Soul_My god. What an uninformed article. The decision by Microsoft is to use the API interface similar to what is used in FSR 2.2, not the FSR itself. Hence, not the up scaling technology.

Once this interface is established, you can plug in whichever up scaling tech into it, to magically work with the games. That is it.

Quite similar to how DLL swaps work today to bring one tech in lieu of another into a game that doesn’t support both.

I expected better from TPU.

First, Hargreaves stated, "We are not trying to unify the super-resolution upscaler to a one-size-fits-all specification, but the goal is to make it easier for developers and users to work with." [...] However, although each technology has its own advantages and disadvantages, the functions of converting the resolution of game images while restoring and enhancing the sense of resolution are the same, so the processing systems are very similar to each other.
In this case, there is no need to implement all of the DLSS/FSR/XeSS shader code in the entire game. Microsoft thought it would be a good idea to put these core processing parts under DirectSR.
With this mechanism, the game can handle all DLSS/FSR/XeSS by simply calling DirectSR by performing only the preliminary processing necessary for the super-resolution upscaler and preparing the parameters.

GodisanAtheistSo long as the underlying tech/upscaling algo's can eventually be updated to ones that have been trained its not a huge issue at the moment.

I figure FSR will be on its way to being an AI trained algo before long, and a good way to cross market the MI300 etc...

The thing about DLSS is that its feature gating etc is entirely a management decision by NV. No reason you couldn't run DLSS on shaders. It might run slower than using tensor cores, but its more of a tail wagging the dog situation here where NV needed to find a reason to use the tensor cores than the cores really being required to run DLSS.

Soul_My god. What an uninformed article. The decision by Microsoft is to use the API interface similar to what is used in FSR 2.2, not the FSR itself. Hence, not the up scaling technology.

Once this interface is established, you can plug in whichever up scaling tech into it, to magically work with the games. That is it.

Quite similar to how DLL swaps work today to bring one tech in lieu of another into a game that doesn’t support both.

I expected better from TPU.

phintsFSR 2.2? Lol pass.

Chrispy_Oh dear.
It makes sense I guess, because FSR is relatively mature and open, but also as the lowest-common-denominator it's also the lowest quality of the three options.

phintsFSR 2.2? Lol pass.

kapone32A better example would be how Vulkan got integrated to DX12.

GodisanAtheistThe thing about DLSS is that its feature gating etc is entirely a management decision by NV. No reason you couldn't run DLSS on shaders. It might run slower than using tensor cores, but its more of a tail wagging the dog situation here where NV needed to find a reason to use the tensor cores than the cores really being required to run DLSS.