AMD's Elusive FidelityFX Super Resolution Coming This June?

[P_G19]

If it works with Turing GTX & RDNA 1 I'll be happy. (Work fine on non-ultimate DX12)

Edit: Does it really need ray tracing to be on as some old rumors said?

 

[bencrutz]

Well a final output imagine is nuanced, especially in motion, there is lots to unpack there. For instance I find shimmering on straight(er) edges is a nit-pick of mine where DLSS helps immensely, along with intricate details, perhaps other parts of the image matter more you you? I'd encourage you to come join the conversation here if you have extended thoughts to share or anything you want to discuss with other other people that use DLSS 2.0.

i don't think i can add anything to the discussion, sold the RTX for a quick bucks, and i mainly play older games anyway

 

[wolf]

Does it really need ray tracing to be on as some old rumors said?

I can't see this being required at all, if DLSS Doesn't need RT to be on, I would put money on AMD not requiring it for FSR.

 

[medi01]

The key difference is those Nvidia users get to enjoy both.

That surely helped G-Sync to get traction.
Oh wait...

NV's glorified TAA derivative, also known as DLSS 2, is poised to follow the fate of G-Sync.
And then one ends up with a handful of shitty looking games like Control, which, purely by coincidence of course, are also green sponsored.

Does it really need ray tracing to be on as some old rumors said?

No, definitely not.

 

[Punkenjoy]

Indeed, and what is going to help is AMD is in both mains consoles. Engine that want to take benefits of the PS5 or Xbox series X/S will have to use FSR. Unity, Unreal Engine, etc. will all have to have FSR available for the dev.

And when you look at the Xbox Series S, FSR if good enough, might be a game changer for this console and solve so many issue dev have with this console.

I am far from against technology like Ray Tracing or advanced upscaling. But i am really not interested in any proprietary technology. That is bad for gamers, end of the story.

 

[Gameslove]

So for a Nvidia RTX users you can enable both DLSS + FSR in games? Woww huge performance.....

 

[Ronnyv1]

if they bring this to the new consoles.. imagine those 720p games being upscaled

 

[ZoneDymo]

if they bring this to the new consoles.. imagine those 720p games being upscaled

which 720p games? the recently released RE8 runs at 4k 60fps (with a bit of checkerboarding for upscaling sure)

I think this technique would be best if it can be applied to ray tracing effects specifically

 

[Patriot]

It's funny because I found some forums, and this one in particular, to be an Anti-DLSS (among other things) echo chamber, and a theme was, the vast majority, if not all of these users 'hating', don't own or use RTX cards.

So I can see where the distinct chance for the opposite exists and people just rave on it with no constructive criticisms whatsoever, but so far it actually seems more balanced than the free for all, which I find overwhelmingly negative when everyone that has read a review, or seen a compressed youtube video, or some cherry-picked side-by-sides, but comes to the party with their bias and just dumps on it.

I SO want AMD to succeed with FSR, it's only going to be good for us all if they do, but as it stands I have serious doubts.

I would postulate because DLSS 1.0 was like rubbing Vaseline on your screen and DLSS 2.0 is black magic.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

DLSS is far from useless, used it in many games so far, especially when I output to my 4K OLED at 120Hz/Gsync, looks and runs awesome. Death Stranding looked better than native with DLSS enabled using quality preset. Text was sharper. Textures looked better. DLSS is very good for elminating jaggies.

DLSS support will explode over time, native support in most popular game engines is going to happen. Already confirmed. Unreal Engine, Unity - also DLSS 3.0 should allow all games that support TAA to force DLSS instead, which is 100s of titles even older games

DLSS is the true magic of RTX series. Allows for a huge fps boost or RT without huge fps drop. Ray Tracing is a joke without DLSS but even without DLSS, Nvidias 3000 series beats AMDs 6000 with ease in RT scenarios. Ray Tracing can be great in some titles, single player ones. In multiplayer it's all about performance for me tho.

