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

[@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

[@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"

[@syarifairlangga4608]

True .. the graphic today is not that mindblowing. It just poorly optimized

[@FHGryphonIRL]

@@syarifairlangga4608exactly bruh I’m so sick of it

[@kCenk]

Do you really think that the industry has that many good developers? This is not a problem of just Game Development its generally a problem of all Developing Industries, they even hire college students. People want Games released fast This is what you get.

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

@@kCenk LOL the prosumer's fault?👀👀👀👀👀👀 The industry does it because they can get away with it. The cash cow erupted in 2020 and they'll never look back as long as people keep coughing up bucks a transactions. edit- "prepurchase today!" 🤪

[@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

[@alyasVictorio]

Sadly, former KZbin viewers are already migrated to Tiktok where former KZbinrs (betrayed by demonetization) migrated there, so here we are with less potential views than it once was since 2016

[@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 💀

[@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😂😂😂😂

[@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

[@NothingNewNerd]

@chenath9582 Frame gen is ass, nothing is look as good as raster

[@Accuaro]

AMDs biggest struggle are transparencies and particle ghosting.

[@elfabrote]

you play whit 500%zoom in and motion whit 25% slowed gameplay?

[@Accuaro]

@@elfabrote No, I play at 4k. I also tested it myself.

[@Jaaz7]

You'd think because of the ghosting they wouldn't have transparency problems but

[@Jolfm123]

​@@elfabroteyou can notice it ingame specially on grass

[@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

[@kalustaja2k937]

@@agentnukaz1715 then you are mistaken not every 4k gamer has a top tier gpu and also 4k performance is still better than 1440p quality. 4k is a really good resolution for using upscalers.

[@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%?

[@nemzprod]

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]

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

[@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?

[@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.

[@TheBlackAnomaly]

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

[@JBIGroup3D]

you mean with fsr because dlss is damn good solution,amd is years behind

[@TheBlackAnomaly]

@@JBIGroup3D No, i mean all this new techs. I don't think this is the right way to improve the gaming future.

[@JBIGroup3D]

@@TheBlackAnomaly it doesn't matter what you mean,dlss is perfect solution to gain performance with minimal hit on image quality,fsr is a short term solution from AMD until they find the resources to add full ai hardware acceleration which it will happen in rdn 5

[@43079]

@@JBIGroup3D it really shows how little AMD understands what is happening. Nvidia already had AI acceleration back when AMD didn't even have DP4a and mesh shaders support. it was other way around back in GCN1-2 architecture days

[@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.

[@F1neW1ne]

Why not test quality mode? And also give 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.

[@kalustaja2k937]

@@F1neW1ne this video is about showing the differences, it would be harder to show them in quality mode

[@ygny1116]

The candles not moving is hilarious.

[@HybOj]

it made it temporaly stable :D

[@marosis99]

@@HybOj LITERALLY

[@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

[@seaneriksen2695]

think it was a mistake upscaling from 720 p

[@TheBanjoShowOfficial]

Seems like an nvidia commercial

[@Dr.Mmmmmm]

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

[@halycon404]

They threw money at it. Intel still has higher revenue than AMD and Nvidia combined. They can afford just to throw money at it.

[@nitrogenius]

@@halycon404 lol it is not true. The fact that now nvdia has more money than intel and amd combined

[@halycon404]

@@nitrogenius You are thinking the stock price, market cap. I specifically said revenue. You know, the thing that actually matters. Can the company actually make money by selling products. Not the fantasy land of Wall St valuation and investor hype. Can the company actually make money. And Intel makes more than Nvidia and AMD combined.

[@nitrogenius]

@@halycon404 I think you have no idea that how many gpu is sold by Nvdia to Datacenters including azure,aws and cloud by AI hype. In 2023 Nvdia has more revenue than intel 60b vs 54b. Intel may have more stacked cash but it does not long much. AI is real thing that evolves everything and intel has nothing to do with their cpu's.

[@halycon404]

@@nitrogenius No. In financial year 2023 by Nvidia's own investor call they grossed 26.9 billion with a net income of 8.3 billion. Those are Nvidia's own numbers which you can pull from Nvidia's earnings report for shareholders. It's a downloadable PDF. Intel had 54.2 billion revenue, a net revenue of only 1.1 billion but 2023 was also a reinvestment year. They spent over 10 billion in capital investment outlays for retooling their fabrication plants. That's also Intel's own numbers which are a downloadable PDF off Intel's website. That 60 billion is not an Nvidia number. It's what investors hope fiscal year 2024 looks like.

