AMD needs something... anything... to brag about. Their Frame Generation tech has worked well enough on the preview driver in my testing. I don't play any games where I would want frame generation though.

lol, that’s bullcrap. Driver based frame interpolation has been tested in multiple games. It works well when ur camera or view doesn’t move, u get very smooth motion. But anytime there’s a fast movement, the frame rate drops dramatically, causing a shuttery mess. There are a bunch of videos on YouTube I believe. Driver based interpolation needs to get smarter for it to work in games. AMD clearly isn’t there yet. Heck, I have a feeling even intel can do better than AMD in this regard considering there matrix cores are much better than what AMD has in their GPUs.

Zunexxxlol, that’s bullcrap. Driver based frame interpolation has been tested in multiple games. It works well when ur camera or view doesn’t move, u get very smooth motion. But anytime there’s a fast movement, the frame rate drops dramatically, causing a shuttery mess. There are a bunch of videos on YouTube I believe. Driver based interpolation needs to get smarter for it to work in games. AMD clearly isn’t there yet. Heck, I have a feeling even intel can do better than AMD in this regard considering there matrix cores are much better than what AMD has in their GPUs.

Yes there are already some videos that show examples.
One example was Starfield. When you walk straight FMF works as intended and you get high FPS. But once you turn the camera fast, it turns off and you get the lower FPS.
It is practically unusable in shooters or any fast-paced game.

NordicAMD needs something... anything... to brag about. Their Frame Generation tech has worked well enough on the preview driver in my testing. I don't play any games where I would want frame generation though.

AMD is doing just fine.

Please AMD no need to brag, offering a fully open alternative is already a major win, as long as you stay within arms reach.
Frame interpolation is pretty solid so far, but your upscaling quite frankly isn't great, behind intel even.

Well, technically correct since Nvidia doesn't offer anything at all on this front.

Not enough popcorn, simply not enough.

NVIDIA doesn't need to be ahead on software-based solutions because... they have a far superior hardware-based solution. So no, Mr Steinman (or perhaps we should call you Mr Copium), I don't think NVIDIA feels any need to drag themselves down to your level. Perhaps you should spend less time making press appearances where you embarrass yourself, and more on increasing the quality of the drivers you're "engineering buddies" are responsible for?

ppl getting triggered by gamesmanship lmao

Never understood upscaliing, if I'm paying thousands for a graphics card and screen... I want the best image quality. That is native resolution. No interest in DLSS, FSR or whatever.

Breaking news: AMD claims Nvidia "far behind" in race to fit entire foot in mouth

Joking aside, this really isn't something AMD should be trying to lay shots on Nvidia for. FSR/FRTC is great and all, open source good, but DLSS demolishes it 9 times out of 10. If anything they should be coming at a price/performance angle.

Dirt ChipNot enough popcorn, simply not enough.

My take LOL

AMD couldn't dig themselves deeper..........

qlumPlease AMD no need to brag, offering a fully open alternative is already a major win, as long as you stay within arms reach.
Frame interpolation is pretty solid so far, but your upscaling quite frankly isn't great, behind intel even.

They arnt bragging, this isnt some press release, this is just a man working for AMD answering questions of some company/website, in this case PC gamer.

mb194dcNever understood upscaliing, if I'm paying thousands for a graphics card and screen... I want the best image quality. That is native resolution. No interest in DLSS, FSR or whatever.

Missing the point kind of, it's not about upscaling... AMD frame generation is free, not tied to hardware or hardware locked like oh say Nvidia.

[URL='https://www.techpowerup.com/317730/amd-believes-nvidia-is-behind-in-driver-based-upscaler-development']Driver-Based Upscaler Development[/URL]

Technically this is correct as NVIDIA only has NVIDIA Image Scaling (NIS) which operates independently from the game. I don't think they improved it as much as AMD did with Super Resolution (RSR).

The only problem with RSR is that there is still a slight performance hit (and possibly a small amount of frame/input lag) when enabled, at least when I try it in Apex Legends from 1280x720 upscaled to 1920x1080 (ROG Ally), most likely due to the sharpening filter it does post-process. I did not try it on the RX 7900XTX since its powerful enough to handle anything out at the moment, and I prefer Integer Scaling for 2160p down to 1080p since there is no extra processing.

mb194dcNever understood upscaliing, if I'm paying thousands for a graphics card and screen... I want the best image quality. That is native resolution. No interest in DLSS, FSR or whatever.

A lot of modern games rely on TAA for rendering things like hair and foliage and more. So no matter what, TAA must be on. That introduces a lot of blurry stuff. Basically DLSS2 and FSR2 both fix a lot of the problems introduced with TAA, so they are kind of a must, and since you are already using them, might as well get that frame rate boost by using a sub native resolution. Just to be clear DLSS2 is a fix for TAA, if you are playing a game without TAA, just play native. [don't think of DLSS and FSR as an upscaler so much as just a substituted superior version of the TAA you are already forced to use]

The output resolution really matters. If you have a 1080p monitor, stay away from upscaling. But I've used FSR2 with a 4k monitor and it is world's better than it is with a 1080p/1440p monitor. 1080p to 4k FSR2 and DLSS2 can both be decent. In the future if we have 8k monitors, you'll probably find that 4k to 8k FSR2 or DLSS2 will be even more effective.

--- one of the reasons Ori and the new Assassin's Creed game released today look so great is that they have a fixed camera perspective and don't use TAA. Play those games at native 4k and voila, you forgot how good games used to look at 4k when there was no TAA. SHARP!

