Wednesday, March 20th 2024

AMD Announces FSR 3.1, Improves Super Resolution Quality, Allows Frame Generation to Work with Other Upscaling Tech

by
btarunr
 Discuss (44 Comments)
AMD at GDC 2024 announced the FidelityFX Super Resolution 3.1 (FSR 3.1). While the original FSR 3.0 feature-set largely carries forward the super resolution upscaler from FSR 2.2, adding frame generation on top; the new FSR 3.1 adds several image quality improvements to the upscaler itself, improving image quality at every performance preset. Specifically, it improves the temporal stability of the output at rest and in movement, to reduce flickering and shimmering, or "fizziness" around objects in motion. The new upscaler also reduces ghosting, and better preserves detail.

Next up, is a rather important change in the way the frame generation technology works. AMD has decoupled FSR 3.1 frame generation from the upscaling tech, which allows frame generation to work with other upscaling solutions, such as DLSS or XeSS. The possibilities of such a decoupling are endless—have an RTX 30-series "Ampere" GPU that lacks DLSS 3 frame generation support? No worries, use DLSS 2 for the upscaling, and FSR 3.1 for the frame generation. AMD is also clumping its FidelityFX family of technologies into a new FidelityFX API that makes it easier for developers to debug, and paves the way for forward-compatibility with future versions of FSR. Lastly, FSR 3.1 supports Vulkan API, and the Microsoft Xbox GDK. AMD plans to release FSR 3.1 to developers through its GPUOpen platform in Q2-2024, and its first implementations on games are expected later this year. In the meantime, AMD implemented FSR 3.1 on "Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart," to showcase the new upscaler.
Source: AMD

Related News

Add your own comment

44 Comments on AMD Announces FSR 3.1, Improves Super Resolution Quality, Allows Frame Generation to Work with Other Upscaling Tech

#1
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
  • Upscaling image quality improvements:
    • Improved temporary stability at rest and in movement – less flickering and/or shimmering and “Fizziness” around objects in motion.
    • Ghosting reduction and better preservation of detail.
Awesome to hear and see them acknowledge these issues and address them, looking forward to testing on my own setup to verify.
  • Decoupling FSR 3 upscaling from frame generation:
    • Allows FSR 3.1 frame generation technology to work with other upscaling solutions.
This is massive, now AMD users can underpin frame generation with XeSS/TSR etc, more options is always good and we can tweak to our preference even better.
  • New AMD FidelityFX API:
    • Makes it easier for developers to debug and allows forward compatibility with updated versions of FSR.
I really hope this means a DLL like DLSS does, then once the broader implementation is done dev's and users can swap in better/more preferable version according to their personal IQ tastes.

Very keen to see this in games, if AMD has narrowed the gap (especially at lower input/output resolutions where the gap just gets wider and wider) with no dedicated hardware it's a big bravo from me.
Posted on Reply
#2
outpt
Ratchet and Clank I’ll have to check that out
Posted on Reply
#3
odellus
waiting for vulkan support.
Posted on Reply
#4
nguyen
Seen lots of tech outlets mention that RTX GPUs don't run FSR3 all that well (big frametimes spike) that overall reduces the usability of FSR3 on non-Radeon GPU
Posted on Reply
#5
Cooe
wolfAwesome to hear and see them acknowledge these issues and address them, looking forward to testing on my own setup to verify.

This is massive, now AMD users can underpin frame generation with XeSS/TSR etc, more options is always good and we can tweak to our preference even better.

I really hope this means a DLL like DLSS does, then once the broader implementation is done dev's and users can swap in better/more preferable version according to their personal IQ tastes.

Very keen to see this in games, if AMD has narrowed the gap (especially at lower input/output resolutions where the gap just gets wider and wider) with no dedicated hardware it's a big bravo from me.
I have major doubts that the non-XMX accelerated version of XeSS will be noticably superior to FSR 3.1. It was a bit better than the FSR 2.2 upscaler, but this looks to be a HUUUUUGE improvement to FSR's biggest pain points. Aka, I really don't think that the option you describe will be worth using unless you are actually an Intel GPU owner.