[@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.

[@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...

[@विचित्रलड़का]

Yep. How will an upscaler work if there is no detail.

[@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

[@JasonChen927]

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

[@Fer-7510]

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

[@BuddyBoy1st]

Nah on 1080p you can tell a lot of difference especially when moving fsr has shimmering more when moving around. I play on 4k and I can tell even at that resolution when moving left and right with the camera, which feels smoother, and it was dlss most of the time. FSR either oversharpens or is not sharp enough, I'd rather have anti-aliasing that I don't have to worry about and it's already been tested by hardware unboxed which one is smoother and stable, Spoiler it's dlss. I'm no fanboy but it's a fact. Majority of games with dlss tested runs better on dlss. In terms of image stability mostly and at times performance.

[@cloud380]

bs i have 4070 ti super and i tested both fsr 3 and dlss 3.5 fsr on my 4k native looks worse than dlss 3.5 in 1080 p on my 4k display.

[@Fer-7510]

@@cloud380 Huh, don't you know KZbin has bitrate compression? I said that I can't see any big difference solely based on how it looks on this KZbin video I've tested both and yeah, obviously DLSS has better reconstruction on fine details, but higher ghosting than FSR, it all depends on the use scenario, so no need to get all salty and come saying "bs" lol

[@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...

[@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.

[@-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.

[@joaowars776]

@@-Rizecek- I agree with the last part about developers being lazy, but nothing starts out perfectly, there's no point in rejecting FSR/DLSS F.G

[@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

[@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.

[@fooboomoo]

true, anything below quality just looks worse than just running on on a lower native resolution

[@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.

[@nintendoconvert4045]

FSR 3.1 Frame Generation with NO upscaling is freakin awesome. I’m running it this way in Ratchet & Clank: Rift Apart without all the FSR upscaling artifacts on my 6800M laptop GPU 😊. I also tested FSR 3.1 in Spider-Man Remastered, with upscaling and raytracing, and it’s excellent.

[@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.

[@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)

[@nyancat4992]

As an AMD user, I always go for Xess. It just looks better than FSR in most games. Sometimes FSR looks worse than even TSR. It's really dissapointing. AMD seriously need to up their game in terms of upscaling. Maybe, like Intel, go the AI route, and make 2 versions, one open-source and one strictly for AMD GPUs?

[@JahonCross]

Maybe fsr4.1 amd might use ai upscaling for once

[@waltuhputurdaway]

​@@JahonCrossdo you have an AMD card?

[@JahonCross]

@waltuhputurdaway currently have a nividia card

[@Dr.schmogmen0]

how do you get that setup screen thing?

[@lizadonrex]

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

[@Michplay]

BTW does lossless scaling and XeSS look the same or are they different? thats what i would like to see now

[@waltuhputurdaway]

They look very different, with XeSS destroying it in terms of reconstruction quality

[@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...

[@Crazymusician345]

Is there a point to go upscaling on performance mode in 2k monitor ? i would like to see balanced and up ( quality etc).

[@Pray4TheBatman]

If you're at the point where you need to slow things down, zoom way in, put it side by side, are you really playing the game at all? I think that's a huge win for FSR and XeSS in terms of all GPU's being able to utilize it lol.

[@ariffinsetya]

I honestly don't think there's a point if you need to zoom that much + slowing down the video, in most cases you won't notice it then. I used whatever available right now, DLSS but not FG, FSR 3 for frame gen (still using RTX 3080). As 3080 user, hope FSR 3.1 get adopted wider, since I can't use DLSS frame gen on my GPU 😅.

[@Alonso89077]

why do you need DLSS frame gen on your gpu? that gpu is strong enough to play any game 1440p 60+fps

[@ariffinsetya]

@@Alonso89077 not on my ultrawide

[@waltuhputurdaway]

​@@Alonso89077higher refresh rate experience

[@swianr]

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

[@Justanotherbeautifulday]

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.

[@JayJo777]

Could you tell me the best way tk do the oppsite on an amd gpu? I want to render 1440p to a 1080p TV to get better graphics and reduce CPU bottleneck

[@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.

[@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.

[@moravianlion3108]

So, I have to slow my game to like 10% speed to even notice any difference between those two?

[@Wkaelx]

And you need to make a really dumb 2x upscaling(720 to 1440).

[@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.

