This is the best example of why people are buying nvidia en masse. One company gives support day one, the other one 2 years down the line - and only after stock has dried out on their RDNA 3 so it wouldnt hurt sales of RDNA 4. This is laughable - and obviously I ain't touching radeon again. My RDNA 2 will get FSR 4 in 2027 - LOL. Yeah, no worries, I'll wait.

Dr. DroThat's excellent news. It just shouldn't have happened after a year of the community being angry at AMD over this...

Their muted response to providing highly requested features like this in a reasonable time frame sold more GeForce cards than Jensen ever could by now.

No, at this point it would be better if they said "We tried our best, couldn't make it work, sorry". Porting it after 2 years is mentally ill. Someone must have infiltrated the company and is trying to sabotage it from within, it makes no sense to me.

TheinsanegamerNJust like with their driver issues and with supporting ryzen 3 and 5000 on older chipsets, it turns out bullying works, and AMD needs it constantly.

Whos to say that wasn't the original plan though? Same with your ryzen example, "we will let them think they are not getting it so they buy our new shiny GPUs / mobos etc., and when everyone that is going to buy has done already we will release support for our older hardware". Could totally see this as being the plan all along.

wolfand still somehow attempt to gatekeep who is allowed an opinion on the subject based on irrelevant circumstances and logical fallacies.

Thank god I bought an RDNA 2 card. It was a terrible choice of GPU and all that but at least it allows me entry into the "you can criticize amd" club. But you sir, you sit this one out. :p

JustBenching... at this point it would be better if they said "We tried our best, couldn't make it work, sorry". Porting it after 2 years is mentally ill.

This is pure nonsense. It was not good when they did not do it, now it's not good when they do it. Schizophrenic approach, to use your mentally ill metaphor.

Tek-CheckThis is pure nonsense. It was not good when they did not do it, now it's not good when they do it. Schizophrenic approach, to use your mentally ill metaphor.

Yes, the good option was releasing it back in early 2025 alongside RDNA 4. After that point there aren't any good options left, it's bad and worse.

What good reason is there for them to take 2 (3 in the case on RDNA 2!!!!) years to release it on older gpus. I'm all ears, give me something and ill change my mind.

Keep the personal comments and attacks out of the forums. If you can't figure out how to post your opinion without making a personal comment about someone else, don't post.

JustBenchinggive me something and ill change my mind.

Whether you change your mind or not, it's none of my business.

The situation is rather simple. Those who really need upscaling and couldn't wait should have switched to Nvidia. Those who don't find this feature essential and use it occasionally can wait until it's delivered. Those who don't use it, like myself, are unaffected.

Tek-CheckWhether you change your mind or not, it's none of my business.

The situation is rather simple. Those who really need upscaling and couldn't wait should have switched to Nvidia. Those who don't find this feature essential and use it occasionally can wait until it's delivered. Those who don't use it, like myself, are unaffected.

None of that explains why it's going to take 3 years to port this to RDNA 2 though...I'm not a software engineer, I have 0 connection to the industry, 0 knowledge on the subject at hand, I could still go to the university and study software engineering and port this to RDNA 2 before AMD. If that doesn't sound insane to you I don't know man.

Anyways my point is - the next time an nvidia marketshare numbers shows up let's all agree that this is one of the many reasons nvidia dwarfs amd.

JustBenchingThis is the best example of why people are buying nvidia en masse. One company gives support day one, the other one 2 years down the line - and only after stock has dried out on their RDNA 3 so it wouldnt hurt sales of RDNA 4. This is laughable - and obviously I ain't touching radeon again. My RDNA 2 will get FSR 4 in 2027 - LOL. Yeah, no worries, I'll wait.

You think RDNA 3 is in competition against RDNA 4? You think selling RDNA 3 stock faster would have hurt AMD?

JustBenchingNo, at this point it would be better if they said "We tried our best, couldn't make it work, sorry". Porting it after 2 years is mentally ill. Someone must have infiltrated the company and is trying to sabotage it from within, it makes no sense to me.

"better late than never"?

ThomasKFinally the day has come that Nvidia owners can shut up about it.


Kthxbye.

Nobody shouts, sales silently tell by itself.

Why not 5000 series too, AMD? 7000 series is still “holding strong”/not “old”, 6000 is also “nothing special”, but adding also for 5000 series could be “better customers treatment”.