If DLSS is implemented well (most DLSS 2.x games) - the tech is insanely good. Free performance and pretty much identical image quality, sometimes better, there's several videos and tests with side by side comparisons. Why say no to 50-75% more fps _and_ improved visuals? Just never use motion blur with DLSS (who uses motion blur anyway... sigh, motion blur is only something you use when you try and mask a low framerate, aka consoles and low end PCs)

DLSS 1.0 sucked pretty much, blurred crap but DLSS 2.x is nothing like 1.0 some people still think DLSS means blur tho haha.

It's funny how people with AMD GPUs or GTX cards always seem to think DLSS is useless I Wonder why.

I do have an RTX card, what makes DLSS useless is it's limited to games that supports it, like yourself I use a 4k OLED TV but DLSS isn't supported in any old games, and

DLSS is far from useless, used it in many games so far, especially when I output to my 4K OLED at 120Hz/Gsync, looks and runs awesome. Death Stranding looked better than native with DLSS enabled using quality preset. Text was sharper. Textures looked better. DLSS is very good for elminating jaggies.

DLSS support will explode over time, native support in most popular game engines is going to happen. Already confirmed. Unreal Engine, Unity - also DLSS 3.0 should allow all games that support TAA to force DLSS instead, which is 100s of titles even older games

DLSS is the true magic of RTX series. Allows for a huge fps boost or RT without huge fps drop. Ray Tracing is a joke without DLSS but even without DLSS, Nvidias 3000 series beats AMDs 6000 with ease in RT scenarios. Ray Tracing can be great in some titles, single player ones. In multiplayer it's all about performance for me tho.

If DLSS is implemented well (most DLSS 2.x games) - the tech is insanely good. Free performance and pretty much identical image quality, sometimes better, there's several videos and tests with side by side comparisons. Why say no to 50-75% more fps _and_ improved visuals? Just never use motion blur with DLSS (who uses motion blur anyway... sigh, motion blur is only something you use when you try and mask a low framerate, aka consoles and low end PCs)

DLSS 1.0 sucked pretty much, blurred crap but DLSS 2.x is nothing like 1.0 some people still think DLSS means blur tho haha.

It's funny how people with AMD GPUs or GTX cards always seem to think DLSS is useless I Wonder why.

I do have an RTX card and like yourself I use an OLED 4K G-Sync, the issue with DLSS is it's only available for games that support it, which renders it useless otherwise, the same goes for RT.
The only way to make it useful it to be able to apply it to all games like other AA solutions. Only then it'll make sense for me.

 

[wolf]

I would postulate because DLSS 1.0 was like rubbing Vaseline on your screen and DLSS 2.0 is black magic.

Indeed 1.0 was beyond average, literally mas as well just run 70% render scale. 2.0 is legit black magic lol, sometimes I really can't believe my eyes.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

th

otion blur is only something you use when you try and mask a low framerate, aka consoles and low end PCs)

is is incorrect
and wrong
I hate motionblur in most games
BUT RACING games REALLY take advantage from it
in first person it REALLY makes the car feel like it's going faster

 

[wolf]

I do have an RTX card and like yourself I use an OLED 4K G-Sync, the issue with DLSS is it's only available for games that support it, which renders it useless otherwise, the same goes for RT.

Granted adoption is one of the bigger gripes about it, if the game you were playing supported it, would you not enable it? I'd call it limited, not useless. And I don't think we're at the end of the road for it, NVIDIA know how amazingly it works, and that there's a massive appetite for it, so it's very much in their interest to vastly increase per game adoption/look at ways to enable it universally etc. They'd be foolish not to be working on that right now.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Granted adoption is one of the bigger gripes about it, if the game you were playing supported it, would you not enable it? I'd call it limited, not useless. And I don't think we're at the end of the road for it, NVIDIA know how amazingly it works, and that there's a massive appetite for it, so it's very much in their interest to vastly increase per game adoption/look at ways to enable it universally etc. They'd be foolish not to be working on that right now.

The technology seems great, but as of now it is useless for someone who doesn't play compatible games, which represents the majority of gamers.
My issue with it is, nVidia could've used
But yeah in the future with more adoption or better still Microsoft makes something similar part of DX and accelerated by tensor cores it could make it much more appealing.