[@Panagiwtis_Stefatos]

Bro AMD is caching up fast I cant wait for the day that AMD will be better than Nvidia

[@MR_GAMING_BOYS_1]

That will probably not happen

[@adamadamx5464]

NV is not as stupid as Intel, NV will be always on step ahead of AMD

[@Killerspaten]

your kidding right?

[@lilpain1997]

Not really, DLSS will always be ahead. AMD is doing what they alway do, see nvidia do something new then follow it. Issue is they are always behind doing this.

[@monsterboomer8051]

@@lilpain1997 One day in the future, and that day will come, trust me, Nvidia will make you pay mothly subscribtion for DLSS.

[@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

[@razorgarf]

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

[@yamenagha4451]

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

[@amerikanec-]

Нужен новый фризязий драйвер амд или со старым 23.12.1 будет работать fsr3.1?

[@dorion9111]

The difference are NULL AND VOID while actually gaming... You had to PAUSE and ZOOM IN to find the issues and nobody thats gaming is noticing any of that....

[@lilpain1997]

@dorion9111 this isn't true. You can tell them apart when playing easily. The reason for zoom in and slow down is due to compression and bitrate of KZbin. Unless you have poor vision you can tell straight away in game

[@charlesearl4321]

@@lilpain1997 I mean kinda? At 1440P FSR 2.1 Quality mode in many games you can't always tell when it's even on outside of getting higher FPS. 3.1 is just that much better now. I think nvidia's last stronghold in this area is aggressive upscaling on lower end cards at this point.

[@lilpain1997]

@charlesearl4321 disagree, I use 3440x1440 and standard 2560x1440 for anything that doesn't support my 21:9. I can tell fsr2.1 is on instantly even at quality. It's poor overall. 3.1 is a step in the right direction though and better.

[@ishiddddd4783]

agreed, fsrQ still is pretty bad, just not as bad as before, but its still pretty jarring to see while in game, it was the reason i sold my 7900XT. Eventually we will get to a point where there is no difference in image quality, but for that amd needs to invest in ML to close that gap, and that wont happen until their gpu's have the hardware for it.

[@HunterTracks]

​@@ishiddddd4783The 7000 series actually has hardware AI acceleration, AMD just can't really build their upscaler based on hardware that maybe a third of their active cards have.

[@V1lkas]

in my opinion DLSS FSR etc they only make sense when there is a lot of information so tv/monitor 2160p and only quality option (1440p>2160p) This can look even better than TAA DLSS FSR on 1080p native has completly zero sense, and 1440p... ok maybe quality option...

[@thomaswhite9160]

I've always said this. The only reasonable use case of upscaling to 1080p is really old hardware and handhelds like the steam deck or rog ally. Otherwise it should be 1440p quality or in 4k quality/balanced. People act like DLSS is magic but using performance mode at 1080p destroys the image too so.. What's the point?

[@Micromation]

Yea, but you will have zealots telling you upscalling is the best thing since sliced bread since it can give your old GPU a second life. Like, homie, these features look like garbage on budget hardware. If you REALLY want to play Helldivers 2 and you can only afford RX6600, FSR performance will allow you to have stable 60fps at 1080p. It will also give you headache, nausea and after few hours you will want to gouge your eyes out. Anything less than 4k and upscalling is falling off the cliff and introduces weird artifacts. Same with frame generation - literally unplayable if you're not getting 60-70fps MINIMUM native... but it's time and time again, people saying shit on the internet. Just like recommending 3060 over 6600XT because MUH RAY TRACING... no homie, you ain't using RT in anything but Minecraft (and maybe Portal IF you combine it with upscalling at 1080p LMAO), calm down. I honestly hate this timeline... it feels like console wars in PS360 era and bunch of morons cheering for their corporate overlords o.0 TL;DR these are NOT the features for poor people and developers already leaned on it way too hard (Remnant 2 runs like GARBAGE on top end hardware...) to compensate their ineptitude.

[@V1lkas]

@@thomaswhite9160 when PPI is good then yes scalling can help like in Steamdeck, but imho steamdeck is not a hardware to play AAA games, its shines in emulation retro games, metroidvania like hollow knight etc etc, and maybe older AAA games from ps360 era, where those tech like FSR is no needed. people swallow marketing and that's sad

[@thomaswhite9160]

@@V1lkas I mean, you can play AAA games, not amazingly, but you can.. I wouldn't do a full playthrough of a game there, but to play a bit a way from home is quite ok. I have an ROG Ally and during a trip I played a bit of Elden ring, sure not the whole playthrough, but a bit on a weekend when I was away from my desktop PC, and just recently I also played a bit of Ghost of Tsushima on the ally, and it's serviciable... Again, not to have as your ONLY means of playing games, but to play bits and pieces, it isn't bad.

