honest.. for the same price you can run a game at native with AMD and quality upscaling with Nvidia and get similar performance. Only when you have a mid range GPU on a 4k screen running the latest games slare you required to upscale and upscaling looks better at 4k by far. It's a tossup as to whether Nvidia GPUs are better overall. Tradeoffs are made unless you're rich.
FSR is not anywhere better than DLSS if not in really specific scenes, conditions in specific games; to say something similar you're doing a really forced cherry picking. As he says, FSR 3.1 barely holds up to the worse version of XeSS 1.3 (22:18). FSR can be passable at something like 4k quality, maybe 1440p quality sometimes. It of course depends on what you consider to be a satisfying visual quality and on how much you notice visual breakups.
@@matte_bar So, just use XeSS. Radeons CAN do that you know. 😁
@@AvroBellow it is still far behind dlss dude, don’t act like a dumb amd fanboy, be objective
@@AvroBellow Xess is worse in none arc gpus.
Wow, what a huge difference ( watching in 144p )
Old-school gamers who played video games with unintended pixel art see all of this as a minor issue.
If you're at the point where you need to slow things down, zoom way in, put it side by side, are you really playing the game at all? I think that's a huge win for FSR and XeSS in terms of all GPU's being able to utilize it lol.
that DF intro really got me
Shouldn't you test AMD's newest thing on an AMD gpu?
My thoughts
Well, FSR is hardware agnostic so... it shouldn't matter. Maybe FSR4.0 will require hardware component and work only with series 7000 and up (since AMD has AI accelerator cores, just not using it for anything...) and then there would be tangible benefits of using AMD card with FSR specifically. Most people own some low-mid range Nvidia GPU that do not support DLSS so it's literally the largest target audience for FSR - bigger than AMD users since we are in the fringe minority.
@@Micromation It may in theory be agnostic, but still, games are supposed to be agnostic too, but one game may perform better on an AMD than on a Nvidia or vice versa. I just read about a monitor (Samsung G8 I believe) that worked better on Nvidia, though that has been solved as far as I know. So to be sure I think you should test it on the hardware it was developed on, there may be a (small) difference, so it would be more fair to test it on an AMD IMHO.
I still believe upscalling is to get the jump from 1440p to 4k gamming with your new shiny 4k monitor, but most graphics card can't handle 4k native yet. If you are using it to upscale in performance 1080p then you realy can't complain, there are no miracles there and quality will suffer badly. Other use case is to get raytracing to more acceptable performance in good cards. Yes i know most people want to get their old graphics card to live a couple more years, but it's realy all about pushing 4k to the mainstream market...
why only permeformance mode was tested here? and in all tech reviwers i dont undestard, we all use quality mode i think.
They could also test TAA at reduced res. Or native FSR Xess and dlss.
FSR 3.1 FG is bugged somehow at least in Ghost of Tsushima and HFW
, G-sync is not working with it nor the Framelimiter in NV Control Panel .. it also has higher input lag than the Nukem9 V0.90 Universal dll mod , might also be laggy haven't compare them but i saw that the mod is better overall with Gsync and Vsync enabled in the driver Vs fsr 3.1 fg AND fsr 3.0 fg
Regardless of the output quality by all upscaling tgechnologies whether it be DLSS, FSR, XeSS or Lossless Scaling etc ... they all have their benefits or drawbacks! Having a choice of upscaler is a great thing for the consumer regardless as choice gives each user their desired outcome which imo is a great thing. I generally use DLSS .... but FSR 3.1 has got me contemplating Radeons upscaling solution as an alternative as had Lossless Scaling :D
Great video Vex and thank you for covering these technologies.
but dlss 3 being better isn't benefits nor a drawback... It is to show how inferior the others are. I won't even talk how bad lossless scaling was.
Generally they only have drawbacks... the only difference is how big they are. The only benefit DLSS has is that it can be combined with DLDSR which has no equivalent on AMD or Intel cards but it's basically a workaround to a problem that doesn't need to exist (really bad console oriented anti-aliasing in modern games with no alternatives)
It's kinda sad that you didn't try other presets as well and just went with performance. I mean I get it you wanted to try the worst case scenario to make differentiating easier but I for one never use anything but FSR quality since it's kinda pointless going lower than that with considering fsr capabilities.
