Did AMD Lie?? - FSR 3.1 vs DLSS vs XESS! In 4 Games, 7 GPUs

FSR 3.1 IS FINALLY HERE!!! And AMD claimed it to be bringing huge improvements to FSR 2 upscaling, which is very much needed. Upscaling is becoming more and more important in our games and Nvidia's DLSS has pretty much been the king. However, even Intel burst on to the scene with XESS and has been putting up extreme competition for AMD. AMD's FSR has been falling further behind, so did FSR 3.1 help?
I tested FSR 3.1 in 4 of the 5 games it is currently in against DLSS and XESS at different qualities. Also on 7 different graphics cards to see how the new performance stacks up just to be sure. Hope this helps! Let me know of any of your experiences in the comments, because this was a wild ride...
==JOIN THE DISCORD!==
/ discord
community.amd.com/t5/gaming/a...
community.amd.com/t5/gaming/a...
game.intel.com/us/stories/int...
0:00- Why Upscaling is important
1:20- State of FSR and what AMD claims
4:00- DLSS vs FSR 3.1 is interesting
11:09- Old FSR vs FSR 3.1 is confusing
17:33- XESS vs FSR 3.1 is wild
23:42- FSR 3.1 performance (FPS) vs others
25:40- Why does FSR 3.1 exist?
28:05- New FSR 3.1 Frame Generation stuff
29:25- ummmm... about FSR 3.1

[@vextakes]

youtube compression is a b***h

[@kaisersolo76]

tests on a AMD GPU would as be good here. Its hilarious you expected and improvement in you upsacle 720 to 1440p using FSR. It needs at least upscale 1080p to 1440p to see the improvement

[@mahdi8233]

Beach ✅

[@christophermullins7163]

It is all very obvious anyway. Compression did NOT hide the artifacts 100%

[@Greybell]

that's why i upscale my video to 4K even though the video itself is lower than that. at least the higher bitrate of 4K can retain some details.

[@rzkrdn8650]

Even premium bitrate doesn't help. Need an extreme zoom for this kind of video

[@artistunknown9079]

Not a surprise that upscaling and framegen advances so slow, it probably hurts the sales of new and expensive GPUs in the market.

[@matttiaz7576]

Specially if the new products its Garbo and the marketing have convinced people play on PC like on console its the way to go. Nvidia will continued down this route : 90-80 series good gen jump , 70-60 garbo products with terrify prices and a software let people play like on console ( its upscaling from ages). The people keep cheer on .... sadge

[@ArtisChronicles]

​@@matttiaz7576 glad I'm not the only one that noticed.

[@CJTheTokay]

@@matttiaz7576i thought the 4070 was good

[@matttiaz7576]

@@CJTheTokay its a "60 series" by Die size with a pathetic memory bandwith will last no more than a year. But thats its all Nvidia want it : make you change GPU every year.

[@roklaca3138]

​@@CJTheTokay😂😂😂😂

[@konstantindimitrov9190]

1 minute and no "bro you fell off ahh" comment? The comment section fell off.

[@Tylerplayswatch7868]

The most accurate thing ever from nice vids bro to bro 99 views in 6 hours bro fell oh

[@GloomyOrange05]

8hrs and no "8 hrs and no"8hrs and x views comments fell off" comment? Comments fell off

[@iikatinggangsengii2471]

yeah iirc fh5 is next so, soon i guess

[@mark.082]

Framegen and upscaling is nice to have and all but i just want devs to actually optimize their fucking games.

[@-in-the-meantime...]

💯 "Here are some extra frames the machina thinks you want to see"

[@monsterboomer8051]

One day in the future, and that day will come, trust me, Nvidia will make you pay mothly subscribtion for DLSS.

[@ericsonbernabe7987]

this mark it

[@ArtisChronicles]

Yeah I'm looking forward to the reception for that. Bet people will still cheer it on and gladly pay for it

[@NGreedia]

Right now it’s embedded into the selling price as we’re seeing minimal generational uplift at the cost of featurset

[@cecilb7927]

They are already charging for it semi annually. DLSS is great, FG is awesome, except on the card I bought two years ago, it isn't worth a damn on that. I really think comparing the two is sort of apples to oranges. FSR is great in that it can keep older cards relevant, DLSS mostly works on cards that shouldn't need it.

[@vextakes]

Bruh 💀

[@Accuaro]

AMDs biggest struggle are transparencies and particle ghosting.

[@lord_nem3sis]

I hope they implement FSR 3.1 in the new Frostpunk game, they worked close with AMD and designed limited FP2 style GPU's

[@matttiaz7576]

I hope AMD just stop to follow this stupid nosense trend Nvidia promote , and launch a good and reasonable priced new gen.

[@k66iz39]

@@matttiaz7576rx 8000 series, plus prices are getting cheaper these days for the 7000 and 6000 series

[@F1neW1ne]

Why not test quality mode? And also give us the impression you get when you’re not zoomed in three times and slowed down to 60%?

[@TheFansvideo]

Because in youtube 60fps lock and low bitrate, normal gameplay would not be as telling of the details he wants to point out. Wich all the those details add up to be noticeable in real life gameplay.