[@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?

[@Mc_Whitty]

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]

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

[@awood186]

Would this not make a difference using an AMD card it was designed to work with? It looks like you are just using a 4070 ti for both, which was designed to work with DLSS.

[@waltuhputurdaway]

FSR is the same on every GPU, and is designed to work on all gpus,so your point is meaningless

[@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.

[@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.

[@tstager1978]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@adammartin4906]

The amount of detail that FSR 3.1 brings is way better than fsr 2.2 not sure why vex is double guessing himself here cause the difference is obvious to me however some of my friends have a hard time telling 1440p from 4k so I guess I understand were some people come from because they cannot tell

[@Torbulous]

14:08 that just looks like something called "Z fighting" on the geometry. It's when 2 pieces of geometry are so close together that they kind of fight each other on which one gets rendered. That wouldn't have anything to do with FSR.

[@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.

[@SPG8989]

​@@brulaapgaapmeester8052 lol you obviously have 0 clue how any of this works. Just say that 😊. Does NOT matter

[@AnjeshSivaram-pw1dy]

Now I'm in a dilemma should I buy the rx 7900gre or the 4070s . Many i play fps games , but occasionally i play AAA games too.

[@n0.nam358]

I don't know why you consider rx 7900gre because it's faster than 7800xt only when you overclock (memory I think, can't remember). If you are playing in 1440p I think 4070s is better for AAA games because of good Ray tracing performance and Q DLSS

[@AnjeshSivaram-pw1dy]

@@n0.nam358 in my country the rx 7900gre costs about $655 where the cheapest two fan rtx 4070s is $710. Paying about $710 for 12 Vram is what is bugging me . Even with the upscaling certain games demand more vram

[@n0.nam358]

@@AnjeshSivaram-pw1dy So get yourself an rx 7800xt if you won't overclock GPU because you won't notice difference in 90% of games (check 10% in Hardware Unboxed review, maybe you will play them and want GRE)

[@AnjeshSivaram-pw1dy]

@@n0.nam358 here both rx 7800xt and 7900gre are about the same price.

[@n0.nam358]

@@AnjeshSivaram-pw1dy Sorry! I'd recommend to watch at least 2 videos of testing rx 7800xt vs rx 7900 gre. And check you local pricing because if difference around 20$ 7900gre is better

[@picasso8253]

How does frs 3.1 look on fsr quality? Is it also that bad?

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.

[@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.

[@joke4617]

still don't know whether I should buy the 4070 super or the 7900 GRE

[@The_Legend_Jonas]

that question really comes down to whether you want 12 gb or 16 gb VRAM, they are both great at 1440p

[@edwinndirangu659]

Honestly you really cannot make a bad decision if you choose either

[@ojhuk]

I faced the same choice a couple of months ago, went for the 7900 GRE and no regrets so far. I rarely use upscaling though, if I can get 60+ fps from native res then that suits me just fine. Having 16GB over the 12GB you get with the 4070 super was also a major factor in my choice.

[@JesManVP]

I bought the 7900 gre for 499 I say wait a little till Amazon sale happens

[@ItsDeeno69]

This man used to promote amd perf/dollar so much that so many amd fans came to him and now when he is saying something bad about them they are triggered so much

[@SPG8989]

Amd fanboys are hands down far worse than most fanboys only out done by Sony ponys

[@AngladaFrankFrankyvape]

I mean if you need to slow down the game by half and zoom-in to spot differences and issues there is no issue because in motion while gaming normally you won't see them. Pizel peeping at its finest. "Huge freakin' difference", no it is not, not while actually gaming.

[@paul1979uk2000]