Otoh, being able to use DLSS upscaling + FSR 3 frame-gen will be INCREDIBLY handy for RTX 2000/3000 owners though!
Posted on Reply
#6
john_
Nvidia RTX 20 or RTX 30 owner : LOL....AMD's FSR is such a garbage.
Same owner when playing games: FSR 3 with FG [ENABLED]
Posted on Reply
#7
Legacy-ZA
This is the one thing that I immensely appreciate about DLSS, and glad to see AMD finally solved it, that is; the shimmering objects at a distance that would always break my immersion, as my focus is on everything, not just the path at my feet or my character alone.
john_Nvidia RTX 20 or RTX 30 owner : LOL....AMD's FSR is such a garbage.
Same owner when playing games: FSR 3 with FG [ENABLED]
FSR FG isn't bad at all, especially if you use it in conjunction with nVidia reflex. (FSR FG mod that enables it to run with DLSS+Reflex enabled) works surprising well. I will however comment, that I can't compare it with nVidia's FG, and will only use it in certain game titles, in fast moving FPS titles, no, just no, but for things like Starfield, Skyrim, The Witcher etc, it's great.

What I actually want is for a reputable someone to compare that FSR 3 mod with nVidia's FG and give me not just an actual feel account, but with statistics. I can't stand input latency delay, it annoys the crap out of me.
Posted on Reply
#9
ZoneDymo
Solid stuff but ill state again, as I do for all these articles I can be bothered to comment on, I CANNOT WAIT FOR THIS TIMEPERIOD TO BE OVER and we just have one unified standard and can go back to comparing gpu's where it matters, hardware, not stupid arbitrary software lock-out nonsense for maximum profit/minimal effort.
Posted on Reply
#10
Dirt Chip
Too many possibilities, must have an AI to decide for me the best combination.
Posted on Reply
#11
Chrispy_
I'm glad AMD are working on keeping up with DLSS.
I still mostly hate upscaling for the blur, I'm the sort of person who immediately turns off blur in every game immediately, and I often turn off any other temporal AA if that's an option.

The problem with all upscaling is that it only really works well when the scene is static. The minute stuff starts moving at any significant pace the whole thing just loses detail and smears. I think a lot of people use Youtube videos to compare native vs DLSS/FSR/XeSS but that makes the upscaling solutions seem better than they really are by utterly murdering the quality of native through video compression. If you actually took a screengrab in motion of your gaming while playing with upscaling, you'd expose it for the garbage it really is.

Honestly, the only good thing about upscaling is the fact that you can natively render the UI and run the game at a lower resolution, but all of these comparisons to native on Youtube are disingenuous because honestly it's very hard to really equate any upscaling with native in most games. Something like BG3 where movement is slow and predictable are acceptable compromises for upscaling but they're also the sort of games that need the least upscaling help in the first place.
Posted on Reply
#12
nguyen
Chrispy_I'm glad AMD are working on keeping up with DLSS.
I still mostly hate upscaling for the blur, I'm the sort of person who immediately turns off blur in every game immediately, and I often turn off any other temporal AA if that's an option.

The problem with all upscaling is that it only really works well when the scene is static. The minute stuff starts moving at any significant pace the whole thing just loses detail and smears. I think a lot of people use Youtube videos to compare native vs DLSS/FSR/XeSS but that makes the upscaling solutions seem better than they really are by utterly murdering the quality of native through video compression. If you actually took a screengrab in motion of your gaming while playing with upscaling, you'd expose it for the garbage it really is.

Honestly, the only good thing about upscaling is the fact that you can natively render the UI and run the game at a lower resolution, but all of these comparisons to native on Youtube are disingenuous because honestly it's very hard to really equate any upscaling with native in most games. Something like BG3 where movement is slow and predictable are acceptable compromises for upscaling but they're also the sort of games that need the least upscaling help in the first place.
80-90FPS with Upscaling looks much crisper than 60FPS Native in motion though.
120FPS with Upscaling+Frame Gen is even way way crisper than 60FPS Native
Posted on Reply
#13
Denver
nguyen80-90FPS with Upscaling looks much crisper than 60FPS Native in motion though.
120FPS with Upscaling+Frame Gen is even way way crisper than 60FPS Native
Never, ever, under any circumstances under any scenario is this true. Do not confuse Native image with TAA.
Posted on Reply
#14
nguyen
DenverNever, ever, under any circumstances under any scenario is this true. Do not confuse Native image with TAA.
Just go to blurbusters.com/ and see how 60FPS look in motion vs 120FPS

