AMD FSR antialiasing discussion

[doob]

The blackreef image has some weird aspects, the gradient on the legs/pants gets worse and at the top right corner details changed allot, the pattern is just a diagonal pastel line of a rusty color where in native there's an edge spike upwards in more worn out paint chipped look, and the red rusty details just bellow get mushed into a consolidated streak of red...

I personally wouldn't bother with either dlss or this new fsr, i'd rather just lower down resolution and perhaps toggling these techniques as an absolute last resort, perhaps.

 

[Malo]

I personally wouldn't bother with either dlss or this new fsr, i'd rather just lower down resolution and perhaps toggling these techniques as an absolute last resort, perhaps.

If lowering resolution was something gamers were fine with, we wouldn't have massive GPUs pushing high resolution gaming and these huge efforts on high quality upscaling. Nor is non-native resolution with panel upscaling a desired thing.

 

[DegustatoR]

I personally wouldn't bother with either dlss or this new fsr, i'd rather just lower down resolution and perhaps toggling these techniques as an absolute last resort, perhaps.

Lower resolution looks worse than DLSS in like 99.9% of time.

 

[Cyan]

The blackreef image has some weird aspects, the gradient on the legs/pants gets worse and at the top right corner details changed allot, the pattern is just a diagonal pastel line of a rusty color where in native there's an edge spike upwards in more worn out paint chipped look, and the red rusty details just bellow get mushed into a consolidated streak of red...

I personally wouldn't bother with either dlss or this new fsr, i'd rather just lower down resolution and perhaps toggling these techniques as an absolute last resort, perhaps.

you sound like me a couple of years ago.. I couldn't stand playing a game at 1080p on my 1440p monitor, the games looked horrible. I hated upscaling with a passion to the point where I preferred to play at the lowest settings at 1440p rather than playing at Ultra 1080p. I haven't tried DLSS myself -GTX 1080 and GTX 1060 are currently the GPUs I have- but I use both FSR and NIS and while not perfect, it's night and day compared to regular upscaling. The main advantage of FSR and NIS is how they adapt the base resolution to your display's native resolution.

DLSS upscaling looks awesome when it works well -say in Wolfenstein Youngblood where there is more detail than native. If energy, temps, power consumption is not a concern for you, then..., well, it's okay not using those technologies.

Still both DLSS and FSR 2 have the potential to look better than native keeping information from different frames and render frames with better AA.

 

[Kaotik]

If lowering resolution was something gamers were fine with, we wouldn't have massive GPUs pushing high resolution gaming and these huge efforts on high quality upscaling. Nor is non-native resolution with panel upscaling a desired thing.

These scaling methods ARE lowering resolution. They're just trying to hide the fact better than naive scaling, but it doesn't change what it is.

To use always terrible car analogues, naive scaling is adding spoilers and other body kits to FIAT Punto while better ones are like strapping Ferrari shell on that Punto. It's still the same Punto without enough oomph for what it's supposed to do.

They should focus on working smarter at native resolution instead of trying to force the field forward at a pace it can't keep up with.

 

[Cat Merc]

These scaling methods ARE lowering resolution. They're just trying to hide the fact better than naive scaling, but it doesn't change what it is.

To use always terrible car analogues, naive scaling is adding spoilers and other body kits to FIAT Punto while better ones are like strapping Ferrari shell on that Punto. It's still the same Punto without enough oomph for what it's supposed to do.

They should focus on working smarter at native resolution instead of trying to force the field forward at a pace it can't keep up with.

You claim they should work smarter, yet what makes native render resolution such a basic unbreakable requirement - that saying "maybe we don't need it" isn't smart?

The hard requirement for native resolution is quite weird to me. The field of temporal reconstruction has made leaps and bounds, and these days you can argue it sometimes does better than native depending on scenario and implementation, all the while making huge performance savings that would otherwise require far more noticeable cutbacks. How is that not smart?

It's not like native resolution is even a good ground truth image. A 4K image without AA would still have aliasing and shimmering. We're already doing non trivial work to make a 4K image look cleaner than it actually is.

 

[Krteq]

I think this is a first mention of FSR for PS5

//nevermind, Arcadegeddon was first. My bad

 

[fehu]

They show direct storage too, so I interpreted it as the engine supports these features on pc, no real mention of ps5.

 

[Krteq]

They show direct storage too, so I interpreted it as the engine supports these features on pc, no real mention of ps5.

What's this then?