[@niko2002]

Quality mode won't be noticeable

[@Cosmicdonut6764]

Because he’s trying to see the total difference, quality is less easy to tell. Sure most people use quality I’m sure, but this is the best way to do this.

[@niko2002]

@@Cosmicdonut6764 agreed

[@killkiss_son]

​@@TheFansvideo '' give us the impression you get '' doesn't mean that he needs to show the gameplay 😂

[@TheBlackAnomaly]

With this new technologies, games are slowly becoming like video streaming quality.

[@lizadonrex]

Every time when I hear FSR out done DLSS, I laugh.

[@hernanzambroni7181]

Nobody uses Performance mode unless you're playing in 4K. For 1440p or 1080p try to use Quality or Balance mode atleast.

[@5izzy557]

100%

[@xerxeslv]

Not true, I play at 1440p and I do use performance mode (720p->1440p) a lot, depends on a game tho. In some games I am using performance mode only, like cp2077 - can't tell difference, so why not have more fps. In some games even quality mode looks noticeably worse then native, so no upscale there. Best thing tho is to use DLSSTweaks mod and choose base resolution for upscale yourself, in my opinion.

[@anthonyortiz4254]

I use DLSS Quality for 4k on a 4070ti Super mostly with ultra settings. I get 90 to 120 fps, and that's perfectly fine for me

[@agentnukaz1715]

I don't think any 4k gamer would settle for less then quality

[@kendric_BUF]

cool comparison video, vex. appreciate the time and effort you put into collecting all this photage/data. personally i would only ever consider using "quality" mode with upscalers, mostly cause i think with "performance" mode they just haven't got there yet

[@Fer-7510]

I tested bots and now I cant see any big difference between DLSS and FSR, both have strenghts and weaknesses

[@ygny1116]

The candles not moving is hilarious.

[@HybOj]

it made it temporaly stable :D

[@marosis99]

@@HybOj LITERALLY

[@silvio351]

Sorry Vex, I disagree with you on this (Personal opinion), I think Ancient Gameplays did a better comparison, FSR 3.1 is definitely better than 2.2 and I CAN TOTALLY SEE the difference while playing Horizon Forbidden West, it's much more stable. 1440p FSR Balance used to look terrible and now is decent and in QUALITY MODE I hardly even notice the difference from native res. Also, without zooming in and slowing down you won't even notice anything whatsoever because people just don't do that. Don't get me wrong, FSR 3.1 is not a game changer (It's not even using dedicated hardware), it still has flaws, DLSS is still better but it is becoming insignificant at this point.

[@ArtisChronicles]

If it does end up using dedicated hardware then you can expect most cards that are supported now to suddenly become unsupported, then people will really hate AMD and almost fully abandon them.

[@silvio351]

@@ArtisChronicles That's not true, XESS has a fallback code and it looks good without dedicated hardware, FSR could do that and move on with machine learning, it's really impresive how far in quality FSR has come with broad compatibility.

[@TerraWare]

The zooming in part and slowing down is clearly for purpose of making a video and relaying what he sees to the viewer so they can see it. It's an academic approach. It can also make up for KZbin's compression quality losses. Out of all criticisms I see the gripes with slowing down footage and zooming in is the strangest I have to admit. I mean the goal is to nitpick /review.

[@Angel7black]

Sounds like cope to me knowing full well that Ancient has an extreme AMD bias

[@arenzricodexd4409]

​@@silvio351thing is what intel did with XeSS is much more complicated than nvidia DLSS. and AMD push FSR because they did not want to deal with ML stuff like nvidia did with DLSS. Now you're expecting AMD to take even more complicated method like intel XeSS?

[@LiveFreeDieaG]

Great video, I like how you literally zoom and point out stuff. No one else does this, make sit easier to understand and see stuff that I usually miss. Keep it up! Subscribed

[@Dr.Mmmmmm]

XeSS shows how Intel handle the upscaling so well in a short time.

[@MrReese07]

I’am so fracking proud of you kid!! You are doing an amazing job keep up the great work! I really appreciate and enjoy the videos.

[@adomingues00]

I still believe upscalling is to get the jump from 1440p to 4k gamming with your new shiny 4k monitor, but most graphics card can't handle 4k native yet. If you are using it to upscale in performance 1080p then you realy can't complain, there are no miracles there and quality will suffer badly. Other use case is to get raytracing to more acceptable performance in good cards. Yes i know most people want to get their old graphics card to live a couple more years, but it's realy all about pushing 4k to the mainstream market...

[@F1neW1ne]

Why not test quality mode? And also gives the impression you get when you’re not zoomed in three times and slow down to 60%?

[@DrLogic_]

Performance mode stresses the technology the most

[@F1neW1ne]

@@DrLogic_ Obviously... I agree that is what you use it for. But the more commonly used settings are 1080P Quality mode and 1440P Balanced or Quality. At least for those I know that use it regardless of which brand card they own.

[@Varil92]

Honestly, yes, DLSS is still better, but the difference in quality, playing at least at 1440p Quality or even 1440p Balanced, is negligible. DLSS was the last thing that still kept me take Nvidia into consideration. Now that FSR is in practice at the same level of DLSS, Nvidia to me is irrelevant.