www.testufo.com/
Posted on Reply
#15
3x0
nguyenJust go to blurbusters.com/ and see how 60FPS look in motion vs 120FPS
You're comparing native 120FPS and Frame Gen 120FPS, which isn't the same thing at all.
Posted on Reply
#17
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
nguyen80-90FPS with Upscaling looks much crisper than 60FPS Native in motion though.
Absolutely, and I mean especially at 4k where the resolve is as good or better typically, and then you add +50% fluidity through the framerate, easy win for the vast majority of people. I can appreciate some people just cannot stomach TAA of any kind, but in most games with it, you need to use it or a derivative (ie, can't disable it... and why would most people), so you may as well get the equal or better IQ and the FPS boost. This scenario can absolutely be true.
Posted on Reply
#18
theouto
I don't like upscaling, but if it's forced, then at least it's good that the open alternative is being improved upon. In the website you can see moving comparisons, and I like what I am seeing (But not enough to turn upscaling on).
Posted on Reply
#19
DemonicRyzen666
DenverNever, ever, under any circumstances under any scenario is this true. Do not confuse Native image with TAA.
That's exactly what Hardware unboxed calls "Native".
It's Native with TAA enable.
Posted on Reply
#20
Denver
DemonicRyzen666That's exactly what Hardware unboxed calls "Native".
It's Native with TAA enable.
To be fair, that's what most reviewers do. Which is terrible, because it gives the wrong idea that upscaling improves quality, TAA is just terrible and blurry, upscaling is still blurry but somehow to a lesser extent.

It's impossible to overlook the blurriness introduced by these temporal filters; in fact, aliasing becomes a minor concern in comparison. :(
Posted on Reply
#21
Event Horizon
Good, this is a big step in the right direction.
Posted on Reply
#22
kapone32
My thoughts are if you have an AM5 X3D chip and a 7900XT/XTX you don't even need to use upscaling to enjoy native 4K. Though this is good, my monitor is only 144hz so maybe when I get a faster monitor, I might use it. By that time Upscaling will be a part of whatever MS calls their next DX version so it is good that AMD is laying the groundwork. It is already agnostic. Once again AMD greases the squeaky wheel that is the narrative.
Posted on Reply
#23
rv8000
wolfAbsolutely, and I mean especially at 4k where the resolve is as good or better typically, and then you add +50% fluidity through the framerate, easy win for the vast majority of people. I can appreciate some people just cannot stomach TAA of any kind, but in most games with it, you need to use it or a derivative (ie, can't disable it... and why would most people), so you may as well get the equal or better IQ and the FPS boost. This scenario can absolutely be true.
TAA and better image quality in the same sentence? You’re joking right? In all of the games ive played I’ve yet to see a good implementation of TAA that doesn't turn everything into a smeared mess (most recently the garabage implementation in Hell Divers 2).
Posted on Reply
#24
wheresmycar
btarunrhave an RTX 30-series "Ampere" GPU that lacks DLSS 3 frame generation support? No worries, use DLSS 2 for the upscaling, and FSR 3.1 for the frame generation.
Yes Sir! i'm on a RTX 3080 and DLSS 2 + FSR 3.1 is definitely something I wouldn't mind trying out.

I've always stuck to native settings by default and my 3080, although still a great performing GPU, is beginning to fall a tiny bit behind preferred performance goals. The performance disparity is unobservable although on one newer title i'm barely hitting 80fps (gets the job done though). I'm more concerned with future releases - hence I wouldn't mind delving into upscalers paired with FGs. Only issue being, i'm on a 1440p panel and from what i've seen upscaling from 1080p doesn't have the same appeal as 1440p>4K. Still worth a shot as some games will fare better than others. Defo a promising alternative opposed to looking to hi-perf extortionately priced current Gen upgrades.
Posted on Reply
#25
wolf
Performance Enthusiast
rv8000TAA and better image quality in the same sentence? You’re joking right? In all of the games ive played I’ve yet to see a good implementation of TAA that doesn't turn everything into a smeared mess (most recently the garabage implementation in Hell Divers 2).
As in, Upscaling (specifically DLSS and in my case at 4k on an OLED) producing a better result than the forced TAA at native res, that cannot be totally disabled in a majority of modern games and is often very average at best.

If the comparatively rarer game comes out where TAA is not forced, sure you can get a crisper image at native with say FXAA or SMAA or even no AA (if you can tolerate that unstable mess), at the expense of other faults in the image, no denying that.

Personally I can't stand shimmer, but that's highly personal, I 100% understand that to some the softer resolve is what they can't stand and are willing to trade that perhaps against shimmer for example.

But I try my best to not put forward my opinion as if it's a universal fact that applies to everyone. For me, a potentially slightly softer (4k mitigates the majority of softness, this gets worse as resolution lowers) but very stable image without shimmer, fizzle, flicker and breakup is eminently desirable over a slightly sharper image with one of more of those artefacts persisting.

All decided on a per game basis mind you, I can't remember the titles right now but recently I did play a couple of games where I did go with FXAA or SMAA as I had the rendering budget to spare and the art/geometry etc style didn't present many opportunities for the artefacts I can't stand.
Posted on Reply
Add your own comment
May 1st, 2024 20:21 EDT change timezone

Latest GPU Drivers

New Forum Posts

Popular Reviews

Controversial News Posts