Spoiler

 

[fehu]

I missed that, my fault

 

[Malo]

These scaling methods ARE lowering resolution. They're just trying to hide the fact better than naive scaling, but it doesn't change what it is.

I know that. Obviously it's in reference to simply lowering the resolution and playing the game vs a smart upscaling solution.

They should focus on working smarter at native resolution instead of trying to force the field forward at a pace it can't keep up with.

Higher resolutions have a significant impact on GPU performance, far more than any one common modern effect. Rendering techniques in games are mostly all "working smarter" already, with tricks to achieve a desired goal without brute force. Game engines have been designed from ground up for decades to use all sorts of smart methods to reach the desired goal on available hardware power, but increasing pixels 4x over 1080p isn't something you can avoid.

 

[troyan]

These scaling methods ARE lowering resolution. They're just trying to hide the fact better than naive scaling, but it doesn't change what it is.

"Native" is still only a reconstruction of an analog signal.
Here is a comparision between DLSS Performance and nativ 4K w/o TAA in Deathloop: Imgsli

Which do you think looks more "native 4K" (ignore differences in AO and shadows. DLSS Performance uses less than 1/4 of the Raytracing rays...)?

The blackreef image has some weird aspects, the gradient on the legs/pants gets worse and at the top right corner details changed allot, the pattern is just a diagonal pastel line of a rusty color where in native there's an edge spike upwards in more worn out paint chipped look, and the red rusty details just bellow get mushed into a consolidated streak of red...

I personally wouldn't bother with either dlss or this new fsr, i'd rather just lower down resolution and perhaps toggling these techniques as an absolute last resort, perhaps.

FSR 2.0 uses still TAA. So after the reconstruction FSR 2.0 has to do the AA part.

 

[chris1515]

GDC 2022 presentation

 

[Silent_Buddha]

What's this then?

Spoiler

AMD FidelityFX is a whole host of effects.

Radeon™ Software | FidelityFX | AMD

Super Resolution is just one of many. So, that isn't evidence for the existence of Super Resolution on PS5.

NOTE: I'm not saying that it isn't coming to PS5. However, just saying that FidelityFX is supported in X game on Y platform says nothing about what part of FidelityFX is being used in said game on said platform. Nor would it even specify whether it's FSR 1.0 or 2.0.

Regards,
SB

 

[Quadbitnomial]

AMD FidelityFX is a whole host of effects.

Radeon™ Software | FidelityFX | AMD

Super Resolution is just one of many. So, that isn't evidence for the existence of Super Resolution on PS5.

NOTE: I'm not saying that it isn't coming to PS5. However, just saying that FidelityFX is supported in X game on Y platform says nothing about what part of FidelityFX is being used in said game on said platform. Nor would it even specify whether it's FSR 1.0 or 2.0.

Regards,
SB

That video is specifically showcasing the Fidelity Fx and other technologies being used in Forspoken on PC and PS5.

For Fidelity Fx on PC and PS5

They showcased

FFx AO

FFx SSR

FFx Denoiser

FFx FSR 1.0 with a note of 2.0 being in development.

And for other technologies used on PC, they showcased Microsoft Direct Storage. So it is safe to say that these Fidelity Fx are supported in this particular game on PC and PS5 currently and FSR 2.0 is still a WIP but will be supported on both PC and PS5 in this game.

 

[eastmen]

I am sure the ps5 will get Fidelity FX 2.0 since it seems most hardware out there is capable of it. I wonder if MS helped develop it and there will be a time frame that its just on pc/ xbox ? or if ms helped develop it and its only on xbox and windows drivers for now with linux /steam os/ ps5 coming later when the work is done ?

 

[PSman1700]

I am sure the ps5 will get Fidelity FX 2.0 since it seems most hardware out there is capable of it. I wonder if MS helped develop it and there will be a time frame that its just on pc/ xbox ? or if ms helped develop it and its only on xbox and windows drivers for now with linux /steam os/ ps5 coming later when the work is done ?

Is FSR2.0 going to perform differently across different level of gpu's? Will it perform faster on say a 6800XT vs a 6600XT?

 

[eastmen]

Is FSR2.0 going to perform differently across different level of gpu's? Will it perform faster on say a 6800XT vs a 6600XT?

Well yes since the faster gpu will render faster. Also faster gpus will be able to do higher res upscaling

 

[Quadbitnomial]

 

[PSman1700]

Well yes since the faster gpu will render faster. Also faster gpus will be able to do higher res upscaling

Ok thanks thats intresting. The XSX GPU has somewhat more to play with here then.