Cyberpunk 2077 Patch 1.62: Native w/TAA vs FSR 2.1 vs Intel XeSS 1.1

[@FlatlinedBenchmarks]

3:20 smoke and fog*

[@LaminatRbx]

XeSS Ultra Quality literally looks better than native 1080p for my eyes and extra performance.

[@FlatlinedBenchmarks]

Same using it all the time now

[@marcely1199]

I never thought that native could flicker so badly while standing still

[@LaminatRbx]

​@@marcely1199 because XeSS changes the normal TAA anti-aliasing to the XeSS upscaling. So the gpu can render faster and it gets better anti-aliasing.

[@OutlawedPoet]

Yeah, the TAA implementation in Cyberpunk is really unstable despite being so blurry. XESS looks so much better and gives a solid performance boost over native. Next best thing if you don't have an RTX card.

[@JagHiroshi]

XeSS coming along nicely.

[@FlatlinedBenchmarks]

True, I hope they fix the ghosting in the future then it'll be the best option for GPU's that don't support DLSS

[@schnitzel_enjoyer]

Xess and dlss are stable, fsr looks ugly with shimmer and artifacts also what gpu and cpu?

[@s0ad29]

well XESS 1.1 looks better than FSR 2.1 with my rx 6800 xt.. i'm surprised.

[@anuzahyder7185]

Xess on intel arc is really good, way better than fsr. Amd shud be actually ashamed of themselves. Fsr is really bad

[@bamboo9666]

It work on AMD? Though it only work on Intel😅 have to try it now

[@alfonso5177]

@@anuzahyder7185 Xess is upscalling from 900p, while FSR 2.1 is upscalling from 720, thats why Xess looks better, but also it gives a lot less fps boost.

[@anuzahyder7185]

@@alfonso5177 bro even lower settings of xess is much better on intel gpu.

[@alfonso5177]

@@anuzahyder7185 Only on intel arc gpu, (that ones with bad drivers), saddly for amd and nvidia gpu, Xess can even give you lower fps. (like it does on warzone)

[@godblessbharat708]

I want to see native 4k and native 1080p images then xess and dlss upscaled images

[@FelixOnn1]

I downloaded Shadow of the Tomb Raider just to check Xess with my RX 6600. Tried it on Benchmark with Ultra Quality, but I got about 10fps slower than native. Don't know if it's my GPU or it's drivers, or even the game, but it was noticiable worse

[@nrianvega9086]

Intel arc 😎

[@cronos1675]

Cuz you neee intel arc for more better performance in xess

[@holeefuk53]

0:27 < 1:01

[@charlespuyol-ox7iw]

Xess works with nvidia gtx line?

[@gtx1650max-q]

How much is the fps gain and difference betwen the two

[@FlatlinedBenchmarks]

Very similar. XeSS Ultra Quality scales up from 900p while FSR only has Quality which upscales from 720p so FSR will perform slightly better but XeSS looks better

[@speedforce8970]

This is an unfair comparison because Intel XeSS ultra quality has a scale factor of 1.3x ie, at 1080p, the actual render resolution for this mode is 1477x831 approximately which is considerably more than FSR 2's Quality mode which has a render resolution of 1280x720 and 1.5x scale factor. If FSR 2 had a ultra quality option which had a 1.3x scale factor, chances are it would look and perform about the same, maybe it would still look worse though. If you really want to compare these two, use XeSS on quality because that has a 1.5x scale factor so it would be upscaling from the same render resolution, just a little tidbit about XeSS.

[@FlatlinedBenchmarks]

It's not unfair because, as I stated at the start of the video, I'm comparing the highest possible quality option.

[@speedforce8970]

@@FlatlinedBenchmarks That doesn't make it fair, it makes it justifiable but the comparison is unfair because I could program in a ultra quality mode into FSR 2 with a 1.3x scale factor if I spend enough time and learn it and then that would be the highest possible quality option and you would have to redo the video making the video a bit redundant whereas if you just compare the same quality modes, you don't have to redo anything. Its fine though, still a great video from you! I appreciate you actually zooming in and showing the difference. Other channels just show normal gameplay with each option and expect us to zoom in to find the difference but you made it rather obvious. Maybe AMD will introduce a Ultra quality option in the future, they had one with FSR 1.

[@bleack8701]

@@speedforce8970 it's completely fair. If AMD's scale had a scale factor of 1.5 it would still be valid. It's a question of what the game looks if you set to the highest option

[@Hybred]

Why are you comparing FSR Quality to XeSS Ultra Quality? And no FPS numbers? I appreciate you took the time to do the comparison but this methodology makes no sense

[@FlatlinedBenchmarks]

I mentioned that not even 10 seconds into the video. FSR 2.1 doesn't have Ultra Quality while XeSS does and I'm comparing the best settings possible.

[@FlatlinedBenchmarks]

No FPS because I currently have a CPU Bottleneck, just a Quality comparison, didn't notice a big difference in FPS or GPU usage between FSR and XeSS though

[@anuzahyder7185]

U get more fps with fsr quality but fsr is dogsh*t. Xess is miles ahead

[@speedforce8970]

@@anuzahyder7185 This is an unfair comparison because Intel XeSS ultra quality has a scale factor of 1.3x ie, at 1080p, the actual render resolution for this mode is 1477x831 approximately which is considerably more than FSR 2's Quality mode which has a render resolution of 1280x720 and 1.5x scale factor. If FSR 2 had a ultra quality option which had a 1.3x scale factor, chances are it would look and perform about the same, maybe it would still look worse though. If you really want to compare these two, use XeSS on quality because that has a 1.5x scale factor so it would be upscaling from the same render resolution.

[@anuzahyder7185]

@@speedforce8970 bro check if fsr quality can even beat xess performance (with intel gpu} it is that dogsh*t. N yea quality vs quality wud be a fair comparison cz fsr wud giv more fps if ultra q vs q is compared. I already stated above.

[@vegandemconf]

Thanks, and XeSS is the best?)

[@FlatlinedBenchmarks]

In my opinion, yes

[@JynxedKoma]

Don't benchmark XeSS unless you're using an ARC card (which it was made for).