So, I like FSR 1.0, but saying that 2.0 can provide better image quality than native is simply BS. I don't believe that for a second.

It must be magic or something to be better than native resolution...:rockout:

Uskompufin all presents and resolutions

shouldnt that be 'presets'?

AquinusSo, I like FSR 1.0, but saying that 2.0 can provide better image quality than native is simply BS. I don't believe that for a second.

RaresIt must be magic or something to be better than native resolution...:rockout:

I dont think thats what this says, it appears to me that it only says it increases FPS in "performance mode". What exactly is performance mode?

AquinusSo, I like FSR 1.0, but saying that 2.0 can provide better image quality than native is simply BS. I don't believe that for a second.

Nothing is better than native, I think because DLSS can resolve some details better than native (but it ruins the image in many others) they are referring to this.

I’m deeply confused on the difference of RSR (released tomorrow) and FSR 2.0 (coming next quarter).

videocardz.com/newz/amd-teases-tomorrows-adrenalin-graphics-driver-with-radeon-super-resolution-launch

DavenI’m deeply confused on the difference of RSR (released tomorrow) and FSR 2.0 (coming next quarter).

videocardz.com/newz/amd-teases-tomorrows-adrenalin-graphics-driver-with-radeon-super-resolution-launch

Radeon Super Resolution (RSR) is a driver-level implementation of the original FidelityFX Super Resolution (FSR) which will allow it to work with any game.

FSR 2.0 is a complete redesign of FSR now using temporal data and optimized anti-aliasing in a way which is much more similar to DLSS 2.0.

Xex360Nothing is better than native, I think because DLSS can resolve some details better than native (but it ruins the image in many others) they are referring to this.

I wouldn't call that better than native. :laugh:

If 2.0 can make games look better when it's active over the 1.0 version, that's a win. Some of those FSR 1.0 in games look like a blurry, smeared mess.

DeathtoGnomesI dont think thats what this says, it appears to me that it only says it increases FPS in "performance mode". What exactly is performance mode?

Perhaps performance mode is just one of the options you can choose for FSR 2.0 to run. Like DLSS you can pick low/medium/high options (I think they call them by other names, but I can't remember since I only used DLSS in one game), I'm guessing performance is one of the options for FSR.

Xex360Nothing is better than native, I think because DLSS can resolve some details better than native (but it ruins the image in many others) they are referring to this.

Of course it can be better than native. When you change the AA implementation, like DLSS does, you can end up with much better IQ even if you're rendering from a lower resolution. Some games look awful at native.

I hope the best performing (not necessarily highest performance) solution wins out. If I'm honest, though? I wish Microsoft would create a DirectX-level mechanism for dynamic resolution and MLAA integrated directly into the underpinnings instead. Something we could all use, no matter what card. No matter if Kellogg comes out with a card called "GPU Crispies." That it would work.

These piecemeal solutions from vendors are always going to be subject to weirdness and wonky ways.

I expect it to be worse than DSLL 2.X, but fingers crossed maybe not by much. The thing is that it is expected to be open sourced, to work also with Nvidia & Intel since the leak is that it will use general DP4a instructions (one of the reasons I think it will be worse, since either it will be slower than DLSS and close to first DLSS 2.0 examples regarding quality, or a little bit faster than DSSL 2.X but with worst overall image quality with problems like ghosting etc).
The main competition will be Intel since also their solution will be open source and have also a DP4a version (+matrix solution)
I think Ada Lovelace in 6 months will probably introduce AI acceleration in many more fields other than resolution, having the capability to apply AI in fields like tesselation, texture generation, raytracing-path tracing (or general image synthesis like Intel's approach : isl-org.github.io/PhotorealismEnhancement/)

DeathtoGnomesWhat exactly is performance mode?

there are 4 tiers currently for FSR....they are performance, balanced, quality, and ultra quality

Performance being the "low end" where it will degrade image quality the most of these options, but therefore gives you the highest FPS boost
Ultra quality being the "high end" where it will degrade image quality the least, to the point of almost not even noticeable, but only gives a minor FPS boost

so basically they put it on the mode that gives the max FPS boost bc that higher number is what makes everyone's epeens hard. it's obviously a marketing tactic bc saying you only get 5FPS boost in ultra quality doesn't sound as good as 50FPS boost in performance.

AquinusSo, I like FSR 1.0, but saying that 2.0 can provide better image quality than native is simply BS. I don't believe that for a second.

Is turning on antialiasing not better than the native jagged image? I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

After a few st.pattys day wobbly pops never notice a difference. ;)

srsbsnsIs turning on antialiasing not better than the native jagged image? I wouldn't be so quick to judge.