[@christophermullins7163]

Yep. Indeed dlss is better but let's be honest.. for the same price you can run a game at native with AMD and quality upscaling with Nvidia and get similar performance. Only when you have a mid range GPU on a 4k screen running the latest games slare you required to upscale and upscaling looks better at 4k by far. It's a tossup as to whether Nvidia GPUs are better overall. Tradeoffs are made unless you're rich.

[@matte_bar]

FSR is not anywhere better than DLSS if not in really specific scenes, conditions in specific games; to say something similar you're doing a really forced cherry picking. As he says, FSR 3.1 barely holds up to the worse version of XeSS 1.3 (22:18). FSR can be passable at something like 4k quality, maybe 1440p quality sometimes. It of course depends on what you consider to be a satisfying visual quality and on how much you notice visual breakups.

[@AvroBellow]

@@matte_bar So, just use XeSS. Radeons CAN do that you know. 😁

[@matte_bar]

@@AvroBellow it is still far behind dlss dude, don’t act like a dumb amd fanboy, be objective

[@deathtoinfidelsdeusvult2184]

@@AvroBellow Xess is worse in none arc gpus.

[@rellikai945]

Gonna be honest, it's probably another instance of the marketing team screwing the development team over again. They said by the end of Q2 and the engineers were like "y'all, it's still not ready yet!" and AMD was like "sorry, can't hear you over the sound of us jettisoning the crap out the door!". Honestly, what the engineers have managed to achieve without AI IS genuinely impressive, let no one take that away from them. But... I just don't think it's ever going to compare. They shot themselves in both feet when they, for literally no reason, decided to not use AI for upscaling purposes, and now I'm just assuming they're flopping around until the 8000 series comes out, which is just supposed to be 7000 series, but like... actually good. Most likely they'll have AI cores that actually do shit, FSR will finally actually be worth more than my spare toenail clippings, and then the races can FINALLY begin for real.

[@michaelthompson9798]

Regardless of the output quality by all upscaling tgechnologies whether it be DLSS, FSR, XeSS or Lossless Scaling etc ... they all have their benefits or drawbacks! Having a choice of upscaler is a great thing for the consumer regardless as choice gives each user their desired outcome which imo is a great thing. I generally use DLSS .... but FSR 3.1 has got me contemplating Radeons upscaling solution as an alternative as had Lossless Scaling :D Great video Vex and thank you for covering these technologies.

[@deathtoinfidelsdeusvult2184]

but dlss 3 being better isn't benefits nor a drawback... It is to show how inferior the others are. I won't even talk how bad lossless scaling was.

[@Micromation]

Generally they only have drawbacks... the only difference is how big they are. The only benefit DLSS has is that it can be combined with DLDSR which has no equivalent on AMD or Intel cards but it's basically a workaround to a problem that doesn't need to exist (really bad console oriented anti-aliasing in modern games with no alternatives)

[@yamenagha4451]

Wow, what a huge difference ( watching in 144p )

[@JasonChen927]

It's sad that the upscaling quality doesn't improve, but the decoupling of upscaling and frame generation alone is worth the update.

[@mustangmanx]

It's absolutely ridiculous that people paying 500$+ have to use upscaling in some poorly optimized games. There was a point in time when budget builds could handle 1080p no question not too long ago. We have the hardware still that can do this, people need to be alot more criticle of the crap we're being fed from developers in the ironically anti-consumer quest for more "shareholder value".

[@gumi_twylit2605]

yeh missed those times man... dlss and fsr before is just a means for low end gpus to gain additional fps, it really be like that before... many are so happy that we can now afford a significant increase in fps without worrying about the quality that much but now, fookin hell 😂

[@MaloryHovell]

Moreover even if you don't use upscaler you still get a blurry mess cos devs force you to use TAA in their titles.

[@stixktv__9999]

Isn't there the rtx 4060, 3060, 3060 ti, rx 6700 xt, 7600xt,7600 ?

[@Cosmicdonut6764]

Or we just like more fps. I always use DLSS at 1440p with my 4070ti I paid $850 for. Prefer fps over resolution always.

[@Micromation]

@@MaloryHovell Honestly if I've had a time machine and could go back in time to get rid of one person, the fucker that thought of and implemented TAA would make top of the list... the shit is SO BAD...

[@VerSo113]

The moment you have to slow down to show the oh so 'noticeable' differences you can ask yourself if dlss is really worth the additional tax we pay to Nvidia and you smartly avoid that part of the equasion. . Both seemed fine to me and as you said may come up to personal preference here and there. This kind of nitpicking is certainly not worth it here where the difference in price between nvidia and amd is a LOT bigger than in the US. (up to 200 Euro for similar performance) . Maybe also mention that the RTX 3 series get left behind

[@lilpain1997]

You don't need to slow it down. You can see the differences in person easily. Bitrate on KZbin makes it harder to notice and slowing it down will make it even easier to see the difference

And it's worst case scenario, in balanced or quality mode is so much better

[@matttiaz7576]

DLSS its just the chiky trick Nvidia use to cut the cost of productions make more profit , and keep a reasonable ( in some case fake) framerate. Basically PC gamer do what the Console player ( and PC player always has hated ..ahaha) from ages.