True, and I think that's the main flaw a lot of these test are doing, they are assuming we are playing games with binoculars and in slow motion, clearly if you go out of your way to look for flaws, you will find them in any tech, regardless of how good the tech is. What really matters is the perceived difference in quality under normal play conditions, basically under the conditions that 99.9% of gamers are likely to play their games with, and I suspect most gamers don't care how an image looks when zoomed in or under slow motion, they are more interested in how the game looks under normal play conditions, which a lot of these tech sites and KZbinrs seems to be getting wrong. DLSS is still overall better, but FSR 3.1 has closed the gap that I suspect for most gamers, it doesn't matter which upscaling tech is used, but with that said, I wouldn't use any upscaling tech unless it's 1440p or above resolution and quality mode, going below that and all these upscaling tech show their flaws, same with frame gen, 60fps or above. With that said, if you are playing on the small screen like with a Steam Deck, you can get away with more in lowering the resolution and frame rate, but more testing is needed on that. What you really want to see with these test is normal zoom level, without any slow motion and a good high quality video stream, that would be far more useful to 99.9% of gamers than all this zooming in and slow motion, which can make any tech look better or worse than another, but what really matters is the perceived difference between the different tech to most gamers, if the gap becomes so small under normal play to most gamers, then the difference between them all doesn't matter much. Honestly, if you really want to test these tech out, you really are better off testing them yourselves, because a lot of tech sites and KZbinrs are doing it all wrong which doesn't represent normal play conditions, and don't get me wrong, I've no issues with zooming in and slow motion, but more coverage really needs to be shown where it matters under normal play conditions, as I suspect that matters far more to gamers then zooming in and slow motion, to put it another way, these videos are kinda pointless.

[@x0Fang0x]

So what? These kind of reviews make the tech better by basically complaining to them till they make it perfect. Being a nitpicky MF is a good thing.😂😂

[@astrea555]

I do see it instantly while gaming. I see FSR fizzle all the time and DLSS is always a clear improvement for me.

[@lilpain1997]

As i put before in another comment. You don't need to do eitherof those in person. KZbin isnt great as it compresses the video... the vid will get compressed before as well. Bitrate aint great on KZbin. Slowing and zooming helps with either of those things.

[@Maxz155]

Man, believe me, u really see it, use FSR quality in the First Descendant a new game free in Steam, ghosting shimmering everywhere.

[@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.

[@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

[@justagameplayingcomputeruser]

Why do my comments keep disappearing?

[@justagameplayingcomputeruser]

Haven't watched the video yet but here's my take on the subject. Pretty much unless your into heavy modding DLSS don't do much for these AMD gpu's so these comparisons videos are mostly useless. All AMD cards in my machines and they still add, subtract, multiply, and divide just fine. I just use enhanced supersampling as a default in the driver and I don't go on garbage hunts or play games at 1 frame per 5 seconds. Am I doing it wrong? So blah blah this and blah blah that AMD Gpus default to allowing the monitor to upscale the image so the trouble with image quality may be a failure of the monitors ability to scale the image that FSR presents to the monitor (got a switch to enable GPU upscale that's off by default) Something to explore and test if your in too it.

[@waltuhputurdaway]

​@@justagameplayingcomputeruseridek what the hell you're trying to say

[@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? ? ?

[@waltuhputurdaway]

Performance mode with FSR is extremely noticeable at 1440p and 4k, meanwhile DLSS manages to make a surprisingly coherent image, image quality does matter and so does fps.

[@rhesty5235]

FSR is a filter based system and it is genuinely a fucking miracle that it can compete with a hardware-baked and exclusive ai upscaling method like DLSS. Quoting a reddit discussion on the topic, it's like a bike vs an electric bike in a race. DLSS is just sitting in the chair while FSR is somehow not losing THAT bad, by pedaling it's fucking heart out.

[@Wkaelx]

Yeah man, if we can make the pedal quantum something idk it may loose less or even win.

[@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

[@DBumple]

My problem is that companies also are making the native rasterized version uglier with TAA as the default so you'll just use the upscaler anyway. Its a longshot but come on, would you be surprised?

[@Sherudons]

I consider it to be the least important and something that should be given the soviet treatment. Can I just get raw performance and companies releasing properly ready and complete games instead of beta tests with a years patching?

[@imAgentR]

Would it be worth comparing to LS1 scaling also?

[@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.

[@VicarioussChallenger]

8:05 - talking smack about FSR meanwhile DLSS pouch is having complete meltdown 💀

[@waltuhputurdaway]

Definitely a game issue, as FSR had the same issue for a second there

[@TolisKarapPlanB]

Are we having FSR 3.1 in CoD: Warzone? Cuz its so shitty optimized

[@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.

[@agtakaitilak645]

Like who cares about slow motion just to see the difference? as long as it performs like DLSS with a bit of flaws it does not matter. AMD is getting better and better in making FSR competitive to DLSS I have to complaints the fact that low to medium budget graphics card can now enjoy the game with higher fps.

[@Alonso89077]

your brain isn't braining is it? he is slowing down the motion so you can see the difference he is seeing in a normal gaming session because of youtube is making the video quality worse so he has to slow motion the difference for you to be able to see it.