JustBenchingNone of that explains why it's going to take 3 years to port this to RDNA 2 though...I'm not a software engineer, I have 0 connection to the industry, 0 knowledge on the subject at hand, I could still go to the university and study software engineering and port this to RDNA 2 before AMD. If that doesn't sound insane to you I don't know man.

Anyways my point is - the next time an nvidia marketshare numbers shows up let's all agree that this is one of the many reasons nvidia dwarfs amd.

The most likely answer is because the Radeon gaming division is running on a shoestring budget and resources, everything is going to ROCm, whatever remained was prioritized towards their current hardware which is RDNA 4. Once they accomplished everything they wanted to for software features for FSR on the RDNA 4 they most likely would have started on development of the next gen FSR for RDNA 5 (could be called UDNA). Because of AI consuming everything, RDNA 5, along with Nvidia, have delayed their next gen hardware releases. This has allowed for a window of opportunity for them to backport FSR 4.1 to RDNA 3 and 2. The fact that there is a six month plus gap between RDNA 3 and 2 releases to me shows just how small the development team is.

AusWolfYou think RDNA 3 is in competition against RDNA 4? You think selling RDNA 3 stock faster would have hurt AMD?

That's the most reasonable explanation. Nothing else really makes sense. There is no way they need 2 (and 3 for RDNA 2) years to port this.

AusWolfHave you heard the term "better late than never"? Are you saying if I can't give you a hundred bucks now, just next week, then it's better if I don't give you anything at all? Strange logic.

Well yes, there are situations were doing it never is better. If they said we put our hearts into it but it turns out it can't run on RDNA 2 - that would be better than this, which is "we could have done it from day one but you have to wait for 3 years". I mean what possible explanation is there for them to take 3 years. I've asked 3 times already and nobody seems to wanna answer me..

CraptacularThe most likely answer is because the Radeon gaming division is running on a shoestring budget and resources, everything is going to ROCm, whatever remained was prioritized towards their current hardware which is RDNA 4. Once they accomplished everything they wanted to for software features for FSR on the RDNA 4 they most likely would have started on development of the next gen FSR for RDNA 5 (could be called UDNA). Because of AI consuming everything, RDNA 5, along with Nvidia, have delayed their next gen hardware releases. This has allowed for a window of opportunity for them to backport FSR 4.1 to RDNA 3 and 2. The fact that there is a six month plus gap between RDNA 3 and 2 releases to me shows just how small the development team is.

I agree, but that was my point all along. They have allocated a super tiny team by choice not caring about their previous gen cards, which is really what im saying. This was done by choice.

Long overdue but well done.

Now, next time, how about making sure you have this story ready as a press release the moment you launch FSR 4. No feelings hurt, and heck, us RDNA3 owners might have even side graded just for the sake of having the latest again, because we like you a lot... You know, the way successful businesses thrive. After all, you (AMD) figured out that you needed to do this anyway, no ifs or buts... which has been the story of your life. Just deliver. That's what inspires trust.

JustBenchingThat's the most reasonable explanation. Nothing else really makes sense. There is no way they need 2 (and 3 for RDNA 2) years to port this.

It is not an explanation, let alone a reasonable one.

If you can make it better and faster, then go ahead, make it.

JustBenchingWell yes, there are situations were doing it never is better. If they said we put our hearts into it but it turns out it can't run on RDNA 2 - that would be better than this, which is "we could have done it from day one but you have to wait for 3 years".

You're making up excuses to support your point, but it still doesn't make a lick of sense. Whatever AMD does or doesn't do, you'll cry about it. That much is certain.

JustBenchingI mean what possible explanation is there for them to take 3 years. I've asked 3 times already and nobody seems to wanna answer me..

Because nobody here is a software engineer with deep knowledge in AMD's drivers, perhaps? Not even you? You're just making shit up, literally.

JustBenchingI've asked 3 times already and nobody seems to wanna answer me..

Ah yes, you're " just asking questions " :) I thought we were past this phase in social media / troll discourse lol. Who is this somebody that 'should want to' answer you? Some random forumite, so you can then start the discussion train against him? Tsk tsk

I think I'll be that guy then, I've given my take on this situation in the post above. Its just AMD being AMD, getting by on scraps, only to figure out way too late that they have to just be feature complete, every gen, or they're gonna be thrown under the bus.