[@anrypettit3112]

@@lilpain1997 so... you "smartly" avoid the tax part of the equasion too?

[@lilpain1997]

@anrypettit3112 what? The entire point is that you don't need to slow it down or zoom if you play it yourself. I didn't bother with the rest as it makes no difference to the argument.

[@niftyn2777]

Damn man appreciate the work , you are soo dedicated on these topic and i only find your information very useful on these types of comparison! Great work brother

[@iikatinggangsengii2471]

thanks, those are my main contents so def will put more effort on

[@Playingwith3D]

Nvidia is using a hardware solution and AMD is trying a software solution and it isn't competing, not sure if it ever will tbh.

[@256shadesofgrey]

I wish you had compared the higher settings too. The performance mode looks like crap on all upscalers. It's when you get to about 75% (i.e. 1080p->1440p) that it starts looking acceptable. For 720p->1440p I would probably prefer integer scaling over any of these upscalers and just pretend that I have a 720p display. It's only the most insane setup that would not be CPU bottlenecked at 720p, which would defeat the purpose of upscaling, since lowering resolution doesn't help your CPU.

[@seaneriksen2695]

think it was a mistake upscaling from 720 p

[@imAgentR]

Would it be worth comparing to LS1 scaling also?

[@razorgarf]

3:50 DLSS doesn't even state which version they use or am i missing something?

[@sitordan]

I couldn't care less for both technologies. I seldom use them as I play at 1080p. To me they're both fine and I will always pick the better price to performance card.

[@ArtisChronicles]

Even if I play at 1440p I prefer not to bother with them

[@aqualung2000]

I actually would take it one step further and say that I _actively_ _dislike_ this tech. It's just been leading game developers to be lazy.

[@JahonCross]

​@@ArtisChronicles I use them when gaming at 4k other than that I never use them

[@CJTheTokay]

@@aqualung2000the biggest example of this to me is Ark Survival Ascended that game is unoptimized as heck I have trouble playing it on my 1660 Ti. 😭

[@Vortex-5025]

Yep same here bought a RX 6800 about a year or so back since it was on sale. I use it for 1080p high FPS, I dont use upscaling at all. Once i get the performance i want for a reasonable price i am fine.

[@skychaos87]

Upscaler is only good from 1440p onwards, anything below it is trash as there's not enough native details for the upscaling to be accurate.

[@Micromation]

I honestly can't stand DLSS or FSR at 1440p on quality setting, let alone any of the performance options...

[@dogwithoutw]

I think you should have done 1080p to 1440p comparison because for the new improvements to show, there needs to be enough pixels to work on

[@5izzy557]

agreed.

[@HumanGamer]

I'm still excited for it. Mainly for the vulkan support, and decoupled frame gen. This means that one mod that would let you convert dlss framegen to fsr framegen should now be possible for many more games such as Portal RTX, allowing my 3090ti to get framegen in it.

[@iikatinggangsengii2471]

its pretty great but indeed night raytracing abit hard to comperhend, compared to day which is easy/pleasing to see straight away

[@losingmyfavoritegame8752]

Hey, I just want to let you know you post some HIGH QUALITY VIDEOS! I like your style. Yes, KZbin is very lossy, but man, your videos look KRISP with a capital "K", nevertheless. Keep up your good work! On the computer side, just got a Sapphire 7900XTX for my birthday and am still playing around with my return to AMD. Last card I had from Sapphire was an HD3850 AGP with the Realto PCI-E to AGP bridge when they were all ATI! XD

[@-Rizecek-]

I tried DLSS+ FSR3 FG in Spiderman and the game didn't feel smoother and the image was very blurry when rotating.

[@killermoon635]

I agree. Frame generation is overrated, and does not work well in most cases. Also, Frame generation increase Vram usage (unlike normal upscalling)... So, it is not good for GPU that has limited Vram.

[@-Rizecek-]

@@killermoon635 So I rather look at it as the fact that it should never have entered the gaming scene. It will add FPS to you, but problems with the image will start and it will often increase input lag... All Upscaling should never have come, because even the 4090 is not able to maintain 60FPS many times in native 4K. It was only caused by increased sales of graphics cards, the laziness of developers, who leave optimization to DLSS and FSR.

[@ivangabriel3472]

Still can't decide between 4060 8gb vs 7600xt 16gb for 2560x1080p max settings gaming. Could FSR 3.1 solve the choice? I would pair those gpus with a 14400F or 8700F.

[@user78405]

NVIDIA have official won the gpu wars again...👑👑👑

[@nicane-9966]

they always should considering they are way more expensive more often than not.

[@glowinTHX]

I may get console wars, but GPU war is really low

[@jiangken]

If dlss fsr xess are all turned on performance mode, the most important function should be to increase fps. The purpose of players turning on this function is because the gpu is not powerful enough. Why not compare fps? And there is no comparison between balance and quality mode. Just stare at the performance mode to see the picture quality. Does anyone slow down and zoom in to see the picture? ? ?