On my 4k and 5k displays, jagged edges are few and far inbetween when I'm rendering natively. Even with 70% scaling at 5k, you don't really notice it, so I almost never use explicit AA when I can render at either native or with FSR 1.0.

Xex360Nothing is better than native, I think because DLSS can resolve some details better than native (but it ruins the image in many others) they are referring to this.

isn't 4x DSR / DL-DSR better than native? @Xex360

All good and well, but shouldn't they focus more on fixing some of their issues which has been around for i think 3 years now lol. that performance overlay thing for example.

skizzothere are 4 tiers currently for FSR....they are performance, balanced, quality, and ultra quality

Performance being the "low end" where it will degrade image quality the most of these options, but therefore gives you the highest FPS boost
Ultra quality being the "high end" where it will degrade image quality the least, to the point of almost not even noticeable, but only gives a minor FPS boost

so basically they put it on the mode that gives the max FPS boost bc that higher number is what makes everyone's epeens hard. it's obviously a marketing tactic bc saying you only get 5FPS boost in ultra quality doesn't sound as good as 50FPS boost in performance.

My observations from using FSR 1.0 on some AMD and non-DLSS Nvidia cards are a bit different than that (@1440p and 1080p on monitors of those resolutions):

FSR Ultra Quality - big, useful FPS bump over native, noticeable quality degradation when pixel peeping over native on fine edges where bad TAA is made worse. I don't notice this while actually playing a game (CP2077, HZD)
FRS Quality - almost no FPS improvement over Ultra Q, quality degradation and softness more noticeable but less so when actually playing the game. Not worth it, just use Ultra Q.
FRS Balanced - blurry, small FPS improvement, not worth it
FRS Performance - this setting is available

Cards tested:
RX 6600XT
RX 5600XT
GTX 1080
GTX 1050Ti

napataOf course it can be better than native. When you change the AA implementation, like DLSS does, you can end up with much better IQ even if you're rendering from a lower resolution. Some games look awful at native.

A temporal upscaler can have access to way more pixel than native to reconstruct the native image. It can help to resolve sub pixel details and improve the anti-aliasing if done properly. The challenge with TAA upscaler will be how they handle the ghosting and this could lead to poorer image quality.

As for AA, Pixel density is important. I play at 4K on a 48 inch LG C1 OLED and i can see the pixel without AA. Indeed if you play at 4K on a 24 inch, you won't notice. Good AA increase image quality a lot. Bad AA degrade it significantly.

Also yes, resolving sub pixel content is better image quality than pixel popping it and out of existence because they don't align into the grid.

The statement that Native is the best image quality you can get will be made obsolete soon enough with more advance renderer. And when you start to get into VRS, sample count, mipmaps, ray count, filtering, denoising, etc, you start to realize that "native" becoming less relevant.

TAA type upscaler will allow engine to use more detailed pixel and reuse them. Using the same GPU resource, you would have to render less detailed pixel at native if you have to render them every frame.

PunkenjoyA temporal upscaler can have access to way more pixel than native to reconstruct the native image. It can help to resolve sub pixel details and improve the anti-aliasing if done properly. The challenge with TAA upscaler will be how they handle the ghosting and this could lead to poorer image quality.

As for AA, Pixel density is important. I play at 4K on a 48 inch LG C1 OLED and i can see the pixel without AA. Indeed if you play at 4K on a 24 inch, you won't notice. Good AA increase image quality a lot. Bad AA degrade it significantly.

Also yes, resolving sub pixel content is better image quality than pixel popping it and out of existence because they don't align into the grid.

The statement that Native is the best image quality you can get will be made obsolete soon enough with more advance renderer. And when you start to get into VRS, sample count, mipmaps, ray count, filtering, denoising, etc, you start to realize that "native" becoming less relevant.