ThomasKFinally the day has come that Nvidia owners can shut up about it.


Kthxbye.

Well honestly this AMD owner was pretty angry until I figured I really don't use upscale anyway. More a matter of principle at this point in time. But principles matter.

Sol_BadguyI would have to disagree!
It creates fanbase loyalty, people like to be treated nicely, if they are chances are they will come back to you for future products, if you treat them like crap and lock them out of features their hardware supports and also cut driver support earlier than the competition chances are they will look elsewhere for what they want!

They've already given software/driver features in the past for RDNA2/3, why does it need to be this one or any more? RDNA2 released~5.5yrs ago, 3 released ~3.5yrs ago.
What's your definition of fair to the consumer to stop adding software/driver features/tech? (different from video game support for new games released after release of the GPUs or bug fixes)

PixelTechWhat's your definition of fair to the consumer to stop adding software/driver features/tech?

At least on par with the competition if not a bit more to entice people and claw back market share.
Long driver support and constant meaningful driver updates go a long way.
If the hardware supports newer features add them, it doesn't matter that the fps will drop to 40, the customer at least has the option/freedom to use it.

Sol_BadguyIf the hardware supports newer features add them

That's what I think most people didn't understand about the delay to this feature, D2/3 has different hardware then D4. Thus, AMD had to spend even more dev time/money to add this feature. Right?

PixelTechThat's what I think most people didn't understand about the delay to this feature, D2/3 has different hardware then D4. Thus, AMD had to spend even more dev time/money to add this feature. Right?

Modders were already running FSR4 INT8 on RDNA3 a long time ago, and it was already better than FSR3, AMD could’ve just released that version. Even if it wasn’t fully ready, they could’ve launched it as a beta or alpha feature. So they had already invested the time and money to make FSR4 run on RDNA3 but were withholding it for some reason.

zusModders were already running FSR4 INT8 on RDNA3 a long time ago, and it was already better than FSR3, AMD could’ve just released that version. Even if it wasn’t fully ready, they could’ve launched it as a beta or alpha feature. So they had already invested the time and money to make FSR4 run on RDNA3 but were withholding it for some reason.

Does AMD have a history of buying modder's work/code or using their work/code? Is AMD's FSR4.1 for R2/3 better then the modder's work?
I get the proof of concept is there from the modders.

PixelTechDoes AMD have a history of buying modder's work/code or using their work/code? Is AMD's FSR4.1 for R2/3 better then the modder's work?
I get the proof of concept is there from the modders.

FSR4 INT8 was made by AMD themselves, they just leaked it accidentally. Modders just compiled the leaked files into a DLL and shipped it on Optiscaler. I think the Optiscaler team did some optimizations for RDNA2 later on too. But the code was originally from AMD. FSR 4.1 is probably better than the leaked version, but the leaked version was already a big improvement over FSR 3.
radeon/comments/1nhkkr8/fsr_sdk_leak_contained_fsr_4_files_that_work_on

JustBenchingThat's the most reasonable explanation. Nothing else really makes sense. There is no way they need 2 (and 3 for RDNA 2) years to port this.

Well yes, there are situations were doing it never is better. If they said we put our hearts into it but it turns out it can't run on RDNA 2 - that would be better than this, which is "we could have done it from day one but you have to wait for 3 years". I mean what possible explanation is there for them to take 3 years. I've asked 3 times already and nobody seems to wanna answer me..


I agree, but that was my point all along. They have allocated a super tiny team by choice not caring about their previous gen cards, which is really what im saying. This was done by choice.

There are possible legal reasons why official FSR 4.x support might have been withheld from RDNA 3 and 2, and a probable failure of imagination for why FSR 4.x was withheld from RDNA 2 on top of that.

Sony poured a lot of resources to develop graphics technology in conjunction with AMD in their Project Amethyst, a joint graphics technology project between Sony and AMD named after mixing Radeon red with PlayStation blue. Maybe FSR 4.0 is PSSR 2, so maybe FSR 4.0 INT8 is locked to PS5 Pro as PSSR 2. Perhaps FSR 4.1 on RDNA 3 and 2 required legal negotiations with Sony. Perhaps Sony did not want Xbox Series X and S to get FSR 4.x, so it would be harder to prove an antitrust case against AMD and Sony if all RDNA 3 and 2 were blocked from FSR 4.0 than if the contract excluded only Xbox. Xbox Series S and X do have the general purpose INT8 hardware to run FSR 4.0 and 4.1 INT8 because they have full RDNA 2.