[@fredrik4527]

Please mate, real world applications if you test graphics. This slow mo effect matters to exactly no one. People use these upscaling techs to get higher fps, sometimes 100+ fps, Slowing down a video and zooming in is not what people are using this tech for. Most people want higher FPS with demanding games. Show effects and gameplay without slowing down the video. Many new graphical tech advancements use visual illusions and brain triggers because the eyes can be fooled. The brain can be fooled. One good example of this is how many frames per second a screen updates. Showing slow motion of a 200+ FPS game does exactly nothing. However a game looks in slow motion does not matter in an upscaling tech, since no games offers time warps. When we learn how to slow down time, this video may be more factual...until then, nothing in the video is what you can expect from any of upscaling tech.. If anyone want to play witcher 3 in 120 fps instead of 85 fps, use these upscaling techs. If you wonder how the grains and weird ghosting looks when sped up to 150fps, its not noticeable. these techs are used to fool the eye and they work just fine. @ 24:11 is a good example of how these techs look when used.

[@untrainedprofessionals2374]

I am personally flat out telling the difference. I would think these upscalers are all pretty good and will allow people to jump from 1440 to 4k.

[@fredrik4527]

​@@untrainedprofessionals2374I agree, and i think for the masses that are not buying gpus that cost like cars. These upscaling techs vill be as easy to use for gaming as the vsync technology. Especially for consoles that will benefit even more than pcs from better software implementation.

[@Cosmicdonut6764]

This is the correct way to do it, kinda hard to see a difference at 120fps full speed now isn’t it?

[@coolbath8313]

for me though it is to curb down power consumption and temps when playing at flat 60 FPS.. these techs are doing wonders to keep my PC from overheating!

[@blkspade23]

@@Cosmicdonut6764 It being hard to tell at full speed is the real point though. It's not meant to be scrutinized to such an extent, but be passable in gameplay while offering better performance. The tech really isn't designed to be used with absolutely zero sharpening either.

[@tstager1978]

The great thing about far 3.1 is that you can use Frame Gen with whatever upscaling that you want.

[@snakeat3r114]

But nobody uses FSR or any upscaler on performance mode, so this video really doesn't answer the question "is now FSR 3.1 good enough to use?"

[@Shark-fj2sz]

You obviously did not heard of pc handheld devices.

[@jeffersonestavillo]

I would love to see a review from a different pov. Instead of both rendered at the same low res and upscaled at 1440p, try to make their fps on par. For example if fsr3.1 have a higher fps, then afjust dlss to match that one. And it goes the same with fsr3.1 if it has a lower fps. Then compare their qualities at that fps.

[@TexannMann]

In my situation I can hardly even tell. Like even when slowed down and zoomed in I have to focus so hard that my eyes were hurting throughout this vid. Sure there were some moments where it was noticeable but it's not as big of a difference as Vex makes it out to be imo.

[@HanSolo__]

1:26 The one on the left is FSR.

[@haikaIhalim]

that DF intro really got me

As long as you have to compare "performance" modes of the upscalers to spot the difference, the quality of upscaling is good enough for me. Because "performance" mode is there only as a last option for really desperate usecases. Most of the time, balance or even quality presets are being used by players.

[@Mermete8]

I'm grateful for these recent technological advancements. Many of us grew up playing with 8 blobs of pixels/object then moved on to 480p then 720p before it got okay starting from FHD and now 4K looks great. I don't expect images to be flawless when upscaled from old-time resolutions, I mainly expect better FPS and pay the price with some minor artifacting. It's a fair exchange and much better than a native low res. How I see it for the same price we either buy a stronger AMD card and run chosen resolution natively or buy a weaker Nvidia and run that res with dlss quality. it's roughly the same image for the same money. Better native FPS at AMD, better RT at nVidia.

[@Torso6131]

Yeah, I don't think I'd ever want to upscale all the way from 720p. IMO the best use cases for any upscaling tech is 1080p to 4K or 960p to 1440p. Although with FSR2.2 I found myself having to use at LEAST Balanced mode even at 4k to get something good. Hopefully 1080p internal resolution will be enough now. Someone go and bug Remedy about getting this updated (and XeSS in there at all) with Alan Wake 2.

[@captainthunderbolt7541]

A number of channels have found it to be a mild improvement - but I think they were mostly using it at 4k, which obviously limits its usefulness.

[@dsdraxgaming4240]

hey now plz tell me on thing this dlss 3 is it hardware dependent? Like even if nvidia wanted it wont work on gtx cards? edit: Will fsr 3.2 come? like 2.2?

[@alexanderstults8484]

Dlss 3 is locked to rtx 4000 series for... some reason. Gtx cards do not have tensor cores (AI cores), so no dlss for them. I still am unsure why rtx 2000 and 3000 cards don't get Frame gen besides Nvidia being greedy. I hope AMD can come up with an fsr 3.2 that actually does alot for visual quality. Knowing amd tho, it will take another year and a half for that to happen and Nvidia will probably have dlss 4.5 out by then.

[@ArtisChronicles]

​@@alexanderstults8484 Nvidia will become more greedy in the future regarding their DLSS stuff. That'll be fun to see.