TAA type upscaler will allow engine to use more detailed pixel and reuse them. Using the same GPU resource, you would have to render less detailed pixel at native if you have to render them every frame.

what about a temporal downscaler? rendering from a much higher res

Lew ZealandMy observations from using FSR 1.0 on some AMD and non-DLSS Nvidia cards are a bit different than that (@1440p and 1080p on monitors of those resolutions):

FSR Ultra Quality - big, useful FPS bump over native, noticeable quality degradation when pixel peeping over native on fine edges where bad TAA is made worse. I don't notice this while actually playing a game (CP2077, HZD)
FRS Quality - almost no FPS improvement over Ultra Q, quality degradation and softness more noticeable but less so when actually playing the game. Not worth it, just use Ultra Q.
FRS Balanced - blurry, small FPS improvement, not worth it
FRS Performance - this setting is available

Cards tested:
RX 6600XT
RX 5600XT
GTX 1080
GTX 1050Ti

you must be doing something wrong in your assessments....or literally have the understanding completely backwards....."ultra quality" does not give a bigger performance boost over "quality" for example. In your list, the top of the list will provide the best picture but minimal FPS boost, while the further you move down the list you will get more FPS boost but also makes the picture looks worse.

the more the image is downscaled and therefore "upscaled" (for lack of knowing proper tech term) through FSR's magic, the higher the FPS bump. It works the same way that a resolution scale slider works. I'll pull arbitrary numbers outta my rear here for the analogy/argument's sake. For reference native res is 100%

Ultra Quality would be ~90%
Quality would be ~80%
Balanced would be ~65%
Performance would be ~50%

the lower the %, the higher the performance boost bc it is rendering at a lower resolution, then going through the FSR magic to improve the image fidelity. that's the super basic nut shell description of this feature

Also doing this on such a low res like 1080p is basically pointless. 1440p is feasible though. But really this whole system is designed for HIGHER resolutions like 4K to be used on cards or games that couldn't necessarily get better frame rates otherwise.

Think about this, 50% of 1080p would be close to same res of a PS2 or Gamecube....not surprising it seems you thought that option looked like garbage


This pic alone should explain it. If not, read this article too
www.tomshardware.com/reference/amd-fsr-fidelityfx-super-resolution-explained

PunkenjoyA temporal upscaler can have access to way more pixel than native to reconstruct the native image. It can help to resolve sub pixel details and improve the anti-aliasing if done properly. The challenge with TAA upscaler will be how they handle the ghosting and this could lead to poorer image quality.

As for AA, Pixel density is important. I play at 4K on a 48 inch LG C1 OLED and i can see the pixel without AA. Indeed if you play at 4K on a 24 inch, you won't notice. Good AA increase image quality a lot. Bad AA degrade it significantly.

Also yes, resolving sub pixel content is better image quality than pixel popping it and out of existence because they don't align into the grid.

The statement that Native is the best image quality you can get will be made obsolete soon enough with more advance renderer. And when you start to get into VRS, sample count, mipmaps, ray count, filtering, denoising, etc, you start to realize that "native" becoming less relevant.

TAA type upscaler will allow engine to use more detailed pixel and reuse them. Using the same GPU resource, you would have to render less detailed pixel at native if you have to render them every frame.

^ This is probably the most accurate statement I've read so far. It really depends on what you're using. I don't feel I need AA on 27" displays at 4 or 5k. That's very different than using a 1080p display where the pixel density isn't nearly as high. Those two situations don't require the same filters to be applied to improve IQ.

PunkenjoyA temporal upscaler can have access to way more pixel than native to reconstruct the native image. It can help to resolve sub pixel details and improve the anti-aliasing if done properly. The challenge with TAA upscaler will be how they handle the ghosting and this could lead to poorer image quality.

As for AA, Pixel density is important. I play at 4K on a 48 inch LG C1 OLED and i can see the pixel without AA. Indeed if you play at 4K on a 24 inch, you won't notice. Good AA increase image quality a lot. Bad AA degrade it significantly.

Also yes, resolving sub pixel content is better image quality than pixel popping it and out of existence because they don't align into the grid.

The statement that Native is the best image quality you can get will be made obsolete soon enough with more advance renderer. And when you start to get into VRS, sample count, mipmaps, ray count, filtering, denoising, etc, you start to realize that "native" becoming less relevant.

TAA type upscaler will allow engine to use more detailed pixel and reuse them. Using the same GPU resource, you would have to render less detailed pixel at native if you have to render them every frame.

Its true, you can get better than native now. The much overlooked aspect related to pixel density though, is 'view distance'.

There is more to picture quality than the aspects of the screen or the way it is rendered. At around 110-120 PPI, you should NOT be able to discern individual pixels, unless you actively go scanning for them with your head tilted towards the screen, leaning heavily forward from regular seating position. That, or you're sitting way too close to begin with.

We're already heavily in the realm of diminishing returns here. The advantage of increased pixel filtering down to subpixel level is nit picking territory, honestly, if you 'just game' 9 out of 10 times you won't have any kind of meaningfully different experience from someone gaming at 100 PPI 1080p regular 16:9 panels.