Maybe it's just me, or it is UA-cam compression or whatever, but I don't really see the ugly lines, ghosting etc in all of these video's. Not only from Vex, but also others. I don't know. But to be fair, in the game itself (Forbidden West) I also don't see it. I only see ghosting in the particles when I turn on FSR.
The truth is that they all work pretty well. When in use nobody zooms in to peak at pixels. It's not very useful.
To can someone help me? Im about to buy rx6900xt but fsr looks far worse than dlss also ray tracing is worse on radeons so should I buy better amd card or worse rtx at same price, 6900xt is around 425$ in my country
Idk, if you really care that much about RTX any RTX cards around $425 are probably not even going to be powerful enough to actually use raytracing, at least at higher settings, so you might be better off going with the 6900xt which will have way more raster performance so you don’t even need any upscaling but it comes at the cost of slightly worse ray tracing performance. Though depending on what RTX cards are available in your area for $425, the 6900xt might even literally be better at RT just because it has such a huge advantage in raster performance, but that depends on the RTX card.
@@Dell-ol6hb ye i probably take 6950xt rn for 500$, still thinking about 4070 but its for 630$ and is slower than xt :v tough decision
I would love to see a review from a different pov. Instead of both rendered at the same low res and upscaled at 1440p, try to make their fps on par. For example if fsr3.1 have a higher fps, then afjust dlss to match that one. And it goes the same with fsr3.1 if it has a lower fps. Then compare their qualities at that fps.
I think they call it fsr3 instead of fsr3.1 because you will be able to replace the dlls manually later with a updated version
Would this not make a difference using an AMD card it was designed to work with? It looks like you are just using a 4070 ti for both, which was designed to work with DLSS.
FSR is the same on every GPU, and is designed to work on all gpus,so your point is meaningless
The thing too is they need FSR to be viable because all the modern consoles (PS5 and XSX) run on AMD chips and they wanna push the framerates while the games look good :b
But nobody uses FSR or any upscaler on performance mode, so this video really doesn't answer the question "is now FSR 3.1 good enough to use?"
You obviously did not heard of pc handheld devices.
I'll just say that if you are using any upscaling below balanced you need to look into a new graphics card ECT. I only use quality in some games and personally if I go below that I'm upgrading.
All of the talk around DLSS/FRS, framegen, RTX and stuff confuse the hell out of me. I can kind of see it for 4k if you need it to hit some fps "bracket" right? but what's the point of using DLSS if say you're already at like 120 fps at 1440p? Doesn't native look better? does going from 120 fps native to 150 fps DLSS/FSR make a difference in the fluidity of single player games? do we even notice it when actually playing instead of looking at screenshots or videos at 25% speed? is the performance gain so big that it justifies losing graphical fidelity when you're already over 60/120/240 fps?
I feel like we're running in circles now just measuring fps and pixels for the hell of it.
Maybe. These upscalers can be used for anything to your liking. So if your running the game at 50fps you could turn on upscaling to get to 60fps with hopefully with little to no difference. Or if you already have a good frame rate, you could get extra performance to then increase settings like raytracing. The point is more performance with good image quality. So for testing this you just look closer at the image to find out the differences. Which is why people zoom in and slow down the game to better see the differences. Also because of youtube compression.
Ofc one of the problem is that you need a higher hz monitor to benefit from upscaling. most older monitors are 60 hz and newest tech gamer monitors goes up to 540 hz.
That would, if you had a gpu that could drive such a beast, be 540 different frames rendered every second.
The most important thing is to utilize as much of the monitors hz as possible, if your monitor has a cap of 120 hz...you will see it used to its maximum @ 120 fps. moving the mouse cursor very fast on the screen is a perfect example of how fps looks. the trails of the mouse becomes alot more fluid on higher frames per second. and if on a lower hz monitor, it will be choppy and the mouse cursor will lag and pop up randomly everywhere.
you wont notice a big difference going from 120 to 150,. but going from 60 to 120 is a easy to spot. it becomes very fluid.