[@atnfn]

1:34, if I'm wrong so be it, not watched further yet but I think DLSS is on the right, I saw something flicker on the left. FSR usually flickers more.

[@tstager1978]

The truth is that they all work pretty well. When in use nobody zooms in to peak at pixels. It's not very useful.

[@LuminousSpace]

i can only hope lossless scaling app upscale can be as good as dlss

[@alibozkuer5022]

It's kinda sad that you didn't try other presets as well and just went with performance. I mean I get it you wanted to try the worst case scenario to make differentiating easier but I for one never use anything but FSR quality since it's kinda pointless going lower than that with considering fsr capabilities.

[@igorfiuza144]

I still prefer turning some stuff down a bit than using any upscaling at all!!! Setting shadows to medium makes wonders on FPS.

[@v.9876]

I think they call it fsr3 instead of fsr3.1 because you will be able to replace the dlls manually later with a updated version

[@DodgyTodger]

Anyone got suggestions for optimal settings for the Witcher 3 ng update on a radeon 5700xt. It runs ok on dx12...

[@kevin8798]

Maybe it's just me, or it is KZbin compression or whatever, but I don't really see the ugly lines, ghosting etc in all of these video's. Not only from Vex, but also others. I don't know. But to be fair, in the game itself (Forbidden West) I also don't see it. I only see ghosting in the particles when I turn on FSR.

[@michaellankford823]

I feel like what is happening with FSR is that whomever is working on it needs to learn to rest their eyes when working on their upscaler Its the same thing when you are mixing and mastering a song. Sometimes you need to let your ears rest so you can get the best mix possible I say this because i feel like its the same type of scenario with the devs working on FSR. If they take time in between and rest their eyes, they could better see if a change is an improvement or not. Im sure looking at the same ghosting images and editing code alongside that can tire your eyes out very quickly from comparing before and after constantly. To the point that it all starts looking the same to the person working on it. It would help to explain why there is such little differences between the two, and how in some scenarios FSR 2 looks better. I know its a weird comparison, but im sure someone is tracking what im trying to say

[@abdelrahmanmahmoud7961]

FSR 3.1 FG is bugged somehow at least in Ghost of Tsushima and HFW , G-sync is not working with it nor the Framelimiter in NV Control Panel .. it also has higher input lag than the Nukem9 V0.90 Universal dll mod , might also be laggy haven't compare them but i saw that the mod is better overall with Gsync and Vsync enabled in the driver Vs fsr 3.1 fg AND fsr 3.0 fg

[@ChristopherYeeMon]

You should test the not so challenging upscaling to see how bad that is

[@ShamoaKrasieski-xm4ze]

DLSS is better, but native rendering is always the best.

[@leeeverett1509]

To can someone help me? Im about to buy rx6900xt but fsr looks far worse than dlss also ray tracing is worse on radeons so should I buy better amd card or worse rtx at same price, 6900xt is around 425$ in my country

[@MenelisiDladla]

AMD is still the king of rasterised gaming. Their price to performance is unbeatable. DLSS & RT is still not a strong enough selling point for me to buy a new Nvidia GPU.

[@504NO]

There the king of stutters and frame drops 1%lows are terrible .. the 4090 is the strongest raster card

[@DosonTheGreat]

@@504NO The first part of your comment is 100% wrong, especially if you're talking about weaker NVIDIA cards, which are all terrible. The "best" NVIDIA card is the 4090, only in terms of raw power. For price to performance, NVIDIA loses at all price brackets. If you're measuring "best" by value, the 4090 even loses to other NVIDIA cards. I can afford a 4090, but their drivers are terrible and their cards ACTUALLY stutter on the only OS that matters; Arch Linux. Most gamers can't actually make use of a 4090, they're just casuals who want it because it has prestige, so they settle for some other NVIDIA card so they can be in the "club". All of these games look ugly as sin, so it's a waste to spend a lot on a graphics card. I spent my money on something that actually looks nice; a custom hardline loop.

[@Just_An_Ignacio]

Since XeSS has an AI upscaler open for every GPU (DP4a version), the next step for FSR *should* be integrating machine learning, because i think there isn't too much improvement window left from 3.1. And let's not forget that RDNA3 have it's own AI accelerating cores that AMD still don't use for anything, there is room for an "XMX" version of FSR to help them sell Radeon (even iGPUs).

[@thesimpleway1998]

Upscaling is a very good thing for console or low end gpus. I can't use it on PC because I prefer to prioritize image quality.