You see what you want to see, most of the time and our brain is an expert in making it so. The relevance of all these technologies is extremely low, apart from the performance uplift you can get out of it on a card that might just drop below playable FPS. Thát is the purpose, the image quality is bonus, because it allows games to expand more on assets and other detail levels without killing the gameplay. The funny thing is, many games really don't deliver those assets at all, they just upscale the same crap you had in 2010 - never mind the impact of dreadfully repetitive art direction. But regardless, these newer AA techniques are definitely closing in on that holy combo of minimal perf hit for maximum IQ. At the same time though, you can question how much we really need them with current high pixel density monitors.

In all honesty, the more you game, the less graphics matter IMHO. A pretty picture only impresses the first time. Good gameplay concepts never cease to amaze. We see a similar nitpicking mentality in the realm of high refresh where zealots are now defending the purpose of 240hz and higher, even if most games never get that stable.

Its marketing, guys.

skizzoyou must be doing something wrong in your assessments....or literally have the understanding completely backwards....."ultra quality" does not give a bigger performance boost over "quality" for example. In your list, the top of the list will provide the best picture but minimal FPS boost, while the further you move down the list you will get more FPS boost but also makes the picture looks worse.

You are mistaken about some things I wrote.

I am aware of how FSR and scaling are supposed to work and I spent quite some time, especially with the 1050Ti, assessing performance and visual tradeoffs. I'll assume you've done the same and if you haven't, you should try and see for yourself.

I agree that using lower quality modes past Ultra Quality should result in steadily improving FPS but these improvements are small compared to the initial big FPS boost from native to UQ.

I wrote that Quality gives almost no FPS improvement over Ultra Quality. You seem to assume I meant it gave a lower FPS improvement over Native, which is not the case. As the image quality in Quality mode is noticeably lower than Ultra Q mode, I feel that UQ is the sweet spot for FSR 1.0, at least for the GPUs, games, and display resolutions I tested.

skizzoAlso doing this on such a low res like 1080p is basically pointless. 1440p is feasible though. But really this whole system is designed for HIGHER resolutions like 4K to be used on cards or games that couldn't necessarily get better frame rates otherwise.

If you're playing CP2077 on a 1050 Ti, Ultra Quality makes it reasonable to play at 1080p as the FPS improvement is better than the image fidelity loss. IMO of course, others may not like that tradeoff. However in the same computer, I felt that the TAA implementation in HZD was really distractingly bad in combination with FSR to where I mildly preferred the generally soft but not distracting presentation of 80% raw scaling over FSR UQ or Q at 1080p. Honestly, I didn't like either and even though HZD is a great game, I'd just play something else until I got a better card.

Lew ZealandYou are mistaken about some things I wrote.

I am aware of how FSR and scaling are supposed to work and I spent quite some time, especially with the 1050Ti, assessing performance and visual tradeoffs. I'll assume you've done the same and if you haven't, you should try and see for yourself.

I agree that using lower quality modes past Ultra Quality should result in steadily improving FPS but these improvements are small compared to the initial big FPS boost from native to UQ.

I wrote that Quality gives almost no FPS improvement over Ultra Quality. You seem to assume I meant it gave a lower FPS improvement over Native, which is not the case. As the image quality in Quality mode is noticeably lower than Ultra Q mode, I feel that UQ is the sweet spot for FSR 1.0, at least for the GPUs, games, and display resolutions I tested.



If you're playing CP2077 on a 1050 Ti, Ultra Quality makes it reasonable to play at 1080p as the FPS improvement is better than the image fidelity loss. IMO of course, others may not like that tradeoff. However in the same computer, I felt that the TAA implementation in HZD was really distractingly bad in combination with FSR to where I mildly preferred the generally soft but not distracting presentation of 80% raw scaling over FSR UQ or Q at 1080p. Honestly, I didn't like either and even though HZD is a great game, I'd just play something else until I got a better card.

OK now I got ya! I did confuse what you meant, given the way it was written, I thought your comments were all in comparison to native so I thought you were confused about the settings. we're on the same page now :)

funny you say that, I have done the same approach on certain cards and games. when I got AC Odyssey it didn't play too hot on a RX 580 unless like 1080p low settings, not very good looking on a 4K TV, also didn't help I was on like a 10yr old X58 system at that time too so CPU bottleneck was a real problem, so I waited until I got a RX 5700 XT which went into a whole new Z390 system and could play something like 1440p high settings instead. sometimes, it's worth the wait to enjoy playing the game with better hardware. but FSR is here to help gamers in that exact situation, so I think it's a great piece of tech that hopefully can only get better from here.