Resident Evil 4 Remake: FSR 2.1

[maxus24]

Resident Evil 4 Remake is out now, with support for AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution 1.0 (FSR 1.0) and AMD's FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.1 (FSR 2.1). In this mini-review we take a look, comparing the image quality and performance gains offered by these technologies.

Show full review

 

[usiname]

I had forgotten the powerful Leon's kick

 

[Space Lynx]

another fail by AMD.

they really should have never put so many resources in trying to match DLSS, and instead focused on optimizing and more raster performance. FSR has been junk for awhile now.

 

[evernessince]

another fail by AMD.

they really should have never put so many resources in trying to match DLSS, and instead focused on optimizing and more raster performance. FSR has been junk for awhile now.

?? FSR 2.0 is pretty great in many games.

You are conflating an individual example with the whole.

Surely this isn't the only review of FSR post 2.0 that you've seen.

This is akin to me picking out a single game where DLSS looks poor and saying the technology is failed while ignoring all the other games it works fine in.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

?? FSR 2.0 is pretty great in many games.

You are conflating an individual example with the whole.

Surely this isn't the only review of FSR post 2.0 that you've seen.

This is akin to me picking out a single game where DLSS looks poor and saying the technology is failed while ignoring all the other games it works fine in.

I still find it trash in most games vs DLSS especially at lower than 4k resolution to the point if a game doesn't support DLSS I just ignore the setting. It's basically better than nothing and the only real positive is it runs on any gpu although slower gpu's don't really benefit much from it.

 

[chrcoluk]

It was good when I tried it in RPCS3 for FF13-2.

Basically I tested it on the character equipment screen as well as the game itself, and the jaggies from the quite low native resolution were for the most part gone, but it had some side effects, might have been a buggy implementation by the emulator though.

The emulator also has a standard downscaler option from a higher rendering resolution which is superior, but of course that requires much more grunt and on RPCS3 doesnt work on all games including FF13-2 hence me trying out the option.

 

[Denver]

There's something really wrong with the implementation in this game, I'm not a fan of those tricks... but it's really quite underwhelming even at 4k. It's the worst implementation of FSR2 so far.

 

[Space Lynx]

?? FSR 2.0 is pretty great in many games.

You are conflating an individual example with the whole.

Surely this isn't the only review of FSR post 2.0 that you've seen.

This is akin to me picking out a single game where DLSS looks poor and saying the technology is failed while ignoring all the other games it works fine in.

the only three games I tried FSR in, all 3 looked horribly blurry.

 

[haps]

I agree FSR 2 is usually pretty bad. TAA + Sharpen filter is often better... I got 6750XT so I could use the boost but its just not worth it. Only games I use FSR is Dying Light 2 and Cyberpunk.

 

[BIGMicro]

I still find it trash in most games vs DLSS especially at lower than 4k resolution to the point if a game doesn't support DLSS I just ignore the setting. It's basically better than nothing and the only real positive is it runs on any gpu although slower gpu's don't really benefit much from it.

the only three games I tried FSR in, all 3 looked horribly blurry.

So it work like..DLSS ?

Andrew Edelsten, Technical Director of Deep Learning at NVIDIA
Q: Some users mentioned blurry frames. Can you explain?
A: DLSS is a new technology and we are working hard to perfect it.
We built DLSS to leverage the Turing architecture’s Tensor Cores and to provide the largest benefit when GPU load is high. To this end, we concentrated on high resolutions during development (where GPU load is highest) with 4K (3840x2160) being the most common training target. Running at 4K is beneficial when it comes to image quality as the number of input pixels is high. Typically for 4K DLSS, we have around 3.5-5.5 million pixels from which to generate the final frame, while at 1920x1080 we only have around 1.0-1.5 million pixels. The less source data, the greater the challenge for DLSS to detect features in the input frame and predict the final frame.

We have seen the screenshots and are listening to the community’s feedback about DLSS at lower resolutions, and are focusing on it as a top priority. We are adding more training data and some new techniques to improve quality, and will continue to train the deep neural network so that it improves over time.

 

[Calmmo]

I still find it trash in most games vs DLSS especially at lower than 4k resolution to the point if a game doesn't support DLSS I just ignore the setting. It's basically better than nothing and the only real positive is it runs on any gpu although slower gpu's don't really benefit much from it.

In a sense I'm not a fan of either, they are both good for what they are but the only way they can improve image quality is if they are replacing a poor game/engine native TAA with their own. But that's not why they're there is it, they exist to provide a way to get playable performance with RT. It's a tradeoff, give away some overall image quality and you get to keep your shiny RT effects! If i had to chose one it'd be DLSS simply because when both are implemented well, FSR has that issue around frequently/fast occluded/disoccluded objects.