Have you tried turning your contrast on your monitor down lmao it is worse with CRT tellies with games like MOTORSTORM on the PS3 real bad shimmering ! that is a Nvidia graphics chip GTX 780 or something anyhow the contrast needs turned down a third while the brightness also needs turned way down until the blacks are real black
Wait so you can use fsr 3 on nvidia gpus ?
Yes
@@Dell-ol6hb ok
I honestly don't think there's a point if you need to zoom that much + slowing down the video, in most cases you won't notice it then. I used whatever available right now, DLSS but not FG, FSR 3 for frame gen (still using RTX 3080). As 3080 user, hope FSR 3.1 get adopted wider, since I can't use DLSS frame gen on my GPU 😅.
why do you need DLSS frame gen on your gpu? that gpu is strong enough to play any game 1440p 60+fps
@@xRlly not on my ultrawide
@@xRllyhigher refresh rate experience
In my situation I can hardly even tell. Like even when slowed down and zoomed in I have to focus so hard that my eyes were hurting throughout this vid. Sure there were some moments where it was noticeable but it's not as big of a difference as Vex makes it out to be imo.
i can only hope lossless scaling app upscale can be as good as dlss
I can't tell the difference between native and upscaling at all
I still prefer turning some stuff down a bit than using any upscaling at all!!!
Setting shadows to medium makes wonders on FPS.
You should test the not so challenging upscaling to see how bad that is
8:05 - talking smack about FSR meanwhile DLSS pouch is having complete meltdown 💀
Definitely a game issue, as FSR had the same issue for a second there
Vex, try Quality, maybe there is picture is less blurry and it will compare better to dlss q
Tried fsr 3.1 with spiderman. had to switch it off immediately. The shimmering is disgusting. I've also seen how it ruins ratchet too. I think if they fix those issues to could be a greater competitor to NVIDIA
Since XeSS has an AI upscaler open for every GPU (DP4a version), the next step for FSR *should* be integrating machine learning, because i think there isn't too much improvement window left from 3.1. And let's not forget that RDNA3 have it's own AI accelerating cores that AMD still don't use for anything, there is room for an "XMX" version of FSR to help them sell Radeon (even iGPUs).
1:26 The one on the left is FSR.
still don't know whether I should buy the 4070 super or the 7900 GRE
that question really comes down to whether you want 12 gb or 16 gb VRAM, they are both great at 1440p
Honestly you really cannot make a bad decision if you choose either
I faced the same choice a couple of months ago, went for the 7900 GRE and no regrets so far. I rarely use upscaling though, if I can get 60+ fps from native res then that suits me just fine. Having 16GB over the 12GB you get with the 4070 super was also a major factor in my choice.
I bought the 7900 gre for 499 I say wait a little till Amazon sale happens
AMD should start working on AI based upscaling since, lot of handhelds use AMD APUs. Also switch 2 comes with DLSS and would crush all AMD handhelds in visual quality. With all the AI stuff being stuffed onto everyone, may be it is time for AMD to put good use of AI and use it in upscaling the most. RT improvements are also required.
A number of channels have found it to be a mild improvement - but I think they were mostly using it at 4k, which obviously limits its usefulness.
NVIDIA have official won the gpu wars again...👑👑👑
they always should considering they are way more expensive more often than not.
I may get console wars, but GPU war is really low
If dlss fsr xess are all turned on performance mode, the most important function should be to increase fps. The purpose of players turning on this function is because the gpu is not powerful enough. Why not compare fps? And there is no comparison between balance and quality mode. Just stare at the performance mode to see the picture quality. Does anyone slow down and zoom in to see the picture? ? ?
Performance mode with FSR is extremely noticeable at 1440p and 4k, meanwhile DLSS manages to make a surprisingly coherent image, image quality does matter and so does fps.
Idk man I do think it looks a lot better but maybe not a huge difference when in ultra performance mode. Personally I think dlss is super noticeable in anything lower than balanced also. I never go below balanced in DLSS and never below quality in FSR.