 

[AusWolf]

I do have an RTX card, what makes DLSS useless is it's limited to games that supports it, like yourself I use a 4k OLED TV but DLSS isn't supported in any old games, and

I do have an RTX card and like yourself I use an OLED 4K G-Sync, the issue with DLSS is it's only available for games that support it, which renders it useless otherwise, the same goes for RT.
The only way to make it useful it to be able to apply it to all games like other AA solutions. Only then it'll make sense for me.

Why do you want DLSS in old games? You get a million fps on native resolution anyway. IMO, the main function of DLSS is to counter the performance hit you suffer when you turn ray tracing on. Old games don't need it. New games wouldn't need it either, if not for the enormous performance costs that come with RT.

As for 4K TVs, I also have one, but I watch 90% of my stuff in 1080p as the difference is barely noticeable.

Something on topic: I've just tried Cyberpunk 2077 (wanted to wait for patch 1.2, I know it's 1.22 now). FidelityFX works brilliantly. I can get 35 fps on 1080 res, all high graphics with a GTX 1650 with FidelityFX set to constant 75%. The image looks just a tiny a bit blurry, but nothing earth shaking. Just like watching a film. Based on the youtube videos I've seen, I expected much worse in terms of picture quality. It looks better on 80%, but the frame dips in crowded areas are too large, so I'll stay with 75%. The other option I've tried is using native 900p with FidelityFX off, but that also messes up the UI besides blurring the image, so no.

I've always been an advocate of using lower resolutions instead of resolution scaling black magic, but all in all, FidelityFX in CP77 convinced me... which makes me wonder whether we need DLSS at all.

 

[Hachi_Roku256563]

Why do you want DLSS in old games? You get a million fps on native resolution anyway. IMO, the main function of DLSS is to counter the performance hit you suffer when you turn ray tracing on. Old games don't need it. New games wouldn't need it either, if not for the enormous performance costs that come with RT.

yeah lol
need for speed underground 2 can probs run at 100+fps at 8k on a 1050ti

 

[medi01]

So for a Nvidia RTX users you can enable both DLSS + FSR in games? Woww huge performance.....

In fact, as a user of any GPU, you can simply run game at 1080p, call it "Bazinga 4k" (print "Bazinga 4k" using comic sans font, with the face of Jensen Huang next to it, he deserves it) and have it on the wall, next to your monitor, in case someone tells you you gained perf from simply lowering your resolution (1080p is 4 times less pixels than 4k, 1440p is 2.2 times less)

 

[Deleted member 185088]

Why do you want DLSS in old games? You get a million fps on native resolution anyway. IMO, the main function of DLSS is to counter the performance hit you suffer when you turn ray tracing on. Old games don't need it. New games wouldn't need it either, if not for the enormous performance costs that come with RT.

As for 4K TVs, I also have one, but I watch 90% of my stuff in 1080p as the difference is barely noticeable.

Not many games old or new support DLSS 2.0, plus 4k120 isn't easy as few have the hardware for.
I agree the new TVs do a very good job upscaling, but when it comes to games there is a noticeable difference between 4k and 1440p.

 

[AusWolf]

Not many games old or new support DLSS 2.0, plus 4k120 isn't easy as few have the hardware for.
I agree the new TVs do a very good job upscaling, but when it comes to games there is a noticeable difference between 4k and 1440p.

My argument to that is
1. 4K 120 fps is a luxury even with modern hardware. You need a couple more GPU generations until it really becomes available with modern games.
2. you really can't blame game developers for not including a proprietary nvidia technology in X game when that technology and the hardware for it wasn't even invented yet.
3. a "noticeable difference" doesn't mean it's crap. Finding a good compromise between performance and visual quality isn't a concept from the devil - just sayin'.

 

[Deleted member 185088]

My argument to that is
1. 4K 120 fps is a luxury even with modern hardware. You need a couple more GPU generations until it really becomes available with modern games.
2. you really can't blame game developers for not including a proprietary nvidia technology in X game when that technology and the hardware for it wasn't even invented yet.
3. a "noticeable difference" doesn't mean it's crap. Finding a good compromise between performance and visual quality isn't a concept from the devil - just sayin'.