One thing i can say for certain is the cult following and attention these GPU maker TAA solutions get is absurd as is the toxic internet discourse and amount of mis/mal-information spread about them as to what they do - and actually are.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

In a sense I'm not a fan of either, they are both good for what they are but the only way they can improve image quality is if they are replacing a poor game/engine native TAA with their own. But that's not why they're there is it, they exist to provide a way to get playable performance with RT. It's a tradeoff, give away some overall image quality and you get to keep your shiny RT effects! If i had to chose one it'd be DLSS simply because when both are implemented well, FSR has that issue around frequently/fast occluded/disoccluded objects.

One thing i can say for certain is the cult following and attention these GPU maker TAA solutions get is absurd as is the toxic internet discourse and amount of mis/mal-information spread about them as to what they do - and actually are.

I like quality mode and only at 4k. I use a 65 inch LG G2 to game on so I'm sitting about 8-10 feet from the screen. On my 4090 it really isn't necessary to use in most games but I still find the way it looks better than most AA implementations.

 

[outpt]

good old resolution just works.

 

[evernessince]

I still find it trash in most games vs DLSS especially at lower than 4k resolution to the point if a game doesn't support DLSS I just ignore the setting. It's basically better than nothing and the only real positive is it runs on any gpu although slower gpu's don't really benefit much from it.

the only three games I tried FSR in, all 3 looked horribly blurry.

These both are facetious arguments when there are a ton of FSR 2.x reviews on this very website that show that FSR 2.x and DLSS 2.x are close.

DLSS is still better on average but saying FSR 2.x is trash or similar hyperbole doesn't align with the facts.

I agree FSR 2 is usually pretty bad. TAA + Sharpen filter is often better... I got 6750XT so I could use the boost but its just not worth it. Only games I use FSR is Dying Light 2 and Cyberpunk.

Cyberpunk 2077: FSR 2.1 vs. DLSS Comparison Review

Cyberpunk 2077 has recently been updated with official support for AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.1 (FSR 2.1). In this mini-review, we take a look, comparing the image quality and performance gains offered by upscaling technologies in this game.

www.techpowerup.com

"Compared to native TAA, FSR 2.1 image quality is a very noticeable upgrade across all resolutions"

"Compared to DLSS, one of the most noticeable differences in image quality between DLSS and FSR 2.1 is the quality of the built-in anti-aliasing. In the DLSS image, most of the edges of the game geometry are smoothed well, where in the FSR 2.1 image they have a somewhat more pixelated look. The second-most-noticeable difference is how FSR 2.1 deals with ghosting. In comparison to DLSS, FSR 2.1 handles the ghosting issues even better than DLSS at day time, but when there is a lack of lighting in the scene, the FSR 2.1 image may have some black smearing behind moving objects at extreme angles."

If you look at the image in the review, both are good. The difference between the two are minute quirks. You may be thinking of the FSR 1.0 implementation that both of those games had (not sure if Dying light has been updated to 2.0 yet although you can drop in the newer FSR version with a mod).

 

[Space Lynx]

These both are facetious arguments when there are a ton of FSR 2.x reviews on this very website that show that FSR 2.x and DLSS 2.x are close.

DLSS is still better on average but saying FSR 2.x is trash or similar hyperbole doesn't align with the facts.

Cyberpunk 2077: FSR 2.1 vs. DLSS Comparison Review

Cyberpunk 2077 has recently been updated with official support for AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.1 (FSR 2.1). In this mini-review, we take a look, comparing the image quality and performance gains offered by upscaling technologies in this game.

www.techpowerup.com

"Compared to native TAA, FSR 2.1 image quality is a very noticeable upgrade across all resolutions"

"Compared to DLSS, one of the most noticeable differences in image quality between DLSS and FSR 2.1 is the quality of the built-in anti-aliasing. In the DLSS image, most of the edges of the game geometry are smoothed well, where in the FSR 2.1 image they have a somewhat more pixelated look. The second-most-noticeable difference is how FSR 2.1 deals with ghosting. In comparison to DLSS, FSR 2.1 handles the ghosting issues even better than DLSS at day time, but when there is a lack of lighting in the scene, the FSR 2.1 image may have some black smearing behind moving objects at extreme angles."

If you look at the image in the review, both are good. The difference between the two are minute quirks. You may be thinking of the FSR 1.0 implementation that both of those games had (not sure if Dying light has been updated to 2.0 yet although you can drop in the newer FSR version with a mod).

I prefer native rez. simple as that. i don't care about either of them. to my eyes native looks better.

 

[oxrufiioxo]

These both are facetious arguments when there are a ton of FSR 2.x reviews on this very website that show that FSR 2.x and DLSS 2.x are close.