I'm grateful for these recent technological advancements. Many of us grew up playing with 8 blobs of pixels/object then moved on to 480p then 720p before it got okay starting from FHD and now 4K looks great.
I don't expect images to be flawless when upscaled from old-time resolutions, I mainly expect better FPS and pay the price with some minor artifacting. It's a fair exchange and much better than a native low res.
How I see it for the same price we either buy a stronger AMD card and run chosen resolution natively or buy a weaker Nvidia and run that res with dlss quality. it's roughly the same image for the same money. Better native FPS at AMD, better RT at nVidia.
3060 laptop owner hooked to 4K monitor here. FSR just seems to be best to just get under my vram limit 6g and higher resolution than any other upsizer and still be playable. It is a godsent when you’re on borderline versus DLSS where you just want higher frame rate and not limited by vram.
Wouldn't just running game on 1080p native look better on 4k monitor? DLSS performance renders game at 1080p, it also introduces lots of artifacts and shimmering due to the amount of magic it has to perform to make up for the missing data. Also, what are you playing in 4k on a mobile 3060 xD
@@Micromation definitely not. It’s a blurry mess at 32 inch’s. 4K upsized is brilliant, even when most settings are set to poor. Some settings turned up make a massive difference with minimal impact, some settings are opposite, little difference in quality and massive performance drop.
GTA V 4K 60fps max settings zero upsize, RDR 2 same. CP 2077 with upsize medium/low settings 60fps 4K still looks better than 1080 high to ultra settings I can play it at, still 60fps. I can just play Horizon Zero Dawn 4K 50 fps with FSR. Can’t do DLSS. It goes over vram limit. Horizon Forbidden West I have to drop to 1600p for just over 30 to 45, but settings can be turned up a lot. 4K unplayable at all. No matter the settings. Grounded my favourite game 4K FSR quality, 50 fps, Pixar like graphics FSR looks great except for the spider caves.
But yes, I’m about to set up my 4080 super 7800x3D PC. Because those PlayStation originals are demanding!!
In that, still playing Doom Eternal 4K 60fps easily. Looks brilliant.
But yes borderline playable to unplayable. FSR comes out on top in making playable. Just basic added smoothness DLSS is king.
I feel like what is happening with FSR is that whomever is working on it needs to learn to rest their eyes when working on their upscaler
Its the same thing when you are mixing and mastering a song. Sometimes you need to let your ears rest so you can get the best mix possible
I say this because i feel like its the same type of scenario with the devs working on FSR. If they take time in between and rest their eyes, they could better see if a change is an improvement or not. Im sure looking at the same ghosting images and editing code alongside that can tire your eyes out very quickly from comparing before and after constantly. To the point that it all starts looking the same to the person working on it. It would help to explain why there is such little differences between the two, and how in some scenarios FSR 2 looks better.
I know its a weird comparison, but im sure someone is tracking what im trying to say
As an AMD user, I always go for Xess. It just looks better than FSR in most games. Sometimes FSR looks worse than even TSR.
It's really dissapointing. AMD seriously need to up their game in terms of upscaling. Maybe, like Intel, go the AI route, and make 2 versions, one open-source and one strictly for AMD GPUs?
Maybe fsr4.1 amd might use ai upscaling for once
@@JahonCrossdo you have an AMD card?
@waltuhputurdaway currently have a nividia card
Now I'm in a dilemma should I buy the rx 7900gre or the 4070s . Many i play fps games , but occasionally i play AAA games too.
I don't know why you consider rx 7900gre because it's faster than 7800xt only when you overclock (memory I think, can't remember).
If you are playing in 1440p I think 4070s is better for AAA games because of good Ray tracing performance and Q DLSS
@@n0.nam358 in my country the rx 7900gre costs about $655 where the cheapest two fan rtx 4070s is $710. Paying about $710 for 12 Vram is what is bugging me . Even with the upscaling certain games demand more vram
@@AnjeshSivaram-pw1dy So get yourself an rx 7800xt if you won't overclock GPU because you won't notice difference in 90% of games (check 10% in Hardware Unboxed review, maybe you will play them and want GRE)
@@n0.nam358 here both rx 7800xt and 7900gre are about the same price.