As for RDNA 2, it lacks any dedicated AI hardware. Nvidia gets little criticism for not backporting DLSS to Pascal, especially since Pascal has no tensor cores whatsoever. Probably helping Nvidia at this point was that DLSS 1 was absolute garbage, so there was little desire to backport DLSS to Pascal. So one could think that AMD would think that FSR 4.x needed dedicated AI hardware of some kind to run well, and RDNA 2 has no dedicated AI hardware whatsoever. RDNA 3 added INT8 AI hardware. RDNA 4 added FP8 AI hardware which FSR 4 initially used. I can easily believe that AMD would have not realized that RDNA 2's general purpose INT8 hardware was powerful enough to handle FSR 4 until someone hacked FSR 4 INT8 to run on RDNA 2's general purpose INT8 hardware and found that this hardware is fast enough to make FSR 4 worthwhile.

CraptacularThe most likely answer is because the Radeon gaming division is running on a shoestring budget and resources, everything is going to ROCm, whatever remained was prioritized towards their current hardware which is RDNA 4. Once they accomplished everything they wanted to for software features for FSR on the RDNA 4 they most likely would have started on development of the next gen FSR for RDNA 5 (could be called UDNA). Because of AI consuming everything, RDNA 5, along with Nvidia, have delayed their next gen hardware releases. This has allowed for a window of opportunity for them to backport FSR 4.1 to RDNA 3 and 2. The fact that there is a six month plus gap between RDNA 3 and 2 releases to me shows just how small the development team is.

Keep in mind that there is Sony and PS5 Pro in the game. It's more about the exclusivity deal with Sony, as they co-developed the newer upscaler for pre-RDNA4 graphics engine in PS5 Pro. We don't know what exactly was agreed in the deal behind the curtain, but clearly Sony pushed for FSR4 release on the console in the first place, and then on other graphics engines on AMD products, which is exactly what is happening now. I recon this has little to do with how small the graphics team is and more to do with agreed strategy between the two companies. At the end of the day, Sony sells multiple times more of consoles than AMD sells dGPUs, so it's not surprising at all that the tech arrives first to gamers on PS5 Pro.
www.techpowerup.com/338569/playstation-5-pro-to-gain-full-amd-fsr-4-integration-in-2026

JustBenchingAnyways my point is - the next time an nvidia marketshare numbers shows up let's all agree that this is one of the many reasons nvidia dwarfs amd.

You keep forgetting the basics, namely that FSR4 development for pre-RDNA4 graphics was intimately related to Sony's gaming console that both companies worked on together.

JustBenchingThat's the most reasonable explanation. Nothing else really makes sense. There is no way they need 2 (and 3 for RDNA 2) years to port this.

They do, if that was the strategy agreed with Sony. Read my elaboration above.

JustBenchingI mean what possible explanation is there for them to take 3 years. I've asked 3 times already and nobody seems to wanna answer me..

This was answered several times in recent months. You just did not pay attention. The discussion about FSR4 for pre-RDNA4 cannot be meaningful without talking about AMD's collaboration with Sony and joint strategy they agreed for rolling out the upscaler.

JustBenchingI agree, but that was my point all along. They have allocated a super tiny team by choice not caring about their previous gen cards, which is really what im saying. This was done by choice.

Again, there is Sony. Both companies dedicated a team of people for their joint effort on the console. AMD's team simply continues this effort onto their cards.

PixelTechThat's what I think most people didn't understand about the delay to this feature, D2/3 has different hardware then D4. Thus, AMD had to spend even more dev time/money to add this feature. Right?

Not only this, but they worked jointly with Sony's engineers to deliver FSR on the console in the first place.

zusModders were already running FSR4 INT8 on RDNA3 a long time ago, and it was already better than FSR3, AMD could’ve just released that version. Even if it wasn’t fully ready, they could’ve launched it as a beta or alpha feature.

The leaked release of FSR4 INT8 files was the Beta. They could not release it officially if the deal with Sony was to get the tech into the console first. At the end of the day, both teams co-developed the solution and worked together.

zusSo they had already invested the time and money to make FSR4 run on RDNA3 but were withholding it for some reason.