[@user78405]

what if entire time that high end users never have any ai cores in 7900xt, 7800xt, 7900xtx as reason amd don't want to talked about it when they already fired radeon group marketing team for just following orders from lisa su?? there should be a lawsuit...people spend over $900 bucks to have filler tiles and amd falsely call it ai cores is real reason AMD have not mention it anymore and not use it due to odd shape die that tsmc use filler tiles to make complete shape for cooler support. AMD fans should sue amd for theft again...since amd fx

[@MrSlm1982]

This is why I run native res even at the sacrifice of frame rates

[@Dan_Diaconescu]

Dlss is still better and will continue to be better as it runs on special hardware. I am so happy that fsr is a thing, and it works surprisingly well for something that does not require specially made hardware. Great video and really good explanations. As a consumer, when picking a card you should ask yourself "for the same performance, is it better to buy a 70 class card to run dlss performance, or should you get the 80 class equivalent from a competitor for basically the same price or cheaper and run fsr quality"

[@Tulkeleth]

All of the talk around DLSS/FRS, framegen, RTX and stuff confuse the hell out of me. I can kind of see it for 4k if you need it to hit some fps "bracket" right? but what's the point of using DLSS if say you're already at like 120 fps at 1440p? Doesn't native look better? does going from 120 fps native to 150 fps DLSS/FSR make a difference in the fluidity of single player games? do we even notice it when actually playing instead of looking at screenshots or videos at 25% speed? is the performance gain so big that it justifies losing graphical fidelity when you're already over 60/120/240 fps? I feel like we're running in circles now just measuring fps and pixels for the hell of it.

[@12coco100]

Maybe. These upscalers can be used for anything to your liking. So if your running the game at 50fps you could turn on upscaling to get to 60fps with hopefully with little to no difference. Or if you already have a good frame rate, you could get extra performance to then increase settings like raytracing. The point is more performance with good image quality. So for testing this you just look closer at the image to find out the differences. Which is why people zoom in and slow down the game to better see the differences. Also because of youtube compression.

[@fredrik4527]

Ofc one of the problem is that you need a higher hz monitor to benefit from upscaling. most older monitors are 60 hz and newest tech gamer monitors goes up to 540 hz. That would, if you had a gpu that could drive such a beast, be 540 different frames rendered every second. The most important thing is to utilize as much of the monitors hz as possible, if your monitor has a cap of 120 hz...you will see it used to its maximum @ 120 fps. moving the mouse cursor very fast on the screen is a perfect example of how fps looks. the trails of the mouse becomes alot more fluid on higher frames per second. and if on a lower hz monitor, it will be choppy and the mouse cursor will lag and pop up randomly everywhere.

[@fredrik4527]

you wont notice a big difference going from 120 to 150,. but going from 60 to 120 is a easy to spot. it becomes very fluid.

[@FrostyBud777]

GREAT VIDEO. Thank you! I found in horizon forbbiden west, FSR works the best on the 7900xtx. Better antialiasing, over XESS, Little less for motion though, but not even noticable. MUCH BETTER THAN FSR 2 SHIMMERING 24/7.

[@iikatinggangsengii2471]

is it fine, so upcoming hzd and crysis videos are streams so much lower quality but better quality than most streamers here i use 200mb for 4k record and 15-40 for stream so yeah not too detailed, but maybe informative for those searching for best setting, dota also mostly stream

[@robinrufino8244]

why only permeformance mode was tested here? and in all tech reviwers i dont undestard, we all use quality mode i think.

[@brunogm]

They could also test TAA at reduced res. Or native FSR Xess and dlss.

[@Xariks]

The thing too is they need FSR to be viable because all the modern consoles (PS5 and XSX) run on AMD chips and they wanna push the framerates while the games look good :b

[@ryanze26]

meanwhile me, play GoT using 720p medium + FSR 3 balance + RSR in rog ally. imagine the ghosting from fsr balance + rsr, double upscaling. but 90fps on 120hz still worth it, in 7" it doesn't matter too much.

[@gothchild0069]

I'll just say that if you are using any upscaling below balanced you need to look into a new graphics card ECT. I only use quality in some games and personally if I go below that I'm upgrading.

[@artun42]

Vex, try Quality, maybe there is picture is less blurry and it will compare better to dlss q

[@El_Atolero]

Would've liked an FSR 3.1 Quality comparison. Just pointing out the flaws in FSR 3.1 is not entirely accurate and it can even lead to misinformation.

[@krishnakanth6662]

AMD should start working on AI based upscaling since, lot of handhelds use AMD APUs. Also switch 2 comes with DLSS and would crush all AMD handhelds in visual quality. With all the AI stuff being stuffed onto everyone, may be it is time for AMD to put good use of AI and use it in upscaling the most. RT improvements are also required.

[@swianr]

Wasn't the title ''did amd just destroy dlss3'' or somthing like that lol ?

[@ermiaganji6360]

I can't tell the difference between native and upscaling at all

[@mohamedrafik9271]

Honestly, dlss just have a strong case, especially for people who likes to play on higher resolution, or like to plug their pc to a 4k TV and use upscaling. However, the visual difference between fsr and dlss in "quality" mode is really really minor, so using fsr in 4k quality mode or even 1440p quality mode is something that is very reasonable, if you don't have the budget to get a 4070ti or a 4080, of if you just prefer amd and go with the mid to high end gpus beginning with rx 6700xt up to 7900 xtx.

[@Micromation]

The best use I've found for upscalling personally was combining DLDSR (rendering game at higher resolution and scalling it down to monitor's resolution) and then using DLSS to regain some of the lost framerate... it does splendid job at removing the soft edges TAA produces. But I'd rather prefer just different anti-aliasing options and removing that goddamn cancer from games permanently... otherwise I can easily tell if DLSS is used (on it's own) at 1440p or lower pretty much immediately after camera moves, I have no idea how people pretend like DLSS is same or, god forbid, better than native - must be the same people who can't tell if game is running at more than 60Hz o.0 The only thing that makes me excited about FSR 3.1 in particular is that perhaps, just maybe, Steam Deck will remain relevant just a little bit longer, but I could never, ever use it on desktop...

