FSR 2.0 Tested with Deathloop - A Huge Win for AMD

Conclusion - FSR 2.0 is a huge win for AMD

FSR 2.0 Tested with Deathloop - A Huge Win for AMD

Conclusion - Is FSR 2.0 a worth competitor to DLSS?

AMD's first incarnation of FidelityFX Super Resolution had its problems, but it ultimately proved to be a useful technology. Yes, it was not as advanced as Nvidia's DLSS 2.0 technology, or as advanced as Unreal Engine 4/5's temporal upscaling, but it has good use cases and ultimately lives on in the form of Radeon Super Resolution (review here), AMD's driver-based game upscaler that works on almost all games.

FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0 (FSR 2.0) uses a completely different underlying technology than FidelityFX Super Resolution 1.0. FSR 2.0 collects more data and effectively replaced a game's default anti-aliasing solution. With FSR 2.0, AMD has delivered high quality Anti-Aliasing and high quality image upscaling, and that's great news for all gamers.

The beauty of FSR 2.0, is that is delivers similar benefits to DLSS in a manner that is hardware agnostic. You do not need specific hardware to use it. If developers desire, they can even use it on consoles. Those factors alone make FSR 2.0 a big deal, especially as more and more game developers start targeting 4K. Microsoft must also be pleased with what FSR 2.0 could mean for their lower-end Xbox Series S system, because if FSR does anything, it allows gamers to get a lot more resolution and detail from lesser hardware. 

In Deathloop, FSR 2.0's quality mode delivers levels of image quality that are simply better than the game's default/native presentation. In this sense, AMD's FSR enabled faux-K looks better than Deathloop's real 4K. That is a huge benefit for FSR users, especially after you consider the performance gains offered by FSR 2.0. With FSR 2.0, Deathloop looks better and runs at higher framerates. That makes FSR 2.0 a win-win for AMD. 

Lower resolutions? With FSR 2.0, we even found that AMD's newest upscaling solution can deliver better than native 1080p outputs using a 720p (quality mode) input. FSR 2.0 is a very usable solution for gamers that target, 1080p, 1440p, 4K, or even higher resolutions. This makes FSR 2.0 a valuable solution for all gamers, not just those that game at 4K.

When compared to DLSS, FSR 2.0's implementation in Deathloop offers largely similar results to Nvidia's technology. On an RTX series graphics card, FSR has a larger performance over head than DLSS, giving FSR 2.0 lower final framerates than DLSS when using the same input resolution. Nvidia's DLSS technology is hyper optimised for Nvidia's GPUs, and uses an otherwise unused part of Nvidia's hardware. In this sense, it makes sense that DLSS runs better on Nvidia's RTX GPUs. That said, everyone can use FSR 2.0, even non-RTX Nvidia users. GTX 1080 Ti owners rejoice!

Quality-wise, DLSS and FSR 2.0 deliver largely similar results in Quality mode and Balanced mode, but DLSS gains an advantage in Performance mode, where DLSS delivers a sharper final image than FSR 2.0. We will need to test FSR and DLSS in more games to see if these results are replicable elsewhere, but it looks like DLSS could deliver better results when using very low input resolutions.

So what do we think about FidelityFX Super Resolution 2.0? We love it! In many regards FSR 2.0 is just as capable as DLSS, and its cross-platform nature makes it more usable by a broader selection of PC gamers. We can see developers adopting this solution with gusto, as it can be used by developers on consoles and PC, and on PC it can be used on seemingly all graphics cards. Everybody wins with FSR 2.0, even if DLSS has its own advantages.

FSR 2.0 is a great addition to AMD's FidelityFX software suite. It is what AMD needs to compete with DLSS, and what we expect many console developers to use to push the 4K dream on Xbox Series X and PlayStation 5 while pushing visuals to truly next-generation levels.

You can join the discussion on AMD's FSR 2.0 technology on the OC3D Forums.  

«Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next»

Most Recent Comments

16-05-2022, 07:08:46

ET3D
I'm waiting for the source code to be released, to see if any enterprising developers can improve performance with minimal cost to image quality, like this was done for FSR 1.0.Quote

16-05-2022, 13:35:39

AngryGoldfish
Wow, that looks really good!Quote

18-05-2022, 10:26:10

MiNo
As for 'better than the real thing' : Is "sharper" always 'better' ?


I'm not so sure. On plenty of visual media, 'sharpening' is often added but for me it reduces quality. Obviously so, since you are modifying the original source to create an illusion of clarity - but sharpening is not making things more clear. Nor is FSR. It replaces actual data with guesses and adds sharpening.


If the creator (the game studio) did not want the image to be super-sharp, are you improving it or degrading it when you 'enforce' sharpening? On the other hard, if the creator failed to get a image as sharp as they really wanted - one could argue you are now adding quality.



Sort of similar, you can turn up the treble and bass to music, and many will say it sounds better. But it is now a less correct representation of the original.


So how do we define "better"? Is it simply what people like? Or is it reproducing imagery as close to the creators intent?



It would be interesting to hear from the creators of Deathloop, what they think of the result. If they could say so without being afraid of AMD.Quote

18-05-2022, 13:17:30

WYP
Quote:
Originally Posted by MiNo View Post
As for 'better than the real thing' : Is "sharper" always 'better' ?


I'm not so sure. On plenty of visual media, 'sharpening' is often added but for me it reduces quality. Obviously so, since you are modifying the original source to create an illusion of clarity - but sharpening is not making things more clear. Nor is FSR. It replaces actual data with guesses and adds sharpening.


If the creator (the game studio) did not want the image to be super-sharp, are you improving it or degrading it when you 'enforce' sharpening? On the other hard, if the creator failed to get a image as sharp as they really wanted - one could argue you are now adding quality.

Sort of similar, you can turn up the treble and bass to music, and many will say it sounds better. But it is now a less correct representation of the original.


So how do we define "better"? Is it simply what people like? Or is it reproducing imagery as close to the creators intent?



It would be interesting to hear from the creators of Deathloop, what they think of the result. If they could say so without being afraid of AMD.
I don't think Deathloop's devs are afraid of AMD. They have done AMD a huge favour by adding FSR to their title.

As far as sharpness goes, FSR 2.0 has a sharpness slider that can be lowered to suit your preference. By default, the slider is set to max, and in some areas the game may benefit from dialling this back a little.

When it comes to looks, things are going to be very subjective in most cases. This is especially true for sharpening, as everyone has a different taste.Quote
Reply
x

Register for the OC3D Newsletter

Subscribing to the OC3D newsletter will keep you up-to-date on the latest technology reviews, competitions and goings-on at Overclock3D. We won't share your email address with ANYONE, and we will only email you with updates on site news, reviews, and competitions and you can unsubscribe easily at any time.

Simply enter your name and email address into the box below and be sure to click on the links in the confirmation emails that will arrive in your e-mail shortly after to complete the registration.

If you run into any problems, just drop us a message on the forums.