Yes. There is Sony in the game, as explained above.

zusFSR4 INT8 was made by AMD themselves, they just leaked it accidentally.

I doubt this was accidental. Such things do not happen accidentally.

jnv11Sony poured a lot of resources to develop graphics technology in conjunction with AMD in their Project Amethyst, a joint graphics technology project between Sony and AMD named after mixing Radeon red with PlayStation blue. Maybe FSR 4.0 is PSSR 2, so maybe FSR 4.0 INT8 is locked to PS5 Pro as PSSR 2. Perhaps FSR 4.1 on RDNA 3 and 2 required legal negotiations with Sony. Perhaps Sony did not want Xbox Series X and S to get FSR 4.x, so it would be harder to prove an antitrust case against AMD and Sony if all RDNA 3 and 2 were blocked from FSR 4.0 than if the contract excluded only Xbox. Xbox Series S and X do have the general purpose INT8 hardware to run FSR 4.0 and 4.1 INT8 because they have full RDNA 2.

This. It's not a rocket science. We are seeing now how this is unfolding. Sony had a priority of FSR4 release on the console, as they co-developed it with AMD, then pre-RDNA4 cards and then everything else.

jnv11There are possible legal reasons why official FSR 4.x support might have been withheld from RDNA 3 and 2, and a probable failure of imagination for why FSR 4.x was withheld from RDNA 2 on top of that.

Sony poured a lot of resources to develop graphics technology in conjunction with AMD in their Project Amethyst, a joint graphics technology project between Sony and AMD named after mixing Radeon red with PlayStation blue. Maybe FSR 4.0 is PSSR 2, so maybe FSR 4.0 INT8 is locked to PS5 Pro as PSSR 2. Perhaps FSR 4.1 on RDNA 3 and 2 required legal negotiations with Sony. Perhaps Sony did not want Xbox Series X and S to get FSR 4.x, so it would be harder to prove an antitrust case against AMD and Sony if all RDNA 3 and 2 were blocked from FSR 4.0 than if the contract excluded only Xbox. Xbox Series S and X do have the general purpose INT8 hardware to run FSR 4.0 and 4.1 INT8 because they have full RDNA 2.

As for RDNA 2, it lacks any dedicated AI hardware. Nvidia gets little criticism for not backporting DLSS to Pascal, especially since Pascal has no tensor cores whatsoever. Probably helping Nvidia at this point was that DLSS 1 was absolute garbage, so there was little desire to backport DLSS to Pascal. So one could think that AMD would think that FSR 4.x needed dedicated AI hardware of some kind to run well, and RDNA 2 has no dedicated AI hardware whatsoever. RDNA 3 added INT8 AI hardware. RDNA 4 added FP8 AI hardware which FSR 4 initially used. I can easily believe that AMD would have not realized that RDNA 2's general purpose INT8 hardware was powerful enough to handle FSR 4 until someone hacked FSR 4 INT8 to run on RDNA 2's general purpose INT8 hardware and found that this hardware is fast enough to make FSR 4 worthwhile.

No, the reason nvidia doesn't and will never get any criticism for not backporting dlss to Pascal (or the Geforce 256 for that matter) is that their competitors at the time don't offer anything that Pascal doesn't. Neither Vega or Polaris got something that Pascal doesn't. That is not the case with rdna 1, 2 and 3. These severely lack in features that the most basic, cheapest entry level Turing card from 2018 has. These are really not the same.

FG is the feature they are blocking (whether for actual technical reasons or otherwise) but that isn't as popular or useful as upscaling is. Not to mention I wouldnt think it's positive if they suddenly decided to give FG to ampere. It would only mean they were fooling us all this time pretending it wasn't possible.

JustBenchingThese severely lack in features

Right... I love when people paint meaningless pictures with a broad brush. Perhaps you could ask others why they make purchase choices they do, to be able to understand. My last Nvidia desktop GPU was a passive 1050Ti for a no-fan system. After that, I moved to class 80 cards, for 4K gaming on a big OLED TV. When I saw what Nvidia was doing their class 80 cards, from Ampere onward, I never wanted to buy one offering ridiculously low amount of VRAM. Instead, I went for 6800XT and then 7900XTX. Both served me really well.

RIP optimization.

Will this work with their iGPUs? Not sure if the overhead is worth it on those small chips.