[@daionhorner318]

Yes, it is true that fsr 3.1 received minimal improvements. However, it is undeniable that fsr 3.1 is the worse looking upscaler at the moment.

[@ProtoType4588]

for 4k this is a win though but basically if the game supports xess or fsr 2.1/2.2 i just go for xess and have it updated to the latest because the latest xess actually wins from fsr 2.2 in the area of shimmering and reproduction of like fencing and such so don't forget that you can update xess in those games

[@Plague_Doc22]

1:58 "Slury and gross"...it's what now?

[@brulaapgaapmeester8052]

Shouldn't you test AMD's newest thing on an AMD gpu?

[@glowinTHX]

My thoughts

[@Micromation]

Well, FSR is hardware agnostic so... it shouldn't matter. Maybe FSR4.0 will require hardware component and work only with series 7000 and up (since AMD has AI accelerator cores, just not using it for anything...) and then there would be tangible benefits of using AMD card with FSR specifically. Most people own some low-mid range Nvidia GPU that do not support DLSS so it's literally the largest target audience for FSR - bigger than AMD users since we are in the fringe minority.

[@brulaapgaapmeester8052]

@@Micromation It may in theory be agnostic, but still, games are supposed to be agnostic too, but one game may perform better on an AMD than on a Nvidia or vice versa. I just read about a monitor (Samsung G8 I believe) that worked better on Nvidia, though that has been solved as far as I know. So to be sure I think you should test it on the hardware it was developed on, there may be a (small) difference, so it would be more fair to test it on an AMD IMHO.

[@malcolmogilvy4885]

Have you tried turning your contrast on your monitor down lmao it is worse with CRT tellies with games like MOTORSTORM on the PS3 real bad shimmering ! that is a Nvidia graphics chip GTX 780 or something anyhow the contrast needs turned down a third while the brightness also needs turned way down until the blacks are real black

[@JunniMkon]

2:12 the flash on ratchet and clank made it too easy. FSR is definitely left.

[@Windguy5691]

3060 laptop owner hooked to 4K monitor here. FSR just seems to be best to just get under my vram limit 6g and higher resolution than any other upsizer and still be playable. It is a godsent when you’re on borderline versus DLSS where you just want higher frame rate and not limited by vram.

[@Micromation]

Wouldn't just running game on 1080p native look better on 4k monitor? DLSS performance renders game at 1080p, it also introduces lots of artifacts and shimmering due to the amount of magic it has to perform to make up for the missing data. Also, what are you playing in 4k on a mobile 3060 xD

[@Windguy5691]

@@Micromation definitely not. It’s a blurry mess at 32 inch’s. 4K upsized is brilliant, even when most settings are set to poor. Some settings turned up make a massive difference with minimal impact, some settings are opposite, little difference in quality and massive performance drop. GTA V 4K 60fps max settings zero upsize, RDR 2 same. CP 2077 with upsize medium/low settings 60fps 4K still looks better than 1080 high to ultra settings I can play it at, still 60fps. I can just play Horizon Zero Dawn 4K 50 fps with FSR. Can’t do DLSS. It goes over vram limit. Horizon Forbidden West I have to drop to 1600p for just over 30 to 45, but settings can be turned up a lot. 4K unplayable at all. No matter the settings. Grounded my favourite game 4K FSR quality, 50 fps, Pixar like graphics FSR looks great except for the spider caves. But yes, I’m about to set up my 4080 super 7800x3D PC. Because those PlayStation originals are demanding!! In that, still playing Doom Eternal 4K 60fps easily. Looks brilliant. But yes borderline playable to unplayable. FSR comes out on top in making playable. Just basic added smoothness DLSS is king.

[@hupe5836]

my favourite frame gen is lossless scaling ;P

[@fredsorre6605]

AMD was never gonna be able to completely match DLSS both in the regularity of the updates and the quality on them AMD simply doesn't have the man power to do so but they have put up an impressive set of features that works for all GPU's and I applaud them for it my RTX 3080 is getting by cause AMD gave me Frame Gen all while Nvidia lies to may face that my GPU can't do Frame Gen even though they already said that it can but it will not be as good as they have it on the RTX4000 GPU's..

[@augold1681]

This guy spends more time analyzing close ups than any teen age boy did viewing closeups of Basic Instinct.

[@eraldorh]

As long as i can combine dlss with amds frame gen then im happy.

[@xKyleNxCoD]

Everybody fails to mention the fps difference between them..

[@UsernameInvalid48]

Idk man I do think it looks a lot better but maybe not a huge difference when in ultra performance mode. Personally I think dlss is super noticeable in anything lower than balanced also. I never go below balanced in DLSS and never below quality in FSR.

[@jaredangell5017]

I'm just gonna use XeSS quality with Lossless scaling 2x. Done. (CPU: e5-2690v4, GPU: Rx 6800)