((( Also the entire NVidia versus AMD debate is tiring because the only proper way to do it is pretend you don't know the card's brand, just review card A, B, and C for example. Let's do an example: Card A is 18 percent slower at 1440p, but Card B is 2.1x the price... so basically Card A is ahead by 75 percent in performance per dollar, basically an entire generation ahead of Card B. Later you find out that Card A is the 7900 XTX and Card B is the RTX 4090. IE the 7900 XTX's value is so high it beats the 4090 by massive margins, and might even beat the RTX 5090 too. So first evaluate performance and price, then reveal the names, and you'll find that most NVidia cards are a generation behind. Heck, the RTX 4080 was a generation behind the RTX 3080, no joke. The RTX 4080 was an RTX 2080 class card in perf/dollar. Ridiculous )))

GarrusA lot of modern games rely on TAA for rendering things like hair and foliage and more. So no matter what, TAA must be on. That introduces a lot of blurry stuff. Basically DLSS2 and FSR2 both fix a lot of the problems introduced with TAA, so they are kind of a must, and since you are already using them, might as well get that frame rate boost by using a sub native resolution. Just to be clear DLSS2 is a fix for TAA, if you are playing a game without TAA, just play native. [don't think of DLSS and FSR as an upscaler so much as just a substituted superior version of the TAA you are already forced to use]

TAA itself cause more artifacts than what it's worth. What's crazy is this was known issue with TAA & we're still using it? (sometimes even forced to use it)

AMD is right here Nivea doesn't have driver level Frame Generation and NIS is trash even compared to FSR 1 :>

CheeseballTechnically this is correct as NVIDIA only has NVIDIA Image Scaling (NIS) which operates independently from the game. I don't think they improved it as much as AMD did with Super Resolution (RSR).

The only problem with RSR is that there is still a slight performance hit (and possibly a small amount of frame/input lag) when enabled, at least when I try it in Apex Legends from 1280x720 upscaled to 1920x1080 (ROG Ally), most likely due to the sharpening filter it does post-process. I did not try it on the RX 7900XTX since its powerful enough to handle anything out at the moment, and I prefer Integer Scaling for 2160p down to 1080p since there is no extra processing.

Yep, people seem to think AMD is bragging about it's upscaling at large when they are bragging about driver side upscaling specifically here. They are correct but I'm not sure if they are scoring any points by pointing it out. As it stands right now driver side upscaling is nice but irrelevant in any game that includes software upscaling. It might be a bigger deal if driver based upscaling had better quality.

1stn00bAMD is right here Nivea doesn't have driver level Frame Generation and NIS is trash even compared to FSR 1 :>

You don't compare NIS to FSR1, you compare it to Radeon Super Resolution (RSR). RSR when it first came out (RX 5700 XT) was not that good at all, especially since it did add lots of input lag at the time.

EDIT: Additionally, I don't think AMD should be pushing AFMF as an advantage specifically for their mobile APUs (Z1, Z1 Extreme) as because it is frame generation, the recommendation is to have a minimum of 60 FPS, which is not always doable on heavier titles on the current Windows handhelds. It should be fine on their desktop and laptop GPUs.

Garrusyou'll probably find that 4k to 8k FSR2 or DLSS2 will be even more effective.

By the time mass 8K displays become a thing these upscalers will become advanced enough even for 1440p to 4320p to look decent at worst. And I agree, these upscalers are a very strong and useful tool for UHD gamers. I got a relatively slow 6700 XT and game at 4K + FSR: Performance (1080p to 2160p upscaling) and it doesn't destroy my eyes. Of course it has its flaws but native 1440p looks worse than that.

AMD are MAD though.

Beginner Micro DeviceBy the time mass 8K displays become a thing these upscalers will become advanced enough even for 1440p to 4320p to look decent at worst. And I agree, these upscalers are a very strong and useful tool for UHD gamers. I got a relatively slow 6700 XT and game at 4K + FSR: Performance (1080p to 2160p upscaling) and it doesn't destroy my eyes. Of course it has its flaws but native 1440p looks worse than that.

AMD are MAD though.

8K will never be a thing, despite vendors interest in pushing such insanity on desktop I'm sure. The idea that someone needs to go beyond 4K for gaming is laughable IMO. What a waste of resources that would be. But I'm sure 85" desktop monitors with 200R curvature will be a thing one day and 8K would look nice from 30cm away.

Minus InfinityThe idea that someone needs to go beyond 4K for gaming is laughable IMO.

"640 kB is enough for everyone."

The difference in fidelity is real. Calculating power grows, upscaling technology improves. It's a matter of time. Maybe in 10 or 15 years we will have 8K monitors for sub 800 USD and GPUs capable of reasonable 8K gaming at High or at least Medium settings at sub 1000 USD mark. Doesn't sound insane to me (15 years ago, 1080p60 was not a thing, just FYI).

Good that amd is confidence about its technology, on the other hand nvidia will probably bring out dlss4.0 with new up scaling tech which will probably be locked to 40 series and 50 series…. Don’t know who to use anymore ….

CheeseballYou don't compare NIS to FSR1, you compare it to Radeon Super Resolution (RSR). RSR when it first came out (RX 5700 XT) was not that good at all, especially since it did add lots of input lag at the time.

RSR is literally FSR1 on driver level. The difference is that FSR is implemented in-engine and can be done before GUI, post process or whatever, while RSR works on final image. The scaling algorithms are the same.