[@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

[@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

[@ilyabaka5498]

Maybe everyone should start doing good optimization again just like old times because it looks like everyone just forget about such a words and now simple aiming for some"technologies" to improve overall gameplay but to be honest more and more of latest games have a bad optimization and a tons of bugs with graphics especially with lights

[@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.

[@neavo8421]

I use a 7800XT and I cant see even 2.1 being this terrible. Maybe its because youre using FSR on an nvidia gpu, but first generation dlss looked like crap in CODmw2019 and I had to turn it off to play competitively. I bought the pandora game to play on my 4k and with frame generation it was crisp and gorgeous. I dont think anyone uses the performance mode on either dlss or fsr. If I was showing this to a customer (I own a tech company), I wouldnt show them FSR vs DLSS in this manner - I would have an Nvidia 3060 showing DLSS and a RX 6600 showing FSR in two different computers side by side with the same hardware. Earlier this morning I was playing hogwarts legacay and because my TV pc only has a 3600 in it I have to use FSR - which on ultra settings @ 4k is amazing. That said it isnt the performance mode, but I dont know anyone who has used performance mode to play their games - even a 6600 can net over 100fps in most games.

[@waltuhputurdaway]

FSR looks the same on all gpus, no matter the brand.

[@ZalanBora-iz8qg]

Wait so you can use fsr 3 on nvidia gpus ?

[@Dell-ol6hb]

Yes

[@ZalanBora-iz8qg]

@@Dell-ol6hb ok

[@ramdanrivanto8855]

I dont see any differences between dlss, fsr2.2, 3.1. as gtx 1650 user, as long as the game still running at 60fps for recent game i can say that was an improvement. For example ghost of tsushima is running excellent on my gaming laptop.

[@losingmyfavoritegame8752]

You know what FSR looks like to me? It looks like if you just turn on the NVidia image scaling and select 1080 > 1440 with the image sharpening too high in NVidia control panel, lol. I think using Radeon Super Resolution, cranking in game anti-aliasing and AF and turning up sharpening to your taste for the game looks less artifact-ey. It's like it needs FXAA and sharpening. FXAA can be applied to any application. Hmm/ 🤔 The FXAA should eliminate the ghosting of the lower sample being upscaled. It is easy to do on NVidia. Just select FXAA in NVCP and it sharpens the image after applying FXAA.

[@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

[@photonboy999]

*AMD needs AI upscaling...* AMD will continue to have severe limitations in how upscaling works if it doesn't develop its own AI upscaling solution. That is, machine learning to take a high-res "ground truth" reference and train to scale to that. Same as NVidia. You can't get the same thing EVEN when working closely with developers without this solution. And it will CONTINUE to add work to try to optimize without AI. Not sure how much SONY is involved. Not sure if anything Sony does can be used on desktop. Regardless, AMD needs to develop their own solution. Probably they're working on it now but it will take time. HOPEFULLY, for AMD users they make it easy to add "AI" FSR to existing games.

[@igorfiuza144]

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

[@pkerry12]

3:03 they are all on Sony Playstation 5 to those games which use AMD graphics. I would say fsr 3.1 is going to be used on ps5's too.

[@AJJJ-co2vd]

I think it's great I'll be able to buy a lower-end PC and compensate with FSR 3

[@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

[@Dell-ol6hb]

Idk, if you really care that much about RTX any RTX cards around $425 are probably not even going to be powerful enough to actually use raytracing, at least at higher settings, so you might be better off going with the 6900xt which will have way more raster performance so you don’t even need any upscaling but it comes at the cost of slightly worse ray tracing performance. Though depending on what RTX cards are available in your area for $425, the 6900xt might even literally be better at RT just because it has such a huge advantage in raster performance, but that depends on the RTX card.

[@leeeverett1509]

@@Dell-ol6hb ye i probably take 6950xt rn for 500$, still thinking about 4070 but its for 630$ and is slower than xt :v tough decision

[@corneraction6765]

This is most likely a hot take, but I can’t tell the difference between fsr and dlss

[@TheBanjoShowOfficial]

I can tell the difference about 50% of the time. And I don’t know about you, but only managing 50% distinction of the time for a test that was frankly, very unfair and one-sided considering the level of up scaling he was doing (which no one will be doing) and the graphics card he was using for both tests (definitely not an AMD card), I would say that you may pretty much conclude it was the same thing.