I guess we have to agree to disagree.

 

[Patriot]

My argument to that is
1. 4K 120 fps is a luxury even with modern hardware. You need a couple more GPU generations until it really becomes available with modern games.
2. you really can't blame game developers for not including a proprietary nvidia technology in X game when that technology and the hardware for it wasn't even invented yet.
3. a "noticeable difference" doesn't mean it's crap. Finding a good compromise between performance and visual quality isn't a concept from the devil - just sayin'.

I was about to disagree with 4k 120 being a luxury because my 3090 can pump it out.... but....that's kinda a luxury item.

 

[wolf]

a "noticeable difference" doesn't mean it's crap. Finding a good compromise between performance and visual quality isn't a concept from the devil - just sayin'.

Many people on this and other forums need to hear and accept that.

One thing I like about this new wave of upscaling technologies and methods is the ability to disproportionately retain image quality, detail, and sharpness beyond what the base/input resolution would suggest the quality should be. Some cannot seem to wrap their head around or accept that it's even possible, let alone that people might find it desirable to use rather than native.

 

[AusWolf]

Many people on this and other forums need to hear and accept that.

One thing I like about this new wave of upscaling technologies and methods is the ability to disproportionately retain image quality, detail, and sharpness beyond what the base/input resolution would suggest the quality should be. Some cannot seem to wrap their head around or accept that it's even possible, let alone that people might find it desirable to use rather than native.

Totally. Like I said, I used to be a native resolution above all AA kind of guy, but the way FidelityFX works in Cyberpunk 2077 really impressed me. Being able to play it on full HD all high settings on a GTX 1650 with a minor loss of sharpness is amazing. I'd get around 20-25 fps running all native, but with 75% scaling, I get between 35-40, which I'm fine with. Obviously, all low 60 fps would be possible too, I just don't want it.

The other thing is, I don't think a PC enthusiast should be freaked out by a bit of tweaking to find the sweet spot between image quality and performance (yes, I said PC enthusiast, not high-end enthusiast, or RTX 3090 enthusiast). There's no such thing as a bad computer, only mismatched expectations.

 

[wolf]

Totally. Like I said, I used to be a native resolution above all AA kind of guy, but the way FidelityFX works in Cyberpunk 2077 really impressed me. Being able to play it on full HD all high settings on a GTX 1650 with a minor loss of sharpness is amazing. I'd get around 20-25 fps running all native, but with 75% scaling, I get between 35-40, which I'm fine with. Obviously, all low 60 fps would be possible too, I just don't want it.

The other thing is, I don't think a PC enthusiast should be freaked out by a bit of tweaking to find the sweet spot between image quality and performance (yes, I said PC enthusiast, not high-end enthusiast, or RTX 3090 enthusiast). There's no such thing as a bad computer, only mismatched expectations.

Absolutely, FX Cas helped me tremendously in Horizon Zero Dawn, and there is very little visual sacrifice made with a 70-90% render scale and a touch of sharpening, whichever 'flavour' you have. I use a sharpen filter in the vast majority of games I play these days, no matter what res/render scale. I eagerly await when these various technologies become more dynamic, like a resolution scaler with FPS target, but some work put into a dynamic sharpening filter across the top. Or the same principle with FSR or DLSS, static output resolution/FPS target, dynamic input resolution perhaps.

And 100% agreed on point 2 also, sure being able to turn up all the dials to 11 is fun, but it's not always realistic, I am all about trying to squeeze the best experience (for my personal taste) out of my hardware for the game in question. I'm always looking at optimisation guides from the likes of DF or HUB for those settings that add very little to the visual presentation but take, in effect, more performance than they 'should'. I'd happily take a presentation you'd need to nitpick to see is worse, for a significant performance jump, the various techniques like FSR/DLSS/CAS etc play right into that hand.

 

[las]

th

is is incorrect
and wrong
I hate motionblur in most games
BUT RACING games REALLY take advantage from it
in first person it REALLY makes the car feel like it's going faster

If you are using the pc in your system info i understand why