@@AnjeshSivaram-pw1dy Sorry! I'd recommend to watch at least 2 videos of testing rx 7800xt vs rx 7900 gre. And check you local pricing because if difference around 20$ 7900gre is better
I think it's great I'll be able to buy a lower-end PC and compensate with FSR 3
Upscaling is a very good thing for console or low end gpus.
I can't use it on PC because I prefer to prioritize image quality.
im on a 1080p moniI'm on a 1080p monitor, and I couldn't see any difference before you showed it
It's absolutely ridiculous that people paying 500$+ have to use upscaling in some poorly optimized games.
There was a point in time when budget builds could handle 1080p no question not too long ago. We have the hardware still that can do this, people need to be alot more criticle of the crap we're being fed from developers in the ironically anti-consumer quest for more "shareholder value".
yeh missed those times man... dlss and fsr before is just a means for low end gpus to gain additional fps, it really be like that before... many are so happy that we can now afford a significant increase in fps without worrying about the quality that much but now, fookin hell 😂
Moreover even if you don't use upscaler you still get a blurry mess cos devs force you to use TAA in their titles.
Isn't there the rtx 4060, 3060, 3060 ti, rx 6700 xt, 7600xt,7600 ?
Or we just like more fps. I always use DLSS at 1440p with my 4070ti I paid $850 for. Prefer fps over resolution always.
@@MaloryHovell Honestly if I've had a time machine and could go back in time to get rid of one person, the fucker that thought of and implemented TAA would make top of the list... the shit is SO BAD...
You know what FSR looks like to me? It looks like if you just turn on the NVidia image scaling and select 1080 > 1440 with the image sharpening too high in NVidia control panel, lol. I think using Radeon Super Resolution, cranking in game anti-aliasing and AF and turning up sharpening to your taste for the game looks less artifact-ey. It's like it needs FXAA and sharpening. FXAA can be applied to any application. Hmm/ 🤔 The FXAA should eliminate the ghosting of the lower sample being upscaled. It is easy to do on NVidia. Just select FXAA in NVCP and it sharpens the image after applying FXAA.
I think you’re comparing the wrong scenario per say. If I was a user with a 3000 series, 2000 series, 6000/5000, I would definitely be using fsr 3.1. You’re not even using the native card to try 3.1, because if I’m using a 4000 series I’m definitely using dlss. Why would anyone use fsr on a 4000 series?
Honestly, dlss just have a strong case, especially for people who likes to play on higher resolution, or like to plug their pc to a 4k TV and use upscaling. However, the visual difference between fsr and dlss in "quality" mode is really really minor, so using fsr in 4k quality mode or even 1440p quality mode is something that is very reasonable, if you don't have the budget to get a 4070ti or a 4080, of if you just prefer amd and go with the mid to high end gpus beginning with rx 6700xt up to 7900 xtx.
I miss the days when Rasterization was King.
for 4k this is a win though but basically if the game supports xess or fsr 2.1/2.2 i just go for xess and have it updated to the latest because the latest xess actually wins from fsr 2.2 in the area of shimmering and reproduction of like fencing and such so don't forget that you can update xess in those games
meanwhile me, play GoT using 720p medium + FSR 3 balance + RSR in rog ally. imagine the ghosting from fsr balance + rsr, double upscaling. but 90fps on 120hz still worth it, in 7" it doesn't matter too much.
This is most likely a hot take, but I can’t tell the difference between fsr and dlss
I can tell the difference about 50% of the time. And I don’t know about you, but only managing 50% distinction of the time for a test that was frankly, very unfair and one-sided considering the level of up scaling he was doing (which no one will be doing) and the graphics card he was using for both tests (definitely not an AMD card), I would say that you may pretty much conclude it was the same thing.
Nvidia is using a hardware solution and AMD is trying a software solution and it isn't competing, not sure if it ever will tbh.
This is why I run native res even at the sacrifice of frame rates
my favourite frame gen is lossless scaling ;P