DLSS is still better on average but saying FSR 2.x is trash or similar hyperbole doesn't align with the facts.

Cyberpunk 2077: FSR 2.1 vs. DLSS Comparison Review

Cyberpunk 2077 has recently been updated with official support for AMD FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.1 (FSR 2.1). In this mini-review, we take a look, comparing the image quality and performance gains offered by upscaling technologies in this game.

www.techpowerup.com

"Compared to native TAA, FSR 2.1 image quality is a very noticeable upgrade across all resolutions"

"Compared to DLSS, one of the most noticeable differences in image quality between DLSS and FSR 2.1 is the quality of the built-in anti-aliasing. In the DLSS image, most of the edges of the game geometry are smoothed well, where in the FSR 2.1 image they have a somewhat more pixelated look. The second-most-noticeable difference is how FSR 2.1 deals with ghosting. In comparison to DLSS, FSR 2.1 handles the ghosting issues even better than DLSS at day time, but when there is a lack of lighting in the scene, the FSR 2.1 image may have some black smearing behind moving objects at extreme angles."

If you look at the image in the review, both are good. The difference between the two are minute quirks. You may be thinking of the FSR 1.0 implementation that both of those games had (not sure if Dying light has been updated to 2.0 yet although you can drop in the newer FSR version with a mod).

I've tried FSR 2.X in at least 10-15 games hate it in every single one it's passable at 4k if you don't have a choice and need the performance.

 

[DemonicRyzen666]

good old resolution just works.

native for the win.

 

[evernessince]

I prefer native rez. simple as that. i don't care about either of them. to my eyes native looks better.

The argument you were making earlier was that FSR is still trash compared to DLSS, not that native is best.

I don't see how a single line comment is a reply to the information provided, other than to make an argument in bad faith.

 

[wolf]

there are a ton of FSR 2.x reviews on this very website that show that FSR 2.x and DLSS 2.x are close.

they certainly can be close at least on some aspects, this example clearly isn't one of them

DLSS is still better on average but saying FSR 2.x is trash or similar hyperbole doesn't align with the facts.

Agreed, a good FSR 2 implementation looks considerably better, hopefully it gets fixed or is an easy fix.

I've tried FSR 2.X in at least 10-15 games hate it in every single one it's passable at 4k if you don't have a choice and need the performance.

gaming at 4k targeting 120 I tend to agree albeit perhaps slightly less harsh on FSR 2.x, certainly passable at 4k, it falls apart hard and fast the more you drop the input/output res, but I can still respect what it's doing and that it's a net positive to have it as an option.

Speaking of image quality, the FSR 1.0 and FSR 2.1 implementation comes with very noticeable compromises in image quality even at 4K Quality mode—in favor of performance in most sequences of the game. Both FSR 1.0 and FSR 2.1 are suffering from a very blurry overall image quality in comparison to the native image and interlaced checkerboard rendering mode, and the FSR 2.1 implementation has even more image quality issues compared to the FSR 1.0.

I mean that's just a straight up garbage implementation, or that whatever this engine is doing doesn't play well with FSR. The DLSS mod appears to work as DLSS should, so it does seem like this isn't.

 

[The DOOM SL4YER]

with fsr even on "quality" you are losing image quality i use dlss instead paired with dlaa and it looks better (with the mod)

 

[ilyon]

Stop whining, a more than native best in class build by the best GPU maker ever named DLSS™ will soon be released.

Our eyes are bleeding too much with this bad clone: we deserve the clean and pure technology of NVIDIA™ RTX™ DLSS™ "The Way It's Meant To Be Played".

 

[evernessince]

with fsr even on "quality" you are losing image quality i use dlss instead paired with dlaa and it looks better (with the mod)

Speaking of, I really wish there were an option to use DLSS and FSR at screen resolution to get a quality boost.

 

[watzupken]

another fail by AMD.

they really should have never put so many resources in trying to match DLSS, and instead focused on optimizing and more raster performance. FSR has been junk for awhile now.

The implementation of DLSS and FSR is very dependent on the game developer. Nothing to do with the technology. If you look at Forspoken, DLSS looks worst. Factually, FSR 2.x is never as good as DLSS 2/3, but the purpose of upscaling tech is really to make a game playable without it looking as bad as dropping native resolution or image quality. The fact that DLSS and FSR can look good in some games, but not others, just means that the developer did not implement it properly.

And it is sad to see new generation high end cards having to rely on upscaling tricks to get good framerates this soon.

 

[Xuper]

I extracted Youtube sample and watched on my TV Sony KDL-W800C ( 43inch , 1080p) , Still can't see different between Native/FSR.

 

[Chomiq]

What about comparison to Interlaced option, which is Capcom's method of checkerboarding.